Agenda packet — Glendale City Council, February 1, 2022 (part 3 of 7)

18 When asked “If you work outside the house, how to you get to work? If you use different modes of transportation, select all that apply”16 the majority of all respondents indicated that they used an automobile and drove alone (84%). Responses broken down by group were:

Resident responses:
• Automobile (drive alone) (82%)
• Other (please specify) (9%)
• Walk (8%)
• Bus (7%)
• Bike (5%)
• Train (5%)
• Rideshare such as Uber or Lyft (5%)
• Automobile (carpool) (4%)
Worker responses:
• Automobile (drive alone) (96%)
• Walk (4%)

16 Question 27: If you work outside the house, how to you get to work? If you use different modes of transportation, select all that apply.
519 of 1910

19 • Bus (4%)
• Train (4%)
• Rideshare such as Uber or Lyft (4%)
• Automobile (carpool) (4%)
Of worker responses, nobody indicated that they got to work by biking or other modes of transportation.

Other responses:
• Automobile (drive alone) (100%)
• Bus (20%)
• Train (20%)
• Automobile (carpool) (20%)
Of other responses, nobody indicated that they got to work by walking, biking, rideshare, or other modes of transportation.

Of those that selected “other (please specify)” modes of transportation included motorcycle and airplane.

Figure 9: If you work outside the house, how to you get to work? (select all that apply)

520 of 1910

20 When asked if Coronavirus had impacted their housing situation17, the majority of all respondents answered “No.” Responses broken down by group were:

Resident responses:
• Yes (27%)
• No (73%)
Worker responses:
• Yes (20%)
• No (80%)
Other responses:
• Yes (0%)
• No (100%)
For respondents who answered “Yes,” some of the following reasons were given:
• Family members such as adult children moving into the home • Converting bedrooms to offices to allow work from home or virtual schooling • Unable to pay rent due to reduced income or loss of job • Forced to move
Fair Housing
In basic terms, "fair housing" means the right to choose a home free from unlawful discrimination.

The City is required to consider issues of fair housing as part of its Housing Element update.

When asked, “How important are the following factors in your housing choice?”18 respondents were most likely to identify the following factors as being very important or somewhat important:

Resident responses:
• Housing I can afford (95%)
• Housing was available in the neighborhood I chose at the time I needed it (89%) • Housing large enough for my household (84%)
• The amount of money I have/had for deposit (77%)
• My credit history and/or credit score (59%)

17 Question 25: Has the Coronavirus impacted your housing situation? 18 Question 14: How important are the following factors in your housing choice? 521 of 1910

21 Worker responses:
• Housing I can afford (94%)
• Housing was available in the neighborhood I chose at the time I needed it (87%) • Housing large enough for my household (78%)
• The amount of money I have/had for deposit (77%)
• My credit history and/or credit score (46%)
Other responses:
• Housing I can afford (100%)
• Housing large enough for my household (100%)
• Housing was available in the neighborhood I chose at the time I needed it (80%) • The amount of money I have/had for deposit (60%)
• My credit history and/or credit score (60%)
While still important for some individuals, respondents of all groups were less likely to identify the following factors as being very important or somewhat important:
• Concern that I would not be welcome in that neighborhood • Housing that accommodates disability of household member When asked, “How important are the following housing priorities to you and your household?”19 respondents were most likely to identify the following factors as being very important or somewhat important:

Resident responses:
• Rehabilitate existing housing (88%)
• Promote affordable housing for working families (87%) • Ensure that children who grow up in Glendale can afford to live in Glendale as adults (86%) • Support fair/equitable housing opportunities (82%)
• Support programs to help neighborhoods that have suffered foreclosures (76%) • Providing more housing for all income levels (76%)
• Establish programs to help at-risk homeowners keep their homes, including mortgage loan programs (74%)
• Encourage more senior housing (67%)

19 Question 15: How important are the following housing priorities to you and your household? 522 of 1910

22 • Build more single-family housing (67%)
• Integrate affordable housing throughout the community to create mixed-income neighborhoods (66%)
• Provide housing for the homeless (66%)
• Build more multi-family housing such as apartments and condos (63%) • Provide ADA-accessible housing (61%)
While still important for some individuals, resident respondents were less likely to identify the following factor as being very important or somewhat important:
• Create mixed-use projects to bring different land uses closer together (56%) Worker responses:
• Support fair/equitable housing opportunities (91%)
• Support programs to help neighborhoods that have suffered foreclosures (91%) • Rehabilitate existing housing (90%)
• Promote affordable housing for working families (90%) • Providing more housing for all income levels (84%)
• Ensure that children who grow up in Glendale can afford to live in Glendale as adults (84%) • Establish programs to help at-risk homeowners keep their homes, including mortgage loan programs (81%)
• Build more single-family housing (78%)
• Provide housing for the homeless (77%)
• Integrate affordable housing throughout the community to create mixed-income neighborhoods (74%)
• Encourage more senior housing (68%)
• Build more multi-family housing such as apartments and condos (67%) • Provide ADA-accessible housing (67%)
While still important for some individuals, worker respondents were less likely to identify the following factor as being very important or somewhat important:
• Create mixed-use projects to bring different land uses closer together (43%) Other responses:
• Rehabilitate existing housing (100%)
• Promote affordable housing for working families (100%) • Build more single-family housing (100%)
523 of 1910

23 • Encourage more senior housing (100%)
• Support programs to help neighborhoods that have suffered foreclosures (80%) • Ensure that children who grow up in Glendale can afford to live in Glendale as adults (80%) • Establish programs to help at-risk homeowners keep their homes, including mortgage loan programs (80%)
• Provide housing for the homeless (80%)
• Provide ADA-accessible housing (80%)
• Support fair/equitable housing opportunities (60%)
• Provide more housing for all income levels (60%)
• Build more multi-family housing such as apartments and condos (60%) • Create mixed-use projects to bring different land uses closer together (60%) While still important for some individuals, other respondents were less likely to identify the following factor as being very important or somewhat important:
• Integrate affordable housing throughout the community to create mixed-income neighborhoods (40%)
When asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with a series of affirmative statements20 respondents were most likely to strongly agree or somewhat agree with the following statements:

Resident responses:
• There are grocery stores close to my neighborhood (92%) • There are banks and credit unions near where I live (84%) • There is a public library close to my house (84%)
• There is a pharmacy close to my house (82%)
• The condition of the homes in my neighborhood are acceptable (82%) • The streets and sidewalks near my home are well kept (72%) • There are plenty of parks, playgrounds, or green space near me (68%) • The streets and sidewalks in my neighborhood have adequate lighting (65%) • There is access to public transit close to my neighborhood (63%) • I am satisfied with the schools in my area (61%)

20 Question 16: Please respond to each statement
524 of 1910

24 Resident respondents were less likely to agree with the following statements:
• There are plenty of other public spaces near my home (56%) • There is enough parking in my area of town (50%)
• There are quality jobs in my neighborhood (47%)
Worker responses:
• There are grocery stores close to my neighborhood (87%) • There are banks and credit unions near where I live (87%) • There is a pharmacy close to my house (87%)
• There is a public library close to my house (87%)
• The condition of the homes in my neighborhood are acceptable (81%) • There are plenty of parks, playgrounds, or green space near me (68%) • There is enough parking in my area of town (65%)
• The streets and sidewalks near my home are well kept (61%) • The streets and sidewalks in my neighborhood have adequate lighting (61%) Worker respondents were less likely to agree with the following statements:
• There are plenty of other public spaces near my home (58%) • There is access to public transit close to my neighborhood (57%) • There are quality jobs in my neighborhood (55%)
• I am satisfied with the schools in my area (52%)
Other responses:
• There is a pharmacy close to my house (100%)
• The streets and sidewalks near my home are well kept (100%) • There are quality jobs in my neighborhood (100%)
• There are grocery stores close to my neighborhood (80%) • There are banks and credit unions near where I live (80%) • There is a public library close to my house (80%)
• The condition of the homes in my neighborhood are acceptable (80%) • The streets and sidewalks in my neighborhood have adequate lighting (80%) • There are plenty of parks, playgrounds, or green space near me (80%) • I am satisfied with the schools in my area (80%)
• There are plenty of other public spaces near my home (60%) 525 of 1910

25 • There is enough parking in my area of town (60%)
• There is access to public transit close to my neighborhood (60%) When asked to identify what they thought the biggest problem with housing discrimination is in Glendale and the surrounding area,21 the majority of all respondents identified race as the most prevalent factor. The responses broken down by group were:

Resident responses:
• Race/Ethnicity (39%)
• Other (please specify) (21%)
• National Origin (15%)
• Familial status (9%)
• Color (physical appearance (8%)
• Disability (6%)
• Sex (2%)
• Religion (0%)
Worker responses:
• Race/Ethnicity (42%)
• National Origin (23%)
• Other (please specify) (10%)
• Familial status (10%)
• Color (physical appearance) (10%)
• Disability (6%)
• Sex (0%)
• Religion (0%)
Other responses:
• Race/Ethnicity (60%)
• Other (please specify) (20%)
• Color (physical appearance) (20%)

21 Question 17: The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. Of those, which do you think is the most prevalent factor in housing discrimination in our region?
526 of 1910

26 Of other responses, nobody indicated housing discrimination was due to national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability.

Of all respondents who selected “Other (please specify)” about half specified that no problems with housing discrimination existed or that they are unaware of any problem. Other common responses included discrimination based on financial factors or sexual preference/gender expression.

When asked whether they had experienced or witnessed housing discrimination in Glendale22 the majority of respondents answered “No.” The responses broken down by group were:

Resident responses:
• Yes (20% or 39 responses)
• No (56% or 110 responses)
• I don’t know (24% or 46 responses)
Of those respondents that answered “yes” to the prior question, the discriminatory factors identified23 (in order of affirmative responses) were:
• Race/Ethnicity (43%)
• Color (physical appearance) (10%)
• Level/source of Income (8%)
• Sex/gender/gender identity (5%)
• National Origin (5%)
• Language spoken (5%)
• Not applicable (N/A) (3%)
• Age (3%)
• Marital status (3%)
• Religion (3%)
• Familial status (3%)
• Disability (3%)
• Political Ideas (3%)
• Citizenship status (3%)
• Use of Housing Choice Voucher or other assistance (3%)

22 Question 18: Have you ever experienced or witnessed housing discrimination in the City of Glendale ? 23 Question 19: On what grounds do you believe you witnessed housing discrimination? 527 of 1910

27 • Other (3%)
Worker responses:
• Yes (13% or 4 responses)
• No (66% or 21 responses)
• I don’t know (22% or 7 responses)
Of those respondents that answered “yes” to the prior question, the discriminatory factors identified (in order of affirmative responses) were:
• Race/Ethnicity (25%)
• National origin (25%)
• Marital status (25%)
• Religion (25%)
Other responses:
• Yes (20% or 1 response)
• No (60% or 4 responses)
• I don’t know (0% or no responses)
Of other responses for the prior question, the only discriminatory factor identified was race/ethnicity (100%).

When asked whether they knew of anyone in Glendale who experienced unfair real estate or lending practices24 respondents provided the following responses:

Resident responses:
• The majority (74%) didn’t know of anyone who had encountered these unfair practices • 13% knew of someone who was unfairly refused a rental or sale agreement • 10% reported knowing someone who was not shown all housing options • 9% reported knowing someone who was falsely denied available housing options • 7% knew of someone who was unfairly directed to a certain neighborhood or location • 5% (each) indicated they knew of someone who was offered unfair terms when buying or selling, or was not given reasonable accommodation for a disability • 4% reported knowing someone who was unfairly denied a mortgage Worker responses:

24 Question 20: Do you know of anyone in Glendale who has faced the following: (select all that apply) 528 of 1910

28 • The majority (62%) didn’t know of anyone who had encountered these unfair practices • 10% (each) knew of someone who was unfairly refused a rental or sale agreement, was not shown all housing options, was not given reasonable accommodation for a disability, or was unfairly denied a mortgage
• 7% (each) reported knowing someone who was falsely denied available housing options, or was offered unfair terms when buying or selling
Other responses:
• The majority (80%) didn’t know of anyone who had encountered these unfair practices • 20% knew of someone who was unfairly refused a rental or sales agreement Many respondents (37% of residents, 23% of workers, and 40% of other) would not know where to refer someone (or themselves) if they felt that their fair housing rights were violated25. Of those who responded that they might know where to go, most would refer someone to the local, state or federal government or the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

Familiarity with Fair Housing Laws varied amongst and between groups. A large proportion (43% of residents, 32% of workers, and 60% of other) were not familiar with Fair Housing Laws26. Workers were more likely than other groups to be somewhat familiar or very familiar with fair housing laws (68%), while just over half (56%) of residents and only 40% of workers felt the same. Additionally, the majority of all groups (74% of residents, 81% of workers, and 60% of other) responded “Yes” or “I don’t know” when asked if Federal and/or State Fair Housing Laws are difficult to understand or follow27.

25 Question 21: Where would you refer someone if they felt their fair housing rights had been violated? 26 Question 22: How familiar are you with Fair Housing Laws? 27 Question 23: Do you think Federal and/or State Fair Housing Laws are difficult to understand or follow? 529 of 1910

29 Appendices
A: Survey Questions
B: Survey Responses

530 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing ElementGlendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update SurveyUpdate Survey
As required by State law, the City is in the process of updating the Housing Element of the General Plan for the 2021-2029 period. The Housing Element must be updated every 8 years. The Housing Element establishes policies and programs to address Glendale's existing and projected housing needs, including the City’s “fair share” of the regional housing need (or “RHNA”). If you currently live in Glendale, your feedback will help us understand existing opportunities in our City. However, even if you live somewhere else, we still want to learn about your housing conditions and experiences so the City can do its part in planning to meet our region's housing needs.

Part 1 of this survey focuses on questions related to existing housing conditions and will help the City better understand the characteristics of households in Glendale and identify the community's housing needs and priorities.

Part 2 of this survey focuses on issues related to fair housing in order to understand real or perceived fair housing concerns in Glendale. In basic terms, "fair housing" means the right to choose a home free from unlawful discrimination.

This is an early step in the process. There will be additional opportunities for the community to comment on the Housing Element Update, including on the goals, policies, and implementation actions to be included in the Housing Element.

Your input will be used to inform preparation of the Housing Element so that it reflects our local priorities and objectives.

For additional information about the Housing Element Update, process, and timeline, please visit the project website: https://www.glendaleplan.com/ 1 531 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing ElementGlendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update SurveyUpdate Survey
Part 1: Existing Conditions
The first part of this survey will assist us in better understanding existing housing conditions in Glendale.

1. Do you live and/or work in Glendale?
I live in Glendale but my job is located somewhere else (pre-pandemic conditions) My job is in Glendale (pre-pandemic conditions) but I live somewhere else I live and work in Glendale (pre-pandemic conditions)
I do not live or work in Glendale
2 532 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing ElementGlendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update SurveyUpdate Survey
Questions for Glendale Residents

2. How long have you lived in the City?
0-2 years
2-5 years
5-10 years
10+ years

3. What made you decide to live here? (Select all that apply) Proximity to job/work
Quality of housing stock
Proximity to family and/or friends
Affordability
Quality of local school system
Safety of neighborhood
City services and programs
Proximity to shopping and services
Other (please specify)
3 533 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing ElementGlendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update SurveyUpdate Survey
Questions for all Respondents

4. Do you currently own or rent your home?
I own my home
I rent my home
I live with another household (neither own nor rent)
I am currently without permanent shelter

5. If you wish to own a home in Glendale but do not currently own one, what issues are preventing you from owning a home at this time? Select all that apply.

I cannot find a home within my target price range in Glendale I do not currently have the financial resources for an appropriate down payment I do not currently have the financial resources for an adequate monthly mortgage payment I cannot find a home that suits my living needs in Glendale (housing size, disability accommodations)
I cannot currently find a home that suits my quality standards in Glendale I do not currently wish to own or rent a home in Glendale I already own a home in Glendale
4 534 of 1910

6. Select the type of housing that best describes your current home.

Single-Family Home (Detached)
Duplex/Townhome
Multi-Family Home (Apartment/Condominium)
Accessory Dwelling Unit, Granny Flat, Guest House
Mobile Home
Currently without permanent shelter
Other (please specify)

7. How satisfied are you with your current housing situation? I am very satisfied
I am somewhat satisfied
I am somewhat dissatisfied
I am dissatisfied

8. If you answered dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied to the prior question, please provide a reason below. (If you did not, please skip).

9. Do you think that the range of housing options currently available in the City of Glendale meet your needs?
Yes
No
5 535 of 1910

10. What types of housing are most needed in the City of Glendale? (Select all that apply)
Single-Family (Detached)
Duplex/Attached Housing
Condominiums (multi-family ownership homes)
Apartments (multi-family rental homes)
Senior Housing
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Housing for people with disabilities (please specify in comment field below) Other (please specify)

11. How would you rate the physical condition of the residence you live in? Excellent condition
Shows signs of minor deferred maintenance (e.g., peeling paint, chipped stucco, etc.) Needs one or more major systems upgrades (e.g., new roof, windows, electrical, plumbing, HVAC system, etc.)
Other (please specify)
6 536 of 1910

12. Which of the following housing upgrades or expansions have you considered making on your home?
Room addition
Roofing
HVAC
Painting
Solar
Accessory Dwelling Unit, Granny Flat, Guest House
Remodel of bath, kitchen, or other facility
None
Other (please specify)
7 537 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing ElementGlendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update SurveyUpdate Survey
Part 2: Fair Housing
The second part of this survey is designed to help us understand fair housing issues facing our community.

Questions for All Respondents (Residents and Nonresidents)

13. Based on your monthly income before taxes, how much of your monthly income do you spend on housing?
Less than 30%
Between 30%-50%
More than 50%
8 538 of 1910
Very Important
Somewhat
Important Neutral
Somewhat
Unimportant Unimportant
I could afford to
pay for housing
Housing that
accommodates
disability of
household
member
Housing large
enough for my
household
My credit history
and/or credit
score
The amount of
money I had for
deposit
Housing was
available in the
neighborhood I
chose
Concern that I
would not be
welcome in that
neighborhood
Other (please specify)

14. How important are the following factors in your housing choice? (If a statement does not pertain to you, please leave blank.) (1-5 scale) Very important Somewhat important Not Important Don't know Provide more housing
for all income levels
Promote housing
affordable to working
families

15. How important are the following housing priorities to you and your family? 9 539 of 1910
Build more single-
family housing
Build more multi-
family housing
(apartments, condos,
etc.)
Rehabilitate existing
housing
Encourage more
senior housing
Provide ADA-
accessible housing
Provide housing for
homeless
Ensure that children
who grow up
in Glendale can afford
to live in Glendale as
adults
Create mixed-use
(commercial/office
and residential)
projects to bring
different land uses
closer together
Integrate affordable
housing throughout
the community to
create mixed-income
neighborhoods
Establish programs to
help at-risk
homeowners keep
their homes, including
mortgage loan
programs
Support fair/equitable
housing opportunities
Very important Somewhat important Not Important Don't know 10 540 of 1910
Support programs to
help maintain and
secure neighborhoods
that have suffered
foreclosures
Very important Somewhat important Not Important Don't know Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neutral
Somewhat
disagree Strongly disagree
I am satisfied
with the schools
in my area
There are quality
jobs in my
neighborhood
There is access
to public transit
close to my
neighborhood
There is enough
parking in my
area of town
There are plenty
of parks,
playgrounds, or
green space near
me
There is a
pharmacy close
to my house
There is a public
library close to
my house
There are
grocery stores
close to my
neighborhood

16. Please respond to each statement: (1-5 scale)
11 541 of 1910
There are banks
and credit unions
near where I live
The conditions of
the homes in my
neighborhood are
acceptable
The streets and
sidewalks near
my home are well
kept
There are plenty
of other public
spaces near my
home
The streets and
sidewalks in my
neighborhood
have adequate
lighting
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neutral
Somewhat
disagree Strongly disagree

17. The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. Of those, which do you think is the most prevalent factor in housing discrimination in our region?
Race
Color
National Origin
Religion
Sex
Familial Status
Disability
Other (please specify)
12 542 of 1910

18. Have you ever experienced or witnessed housing discrimination in the City of Glendale?
Yes
No
I don’t know
13 543 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing ElementGlendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update SurveyUpdate Survey

19. On what grounds do you believe you witnessed housing discrimination? Race/Ethnicity (i.e., Caucasian, Asian, Latino, etc.)
Color (physical appearance)
Age
Marital Status
Religion
Sex/Gender/Gender Identity
National Origin (the country where a person was born)
Familial Status (Families with Children)
Disability
Political Ideas
English Spoken as a Second Language
Citizenship Status
Level/Source of Income
Use of Housing Choice Voucher or other assistance
Criminal Background
Other (please specify)
Not applicable
14 544 of 1910
15 545 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing ElementGlendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update SurveyUpdate Survey

20. Do you know of anyone in Glendale who has faced the following: (select all that apply)
Unfairly refused a rental or sale agreement
Unfairly denied a mortgage
Falsely denied available housing options
Unfairly directed to a certain neighborhood and/or locations Not shown all housing options
Not given reasonable accommodate for a disability
Offered unfair terms when buying or selling
Not applicable
16 546 of 1910

21. Where would you refer someone if they felt their fair housing rights had been violated?
I wouldn’t know what to do
Complain to the individual/organization discriminating
A local nonprofit
Local, state, or federal government
The California Office of Housing and Community Development The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
A private attorney
Other (please specify)

22. How familiar are you with Fair Housing Laws?
Not familiar
Somewhat familiar
Very familiar

23. Do you think Federal and/or State Fair Housing Laws are difficult to understand or follow?
Yes
No
I don’t know
17 547 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing ElementGlendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update SurveyUpdate Survey

24. Which of the following best describes your household type? Single person household
Couple
Couple with children under 18
Single parent with children under 18
Adult head of household (non-parent) with children under 18 Young adult living with parents
Multi-generational family household (grandparents, children, and/or grandchildren all under the same roof)
Single person living with roommates
Couple living with roommates
Other (please specify)
If yes, how?

25. Has the Coronavirus impacted your housing situation? Yes
No
18 548 of 1910

26. If you are currently employed, approximately how long is your one-way commute to work? (If your commute has changed due to the Coronavirus, please answer this question based on your commute before the pandemic's impact on your travel patterns).

Less than 5 miles
5-10 miles
10-25 miles
25-40 miles
More than 40 miles
I am employed but work from my home
I am not currently employed

27. If you work outside the house, how to you get to work? If you use different modes of transportation, select all that apply.

Automobile (drive alone)
Automobile (carpool)
Walk
Bike
Train
Bus
Rideshare (i.e., Uber/Lyft)
Other (please specify)
19 549 of 1910

28. What age range most accurately describes you?
Gen Z (0-23 years old)
Millennial (24-39 years old)
Generation X (40-55 years old)
Baby Boomers (56-74 years old)
Silent Generation (75+ years old)
Name
ZIP/Postal Code
Email Address

29. If you would like to be notified of upcoming community events and public hearings, please register your name and email address below. 20 550 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
1 / 59

35.91% 107

14.09% 42

46.31% 138

3.69% 11
Q1 Do you live and/or work in Glendale?
Answered: 298 Skipped: 3
TOTAL 298
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I live in
Glendale but...

My job is in
Glendale...

I live and
work in...

I do not live
or work in...

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I live in Glendale but my job is located somewhere else (pre-pandemic conditions) My job is in Glendale (pre-pandemic conditions) but I live somewhere else I live and work in Glendale (pre-pandemic conditions)
I do not live or work in Glendale
551 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
2 / 59

6.72% 16

15.55% 37

13.45% 32

64.29% 153
Q2 How long have you lived in the City?
Answered: 238 Skipped: 63
TOTAL 238
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
0-2 years
2-5 years
5-10 years
10+ years

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
0-2 years
2-5 years
5-10 years
10+ years
552 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
3 / 59

43.46% 103

24.47% 58

45.99% 109

15.19% 36

34.60% 82

59.07% 140

18.99% 45

28.69% 68

17.30% 41
Q3 What made you decide to live here? (Select all that apply) Answered: 237 Skipped: 64
Total Respondents: 237
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Born and raised 5/2/2021 9:23 PM
2 At the time housing affordability and interesting central location in LA County. Now, not so 4/30/2021 7:29 PM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Proximity to
job/work
Quality of
housing stock
Proximity to
family and/o...

Aﬀordability
Quality of
local school...

Safety of
neighborhood
City services
and programs
Proximity to
shopping and...

Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Proximity to job/work
Quality of housing stock
Proximity to family and/or friends
Affordability
Quality of local school system
Safety of neighborhood
City services and programs
Proximity to shopping and services
Other (please specify)
553 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
4 / 59
affordable.
3 Grew up here. It used to be a good place to live. 4/23/2021 3:57 PM 4 At the time, affordability & safety but neither are true now. 4/23/2021 12:40 PM 5 Born and raised in La Crescenta 68 years 4/23/2021 8:24 AM 6 Glendale Annex, b/c we LOVE the small community feel of La Crescenta & low-profile buildings
4/22/2021 8:45 PM
7 Small town feel 4/22/2021 8:44 PM
8 born here 4/22/2021 4:29 PM
9 Was a child when I began living here 4/19/2021 1:04 PM 10 It looked nice. 4/19/2021 10:24 AM
11 Armenian community 4/19/2021 7:47 AM
12 I am 80 years old I worked in Glendale and live there I am disable ,I am retired with pension and receive SSA but the total of my income is too low.
4/18/2021 11:36 AM
13 proximity to my spouse’s job 4/17/2021 8:22 PM
14 Born here 4/16/2021 8:41 PM
15 Unique neighborhood of the Verdugo Woodlands 4/16/2021 7:08 PM 16 Moved here as a child in the 40's 4/16/2021 4:28 PM
17 We enjoy a quiet neighborhood with beautiful trees, ie, the Verdugo Woodlands 4/16/2021 1:38 PM 18 The charm of neighbor hood original 1920s 30 s smaller homes original not remodeled 4/16/2021 12:41 PM 19 born here 4/15/2021 10:17 PM
20 Born and raised here and always have lived here. 4/15/2021 3:52 PM 21 Historic neighborhoods 4/15/2021 2:53 PM
22 Lived here since a child; father bought home. 4/15/2021 2:09 PM 23 Immigration from other country 4/15/2021 12:08 PM
24 Schools! 4/15/2021 11:27 AM
25 Family 4/14/2021 10:15 PM
26 Trees, access to nature, green space. We live in Verdugo Woodlands. 4/14/2021 10:05 PM 27 Proximity to open spaces (trails) 4/14/2021 9:13 PM
28 found a house I loved 4/14/2021 8:55 PM
29 Like the culture and character of the City. Nice balance of taking care of people and business needs.
4/14/2021 6:26 PM
30 family ties 4/14/2021 5:09 PM
31 My parents settled here when we immigrated. Would love to afford my own home here also. 4/14/2021 1:39 PM 32 South Glendale is near basically everything on the east side - the studios, downtown, parks, etc
4/13/2021 9:57 AM
33 Efficient & prompt in city maintenance, safety, police response, exceptional Fire Department & more
4/11/2021 6:31 PM
34 At the time, no rent control (I was looking to buy a duplex or triplex to help with my mortgage as I couldn’t afford a single family home)
4/10/2021 9:49 AM
35 Near hills and trails & wife already owned home 4/10/2021 7:45 AM 36 Used to have a good school district used to be a nice place to live 4/9/2021 5:32 PM 554 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
5 / 59
37 Grew up here 4/9/2021 5:22 PM
38 personal reasons. 4/9/2021 4:59 PM
39 I was born here 4/8/2021 5:55 PM
40 Born and Raised 4/7/2021 2:46 AM
41 The Armenian Community 4/6/2021 2:11 PM
555 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
6 / 59

47.15% 124

48.67% 128

3.42% 9

0.76% 2
Q4 Do you currently own or rent your home?
Answered: 263 Skipped: 38
TOTAL 263
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I own my home
I rent my home
I live with
another...

I am currently
without...

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I own my home
I rent my home
I live with another household (neither own nor rent)
I am currently without permanent shelter
556 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
7 / 59

44.92% 115

33.20% 85

24.61% 63

5.86% 15

7.03% 18

8.20% 21

37.11% 95
Q5 If you wish to own a home in Glendale but do not currently own one, what issues are preventing you from owning a home at this time? Select all that apply.

Answered: 256 Skipped: 45
Total Respondents: 256
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I cannot ﬁnd
a home withi...

I do not
currently ha...

I cannot ﬁnd
a
home that...

I cannot
currently ﬁ.. .

I do not
currently wi...

I already own
a home in...

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I cannot find a home within my target price range in Glendale I do not currently have the financial resources for an appropriate down payment I do not currently have the financial resources for an adequate monthly mortgage payment I cannot find a home that suits my living needs in Glendale (housing size, disability accommodations) I cannot currently find a home that suits my quality standards in Glendale I do not currently wish to own or rent a home in Glendale I already own a home in Glendale
557 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
8 / 59

55.34% 145

7.63% 20

33.21% 87

2.29% 6

0.00% 0

0.76% 2

0.76% 2
Q6 Select the type of housing that best describes your current home.

Answered: 262 Skipped: 39
TOTAL 262
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 1 4/29/2021 10:07 PM
2 Single bedroom apartment 4/14/2021 2:06 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Single-Family
Home (Detached)
Duplex/Townhome
Multi-Family
Home...

Accessory
Dwelling Uni...

Mobile Home
Currently
without...

Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Single-Family Home (Detached)
Duplex/Townhome
Multi-Family Home (Apartment/Condominium)
Accessory Dwelling Unit, Granny Flat, Guest House
Mobile Home
Currently without permanent shelter
Other (please specify)
558 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
9 / 59

37.40% 98

38.93% 102

14.12% 37

9.54% 25

0.00% 0
Q7 How satisfied are you with your current housing situation? Answered: 262 Skipped: 39
TOTAL 262
# IF YOU ANSWERED SOMEWHAT DISSATISFIED OR DISSATISFIED, PLEASE EXPLAIN. DATE There are no responses.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I am very
satisﬁed
I am somewhat
satisﬁed
I am somewhat
dissatisﬁed
I am
dissatisﬁed
If you
answered...

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I am very satisfied
I am somewhat satisfied
I am somewhat dissatisfied
I am dissatisfied
If you answered somewhat dissatisfied or dissatisfied, please explain. 559 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
10 / 59
Q8 If you answered dissatisfied or somewhat dissatisfied to the prior question, please provide a reason below. (If you did not, please skip).

Answered: 84 Skipped: 217
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Not my house. 5/2/2021 9:24 PM
2 Air quality issues, noise pollution, windows are old single pane, very hot, tenets above and below, leaks, no EV Charging.
4/30/2021 7:31 PM
3 0 4/29/2021 10:07 PM
4 Although I’m fortunate to be able to own a home in Glendale, all my family is being pushed out of Glendale for high housing prices and unfair housing practices. The city should look into serious rent control and fix unfair section 8 housing practices 4/28/2021 5:29 PM
5 Zonong that has allowed for atea businesses creating noise, traffic, and no regulations 4/27/2021 7:16 PM 6 Because the rent is too much 4/27/2021 4:06 PM
7 We need more laundry machines 4/27/2021 3:08 PM
8 I would love to own a home. 4/27/2021 1:35 PM
9 I share kitchen and bathroom with other people. I would love to be able to afford an apartment in Glendale where I work. Rent is far too expensive to live in Glendale. 4/26/2021 3:25 PM
10 Wasting money paying rent and not building equity 4/26/2021 12:20 PM 11 I prefer to own again. Rents are high. 4/24/2021 12:06 AM 12 Owning or renting is expensive in Glendale 4/23/2021 2:48 PM 13 Too much money fir an apartment that is substandard, heat and AC only in the living room.

Cant afford anything better and i have a good jib! But im a single mom 4/23/2021 2:42 PM
14 I would like to improve my home but the permitting process is too cumbersome. 4/23/2021 2:08 PM 15 Skip 4/23/2021 1:28 PM
16 Old apartment, so many issues like roaches, windows doesn’t open any more, too much rent etc.
4/23/2021 1:14 PM
17 The rent is too high in a city that cares about businesses but not residents. Crime is on the rise and the city council does nothing.
4/23/2021 12:43 PM
18 no pet policy in the apartment complex; lack of affordable homes/condos in the area 4/23/2021 12:40 PM 19 So much of my paycheck goes toward paying the mortgage that there isn't money to fix up our house, and we have to go without legitimate flooring (exposed plywood), and we should probably replace our windows but there isn't any money to do it... Affordability goes well beyond getting into a home (doesn't matter if it is single family detached, or a rental apartment, if you can't afford basic maintenance, medical care, and essentials like food, simply having a roof is only a start.)
4/23/2021 11:07 AM
20 Too long of a commute to Glendale 4/22/2021 11:51 PM 21 My house is very small and I can't afford a larger house. Even if I could afford a larger house, I probably can't afford the property taxes.
4/22/2021 9:45 PM
22 LOVE my house; horrified at the 4-story bldg planned for 1/2 block away 4/22/2021 8:50 PM 23 I am satisfied but not happy with what is coming down the pipeline in terms of building. 4/22/2021 8:49 PM 24 Ready for a new home and I would like to live in Glendale. 4/22/2021 6:10 PM 560 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
11 / 59
25 living too far from work 4/22/2021 5:43 PM
26 The owners are Armenian and they only care about collecting and increasing the rent. The owners fired all the on-site managers and even though there are 24 units and the law says that there should be an on-site manager and we have complained we heard that they pay off the authorities to not fine them for not having an on-site manager. The place is filthy dirty especially the laundry room which they say the tenants should keep clean it’s not the owners job. They don’t enforce the smoking ban which Glendale is a smoke free city. They do no upgrades, they say if we are not happy move. The owners say Glendale city laws don’t apply to them, they can do what they want.
4/20/2021 1:36 PM
27 Rent is too high, there are no laundry facilities in the building 4/19/2021 11:12 PM 28 Older house that has not been well maintained by landlords, last updated in the early 90s. Lots of street noise, bad windows that let in pollution, expensive to power/heat, nowhere for kids to play
4/19/2021 5:52 PM
29 Too many fast cars throughout the day and night speeding across residentials. 4/19/2021 10:46 AM 30 I'm unsure how this condo passed sound requirements. The walls are miraculously thin & the amount of noise that can be heard through them is shocking. Glendale needs better sound codes for older buildings.
4/19/2021 10:27 AM
31 I would like to be able to afford to not live in a multi generational home. 4/17/2021 8:58 PM 32 Highly rent and utility bills also lack of parking at street because some people have a multiple cars even they do not use we need to be like in Europe people pay a fee to be parking on street and have own soace
4/17/2021 3:40 PM
33 Close to work 4/16/2021 11:24 PM
34 No 4/16/2021 8:42 PM
35 The manager is not doing anything about this place 4/16/2021 8:12 PM 36 City planted an oak tree in my front yard. I enjoy the old oak trees in the backyard, but did not want one in the front where cars park. t in the ss
4/16/2021 7:14 PM
37 traffic safety/noise 4/16/2021 1:46 PM
38 Too expensive and slightly run down 4/16/2021 10:46 AM 39 Run down condition, expensive rent for what we pay 4/16/2021 10:34 AM 40 The prices are ridiculously high in Glendale 4/16/2021 10:33 AM 41 No affordable housing options. Even apartments are high priced. 4/16/2021 9:23 AM 42 neighborhood services is not enforcing the city codes and the neighbors are letting their houses/yards turn to dead weeds
4/16/2021 9:12 AM
43 Rent is raising too often 4/16/2021 9:07 AM
44 Campbell street, and the city in general - needs more parking. Stop approving developments with parking variances
4/16/2021 12:34 AM
45 The upstairs neighbors consist of an old pedophile, a bald meth addict degenerate & a crossdressing gimp to start. There have been multiple leaks in multiple rooms/ parts of the ceiling. Blatant and inconsiderate noise. They invite their tweaker friends. 4/15/2021 10:23 PM
46 Speeding cars 4/15/2021 8:51 PM
47 Too small, inefficient windows, would like solar but can’t really in multifamily 4/15/2021 8:30 PM 48 Owner is removing property from rental market to sell 4/15/2021 7:55 PM 49 I remain becasue it is low income housing without which I would be houseless. It suffers what all apartments suffer: neighbors.
4/15/2021 2:44 PM
50 lack of parking, lack of resources in the neighborhood (laundromat, markets, public transportation)
4/15/2021 2:39 PM
561 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
12 / 59
51 Slumlords. I would like my own property. 4/15/2021 2:26 PM 52 my 101yr old apt is pretty, but absolutely not energy efficient. Windows are original, single pane. There is no heat or AC in the bedroom. The only heater is a 60s gas one that doesnt work well enough to justify the cost of the gas. Also my apt has no parking and my car has been stripped for parts. The fire dept and police love driving down my residential st at least 3x/day, not to mention that on one in glendale knows what a four way stop is. People blast through these streets ALL THE TIME. Horribly noisy, sweltering in summer, freezing in winter. I cant recommend living even in this "residential" neighborhood. Too loud, dangerous and uncomfortable. I hope I can move back to Burbank.
4/15/2021 10:46 AM
53 Ever increasing traffic levels, fruit vendors on residential street corners 4/15/2021 10:40 AM 54 Rent is too high for the size of the apartment 4/15/2021 10:38 AM 55 While I feel steady in my housing situation, there are some many residents that are housing insecure, including students and the elderly. And if I were to try and purchase a house, the prices are just too high.
4/15/2021 10:20 AM
56 If Glendale had better prices, I would be able to live in Glendale 4/15/2021 8:01 AM 57 Am very frustrated with amount of unpermitted work and poor quality of residential design in the neighborhood
4/14/2021 8:59 PM
58 Price is too high, and there are no meaningful tenant rights in Glendale that support tenant stability
4/14/2021 8:42 PM
59 I want to buy own home 4/14/2021 8:31 PM
60 Too many boxed apartments built by out of state venture capitalists. It takes away from the City's quality of life.
4/14/2021 7:53 PM
61 Too many neighbors building ADU’s which is making the neighborhood crowded and loud. 4/14/2021 6:25 PM 62 Housing prices are high while housing availability is scarce. 4/14/2021 5:11 PM 63 I do not appreciate the McMansions that are popping up around us. It’s grotesque 4/14/2021 2:00 PM 64 The home is badly insulated with no central heat or air conditioning. We waste money and energy heating and cooling it.
4/14/2021 1:48 PM
65 Doesn't meet my expectations for how much I am paying 4/14/2021 1:32 PM 66 Would like to be able to buy a home and not rent. 4/14/2021 1:26 PM 67 AB 68 is the reason! Single family zoning is going down the drain! 4/13/2021 9:46 AM 68 Too many accessory dwelling units are being built on my street. There is now basically a triplex next door to me. The amount of extra people and parking is becoming overwhelming. 4/10/2021 10:02 AM
69 Living in a 2 bedroom house with my parents and my 2 teenage kids 4/9/2021 9:08 PM 70 Policies and City Council processes seek to keep Glendale the home of the upper middle class. There is no housing for average income family.
4/9/2021 7:43 PM
71 Rent is too high. 4/9/2021 7:15 PM
72 Not enough streets lightings and homeowners do not park in their garages and flood the streets with cars
4/9/2021 6:42 PM
73 You came in and butchered are single-family neighborhood with crappy shitty crowded filthy apartments
4/9/2021 5:34 PM
74 I would love to own a home or condo instead of paying such high rent 4/9/2021 5:33 PM 75 I want to own a home and have looked with a loan approved but houses prices are too high and when the few that are, companies buy them to then rent them. I see them a month after listed for rent.
4/9/2021 4:59 PM
76 Satisfied with the 4/9/2021 1:12 AM
77 Satisfied with the 4/9/2021 1:12 AM
562 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
13 / 59
78 Too expensive 4/8/2021 5:56 PM
79 Rent is expensive. Apartment is old and small 4/8/2021 5:41 PM 80 window ac is not adequate in 100+ Summer temperature, square footage for price is low 4/8/2021 5:29 PM 81 It’s next to Burger King, teenagers will park in parking lot until 2 AM with loud music. Every year the owner raises the rent $100 bucks
4/8/2021 11:16 AM
82 Too dense, loud neighbors, dangerous streets 4/6/2021 10:18 PM 83 Glendale has inadequate tenant protections including having let the pandemic rent increase moratorium expire, unlike most of LA County
4/6/2021 8:51 PM
84 The lack of affordable housing 4/6/2021 2:14 PM
563 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
14 / 59

44.80% 112

55.20% 138
Q9 Do you think that the range of housing options currently available in the City of Glendale meet your needs?
Answered: 250 Skipped: 51
TOTAL 250
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
564 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
15 / 59

56.59% 146

31.78% 82

33.72% 87

32.17% 83

28.68% 74

15.12% 39

13.57% 35

19.77% 51
Q10 What types of housing are most needed in the City of Glendale? (Select all that apply)
Answered: 258 Skipped: 43
Total Respondents: 258
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Homeless Support 4/30/2021 10:39 AM
2 None 4/27/2021 7:16 PM
3 Affordable Rent 4/26/2021 3:25 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Single-Family
(Detached)
Duplex/Attached
Housing
Condominiums
(multi-famil...

Apartments
(multi-famil...

Senior Housing
Accessory
Dwelling Unit
Housing for
people with...

Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Single-Family (Detached)
Duplex/Attached Housing
Condominiums (multi-family ownership homes)
Apartments (multi-family rental homes)
Senior Housing
Accessory Dwelling Unit
Housing for people with disabilities (please specify in comment field below) Other (please specify)
565 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
16 / 59
4 Affordable rental housing--keep rental rates reasonable! 4/25/2021 6:53 PM 5 We don't need any more housing. Shortage of services. 4/23/2021 4:00 PM 6 Accessible housing 4/23/2021 1:05 PM
7 Housing for middle class workers. There needs to be something between Section 8 and the overpriced cracker boxes springing up on Central Ave.
4/23/2021 12:43 PM
8 The key is affordable, doesn't have to be free, just affordable for the people who work within the confines of the City.
4/23/2021 11:07 AM
9 Currently at the mercy of family members and my disability does not allow for me to move elsewhere
4/23/2021 8:11 AM
10 ACTUAL Low-income, accessible housing for disabled 4/22/2021 8:50 PM 11 This is too hard to answer. You can't build anywhere unless you consider traffic and other infrastructure issues first. We need more units but not without thought. 4/22/2021 8:49 PM
12 Already crowded; no more building 4/22/2021 8:42 PM
13 Less people 4/22/2021 5:21 PM
14 More housing for non Armenian people, there is no housing assistance unless you are Armenian. The buildings owned by Armenians discriminate and ONLY want to rent to Armenians.
4/20/2021 1:36 PM
15 Tenant-owned co-ops 4/19/2021 11:12 PM
16 No idea! 4/19/2021 5:28 PM
17 Townhomes 4/19/2021 1:07 PM
18 affordable housing 4/17/2021 8:24 PM
19 AFFORDABLE 900.00 MONTH 4/17/2021 4:44 PM
20 none 4/16/2021 7:14 PM
21 more affordable housing. period. 4/16/2021 1:46 PM
22 Glendale already has too many homes 4/16/2021 12:46 PM 23 Low income housing in general and low income housing for people on dissbility 4/16/2021 10:14 AM 24 Green wide space 4/15/2021 10:23 PM
25 None. There are too many apartments/condos! 4/15/2021 8:51 PM 26 Affordable housing—stop building new things and start enforcing caps on rent and property values
4/15/2021 8:48 PM
27 Wheelchair and double cain 4/15/2021 5:22 PM
28 Homeless housing 4/15/2021 2:54 PM
29 affordable options 4/15/2021 2:44 PM
30 Affordable and Market Rate Housing. More so, Affordable 4/15/2021 11:29 AM 31 Affordable homes for young people. 4/14/2021 10:08 PM 32 AFFORDABLE 4/14/2021 8:59 PM
33 housing protected by very strong rent control 4/14/2021 8:42 PM 34 Low income housing 4/14/2021 2:00 PM
35 Small lot single family detached homes (3 or 4 story) 4/13/2021 12:04 PM 36 We need homes for young working families. Two working parents still can't afford to purchase or rent a 3-bedroom home here
4/13/2021 10:00 AM
37 Housing in underdeveloped areas 4/10/2021 10:02 AM
566 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
17 / 59
38 AFFORDABLE apartments. Stop green lighting luxury developments while pretending to care about the middle class by imposing rent control on owners of older housing. 4/10/2021 9:52 AM
39 Single family homes with large common yard 4/10/2021 7:48 AM 40 Mobility access is still a problem in many areas. 4/9/2021 7:43 PM 41 I am a single mom with a disabled daughter & the rents are too high and the newer apartments have too many units in them for us. We would like a smaller size building where the rents the units are spacious and the rents are affordable. It is difficult to get affordable housing/ apartment and the wait list is very long. There is no priority for disabled people. 4/9/2021 7:15 PM
42 Affordable Homes 4/9/2021 5:23 PM
43 None. Population density is already too high. 4/9/2021 5:00 PM 44 Condos and Townhouses you can buy. Everything here is leasing. That's wrong. 4/8/2021 5:41 PM 45 Not luxury 4/8/2021 5:29 PM
46 ELI, VLI and LI housing 4/8/2021 10:49 AM
47 affordable housing, not apartments that target young rich people but simple apartments that allow the families that currently being kicked out (due to new developments) to relocate to 4/7/2021 12:11 PM
48 Townhomes 4/7/2021 2:51 AM
49 Low-income affordable housing bad public housing 4/6/2021 8:51 PM 50 Affordable Housing 4/6/2021 4:18 PM
51 Specifically affordable apartments with access to public transit 4/6/2021 2:14 PM 567 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
18 / 59

41.98% 110

32.82% 86

22.52% 59

2.67% 7
Q11 How would you rate the physical condition of the residence you live in?
Answered: 262 Skipped: 39
TOTAL 262
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Is the City going to help paint and repair? 4/23/2021 4:00 PM 2 Terrible, the owners DO nothing except collect and raise the after all Lamborghini’s take a lot of gas.
4/20/2021 1:36 PM
3 Large cracks in stucco, possible major structural issues 4/16/2021 3:42 PM 4 Walls ceiling/roof are paper thin. Renters must go through a background check 4/15/2021 10:23 PM 5 It’s just aging gracefully 4/9/2021 5:34 PM
6 Do not live in Glendale 4/8/2021 10:49 AM
7 Outdated 4/7/2021 2:51 AM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Excellent
condition
Shows signs of
minor deferr...

Needs one or
more major...

Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Excellent condition
Shows signs of minor deferred maintenance (e.g., peeling paint, chipped stucco, etc.) Needs one or more major systems upgrades (e.g., new roof, windows, electrical, plumbing, HVAC system, etc.) Other (please specify)
568 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
19 / 59

13.85% 36

15.77% 41

12.69% 33

32.31% 84

22.31% 58

11.15% 29

35.77% 93

34.23% 89

12.69% 33
Q12 Which of the following housing upgrades or expansions have you considered making on your home?
Answered: 260 Skipped: 41
Total Respondents: 260
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Room addition
Rooﬁng
HVAC
Painting
Solar
Accessory
Dwelling Uni...

Remodel of
bath, kitche...

None
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Room addition
Roofing
HVAC
Painting
Solar
Accessory Dwelling Unit, Granny Flat, Guest House
Remodel of bath, kitchen, or other facility
None
Other (please specify)
569 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
20 / 59
1 I do not own, so would not / cannot make. 4/30/2021 7:31 PM 2 Pluming electrical it’s almost a 100 year old home 4/28/2021 5:29 PM 3 Window replacement 4/26/2021 8:00 AM
4 I don't own my home so I can't make changes to it 4/25/2021 6:53 PM 5 I replaced my hvac summer 2020 4/24/2021 9:00 PM
6 De 4/24/2021 3:38 PM
7 It’s not my home! Its the landlord that leaves it in disrepair 4/23/2021 2:42 PM 8 Roaches 4/23/2021 1:14 PM
9 The upgrade I'm looking for is to get out of Glendale. The corruption and lack of regard for residents has beaten me down.
4/23/2021 12:43 PM
10 I rent, so I cannot make any improvements 4/23/2021 12:40 PM 11 Cant update as I rent 4/23/2021 10:22 AM
12 None now. It's too hard to get permits in a timely matter. And, why invest in our home when the neighborhood is on the verge of changing for the worst. Walkability, drivability, and safety will all be affected. Stop this madness. Think and plan before you move. What we moved here for 20 years ago is not what we see continuing in the future. Why invest in our home now? 4/22/2021 8:49 PM
13 None. I live in a new apartment buildings 4/22/2021 4:17 PM 14 I rent 4/20/2021 1:36 PM
15 Wood floor 4/19/2021 9:33 PM
16 Insulation & new carpets, despite being a renter 4/19/2021 1:07 PM 17 I do not own 4/17/2021 3:40 PM
18 I rent my place 4/16/2021 10:34 AM
19 I rent, so none 4/15/2021 11:02 PM
20 Walls are paperthin, renters must go through background check 4/15/2021 10:23 PM 21 Replace all carpeting and appliances 4/15/2021 5:22 PM 22 I rent so I cant do shit. But all the windows are 101yr old single pane, 6ft in length. The bedrooms have no heat or AC. Apt has no viable source of heat at all. No insulation. This building can and should be outfitted with central heat/ac. Back staircase for upstairs apts wraps around my bedroom walls and slams horribly into the walls when someone walks down them- even worse when theres an earthqake!
4/15/2021 10:46 AM
23 Exterior cladding 4/14/2021 4:34 PM
24 landscaping for shade and drought tolerance 4/14/2021 1:48 PM 25 I rent. All i can do is put potted plants outside 4/13/2021 10:00 AM 26 We rent 4/10/2021 11:49 AM
27 Plumbing and electrical 4/9/2021 9:08 PM
28 Repair damaged stucco 4/9/2021 7:43 PM
29 We rent, so there have been no upgrades. 4/9/2021 7:15 PM 30 Not my home 4/9/2021 4:59 PM
31 Window ac is not adequately weatherproofed but I don’t own the place 4/8/2021 5:29 PM 32 O cannot make changes because I'm renting 4/8/2021 3:25 PM 33 rental 4/6/2021 10:44 PM
570 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
21 / 59

42.86% 102

41.18% 98

15.97% 38
Q13 Based on your monthly income before taxes, how much of your monthly income do you spend on housing?
Answered: 238 Skipped: 63
TOTAL 238
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Less than 30%
Between 30%-50%
More than 50%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Less than 30%
Between 30%-50%
More than 50%
571 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
22 / 59
Q14 How important are the following factors in your housing choice? (If a statement does not pertain to you, please leave blank.) (1-5 scale) Answered: 228 Skipped: 73
I could aﬀord
to pay for...

Housing that
accommodates...

Housing large
enough for m...

My credit
history and/...
572 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
23 / 59
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very Important Somewhat Important Neutral
Somewhat Unimportant Unimportant
The amount of
money I had ...

Housing was
available in...

Concern that I
would not be...
573 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
24 / 59

90.87%
199

3.65%
8 3.65%
8 1.37%
3 0.46%
1 219

1.17 19.07%
37 13.92%
27 29.38%
57 5.15%
10 32.47%
63 194

3.18 67.44%
145

16.28%
35 10.70%
23 1.86%
4 3.72%
8 215

1.58 38.69%
77 17.59%
35 26.63%
53 2.51%
5 14.57%
29 199

2.37 56.04%
116

19.81%
41 16.91%
35 2.90%
6 4.35%
9 207

1.80 67.76%
145

20.09%
43 10.75%
23 0.93%
2 0.47%
1 214

1.46 21.36%
44 17.48%
36 24.27%
50 6.80%
14 30.10%
62 206

3.07 # OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Location, relative to workplace and amenities. Quality of construction and maintenance.

Availability of parking. Neighborhood safety.
5/2/2021 3:39 PM
2 Feeling safe ... not having mentally ill people wandering the streets. 4/23/2021 12:47 PM 3 MUST live in SFR neighborhood; DO NOT want to live near large multi-unit,mixed-use, or commercial
4/22/2021 10:28 PM
4 Being able to afford the taxes. 4/22/2021 9:49 PM
5 I experience a lot of discrimination from Armenians even though I have lived in Glendale for over 35 years. Armenian consider Glendale their town. If I had a penny for every time one of them told me if I don’t like it move, I’d be rich.
4/20/2021 1:51 PM
6 The landlord's policies 4/19/2021 11:19 PM
7 quality and character of the neighborhood 4/14/2021 9:04 PM 8 This survey defines "fair housing" in discriminatory language, but our present-day constrained housing supply is both 'race-neutral' in its language and racialized in its impacts. I have money for a deposit, should i find a place; but because of the building constraints applied to deify the single family neighborhoods a "starter home" is almost a million dollars and a three bedroom rental starts at $2300 a month. You can't keep exclusionary zoning forever because you will lose your working families.
4/13/2021 10:11 AM
9 Proximity to public transportation 4/8/2021 10:52 AM
10 Condition of Housing environment (Very Important) 4/7/2021 7:56 AM VERY

IMPORTANT

SOMEWHAT

IMPORTANT

NEUTRAL SOMEWHAT

UNIMPORTANT

UNIMPORTANT TOTAL WEIGHTED

AVERAGE
I could afford to pay
for housing
Housing that
accommodates
disability of household
member
Housing large enough
for my household
My credit history
and/or credit score
The amount of money
I had for deposit
Housing was available
in the neighborhood I
chose
Concern that I would
not be welcome in that
neighborhood
574 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
25 / 59
Q15 How important are the following housing priorities to you and your family?
Answered: 241 Skipped: 60
Provide more
housing for ...

Promote
housing...

Build more
single-famil...

Build more
multi-family...

Rehabilitate
575 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
26 / 59
Rehabilitate
existing...

Encourage more
senior housing
Provide
ADA-accessib...

Provide
housing for...

Ensure that
children who...

Create
mixed-use...
576 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
27 / 59
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very important Somewhat important Not Important Don't know Integrate
aﬀordable...

Establish
programs to...

Support
fair/equitab...

Support
programs to...
577 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
28 / 59

60.61%
140

16.45%
38 19.91%
46 3.03%
7 231

1.65 66.81%
153

20.52%
47 11.35%
26 1.31%
3 229

1.47 45.49%
106

24.03%
56 27.04%
63 3.43%
8 233

1.88 38.22%
86 25.78%
58 33.78%
76 2.22%
5 225

2.00 52.47%
117

36.77%
82 8.07%
18 2.69%
6 223

1.61 34.05%
79 34.05%
79 23.28%
54 8.62%
20 232

2.06 31.05%
68 31.05%
68 26.94%
59 10.96%
24 219

2.18 40.63%
91 26.79%
60 25.89%
58 6.70%
15 224

1.99 59.13%
136

25.65%
59 13.48%
31 1.74%
4 230

1.58 29.02%
65 25.00%
56 40.18%
90 5.80%
13 224

2.23 45.13%
102

21.24%
48 31.42%
71 2.21%
5 226

1.91 42.92%
97 32.74%
74 18.58%
42 5.75%
13 226

1.87 62.39%
141

19.47%
44 15.49%
35 2.65%
6 226

1.58 48.02%
109

30.40%
69 14.10%
32 7.49%
17 227

1.81 VERY

IMPORTANT

SOMEWHAT

IMPORTANT
NOT

IMPORTANT
DON'T
KNOW

TOTAL WEIGHTED

AVERAGE
Provide more housing for all income levels
Promote housing affordable to working families
Build more single-family housing
Build more multi-family housing (apartments,
condos, etc.)
Rehabilitate existing housing
Encourage more senior housing
Provide ADA-accessible housing
Provide housing for homeless
Ensure that children who grow up in Glendale
can afford to live in Glendale as adults
Create mixed-use (commercial/office and
residential) projects to bring different land uses
closer together
Integrate affordable housing throughout the
community to create mixed-income
neighborhoods
Establish programs to help at-risk homeowners
keep their homes, including mortgage loan
programs
Support fair/equitable housing opportunities
Support programs to help maintain and
secure neighborhoods that have suffered
foreclosures
578 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
29 / 59
Q16 Please respond to each statement: (1-5 scale)
Answered: 240 Skipped: 61
I am satisﬁed
with the...

There are
quality jobs...

There is
access to...

There is
enough parki...
579 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
30 / 59
There are
plenty of...

There is a
pharmacy clo...

There is a
public libra...

There are
grocery stor...
580 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
31 / 59
There are
banks and...

The conditions
of the homes...

The streets
and sidewalk...

There are
plenty of ot...
581 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
32 / 59
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Strongly agree Somewhat agree Neutral
Somewhat disagree Strongly disagree
The streets
and sidewalk...
582 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
33 / 59

34.89%
82 25.96%
61 31.91%
75 3.83%
9 3.40%
8 235

2.15 19.15%
45 30.21%
71 34.04%
80 10.64%
25 5.96%
14 235

2.54 29.11%
69 32.49%
77 15.61%
37 12.24%
29 10.55%
25 237

2.43 28.81%
68 24.15%
57 13.56%
32 14.41%
34 19.07%
45 236

2.71 37.24%
89 31.38%
75 12.55%
30 11.30%
27 7.53%
18 239

2.21 58.47%
138

25.42%
60 9.75%
23 5.08%
12 1.27%
3 236

1.65 52.97%
125

31.78%
75 9.32%
22 4.24%
10 1.69%
4 236

1.70 68.62%
164

22.18%
53 4.60%
11 3.35%
8 1.26%
3 239

1.46 61.09%
146

23.85%
57 9.21%
22 2.09%
5 3.77%
9 239

1.64 47.70%
114

34.31%
82 8.79%
21 5.02%
12 4.18%
10 239

1.84 40.76%
97 30.25%
72 9.24%
22 14.71%
35 5.04%
12 238

2.13 22.36%
53 34.18%
81 24.47%
58 12.66%
30 6.33%
15 237

2.46 34.45%
82 31.09%
74 13.45%
32 13.87%
33 7.14%
17 238

2.28 STRONGLY AGREE SOMEWHAT
AGREE

NEUTRAL SOMEWHAT

DISAGREE

STRONGLY

DISAGREE

TOTAL WEIGHTED

AVERAGE
I am satisfied with the
schools in my area
There are quality jobs
in my neighborhood
There is access to
public transit close to
my neighborhood
There is enough
parking in my area of
town
There are plenty of
parks, playgrounds, or
green space near me
There is a pharmacy
close to my house
There is a public
library close to my
house
There are grocery
stores close to my
neighborhood
There are banks and
credit unions near
where I live
The conditions of the
homes in my
neighborhood are
acceptable
The streets and
sidewalks near my
home are well kept
There are plenty of
other public spaces
near my home
The streets and
sidewalks in my
neighborhood have
adequate lighting
583 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
34 / 59

39.82% 90

9.29% 21

15.93% 36

0.00% 0

1.33% 3

8.41% 19

6.19% 14

19.03% 43
Q17 The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial status, and disability. Of those, which do you think is the most prevalent factor in housing discrimination in our region? Answered: 226 Skipped: 75
TOTAL 226
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 I am not aware of housing discrimination based on protected criteria. 5/2/2021 3:39 PM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Race
Color
National Origin
Religion
Sex
Familial Status
Disability
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Race
Color
National Origin
Religion
Sex
Familial Status
Disability
Other (please specify)
584 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
35 / 59
2 Income 4/27/2021 7:18 PM
3 I see no discrimination= NONE. 4/26/2021 5:03 PM
4 Not an issue 4/23/2021 2:14 PM
5 senior 4/23/2021 12:38 PM
6 Abiity to pay 4/22/2021 9:49 PM
7 financial 4/22/2021 8:46 PM
8 I don't know. 4/22/2021 6:18 PM
9 None 4/22/2021 5:29 PM
10 dont know 4/22/2021 4:35 PM
11 I don't know. 4/22/2021 4:19 PM
12 don't know. 4/22/2021 4:16 PM
13 Income 4/19/2021 9:41 PM
14 I have no idea 4/19/2021 5:55 PM
15 Gender identity 4/17/2021 8:50 AM
16 Fonancial 4/16/2021 8:36 PM
17 Income 4/16/2021 7:33 PM
18 don't know how to answer this. Am not aware of extreme discrimination 4/16/2021 4:34 PM 19 No opinion 4/16/2021 3:51 PM
20 Affordability 4/16/2021 3:11 PM
21 Financial 4/16/2021 2:36 PM
22 No problems here 4/16/2021 11:00 AM
23 Don’t know 4/16/2021 10:39 AM
24 No idea and the wording of this question seems suspect 4/16/2021 10:26 AM 25 none 4/16/2021 9:14 AM
26 Ethnicity 4/16/2021 12:37 AM
27 where's sexual preference/gender expression? 4/15/2021 2:49 PM 28 money 4/15/2021 10:49 AM
29 Ethnicity 4/15/2021 10:46 AM
30 Size of family. 4/15/2021 8:17 AM
31 idk 4/14/2021 9:41 PM
32 Income 4/14/2021 6:32 PM
33 None 4/14/2021 6:28 PM
34 None 4/13/2021 12:09 PM
35 None of the above exist in my neighborhood 4/13/2021 9:52 AM 36 In my area, we have owners and renters from all of the above listed. 4/10/2021 10:10 AM 37 Not aware of any 4/9/2021 6:49 PM
38 Don't know. Not aware of any. 4/9/2021 5:03 PM
39 I don’t feel there’s discrimination based on those factors 4/8/2021 5:59 PM 585 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
36 / 59
40 I'm not sure 4/8/2021 3:33 PM
41 Not Sure 4/7/2021 3:00 AM
42 Sexual orientation 4/6/2021 10:21 PM
43 Income 4/6/2021 2:55 PM
586 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
37 / 59

18.41% 44

58.58% 140

23.01% 55
Q18 Have you ever experienced or witnessed housing discrimination in the City of Glendale?
Answered: 239 Skipped: 62
TOTAL 239
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
I don’t know

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
I don’t know
587 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
38 / 59
Q19 On what grounds do you believe you witnessed housing discrimination?
Answered: 45 Skipped: 256
588 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
39 / 59
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not applicable
Race/Ethnicity
(i.e.,...

Color
(physical...

Age
Marital Status
Religion
Sex/Gender/Gend
er Identity
National
Origin (the...

Familial
Status...

Disability
Political Ideas
English Spoken
as a Second...

Citizenship
Status
Level/Source
of Income
Use of Housing
Choice Vouch...

Criminal
Background
Other (please
specify)
589 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
40 / 59

2.22% 1

42.22% 19

8.89% 4

2.22% 1

4.44% 2

6.67% 3

2.22% 1

4.44% 2

2.22% 1

6.67% 3

2.22% 1

0.00% 0

2.22% 1
TOTAL 45
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 You have to know someone to be able to get senior housing. 4/23/2021 12:39 PM

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Not applicable
Race/Ethnicity (i.e., Caucasian, Asian, Latino, etc.)
Color (physical appearance)
Age
Marital Status
Religion
Sex/Gender/Gender Identity
National Origin (the country where a person was born)
Familial Status (Families with Children)
Disability
Political Ideas
English Spoken as a Second Language
Citizenship Status
Level/Source of Income
Use of Housing Choice Voucher or other assistance
Criminal Background
Other (please specify)
590 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
41 / 59

72.97% 162

12.61% 28

4.50% 10

8.11% 18

5.86% 13

9.91% 22

5.41% 12

5.41% 12
Q20 Do you know of anyone in Glendale who has faced the following:
(select all that apply)
Answered: 222 Skipped: 79
Total Respondents: 222
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not applicable
Unfairly
refused a...

Unfairly
denied a...

Falsely denied
available...

Unfairly
directed to ...

Not shown all
housing options
Not given
reasonable...

Oﬀered unfair
terms when...

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Not applicable
Unfairly refused a rental or sale agreement
Unfairly denied a mortgage
Falsely denied available housing options
Unfairly directed to a certain neighborhood and/or locations Not shown all housing options
Not given reasonable accommodate for a disability
Offered unfair terms when buying or selling
591 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
42 / 59

34.33% 80

3.43% 8

7.30% 17

18.45% 43

19.74% 46

4.29% 10

8.15% 19

4.29% 10
Q21 Where would you refer someone if they felt their fair housing rights had been violated?
Answered: 233 Skipped: 68
TOTAL 233
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 I would probably advise the person simply to look elsewhere. There are many landlords and real estate agents, most of whom are eager to serve anyone with the ability to pay. Making government complaints is unlikely to be useful, in terms of finding a good place to live at an affordable price.
5/2/2021 3:41 PM
2 Housing Rights Center 4/23/2021 7:03 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I wouldn’t
know what to do
Complain to
the...

A local
nonpro ﬁt
Local, state,
or federal...

The California
Oﬃce of...

The U.S.

Department o...

A private
attorney
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I wouldn’t know what to do
Complain to the individual/organization discriminating
A local nonprofit
Local, state, or federal government
The California Office of Housing and Community Development The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
A private attorney
Other (please specify)
592 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
43 / 59
3 Glendale Tenants Union 4/23/2021 12:47 PM
4 I fight back on my own because when i was try to get help in t was mañana excuses and nothing happened so i went to court with the help of pasadena center help unbelievable but it happened
4/17/2021 3:53 PM
5 California Dept. of Fair Employment and Housing 4/16/2021 5:02 PM 6 City of Glendale and DFEH ( Dpt. of Fair Employment & Housing) 4/15/2021 11:38 AM 7 glendale tenants union 4/14/2021 8:49 PM
8 California Department of Fair Employment and Housing 4/10/2021 9:57 AM 9 I refer them to Gloria Allred because the city Council Glendale doesn’t give a shit 4/9/2021 5:38 PM 10 Glendale Tenants Union, Neighborhood Legal Services of LA 4/6/2021 8:56 PM 593 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
44 / 59

43.40% 102

45.96% 108

10.64% 25
Q22 How familiar are you with Fair Housing Laws?
Answered: 235 Skipped: 66
TOTAL 235
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Not familiar
Somewhat
familiar
Very familiar

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Not familiar
Somewhat familiar
Very familiar
594 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
45 / 59

35.90% 84

25.21% 59

38.89% 91
Q23 Do you think Federal and/or State Fair Housing Laws are difficult to understand or follow?
Answered: 234 Skipped: 67
TOTAL 234
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No
I don’t know

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
I don’t know
595 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
46 / 59

18.97% 44

26.29% 61

25.00% 58

2.16% 5

1.72% 4

9.05% 21

9.48% 22

5.17% 12

0.86% 2

1.29% 3
Q24 Which of the following best describes your household type? Answered: 232 Skipped: 69
TOTAL 232
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Single person
household
Couple
Couple with
children und...

Single parent
with childre...

Adult head of
household...

Young adult
living with...

Multi-generatio
nal family...

Single person
living with...

Couple living
with roommates
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Single person household
Couple
Couple with children under 18
Single parent with children under 18
Adult head of household (non-parent) with children under 18 Young adult living with parents
Multi-generational family household (grandparents, children, and/or grandchildren all under the same roof) Single person living with roommates
Couple living with roommates
Other (please specify)
596 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
47 / 59
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Couple with baby on the way. 4/30/2021 7:36 PM
2 Couple with minor and adult children 4/19/2021 9:45 PM 3 Decline to state. 4/9/2021 5:05 PM
597 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
48 / 59

25.54% 59

74.46% 172
Q25 Has the Coronavirus impacted your housing situation? Answered: 231 Skipped: 70
TOTAL 231
# IF YES, HOW? DATE
1 Loss of work / wages. 4/30/2021 7:36 PM
2 Our income was changed 4/27/2021 4:11 PM
3 My husband is layoffs 4/27/2021 2:04 PM
4 I have to stay home with my kids, cannot work 4/23/2021 1:11 PM 5 I now have a parking lot restaurant 12 feet from my window. Smoke pour into my house every night and I listen to people screaming until well past the time I'd like to sleep. I have respiratory infections and sleep deprivation and NO ONE in Glendale cares. 4/23/2021 12:49 PM
6 Husband lost job, was able to find another job, but the down time during the pandemic was devastating financially as we were already stretched.
4/23/2021 11:16 AM
7 Forced to move to larger place that allowed work from home 4/23/2021 10:27 AM 8 Forced us all to work and live on top of each other. Created tension. 4/23/2021 8:16 AM 9 Encouraged us to speed up single family home purchase. 4/23/2021 8:12 AM 10 i had to move in with my dad to help him during the pandemic 4/22/2021 5:46 PM 11 Lost job means that I'm uncertain if I can cover next month's rent 4/19/2021 11:25 PM 12 Available income towards rent. 4/19/2021 12:36 PM
13 I got covid and I had to quarantine in a hotel/airbnb so that my at risk parents wouldn't also contract it
4/17/2021 9:02 PM
14 No money for rent 4/16/2021 11:36 PM
15 Been locked down for over a year 4/16/2021 4:36 PM
16 all working from home (include child in distance learning) 4/16/2021 1:50 PM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes
No

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes
No
598 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
49 / 59
17 Lockdown 4/16/2021 12:56 PM
18 Had to move grandmother into home. 4/16/2021 11:06 AM 19 Loss of job 4/16/2021 10:53 AM
20 Made paying rent more difficult due to loss of income 4/16/2021 10:42 AM 21 I moved to Glendale because of the pandemic 4/16/2021 10:27 AM 22 reduced income 4/16/2021 9:00 AM
23 Isolation; grocery deliveries; more cost to stay home. 4/15/2021 9:03 PM 24 Working from home in tight quarters, one person in the kitchen and one in the bedroom 4/15/2021 8:37 PM 25 Isolated, alone over a year. 4/15/2021 2:18 PM
26 Loss of job 4/15/2021 10:43 AM
27 Everyone stays home all day, every day 4/15/2021 10:21 AM 28 rent 4/14/2021 8:50 PM
29 Working from home 4/14/2021 6:30 PM
30 Hairstylist and was not able to work 4/14/2021 2:43 PM 31 Family members laid off 4/14/2021 2:07 PM
32 It has made us want a yard for our child to play in 4/14/2021 1:56 PM 33 Roommate unable to pay her portion of rent 4/14/2021 1:36 PM 34 We were unemployed until fairly recently and had to get public assistance and help from family to cover rent
4/13/2021 10:14 AM
35 Now working from home, reduced hours. Harder to make rent 4/12/2021 10:54 AM 36 We moved into a bigger place with more space. 4/9/2021 5:29 PM 37 Lack of child care/unemployment 4/9/2021 5:28 PM
38 I need a bigger place, want to buy but too pricey or companies buy properties to rent. 4/9/2021 5:04 PM 39 Having to work from home (remote work) and living in a full house with no space 4/8/2021 5:46 PM 40 Both lost our jobs and now want to move but don’t have 3x the income required for a lot of Apt buildings
4/8/2021 5:33 PM
41 loss of income therefore extremely hard to pay rent because we have received no rental assistance
4/7/2021 12:25 PM
42 Rents are too high 4/7/2021 3:06 AM
43 Was forced to move during early pandemic 4/6/2021 8:57 PM 44 Made it more difficult to find adequate long term meaningful employment 4/6/2021 2:57 PM 599 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
50 / 59

19.05% 44

22.51% 52

21.21% 49

7.79% 18

2.60% 6

11.26% 26

15.58% 36
Q26 If you are currently employed, approximately how long is your one- way commute to work? (If your commute has changed due to the Coronavirus, please answer this question based on your commute before the pandemic's impact on your travel patterns).

Answered: 231 Skipped: 70
TOTAL 231
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Less than 5
miles
5-10 miles
10-25 miles
25-40 miles
More than 40
miles
I am employed
but work fro...

I am not
currently...

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Less than 5 miles
5-10 miles
10-25 miles
25-40 miles
More than 40 miles
I am employed but work from my home
I am not currently employed
600 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
51 / 59

84.21% 176

4.31% 9

7.66% 16

3.83% 8

4.78% 10

7.18% 15

4.31% 9

7.66% 16
Q27 If you work outside the house, how to you get to work? If you use different modes of transportation, select all that apply.

Answered: 209 Skipped: 92
Total Respondents: 209
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Work online 4/27/2021 7:23 PM
2 N/A Previously, automobile 4/26/2021 5:07 PM
3 Work remotely 4/20/2021 1:57 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Automobile
(drive alone)
Automobile
(carpool)
Walk
Bike
Train
Bus
Rideshare
(i.e.,...

Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Automobile (drive alone)
Automobile (carpool)
Walk
Bike
Train
Bus
Rideshare (i.e., Uber/Lyft)
Other (please specify)
601 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
52 / 59
4 Retired, travel mostly by bike & automobile 4/20/2021 1:21 PM 5 I work inside the house 4/19/2021 5:57 PM
6 I am retired I don’t work 4/18/2021 12:00 PM
7 I am not currently employed. 4/17/2021 8:48 PM
8 Motorcycle 4/17/2021 8:53 AM
9 have car but don't go out 4/16/2021 4:36 PM
10 Retired 4/16/2021 11:02 AM
11 Beeline to train station 4/16/2021 12:39 AM
12 Airport 4/14/2021 9:24 PM
13 Not applicable 4/14/2021 6:30 PM
14 Retired 4/10/2021 10:13 AM
15 Do not work now 4/9/2021 6:51 PM
16 I am unemployed 4/8/2021 3:36 PM
602 of 1910
Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Survey
53 / 59

2.16% 5

38.96% 90

29.00% 67

24.24% 56

5.63% 13
Q28 What age range most accurately describes you?
Answered: 231 Skipped: 70
TOTAL 231
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Gen Z (0-23
years old)
Millennial
(24-39 years...

Generation X
(40-55 years...

Baby Boomers
(56-74 years...

Silent
Generation (...

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Gen Z (0-23 years old)
Millennial (24-39 years old)
Generation X (40-55 years old)
Baby Boomers (56-74 years old)
Silent Generation (75+ years old)
603 of 1910
Dear Mr. Krause,

Here are my comments on the City of Glendale's Housing Element draft for the Sixth cycle, 2021-2029.

Let's begin with the positive.

1) I appreciate the inclusion of Program 5B, "Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase" or TOPA/COPA. I have spent a good deal of time this year talking about TOPA, which is a tenant-led initiative.

However, the Program Goals section fails to mention that these purchases are happening already, with the assistance of community land trusts. It also fails to note that it would actually cost the city nothing to pass a TOPA ordinance, to inform tenants that their buildings have been offered for sale; funding sources to assist tenants with these purchases and converting them into tenant-led, limited equity co-ops can be explored separately. It also fails to mention critical reasons why this proposed ordinance is attractive to tenants— namely, that it would secure permanently affordable housing and enable us to build equity.

Building equity would help reduce the racial wealth gap, because most household wealth in this country is in the form of housing. As of 2020, 75% of white people are homeowners, whereas the majority of Black people are renters.

And now for the disappointing elements.

2) Consider this extraordinary statement on pdf page 216:

“The City finds that there are no known historic patterns of segregation by race and ethnicity, persons with disabilities, familial status, age, or income.”

As noted by Ms. Tara Peterson on November 15, this sentence completely contradicts the Sundown Town resolution passed by the City Council on September 15, 2020, which acknowledges the historical redlining and racist housing practices of this city. This resolution specifically noted realtors’ ads on “Keeping Glendale 100% Caucasian.”

The Programs 7A and 7C on Fair Housing make no mention of the fact that Black people are 2% of Glendale's population, compared to forming 8% of LA County. The absence of Black people in Glendale is a clear indicator of discrimination, especially in light of Glendale's Sundown Town resolution. In addition to investigating discrimination against residents who already live here, there should be an investigation of how Black people are kept out of the city in the first place. For example, national studies show that Black people are less likely to be shown apartments by landlords, and they are quoted higher prices for the apartments that are shown to them.

Although I appreciate the lack of local prejudices that an out-of-town consultant can bring to this subject, Glendale residents know exactly where income segregation occurs—the 134 604 of 1910
highway. Although there are exceptions, “north Glendale” means rich (white) homeowners and “south Glendale” means poor renters (of color).

One wonders if the Planning Department staff have read the Sundown Town resolution, and whether this information was conveyed to the consultant from Orange County.

Also, the “race/ethnicity” section fails to recognize the large number of Armenian people in Glendale, who form approximately 40% of the population; surely, they can be separated from the general White category in the same way that the Hispanic population is often separated into "White Hispanic" and "Non-white Hispanic" groups. This fact might be unfamiliar to an out-of-town the consultant, but it is surely known to members of the Planning Dept. Armenian tenants I’ve talked to are motivated to stay in Glendale so that they can remain part of this significant community.

3) There is a wealth of data in the Background Report section, including the following facts:

 Tenants are 67% of the residents of Glendale
 57% of tenants are rent-burdened, paying more than 30% of their income in rent  35% of tenants are paying more than 50% of their income in rent

This represents tens of thousands of people in economic pain. These numbers are substantially the same as in the 5th Cycle Housing Element, indicating zero progress in meeting their needs. And in spite of this abundant data, the meager programs offered in Part 1 of this 6th Cycle draft don’t even acknowledge this great need, much less attempt to meet it.

May I also point out that the more money tenants spend on rent, the less money we have to spend at other businesses in the city. The interests of landlords and developers are, therefore, often in conflict with those of other area businesses. Perhaps this inherent conflict should be acknowledged by separating the Housing Dept from the rest of Economic/Community Development.

Goal 2 “A city with high quality residential neighborhoods that are attractive and well designed” is given prominence, however. Although rent-burdened tenants have no objection to good design, it is hardly in our top 10 list of priorities. My fellow tenants who sometimes watch Design Review Board cases with me regard them as “rich people problems,” as in “So this is how people fill their time when their basic needs are met.” “Good” design is a priority for affluent homeowners, who form a minority of this city. Also, in light of Glendale’s historical racism, people of color have very different views on which elements of Glendale’s neighborhoods should be retained and which need to be changed.

605 of 1910
4) Review of the 5th Cycle Housing Element. Glendale built 4,493 units in 2014-2021, but 4,131, or 92%, of those were above-moderate, market-rate homes. Glendale did not even come close to meeting the need for housing at lower income levels (362 of 1,155 units, or 31%). This city is not building the right kinds of housing for the people who live here. The oversupply of above-moderate, market-rate housing shows wishful thinking along the lines of "If we build it, they will come"; considering that the need for lower-income housing has increased considerably since 2014, and that the median income of Glendale renters is $50K, I would conclude that higher-income renters have largely chosen not to live in Glendale, perhaps because there are other, more attractive options in LA County for them.

The attitude of Glendale city officials toward lower-income people seems to be, "If you can’t afford the rents here, you should just move out," rather than attempting to meet our needs.

City officials clearly have extraordinary amounts of time to spend discussing the small design details of other people’s private, single-family houses, however.

And here are the elements that are completely missing.

5) As I noted on November 15, Appendix B on Public Engagement lists over 260 developers as stakeholders but completely omits the Glendale Tenants Union (GTU), the sole group that represents the 67% of the residents of Glendale who are renters.

This is a curious omission because I have spent the better part of this year working with the Coalition for an Anti-Racist Glendale and GTU to lobby the City Council to create a Tenant-Landlord Committee, precisely because tenant voices routinely go unheard. The senior Housing Dept staff are also aware of GTU; Mr. Peter Zovak sent us an email about the Housing Element survey in April.

This leads me to wonder if the Planning Dept. spends much time talking to the Housing staff or to the City Council.

The message is clear, however, that the concerns of developers and affluent homeowners are given a great deal of attention by the city, while the concerns of renters are brushed aside or ignored entirely.

The City of Pasadena formed a task force for the Housing Element, with at least one tenant member who was appointed by the mayor. If the City of Glendale wanted to include diverse community voices in this draft, they could have found more effective ways to do so, beginning in the early stages.

I noticed that “Abundant Housing LA,” formerly known as YIMBY, is listed as a stakeholder, although they do not operate in Glendale. I met a gentlemen from this group, and this homeowner in LA was surprised to hear that our range of tenant concerns went well beyond that of mere housing supply.

Here are some of the elements that tenants would like to see included in this report:

606 of 1910
Rent Stabilization. From reading this 410-page document, one would have no idea that thousands of tenants spent years advocating for rent stabilization in Glendale. Although our ballot measures did not pass (yet), the wishes and efforts of thousands of residents should at least be acknowledged, instead of erased. This effort is well known to the Glendale City Council.

Right to Counsel. Tenants should be guaranteed a right to legal counsel in eviction cases, the same way the Sixth Amendment guarantees the right to counsel in criminal cases. In LA County, there are sufficient nonprofit lawyers to represent tenants in only 12% of eviction cases, and 98% of tenants who arrive in eviction court without a lawyer lose their cases.

Therefore, the lack of tenant-side lawyers virtually guarantees that laws will not be enforced on landlords who break the law. Several cities have passed Right to Counsel laws, including New York City, which saw a decline in eviction cases after they passed this law.

Landlords are filing fewer frivolous eviction cases, from the deterrent of knowing that tenants will have legal representation. This benefits the legal system in general, as well as tenants in particular.

Anti‐Harassment Ordinance. During the pandemic, harassment against tenants in LA County soared by 300% or higher. The City of Los Angeles recently passed an anti- harassment ordinance and it would be fairly easy to adopt a similar measure for Glendale.

6) The pandemic is not discussed in this draft. Large segments of the population have been completely re-thinking their approach to housing and work, in light of changes made during the pandemic. Many people would prefer to work from home permanently, and many parents have felt the need for assistance with balancing working from home and educating their children. From pdf page 116: “The creation of innovative housing for female-headed households could include co-housing developments where childcare and meal preparation responsibilities can be shared.”

We could begin studying different forms of social housing, because not everyone wants to live in an individual box, separate from other people. The goal of some people is to create an integrated community, as opposed to maximizing the amount of profit that can be made from each individual box.

Although we are still in the midst of seeing these pandemic-inspired changes, this shift should at least be noted and studied; otherwise, this report runs the risk of becoming obsolete almost immediately after it is approved.

Conclusion: Major Revisions Needed

In conclusion, my opinion as a professional editor is that this draft reads like a document that was cut and pasted from other housing elements, with small modifications to adapt to this particular time and city. It was written in a vacuum, by authors who sat studying maps and spreadsheets in an attempt to meet minimum requirements. It displays significant 607 of 1910
errors and gaps in relevant knowledge, and very little effort to solve the serious problems of the people who live here.

To adopt a phrase from my many years in scientific publishing, I would return this draft to its authors for “Major Revision.” That is, the draft requires not simply minor revisions to its organization and language, but a substantial re-thinking of its methodology, data, analysis, and conclusions.

Sincerely,
Karen Kwak
Glendale, CA

P.S. I am copying the City Council because policy decisions always rest with them. I would also like to thank Mr. Najarian for pointing out that this draft was prepared by a consultant from Orange County.

608 of 1910
From: Brigid McNally <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 30, 2021 4:04 PM
To: Krause, Erik <[email protected]>
Cc: Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Agajanian, Vrej <[email protected]>; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]> Subject: PUBLIC COMMENT: 6th Cycle Housing Element Draft for Glendale, CA Dear Mr. Krause,
I am writing as a concerned resident of Glendale regarding the recent 6th Cycle Housing Element Draft.

I am curious and, quite frankly, concerned that the outreach efforts for this Housing Element Draft did not include Glendale Tenants Union considering that the draft itself states that renters comprise 67.8% of Glendale households. This makes renters the super‐majority in Glendale and from all of my research appears to be the hi ghest per capita renter city in all of California. So, why then was the only organization in Glendale dedicated to supporting and advocating for the renter population not consulted or flagged as “stakeholders” yet numerous developers were? With deliberate choices like this, it is not difficult to see the power that monied interests have over housing decisions in the City of Glendale.

I am duly concerned with the City of Glendale’s intended actions and policies potentially arising from this Housing Element Cycle‐‐ or the likely lack thereof. Glendale did not meet our lower income housing goals from the 5th Cycle Housing Element, yet we exceeded moderate‐upper income housing, (essentially market rate housing) by 500%. Tha t is preposterous and, once again, demonstrates that the City of Glendale's primary interest is appeasing wealthy developers.

I attended the "Housing Element Virtual Community Meetings" that was held via Zoom earlier in November. During the meeting, the presenters of the event were already engaging in dishonest manipulation of the data to hide the reality that Glendale has woefully under‐supported our lower income communities. What assurances are we, as residents of Glendale, being afforded by the City of Glendale that this Housing Element Cycle will prove anything more than the lip service that the previous element proved to be?
These housing element updates are required by the State of California, not as a means of simply wasting taxpayer dollars to pay consultant firms that operate outside of the city or county itself to make 300‐page reports and Powerpoint Zoom presentations, but rather so that the City is forced to consider whether it is meeting the needs of it
s residents. It is clearly not.

The only consideration put forth by this current draft that holds any weight or demonstrates any interest by the City of Glendale to properly support its super‐majority renter population is the interest in exploring a Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA). I would like to highlight that the goal should be implementation rather than exploration of these policies. I would like to flag that studies regarding these TOPA policies already exist and robust policies have been developed for municipalities across LA County.  I hope that the City of Glendale chooses to connect with currently existing Community Land Trust organizations when exploring the possibilities of TOPA policies here in Glendale rather than 609 of 1910
privatized  consultant firms based in Orange County or elsewhere. Here is a link for ease: https://www.cacltnetwork.org/
I am CC'ing  officials who represent the interests of Glendale residents at the local and state level in the hopes of directing their attention to the woeful inadequacy of the City of Glendale's approach to their constituents' housing needs.

Thank you.

Best,
Brigid McNally

610 of 1910
12/8/21, 11:02 AM De Novo Planning Group Mail - Public Comments on Glendale's 6th cycle HE draft https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=d2c530bd39&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1718161931842367208&simpl=msg-f%3A1718161931… 1/1 Amanda Tropiano <[email protected]>
Public Comments on Glendale's 6th cycle HE draft
Mike Van Gorder <[email protected]> Fri, Dec 3, 2021 at 1:28 PM To: "Housing Elements@HCD" <[email protected]>, Amanda Tropiano <[email protected]>, "Lanzafame, Philip" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Hello Mr. Krause,
I’m providing you, the city council, and my fellow housing element reviewers my feedback on the Glendale 6th Cycle Housing Element Draft. In that I was not assigned the city’s element in my official workload, I am free to provide this feedback from the perspective of a private citizen and concerned Glendale tenant, as somebody that wants to raise my family here but who sees virtually no options available should that family grow at all. I hope you will carefully consider them moving forward.

Quick notes:

The draft claims that Glendale has ‘no history of economic segregation’, despite providing a map that shows such economic segregation
It claims Glendale has no history of racial segregation, despite the city council’s extraordinary acknowledgement by ordinance of Glendale’s history as a ‘Sundown Town’
The draft claims that the city can exclusively produce affordable units in the downtown area, and that such an availability means their RHNA targets are all satisfied; however, considering realistic development reduces the projected yield of low-income sites from a surplus of 2,451 to a deficit of -2,940 An analysis of the thirty three downtown sites claimed reveals only five sites that suggest developability, further reducing the low-income yield to a deficit of -3,580
The draft misunderstands “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” as ‘responding to fair housing complaints’, rather than “acknowledge a history of racist housing policy to create opportunities for underserved communities in both low-resource and high-resource areas”
The draft claims to meet RHNA goals without needing to upzone anywhere, yet due to the above figures it does not meet the goals, and upzoning wealthier neighborhoods is a key part of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing The report acknowledges Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence without analysis and without mention of an intent to create low-income opportunities therein
Public participation occurred after the draft was submitted to the state in violation of HE requirements The Housing Element Draft is certainly noncompliant with state law and is, at its worst moments, a tone-deaf attempt to maintain a broken status quo
There is much deeper analysis of each of these elements in the document attached. Thank you kindly! Glendale HE Response - Mike Van Gorder.docx
27K
611 of 1910
Analysis of the 6th Cycle Glendale Housing Element Draft Mike Van Gorder

Quick Notes
 The draft claims that Glendale has ‘no history of economic segregation’, despite providing a map that shows such economic segregation
 It claims Glendale has no history of racial segregation, despite the city council’s extraordinary acknowledgement by ordinance of Glendale’s histor y as a ‘Sundown Town’  The draft claims that the city can exclusively produce affordable units in the downtown area, and that such an availability means their RHNA targets are all satisfied; however, considering realistic development reduces the projected yield of low‐income sites from a surplus of 2,451 to a deficit of ‐2
,940
 An analysis of the downtown sites claimed reveals only five sites that suggest developability, further reducing the yield to a deficit of ‐3,580
 The draft misunderstands “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” as ‘responding to fair housing complaints’, rather than “acknowledge a history of racist housing policy to create opportu nities for underserved communities in both low‐resource and high‐resource areas”  The draft claims to meet RHNA goals without needing to upzone anywhere, yet due to the above figures it does not meet the goals, and upzoning wealthier neighborhoods is a key part of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
 The report ac
knowledges Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence without analysis and without mention of an intent to create low‐income opportunities therein  Public participation occurred after the draft was submitted to the state in violation of HE requirements
 The Housing Element Draft is certainly noncomplian t with state law and is, at its worst moments, a tone‐deaf attempt to maintain a broken status quo Analysis
The city housing department prides itself on being more productive than all its neighbors but falls into the exact same trap as it did in the 5th cycle – overproducing market rate units and failing to meet every other target below 120% Area Median Income. This Housing Element Draft will be noncompliant with state law.

The RHNA Shuffle – Core to the city’s comfort level with the draft element they’ve produced is the idea that they’ve found enough sites to accommodate their RHNA – and without the need for upzoning. The city notes 33 parcels in the Downtown Specific Plan as being “extremely feasible for redevelopment” but does not elaborate very well what criteria they use to determine this. [I have analyzed the sites in question and have determined that this is in bad faith, as some of these sites are recently built luxury apartments, some are long‐serving faith institutions, and most show no signs of being “extremely feasible”. This analysis is at the end of my comments.] They then assign the entirety of “assumed capacity” of all such parcels to the production of lower‐inc ome units, thereby justifying their claim of 5,038 low‐income unit sites in the RHNA, which then is used to defend a lack of RHNA siting for all other lower‐income categories.
612 of 1910
No project in the downtown area has been 100% affordable, and expecting thirty‐three consecutive such projects is unrealistic and smacks of bad faith. Per AB 1397, a site chosen for the housing element must consider the “realistic development capacity for the site” and the “typical densities of existing or approved residential developm ents at a similar affordability level in that jurisdiction”. The city failed to do this and claimed that every developable unit in every site in the downtown area would be developed and would be affordable. In reality, the only measure of affordable units in south Glendale has been inclusionary zoning. If we go off such in clusionary zoning measures, then the best we can expect is 15% of total produced units to be low income. Therefore, to reflect likelihood of development, the city must reduce the 5,038 units for its Low‐income RHNA to 755. The assumed surplus of +2,451 low‐income units in the RHNA will drop to a deficit of ‐1,832.

The city assumes that mixed use sites will only accommodate low‐income units. Based on likelihood of development, this 1,303 number must in good faith be reduced to 195. The city assumes that “residential sites” – by which we are led to un derstand means single‐family zoned areas – will only accommodate above moderate‐income units. This lets them maintain the idea that no upzoning is necessary, because according to their misleading accounting of the downtown development capacity the city’s lower‐income RHNA will have a 2,451 surplus. However, a far more honest (and legally compliant) nu
mber would incorporate likelihood of development – and be reduced to a deficit of ‐2,940.

The city claims that moderate and above moderate unit demand will be satisfied with the surplus from low‐income category. Without considering the market distortion of offering units intended for low‐income househ
olds to above‐moderate income households (which the city should do if it intends to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing), accounting for the likelihood of development means that there will again be a massive surplus of above moderate‐income sites and a huge gap for low‐ and moderate‐ income units. The ci
ty must find such sites elsewhere.

Furthermore, this 15% inclusionary‐zoning estimate of affordable unit yield is charitable. The “proposed projects” section outlines housing projects currently under review, and gives us a far bleaker image of likelihood of development:
o ELI/VI – 19 units, or 3.7% of its RHNA target
o LI – 1 unit, or .05%
o MI – 15%
While
this bodes slightly better for the agonizing ‘missing middle’ that is dramatically pronounced in the city’s housing portfolio, it suggests that less than five percent of housing development will be affordable to lower‐income households. Taking real‐world expectations into account, th
is is a failure to meet RHNA obligations. The city must find more sites or upzone more areas.

The presentation repeatedly mentioned that, “we didn’t have to upzone anywhere in order to meet our RHNA!” but this seems more like a desperate attempt to soothe twitchy homeowners than a wise or realistic goal.

Affirmatively Fur
thering Fair Housing – The legislative intent of AB 686, affirmatively furthering fair housing, is acknowledging that our housing systems were developed to protect and enrich some communities at the great expense of others. To affirmatively further fair housing, we need to see the physical deve
lopment of our cities and neighborhoods as more than some inevitable force that 613 of 1910
miraculously deposited older, whiter homeowners in the hills and everyone else scrunched together in between malls and auto dealerships. This draft housing element completely fails to affirmatively further fair housing because its concept of AFFH is “responding to housing discrimination complaints”. There is a difference between AFFH – which is acknowledging an ugly and lopsided econo mic history as essential toward creating opportunities for underserved communities – and housing discrimination, “fair housing” issues. This is mirrored in the city’s use of outdated Analysis of Impediments, and not the legally required Assessment of Fair Housing. The Analysis of Impediments as is provided is merely a laundry lis t of problems without any real analysis as how to resolve them. There is no calculation for goals, histories, or community participation. The housing department wants to identify poor areas and ‘replace segregated living patterns’, an empty quotation from AB 686. It does not mention wealthy areas, nor their role in maintainin
g segregative poverty.

The city cheerfully claims that there is not economic segregation in the community, referring to a chart (page 197) that absolutely demonstrates economic segregation in the community. Average income for a homeowner in Glendale is $116K and average income for a renter is $50K; there are virtually no opportuni
ties to rent in the Kenneth Village, Sparr Heights, San Rafael, and other hilly R‐1 neighborhoods. The lack of racial and economic analysis as to why this is the case – particularly after acknowledging without follow up that the city has Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence – is a glaring failure toward th
e legislative intent of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing.

The draft bafflingly claims that there is no historic patterns of segregation by race and ethnicity.

Glendale city council recently acknowledged via ordinance the city’s history as a Sundown Town, a deeply redlined, racially segregated whites‐only community that e ndured only until the Fair Housing Act.

The afterlife of all that segregation remains in the form of the R‐1 neighborhood and the incomes of homeowners being 2.32 times higher than renters. This housing element does not acknowledge or analyze Glendale’s segregative and racist housing history and thus does not satisfy the req uirements of AFFH.

This is physically borne out as the city continues to rely on its most modest areas to create any increase of density. I disagree that ‘affordable units are well dispersed throughout the community’, as is claimed under ‘Future growth need’. Any predominately single‐family nei ghborhood will offer only such ADUs as are not inhabited by members of the primary homeowners’ families – this is not ‘well dispersed’, it is an abdication of responsibility.

In terms of displacement risk, new development may not have an immediate and quantifiable effect on displacement, as is claimed. Though, of cour se, the residents of the apartments that were recently bulldozed to make room for the college’s Garfield parking lot might disagree. But certainly failing to provide real low‐income options – 0 units of ELI during the 5th cycle, half of what was needed for VI, two‐thirds of what was needed for LI, and barely over 5% of what was needed for MI – means that any displacement is permanent. 31 affordable units were created under the city’s density bonus ordinance, and 18,414 applications came in for them. Low‐income residents had a .16% chance of “winning” an affordable home! This, to the city counci l and the housing department, is ‘progress’.

Figure 6 shows where the RHNA allocation will go in relation to racial diversity, and claims that proposed lower‐income RHNA sites are going into places of high diversity, with no sites going into areas of lower diversity. This is not integratio n. Our most diverse places are our more modest neighborhoods, 614 of 1910
and Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence are lower‐diversity places that NEED racial and economic integration. That is the point.

Public input – This draft element was only made available to the public after it was submitted to HCD. But! Not before there was deep consultation with private housing developers. This flies directly against HCD r
equirements for public engagement. The take on access to opportunity in 7C is “we’ll try to find some poor people to serve on government boards” and then immediately undermines that with “as positions are made available”. Lower income folks do not have as much time! And why would “the community” participa
te in planning – like this – if their input is only solicited AFTER the draft has been submitted to the state? In keeping with AFFH, we need to recognize different communities. Older, whiter homeowners have far more ability to participate in local government and neighborhood‐defining activity than others. That means adjusting
the process to suit the more challenging schedules and
elevated needs of the people who cannot as easily participate. We need to meet our working‐class communities where they are, on their terms if we hope to benefit from their experience.

Weak Language – Goals are listed as being “considering” programs like tenant opportunity to purchase. Shouldn’t the goal be to create that kind of ordinance? In 3D the city vows to “continue to work with and identify”, which has no actionable goal. In 7C, “efforts may include”. In 2E “consider and implement other creative s olutions”. 1F has “evaluate potential incentives”. These are weasel words.

They are not goals, they’re feints.

Parking, still ‐ what did the city do with the destruction of the Glendale College Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing‐to‐parking‐lot units? Were “replacement” units provided at identical rents? What happened to those tenants? Adaptive reuse mu st include parking lots, and to address our glut of parking lots, we need to institute parking maximums. The city is overparked. In 3E, parking is blamed for the lack of development in commercial zones in the city. Why is parking required at all? Siting Problems – The downtown spe cific plan sites form the core of the city’s argument that the RHNA is satisfied. They list 33 sites and claim that they are ‘extremely feasible’ for redevelopment.

According to AB 1397, if the city relies on non‐vacant sites to meet 50% or more of its lower‐income RHNA target
s, it must supply substantial evidence that the present uses will end during the eight‐year housing cycle. It does not provide this evidence.

And anyway, the account of thirty‐three “good” sites is simply not true. I count five sites that are good candidates for development and eighteen that are absolutely not. Five out of thirty three sites drops our downtown RHNA unit potential to 15% of what was initially projected – 736 units, from 5,038.

If we calculate inclusionary zoning as being the sole reliable means of developing affordable housing on these sites, then we get 115 units of affordable hous ing. Adding this to our other demonstrated gap gives the city a ‐3,580 deficit in low‐income units.

First, the good choices.
 406 E Colorado is a small commercial building that is home to a medical center. It is underutilized, sandwiched between two habitually empty parking lot strips, and seems likely for renovation.
615 of 1910
 503 E Colorado is a pet grooming store, one of two active units on an underutilized strip mall, the other two units of which have been empty for years. I’m not sure why this address is on the list and not the other three.
 124 Maryland – now Artsakh Ave – is part of a massive comm ercial complex with a huge dine‐in movie theater. I believe 124 is the theatre, which just reopened under another brand name after being shut down by the pandemic. There are a half‐dozen businesses and restaurants here.

It’s in a less‐traversed part of the downtown comm ercial strip – the backside – but I’d estimate likelihood of development is middling.
 116 W Doran is the vestigial single‐floor commercial extension of a massive office building, currently housing a Wells Fargo. As offices start to go the way of the buffalo, turning this building int
o housing makes a lot of sense, though it would have to contend with the north‐ facing windows in the aforementioned office building (535 N Brand). Likelihood of development is middling.
 340 N Orange is a two‐story parking structure that feeds the Bank of America “Financial Center”.

I can’t speak to its being over or underutilized , but I’ve never used it and google maps images of the structure show it as being nearly empty.

Now, the bad ones.

 322 Americana Way is a theater that just very publicly signed a 15‐year lease with AMC. There is no likelih
ood of development.
 320 S Central is a very recent mixed‐use building, the Lex on Orange, that advertises an available studio at $2,332 and an available 2‐bedroom at $4,207. It is a dense, four‐story luxury complex that appears to be nearly leased up. It is unclear as to how more housing can be fit on it, nor how this fits into the city’s plan for affordable housing. o The city folds the same complex in its sites under the address 321 N Orange. Both addresses are completely built up and leased.
 300 S Central is another recent luxury apa rtment building, the Legendary. The same story as 320 S Central applies here.
 120 W Colorado is the site of a proposed hotel – the AC Hotel ‐ that the city council has fast‐ tracked, despite this author’s opposition to the site being used for something other than housing. It is deeply aggravating to see it on this lis t, currying credit for potential housing while
the city council is blasting past housing advocates to help turn it into another unneeded hotel.  326 E Colorado is the Hotel Xilo, which is active and enjoys a 4.6 rating on google.  500 E Colorado is a medi
cal and commercial center that JUST opened. There’s no way this is going to turn into housing within the next eight years.  305 E Colorado is the parking lot of the United Community Church. I would, admittedly, love to see housing here, but I don ’t know what the church plans to do with the lot.  300 W Colorado is a Robbins Brothers engagement ring store. I know that diamonds are going out of fashion because young people aren’t buying them for the same reasons that they’re not buying housing, but this building must be demolished to make new housing and it is unclear if the jeweler will be going out of business any time soon.  352 W Colorado is part of a large faith center (The Foundation of Niscience) that has existed in the same spot since 1953 and it is highly unli kely to leave. 616 of 1910
 200 W Broadway is the Dick’s Sporting Goods in the Glendale Galleria, a huge sports store that plugs directly into the indoor mall in two places. I would love to see this turn into housing but I cannot imagine it happening before 2030.
 225 W Broadway is the Glendale Financial Square, a massive com mercial lot where at least the Nurses’ Union (CNA) have a lease. The emblem on the outside of the building says “Social Security”, an institution that strikes me as being a sound long‐term lease.  313 E Broadway is the United States Post Office, which might be a historical landmark, beca use it certainly looks like it. No way does this get developed into housing.  305 E Harvard is three accessory buildings to the Glendale Presbyterian Church. The side of the building says, “Children’s Ministries” and I’d be interested to see if the church would sell all three build
ings. Nonetheless, I’d put likelihood as low.
 134 N Kenwood is the First Methodist Church of Glendale. I attended a community event here a while back. I don’t think it’s being bulldozed any time soon.  233 S Kenwood Street is the Lighthouse Bible Church Los Angeles. It’s manicured. Li kelihood is low.
 900 N Central is the Crab Avenue restaurant, which is, at the time of this writing, in business.

While the restaurant across the street has shuttered, the city needs to produce proof that the restaurant’s lease will expire during the 6th cycle.
 232 N Orange is the municipal parking lot that serves the downtown commercial district, just across from the Alex Theater. This is a rare parking lot that makes a lot of sense and serves a necessary purpose. There’s no way that the city will tear it down to build housing.

If I had far more time, I wou
ld as happily dive into the much longer list of what the city considers candidate sites. Nevertheless, the city wants to claim RHNA building potential on, among other things, three leased‐up, high‐density luxury apartment complexes, trying to have its cake and eat it too – have existing market‐rate housing coun
t as ‘potential low‐income sites’.

This draft does not conform with state law and must be rejected. 617 of 1910
Dear Erick Krause,

YWCA Glendale and Pasadena requests the Housing Element Planning Committee to engage the local community and advocacy organizations to address the historical and present-day racial inequities impacting the lives of women and girls in Glendale as part of the 6th Cycle (2021-20219) Housing Element Update.

The City of Glendale is the fourth largest in Los Angeles County. Census data stated the Black population in Glendale in 1920 was 0.16 percent, and in 2019, it was only 1.6 percent. The low population percentages result from historical anti-Black practices as acknowledged by the City on September 15, 2021, with the passing of a Sundown Town Resolution.

The disparate outcomes from these discriminatory housing programs reflected today include American Indian, Black, and other People of Color facing significant income inequality, poor health outcomes, exposure to environmental pollutants, low homeownership rates, high eviction rates, and poor access to healthy food, quality, and well-resourced schools, and infrastructure. In the 6th Cycle (2021-20219) Housing Element Update we urge you to develop and implement a new, community-driven goal, Goal 6 Racial Equity. The City has acknowledged unjust and unequal practices. Now is the time to address housing discrimination against communities of color as a root cause for disparate outcomes.

YWCA is an organization that relies on effective housing advocacy for women experiencing domestic violence. We work to advance racial equity through systems change approach and address the root causes of housing inequities.

We recognize that affordable, safe, and accessible housing is key to achieving economic vitality through this approach.

Racial equity is "both an outcome and a process." Racial equity prioritizes ensuring people of color have the opportunities they have historically been denied and from which they continue to be excluded (Reyes, 2021). Housing planning is critical to ensuring women and children have a safe and permanent home.

Through YWCA advocacy and services, we see how Black women and other women of color are discriminated against and harmed by systems, laws, and policies supposed to provide access to housing. At the same time, we rely on those very same systems and their implementation to aid so many of the more than 2,000 women, children, and families that we serve each year. We need to work together to ensure no family faces housing discrimination, in particular racial discrimination, in our city.

The 6th Cycle (2021-20219) Housing Element Update must:
• Amplify and prioritize BIPOC families in the City's engagement process, removing all barriers to civic engagement.
• Establish community-driven goals and policies for City officials to identify the City's existing and projected housing needs.
618 of 1910
• Operationalize the City's commitment as the Sundown Town Resolution stated.

Thus, reviewing and revising its policies, procedures, ordinances, values, goals, and mission through an anti-racism lens fosters an unbiased and inclusive environment free of discrimination and harassment toward any person or group.
o Measure racial and social equity in each step of the planning process for housing. Assess and pursue ways to achieve beneficial outcomes for American Indian, Black, and other People of Color.
o Develop strategies to repair the harm of historical racial, ethnic, and other social discrimination for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color. o Develop strategies to strengthen racial and cultural anchors and increase housing opportunities to build wealth.

Additionally, in September 2021, Governor Gavin Newsom signed 31 affordable housing bills focusing on four areas:
• Streamlining the building of new homes.
• Breaking down barriers to build more affordable housing. • Addressing systemic bias by elevating fair housing principles. • Holding local governments accountable under the new Housing Accountability Unit (HAU) at the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

The Housing Element Planning Committee, in a community-driven consultation process, can review the Technical Elements of Inclusionary Housing Policies and Practices, shown in Appendix A and that include the following highlights:
•  Choose income targets for the affordable units that match those of renter households of color. Most inclusionary housing policies have tended to serve households earning between 60% and 120% of Area Median Income (AMI).

But in many communities, renter households of color are disproportionately represented in lower-income groups below 60% of AMI.
•  Require or encourage the construction of unit sizes that match the household sizes of renter households of color. In some communities, new market-rate multifamily development is largely composed of smaller units— studios, one- bedrooms, and two-bedrooms. But low-income renter households of color may have disproportionately larger household sizes; for example, people of color are more likely to live in multigenerational households than White people. •  Adopt building design standards to avoid stigmatizing residents of affordable units: When people of color, regardless of their economic status, occupy buildings with predominantly White residents, they may experience "othering" or micro-aggressions from their neighbors, such as cold-shoulders, blame for noise, or suspicions about property damage.
• Consider the use of city subsidies to advance racial equity goals. New market- rate development tends to occur in high-opportunity areas from which people of color have been systematically excluded and are often unable to afford. In communities with stronger housing markets, inclusionary housing is an effective tool to provide affordable homes in high-opportunity areas. But in 619 of 1910
communities with less strong housing markets, it may not be financially feasible for developers to include affordable units in new market-rate development.
•  Base the decision about compliance alternatives on the needs and preferences of households of color. Some people assume that requiring affordable units to be built "on-site" with market-rate units is the best way to advance racial equity.

If a primary policy goal is to ensure that affordable units are built in high- opportunity neighborhoods from which people of color have been historically excluded, on-site development is by far the most straightforward way to achieve that goal.

As the Housing Element Planning Committee may identify, YWCA Glendale and Pasadena is pleased to support a community-driven process that advances racial equity in the 6th Cycle (2021-20219) Housing Element Update. We look forward to receiving your prompt reply.

620 of 1910
Hello Erik,

As a longtime resident and homeowner in Glendale with some experience in the land use arena, I would like to weigh in on the Draft Housing Element on behalf of the Adams Hill Neighborhood Association.

First, we are glad that no additional up zoning is required in order to meet the RHNA numbers. Past up zoning has resulted in the overdevelopment of market rate units, leaving very little land left for affordable housing.

As I mentioned during the November 15 Community Meeting, the Housing Plan should remove offensive, dehumanizing language such as “handicapped” and “the homeless” to refer to people with disabilities or to people who are experiencing homelessness.

The Draft Housing Element seems lacking in providing/addressing the following:
• The list of “Surplus City-owned lands” that the City has earmarked for possible affordable housing development.
• Where is the “Opportunity Area Map?”
• Which locations are considered “Underutilized Mixed-Use Sites” • One of the Goals is “A City with Housing that is Livable and Sustainable” but the Housing Element does not provide specifics on how we might encourage sustainable building practices. Given that construction is a major contributor to climate change, the Housing Element should provide actionable and measurable requirements.
• What are the Quality of Life Improvements for Neighborhood “Target Areas" as alluded to in “Program 2D.”
• Past Housing Elements have touched on the need for more Open Space and Recreation Areas, but the shortfall is getting worse instead of improving. the Plan should outside specific steps on how the extremely park starved areas of the City will be addressed.
• What are the specifics on how they plan to achieve “Goal 2: High quality residential neighborhoods that are well designed” amidst intensified streamlining that limits design review.
• How we can prioritize affordable housing when mandates like SB9 don’t require that housing be affordable?

In the November 15 Community meeting, someone commented on single room occupancy units (SRO) being only in hotel/motel zones. We are very much against allowing SRO development in residential zones. Cities such as New York experienced increases in crime in the SRO developments to the point that NYC incentivized developers to replace these crime magnets with other types of developments.

The Housing Element should focus on design equity for affordable units instead of allowing people of limited means to be relegated to substandard living conditions.

621 of 1910
Given that the City has a long record of overdeveloping market rate units, the Housing Element should include mandatory requirements that new multi-family housing contain high quality affordable housing. Affordable housing should not be made substandard through multiple concessions and incentives that degrade the quality of life for residents in and around the developments.

Thank you for your consideration.

Rondi Werner, CSI, CCS, CCCA, CDT, LEED GA, AIA Allied Vice President, Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council Vice President, Adams Hill Neighborhood Association
[email protected] | (818) 415-4832 mobile

622 of 1910
November 19, 2021
Gustavo Velasquez, Director
California Department of Housing & Community Development 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
Dear Director Velasquez:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the process of updating the housing element of Glendale’s general plan. We are writing on behalf ofAbundant Housing LAand YIMBY Law regarding Glendale’s 6th cycle housing element update. Abundant Housing LA is a pro-housing, nonprofit advocacy organization working to help solve Southern California’s housing crisis, andYIMBY Law’s mission is to make housing in California more accessible and affordable through enforcement of state housing law.

We support more housing at all levels of affordability and reforms to land use and zoning codes, which are needed in order to make housing more affordable, improve access to jobs and transit, promote greater environmental sustainability, and advance racial and economic equity.

Last autumn, AHLA shared a letter with the City of Glendale, providing guidance on how the City should fulfill both the letter and the spirit of housing element law. We have reviewed the City’s draft Housing Element,and have major concerns about the City of Glendale’s ability to meet its state-mandated RHNA targets. The staff report and draft site inventory are inconsistent with HCD’s instructions, and the requirement that housing element updates affirmatively further fair housing under Assembly Bill 686.

We have identified a number of concerns, which are listed below in the Executive Summary and detailed in the following Memorandum.Of particular concern is the improper counting of at least 1,537 housing units, completed during the 5th cycle, towards the 6th cycle RHNA goal (see section 3E).

Executive Summary
1A. The housing element does not prioritize rezoning in transit-rich, job-rich, and high-resource neighborhoods, including single-family zoned areas. 1B. The housing element fails to institute local programs and funding sources for preservation of existing affordable housing.
2A. The housing element does not adequately identify funding sources, public resources, and density bonus programs to maximize the likelihood that projects with below-market-rate units are built.
623 of 1910
2B. The housing element fails to streamline housing production. 3A. The housing element fails to estimate and report both the likelihood of discontinuation and the realistic capacity of inventory sites, both vacant and nonvacant. 3B. The housing element does not report the proportion of sites from the previous housing element’s inventory that were developed during the previous planning period, and HCD-recommended methodologies and data sources were not used in order to conduct a thorough “factors” analysis of sites’ realistic development capacity. 3C. The housing element assigns more than 50% of the lower-income RHNA target to nonvacant sites, but fails to use statistical methods to determine that the sites’ existing uses are likely to be discontinued during the planning period. 3D. A buffer of at least 15-30% extra capacity is not included in the housing element site inventory.
3E. The housing element improperly counts at least 1,537 units, completed during the 5th cycle, towards the 6th cycle RHNA goal. It also does not provide a quantitative estimate of the likelihood that in-pipeline projects will be completed, based on historical data, and does not adjust the number of in-pipeline units counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA target accordingly.
3F. The housing element does not commit to a mid-cycle review to verify the housing element’s assumptions about development probabilities.
3G. The housing element sets the City’s quantified objectives far below its RHNA targets. 4A. The housing element fails to meaningfully increase the concentration of lower-income households in areas of the city where the existing concentration of lower-income households is low.
4B. The housing element fails to meaningfully reduce the concentration of lower-income households in areas with low environmental quality and significant exposure to noise/pollution.
4C. The housing element does not adequately prioritize high-opportunity census tracts and well-resourced areas (e.g. near transit, jobs, schools, parks, etc.) when selecting sites for lower-income housing opportunities.
4D. The jurisdiction did not adequately solicit public feedback and commentary on the housing element in a way that accurately reflects the jurisdiction’s socioeconomic makeup.
2 624 of 1910
5A. The housing element appears to overestimate ADU production in order to support an overly optimistic forecast of future ADU production. The City did not use an HCD-recommended safe harbor methodology for forecasting future ADU production. 5B. The housing element does not commit to mid-cycle adjustments if inventory sites are developed at lower rates, or lesser densities, than the housing element anticipated and if ADU production falls short of projections. Mid-cycle adjustments should automatically implement a by-right density bonus on inventory sites, starting mid-cycle, and be designed to make up for an ADU shortfall.
5C. The housing element does not assess the affordability of forecasted ADUs using city-specific data; it instead uses a regional average.

Memorandum

1. Protections and preservation
A. The housing element does not adequately prioritize rezoning in transit-rich, job-rich, and high-resource neighborhoods, including single-family zoned areas. This is necessary to expand affordable housing opportunities while minimizing the impact on existing renters in multifamily-zoned areas.

AB 686 (2018) requires housing element updates to “affirmatively further fair housing”, which is defined as “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and fosters inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” The City must address the issue of residential segregation by accommodating the lower-income RHNA targets in a way that conforms with AFFH requirements.

HCD requires that a housing element’s site inventory and rezoning programs must not concentrate opportunities for affordable housing development in areas of segregation or high poverty. Rather, “sites must be identified throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing.”1 HCD recommends that jurisdictions distribute affordable housing opportunities throughout the jurisdiction, and first identify development potential for affordable housing in its best-resourced neighborhoods 2, as defined in the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map. Additionally, HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo defines “high-opportunity” holistically, defining areas with strong access to public transportation and job centers as being locations where affordable housing should be promoted through the housing element.3 These policies will create more affordable housing in well-resourced areas, promoting inclusion of people of all backgrounds and income levels in formerly exclusionary neighborhoods. 3 HCD, AFFH Guidance Memo, pg. 48
2 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 3
1 HCD, Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 9
3 625 of 1910
This is important because in our region, housing policy and land use perpetuate racist exclusion. Redlining and restrictive covenants, which restricted where Black, Latino/a/x, Indigenous people, and Asian Americans could live, were once common in Los Angeles County.

Discrimination in housing takes other forms today: even afterde juresegregation was banned, opponents of neighborhood change in prosperous areasweaponized zoning policy to make apartment construction illegal in much of Los Angeles County, especially in high-income areas.

Restrictive zoning has perpetuated historic patterns of segregation and exclusion, and continues to push affordable housing opportunities away from wealthy, high-opportunity cities and neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, the City has not proposed any rezoning to allow denser multifamily residential or mixed-use development on parcels where apartments are allowed today, and has not proposed the legalization of apartments in R1-zoned areas, which today make up 78% of the City’s residentially-zoned land. Though the City is effectively claiming that it has enough underutilized parcels to generate over 13,000 new homes by 2029, the likelier outcome is that the City will continue to build less housing than it needs (see section 3A), perpetuating the City and region’s housing shortage.

Proposed Sites Inventory (pg. 95, Background Report)
4 626 of 1910
Proposed Sites Inventory by TCAC Opportunity Areas (pg. 143, Background Report) 5 627 of 1910
Zoning map of Glendale (Source: SCAG HELPR tool)
Areas in yellow are zoned R1 (single-family)
However, the City can help to fulfill its AFFH obligations by creating more housing opportunities near jobs and transit. This is not a new idea in Glendale, which originally grew up around the Glendale Boulevard Red Car Line. By the mid-2020s, Glendale will host thePasadena-NoHo busway, adding another four rapid transit stations within the city limits. 6 628 of 1910
1920s-vintage buildings which should be allowed near the busway and Metrolink.

The City should rezone to allow larger buildings on all parcels within a half-mile of the Glendale Metrolink station and future busway, excluding sites within 500 feet of a freeway. When rezoning, Glendale should emulate the City of Los Angeles’s Transit Oriented Communities program, which offers generous by-right density bonuses to developers who include affordable housing in new developments near mass transit. Draft standards, modeled on existing buildings, are included below, as is a potential rezoning map.

Zoning map of Glendale with land close to Metro and Metrolink overlaid 7 629 of 1910
Proposed zoning standards near mass transit
Locale Height
allowed
Max density Floor-
Area
Ratio
Parking Density
bonus
Setbacks
≤ ½ mi. to
busway
or
Metrolink
125’ 166 DU/acre 6:1 None req'd;
Developer to
decide
50-80% Front: none
Side: none
Rear: 10’
Ending exclusionary zoning is necessary for the housing element to advance socioeconomic integration and greater housing affordability.The final housing element must make a stronger effort to affirmatively further fair housing and rezone sites in low-density, high-resource areas of Glendale to increase affordable and lower-income units in these neighborhoods, particularly near transit corridors.

B. The housing element fails to institute local programs and funding sources for preservation of existing affordable housing.

Under state law, a housing element must affirmatively “[a]ssist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households” (Gov't Code 65583(c)(2)). Additionally, HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo states that “The schedule of actions generally must (1) enhance the mobility of low-income and minority communities, (2) encourage the development of new affordable housing in high-opportunity areas, (3) protect existing residents from displacement, and (4) invest in disadvantaged places.”4 Housing elements should use available public resources, including real estate transfer taxes and publicly owned land, in order to fund and encourage the preservation of existing affordable housing, potentially through a local Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act, community land trusts, land banks, or assisting mission-driven nonprofits with acquisition of housing whose affordability covenants are close to expiration. This is important to ensure that lower-income households are able to maintain access to quality affordable housing options.

However, the draft housing element does not propose or commit to meaningful programs that would provide the financial resources necessary to preserve affordable housing. While the housing element discusses the need to preserve subsidized affordable housing and rehabilitate housing whose residents typically have low incomes, its proposed actions lack a meaningful, specific commitment to funding, making these actions unlikely to preserve these at-risk units.

We urge the City to increase its commitment to funding and supporting affordable housing preservation and production.
4 AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 54
8 630 of 1910
Recommendations - Protections and preservation:
● Rezone parcels located near transit, job centers, schools, and parks in order to expand the supply of housing in high- and highest-resource areas, including R1 parcels where single-family detached homes are currently mandated by law. ● Identify additional funding sources to support the preservation of existing affordable housing, including building repair/maintenance and enforcement of the building code/habitability requirements.

2. Prioritization of affordable housing
A. The housing element does not adequately identify funding sources, public resources, and density bonus programs to maximize the likelihood that projects with below-market-rate units are built.

Under state law, a housing element must affirmatively “[a]ssist in the development of adequate housing to meet the needs of extremely low, very low, low, and moderate-income households” (Gov't Code 65583(c)(2)). Additionally, HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo makes clear that “The schedule of actions generally must (1) enhance the mobility of low-income and minority communities, (2) encourage the development of new affordable housing in high-opportunity areas, (3) protect existing residents from displacement, and (4) invest in disadvantaged places.”5
To accomplish these goals, housing elements should incorporate a program that creates affordable units, such as a density bonus program or base-bonus incentive system, that would apply to rezoned parcels. This will ensure that new housing development will directly create affordable units within mixed-income properties.

The City of Los Angeles’s Transit Oriented Communities program, which offers generous by-right density bonuses to developers who include affordable housing in new developments near mass transit, is worth emulating. Transit Oriented Communities has led to theproposal of over 35,000 homes (of which 20% are deed-restricted affordable units) in Los Angeles.

Unfortunately, Glendale’s housing element does not propose a local density bonus that exceeds the state density bonus program’s incentives, nor does it propose other new local programs to meaningfully encourage mixed-income and affordable housing production. The proposed Program 3A is simply an implementation of AB 2345 (2020), which updates the state’s density bonus program.6 The stated goal of Program 3A is to encourage “one density bonus project per year (without other public funding assistance), with a minimum of 8 units affordable to Very Low income households.”7 Glendale must set its sights higher for mixed-income housing production, especially given that thousands of subsidized units are needed to meet the City’s RHNA goals.
7 Housing Element Housing Plan, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 29 6 Housing Element Housing Plan, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 29 5 AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 54
9 631 of 1910
Additionally, Glendale’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance imposes heavy mandatory set-aside requirements: new residential development larger than 7 units must set aside 15% of total units for lower and moderate households, with fractional units rounded up.8 A set-aside percentage this high imposes a major cost that discourages development, as occurred when very high inclusionary requirements were introduced in recent years in San Francisco and Downtown Santa Monica.

Glendale’s inclusionary zoning policy should be revised to create a strong local density bonus program, which would encourage the production of affordable units, a stated objective of the housing element. This should include much larger density bonuses, higher maximum height and FAR limits, faster permitting, and less on-site parking than the state program, and should also apply these incentives to parcels zoned R1 (the state program does not apply to these parcels).

This would create powerful new economic incentives for redevelopment, spurring more mixed-income housing production and creating more subsidized units.

B. The housing element fails to streamline housing production.

Housing element law requires cities to provide an analysis of governmental constraints on housing development, as well as a program to mitigate or remove these governmental constraints. This is important because local governmental constraints are a major reason why housing production in most California cities is low.

Unfortunately, building housing in Glendale is slow and difficult, due to the City’s complex regulatory regime. A few examples:
● Parking requirements: The City imposes heavy on-site parking requirements for new housing, particularly for multifamily dwelling units. The City requires most studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units to provide 2 parking spaces per unit, and even requires guest parking to be provisioned.9 This raises construction costs substantially and makes new multifamily housing less feasible to build. ● Open space requirements and minimum lot sizes:The City requires most multifamily development to leave 25-30% of the lot unbuilt, and mandates large setback and yard sizes.10 The City also sets a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet in mixed-use zones.11
● Maximum building sizes and density limits: The City sets unreasonably low maximum FARs, building heights, and density limits for most new multifamily development, even in R1250 zones (“High Density Residential’). Such zones only allow a maximum density of 36-60 homes/acre,12 and a maximum FAR of 1.2,13 making high-density residential development difficult to achieve in practice. ● Project approval process: Given the restrictive nature of the base zoning code, many housing projects in Glendale request general plan or zoning amendments, a 13 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 69 12 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 56 11 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 70 10 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 69 9 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 72 8 Housing Element Housing Plan, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 33 10 632 of 1910
discretionary process that involves a public hearing and City Council approval.14 New housing construction also typically requires Design Review Board approval. It’s worth noting that processing time for permitting a multifamily unit is 3-6 months, while processing time for permitting a single-family home is only 2-3 months. 15 These unreasonable roadblocks, from which single-family housing is exempted, make the process of approving multifamily housing lengthy and unpredictable, and inject political interference into the process.

As a result of these many constraints, the city’s housing stock only grew less than 3% between 2010 and 202016, the median rent is nearly $1,750/month17, and the median home price now exceeds $1 million.18 Per Professor Chris Elmendorf of the University of California, Davis and his co-authors ofSuperintending Local Constraints on Housing Development, the above data suggest that restrictive land use rules are making homebuilding difficult in Glendale, leading to continued shortage and high costs.

However, while the housing element discusses governmental constraints in detail, it does not commit to a strong program to remove policy constraints that deter housing production. For example, the proposed Program 8B would “Identify additional opportunities beyond those already provided to enable permit streamlining to increase the production of housing in Glendale…”19 A weak promise to “identify” is not the same as specific commitments to expanding by-right permitting to specific categories of projects, by a specific implementation date.

Government Code Section 65583(c) requires housing elements to include programs with concrete action steps to facilitate housing production.20 This is hardly an impossible target; other cities in California have successfully implemented process reforms that streamline housing production. For example, the City of Los Angeles’ Transit Oriented Communities program approves qualifying mixed-income and 100% affordable projects by-right, leading to an average approval time of 6 months for these projects. Glendale could adopt a similar process to dramatically streamline the process of building new housing.

Second, the City should abolish or drastically limit the scope of design review. The City simply ignores the fact that Design Review is a purely discretionary action, subject to the whims of the Design Review Board, and not required to be granted. In addition, the City subjects almost all proposed buildings to design review, which is slow, subjective, and vulnerable to political meddling.
20 “The element shall contain all of the following: A program [or programs] that sets forth a schedule of actions during the planning period, each with a timeline for implementation, that may recognize that certain programs are ongoing, such that there will be beneficial impacts of the programs within the planning period, that the local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the housing element through the administration of land use and development controls, the provision of regulatory concessions and incentives…” 19 Housing Element Housing Plan, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 52 18 Zillow Home Value Index, September 2021
17 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 37 16 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 34 15 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 73 14 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 74 11 633 of 1910
Third, the City can make more development viable by making on-site parking optional to provide, an important reform that would reduce housing costs and encourage more residential construction. Today, providing one parking space per unit increases the cost of a new home by

12.5%;21 an above-ground garage space costs an average of $24,000 to build and an underground space costs $34,000.22
We urge Glendale to commit to major constraint removal policies in order to streamline affordable housing growth.

Recommendations - Prioritization of Affordable Housing:
● Introduce a density bonus program similar to Los Angeles’ Transit Oriented Communities program (with 50-80% density bonuses) to permit additional affordable housing to be built near mass transit.
● Establish a fast by-right review process for all new multifamily and mixed-use buildings which meet the zoning law and the General Plan.Sacramento’s Ministerial Housing Ordinance is an excellent model to follow.
● Eliminate conditional use permit requirements for multifamily development. ● Abolish or drastically limit the scope of the Design Review Board. ● Pre-approve standard ADU, small-scale “missing middle” multifamily and small lot subdivision housing plans, allowing developers to receive a permit quickly if they use a pre-approved design.
● Eliminate on-site parking requirements, instead allowing property owners to decide how much on-site parking is necessary.
● Reduce restrictions on maximum height, floor-area ratio, unit size, and lot coverage.

3. Site Capacity Assessment
A. The housing element fails to estimate and report both the likelihood of discontinuation and the realistic capacity of inventory sites, both vacant and nonvacant.

Assembly Bill 1397 (2017) requires cities to provide an accurate assessment of realistic site capacity, including “the city’s or county’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current demand for the existing use, and an analysis of existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment.”
While the Housing Element Law does not expressly use the term “likelihood of development,” legal scholars from across the state have shownthat AB 1397 (2017), read together with other recent laws, requires cities to discount sites’ capacity by the sites’ probability of development during the planning period. The Legislature has also put HCD in the driver’s seat for purposes of 22 http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/HighCost.pdf
21 https://www.vtpi.org/park-hou.pdf
12 634 of 1910
resolving any ambiguities about the definition or calculation of site capacity. Specifically, SB 6 (2019) authorizes HCD to promulgate “standards, forms, and definitions” for the site inventory and associated assessment of site capacity and constraints. An accurate assessment of the site inventory’s housing capacity is necessary in order for the housing element to achieve sufficient housing production.

The site capacity estimate should account for the followingtwo factors, as required by HCD guidelines:
● Likelihood of discontinuation23 - What is the likelihood that the site’s existing use will be discontinued, and that it will be redeveloped during the planning period? ● Realistic capacity24 - If the site were to be redeveloped during the planning period, how many net new units of housing are likely to be built on it? The portion of the jurisdiction’s RHNA target that a site will realistically accommodate during the planning period is:
(likelihood of discontinuation) x (realistic capacity) = expected additional development potential during the 6th cycle
The draft housing element identifies a theoretical zoned capacity of 14,744 housing units: 8,874 units on underutilized or vacant lots, 1,272 ADUs, 503 units in proposed projects not yet entitled, 1,344 units entitled but not under construction, 2,052 units under construction or built since June 30, 2021, and 699 existing units converted to deed-restricted affordable housing.25 However, the analysis doesn’t estimate a likelihood of discontinuation for site inventory parcels, effectively assuming that about 85% of site inventory parcels will be redeveloped during the 6th cycle.26
Housing production data from the 5th cycle casts doubt on the City’s implicit assumption that 8,874 homes will be built on underutilized parcels by 2029. In 2014, Glendale’s 5th cycle housing element claimed theoretical capacity for roughly 10,000 more housing units.27 But through 2020, Glendale permitted 3,972 homes28, which equates to 4,539 homes permitted by the end of the 5th cycle (assuming that the same annual permitting pace continues in 2021).

This implies that in Glendale, excess zoned capacity has only a45% likelihood of being developed (4,539 actual units divided by 10,000 theoretical units).

The City of Los Angeles’ 6th cycle housing element provides additional evidence that most parcels’ existing use is unlikely to discontinue in the near term. Together with the Terner Center, the City developed a sophisticated parcel-level econometric modelto estimate the additional 28 HCD Annual Progress Report dataset, 2020
27 Glendale 5th Cycle Housing Element, pg. 175
26 The City proposes to create 5,870 homes through in-pipeline projects, conversion of existing buildings to deed-restricted affordable housing, and ADUs, indicating that the remaining 7,555 homes needed to achieve the RHNA target would be created on site inventory parcels. Since the City claims that the site inventory contains enough theoretical zoned capacity for 8,874 homes, they therefore imply that 85% of the identified zoned capacity on the site inventory will be built by 2029. 25 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 88-90 and pg. 102 24 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 20
23 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 21
13 635 of 1910
development potential of its site inventory during the 6th cycle, using recent development trend data to forecast likely future residential development. The model forecasted that the sites with the strongest redevelopment opportunities (i.e. in the top 1 percent of redevelopment likelihood) only had a13% probability of redevelopmentduring the coming 8 years. This suggests that simply relying on underutilized parcels was unlikely to be an effective strategy for achieving the RHNA target, and that significant rezoning was therefore necessary.29 Additionally, the City assumes that all underutilized residential site inventory parcels will be built to 75% of the legal maximum, all mixed-use parcels will be built to 50% of the legal maximum, and that all Downtown Specific Plan sites will be developed to 90% of legal maximum capacity.

However, given the complex and restrictive nature of development in Glendale, it’s reasonable to assume that developers will build to a lower percentage of the legal maximum, which is the norm in comparable cities. For example, in Santa Monica,developers regularly build far less than the legal maximum due to that city’s restrictive zoning requirements. In Burbank, developers build to about 60-80% of the legal maximum zoning for market-rate developments.30 Glendale does not provide equivalent data on historical use of residential land; it should estimate site capacity based on historical usage of zoned capacity on residentially-zoned land, but it does not. Per HCD guidelines, “When establishing realistic unit capacity calculations, the jurisdiction must consider the cumulative impact of standards such as maximum lot coverage, height, open space, parking, on-site improvements such as sidewalks or easements, and floor area ratios. The analysis should consider any development standards or the cumulative effect of development standards that would limit the achievable density on a site.”31 Finally, the City’s projections for how much housing that is affordable to lower-income households will be built on the proposed site inventory are unrealistic. Strangely, the City assumes that all units built in the Downtown Specific Plan Area and on Underutilized Mixed-Use Sites will all be affordable to lower-income households, while all units built on Underutilized and Vacant Residential Sites are counted towards the above moderate-income RHNA target.32 This is an especially odd assumption, given that many of the proposed Underutilized Mixed-Use and Downtown sites (counted entirely towards the lower-income RHNA target) are frequently within 1-2 blocks of proposed Underutilized Residential Sites (counted entirely towards the above moderate-income RHNA target).33
The City’s claims about lower-income housing development potential on individual sites are also questionable. For example, the City claims that a hotel at 120 W Colorado St will be redeveloped into 95 below-market-rate units, even though there is no plan to fund such development. For comparison, when the South Bay Galleria in Redondo Beach was redeveloped with a 150-room hotel, 300 apartments, and 217,000 square feet of retail space, only 30 units of deed-restricted affordable housing were built. Glendale’s effective claim, that 33 See map of site inventory on pg. 5 of this letter.
32 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 102 31 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 20
30 Burbank Draft Housing Element 2021-2029, 1-72
29 Appendix 4.6, Housing Element, City of Los Angeles, October 2021 draft, pg. 22-23. The model predicted that the top 1% of sites had an 8.6% probability of redevelopment in the coming 5 years, which is equivalent to a 13.4% probability over 8 years. 14 636 of 1910
nearly all of the site inventory parcels in Downtown will be redeveloped, and that all of it will be affordable to lower-income households, is simply not credible.

The City mustfairly estimate the likelihood of discontinuation and realistic capacity for all parcels on the suitable sites inventory.There are multiple acceptable approaches: as discussed above, the City of Los Angeles’ sites inventory model provides a strong data-driven approach. The City of Sacramento’s draft site inventory provided a high-quality, numerical analysis of the likelihood of their sites’ development through a “tiered classification system to classify the non-vacant underutilized sites”.34 Either approach offers a good model for the City to build on.

B. The housing element does not report the proportion of sites from the previous housing element’s inventory that were developed during the previous planning period, and HCD-recommended methodologies and data sources were not used in order to conduct a thorough “factors” analysis of sites’ realistic development capacity.

Assembly Bill 1397 (2017) requires cities to provide an accurate assessment of realistic site capacity, including “the city’s or county’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current demand for the existing use, and an analysis of existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment.”
To assess the likelihood of development, a city can calculate a citywide discount factor, using the proportion of 5th Cycle sites subsequently developed as a starting point. One approach could be to create a citywide estimate of a site’s redevelopment likelihood during the 6th Cycle, and apply that discount factor to all housing element sites. The Site Inventory Guidebook states, “if no information about the rate of development of similar parcels is available, report the proportion of parcels in the previous housing element’s site inventory that were developed during the previous planning period”.35
Alternatively, cities could estimate a citywide discount factor by comparing citywide unbuilt capacity at the beginning of the 5th Cycle to the number of homes permitted citywide during the 5th Cycle. Cities could also make reasonable neighborhood-specific estimates of redevelopment likelihood, based on recent development trends and market conditions. The proportion of 5th Cycle sites that were later developed is an important piece of evidence validating the 6th Cycle housing element’s assumptions about redevelopment likelihood, which is why cities must report it.Unfortunately, the City does not report the proportion of 5th Cycle sites subsequently developed, nor does it undertake a quality “factors” analysis using any of the above suggested methodologies.

C. The housing element assigns more than 50% of the lower-income RHNA target to nonvacant sites, but fails to use statistical methods (e.g. surveying a random sample of 35 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 21
34 Public Review Draft, City of Sacramento Housing Element 2021-2029, p. H-2-15 15 637 of 1910
owners of nonvacant sites) to determine that the sites’ existing uses are likely to be discontinued during the planning period.

One option we recommend is the Survey Method; the city would survey the owners of each lower-income sample site and ask whether they intend to discontinue the site’s current use and sell or redevelop the site during the next eight years. Another option is the Historical Redevelopment Rate Method; the city would calculate the share of owners in each category who filed permits for demolition, change of use, or redevelopment during the previous planning period.

The draft housing element defines “underutilized residential sites” as parcels with potential for at least two additional units, where the existing building was developed before 1990, and the site inventory is composed of parcels that meet these two conditions.39 While this is a reasonable way to filter out sites whose existing use isunlikely to discontinue, this is not the same as undertaking a robust analysis to demonstrate that sites’ existing uses arelikely to discontinue during the 6th Cycle, and does not qualify as “substantial evidence”. The City did not utilize either the Survey Method or the Historical Redevelopment Rate Method to provide evidence that redevelopment has a high likelihood of occurring on the parcels in the site inventory. The City did not explain why these sites may be good candidates for redevelopment, and did not 39 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 98 38 HCD, Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 20-21
37 HCD, Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 19
36 Review of City of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element, 7/30/21, Appendix, pg. 2.“The element must include an analysis to demonstrate the potential for additional development. The methodology shall consider factors including the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, the City’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current market demand for the existing use, an analysis of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development...In addition, relying on nonvacant sites to accommodate 50 percent or more of the housing needs for lower-income households triggers requirements to make findings based on substantial evidence that the existing use is not an impediment and will likely discontinue in the planning period.” 16 638 of 1910
provide letters from property owners indicating their interest in selling or redeveloping parcels on the site inventory. This appears to violate AB 1397.

D. A buffer of at least 15-30% extra capacity is not included in the housing element site inventory. This capacity buffer is especially necessary in order to accommodate the lower-income RHNA target.

The No Net Loss law established by SB 166 (2017) requires adequate sites to be maintained at all times throughout the planning period to accommodate the remaining RHNA targetby each income category.40 If a jurisdiction approves a development on a parcel listed in the site inventory that will have fewer units (either in total or at a given income level) than the number of units (either in total or at a given income level) anticipated in the site inventory, then the jurisdiction must identify and make available enough sites to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA target for each income category.41
If additional sites with adequate zoned capacity don’t exist, then the jurisdiction must rezone enough sites to accommodate the remaining unmet RHNA target within 180 days. If the jurisdiction fails to accomplish this rezoning in the required period, then the consequences will include decertification of the housing element and potential state legal action. HCD recommends that “the jurisdiction create a buffer in the housing element inventory of at least 15-30% more capacity than required, especially for capacity to accommodate the lower income RHNA.”42 This is important because it ensures that adequate affordable housing capacity exists in the housing element through the 6th Cycle.

The City’s draft housing element claims to provide capacity for 14,744 housing units, 10% higher than the City’s RHNA goal of 13,425 homes.43 The City has not fulfilled HCD’s recommendation to maintain a 15-30% capacity buffer in aggregate and at each income level, giving the City little margin if a site intended for affordable housing is developed with market-rate housing. Additionally, it is worth reiterating that the City’s claimed development potential for 8,053 lower-income housing units is premised on the unrealistic assumption thatall new development in the City’s Downtown Specific Plan and on parcels designated for mixed-use redevelopment will be affordable to lower-income households (see Section 3A). 43 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 102 42 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 22
41 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 22
40 HCD No Net Loss Law Memo, pg. 1
17 639 of 1910
Comparison of claimed vs. estimated additional development potential Income
Category RHNA Target
Claimed
Capacity in
Draft HE NNL Buffer
Estimated
Add'n Dev
Potential in
Draft HE
(45% dev
likelihood)
Recommended
Add'n Dev
Potential
w/20% NNL
Gap in
Add'n Dev
Potential
VLI + LI 5,602 8,053 44% 3,624 6,722 -3,099
MI 2,249 1,664 -26% 749 2,699 -1,950
AMI 5,574 5,027 -10% 2,262 6,689 -4,427
Total 13,425 14,744 10% 6,635 16,110 -9,475
The City should ensure that enough housing capacity is created to provide 15-30% capacity buffers at each level of income, to avoid violating the No Net Loss requirement.

Otherwise, the City risks falling afoul of the No Net Loss requirement, making it vulnerable to mid-cycle rezoning, a costly process in terms of time, money, and political will.

E. The housing element improperly counts at least 1,537 units, completed during the 5th cycle, towards the 6th cycle RHNA goal. It also does not provide a quantitative estimate of the likelihood that in-pipeline projects will be completed, based on historical data, and does not adjust the number of in-pipeline units counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA target accordingly.

HCD allows cities to count permitted or entitled units towards its 6th Cycle RHNA goals, on the grounds that some of these projects will be built during the 6th Cycle. However, the city must realistically estimate how many of these units will ultimately be built during the 6th Cycle, based on recent historical data. This is necessary because not every pending project gets approved, and not every approved project gets built. Assuming that all permitted or entitled projects will ultimately be built is a faulty assumption, and would make it likelier that the city does not achieve its 6th Cycle RHNA goals.

The City has counted 2,052 units in projects that were permitted after June 30, 2021, or were under construction or completed as of June 30, 2021, towards the 6th Cycle RHNA target.44 However, at least 1,537 of the City’s claimed 2,052 units were completed well before June 30, 2021. In some cases, these buildings have housed residents since 2016.

For example:

Address Number of units claimed Building information
3903 (3901-3915) San
Fernando Rd
144 units (132 MI, 12 VLI) The Link Glendale, which
44 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 89-90 and pg. 94 18 640 of 1910
was open and for rent as of
May 24, 2021
4201 Pennsylvania Ave 30 AMI units This is a townhome
community that was
completed in 2019
327 Salem St 43 units (22 VLI, 21 LI) This is Veterans Village, a home for lower-income
veterans that opened in 2016
515 W Broadway 180 units (172 AMI, 8 VLI) This is the Vestalia, which opened in 2019
633 N Central (Bldg A), 540
N Central (Bldg B)
507 MI units This is the Altana Glendale,
which was near completion in
2016.

Google Map Reviews indicate
that renters have been living
here since 2017.

Additionally, the least
expensive units in this
complex rent for $2,500,
calling into question why
these units were counted
towards the MI category.
3903 San Fernando Rd 142 units (130 MI, 12 VLI) A double counting of The Link Glendale (see above)
600-610 N Central 235 AMI units This is the Modera Glendale; Google Map Reviews indicate
that renters have been living
here since 2018
300 N Central 71 AMI units This is the Legendary
Glendale, opened in 2015
319 N Central (aka 313 W.

California) and 301 N. Central
(aka 304 Myrtle)
185 units (177 AMI, 8 VLI) This is the Onyx Glendale,
built in 2016
It is completely unacceptable that the City has double-counted these buildings, completed during the 5th cycle, towards its 6th cycle RHNA goals. Given the seriousness of this error (or perhaps deliberate effort to justify a housing element that does not include rezoning to meet the RHNA), HCD must disallow the City from counting any of the 2,052 units on the list towards the 6th cycle RHNA goal, unless the City provides clear evidence that the site is truly in the process of being completed as of June 30, 2021. 19 641 of 1910
Additionally, the City has counted the following towards the 6th cycle RHNA target:
● 1,344 units in projects that have been entitled or approved, but not yet permitted ● 503 units that have been proposed but not yet approved The City has therefore assumed that all 1,847 units will ultimately be built, without adjusting for the likelihood that some will not.

Glendale should instead emulate the approach taken by the City of Los Angeles. TheirInitial Study counted active planning entitlements, approved planning entitlements with no building permit, and permitted projects that have not yet been completed towards its 6th Cycle RHNA goals, but discounted each category based on the share of proposed units expected to be built, using the City’s historical data.

The City must incorporate a similar estimate into its Inventory Analysis.Using data from recent projects, the City of Los Angeles estimated that 37% of projects with pending entitlements, 45% of projects with approved entitlements, and 79% of permitted projects, are ultimately completed. 45 Glendale should discount the number of pending and approved entitlements counted toward its RHNA target by at leastthe same factors:
1,344 units permitted x 45% chance of completion = 605 units 503 units pending entitlement x 37% chance of competition = 186 units Thus, the City might reasonably claim 791 units from pending and entitled projects towards its RHNA. The City could also use local data from recent projects to estimate these percentages.

But the City should certainly not count 1,847 units towards its 6th cycle RHNA goal.

F. The housing element does not commit to a mid-cycle review to verify the housing element’s assumptions about development probabilities.

No city can perfectly forecast future redevelopment trends, and it is entirely possible that despite best efforts, a city’s 6th Cycle housing production falls short of the RHNA target due to less redevelopment than expected.

For this reason,the City should commit to a mid-cycle review of all housing production relative to the RHNA target, perhaps by comparing the proportion of sites that were developed by midcycle to the housing element’s assumed likelihood of development at the start of the cycle. The housing element should provide for by-right density bonuses on inventory sites and/or implement a fallback rezoning plan, which would automatically take effect mid-cycle in the event of a production shortfall. This is necessary in order to ensure that the City remains on track to achieve its RHNA target by the end of the 6th Cycle.

G. The housing element sets the City’s quantified objectives far below its RHNA targets. 45 Initial Study, City of Los Angeles, pg. 21
20 642 of 1910
Although the City’s RHNA target is 13,425 homes, the City has defined its quantified objective as only 5,510 homes, without providing a justification as to why the RHNA target is not achievable.46 The City has essentially implied that it has no other policy options available to accommodate the RHNA target for below-market-rate units, or to encourage the production of housing that is naturally affordable for moderate-income households. The City has also indicated that only 60% of the above moderate-income target (3,350 homes out of a 5,574 home RHNA target) will be built by 2029, suggesting that either the private market is not interested in building 5,574 homes (an unlikely scenario given extremely high rents and home prices in Glendale), or that the City is unwilling to implement policies that would stimulate enough private-sector housing production to achieve the above moderate-income RHNA target.

Quantified Objectives, Draft Housing Element, pg. 58
Fortunately, the City does have additional policy options available. The City should create a best-in-class local density bonus program, and should rezone low-density residential parcels to make them eligible for density bonus incentives (see Section 2A). This would encourage the production of more mid-rise and high-rise residential housing containing deed-restricted affordable units. Demand for housing in Glendale is extremely strong, suggesting that a well-designed density bonus program would be likely to yield a large number of new affordable and market-rate units.

The City should also support this outcome by committing through its housing element to aggressive constraint removal programs (see Section 2B), with the goal of further improving the economic feasibility of mixed-income redevelopment. Additionally, the City should implement policies that encourage the production of housing typologies that are affordable by design and available at moderate cost without subsidy, such as fourplexes, microunits, and buildings that do not have on-site parking garages.
46 Housing Element Housing Plan, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 58 21 643 of 1910
Cities should not set quantified objectives below its RHNA targets without exhausting all practicable options for increasing housing production during the planning period. The City must increase its quantified objectives and implement policies that encourage additional housing production at all levels of income.

Recommendations - Site Capacity Assessment:
● Provide a quantitative estimate of parcels’ development probabilities, and incorporate this factor into the estimate of sites’ realistic capacity. ● Report the proportion of sites in the previous housing element's inventory that were developed during the planning period.
● Share letters from owners of the site inventory parcels, indicating their interest in selling or redeveloping these properties during the 6th Cycle. ● Remove parcels from the site inventory where redevelopment is unlikely to occur during the 6th Cycle.
● If the City lacks enough suitable sites to achieve the RHNA target, rezone additional parcels where redevelopment is likely.
● Identify sufficient sites to provide a 15-30% No Net Loss buffer, especially for the VLI, LI, and MI categories, and rezone if there aren’t enough suitable sites to provide this buffer.
● Ensure that all projects completed during the 5th cycle are not counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA target.
● Provide a quantitative estimate of the likelihood that in-pipeline projects will be completed, based on historical data, and adjust the number of in-pipeline units counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA target accordingly.
● Commit to a mid-cycle review to verify Planning’s assumptions about development probabilities.
● Set quantified objectives equal to the City’s RHNA targets at all income levels.

4. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A. The housing element fails to meaningfully increase the concentration of lower-income households in areas of the city where the existing concentration of lower-income households is low.

HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memoestablishes a number of important principles for promoting fair housing, including that the distribution of housing-element inventory sites with lower or moderate income capacity must not be skewed toward lower-income neighborhoods. This is 22 644 of 1910
necessary in order to reverse the concentration of lower-income households and communities of color in high-poverty neighborhoods that lack economic and educational opportunities.

The guidance memo requires cities to calculate the percentage of households at lower, moderate, and above-moderate income levels in each census tract or “block group” in the city, and then do the same for the lower, moderate, and above-moderate-income RHNA units assigned to the tract or block group. The share of lower-income RHNA units assigned to tracts (or block groups) with a higher-than-average share of lower-income households should be less than the current share of lower-income households in those tracts.47 HCD’s recent AFFH guidance makes it abundantly clear that this benchmark will be used to help determine AFFH compliance.

Unfortunately, the draft housing element does not provide evidence that its proposed distribution of lower-income housing opportunities would reduce the concentration of lower-income households in locations with an existing concentration of low- and moderate-income households. In fact, the City does not provide data on how much of the lower-income RHNA target would be accommodated outside of majority-LMI census tracts, or data on the distribution of site inventory parcels by median income of the neighborhood.

However, the City’s site inventory map indicates that most lower-income site inventory parcels are located in blockgroups with below-average incomes, and that the City’s highest-income blockgroups (median household incomes above $125,000) would accommodate no lower-income site inventory parcels.48 This arrangement is unlikely to reduce the concentration of lower-income households in lower-income areas.
48 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 129 47 AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 47
23 645 of 1910
Proposed Lower-Income Sites Inventory and Blockgroups by Median Household Income (pg. 129, Background Report)
Additionally, very few lower-income sites are located in areas where white residents make up a large majority of the population.
24 646 of 1910
Proposed Lower-Income Sites Inventory and Blockgroups by Demographic Makeup (pg. 131, Housing Element Background Report)
This flies in the face of the City’s stated Policy 1.3, to “Promote the dispersion of affordable housing throughout the City while recognizing the potential for the integration of market rate and affordable units within individual projects.”49, since the lower-income site inventory distribution generally excludes the City’s wealthiest and whitest neighborhoods. 49 Housing Element Housing Plan, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 4 25 647 of 1910
Furthermore, the City’s proposed site inventory is unlikely to create a sufficient number of housing units that are affordable to households with low incomes,anywhere in the City. This is because it does not include enough parcels where redevelopment is economically feasible (see Section 3A), proposes most units on sites with pre-existing uses that are unlikely to be discontinued during the 6th cycle (see Section 3C), dissuades the development of affordable housing in high-resource, low-density areas (see Section 1A), and does not commit to the major reforms to zoning, land use, and project approval that are necessary in order to make strong housing development at all income levels realistic (see Section 2B). All this is a recipe for missing the RHNA target, especially at the lower-income levels, which means that the housing element is unlikely to create a significant number of affordable housing opportunities in Glendale. This would fail to advance the goal of socioeconomic integration or greater housing affordability.

B. The housing element fails to meaningfully reduce the concentration of lower-income households in areas with low environmental quality and significant exposure to noise/pollution.

HCD’s AFFH guidance memo also requires cities to consider locations’ environmental quality when developing a housing element’s site inventory and rezoning program. “The analysis should not only address an overall score value of access to opportunity, but must also individually address access to...environmentally healthy neighborhoods and other important opportunities.”50
This is important because access to safe and affordable housing has a direct impact on public health. The very communities facing the highest rent burden are often the same frontline communities who bear the brunt of the negative impacts of pollution, noise, and low overall environmental quality, worsening health disparities by income and race. Cities must therefore promote affordable housing opportunities in locations with high environmental quality.

Unfortunately, the draft housing element does not provide data on the share of lower-income housing opportunities that would be promoted in locations with high environmental quality.

However, most of the City’s lower-income sites are located in the southwest portion of Glendale, rated as being in the bottom 25% statewide of environmental quality under the TCAC Environmental Score methodology, possibly due to close proximity to the 5 and 134 freeways.

The City must reduce the concentration of lower-income households in areas with low environmental quality by rezoning additional parcels where environmental quality is relatively high.
50 AFFH Guidance Memo, p. 48
26 648 of 1910
Proposed Lower-Income Sites Inventory and Census Tract by TCAC Environmental Score (pg. 141, Background Report)
C. The housing element does not adequately prioritize high-opportunity census tracts and well-resourced areas (e.g. near transit, jobs, schools, parks, etc.) when selecting sites for lower-income housing opportunities.

High-income neighborhoods with good access to jobs, transit, schools, and parks tend to have very high housing costs. Racially motivated zoningcreated many of these neighborhoods, and today’s single-family zoning reinforces historical patterns of racial and income segregation, disproportionately harming BIPOC communities.

AB 686 requires jurisdictions to analyze fair housing issues and to affirmatively further fair housing (AFFH) through their housing element. It’s no longer permissible to allow relatively affordable housing to be built only in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. HCD recommends that jurisdictions distribute affordable housing opportunities throughout the jurisdiction, and first 27 649 of 1910
identify development potential for affordable housing in its best-resourced neighborhoods51, as defined in the TCAC/HCD Opportunity Map. Additionally, HCD’s AFFH Guidance Memo defines “high-opportunity” holistically, defining areas with strong access to education, transportation, economic prosperity, safety, parks and recreation areas, and environmental quality as being locations where affordable housing should be promoted through the housing element.52 As described in Sections 1A, 2A, and 4A, the draft housing element does not legalize affordable housing in exclusionary neighborhoods where apartments are today banned, despite the prevalence of low-density zoning in the City’s best-resourced, highest-income neighborhoods.

The draft housing element also fails to remove constraints on housing production in areas where apartments are already legal, which would perpetuate a citywide failure to accommodate new affordable housing. By not reforming exclusionary zoning and encouraging strong housing growth in all of Glendale’s neighborhoods, the draft housing element will continue to steer housing opportunities for lower-income households away from Glendale altogether, and will fail to achieve the City’s lower-income RHNA target.It is very hard to see how such a policy affirmatively furthers fair housing.

Therefore, Glendale must rezone transit-rich, job-rich, and well-resourced neighborhoods, including single-family zoned areas, in order to expand housing opportunities at all levels of income and achieve the RHNA target (see Section 1A).

D. The jurisdiction did not adequately solicit public feedback and commentary on the housing element in a way that accurately reflects the jurisdiction’s socioeconomic makeup.

Under state law, cities are required to “make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.” (Gov’t Code 65583(c)(7)). This is necessary in order to ensure that all segments of the community, including those who are frequently excluded from decision-making, have a seat at the table in determining the future of their city. Housing element outreach and public feedback should not cater to the predominantly wealthy, white, and homeowning populations that customarily dominate land-use policy forums.

To overcome bias in patterns of public participation, jurisdictions should sample a random cross-section of the community (e.g., using postal service addresses), and elicit the respondents’ preferences and priorities regarding zoning and residential development. If response rates favor privileged groups, the survey results should be reweighted accordingly so that they more accurately reflect the distribution of opinion within the community. Additionally, the City should consider giving increased weight to members of groups disproportionately affected by high housing costs and housing discrimination. 52 HCD, AFFH Guidance Memo, pg. 48
51 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 3
28 650 of 1910
Additionally, when the jurisdiction takes public comment on its draft housing element, it should determine whether public comments accurately reflect the diversity of the community. If the pattern of participation proves to be demographically skewed, the jurisdiction should not include these comments as a valid representation of community input.

While the City undertook a public comment outreach effort throughout the housing element update process that included focus groups, surveys, and engagement with a wide range of community organizations, housing advocates, and other nonprofits, these efforts did not go far enough. The City did not undertake statistically robust random polling or surveying of the population, nor did it reweight the results of surveys it did conduct in order to reflect the distribution of opinion among the City’s population groups.

Additionally, the City did not release itsdraft housing element until November 1,after the statutory deadline for adoption of thefinal housing element. This has led to a rushed public review process and has made it less likely that advocates’ comments will be incorporated into the adopted housing element. All this fails to adequately assess the public’s views and recommendations on housing policy.

Recommendations - Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing:
● Upzone parcels located near transit, job centers, schools, and parks in order to expand the supply of housing throughout Glendale, one of the County’s best-resourced cities. This should include R1 zoned parcels where single-family detached homes are currently mandated by law.
● Ensure that housing opportunities for lower-income households are not concentrated in neighborhoods with high concentrations of low and moderate income households, or in neighborhoods with significant exposure to noise or air pollution.
● Identify new funding sources and public resources to encourage the production of affordable housing, such as reform of the City’s real estate transfer tax, an introduction of congestion pricing.
● Exempt parcels containing rent-restricted and de facto affordable housing units from rezoning.
● Ensure that “no net loss” provisions apply to parcels in the site inventory and rezoning program with a monitoring and implementation program. ● Prioritize the production of affordable housing on publicly-owned land. ● Create a 100% affordable housing zoning overlay that encompasses high-opportunity neighborhoods, including R1 zoned parcels. ● Gather public input by sampling a random cross-section of the community; if response rates favor privileged groups, reweight the survey results to more accurately reflect the distribution of opinion within the community. 29 651 of 1910

5. Forecasts of ADU Development
A. The housing element appears to overestimate ADU production in order to support an overly optimistic forecast of future ADU production. The City did not use an HCD-recommended safe harbor methodology for forecasting future ADU production.

Local jurisdictions frequently use overly optimistic estimates of ADU capacity and future production to avoid necessary housing reform and rezoning. This is why HCD has established two safe harbors for forecasting ADU production during the 6th Cycle53. One option (“Option #1”) is to project forward the local trend in ADU construction since January 2018.The other, for use when no other data is available (“Option #2”), assumes ADU production at five times the local rate of production prior to 2018.

HCD’s guidelines ensure that ADU development estimates reflect actual on-the-ground conditions so that they are realistic. This will maximize the likelihood that ADUs will be built to the level forecasted in the housing element update.

According to HCD, Glendale issued permits for 67 ADUs in 2018, 110 ADUs in 2019, and 146 ADUs in 2020.54 Under a correct calculation of HCD’s “Option #1”, Glendale would take the average of the ADU permitting trend between 2018 and 2020, and forecast that 108 ADUs will be permitted per year during the 6th Cycle.This would allow for a total 6th cycle forecast of 861 ADUs.

However, the City counts 1,272 ADUs, or 159 ADUs per year, towards the City’s RHNA target.

This is because Glendale has taken the three-year average number of ADUsapproved, and claimed that this is equivalent to the number of ADUs likely to beconstructed over the coming eight years.55 But not every ADU application approved results in a permit, and not every permit results in project completion.This is why HCD urges cities to “use the trends in ADU construction since January 2018 to estimate new production”56, and has signaled that the annual number of permits issued is a reasonable proxy for annual ADU production.

Glendale’s housing element significantly overstates the likely production of ADUs during the 6th cycle, possibly as a tactic to avoid rezoning.The City must correct its calculation of the ADU safe harbor, and simply apply the average of annual ADU permits issued since 2018, per HCD’s guidelines.

B. The housing element does not commit to mid-cycle adjustments if inventory sites are developed at lower rates, or lesser densities, than the housing element anticipated and if ADU production falls short of projections. Mid-cycle adjustments should automatically implement a by-right density bonus on inventory sites, starting mid-cycle, and be designed to to make up for an ADU shortfall.
56 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 31
55 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 97 54 Draft Housing Element, pg. 80
53 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 31
30 652 of 1910
No city can perfectly forecast future redevelopment trends, and it is entirely possible that despite best efforts, a city’s 6th Cycle housing production falls short of the RHNA target due to less redevelopment than expected.

Anticipating this issue for ADUs, HCD’s Site Inventory Guidebook states that cities’ housing elements “should also include a monitoring program that a) tracks ADU and JADU creation and affordability levels, and b) commits to a review at the planning cycle midpoint to evaluate if production estimates are being achieved.” 57 “Depending on the finding of that review, amendments to the housing element may be necessary, including rezoning pursuant to Government Code 65583.2 (h)and (i).”58 This wisely provides a fail-safe in the event that ADU development falls short of forecasted production by the midpoint of the planning cycle.

A housing element’s provision for mid-cycle adjustment should be feasible to implement at the midpoint of the cycle. Rezoning is generally a multiyear process, often involving extensive CEQA review and litigation. Rezonings initiated at the midpoint may result in little (if any) new zoned capacity during the planning period. For this reason, we recommend that jurisdictions proactively plan for the possibility of an ADU shortfall by providing in the housing element for by-right density bonuses on inventory sites, which would become automatically available mid-cycle if the ADU target is not met. This would also align with HCD’s recommendation that housing elements provide a “specific commitment to adopt alternative measures such as rezoning or amending the element within a specific time (e.g., 6 months) if ADU assumptions for the number of units and affordability are not met.”; HCD critiqued Beverly Hills’ draft housing element for failing to include this commitment.59
While the draft housing element’s Program 1F proposes to “survey and evaluate a variety of potential methods and strategies to encourage ADU development affordable to lower and moderate income households and ADU development throughout the community including in high resource areas, and adopt appropriate procedures, policies, and regulatory provisions”60, it did not commit to specific mid-cycle adjustment policies that would be implemented if ADU production were to fall short of forecasted growth. We recommend that the final housing element be amended to include by-right density bonuses on inventory sites that become automatically available at mid-cycle in the event of an ADU shortfall; this is necessary in order to ensure that the City remains on track to achieve its RHNA target by the end of the 6th Cycle.

C. The housing element does not assess the affordability of forecasted ADUs using city-specific data; it instead uses a regional average.

HCD requires cities to estimate the affordability of forecasted ADUs61, and provides the following examples for methodologies:
61 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 30
60 Housing Element Housing Plan, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 16 59 Review of City of Beverly Hills’s 6th Cycle (2021-2029) Draft Housing Element, 7/30/21, Appendix, pg. 4 58 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 31
57 HCD Site Inventory Guidebook, pg. 31
31 653 of 1910
● Surveying existing ADUs and JADUs for their current market rents, considering factors like square footage, number of bedrooms, amenities, age of the structure and general location, including proximity to public transportation. ● Examining current market rents for comparable rental properties to determine an average price per square foot in the community. This price can be applied to anticipated sizes of these units to estimate the anticipated affordability of ADUs and JADUs. ● Available regional studies and methodology on ADU affordability can also be a resource to determine the likely affordability mix for ADUs and JADUs.

However, many local jurisdictions’ housing elements contain overly optimistic forecasts of production of ADUs that are rented at below-market rates; some cities do this to claim that it can meet its VLI and LI RHNA goals without additional rezoning. As with forecasts of total ADU production, forecasts of affordable ADU production must reflect actual on-the-ground conditions to ensure that they are realistic. This will help ensure that the housing element update accommodates affordable housing production commensurate with the VLI and LI RHNA targets.

However, the City assumes that 68% of new ADUs in Glendale will be affordable to extremely low-income, very low-income, and low-income households, which is based on the “Los Angeles II” category of 20 L.A. County jurisdictions in SCAG’sADU Affordability Analysis. The City should not rely on SCAG’s analysis because it is inconsistent with Glendale’s more expensive local conditions.

The Los Angeles II region is not an appropriate proxy for assessing the affordability of rental properties in a high-cost city like Glendale. Applying the “Los Angeles II” affordability assumptions to Glendale, where the median rent for a two-bedroom apartment is nearly $1,900/month62, overestimates the number of new ADUs that will be affordable to lower-income households, and will set the city up for failure in meeting its lower-income RHNA obligations. (For reference, “Los Angeles II” assumes that a two-person, low-income household can afford a rent of $1,670/month.)
Instead, the City should use current market rents in Glendale to assess the likely affordability of new ADUs, and should supplement this analysis with a survey of the owners of recently-constructed ADUs (to determine average rent, as well as the number of ADUs that are rented for free or at a low cost to family members). This would provide a more accurate forecast of the number of ADUs that will be built at each level of income during the 6th Cycle.

Recommendations - Forecasts of ADU Development:
● The City must use HCD’s Option 1 safe harbor, and project that 861 ADUs will be permitted during the 6th Cycle.
● Follow HCD’s recommendation to track ADU and JADU creation and affordability levels, and commit to a review at the planning cycle midpoint to evaluate if production estimates are being achieved.
● Follow HCD’s guidance on ADU affordability estimates, which clearly 62 Housing Element Background Report, City of Glendale, November 2021, pg. 47 32 654 of 1910
demonstrates a preference for assessing the affordability of forecasted ADUs using city-specific data, rather than regional data.
***
The City of Glendale has a legal obligation to sufficiently plan to meet current and future residents’ housing needs, in a way that guarantees access to opportunity for Californians of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. The issues that we’ve highlighted above suggest that Glendale is not on a path to fulfilling this legal obligation. We urge you to change course and actively embrace this opportunity to provide a variety of attainable housing options for the residents and workers of Glendale.

Finally, state law imposes penalties on jurisdictions that fail to adopt a compliant 6th Cycle housing element update on time; noncompliant jurisdictions will forfeit the right to deny residential projects on the basis of local zoning, so long as projects include at least a 20% set-aside for below market-rate units or are 100% moderate-rate projects63. Noncompliant jurisdictions may also lose the ability to issue building permits, including permits for kitchen and bath renovations. Jurisdictions that want to maintain local control over new development and maintain the ability to permit kitchen and bath renovations should therefore plan to adopt a compliant housing element update on time.

We request the opportunity to meet with you and your colleagues to address the concerns raised in this letter. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Leonora Camner
Executive Director
Abundant Housing LA
Sonja Trauss
Executive Director
YIMBY Law
CC: Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director, Housing Policy Development, HCD Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD
Tyrone Buckley, Assistant Deputy Director of Fair Housing, HCD Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Development Manager, HCD 63 California Government Code 65589.5(d)(5)
33 655 of 1910
Read about the coalition here
656 of 1910

JOHN JACKSON
November 19, 2021
Glendale City Council
City of Glendale
613 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA 91206
Dear Councilmembers:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the process of updating the housing element of Glendale’s general plan. We are writing on behalf of theOur Future LA Coalitionregarding the 6th Cycle housing element update.

Why does this matter?Because we face a cascade of housing crises in our region.And while nearly everyone in Los Angeles County feels the crush of our housing crisis, Black and Latino residents feel it more than most:
2 657 of 1910
● Black households have 1.12% the wealth of white households, and Latino households less than 5% (Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco)
● Black people make up 8% of the county population, but 33.7% of people experiencing homelessness (LAHSA)
● Even under COVID-related eviction moratoriums, Black and Latino neighborhoods face disproportionately higher eviction threats (Los Angeles Times, UCLA) ● One in four AAPIs pay more than half of their income toward housing costs compared to whites (16 percent), putting many on the edge of financial vulnerability. This segment of the population is considered severely cost-burdened (Crisis to Impact Report, A joint publication of the National Coalition of Asian Pacific American Community Development and the University of California, Los Angeles)
These are the effects of decades of racist policies that we have not eradicated: Restrictive covenants, exclusionary zoning, and redlining made it impossible for Black families to build wealth through homeownership, and result in lower homeownership and higher rents today. The California Constitution’s Article 34 and local “crime-free housing” policies put roadblocks in the way of addressing racial divisions in Californians’ housing affordability and security.

This impact was felt devastatingly during the pandemic, when essential workers living in overcrowded housing were exposed to COVID at work and had no choice but to expose their families at home, leading to disproportionate deaths among Black and Latino people.

Neighborhoods in South and Southeast LA, where nearly 20% of homes are overcrowded (defined as more than one person per room) had COVID rates of roughly 14,000 cases per 100,000 people. Neighborhoods on the Westside, where less than 5% of homes are overcrowded, had rates well under 5,000 cases per 100,000 people.1 Death rates were similarly disproportionate -- at a time (January 2021) when the city of Beverly Hills was reporting 21 COVID deaths, and the neighborhood of Brentwood 9, the city of Compton reported 147, and the neighborhood of Westlake 202.2 In all, COVID-19 mortality rates in LA County were roughly twice as high for Black people (31 deaths/100,000 individuals) and Latinos (29/100K) as for whites (15/100K) (from CGLA).

Of the 3,007 counties in the United States, L.A. County ranks last in housing affordability, overcrowding, and unsheltered homelessness. We are not doing enough to preserve and create homes for working class and lower-income people. The affordable housing crisis, rampant speculation, lack of tenant protections and rent control, and affordable housing shortage have gotten so bad that lower-income Black, Latino and AAPI families are being pushed out of their homes and communities at an alarming rate. At the rate we’re going, next generations won’t be able to live in Los Angeles County.

Los Angeles County is legally required to build 341,000 affordable homes by 2030.To truly address our needs, we need more than double that.At the rate we’re going today, we might build 25,000. That’s 7% of what’s needed. That kind of failure will fall hardest on Black and 2 “We Are Forced to Live in These Conditions’: In Los Angeles, Virus Ravages Overcrowded Homes”, NY Times, 1/23/21 1 “When coronavirus invaded their tiny apartment, children desperately tried to protect dad”, LA Times, 1/29/21 3 658 of 1910
Latino families, who disproportionately face eviction, homelessness and having to choose between rent and food. Our Future LA demands we not let that happen.

In order to create a better housing future, we must make every neighborhood resource-rich so people can live where they want to live and don’t have to leave their community to find opportunity. The Housing Element must also consider the intersection between housing, public health, and environmental justice. The very communities facing the highest rent burden are often the same communities who bear the brunt of the negative impacts brought on by environmental contamination and exposure to the worst air and soil qualities. For example, in LA County, 75% of active oil wells are located within 2,500 feet of homes, the vast majority of which are occupied by low-income people of color.We must also achieve equitable land use and zoning so that historically exclusionary communities build at greater densities, with value capture, while also ensuring that areas already zoned for density are protected from environmental and spatial racism and displacement pressures. As the region plans for growth, there must be no conversion of wildlife habitat to housing or further development in wildfire hazard areas, as identified by CalFire. We understand that the City cares deeply about these issues, and we hope to offer assistance in addressing them.

As it stands right now, the draft housing element will not meet the City’s goals around equity and affordability. We submit these comments in the spirit of collaboration in order to partner and provide research, grounded data to help in meeting housing needs. We are interested in having a meeting to discuss these comments more.

Our Future LA Housing Element Comments

1. Protections
A. The housing element should expand just-cause eviction protections to cover all tenants and establish a corresponding enforcement program.

B. The housing element should implement a local RSO or strengthen/reduce the annual allowable rent increase for the existing RSO program.

C. The housing element should codify a tenant’s right to counsel in an eviction proceeding.

D. The housing element should create a permanent tenant education program to inform tenants of their rights and how to access eviction defense resources.

E. The housing element should create and implement a tenant anti-harassment ordinance combined with enforcement resources.

2. Preservation
4 659 of 1910
A. The housing element must do more to prioritize rezoning - with value capture - in high-resource neighborhoods which are transit- and job-rich, including single-family zoned areas. This is necessary to expand affordable housing opportunities while minimizing the impact on existing renters in multifamily-zoned areas.

B. The housing element should exclude parcels containing RSO housing units in the housing element’s site inventory.

C. The housing element should require that no net loss provisions apply to parcels in the site inventory and rezoning program with a monitoring and implementation program.

D. The housing element should institute local programs and funding sources for preservation of existing affordable housing.

3. Prioritization of affordable housing
A. The housing element should utilize a value capture mechanism, such as inclusionary zoning, to locally fund and/or incentivize affordable housing.

B. The housing element should prioritize creation of affordable housing on public land.

C. The housing element should streamline affordable housing production.

D. The housing element should include programs for 100% affordable housing zoning overlays, and should ensure that these overlays apply to high-opportunity areas.

E. The housing element should include programs for 100% affordable housing zoning overlays, and should ensure that these overlays apply to high-opportunity areas currently zoned R1.

4. Site Capacity Assessment
A. The housing element should estimate and report both the likelihood of development and the net new units if developed of inventory sites, both vacant and nonvacant.

Comparison of claimed vs. estimated additional development potential Income
Category RHNA Target
Claimed
Capacity in
Draft HE
NNL Buffer
Estimated
Add'n Dev
Potential in
Draft HE
(45% dev
likelihood)
Recommended
Add'n Dev
Potential
w/20% NNL
Gap in
Add'n Dev
Potential
VLI + LI 5,602 8,053 44% 3,624 6,722 -3,099
MI 2,249 1,664 -26% 749 2,699 -1,950
5 660 of 1910
AMI 5,574 5,027 -10% 2,262 6,689 -4,427
Total 13,425 14,744 10% 6,635 16,110 -9,475
We estimate that the draft housing element will fall short of the RHNA goal, by 9,475 units of realistic capacity. The City mustfairly estimate the likelihood of development for all parcels on the suitable sites inventory.

B. The housing element should report the proportion of sites from the previous housing element’s inventory that were developed during the previous planning period, and HCD-recommended methodologies and data sources should be used in order to conduct a thorough “factors” analysis of sites’ realistic development capacity.

C. The housing element assigns more than 50% of the lower-income RHNA target to nonvacant sites, but should use statistical methods (e.g. surveying a random sample of owners of nonvacant sites) to determine that the sites’ existing uses are likely to be discontinued during the planning period.

D. A buffer of at least 15-30% extra capacity is not included in the housing element site inventory. This capacity buffer is especially necessary in order to accommodate the lower-income RHNA target.

See No Net Loss (NNL) section of 4A.

E. The housing element should not improperly count at least 1,537 units, completed during the 5th cycle, towards the 6th cycle RHNA goal. The housing element should provide a quantitative estimate of the likelihood that in-pipeline projects will be completed, based on historical data, and should adjust the number of in-pipeline units counted towards the 6th cycle RHNA target accordingly.

F. The housing element should commit to a mid-cycle review to verify the housing element’s assumptions about development probabilities.

5. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing
A. The housing element should meaningfully increase the concentration of lower-income households in areas of the city where the existing concentration of lower-income households is low.

B. The housing element should meaningfully reduce the concentration of lower-income households in areas with significant exposure to noise/pollution, and commit to reducing/addressing noise and pollution.

C. The housing element should ensure community-serving investment in historically disinvested areas. This includes place-based strategies that create a net gain of affordable housing and 6 661 of 1910
stop displacement, prioritize environmental justice, enhance community health and strengthen equitable community leadership in land use planning.

D. The housing element should include a thorough analysis of local patterns in socioeconomic/racial segregation and integration, including patterns of overt racial or ethnic discrimination in the housing and land development market.

E. The housing element should adequately prioritize high-opportunity census tracts and well-resourced areas (e.g. near transit, jobs, schools, parks, etc.) when selecting sites for lower-income housing opportunities.

F. The housing element should adequately identify funding sources, public resources, and density bonus programs to maximize the likelihood that projects with below-market-rate units are built.

G. The jurisdiction did not adequately solicit public feedback and commentary on the housing element in a way that accurately reflects the jurisdiction’s socioeconomic makeup.

6. Forecasts of ADU Development
A. The housing element did not use an HCD-recommended safe harbor methodology for forecasting future ADU production.

B. The housing element should provide for mid-cycle adjustments if inventory sites are developed at lower rates, or lesser densities, than the housing element anticipated and if ADU production falls short of projections. Mid-cycle adjustments should automatically implement a by-right density bonus on inventory sites, starting mid-cycle, and be large enough to make up for an ADU shortfall.

C. The housing element should assess the affordability of forecasted ADUs using city-specific data; it instead uses a regional average.
***
We request the opportunity to meet with you and your colleagues to address the concerns raised in this letter. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Lisa Hirsch Marin
COO, Wellnest, Emotional Health & Wellness
Our Future LASteering Committee Member
7 662 of 1910
CC: Jason Elliott, Senior Counselor to Governor Gavin Newsom Megan Kirkeby, Deputy Director, Housing Policy Development, HCD Melinda Coy, Land Use and Planning Manager, HCD
Tyrone Buckley, Assistant Deputy Director of Fair Housing, HCD Paul McDougall, Housing Policy Development Manager, HCD 8 663 of 1910

P: (626) 381-9248
F: (626) 389-5414
E: [email protected]

Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorney At Law
139 South Hudson Avenue
Suite 200
Pasadena, California 91101

VIA E-MAIL
December 10, 2021
Erik Krause, Director of Community Development
City of Glendale Community Development Department
633 East Broadway, Room 103
Glendale CA 91206
Em: [email protected]
RE: City of Glendale Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update Dear Erik Krause,
On behalf of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters (“Southwest Carpenters” or “SWRCC”), my Office is submitting these comments on the City of Glendale’s (“City” or “Lead Agency”) draft 2021-2029 update to the City’s General Plan Housing Element (“Draft HEU” or “Project”).

The Southwest Carpenters is a labor union representing more than 50,000 union carpenters in six states and has a strong interest in well ordered land use planning and addressing the environmental impacts of development projects.

Individual members of the Southwest Carpenters live, work, and recreate in the City and surrounding communities and would be directly affected by the Project’s environmental impacts.

SWRCC expressly reserve the right to supplement these comments at or prior to hearings on the Project, and at any later hearings and proceedings related to this Project. Cal. Gov. Code § 65009(b); Cal. Pub. Res. Code § 21177(a); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal. App. 4th 1184, 1199-1203; see Galante Vineyards v. Monterey Water Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109, 1121.

Page 2 of 5 ends

SWRCC incorporate by reference all comments raising issues regarding the EIR submitted prior to certification of the EIR for the Project. Citizens for Clean Energy v City of Woodland (2014) 225 Cal. App. 4th 173, 191 (finding that any party who has objected to the Project’s environmental documentation may assert any issue timely raised by other parties).

Moreover, SWRCC request that the Lead Agency provide notice for any and all notices referring or related to the Project issued under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), Cal Public Resources Code (“PRC”) § 21000 et seq, and the California Planning and Zoning Law (“Planning and Zoning Law”), Cal. Gov’t Code §§ 65000–65010. California Public Resources Code Sections 21092.2, and 21167(f) and Government Code Section 65092 require agencies to mail such notices to any person who has filed a written request for them with the clerk of the agency’s governing body.

The City should require the use of a local skilled and trained workforce to benefit the community’s economic development and environment. The City should require the use of workers who have graduated from a Joint Labor Management apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California, or have at least as many hours of on-the-job experience in the applicable craft which would be required to graduate from such a state approved apprenticeship training program or who are registered apprentices in an apprenticeship training program approved by the State of California.

Community benefits such as local hire and skilled and trained workforce requirements can also be helpful to reduce environmental impacts and improve the positive economic impact of the Project. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. Local hire provisions requiring that a certain percentage of workers reside within 10 miles or less of the Project Site can reduce the length of vendor trips, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and providing localized economic benefits. As environmental consultants Matt Hagemann and Paul E. Rosenfeld note:
[A]ny local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.
665 of 1910
City of Glendale – Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update December 10, 2021

Page 3 of 5 ends

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling.

Skilled and trained workforce requirements promote the development of skilled trades that yield sustainable economic development. As the California Workforce Development Board and the UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education concluded:
. . . la bor should be considered an investment rather than a cost – and investments in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California’s workforce can positively affect returns on climate mitigation efforts. In other words, well trained workers are key to deliver ing emissions reductions and moving California closer to its climate targets.
1 Local skilled and trained workforce requirements and policies have significant environmental benefits since they improve an area’s jobs-housing balance, decreasing the amount of and length of job commutes and their associated greenhouse gas emissions. Recently, on May 7, 2021, the South Coast Air Quality Management District found that that the “[u]se of a local state-certified apprenticeship program or a skilled and trained workforce with a local hire component” can result in air pollutant reductions.
2 Cities are increasingly adopting local skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements into general plans and municipal codes. For example, the City of Hayward 2040 General Plan requires the City to “promote local hiring . . . to help achieve a more positive jobs-housing balance, and reduce regional commuting, gas consumption, and greenhouse gas emissions.”
3 1 California Workforce Development Board (2020) Putting California on the High Road: A Jobs and Climate Action Plan for 2030 at p. ii, available at https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/ wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Putting-California-on-the-High-Road.pdf. 2 South Coast Air Quality Management District (May 7, 2021) Certify Final Environmental Assessment and Adopt Proposed Rule 2305 – Warehouse Indirect Source Rule – Warehouse Actions and Investments to Reduce Emissions Program, and Proposed Rule 316 – Fees for Rule 2305, Submit Rule 2305 for Inclusion Into the SIP, and Approve Supporting Budget Actions, available at http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/ Agendas/Governing-Board/2021/2021-May7-027.pdf?sfvrsn=10. 3 City of Hayward (2014) Hayward 2040 General Plan Policy Document at p. 3-99, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/General_Plan_FINAL.pdf. 666 of 1910
City of Glendale – Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update December 10, 2021

Page 4 of 5 ends

In fact, the City of Hayward has gone as far as to adopt a Skilled Labor Force policy into its Downtown Specific Plan and municipal code, requiring developments in its Downtown area to requiring that the City “[c]ontribute to the stabilization of regional construction markets by spurring applicants of housing and nonresidential developments to require contractors to utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs, . . .”4 In addition, the City of Hayward requires all projects 30,000 square feet or larger to “utilize apprentices from state-approved, joint labor-management training programs.”5
Locating jobs closer to residential areas can have significant environmental benefits. As the California Planning Roundtable noted in 2008:

People who live and work in the same jurisdiction would be more likely to take transit, walk, or bicycle to work than residents of less balanced communities and their vehicle trips would be shorter. Benefits would include potential reductions in both vehicle miles traveled and vehicle hours traveled.
6 In addition, local hire mandates as well as skill training are critical facets of a strategy to reduce vehicle miles traveled. As planning experts Robert Cervero and Michael Duncan noted, simply placing jobs near housing stock is insufficient to achieve VMT reductions since the skill requirements of available local jobs must be matched to those held by local residents.
7 Some municipalities have tied local hire and skilled and trained workforce policies to local development permits to address transportation issues. As Cervero and Duncan note:

In nearly bu ilt-out Berkeley, CA, the approach to balancing jobs and housing is to create local jobs rather than to develop new housing.” The city’s First Source program encourages businesses to hire local residents,

4 City of Hayward (2019) Hayward Downtown Specific Plan at p. 5-24, available at https://www.hayward-ca.gov/sites/default/files/Hayward%20Downtown% 20Specific%20Plan.pdf.
5 City of Hayward Municipal Code, Chapter 10, § 28.5.3.020(C). 6 California Planning Roundtable (2008) Deconstructing Jobs-Housing Balance at p. 6, available at https://cproundtable.org/static/media/uploads/publications/cpr-jobs- housing.pdf
7 Cervero, Robert and Duncan, Michael (2006) Which Reduces Vehicle Travel More: Jobs- Housing Balance or Retail-Housing Mixing? Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (4), 475-490, 482, available at http://reconnectingamerica.org/assets/Uploads/UTCT- 825.pdf.
667 of 1910
City of Glendale – Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element Update December 10, 2021

Page 5 of 5 ends

especially for entry- and intermediate-level jobs, and sponsors vocational training to ensure residents are employment -ready. While the program is voluntary, some 300 businesses have used it to date, placing more than 3,000 city residents in local jobs since it was launched in 1986. When needed, these carrots are matched by sticks, since the city is not shy about negotiating corporate participation in First Source as a condition of approval for development permits.

The City should consider utilizing skilled and trained workforce policies and requirements to benefit the local area economically and mitigate greenhouse gas, air quality and transportation impacts.

I. CONCLUSION
SWRCC request that the City consider the aforementioned issues raised. Please contact my Office if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

__________________________
Mitchell M. Tsai
Attorneys for Southwest Regional
Council of Carpenters
Attached:

March 8, 2021 SWAPE Letter to Mitchell M. Tsai re Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling (Exhibit A); Air Quality and GHG Expert Paul Rosenfeld CV (Exhibit B); and Air Quality and GHG Expert Matt Hagemann CV (Exhibit C). 668 of 1910

EXHIBIT A
669 of 1910

1 2656 29th Street, Suite 201
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Matt Hagemann, P.G, C.Hg.
(949) 887-9013
[email protected]
Paul E. Rosenfeld, PhD
(310) 795-2335
[email protected]
March 8, 2021

Mitchell M. Tsai
155 South El Molino, Suite 104
Pasadena, CA 91101

Subject: Local Hire Requirements and Considerations for Greenhouse Gas Modeling Dear Mr. Tsai,
Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise (“SWAPE”) is pleased to provide the following draft technical report explaining the significance of worker trips required for construction of land use development projects with respect to the estimation of greenhouse gas (“GHG”) emissions. The report will also discuss the potential for local hire requirements to reduce the length of worker trips, and consequently, reduced or mitigate the potential GHG impacts.

Worker Trips and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
The California Emissions Estimator Model (“CalEEMod”) is a “statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects.”1 CalEEMod quantifies construction-related emissions associated with land use projects resulting from off-road construction equipment; on-road mobile equipment associated with workers, vendors, and hauling; fugitive dust associated with grading, demolition, truck loading, and on-road vehicles traveling along paved and unpaved roads; and architectural coating activities; and paving.2
The number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.3

1 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 2 “California Emissions Estimator Model.” CAPCOA, 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/caleemod/home. 3 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 670 of 1910

2 Specifically, the number and length of vehicle trips is utilized to estimate the vehicle miles travelled (“VMT”) associated with construction. Then, utilizing vehicle-class specific EMFAC 2014 emission factors, CalEEMod calculates the vehicle exhaust, evaporative, and dust emissions resulting from construction-related VMT, including personal vehicles for worker commuting.4
Specifically, in order to calculate VMT, CalEEMod multiplies the average daily trip rate by the average overall trip length (see excerpt below):
“VMTd = Σ(Average Daily Trip Rate i * Average Overall Trip Length i) n Where:
n = Number of land uses being modeled.”5
Furthermore, to calculate the on-road emissions associated with worker trips, CalEEMod utilizes the following equation (see excerpt below):
“Emissionspollutant = VMT * EFrunning,pollutant
Where:

Emissionspollutant = emissions from vehicle running for each pollutant VMT = vehicle miles traveled
EFrunning,pollutant = emission factor for running emissions.”6 Thus, there is a direct relationship between trip length and VMT, as well as a direct relationship between VMT and vehicle running emissions. In other words, when the trip length is increased, the VMT and vehicle running emissions increase as a result. Thus, vehicle running emissions can be reduced by decreasing the average overall trip length, by way of a local hire requirement or otherwise.

Default Worker Trip Parameters and Potential Local Hire Requirements As previously discussed, the number, length, and vehicle class of worker trips are utilized by CalEEMod to calculate emissions associated with the on-road vehicle trips required to transport workers to and from the Project site during construction.7 In order to understand how local hire requirements and associated worker trip length reductions impact GHG emissions calculations, it is important to consider the CalEEMod default worker trip parameters. CalEEMod provides recommended default values based on site-specific information, such as land use type, meteorological data, total lot acreage, project type and typical equipment associated with project type. If more specific project information is known, the user can change the default values and input project- specific values, but the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) requires that such changes be justified by substantial evidence.8 The default number of construction-related worker trips is calculated by multiplying the

4 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14-15. 5 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 23. 6 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 7 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 8 CalEEMod User Guide, available at: http://www.caleemod.com/, p. 1, 9. 671 of 1910

3 number of pieces of equipment for all phases by 1.25, with the exception of worker trips required for the building construction and architectural coating phases.9 Furthermore, the worker trip vehicle class is a 50/25/25 percent mix of light duty autos, light duty truck class 1 and light duty truck class 2, respectively.”10 Finally, the default worker trip length is consistent with the length of the operational home-to-work vehicle trips.11 The operational home-to-work vehicle trip lengths are:
“[B]ased on the location and urbanization selected on the project characteristic screen. These values were supplied by the air districts or use a default average for the state. Each district (or county) also assigns trip lengths for urban and rural settings” (emphasis added). 12 Thus, the default worker trip length is based on the location and urbanization level selected by the User when modeling emissions. The below table shows the CalEEMod default rural and urban worker trip lengths by air basin (see excerpt below and Attachment A).13
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Minimum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90

9 “CalEEMod User’s Guide.” CAPCOA, November 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-2_15november2017.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. 34. 10 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 15. 11 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 14. 12 “Appendix A Calculation Details for CalEEMod.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at:
http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-source/caleemod/02_appendix-a2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=6, p. 21. 13 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-84 – D-86. 672 of 1910

4 As demonstrated above, default rural worker trip lengths for air basins in California vary from 10.8- to 19.8- miles, with an average of 16.47 miles. Furthermore, default urban worker trip lengths vary from 10.8- to 14.7- miles, with an average of 11.17 miles. Thus, while default worker trip lengths vary by location, default urban worker trip lengths tend to be shorter in length. Based on these trends evident in the CalEEMod default worker trip lengths, we can reasonably assume that the efficacy of a local hire requirement is especially dependent upon the urbanization of the project site, as well as the project location.

Practical Application of a Local Hire Requirement and Associated Impact To provide an example of the potential impact of a local hire provision on construction-related GHG emissions, we estimated the significance of a local hire provision for the Village South Specific Plan (“Project”) located in the City of Claremont (“City”). The Project proposed to construct 1,000 residential units, 100,000-SF of retail space, 45,000-SF of office space, as well as a 50-room hotel, on the 24-acre site. The Project location is classified as Urban and lies within the Los Angeles-South Coast County. As a result, the Project has a default worker trip length of 14.7 miles.14 In an effort to evaluate the potential for a local hire provision to reduce the Project’s construction-related GHG emissions, we prepared an updated model, reducing all worker trip lengths to 10 miles (see Attachment B). Our analysis estimates that if a local hire provision with a 10-mile radius were to be implemented, the GHG emissions associated with Project construction would decrease by approximately 17% (see table below and Attachment C).

Local Hire Provision Net Change
Without Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,623
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 120.77 With Local Hire Provision
Total Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e) 3,024
Amortized Construction GHG Emissions (MT CO2e/year) 100.80 % Decrease in Construction-related GHG Emissions 17%
As demonstrated above, by implementing a local hire provision requiring 10 mile worker trip lengths, the Project could reduce potential GHG emissions associated with construction worker trips. More broadly, any local hire requirement that results in a decreased worker trip length from the default value has the potential to result in a reduction of construction-related GHG emissions, though the significance of the reduction would vary based on the location and urbanization level of the project site.

This serves as an example of the potential impacts of local hire requirements on estimated project-level GHG emissions, though it does not indicate that local hire requirements would result in reduced construction-related GHG emission for all projects. As previously described, the significance of a local hire requirement depends on the worker trip length enforced and the default worker trip length for the project’s urbanization level and location.

14 “Appendix D Default Data Tables.” CAPCOA, October 2017, available at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default- source/caleemod/05_appendix-d2016-3-2.pdf?sfvrsn=4, p. D-85. 673 of 1910

5 Disclaimer
SWAPE has received limited discovery. Additional information may become available in the future; thus, we retain the right to revise or amend this report when additional information becomes available. Our professional services have been performed using that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised, under similar circumstances, by reputable environmental consultants practicing in this or similar localities at the time of service. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made as to the scope of work, work methodologies and protocols, site conditions, analytical testing results, and findings presented. This report reflects efforts which were limited to information that was reasonably accessible at the time of the work, and may contain informational gaps, inconsistencies, or otherwise be incomplete due to the unavailability or uncertainty of information obtained or provided by third parties.

Sincerely,

Matt Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg.

Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D.
674 of 1910
Location Type Location Name Rural H-W
(miles)
Urban H-W
(miles)
Air Basin Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Mountain 16.8 10.8
Air Basin North Central 17.1 12.3
Air Basin North Coast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Northeast 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Sacramento 16.8 10.8
Air Basin Salton Sea 14.6 11
Air Basin San Diego 16.8 10.8
Air Basin San Francisco

10.8 10.8
Air Basin San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Central 16.8 10.8
Air Basin South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Amador County 16.8 10.8
Air District Antelope Valley 16.8 10.8
Air District Bay Area AQMD 10.8 10.8
Air District Butte County 12.54 12.54
Air District Calaveras

16.8 10.8
Air District Colusa County 16.8 10.8
Air District El Dorado

16.8 10.8
Air District Feather River 16.8 10.8
Air District Glenn County 16.8 10.8
Air District Great Basin 16.8 10.8
Air District Imperial County 10.2 7.3
Air District Kern County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lake County 16.8 10.8
Air District Lassen County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mariposa

16.8 10.8
Air District Mendocino

16.8 10.8
Air District Modoc County 16.8 10.8
Air District Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Air District Monterey Bay

16.8 10.8
Air District North Coast

16.8 10.8
Air District Northern Sierra 16.8 10.8
Air District Northern

16.8 10.8
Air District Placer County 16.8 10.8
Air District Sacramento 15 10
Attachment A
675 of 1910
Air District San Diego

16.8 10.8
Air District San Joaquin

16.8 10.8
Air District San Luis Obispo

13 13
Air District Santa Barbara

8.3 8.3
Air District Shasta County 16.8 10.8
Air District Siskiyou County

16.8 10.8
Air District South Coast 19.8 14.7
Air District Tehama County 16.8 10.8
Air District Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
Air District Ventura County 16.8 10.8
Air District Yolo/Solano 15 10
County Alameda 10.8 10.8
County Alpine 16.8 10.8
County Amador 16.8 10.8
County Butte 12.54 12.54
County Calaveras 16.8 10.8
County Colusa 16.8 10.8
County Contra Costa 10.8 10.8
County Del Norte 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado-Lake 16.8 10.8
County El Dorado- 16.8 10.8
County Fresno 16.8 10.8
County Glenn 16.8 10.8
County Humboldt 16.8 10.8
County Imperial 10.2 7.3
County Inyo 16.8 10.8
County Kern-Mojave 16.8 10.8
County Kern-San 16.8 10.8
County Kings 16.8 10.8
County Lake 16.8 10.8
County Lassen 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles- 16.8 10.8
County Los Angeles- 19.8 14.7
County Madera 16.8 10.8
County Marin 10.8 10.8
County Mariposa 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Mendocino- 16.8 10.8
County Merced 16.8 10.8
County Modoc 16.8 10.8
County Mono 16.8 10.8
County Monterey 16.8 10.8
County Napa 10.8 10.8
676 of 1910
County Nevada 16.8 10.8
County Orange 19.8 14.7
County Placer-Lake 16.8 10.8
County Placer-Mountain 16.8 10.8
County Placer- 16.8 10.8
County Plumas 16.8 10.8
County Riverside- 16.8 10.8
County Riverside-

19.8 14.7
County Riverside-Salton 14.6 11
County Riverside-South 19.8 14.7
County Sacramento 15 10
County San Benito 16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-

16.8 10.8
County San Bernardino-

19.8 14.7
County San Diego 16.8 10.8
County San Francisco 10.8 10.8
County San Joaquin 16.8 10.8
County San Luis Obispo 13 13
County San Mateo 10.8 10.8
County Santa Barbara-

8.3 8.3
County Santa Barbara-

8.3 8.3
County Santa Clara 10.8 10.8
County Santa Cruz 16.8 10.8
County Shasta 16.8 10.8
County Sierra 16.8 10.8
County Siskiyou 16.8 10.8
County Solano- 15 10
County Solano-San 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-North 16.8 10.8
County Sonoma-San 10.8 10.8
County Stanislaus 16.8 10.8
County Sutter 16.8 10.8
County Tehama 16.8 10.8
County Trinity 16.8 10.8
County Tulare 16.8 10.8
County Tuolumne 16.8 10.8
County Ventura 16.8 10.8
County Yolo 15 10
County Yuba 16.8 10.8
Statewide Statewide 16.8 10.8
677 of 1910
Air Basin Rural (miles) Urban (miles)
Great Basin Valleys 16.8 10.8
Lake County 16.8 10.8
Lake Tahoe 16.8 10.8
Mojave Desert 16.8 10.8
Mountain Counties 16.8 10.8
North Central Coast 17.1 12.3
North Coast 16.8 10.8
Northeast Plateau 16.8 10.8
Sacramento Valley 16.8 10.8
Salton Sea 14.6 11
San Diego 16.8 10.8
San Francisco Bay Area 10.8 10.8
San Joaquin Valley 16.8 10.8
South Central Coast 16.8 10.8
South Coast 19.8 14.7
Average 16.47 11.17
Mininum 10.80 10.80
Maximum 19.80 14.70
Range 9.00 3.90
Worker Trip Length by Air Basin
678 of 1910

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population General Office Building 45.00 1000sqft 1.03 45,000.00 0 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 36.00 1000sqft 0.83 36,000.00 0 Hotel 50.00 Room 1.67 72,600.00 0
Quality Restaurant 8.00 1000sqft 0.18 8,000.00 0
Apartments Low Rise 25.00 Dwelling Unit 1.56 25,000.00 72 Apartments Mid Rise 975.00 Dwelling Unit 25.66 975,000.00 2789 Regional Shopping Center 56.00 1000sqft 1.29 56,000.00 0

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 1 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual Attachment B
679 of 1910
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.

Land Use - See SWAPE comment regarding residential and retail land uses.

Construction Phase - See SWAPE comment regarding individual construction phase lengths.

Demolition - Consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding demolition.

Vehicle Trips - Saturday trips consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding weekday and Sunday trips.

Woodstoves - Woodstoves and wood-burning fireplaces consistent with the DEIR's model. See SWAPE comment regarding gas fireplaces.

Energy Use -
Construction Off-road Equipment Mitigation - See SWAPE comment on construction-related mitigation.

Area Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Water Mitigation - See SWAPE comment regarding operational mitigation measures.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces FireplaceWoodMass 1,019.20 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 1.25 0.00
tblFireplaces NumberWood 48.75 0.00
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 7.16 6.17
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 6.39 3.87
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 2.46 1.39
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 158.37 79.82
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 8.19 3.75
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 94.36 63.99
tblVehicleTrips ST_TR 49.97 10.74
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 6.07 6.16
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.86 4.18
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 1.05 0.69
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 131.84 78.27
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 2 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 680 of 1910

2.0 Emissions Summary
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 5.95 3.20
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 72.16 57.65
tblVehicleTrips SU_TR 25.24 6.39
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.59 5.83
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 6.65 4.13
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 11.03 6.41
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 127.15 65.80
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 8.17 3.84
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 89.95 62.64
tblVehicleTrips WD_TR 42.70 9.43
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberCatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 1.25 0.00
tblWoodstoves NumberNoncatalytic 48.75 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveDayYear 25.00 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
tblWoodstoves WoodstoveWoodMass 999.60 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 3 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 681 of 1910

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2021 0.1713 1.8242 1.1662 2.4000e-
003

0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 213.1969 213.1969 0.0601 0.0000 214.6993 2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 6 1,721.682
6 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7 2023 0.6148 3.3649 5.6747 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 1,627.529 5 1,627.529
5 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
5 2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004

0.0325 6.4700e-
003

0.0390 8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147 0.0000 52.9078 52.9078 8.0200e-
003

0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 6 1,721.682
6 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
7 Unmitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 4 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 682 of 1910

0.4169 0.0817 0.4986 0.1795 0.0754 0.2549 0.0000 213.1967 213.1967 0.0601 0.0000 214.6991 2022 0.6904 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 3 1,721.682
3 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3 2023 0.6148 3.3648 5.6747 0.0178 1.1963 0.0996 1.2959 0.3203 0.0935 0.4138 0.0000 1,627.529 1 1,627.529
1 0.1185 0.0000 1,630.492
1 2024 4.1619 0.1335 0.2810 5.9000e-
004

0.0325 6.4700e-
003

0.0390 8.6300e-
003

6.0400e-
003

0.0147 0.0000 52.9077 52.9077 8.0200e-
003

0.0000 53.1082
Maximum 4.1619 4.1142 6.1625 0.0189 1.3058 0.1201 1.4259 0.3460 0.1128 0.4588 0.0000 1,721.682 3 1,721.682
3 0.1294 0.0000 1,724.918
3 Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 9-1-2021 11-30-2021 1.4103 1.4103
2 12-1-2021 2-28-2022 1.3613 1.3613
3 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.1985 1.1985
4 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 1.1921 1.1921
5 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 1.1918 1.1918
6 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 1.0774 1.0774
7 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 1.0320 1.0320
8 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 1.0260 1.0260
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 5 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 683 of 1910

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 3,896.073
2 3,896.073
2 0.1303 0.0468 3,913.283
3 Mobile 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 207.8079 0.0000 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 29.1632 556.6420 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567 Total 6.8692 9.5223 30.3407 0.0914 7.7979 0.2260 8.0240 2.0895 0.2219 2.3114 236.9712 12,294.18 07 12,531.15
19 15.7904 0.1260 12,963.47
51 Unmitigated Operational
9 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 1.0265 1.0265
10 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 2.8857 2.8857
11 3-1-2024 5-31-2024 1.6207 1.6207
Highest 2.8857 2.8857
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 6 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 684 of 1910

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Energy 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 7 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 685 of 1910
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 9/1/2021 10/12/2021 5 30
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 10/13/2021 11/9/2021 5 20 3 Grading Grading 11/10/2021 1/11/2022 5 45
4 Building Construction Building Construction 1/12/2022 12/12/2023 5 500 5 Paving Paving 12/13/2023 1/30/2024 5 35
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/31/2024 3/19/2024 5 35 OffRoad Equipment
Residential Indoor: 2,025,000; Residential Outdoor: 675,000; Non-Residential Indoor: 326,400; Non-Residential Outdoor: 108,800; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating ±sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 112.5
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 8 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 686 of 1910
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Excavators 3 8.00 158 0.38
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 2 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 3 8.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 4 8.00 97 0.37 Grading Excavators 2 8.00 158 0.38
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Scrapers 2 8.00 367 0.48
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 8.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 7.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 3 8.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 7.00 97 0.37 Building Construction Welders 1 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Pavers 2 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 2 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 2 8.00 80 0.38
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 9 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 687 of 1910

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003

0.0000 7.5100e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004

0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004

0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003

0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0012 51.0012 0.0144 0.0000 51.3601 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 6 15.00 0.00 458.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Site Preparation 7 18.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Grading 8 20.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Building Construction 9 801.00 143.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Paving 6 15.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 160.00 0.00 0.00 14.70 6.90 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 10 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 688 of 1910

3.2 Demolition - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 1.9300e-
003

0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e-
004

3.9400e-
003

1.9000e-
004

4.1300e-
003

1.0800e-
003

1.8000e-
004

1.2600e-
003

0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003

0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.7000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

8.5100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4900e-
003

6.5000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

6.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003

0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004

6.4100e-
003

2.1000e-
004

6.6200e-
003

1.7300e-
003

2.0000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003

0.0000 19.7136
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0496 0.0000 0.0496 7.5100e-
003

0.0000 7.5100e-
003

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004

0.0233 0.0233 0.0216 0.0216 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Total 0.0475 0.4716 0.3235 5.8000e-
004

0.0496 0.0233 0.0729 7.5100e-
003

0.0216 0.0291 0.0000 51.0011 51.0011 0.0144 0.0000 51.3600 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 11 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 689 of 1910

0.0634 0.0148 1.8000e-
004

3.9400e-
003

1.9000e-
004

4.1300e-
003

1.0800e-
003

1.8000e-
004

1.2600e-
003

0.0000 17.4566 17.4566 1.2100e-
003

0.0000 17.4869
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 9.7000e-
004

7.5000e-
004

8.5100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

2.4900e-
003

6.5000e-
004

2.0000e-
005

6.7000e-
004

0.0000 2.2251 2.2251 7.0000e-
005

0.0000 2.2267
Total 2.9000e-
003

0.0641 0.0233 2.0000e-
004

6.4100e-
003

2.1000e-
004

6.6200e-
003

1.7300e-
003

2.0000e-
004

1.9300e-
003

0.0000 19.6816 19.6816 1.2800e-
003

0.0000 19.7136
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004

0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004

0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7061 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 12 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 690 of 1910

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.7814
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1807 0.0000 0.1807 0.0993 0.0000 0.0993 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004

0.0204 0.0204 0.0188 0.0188 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Total 0.0389 0.4050 0.2115 3.8000e-
004

0.1807 0.0204 0.2011 0.0993 0.0188 0.1181 0.0000 33.4357 33.4357 0.0108 0.0000 33.7060 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 13 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 691 of 1910

3.3 Site Preparation - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.7814
Total 7.7000e-
004

6.0000e-
004

6.8100e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9700e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.9900e-
003

5.2000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

5.4000e-
004

0.0000 1.7801 1.7801 5.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.7814
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003

0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003

0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5405 103.5405 0.0335 0.0000 104.3776 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 14 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 692 of 1910

3.4 Grading - 2021
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144 4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144 4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.7607
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.1741 0.0000 0.1741 0.0693 0.0000 0.0693 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003

0.0377 0.0377 0.0347 0.0347 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Total 0.0796 0.8816 0.5867 1.1800e-
003

0.1741 0.0377 0.2118 0.0693 0.0347 0.1040 0.0000 103.5403 103.5403 0.0335 0.0000 104.3775 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 15 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 693 of 1910

1.2700e-
003

0.0144 4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.7607
Total 1.6400e-
003

1.2700e-
003

0.0144 4.0000e-
005

4.1600e-
003

3.0000e-
005

4.2000e-
003

1.1100e-
003

3.0000e-
005

1.1400e-
003

0.0000 3.7579 3.7579 1.1000e-
004

0.0000 3.7607
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004

5.7200e-
003

5.2600e-
003

0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004

0.0807 5.7200e-
003

0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003

0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 16 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 694 of 1910

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6684
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0807 0.0000 0.0807 0.0180 0.0000 0.0180 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004

5.7200e-
003

5.2600e-
003

0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Total 0.0127 0.1360 0.1017 2.2000e-
004

0.0807 5.7200e-
003

0.0865 0.0180 5.2600e-
003

0.0233 0.0000 19.0871 19.0871 6.1700e-
003

0.0000 19.2414
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 17 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 695 of 1910

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6684
Total 2.8000e-
004

2.1000e-
004

2.4400e-
003

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

7.7000e-
004

2.0000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.1000e-
004

0.0000 0.6679 0.6679 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.6684
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003

0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1324 293.1324 0.0702 0.0000 294.8881 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 18 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 696 of 1910

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0527 1.6961 0.4580 4.5500e-
003

0.1140 3.1800e-
003

0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003

0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e-
003

1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003

0.3031 0.0000 966.8117 966.8117 0.0266 0.0000 967.4773
Total 0.4616 2.0027 3.9885 0.0152 1.2243 0.0121 1.2363 0.3278 0.0112 0.3390 0.0000 1,408.795 2 1,408.795
2 0.0530 0.0000 1,410.120
8 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003

0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Total 0.2158 1.9754 2.0700 3.4100e-
003

0.1023 0.1023 0.0963 0.0963 0.0000 293.1321 293.1321 0.0702 0.0000 294.8877 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 19 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 697 of 1910

0.1140 3.1800e-
003

0.1171 0.0329 3.0400e-
003

0.0359 0.0000 441.9835 441.9835 0.0264 0.0000 442.6435
Worker 0.4088 0.3066 3.5305 0.0107 1.1103 8.8700e-
003

1.1192 0.2949 8.1700e-
003

0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003

0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2789 286.2789 0.0681 0.0000 287.9814 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 20 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 698 of 1910

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0382 1.2511 0.4011 4.3000e-
003

0.1113 1.4600e-
003

0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003

0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e-
003

1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003

0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291
Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e-
003

1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003

0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336
9 1,327.336
9 0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491
6 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003

0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Total 0.1942 1.7765 2.0061 3.3300e-
003

0.0864 0.0864 0.0813 0.0813 0.0000 286.2785 286.2785 0.0681 0.0000 287.9811 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 21 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 699 of 1910

0.1113 1.4600e-
003

0.1127 0.0321 1.4000e-
003

0.0335 0.0000 417.9930 417.9930 0.0228 0.0000 418.5624
Worker 0.3753 0.2708 3.1696 0.0101 1.0840 8.4100e-
003

1.0924 0.2879 7.7400e-
003

0.2957 0.0000 909.3439 909.3439 0.0234 0.0000 909.9291
Total 0.4135 1.5218 3.5707 0.0144 1.1953 9.8700e-
003

1.2051 0.3200 9.1400e-
003

0.3292 0.0000 1,327.336
9 1,327.336
9 0.0462 0.0000 1,328.491
6 Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e-
003

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

0.0000 13.1227
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 22 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 700 of 1910

3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8968
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 6.7100e-
003

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

0.0000 13.1227
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 6.7100e-
003

0.0663 0.0948 1.5000e-
004

3.3200e-
003

3.0500e-
003

0.0000 13.0175 13.0175 4.2100e-
003

0.0000 13.1227
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 23 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 701 of 1910

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8968
Total 3.7000e-
004

2.7000e-
004

3.1200e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.0800e-
003

2.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

2.9000e-
004

0.0000 0.8963 0.8963 2.0000e-
005

0.0000 0.8968
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

0.0000 22.2073
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 24 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 702 of 1910

3.6 Paving - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.4706
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

0.0000 22.2073
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0109 0.1048 0.1609 2.5000e-
004

5.1500e-
003

4.7400e-
003

0.0000 22.0292 22.0292 7.1200e-
003

0.0000 22.2073
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 25 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 703 of 1910

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.4706
Total 5.9000e-
004

4.1000e-
004

4.9200e-
003

2.0000e-
005

1.8100e-
003

1.0000e-
005

1.8200e-
003

4.8000e-
004

1.0000e-
005

4.9000e-
004

0.0000 1.4697 1.4697 4.0000e-
005

0.0000 1.4706
Mitigated Construction Off-Site

0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 26 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 704 of 1910

3.7 Architectural Coating - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Worker 0.0101 6.9900e-
003

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

0.0000 24.9558
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 4.1372 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 3.1600e-
003

0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Total 4.1404 0.0213 0.0317 5.0000e-
005

1.0700e-
003

0.0000 4.4682 4.4682 2.5000e-
004

0.0000 4.4745
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 27 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 705 of 1910

4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile

4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

0.0000 24.9558
Total 0.0101 6.9900e-
003

0.0835 2.8000e-
004

0.0307 2.3000e-
004

0.0309 8.1500e-
003

2.2000e-
004

8.3700e-
003

0.0000 24.9407 24.9407 6.1000e-
004

0.0000 24.9558
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 28 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 706 of 1910
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 Unmitigated 1.5857 7.9962 19.1834 0.0821 7.7979 0.0580 7.8559 2.0895 0.0539 2.1434 0.0000 7,620.498 6 7,620.498
6 0.3407 0.0000 7,629.016
2 4.2 Trip Summary Information

4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Apartments Low Rise 145.75 154.25 154.00 506,227 506,227 Apartments Mid Rise 4,026.75 3,773.25 4075.50 13,660,065 13,660,065 General Office Building 288.45 62.55 31.05 706,812 706,812 High Turnover (Sit Down Restaurant) 2,368.80 2,873.52 2817.72 3,413,937 3,413,937 Hotel 192.00 187.50 160.00 445,703 445,703
Quality Restaurant 501.12 511.92 461.20 707,488 707,488 Regional Shopping Center 528.08 601.44 357.84 1,112,221 1,112,221 Total 8,050.95 8,164.43 8,057.31 20,552,452 20,552,452
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 29 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 707 of 1910
Miles Trip % Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by Apartments Low Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 Apartments Mid Rise 14.70 5.90 8.70 40.20 19.20 40.60 86 11 3 General Office Building 16.60 8.40 6.90 33.00 48.00 19.00 77 19 4 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

16.60 8.40 6.90 8.50 72.50 19.00 37 20 43
Hotel 16.60 8.40 6.90 19.40 61.60 19.00 58 38 4
Quality Restaurant 16.60 8.40 6.90 12.00 69.00 19.00 38 18 44 Regional Shopping Center 16.60 8.40 6.90 16.30 64.70 19.00 54 35 11

5.0 Energy Detail

5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy

4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH Apartments Low Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Apartments Mid Rise 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 General Office Building 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 High Turnover (Sit Down
Restaurant)

0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Hotel 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Quality Restaurant 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Regional Shopping Center 0.543088 0.044216 0.209971 0.116369 0.014033 0.006332 0.021166 0.033577 0.002613 0.001817 0.005285 0.000712 0.000821 Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 30 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 708 of 1910
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Electricity
Unmitigated

0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2,512.646
5 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 NaturalGas
Mitigated

0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 NaturalGas
Unmitigated

0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
7 1,383.426
7 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 31 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 709 of 1910

5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
408494 2.2000e-
003

0.0188 8.0100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

1.5200e-
003

0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.30613e
+007

0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003

0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003

0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004

1.7500e-
003

0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

8.30736e
+006

0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003

0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003

8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006

9.3900e-
003

0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003

1.7000e-
003

93.4557
Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e-
003

0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004

6.8800e-
003

0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004

4.5000e-
003

3.7800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 32 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 710 of 1910

0.0188 8.0100e-
003

1.2000e-
004

1.5200e-
003

0.0000 21.7988 21.7988 4.2000e-
004

4.0000e-
004

21.9284
Apartments Mid
Rise

1.30613e
+007

0.0704 0.6018 0.2561 3.8400e-
003

0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0487 0.0000 696.9989 696.9989 0.0134 0.0128 701.1408 General Office
Building
468450 2.5300e-
003

0.0230 0.0193 1.4000e-
004

1.7500e-
003

0.0000 24.9983 24.9983 4.8000e-
004

4.6000e-
004

25.1468
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

8.30736e
+006

0.0448 0.4072 0.3421 2.4400e-
003

0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0310 0.0000 443.3124 443.3124 8.5000e- 003

8.1300e-
003
445.9468
Hotel 1.74095e
+006

9.3900e-
003

0.0853 0.0717 5.1000e-
004

6.4900e-
003

0.0000 92.9036 92.9036 1.7800e-
003

1.7000e-
003

93.4557
Quality
Restaurant

1.84608e
+006

9.9500e-
003

0.0905 0.0760 5.4000e-
004

6.8800e-
003

0.0000 98.5139 98.5139 1.8900e-
003

1.8100e-
003

99.0993
Regional
Shopping Center
91840 5.0000e-
004

4.5000e-
003

3.7800e-
003

3.0000e-
005

3.4000e-
004

0.0000 4.9009 4.9009 9.0000e-
005

9.0000e-
005

4.9301
Total 0.1398 1.2312 0.7770 7.6200e-
003

0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0966 0.0000 1,383.426
8 1,383.426
8 0.0265 0.0254 1,391.647
8 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 33 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 711 of 1910

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003

1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003

1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003

9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 34 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 712 of 1910

6.1 Mitigation Measures Area

6.0 Area Detail

5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise
106010 33.7770 1.3900e-
003

2.9000e-
004

33.8978
Apartments Mid
Rise

3.94697e
+006
1,257.587
9 0.0519 0.0107 1,262.086
9 General Office
Building
584550 186.2502 7.6900e-
003

1.5900e-
003
186.9165
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

1.58904e
+006
506.3022 0.0209 4.3200e-
003
508.1135
Hotel 550308 175.3399 7.2400e-
003

1.5000e-
003
175.9672
Quality
Restaurant
353120 112.5116 4.6500e-
003

9.6000e-
004
112.9141
Regional
Shopping Center
756000 240.8778 9.9400e-
003

2.0600e-
003
241.7395
Total 2,512.646
5 0.1037 0.0215 2,521.635
6 Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 35 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 713 of 1910
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Unmitigated 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6700e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835

6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating

0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003

0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003

3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004

0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 36 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 714 of 1910

7.1 Mitigation Measures Water

7.0 Water Detail

0.4137 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Consumer
Products

4.3998 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Hearth 0.0206 0.1763 0.0750 1.1200e-
003

0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0143 0.0000 204.1166 204.1166 3.9100e- 003

3.7400e-
003
205.3295
Landscaping 0.3096 0.1187 10.3054 5.4000e-
004

0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0572 0.0000 16.8504 16.8504 0.0161 0.0000 17.2540 Total 5.1437 0.2950 10.3804 1.6600e-
003

0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0714 0.0000 220.9670 220.9670 0.0201 3.7400e- 003
222.5835
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 37 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 715 of 1910
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 38 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 716 of 1910

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 39 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 717 of 1910

8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste

7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

1.62885 /

1.02688

10.9095 0.0535 1.3400e-
003

12.6471
Apartments Mid
Rise

63.5252 /

40.0485
425.4719 2.0867 0.0523 493.2363
General Office
Building

7.99802 /

4.90201

53.0719 0.2627 6.5900e-
003

61.6019
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)

10.9272 /

0.697482

51.2702 0.3580 8.8200e-
003

62.8482
Hotel 1.26834 /

0.140927

6.1633 0.0416 1.0300e-
003

7.5079
Quality
Restaurant

2.42827 /

0.154996

11.3934 0.0796 1.9600e-
003

13.9663
Regional
Shopping Center

4.14806 /

2.54236

27.5250 0.1363 3.4200e-
003

31.9490
Total 585.8052 3.0183 0.0755 683.7567
Mitigated

8.0 Waste Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 40 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 718 of 1910
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 41 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 719 of 1910

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building

41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant

7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 42 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 720 of 1910

8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Apartments Low
Rise

11.5 2.3344 0.1380 0.0000 5.7834
Apartments Mid
Rise
448.5 91.0415 5.3804 0.0000 225.5513
General Office
Building

41.85 8.4952 0.5021 0.0000 21.0464
High Turnover (Sit
Down Restaurant)
428.4 86.9613 5.1393 0.0000 215.4430
Hotel 27.38 5.5579 0.3285 0.0000 13.7694
Quality
Restaurant

7.3 1.4818 0.0876 0.0000 3.6712
Regional
Shopping Center

58.8 11.9359 0.7054 0.0000 29.5706
Total 207.8079 12.2811 0.0000 514.8354
Mitigated

9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type

10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 43 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 721 of 1910

11.0 Vegetation
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:52 PMPage 44 of 44 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Annual 722 of 1910

1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Urban
9 Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days)2.2 33

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data

1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company Southern California Edison
2028Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
702.44 0.029CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)

0.006N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
Village South Specific Plan (Proposed)
Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.2 Date: 1/6/2021 1:54 PMPage 1 of 35 Village South Specific Plan (Proposed) - Los Angeles-South Coast County, Summer 723 of 1910
Project Characteristics - Consistent with the DEIR's model.