Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (October 24-25, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
Mealey’s C8/PFOA. Science, Risk & Litigation Conference. Lecture conducted from The Rittenhouse Hotel, Philadelphia, PA.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (September 19, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference . Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel, Irvine California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (September 19, 2005). Fate, Transport, Toxicity, And Persistence of 1,2,3-TCP. PEMA Emerging Contaminant Conference. Lecture conducted from Hilton Hotel in Irvine, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D. (September 26-27, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PDBEs. Mealey’s Groundwater Conference. Lecture conducted from Ritz Carlton Hotel, Marina Del Ray, California.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (June 7-8, 2005). Fate, Transport and Persistence of PFOA and Related Chemicals.
International Society of Environmental Forensics: Focus On Emerging Contaminants . Lecture conducted from Sheraton Oceanfront Hotel, Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (July 21-22, 2005). Fate Transport, Persistence and Toxicology of PFOA and Related Perfluorochemicals. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water And Environmental Law Conference .
Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D . (July 21-22, 2005). Brominated Flame Retardants in Groundwater: Pathways to Human Ingestion, Toxicology and Remediation. 2005 National Groundwater Association Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Wyndham Baltimore Inner Harbor, Baltimore Maryland.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. and Rob Hesse R.G. (May 5-6, 2004). Tert-butyl Alcohol Liability and Toxicology, A National Problem and Unquantified Liability. National Groundwater Association. Environmental Law Conference. Lecture conducted from Congress Plaza Hotel, Chicago Illinois.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (March 2004). Perchlorate Toxicology. Meeting of the American Groundwater Trust .
Lecture conducted from Phoenix Arizona.
Hagemann, M.F., Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and Rob Hesse (2004). Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River.
Meeting of tribal representatives. Lecture conducted from Parker, AZ.
913 of 1910
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 6 of 10 June 2019
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (April 7, 2004). A National Damage Assessment Model For PCE and Dry Cleaners.
Drycleaner Symposium. California Ground Water Association . Lecture conducted from Radison Hotel, Sacramento, California.
Rosenfeld, P. E ., Grey, M., (June 2003) Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Seventh International In Situ And On Site Bioremediation Symposium Battelle Conference Orlando, FL.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. and James Clark Ph.D. (February 20-21, 2003) Understanding Historical Use, Chemical Properties, Toxicity and Regulatory Guidance of 1,4 Dioxane. National Groundwater Association. Southwest Focus Conference. Water Supply and Emerging Contaminants .. Lecture conducted from Hyatt Regency Phoenix Arizona.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D. (February 6-7, 2003). Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. California CUPA Forum. Lecture conducted from Marriott Hotel, Anaheim California.
Paul Rosenfeld, Ph.D . (October 23, 2002) Underground Storage Tank Litigation and Remediation. EPA Underground Storage Tank Roundtable. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E . and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Understanding Odor from Compost, Wastewater and Industrial Processes. Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association. Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Suffet, M. (October 7- 10, 2002). Using High Carbon Wood Ash to Control Compost Odor.
Sixth Annual Symposium On Off Flavors in the Aquatic Environment. International Water Association . Lecture conducted from Barcelona Spain.
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (September 22-24, 2002). Biocycle Composting For Coastal Sage Restoration.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association . Lecture conducted from Vancouver Washington..
Rosenfeld, P.E. and Grey, M. A. (November 11-14, 2002). Using High-Carbon Wood Ash to Control Odor at a Green Materials Composting Facility. Soil Science Society Annual Conferenc e. Lecture conducted from Indianapolis, Maryland.
Rosenfeld. P.E. (September 16, 2000). Two stage biofilter for biosolids composting odor control. Water Environment Federation. Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Rosenfeld. P.E. ( October 16, 2000). Wood ash and biofilter control of compost odor. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Ocean Shores, California.
Rosenfeld, P.E. ( 2000). Bioremediation Using Organic Soil Amendments. California Resource Recovery Association. Lecture conducted from Sacramento California.
Rosenfeld, P.E ., C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings . Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E., and C.L. Henry. (1999). An evaluation of ash incorporation with biosolids for odor reduction. Soil Science Society of America. Lecture conducted from Salt Lake City Utah.
Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Comparison of Microbial Activity and Odor Emissions from Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Brown and Caldwell. Lecture conducted from Seattle Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry. (1998). Characterization, Quantification, and Control of Odor Emissions from Biosolids Application To Forest Soil. Biofest. Lecture conducted from Lake Chelan, Washington.
914 of 1910
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 7 of 10 June 2019
Rosenfeld, P.E, C.L. Henry, R. Harrison. (1998). Oat and Grass Seed Germination and Nitrogen and Sulfur Emissions Following Biosolids Incorporation With High-Carbon Wood-Ash. Water Environment Federation 12th Annual Residuals and Biosolids Management Conference Proceedings. Lecture conducted from Bellevue Washington.
Rosenfeld, P.E. , C.L. Henry, R. B. Harrison, and R. Dills. (1997). Comparison of Odor Emissions From Three Different Biosolids Applied to Forest Soil. Soil Science Society of America . Lecture conducted from Anaheim California.
Teaching Experience:
UCLA Department of Environmental Health (Summer 2003 through 20010) Taught Environmental Health Science 100 to students, including undergrad, medical doctors, public health professionals and nurses. Course focused on the health effects of environmental contaminants.
National Ground Water Association, Successful Remediation Technologies. Custom Course in Sante Fe, New Mexico. May 21, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of fuel contaminants associated with underground storage tanks.
National Ground Water Association; Successful Remediation Technologies Course in Chicago Illinois. April 1, 2002. Focused on fate and transport of contaminants associated with Superfund and RCRA sites.
California Integrated Waste Management Board, April and May, 2001. Alternative Landfill Caps Seminar in San Diego, Ventura, and San Francisco. Focused on both prescriptive and innovative landfill cover design.
UCLA Department of Environmental Engineering, February 5, 2002. Seminar on Successful Remediation Technologies focusing on Groundwater Remediation.
University Of Washington, Soil Science Program, Teaching Assistant for several courses including: Soil Chemistry, Organic Soil Amendments, and Soil Stability.
U.C. Berkeley, Environmental Science Program Teaching Assistant for Environmental Science 10.
Academic Grants Awarded:
California Integrated Waste Management Board. $41,000 grant awarded to UCLA Institute of the Environment.
Goal: To investigate effect of high carbon wood ash on volatile organic emissions from compost. 2001.
Synagro Technologies, Corona California: $10,000 grant awarded to San Diego State University.
Goal: investigate effect of biosolids for restoration and remediation of degraded coastal sage soils. 2000.
King County, Department of Research and Technology, Washington State. $100,000 grant awarded to University of Washington: Goal: To investigate odor emissions from biosolids application and the effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions. 1998.
Northwest Biosolids Management Association, Washington State. $20,000 grant awarded to investigate effect of polymers and ash on VOC emissions from biosolids. 1997.
James River Corporation, Oregon: $10,000 grant was awarded to investigate the success of genetically engineered Poplar trees with resistance to round-up. 1996.
United State Forest Service, Tahoe National Forest: $15,000 grant was awarded to investigating fire ecology of the Tahoe National Forest. 1995.
Kellogg Foundation, Washington D.C. $500 grant was awarded to construct a large anaerobic digester on St. Kitts in West Indies. 1993
915 of 1910
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 8 of 10 June 2019
Deposition and/or Trial Testimony:
In the United States District Court For The District of New Jersey Duarte et al, Plaintiffs, vs. United States Metals Refining Company et. al. Defendant.
Case No.: 2:17-cv-01624-ES-SCM
Rosenfeld Deposition. 6-7-2019
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division M/T Carla Maersk, Plaintiffs, vs. Conti 168., Schiffahrts-GMBH & Co. Bulker KG MS “Conti Perdido” Defendant.
Case No.: 3:15-CV-00106 consolidated with 3:15-CV-00237 Rosenfeld Deposition. 5-9-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica Carole-Taddeo-Bates et al., vs. Ifran Khan et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC615636
Rosenfeld Deposition, 1-26-2019
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Los Angeles – Santa Monica The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments et al. vs El Adobe Apts. Inc. et al., Defendants Case No.: No. BC646857
Rosenfeld Deposition, 10-6-2018; Trial 3-7-19
In United States District Court For The District of Colorado Bells et al. Plaintiff vs. The 3M Company et al., Defendants Case: No 1:16-cv-02531-RBJ
Rosenfeld Deposition, 3-15-2018 and 4-3-2018
In The District Court Of Regan County, Texas, 112 th Judicial District Phillip Bales et al., Plaintiff vs. Dow Agrosciences, LLC, et al., Defendants Cause No 1923
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-17-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California In And For The County Of Contra Costa Simons et al., Plaintiffs vs. Chevron Corporation, et al., Defendants Cause No C12-01481
Rosenfeld Deposition, 11-20-2017
In The Circuit Court Of The Twentieth Judicial Circuit, St Clair County, Illinois Martha Custer et al., Plaintiff vs. Cerro Flow Products, Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 0i9-L-2295
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-23-2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, For The County of Los Angeles Warrn Gilbert and Penny Gilber, Plaintiff vs. BMW of North America LLC Case No.: LC102019 (c/w BC582154)
Rosenfeld Deposition, 8-16-2017, Trail 8-28-2018
In the Northern District Court of Mississippi, Greenville Division Brenda J. Cooper, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Meritor Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 4:16-cv-52-DMB-JVM
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2017
916 of 1910
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 9 of 10 June 2019
In The Superior Court of the State of Washington, County of Snohomish Michael Davis and Julie Davis et al., Plaintiff vs. Cedar Grove Composting Inc., Defendants Case No.: No. 13-2-03987-5
Rosenfeld Deposition, February 2017
Trial, March 2017
In The Superior Court of the State of California, County of Alameda Charles Spain., Plaintiff vs. Thermo Fisher Scientific, et al., Defendants Case No.: RG14711115
Rosenfeld Deposition, September 2015
In The Iowa District Court In And For Poweshiek County
Russell D. Winburn, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Doug Hoksbergen, et al., Defendants Case No.: LALA002187
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Jerry Dovico, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Valley View Sine LLC, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Wapello County
Doug Pauls, et al.,, et al., Plaintiffs vs. Richard Warren, et al., Defendants Law No,: LALA105144 - Division A
Rosenfeld Deposition, August 2015
In The Circuit Court of Ohio County, West Virginia
Robert Andrews, et al. v. Antero, et al.
Civil Action N0. 14-C-30000
Rosenfeld Deposition, June 2015
In The Third Judicial District County of Dona Ana, New Mexico Betty Gonzalez, et al. Plaintiffs vs. Del Oro Dairy, Del Oro Real Estate LLC, Jerry Settles and Deward DeRuyter, Defendants
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2015
In The Iowa District Court For Muscatine County
Laurie Freeman et. al. Plaintiffs vs. Grain Processing Corporation, Defendant Case No 4980
Rosenfeld Deposition: May 2015
In the Circuit Court of the 17th Judicial Circuit, in and For Broward County, Florida Walter Hinton, et. al. Plaintiff, vs. City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, a Municipality, Defendant.
Case Number CACE07030358 (26)
Rosenfeld Deposition: December 2014
In the United States District Court Western District of Oklahoma Tommy McCarty, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Oklahoma City Landfill, LLC d/b/a Southeast Oklahoma City Landfill, et al. Defendants.
Case No. 5:12-cv-01152-C
Rosenfeld Deposition: July 2014
917 of 1910
Paul E. Rosenfeld, Ph.D. Page 10 of 10 June 2019
In the County Court of Dallas County Texas
Lisa Parr et al, Plaintiff, vs. Aruba et al, Defendant.
Case Number cc-11-01650-E
Rosenfeld Deposition: March and September 2013
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2014
In the Court of Common Pleas of Tuscarawas County Ohio
John Michael Abicht, et al., Plaintiffs, vs. Republic Services, Inc., et al., Defendants Case Number: 2008 CT 10 0741 (Cons. w/ 2009 CV 10 0987) Rosenfeld Deposition: October 2012
In the United States District Court of Southern District of Texas Galveston Division Kyle Cannon, Eugene Donovan, Genaro Ramirez, Carol Sassler, and Harvey Walton, each Individually and on behalf of those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. BP Products North America, Inc., Defendant.
Case 3:10-cv-00622
Rosenfeld Deposition: February 2012
Rosenfeld Trial: April 2013
In the Circuit Court of Baltimore County Maryland
Philip E. Cvach, II et al., Plaintiffs vs. Two Farms, Inc. d/b/a Royal Farms, Defendants Case Number: 03-C-12-012487 OT
Rosenfeld Deposition: September 2013
918 of 1910
EXHIBIT C
919 of 1910
1640 5th St.., Suite 204 Santa
Santa Monica, California 90401
Tel: (949) 887‐9013
Email: [email protected]
Matthew F. Hagemann, P.G., C.Hg., QSD, QSP
Geo
logic and Hydrogeologic Characterization
Industrial Stormwater Compliance
Investigation and Remediation Strategies
Litigation Support and Testifying Expert
CEQA Review
Education:
M.S. Degree, Geology, California State University Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, 1984.
B.A. Degree, Geology, Humboldt State University, Arcata, CA, 1982.
Professional Certifications:
California Professional Geologist
California Certified Hydrogeologist
Qualified SWPPP Developer and Practitioner
Professional Experience:
Matt has 25 years of experience in environmental policy, assessment and remediation. He spent nine years with the U.S. EPA in the RCRA and Superfund programs and served as EPA’s Senior Science Policy Advisor in the Western Regional Office where he identified emerging threats to groundwater from perchlorate and MTBE. While with EPA, Matt also served as a Senior Hydrogeologist in the oversight of the assessment of seven major military facilities undergoing base closure. He led numerous enforcement actions under provisions of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) while also working with permit holders to improve hydrogeologic characterization and water quality monitoring.
Matt has worked closely with U.S. EPA legal counsel and the technical staff of several states in the application and enforcement of RCRA, Safe Drinking Water Act and Clean Water Act regulations. Matt has trained the technical staff in the States of California, Hawaii, Nevada, Arizona and the Territory of Guam in the conduct of investigations, groundwater fundamentals, and sampling techniques.
Positions Matt has held include:
• Founding Partner, Soil/Water/Air Protection Enterprise (SWAPE) (2003 – present); • Geology
Instructor, Golden West College, 2010 – 2014;
• Senior
Environmental Analyst, Komex H2O Science, Inc. (2000 ‐‐ 2003); 920 of 1910
• Executive Director, Orange Coast Watch (2001 – 2004); • Senior Science Policy Advisor and Hydrogeologist, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1989– 1998);
• Hydrogeologist, National Park Service, Water Resources Division (1998 – 2000); • Adjunct Faculty Member, San Francisco State University, Department of Geosciences (1993 – 1998);
• Instructor, College of Marin, Department of Science (1990 – 1995); • Geologist, U.S. Forest Service (1986 – 1998); and
• Geologist, Dames & Moore (1984 – 1986).
Senior Regulatory and Litigation Support Analyst:
With SWAPE, Matt’s responsibilities have included:
• Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of over 100 environmental impact reports since 2003 under CEQA that identify significant issues with regard to hazardous waste, water resources, water quality, air quality, Valley Fever, greenhouse gas emissions, and geologic hazards. Make recommendations for additional mitigation measures to lead agencies at the local and county level to include additional characterization of health risks and implementation of protective measures to reduce worker exposure to hazards from toxins and Valley Fever.
• Stormwater analysis, sampling and best management practice evaluation at industrial facilities. • Manager of a project to provide technical assistance to a community adjacent to a former Naval shipyard under a grant from the U.S. EPA.
• Technical assistance and litigation support for vapor intrusion concerns. • Lead analyst and testifying expert in the review of environmental issues in license applications for large solar power plants before the California Energy Commission. • Manager of a project to evaluate numerous formerly used military sites in the western U.S. • Manager of a comprehensive evaluation of potential sources of perchlorate contamination in Southern California drinking water wells.
• Manager and designated expert for litigation support under provisions of Proposition 65 in the review of releases of gasoline to sources drinking water at major refineries and hundreds of gas stations throughout California.
• Expert witness on two cases involving MTBE litigation. • Expert witness and litigation support on the impact of air toxins and hazards at a school. • Expert witness in litigation at a former plywood plant.
With Komex H2O Science Inc., Matt’s duties included the following:
• Senior author of a report on the extent of perchlorate contamination that was used in testimony by the former U.S. EPA Administrator and General Counsel. • Senior researcher in the d evelopment of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of MTBE use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in the development of a comprehensive, electronically interactive chronology of perchlorate use, research, and regulation.
• Senior researcher in a study that estimates nationwide costs for MTBE remediation and drinking water treatment, results of which were published in newspapers nationwide and in testimony against provisions of an energy bill that would limit liability for oil companies. • Research to support litigation to restore drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE in California and New York.
2 921 of 1910
• Expert witness testimony in a case of oil production‐related contamination in Mississippi. • Lead author for a multi‐volume remedial investigation report for an operating school in Los Angeles that met strict regulatory requirements and rigorous deadlines. 3 922 of 1910
• Development of strategic approaches for cleanup of contaminated sites in consultation with clients and regulators.
Executive Director:
As Executive Director with Orange Coast Watch, Matt led efforts to restore water quality at Orange County beaches from multiple sources of contamination including urban runoff and the discharge of wastewater. In reporting to a Board of Directors that included representatives from leading Orange County universities and businesses, Matt prepared issue papers in the areas of treatment and disinfection of wastewater and control of the discharge of grease to sewer systems. Matt actively participated in the development of countywide water quality permits for the control of urban runoff and permits for the discharge of wastewater. Matt worked with other nonprofits to protect and restore water quality, including Surfrider, Natural Resources Defense Council and Orange County CoastKeeper as well as with business institutions including the Orange County Business Council.
Hydrogeology:
As a Senior Hydrogeologist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Matt led investigations to characterize and cleanup closing military bases, including Mare Island Naval Shipyard, Hunters Point Naval Shipyard, Treasure Island Naval Station, Alameda Naval Station, Moffett Field, Mather Army Airfield, and Sacramento Army Depot. Specific activities were as follows:
• Led efforts to model groundwater flow and contaminant transport, ensured adequacy of monitoring networks, and assessed cleanup alternatives for contaminated sediment, soil, and groundwater.
• Initiated a regional program for evaluation of groundwater sampling practices and laboratory analysis at military bases.
• Identified emerging issues, wrote technical guidance, and assisted in policy and regulation development through work on four national U.S. EPA workgroups, including the Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum and the Federal Facilities Forum.
At the request of the State of Hawaii, Matt developed a methodology to determine the vulnerability of groundwater to contamination on the islands of Maui and Oahu. He used analytical models and a GIS to show zones of vulnerability, and the results were adopted and published by the State of Hawaii and County of Maui.
As a hydrogeologist with the EPA Groundwater Protection Section, Matt worked with provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act and NEPA to prevent drinking water contamination. Specific activities included the following:
• Received an EPA Bronze Medal for his contribution to the development of national guidance for the protection of drinking water.
• Managed t he Sole Source Aquifer Program and protected the drinking water of two communities through designation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. He prepared geologic reports, conducted public hearings, and responded to public comments from residents who were very concerned about the impact of designation.
4 923 of 1910
• Reviewed a number of Environmental Impact Statements for planned major developments, including large hazardous and solid waste disposal facilities, mine reclamation, and water transfer.
Matt served as a hydrogeologist with the RCRA Hazardous Waste program. Duties were as follows:
• Supervised the hydrogeologic investigation of hazardous waste sites to determine compliance with Subtitle C requirements.
• Reviewed and wrote ʺpart Bʺ permits for the disposal of hazardous waste. • Conducted RCRA Corrective Action investigations of waste sites and led inspections that formed the basis for significant enforcement actions that were developed in close coordination with U.S.
EPA legal counsel.
• Wrote contract specifications and supervised contractor’s investigations of waste sites.
With the National Park Service, Matt directed service‐wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
• Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. • Conducted watershed‐scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
• Identified high‐levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. • Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
• Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
• Co‐authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation‐ wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. • Contributed to t he Federal Multi‐Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.
Policy:
Served senior management as the Senior Science Policy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
• Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
• Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
• Improved the technical training of EPAʹs scientific and engineering staff. • Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy‐making process.
• Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 924 of 1910
Geology:
With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
• Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
• Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
• Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.
As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
• Supervised year‐long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. • Conducted aquifer tests.
• Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.
Teaching:
From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
• At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
• Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. • Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.
Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.
Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.
Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.
EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.
Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6 925 of 1910
Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.
Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter‐Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.
Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.
Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.
Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
7 926 of 1910
Hagemann, M.F ., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.
Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.
Hagemann, M.F., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential Water Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F. 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.
Hagemann, M.F ., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.
Hagemann, M.F., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Hagemann, M.F., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.
Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.
Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP‐61.
Hagemann, M.F., 1994. Groundwater Characterization and Cleanup a t Closing Military Bases in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.
Hagemann, M. F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.
Hagemann, M.F., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL‐ contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 927 of 1910
Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.
Other Experience:
Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009‐ 2011.
9 928 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Input.
G lendale Association of Realtors®
Property / Parcel Building
SQFT.
Land
SQFT. Leases
Potential
Units Per
Housing
Element
Report
Type of Units
Per City Report
Not A Good RHNA Candidate.
Here is Why.
APN: 5642-014-952 70,274 229 Low I ncome The Green Space in Americana containing the Trolly ride, the Fountain, and the public park is perhaps the attraction that is most important to the Americana Draw. Potential covenant in all of Americana Retail leases to be maintained as green space. Also recorded in the condominium
subdivision map for over 152 condos in Americana.
322 Americana Way 43,412 69,670 YE S 147 Low Income Movie Theater. Part of Americana at Brand. Potential Long-Term Lease with AMC, the current operator
200 W. Broadway Ave. 140,000 43,560 Yes 75 Low Income Dicks Sporting Goods & Golds Gym. Net Operating Income (NOI) of $2,345Mill per year. Being marketed for sale. If property sold for a CAP rate of 4%, the per square foot price of
land will be over $1,333.00! No developer will pay
such a sum to develop 75 units.
130 N. Central Ave. 41,936 Yes 125 Low Income Owner, Holland Partners, had a development agreement with the city when they purchased the property in 2013.
We believe the agreement was for market rate housing,
not low-income housing as represented in the city report.
R
R
NEED APN
R
R
929 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Input.
G lendale Association of Realtors®
Property / Parcel Building
Size
Land Size Leases
Potential
Units Per
Housing
Element
Report
Type of Units
Per Report
Not A Good RHNA Candidate.
Here is Why.
201 W. Lexington Drive 120,000 Yes 390
*S
hould be
247 Units a
reduction of
143 Units
Low Income The California Community Housing Agency purchased the property at 275 W. Lexington Drive from Cypress Equity
Investments. Note: 494 units. The credit for low-income housing should be 25% to 50% of the number of the
units, or up to 247 units and not the 390 units
represented in the report
232 N. Orange Ave. 91,000 22,798 Parking
Structure
74 Low Income You will have an uprising amongst mid-Brand merchants such as Porto’s, Panera, etc. if the city decides to
demolish 1000+ space parking structure to build 74 units! 225 W. Broadway Ave. 122,000 76,665 Yes 250 Low Income Occupied by tenants. IRS and Social Security Admin are the two largest tenants. IRS lease ends 4 years in this RHNA cycle. Unless sure that IRS won’t renew and or has no
options to renew, the report’s assumption of 250 low-
income units should be revised.
300 S. Central Ave. 9,921 25,987 Yes 85 Low Income Chase Bank and Shoe City are the tenants. Owned by Caruso Affiliated. Renovated in 2011. Leases started 2011 R
K
K
K
930 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Input.
G lendale Association of Realtors®
Property / Parcel Building
Size
Land Size Leases
Potential
Units Per
Housing
Element
Report
Type of Units
Per Report
Not A Good RHNA Candidate.
Here is Why.
APN: 5642-006-064 43,074 49,268 YMCA 161 Low Income Historic Landmark. Four-story Spanish Colonial Revival building. YMCA Building. Note: Part of the property on the Kenwood Ave. side was already developed (Ace 121).
APN: 5643-001-912 211,286 85,339 Altana
Apt. Bldg.
278
*Reduction of
25 units
Low Income Altana was built in 2016. 507-unit apartment Bldg. The California Community Housing Agency purchased the
property. The credit for low-income housing should be
25% to 50% of the number of the units, or up to 253 units and not the 278 units represented in the report.
APN: 5643-003-047 27,007 88 Thi s parcel number does not exist in Assessor’s data base 6136 San Fernando Rd. 31,363 Wate r
Treatment
Center
13 Low Income More explanation needed
Adjustment (1,415) Units
Address:
6316 San Fernando Rd.
R
R
R
K
931 of 1910
January 4, 2022
Gustavo Velasquez, Director
California Department of Housing & Community Development 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
Dear Director Velasquez:
We are writing on behalf ofAbundant Housing LAregarding Glendale’s 6th Cycle housing element update. As you know, we have shared several comment letters with HCD describing our concerns about major deficiencies in the City’s housing element update. Among our concerns is the City’s failure to identify enough parcels in its site inventory and proposed rezoning program to achieve its RHNA target of 13,425 homes by 2029.
Assembly Bill 1397 (2017) requires cities to provide an accurate assessment of realistic site capacity, including “the city’s or City’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.”
When cities allocate over 50% of their lower-income RHNA targets to nonvacant sites, they must demonstrate throughsubstantial evidencethat the current use of these sites is likely to be discontinued during the planning period. This is necessary in order to ensure that enough parcels for affordable housing production are identified, and that the lower-income RHNA targets are ultimately achieved. To date, the City has not yet adequately provided this substantial evidence.
Abundant Housing LA has partnered withMapCraft Labs, an economic and policy analysis firm with expertise in housing elements and quantitative real estate analysis, to forecast the true realistic capacity of the City’s site inventory and proposed rezoning program. The analysis considers the likely impact of housing element updates on housing production and proposes alternative rezoning scenarios that are more likely to achieve the RHNA target. In particular, MapCraft analyzed the market feasibility of the unit capacity claims made on parcels included in jurisdictions’ site inventories.
This analysis calls into question the City’s conclusion that its housing element creates the conditions for achieving the RHNA target. Among our core findings:
● While the City’s site inventory and rezoning program claimed capacity for about 14,700 housing units, our analysis suggests that expected housing capacity could fall short by 1,500 to 3,000 housing units.
932 of 1910
● On 41 sites where the City has claimed 3,465 housing units, our analysis found that these sites are either unlikely to be redeveloped to the density that the City is claiming, or are unlikely to be redeveloped altogether.This represents 41% of the housing units in the City's site inventory.
In light of this information, we respectfully recommend that HCD urge the City to reassess its site capacity claims, and revise its site inventory and proposed rezoning program. The City should add more parcels to its site inventory and expand its proposed rezoning program, particularly for low-density parcels in high-demand neighborhoods like Vineyard, Mariposa, Pacific-Edison, and Grandview. The City should also consider eliminating or reducing on-site parking requirements, which would greatly improve the economic feasibility of denser housing development.
We encourage you to review Abundant Housing LA and MapCraft’s full report describing how these conclusions were reached. We would be happy to discuss our findings with you and your colleagues. Thank you for your team’s continued hard work and dedication to solving California’s housing shortage and affordability crisis.
Sincerely,
Leonora Camner
Executive Director
Abundant Housing LA
Anthony Dedousis
Director of Policy and Research
Abundant Housing LA
933 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 1
Abundant Housing LA Feedback on Glendale Housing Element
Date: December 16, 2021
To: Abundant Housing LA
From: MapCraft Inc
Subject: Housing Element Analysis Results
Executive Summary
Based on an analysis of the sites found in the City of Glendale’s site inventory, which claimed capacity for over 14,700 total units across over 940 sites, our analysis suggests that Glendale’s expected housing capacity could fall short by between 1,500 and 3,000 units.
Glendale could consider the following actions to meet RHNA goals:
● Right-sizing claimed capacity on sites in the current site inventory, both by reducing expectations on many sites and by upzoning other sites. The city could revisit additional opportunities to rezone more parcels in the inventory, particularly in areas like the Vineyard, Mariposa, Pacific-Edison, and Grandview neighborhoods. ● Adding more sites to the site inventory and evaluating rezoning of those sites. The inventory includes 14% of the city’s 6,700 parcels, so there are many places that could be explored further to address this potential shortfall.
● Reducing or eliminating parking requirements and promoting automobile alternatives to reduce households’ demand for parking. If developers could meet household demand with fewer on-site parking stalls, it could make multifamily development in many parts of the City more economically feasible.
● Introducing new economic incentives to increase the financial feasibility of redevelopment, especially for projects that include below-market-rate units.
● Consider establishing development minimums to ensure high utilization of sites with feasible housing capacity.
Purpose of this Analysis
The State of California requires local jurisdictions to periodically update their housing elements to address housing needs, as identified by the Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). Cities in the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) region are in the process of developing updates to their housing elements, as part of the 6th cycle of the RHNA Allocation Plan, which will cover the planning period October 2021 through October 2029.
In March 2021, California’s Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approved SCAG’s adopted RHNA Allocation Plan, apportioning the region’s housing growth target to its 934 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 2
jurisdictions. City governments in SCAG are responsible for updating their Housing Elements and submitting them to HCD by October 2021. The Housing Elements must include an inventory of parcels suitable and available for residential development. The total capacity of the sites must be sufficient to accommodate the total housing need, by income level, allocated throughout the planning period.
Abundant Housing LA (AHLA) is a pro-housing, nonprofit advocacy organization working to help solve Southern California’s housing crisis. AHLA is providing feedback on housing elements to jurisdictions during the public comment period, and communicating to HCD staff its assessment of the housing elements. AHLA’s review of housing elements is intended to ensure that jurisdictions develop high-quality housing element updates, and fully comply with state housing element law.
To that end, AHLA partnered with MapCraft to assess the site inventories shared by jurisdictions as part of their housing element updates. The analysis considers the likely impact of the draft housing elements on housing production and suggests alternative rezoning scenarios that are more likely to achieve cities’ RHNA goals. MapCraft worked with a team to determine the likelihood that new housing production would be possible at the scale assumed by draft housing elements. In particular, MapCraft analyzed the market feasibility of the unit capacity claims made on sites included in jurisdictions’ site inventories. This memorandum serves as the documentation for the results of various analyses completed by MapCraft for assessing Glendale’s Housing Element.
Categorizing Site Inventory Claims
We conducted multiple tests of the City of Glendale’s proposed site inventory. For each site for which data was available, we assessed the following:
1. How historic development patterns compared with the unit capacity claimed in the site inventory
2. How physical zoned capacity, taking into account major zoning constraints, beyond just the allowed units per acre, compared with the unit capacity claimed in the site inventory
3. How the scale of pipeline developments identified in the site inventory compare to the unit capacity claims made on similar sites in the site inventory
4. How financially feasible scales of development compared to the unit capacity claimed in the site inventory
Based on the tests on each site, we classified the housing capacity claimed on each site in the site inventory as one of three categories: reasonable, questionable, or unreasonable. Although the tests were nuanced, in general these categories meant:
● Capacity estimates were categorized as “reasonable” when a MapCraft test found that viable capacity on the site was greater than what the jurisdiction claimed in the inventory ● Capacity estimates were categorized as “questionable” when a MapCraft test found that viable capacity was roughly similar to, though lower than, the claim in the inventory 935 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 3
● Capacity estimates were categorized as “unreasonable” when a MapCraft test found that viable capacity was deemed substantially less than what was claimed Multiple feasibility tests were performed for each site. If the number of claimed units on a site was found to be unreasonable according to multiple tests, we are confident that a reevaluation of the site is warranted.
● More specifically, if the site’s claimed capacity resulted in “unreasonable” for more than one third of the applicable tests, we concluded the site’s claim was unreasonable. ● If none of the tests resulted in an “unreasonable” finding, and more than one third of the applicable tests resulted in “reasonable”, then we concluded the site’s claim was reasonable.
● The rest of the sites, which fall between our thresholds for “reasonable” and “unreasonable,” were defined as “questionable.”
We analyzed 943 sites in Glendale’s site inventory, with a total claimed capacity of 9,356 units. This includes 10 sites with 490 units in projects that are already pending, which we assumed to be reasonable capacity claims and did not analyze further. It also includes 933 sites with 8,866 units that were identified for potential future development, which we analyzed further. Our analysis suggests that on 41 sites where Glendale has claimed 3,465 units, the capacity claims we analyzed were “unreasonable” or “questionable.” This represents 41% of the total capacity of the sites we analyzed.
Table 1: Results of Site Inventory Categorization
Number of Sites Claimed Units Percent of Sites Percent of Units Reasonable 888 5,023 96% 59%
Questionable 24 940 3% 11%
Unreasonable 17 2,525 2% 30%
Subtotal 929 8,488 100% 100%
Incomplete data* 4 378 N/A N/A
Total 933 8,866 100% 100%
*Sites with Incomplete data needed for our tests. These Sites were not included in our analysis
936 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 4
Exhibit 1: Sites Inventory Categorization – Percent of Sites
Exhibit 2: Sites Inventory Categorization – Percent of Units
Additionally, we estimated the scale of development that might reasonably be expected on parcels in the site inventory. Our analysis suggests that Glendale’s expected capacity could fall short by anywhere between 1,498 units and 2,995 units, as compared to the 8,866 units claimed on the inventory sites that we analyzed.
To arrive at a range of unit assumptions, we applied two different sets of assumptions about the viability of units being developed on sites deemed reasonable, questionable, or unreasonable. For a more conservative estimate, we assumed 100% viability for reasonable, 50% viability for questionable, and 0% viability for unreasonable, whereas for a more lenient estimate, we assumed 100%, 75%, and 50% respectively and subtracted those units from the total. 937 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 5
Table 2: Expected Capacity Shortfall
Site
Classifications
Claimed
Units on
Sites
Conservative Estimates Lenient Estimates
Expected
viability of Units
on Site
Claimed units
that are not
viable
Expected
viability of units
on sites
Claimed units
that are not
viable
Reasonable 5,023 100% Viable - 100% Viable -
Questionable 940 50% Viable 470 75% Viable 235
Unreasonable 2,525 0% Viable 2,525 50% Viable 1,263
Total 7,815 2,995 (35% Not
Viable)
1,498 (18% Not
Viable)
The city has multiple potential policy actions available to increase the viability of redevelopment on the site inventory parcels, such as:
● Add more market-feasible sites to the site inventory
● Upzone sites to enable more intense market-feasible housing development opportunities on sites already in the inventory and any sites added to the inventory ● Consider introducing new incentives and other “carrots” to encourage housing production, such as fee waivers or direct subsidies, a faster permitting process, and greater flexibility on setback size or maximum lot coverage
● Consider establishing development minimums to ensure high utilization of sites with feasible housing capacity
Test Results
The following tests were conducted on sites in the Glendale site inventory to assess whether the claimed development density in the housing element was reasonable. This was based on a comparison of the inventory claims to historic development patterns, sites’ zoned capacity, similar projects under development, and the current financial feasibility of projects of a similar scale.
1. Analysis of Historic Development Patterns (Utilization of Zoned Capacity) MapCraft evaluated projects built in the last ten years, using Los Angeles County tax assessor data, to estimate whether the claimed development density of a site inventory parcel was comparable with Glendale’s recent record of housing production.
Test 1a – Historic Development Scale
As a first test, we searched for projects built anywhere in Glendale over the last 10 years that were on sites whose size was within 20% of the site size identified in the inventory and with development densities (units per acre) that were within 20% of the density claimed in the inventory (units divided by site size).
If recent developments matched the claimed density of a site inventory parcel, we categorized the parcel as “Reasonable.” If no similar historical developments existed, we assumed that zoning had 938 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 6
prohibited such developments or other factors precluded such developments from being built in Glendale and categorized the parcel as “Questionable.” We refrained from categorizing any site inventory parcel as “unreasonable” based on the historic development scale test.
Table 3: Analysis of Historic Development Scale Results (Test 1a) Percent of Sites Percent of Units
Reasonable 61% 33%
Questionable 39% 67%
*This test was applicable on 100% of the sites we analyzed Test 1b – Historic Development in Zones
For site inventory parcels where rezoning is not proposed in the housing element, we conducted two other tests comparing the historic development patterns to the number of units claimed on sites in the site inventory.
Test 1b determined whether development occurred in the last 10 years on parcels whose zoning matches the zoning of the site in the inventory. Sites were categorized as “reasonable” if there was development in that zoning category in the last 10 years, or “unreasonable” if there was not.
Table 4: Analysis of Historic Development in Zones Results (Test 1b) Percent of Sites Percent of Units
Reasonable 99% 87%
Unreasonable 1% 13%
*This test was applicable on 100% of the sites we analyzed Test 1c – Historic Development Scale in Zones
Test 1c compared the observed density of historic developments in each zoning category to the claimed density of sites in the inventory in the same zoning category. This test categorized sites as “reasonable” if the claimed density for the site was less than the density of recent projects in the same zoning category, “questionable” if the parcel’s proposed density for redevelopment was within 10% of the maximum historic development density in the same zoning category, or “unreasonable” if the parcel’s proposed density for redevelopment exceeded 10% of the maximum historic development density in the same zoning category.
Table 5: Analysis of Historic Development Scale in Zones Results (Test 1c) Percent of Sites Percent of Units
Reasonable 20% 40%
Questionable 79% 37%
Unreasonable 1% 23%
*This test was applicable on 99% of the sites we analyzed
939 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 7
Key Takeaways:
● A majority (61%) of the sites in the inventory have claimed densities that match recent developments in Glendale, which corresponds to a reasonable claim for 33% of the units. ● The vast majority (99%) of sites are in zones that have seen some scale of development in the last 10 years, which corresponds to 87% of the claimed units. ● For sites in zones that have experienced development, under a quarter (20%) have claimed densities that are reasonable (i.e. less than the average density observed in those zones in the last 10 years). This only accounts for under half (40%) of the claimed units for this subset of sites.
● For sites in zones that have seen development, a large majority (79%) have claimed densities that are questionable and greater than the average density observed in those zones in the last 10 years. This accounts for a smaller proportion (37%) of the claimed units for this subset of sites.
2. Evaluation of Zoned Capacity
For site inventory parcels where rezoning is not proposed, MapCraft conducted tests based on the physical capacity of the zoning code, acknowledging that various zoning parameters might result in a lower effective capacity than the units per acre allowed in a zone. We collected several zoning attributes for each zone listed in the inventory, including maximum height limits, maximum FAR, maximum impervious coverage, minimum lot area per unit, maximum dwelling units per lot, and maximum dwelling units per acre. Using the zoning category noted for each site in Glendale’s site inventory, we estimated how many units could be accommodated on the site under the relevant zoning limits and compared the result to what was claimed in the site inventory.
This test categorized sites as “reasonable” if the claimed density for the site was less than the density resulting from any of the zoning attributes, “questionable” if the claimed density was less than the maximum density resulting from the majority of zoning attributes (e.g. based on height, based on FAR, etc.) but the claimed density was up to 10% greater than what one or more zoning attributes would accommodate, or “unreasonable” if the claimed density was greater than what a majority of zoning attributes would accommodate.
Table 6: Evaluation of Zoned Capacity Results (Test 2)
Percent of Sites Percent of Units
Reasonable 98% 98%
Questionable 2% 1%
Unreasonable 0% 0%
*This test was applicable on 100% of the sites we analyzed Key Takeaways:
● Almost all the sites in the inventory (98%) have density claims that are reasonable, which corresponds to the same proportion of the claimed units for this subset of sites. 940 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 8
● About 2% of the sites in the inventory have density claims that are questionable.
3. Analysis of Site Inventory Pipeline
To understand the current conditions for housing development on site inventory parcels where rezoning is not proposed, MapCraft used the pipeline project data in Glendale’s site inventory as another way of determining what scales of development could be expected on other sites in the inventory. The scale of the pipeline projects planned on sites in a given zone provided a sample of real-world development densities for other developments in those Glendale zones. The samples were used to compare the development density (units per acre) of upcoming projects to the claimed density on each site in the inventory that was not expected to be rezoned.
This test categorized sites as “reasonable” if the claimed density for the site was less than the pipeline patterns in the zone, “questionable” if it was within 10% of the maximum pipeline development density, or “unreasonable” if it exceeded 10% of the maximum pipeline development density.
Table 7: Analysis of Site Inventory Pipeline Results (Test 3) Percent of Sites Percent of Units
Reasonable 98% 63%
Questionable 0% 0%
Unreasonable 2% 37%
*This test was applicable on 82% of the sites we analyzed Key Takeaways:
● This test was applicable for four fifths (82%) of the sites in the inventory, meaning that less than a fifth of the sites (18%) are in zones that currently do not have any pending or approved projects listed among pipeline sites.
● Most sites (98%) that could be compared to pipeline projects in the same zone had claimed densities that are reasonable. However, this only corresponds to 63% of the claimed units for this subset of sites.
4. Financial Feasibility Analysis (Market-Driven Development Expectations) MapCraft assessed the financial viability of the claims made in the site inventory by evaluating the financial feasibility of developing housing at a scale similar to the densities claimed on each site in the inventory.
MapCraft used real estate pro formas to analyze the financial feasibility of a variety of housing development types. To determine whether the unit capacity claimed on each site in the inventory might be financially feasible, MapCraft evaluated the financial feasibility of development types that had densities that were within 10% of the claimed density on each site.
Pro forma analyses can help identify market feasible development types by determining whether the value of a potential development is greater than the project’s construction costs, land costs, 941 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 9
and other costs. MapCraft estimated the land cost for each site in the inventory, using the market values provided by the Los Angeles County tax assessor. This comparison also helps to demonstrate that the existing use of a parcel is likely to be discontinued. Costs also included parking provision, which was tested in two ways: 1) based on current parking provision in the Glendale submarket and 2) assuming an aggressive reduction in mandated parking ratios and parking demand. To ensure the results reflected the market conditions applicable to each site in the inventory, the pro forma for each development type was run with the corresponding neighborhood-level market inputs.
Test 4a – Feasibility with Historic Parking Provision
For the first test, which considered parking provided at rates observed in existing development in the submarket, MapCraft categorized sites as “reasonable” if there were feasible development types that matched the scale of development claimed on each site. Sites were categorized as “questionable” if there were not feasible prototypes with similar densities. We did not include the option for an “unreasonable” result because this tested the feasibility of development using current observed parking provision, which may be higher than what is possible in new development today.
Table 8: Feasibility Analysis Results - historic parking provision (Test 4a) Percent of Sites Percent of Units
Reasonable 0% 0%
Questionable 100% 100%
Unreasonable N/A N/A
*This test was applicable on 98% of the sites we analyzed Test 4b – Feasibility with Reduced Parking Provision
The second test considered more lenient parking provision, which can contribute to development feasibility by reducing cost and saving space. MapCraft categorized sites as “questionable” if there were feasible development types that matched the scale of development claimed on each site. Sites were classified as “unreasonable” if the most financially feasible of the prototypes with similar densities could not pay for land based on the assessor’s estimate of total value. We did not include the option for a “reasonable” result for this test, given the more lenient parking assumptions may not be viable in all submarkets.
Table 9: Feasibility Analysis Results - reduced parking provision (Test 4b) Percent of Sites Percent of Units
Reasonable N/A N/A
Questionable 100% 100%
Unreasonable 0% 0%
*This test was applicable on 98% of the sites we analyzed Key Takeaways:
● We found that today’s housing market does not support the scales of development claimed on many sites in the inventory.
942 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 10
● We found that today’s housing market could better support the scales of development claimed on many sites in the inventory if less parking were demanded and required than what has historically been provided. The City could reduce or eliminate parking requirements and promote automobile alternatives to reduce households’ demand for parking, thereby making it more economically feasible to develop multifamily housing in many areas, especially as construction costs continue to rise.
Test Results of Rezoning Scenarios
We analyzed 933 sites to assess whether there was market potential to exceed the capacity claimed in the site inventory should Glendale upzone site inventory parcels more ambitiously than what’s proposed in the housing element. For this analysis, we considered all sites in the inventory, both the sites that Glendale is already planning to rezone and sites where the existing zoning is expected to persist.
We conducted two different tests, using MapCraft pro forma feasibility assessments (for more details, see approach outlined in Test 4) to estimate the market potential on the sites in the inventory. By comparing MapCraft’s market feasible unit estimates to the unit capacity claimed in the site inventory, we were able to identify sites where upzoning may yield more capacity than currently tabulated.
Test 5a – Maximum density of potential upzoned sites
As a first test, we considered the most intense housing options that could be feasibly built on each site. We first identified the array of feasible housing development prototypes on each site, which may include both high- and low-density housing options. In this case, financial feasibility was based on a development project’s prospects of paying more for the site than the current property value.
We compared the housing capacity of the densest of those feasible prototypes to the capacity claimed in the site inventory to determine if further upzoning could yield more capacity.
Across the 933 sites that we analyzed, 790 could be financially feasible for redevelopment at a capacity that exceeded the capacity proposed for the parcel in the site inventory. Of those sites, none were sites slated to be rezoned and all were sites that were not slated to be rezoned. The table and charts below show the resulting estimated units, based on the greatest density of development types that had market potential to displace the existing use, and how that estimate compares to the total claimed units in the inventory.
Table 10: Estimated Units from Max Density of Potential Upzones (Test 5a)
Number of sites where
feasible development
exceeded claimed capacity (%
of all inventoried sites in that
category)
Potential Incremental Units
Identified by Test 5a (Claimed
Units)
Site planned for rezone in site
inventory 0 (0%) 0 (0)
Site NOT planned for rezone in
site inventory 790 (85%) 17,583 (3,330)
*This test was applicable on 100% of the sites we analyzed 943 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 11
Exhibit 3: Estimated Units from Max Density of Potential Upzones (Test 5a)
Test 5b – Maximum feasibility of potential upzoning
We conducted a second test that considered the most financially feasible options. that could be built on each site. As in Test 5a, we considered the array of feasible housing development prototypes on each site. For Test 5b, we compared the housing capacity of the most feasible prototype to the capacity claimed in the site inventory to determine if further upzoning could yield more capacity. Because the most feasible prototype could be lower density than other feasible prototypes, this approach produced more conservative outcomes than Test 5a.
Accordingly, there were 781 sites that had feasible development options with capacity that exceeded what was claimed in the site inventory. Of those sites, none were sites slated to be rezoned and all were sites that were not slated to be rezoned. The table and charts below show the resulting estimated units, based on the greatest density of development types that had market potential to displace the existing use, and how that estimate compares to the total claimed units in the inventory.
Table 11: Results of Test 5b
Number of sites where
feasible development
exceeded claimed capacity (%
of all inventoried sites in that
category)
Potential Incremental Units
Identified by Test 5a (Claimed
Units)
Site planned for rezone in site
inventory 0 (0%) 0 (0)
Site NOT planned for rezone in
site inventory 781 (84%) 11,593 (3,126)
*This test was applicable on 100% of the sites we analyzed 944 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 12
Exhibit 4: Estimated Units from Max Feasibility of Potential Upzones (Test 5b)
Given these results, we believe that there is substantial capacity “left on the table” for sites currently in the site inventory - for both sites already planned to be rezoned as well as sites not expected to be rezoned. But there are opportunities to identify additional parcels where market feasible capacity exists and add those sites to the proposed site inventory.
Viable upzoning opportunities exist in many parts of the city, and we observed concentrations of sites with greater market feasible housing capacity in the Vineyard, Mariposa, Pacific-Edison, and Grandview neighborhoods. These locations may be areas where Glendale could effectively add more market-feasible sites to the inventory by rezoning these sites to allow for denser development.
945 of 1910
MAPCRAFT
MapCraftLabs.com 13
Exhibit 5: Map of Concentrations of Potential Upzoning Opportunities
Key Takeaways:
● Additional capacity could be achieved on the majority of sites in the inventory where market-feasible opportunities to upzone exist. Glendale could consider upzoning parcels already in the inventory to reduce any potential housing production shortfall. ● Comparing results from Test 5a to 5b, it appears that the most financially feasible development options may be less intense than other feasible development options in some cases. For example, for-sale townhomes may be more profitable than small rental apartment buildings with more housing units. For that reason, if the city decides to adjust their zoning, they may consider establishing site utilization minimums so that sites redevelop at higher intensities.
946 of 1910
This page intentionally left blank.
947 of 1910
CITY OF GLENDALE
2021-2029
HOUSING ELEMENT
Final Draft
November 2021January 2022
948 of 1910
This page intentionally left blank.
949 of 1910
Prepared For:
City of Glendale
Contact: Erik Krause
Deputy Director of Community
Development, City of Glendale
633 East Broadway, Room 103
Glendale, CA | 818-937-8156
[email protected]
www.glendaleca.gov
Prepared By:
De Novo Planning Group
Contact: Amanda Tropiano, Principal
180 E Main Street Suite 108
Tustin, CA 92780
[email protected]
https://denovoplanning.com/
CITY OF GLENDALE
2021-2029
HOUSING ELEMENT
Final Draft
January 2022
950 of 1910
This page intentionally left blank.
951 of 1910
2021-2029 Housing Element Organization
Part 1: Housing Plan
Part 1 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element is the City’s “Housing Plan”, which includes the goals, policies, and programs the City will implement to address constraints and needs. The City’s overarching objective is to ensure that decent, safe housing is available to all current and future residents at a cost that is within the reach of the diverse economic se gments which comprise Glendale. The Housing Plan was updated in December 2021 in response to public comments received on the Public Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element circulated for public review.
Part 2: Background Report
Part 2 of the 2021-2029 Housing Element is the “Background Report” which identifies the nature and extent of Glendale’s housing needs, including those of special populations, potential housing resources (land and funds), potential constraints to housing production, and energy conservation opportunities. By examining the City’s housings, resources, and constraints, the Ci ty can then determine a plan of action for providing adequate housing, as presented in Part 1: Housing Plan. In addition to identifying housing needs, the Background Report also presents information regar ding the setting in which these needs occur. This information is instrumental in providing a better understanding of the community, which in turn is essential for the planning of future housing needs. The Background Report was updated in December 2021 in response to public comments received on the Public Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element circulated for public review.
Appendix A: Housing Sites Inventory
The Housing Element must include an inventory of land suitable and available for residential development to meet the City’s regional housing need by income level. Appnedix A was updated in December 2021 in response to public comments received on the Public Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element circulated for public review.
Appendix B: Public Engagement Summary
As part of the Housing Element Update process, t he City hosted numerous multilingual opportunities for the community and key stakeholders to provide feedback on existing housing conditions, housing priorities, priority areas for new residential growth, and topics related to fair housing. Public participation played an important role in the refinement of the City’s housing goals and policies and in the development of new housing programs, as included in Part 1: Housing Pl an. The public’s input also helped to validate and expand upon the contextual information included in Part 2: Background Report. The City’s efforts to engage the community in a meaningful and comprehensive way are summarized in Appendix B, which was updated in December 2021 to include public comments on the Public Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element circulated for public review.
952 of 1910
This page intentionally left blank.
953 of 1910
PART 1:
HOUSING PLAN
Final Draft
January 2022
954 of 1910
This page intentionally left blank.
955 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 1 | January 2022
CONTENTS
1 2021-2029 HOUSING PLAN INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 3 2 GOALS AND POLICIES ................................................................................................. 4 3 CYCLE 6 HOUSING ELEMENT PROGRAMS ................................................................... 10 Strategy 1: Adequate Sites .................................................................................................................... 11 Strategy 2: Preservation and Enhancement of Existing Housing Stock ................................................ 20 Strategy 3: Production of Affordable and Special Needs Housing ........................................................ 30 Strategy 4: Rental Assistance ................................................................................................................ 38 Strategy 5: Increased Ownership Opportunities .................................................................................... 40 Strategy 6: Housing Services ................................................................................................................. 43 Strategy 7: Fair Housing ........................................................................................................................ 48 Strategy 8: Sustainability ........................................................................................................................ 56 Strategy 9: Remove Constraints ............................................................................................................ 62 4 QUANTIFIED OBJECTIVES .......................................................................................... 66
956 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 2 | January 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
957 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 3 | January 2022
1 2021-2029 Housing Plan Introduction
This section presents the City’s Housing Plan, including goals, policies, and programs the City will implement to address constraints and needs. A goal is intended to represent a visionary statement; it is a statement identifying where the City should be in the future. Policies set forth a variety of directions in order to achieve the stated goals. The 2021-2029 Housing Plan is the implementation program to achieve the goals and policies for the community and includes a timeline, projected housing production objectives, as well as anticipated funding sources. The City’s overarching objective is to ensure that decent, safe housing is available to all current and future residents at a cost that is within the reach of the diverse economic segments which comprise Glendale. To this end, the Housing Plan focuses on:
1) Allowing for a wide range of housing types to meet the needs of current and future residents; 2) Maintaining the City’s existing neighborhoods;
3) Increasing opportunities for affordable and special needs housing; 4) Addressing groups with special needs;
5) Ensuring equal housing opportunities for all persons; and 6) Promoting livable and sustainable housing options.
958 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 4 | January 2022
2 Goals and Policies
Goal 1: A city with a wid e range of housing types to meet the needs of current and future residents.
A key element in satisfying the housing needs of all segments of the community is the provision of adequate sites for housing. This is an important function of both the General Plan and zoning. These sites must allow for the development of housing suitable to all income levels.
Policy 1.1: Provide a variety of residential developm ent opportunities in the City through the zoning of sufficient land with a range of densities.
Policy 1.2: Maintain adequate capacity to accommodate the City’s unmet Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) for all income categories throughout the planning period Policy 1.3: 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.
Policy 1.4: Encourage higher-density residential development in proximity to public transportation, jobs, services, and activity centers.
Policy 1.5: Recognize existing underdeveloped re sidential areas that can accommodate additional development within existing zoning standards.
Policy 1.6: Promote the development of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units in all residential districts as a means of disp ersing small, affordable units throughout the community, with an emphasis on promoting their development in high opportunity areas.
Policy 1.7: Continue to explore the feasibility of establishing additional housing trust funds as a means of developing additional affordable housing.
Policy 1.8: Continue to promote the consolidat ion of smaller lots for residential development.
Policy 1.9: Encourage flexibility in the Zoning Ordinance to promote a wide range of housing types.
Policy 1.10: Consider innovative ways to accommodate new residential development at in fill locations.
Policy 1.11: Allow by-right approval for housing de velopments proposed for non-vacant sites included in one previous housing element inventory and vacant sites included in two previous housing elements, provided that the proposed housing development consists of at least 20 percent lower income and affordable housing units (income and affordability levels set forth in Sections 50079.5, 50093, and 50105 of the Health and Safety Code shall apply).
959 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 5 | January 2022
Goal 2: A city with high quality residential neighborhoods that are attractive and well designed.
Policy 2.1: Retain the positive characteristics of existing neighborhoods.
Policy 2.2: Identify and improve neighborhoods in need of attention through focused neighborhood and community planning programs and prioritized investment strategies, as feasible.
Policy 2.3: Monitor the effects of new development on existing neighborhoods and proactively identify ways to address potential areas of concerns.
Policy 2.4: Continue to utilize the City’s code enf orcement program to brin g substandard units into compliance with City codes and to improve overall housing conditions in Glendale.
Policy 2.5: Continue existing multi-family residential rehabilitation programs which provide financial and technical assistance to property owners providing affordable units to low-income households.
Policy 2.6: Promote increased awareness among property owners and residents of the importance of property maintenance to long-term housing quality.
Policy 2.7: Encourage the preservation of historic resources in a manner sensitive to historic design and promote the development of hist oric districts through standard s contained in the Historic Preservation Ordinance and by the activities of the Historic Preservation Commission.
Policy 2.8: Ensure the variety and visual appeal of residential development in Glendale through the Design Review process.
Policy 2.9: Respect scale, historic continuity, and a sense of community in new residential development.
Policy 2.10: Consider “target areas” as a strategy to foster safe, sanitary and secure housing; to expand public open space; and to provide a catalyst for neighborhood improvement.
960 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 6 | January 2022
Goal 3: A city with increased opportunities for affordable and special needs housing development.
Policy 3.1: Encourage both the private and public se ctors to produce or assist in the production of affordable housing and housing for special needs groups such as persons with disabilities, the elderly, large families, single-parent households, and formerly homeless.
Policy 3.2: Promote the development of extremely low, very low, low and moderate income housing by allowing developers density bonuses or other financial incentives for providing units for low and moderate income residents. The unit mix and location of affordable housing units in density bonus projects must be approved by the City and included in an affordable housing agreement.
Policy 3.3: Provide direct financial assistance, le verage outside financial assistance, and facilitate private partnerships for affordable and special needs housing development.
Policy 3.4: Maximize funding to increase home ownership such as through regional collaboration and by seeking additional Federal, State and private funding opportunities.
Policy 3.5: Review Zoning Ordinance and Specific Plan standards to minimize barriers to affordable homeownership.
Policy 3.6: To the extent feasible, make use of the tools available to the City to assemble land or sell land at a write-down for affordable housing.
Policy 3.7: Support joint powers autho rities and similar entities to furt her the preservation, protection, and production of workforce housing.
Policy 3.8: Support the use of re gulatory incentives, such as density bonuses, fee waivers and parking reductions, to offset the costs of affordable housing.
Policy 3.9: Amend the Zoning Ordinance as appropriate to facilitate the development of housing for special needs groups and individuals, such as locating housing and populations near appropriate services.
Policy 3.10: Review the Zoning Ordinance and local Building Code to offer incentives and/or remove restrictions to encourage the development of residential units that are accessible to handicapped persons with disabilities or are adaptable for conversion to residential use by handicapped persons with disabilities.
Policy 3.11: Retain subsidized units which are at risk of conversion to market rate housing.
Policy 3.12: Continue to monitor local, state and federal regulations, ordinances, departmental processing procedures and fees related to their impact on housing costs.
961 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 7 | January 2022
Goal 4: A city with housing services that address groups with special housing needs.
Policy 4.1: Continue to provide and support Glendale organizations to receive outside funding to enable people to find or remain in affordable housing, such as individual Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers and other rental assistance provided in the City (including project-based Section 8 rental assistance, HUD 811 r ental assistance to disabl ed persons, HUD 202 rental assistance to senior citizens).
Policy 4.2: Continue to offer housing and supportive services to special needs groups such as the elderly and persons experiencing the homelessness to enable independent living.
Policy 4.3: Coordinate with local social service providers through the Conti nuum of Care process to address the needs of the City’s homeless unhoused population, including the development of service-enriched and affordable housing.
Policy 4.4: Coordinate with social service and non profit organizations to assist homeowners who are at risk of losing their homes.
Policy 4.5: Encourage the developm ent of childcare facilities concurrent with new housing development, and consider the use of incentives.
962 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 8 | January 2022
Goal 5: A city with equal housing opportunities for all persons.
Policy 5.1: Promote nondiscrimination of housing by implementing the recommendations of Glendale’s Fair Housing Analysis of Impediments to Housing Choice Plan and regularly update the Plan.
Policy 5.2: Continue to contract with the Housing Ri ghts Center or other fair housing service providers to assist in affirmatively furthering fair housing and facilitate access to services by residents seeking assistance.
Policy 5.3: Continue to provide information to the public about housing rights, responsibilities, and opportunities including the provisions of the Glendale Just Cause Eviction Ordinance, which outlines the legal reasons for eviction, requir ed lease terms, and any relocation assistance that may be due to tenants.
Policy 5.4: Provide a regulatory environment in which housing opportunity is equal for all.
Policy 5.5: Continue to solicit public input from all economic segments of the community in the City’s housing policies and activities.
963 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 9 | January 2022
Goal 6: A city with housing th at is livable and sustainable.
Policy 6.1: Plan for the provision of adequate community resources to accommodate future housing need.
Policy 6.2: Facilitate community pl anning in neighborhoods to maintain or improve their character and quality.
Policy 6.3: Implement the recommendations of the Open Space and Conservation Element and the Recreation Element of the General Plan to ensure an adequate amount of public open space and developed parkland for the needs of new and existing residential development.
Policy 6.4: Implement zoning standards that require adequate on-site open space and recreational amenities in new developments, as feasible based on project size.
Policy 6.5: Require residential projects to pres erve major ridgelines, secondary ridgelines, blue line streams, indigenous trees and other significant environmental features.
Policy 6.6: Practice neighborhood-based planning through meaningful public participation.
Policy 6.7: Continue implementing the Glendale Wa ter and Power’s (GWP) energy and water savings programs for residents, which encourage conservation of nonrenewable resources in concert with the use of alternative energy sources and reduce housing costs.
Policy 6.8: Continue providing brochures and techni cal assistance that promotes the use of energy conservation features in new and existing dwellings in consultation with GWP.
Policy 6.9: Continue promoting ene rgy and resource efficiency by implementing the City’s residential recycling, bulk item collection, household hazardous waste, horse accounts, backyard composting, chopper rebates, Christmas Tree Recycling, electronics recycling, recycling drop-off and worm composting services/pro grams in consultation with Public Works Department.
Policy 6.10: Encourage the use of sustainable building practices in residential developments.
Policy 6.11: Provide opportunities for residential lo cations and design that encourage transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and other mobility options.
964 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 10 | January 2022
3 Cycle 6 Housing Element Programs
The Housing Element describes the housing needs of the City’s current and projected population, as well as the specific needs resulting from the deterioration of older units, lack of affordable housing for lower income groups, and special needs for certain segments of the City’s population. The goals and policies contained in the Housing Element address the City’s identified housing needs. These goals and policies are implemented through a series of housing programs that are funded and administered through a variety of local, regional, State and Federal agencies. The following nine comprehensive program strategies consist of both programs currently in use in the City and additional programs to provide the opportunity to adequately address the City’s housing needs:
1) Provision of Adequate Sites
2) Preservation and Enhancement of Existing Housing Stock 3) Production of Affordable Housing
4) Rental Assistance
5) Increased Homeownership
6) Housing Services
7) Fair Housing
8) Sustainability
9) Removal of Constraints
A series of specific programs are i dentified to implement each program strategy. This section provides a description of each housing program, program goal s, funding source(s), responsible agency, and implementation time frame.
965 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 11 | January 2022
STRATEGY 1: ADEQUATE SITES
The City provides for a mix of new housing opportunities by designating a range of residential densities and promoting creative design and development of vacant land and reuse of developed land. By providing for the construction of a range of housing, the needs of all sectors of the community can be met.
Program 1A: Land Use Policy and Development Capacity
Program Description The City of Glendale received a RHNA of 13,425 units for the 2021-2029 RHNA period. After credits for constructed units ( 3,437252), and approved units (1,3441,120), and market rate units converted into deed-restricted moderate income units (125), are taken into consideration, the City of Glendale has a remaining 2021-2029 RHNA of 8,64411,928 units, including 3,028 extremely/very low-income, 1,7285,078 low er-income, 686 2,124 moderate income, and 3,2024,726 above moderate-income units.
The residential sites inventory consists of approximately 31 34 acres of land designated for mixed-use development which is expected to yield at least 1,3031,759 new units, 35 46 acres of land in the Downtown Specific Plan which is expected to yield at least 5,0396,417 units, 167 161 acres of underdeveloped residential land which is expected to yield at least 2,7062,591 units, 1.8 acres of vacant residential land which is expected to yield 54 37 units, and the potential to develop 1,272 accessory or junior accessory dwelling units. In addition to the resources described above, the City also has a number of proposed projects under consideration which are expected to yield at least 503 657711 new units.
Together, these resources have the capacity to accommodate at least 10,87712,44012,787 new units at all income levels. These sites can accommodate the remaining RHNA for all income levels through year 2029.
The City will maintain an inventory of available sites for residential development and provide it to prospective residential developers upon request.
Program Goals Ensure that the City of Glendale has sufficient land appropriately zoned to accommodate the City’s RHNA at all in come levels for the duration of the planning period.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources General Fund
2021-2029 Objectives Maintain an inventory of the available sites for residential development and provide it to prospective resident ial developers upon request. Monitor development trends to ensure continued ability to meet the RHNA as sites identified in this Housing Element are being developed.
Timeframe Ongoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning period.
966 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 12 | January 2022
Program 1B: Maintain Adequate Sites Throughout the Planning Period Program Description The City will monitor the consumption of residential acreage, including review of proposed General Plan amendments, Zoning map amendments, and development projects, to ensure an adequate inventory is available to meet the City’s 2021-2029 RHNA obligations. The City will develop and implement a monitoring procedure pursuant to Government Code Section 65863 and will make the findings required by that code section if a site is proposed for development with fewer units or at a different income level than shown in the Housing Element. Should an approval of development result in a reduction of capacity below the residential capacity needed to accommodate the remaining need for lower income, moderate, or above moderate income households, the City will identify and, if necessary, rezone sufficient sites within 180 days to accommodate the shortfall and ensure “no net loss” in capacity to accommodate the RHNA, cons istent with State law. Any site rezoned will satisfy the adequate site requirements of Section 65583.2 and will be consistent with the City’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.
Program Goals Ensure that the City of Glendale has sufficient land appropriately zoned to accommodate the City’s RHNA at all in come levels for the duration of the planning period.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources General Fund
2021-2029 Objectives Review each housing approval on sites listed in the Housing Element and make findings required by Government Code Section 65863 if a site is proposed with fewer units or a different income level than shown in the Housing Element. If insufficient suitable sites remain at each income level, identify and, if necessary, rezone sufficient sites within 180 days.
Identify additional sites that may be required to be upzoned to meet "no net loss" requirements for Housing Element adoption in 2025. Any site identified to be upzoned will satisfy the adequate site requirements of Section 65583.2 and will be consistent with the City’s obligation to affirmatively further fair housing.
Report as required through the HCD annual report process.
Timeframe Ongoing implementation, at time of approval of a project on a site listed in the Housing Element, and annual reporting throughout the planning period
967 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 13 | January 2022
Program 1C: Public Property Conversion to Housing Program Program Description One of the challenges in building new affordable homes is acquiring land suitable for housing. In 2019, Governor Newsom signed AB 1486 (Ting, 2019) into law, which aimed to connect dev elopers who are interested in building more affordable homes to surplus local public land that is both available and suitable for housing development. This law made several changes to the requirements in the Surplus Land Act that local agencies must adhere to when disposing of surplus public la nd. Beginning January 1, 2021, local agencies are required to send, and HCD is required to review, negotiation summaries for each surplus land transaction in the state. HCD is also required to notify local agencies of violations and may notify the Attorney General and assess fines, as necessary.
Program Goals The City will maintain prepare a list of surplus City-owned lands by December 2022, including identification of address, APN, General Plan land use designation, zoning, current use, parcel size, and status of land (surplus land or exempt surplus land). The list will be updated semiannually. The City will work with non-profits and other public agencies to evaluate the feasibility of transferring surplus City-owned lands identified to be feasible for conversion to affordable housing and not committed to other City purposes for use in the development of affordable housing by the private sector. The inventory will be updated annually in conjunction wi th the APR (Program 1A). Any disposition of surplus lands shall be conducted consistently with the requirements of Government Code Section 54220 et. seq.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources General Fund
2021-2029 Objectives Maintain an adequate inventory of surplus lands.
Report as required through the HCD annual report process.
Timeframe Preparation of a list of surplus City-owned lands by December 2022; semiannual updates; Oongoing implementation.
968 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 14 | January 2022
Program 1D: Replacement of Affordable UnitsHousing
Program Description Existing housing options exist in the City that are affordable to lower income households, either through deed restrictions or affordable market rents (especially for smaller units). On October 9, 2019, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 into law, commonly known as Senate Bill 330 (Chapter 654, Statutes of 2019) to respond to the California housing crisis. Effective January 1, 2020, SB330 aims to increase residential unit development, protect existing housing inventory, and expedite permit processing. This new law makes a number of modifications to existing legislation, such as the Permit Streamlining Act and the Housing Accountability Act, and institutes the Housing Crisis Act of 2019. Many of the changes proposed last for a 5-year period and sunset on January 1, 2025.
Program Goals Consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65583.2(g), development projects on sites in the housing inventory (Appendix A) that have, or have had within the past five years, residential uses restricted to rents affordable to low or very low income households or residential uses occupied by low or very low income households, shall be conditioned to replace all such units at the same or lower income level as a condition of any development on the site and such replacement requirements shall be consistent with Section 65915(c)(3).
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources General Fund
2021-2029 Objectives Maintain an adequate inventory of surplus lands.
Report as required through the HCD annual report process.
Timeframe Ongoing implementation.
969 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 15 | January 2022
Program 1E: Adaptive Reuse
Program Description Adaptive reuse is the process of taking an old building or site, and reusing it for a purpose other than it was designed. The City of Glendale is largely built- out, and there are limited opportunities for development at vacant sites. The majority of new development in Glendale will occur at infill locations where existing uses currently exist. It is possibl e that some of the City’s existing buildings may be suitable for adaptive reuse as residential projects. The viability of a building for adaptive reuse depends on a number of factors, including age, infrastructure, and environmental concerns.
Program Goals Explore Evaluate, by April 2023, opportunities for adaptive reuse of commercial and office buildings for housi ng, including incentives to facilitate affordable unit and supportive housing production and additional adaptive reuse projects through the expansion of by-right processes, reduced minimum unit sizes, reduced parking standards and increased flexibility on the types of uses (e.g. hotels/motels, office and commercial) and locations that can be converted to support proposed developments. Consider preparation of anPrepare an Adaptive Reuse Ordinance and present the draft Ordinance to the City Council for review by December 2023to support the City’s housing objectives.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources General Fund
2021-2029 Objectives Evaluate the potential to pPrepare an Adaptive Reuse Ordinance and present findings and recommendations to the City Council.
Timeframe Present a draft Adaptive Reuse Ordi nance to the City Council by December 2023.
970 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 16 | January 2022
Program 1F: Accessory Dwelling Units
Program Description Accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) help meet the City’s housing needs for all income levels and also provide a housing resource for seniors, students, and low and moderate income households throughout the entire Glendale community, not just in any single geographic area. The City will continue to apply Zoning Code regulations that allow accessory units (also known as second units or granny flats) by right in all residential zones, in accordance with State law. The City of Glendale will continue to amend the ordinance based on future changes to State law and work with HCD to ensure continued compliance with State Law. The Every two years, the City will also continue to monitor the extent of ADU production to ensure that the ordinance modifications are successful and that the Housing Element goals can be met.
Program Goals While the City will continue to promote the opportunity for residents to develop ADUs throughout Glendale, the City is especially focused on promoting the development of ADUs that are affordable to lower income and moderate income households and the development of ADUs in areas of opportunity. By January 2023, Tthe City will conduct a survey of existing ADUs to determine if they are affordable to lower or moderate income households; moving forward the City will ask ADU applic ants to voluntarily share the unit’s proposed rental rate to better track supply of affordable ADUs in the City.
Additionally, by the end of 2023, the Ci ty will evaluate potential incentives available to encourage production of affordable ADUs as well as the production of ADUs in high resource areas and present the Planning Commission with potential strategies to implement those incentives during the planning period. To further strengthen the potential for ADU development in high opportunity areas, the City will conduct targeted annual outreach in these areas such as meeting with HOAs in high opportunity areas and posting educational social media advertisements.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources General Fund
2021-2029 Objectives 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 appr opriate procedures, policies, and regulatory provisions; beginning in 2022 and continuing for the duration of the planning period, provide hard copies of ADU Fact Sheet (English, Armenian. and Spanish) at City Hall and community facilities and share electronic 971 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 17 | January 2022
version on City social media accounts. Provide HOAs and other civic organizations with information related to development of ADUs and work proactively to educate the community regarding the role ADUs play in providing affordable housing options and affirmatively furthering fair housing goals, with a special emphasis on educating residents who live in high resource areas.
Timeframe Survey existing ADUs to determine affordability and update ADU application to inquire about affordability level (2022); evaluate potential incentives available to encourage production of affordable ADUs (2022-2023) and present findings to the City’s Planning Commission (2023); ongoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the RHNA period. If ADU projections are not meeting the assumptions identified in the Housing Element, identify replacement sites to accommodate the City’s RHNA at the appropriate income levels within 4 months of each biennial review.
972 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 18 | January 2022
Program 1G: Previously Identified Nonvacant and Vacant Sites Program Description The City of Glendale will allow de velopments by-right pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2(i) when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households on sites identified in Appendix A to accommodate the lower income RHNA that were previously identified in past housing elements (vacant sites identified in two prior cycles and nonvacant sites identified in one prior cycle).
The City has identified 73 sites, all of which are nonvacant, to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower-income RHNA. None of these sites were identified in a prior cycle therefore the provis ions of Government Code section 65583.2(i) do not apply.
If, during the course of the planning period, the City should identify additional sites/replacement sites to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower-income RHNA, and if the site is vacant and ha s been included in two prior cycles or is occupied and been included in one prio r cycle, this program requires that the site be rezoned to provide for by -right development when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lowe r income households consistent with Government Code section 65583.2(i).
Program Goals Allow developments by-right pursua nt to Government Code section 65583.2(i) when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households on sites that may be identified in the future to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower income RHNA that were previously identified for both the 5th and 4th cycle housing elements through a rezoning program.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources General Fund
2021-2029 Objectives Implement Government Code section 65583.2(i).
Timeframe Immediate implementation and ongoing implementation for the duration of the planning period.
973 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 19 | January 2022
Program 1H: Adequate Alternative Sites
Program Description The City of Glendale recognizes the importance of “missing middle” housing affordable to moderate-income households.
Program Goals Allow developments by-right pursua nt to Government Code section 65583.2(i) when 20 percent or more of the units are affordable to lower income households on sites that may be identified in the future to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower income RHNA that were previously identified for both the 5th and 4th cycle housing elements through a rezoning program.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources General Fund
2021-2029 Objectives Implement Government Code section 65583.2(i).
Timeframe Immediate implementation and ongoing implementation for the duration of the planning period.
974 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 20 | January 2022
STRATEGY 2: PRESERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT OF EXISTING HOUSING STOCK Housing rehabilitation includes major efforts to impr ove a property and alterations aimed at converting the type or number of units. The goal of housing preservation is to protect the existing quality and investment in housing and to avoid a degree of physical decline that will require a larger rehabilitation effort to restore quality and value.
Glendale, unlike many older cities, does not have an extensive problem with housing deterioration. Less than three percent of the housing stock is defined as su bstandard. However, based on the age of the housing stock, the magnitude of units in need of rehabilitation could multiply if units are not continually maintained.
The City’s Code Enforcement program, combined with available assistance programs, will work towards ensuring the maintenance of the housing stock.
Program 2A: Multi-family Acquisition/Rehabilitation Loan Program Program Description Assist nonprofit and for profit prope rty owners to acquire and rehabilitate existing rental housing that may or may not currently serve extremely low, very low, and low income households. The City records covenants and/or deed restrictions requiring that the housing units be used to provide affordable housing for very low income households, including those with special needs such as homeless persons experiencing homelessness and persons with disabilities. Generally, these loans are substantial in nature and exceed 25% of the value of the structure. Therefore the affordability covenants are for 55 years or longer and are repaid through residual receipts of income generated by the acquired property.
There are new ways to preserve affordable housing that the City will explore during the planning period. This includes removing affordable housing from the private market and placing it in to public ownership, relying on other partners to invest and leverage re sources, and new SB 1079 (2020) requirements around foreclosed small multifamily properties. The City will conduct proactive outreach, on an annual basis, to the development community to present and encourage both existing and future options for multi-family acquisition and rehabilitation.
Program Goals Beginning in March 2022, Pprovide multifamily rental acquisition rehabilitation loans or work collaboratively with project sponsors to secure funding to improve approximately 100 rental housing units, with a commitment of 11.5% of projected affordable housing funds directly available to the City, over the 2021-2029 period (a goal of approximately 12-13 housing units assisted annually). Those projects funded with certain Low Income Housing Tax Credit and Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, two of the major sources of funding for the Plan Period for new housing construction, will target 975 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 21 | January 2022
a minimum of 20 - 30% of this funding for Extremely Low Income households as required by these funding sources and as financially feasible.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources Low Income Housing Tax Credit and Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds
2021-2029 Objectives Maintain quality of housing, particularly for extremely low, very low and low income households. 100 rehabilitated multi-family units.
Timeframe Implementation of the program by March 2022; annual proactive outreach to the development community’ Oongoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning period.
976 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 22 | January 2022
Program 2B: Glendale Water & Power (GWP) Public Benefit Programs Program Description State law mandates that each local publicly owned electric utility shall establish a non-by passable, usage based charge on local distribution service of at least 2.85% of revenues to fund investments in one or more of the following areas:
• Cost-effective services to promote energy-efficiency and energy conservation
• New investment in renewable energy resource and technologies • Research, development and demonstration programs
• Services provided for low-income elec tricity customers, including but not limited to, targeted energy efficiency service and rate discounts.
Glendale currently promotes various programs for residential efficiency and income-qualified electric discounts. These projects include the City’s Solar Solutions Program and In-Home Display and Thermostat Program. Glendale Water & Power promotes its residential programs through its customer service center and online via the Depa rtment’s website. Since everyone signing up for Glendale utility service must speak to customer service representatives to sign up or modify service, customers of every income level can learn about residential programs. Additionally, the City of Glendale website, brochures available at various public venues including the City Hall campus and libraries, welcome packets mailed to new customers, City online publications, and utility billing mailing inserts also promote available residential utility programs. Periodicall y, residential programs are promoted through advertisements in the Glendale News-Press. The City of Glendale also produces public service announcements that run on the City’s public access cable TV channel which promote t he availability of public assistance programs. Funding for public outreach is provided through energy efficiency programs as required by state mandate. The City has also introduced the My Connect app so all residents can monitor energy use on their cell phones.
This will help all households, including lower-income ones, to reduce their energy consumption.
Program Goals Promote a clean energy future. Continue to educate and advocate for the responsive use of natural resour ces and green energy sources. Support customers that want to also work towards a clean and green energy future by offering them a variety of programs and incentives to help them achieve these goals. The following are programs, partnerships, and investments GWP has developed and implemented.
977 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 23 | January 2022
Responsible Agencies Glendale Water and Power Department Funding Sources Public Benefit Charge (earmarked on electric bills) 2021-2029 Objectives Conserve energy and lessen home energy costs for low-income households through grid modernization and public benefits programs for low-income users. Provide information about av ailable residential programs for all households in Glendale as they complete required registration for Glendale’s Smart Grid. Encourage users to use My Connect app to monitor electrical usage. Maintain capability to provide Smart Home Energy and Water Savings Surveys/Rebates; Smart Home Solar Solutions Program; Glendale Care program for low income, Guardian program for low income and Helping Hand program for low income.
Timeframe Ongoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning period.
978 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 24 | January 2022
Program 2C: Code Enforcement
Program Description The objective of the City of Glendal e’s Code Enforcement program is to maintain compliance with City codes for the City’s housing stock. This may mean bringing substandard properties back into compliance through a code enforcement process. The intent of Program 2C is to address housing stock citywide and the intent of Program 2E is to use Code Enforcement, as well as other activities, to target conservation of existing and future affordable units.
Having housing stock compliant with City codes eliminates blight and preserves the high quality of life in Glendale’s neighborhoods. To meet this objective, potential code violations are identified on a proactive and reactive basis. These violations are confirmed by trained, certified inspectors via on- site inspections. After these inspec tions are performed, a variety of enforcement tools are used to achieve compliance. These tools consist of verbal warnings, letter notifications, ci tations, office conferences, criminal prosecution, and abatement.
The letter notification process is the primary tool used to compel property owners to make the necessary correcti ons. During this notification process, the property owner is informed of potential outside assistance in the form of rehabilitation loans or grants that may be available to use toward making the necessary corrections if they cannot afford repairs. In most cases, property owners are given thirty (30) days to make the corrections, at which time a follow-up inspection is conducted.
If code violations remain, a series of violation letters are sent and a Notice of Substandard Building (in the form of a lien) is filed with the County Recorder’s Office which then informs potential purchasers and lending institutions of substandard housing conditions on the property. For substandard housing which is not owner-occupied, a Notice of Non-Compliance can be filed with the State of California Franchise Tax Board which forfeits potential tax benefits derived from ownership of t he property. Continued noncompliance leads to an office conference, prior to forwarding the enforcement case to the City Attorney’s Office for possible legal action.
Code Enforcement and public outreach staff produce educational materials and programs to provide information on property owner responsibilities for unit maintenance and cleanliness, property owner responsibilities, and technical resources for specific property maintenance issues. These programs and classes support the code enforcement officer’s efforts.
Program Goals The program’s goals are to:
979 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 25 | January 2022
1) Complete compliance on 1,400 residential properties. 2) Educate property owners and renters on their responsibility for basic unit maintenance and cleanliness;
3) Bring substandard housing/property into compliance with City Code; 4) Eliminate blight in Glendale’s neighborhoods;
5) Ensure a high quality of life with regard to housing for Glendale residents; and
6) Conservation of Existing and Future Affordable Units as further outlined in Program 2E.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources HUD-CDBG; City General Fund
2021-2029 Objectives Improve the quality of existing housing and correct City code violations. Have the capability to perform 1,400 inspections annually; achieve 100% residential compliance.
Timeframe Ongoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning period.
980 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 26 | January 2022
Program 2D: Neighborhood “Target Areas”
Program Description Quality of life factors are a major issue considered by most potential residents when searching for a home. Quality of life factors include everything that influences a family’s day-to-day living in a neighborhood and community. Key factors include parks and open space, schools, neighbor hood aesthetics, building density, and housing design. Creating walkable neighborhoods with attainable housing choices that take advantage of existing public transit opportunities will increase the quality of life in key areas of Glendale. Target area activities for revitalization include construction of affordable housing, parks and school improvem ents, continuation of residential and commercial code enforcement programs, and public education efforts with residents concerning neighborhood standards. Such projects require significant public involvement in planning and implementation of these efforts, such as preparation of Specific Plans, area plans, or community plans which focus on the unique needs and opportunities associated with different areas of the City, such as South or West Glendale.
The City adopted the Tropico Study Plan on July 31, 2018 as part of the actions taken on the South Glendale Community Plan project. This project included certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the South Glendale Community Plan and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). As part of the SOC, Council adopted FEIR Alternative 2, which included implementation of the Tropico Center Plan and up-zoning for the Tropico area where Glendale Memorial Hospital is located. A lawsuit was filed challenging the approvals of the South Glendale Community Plan project, including the Tropico Center Plan and is still pending. The City anticipates continuance of this program pending the outcome of the lawsuit.
During the 2021-2029 planning period, the City will target West Glendale for specific neighborhood support. The City has received funding to prepare a new Community Plan for West Glendale. This project was initiated in 2019 and is expected to conclude by 2023.
Program Goals The goal of neighborhood “target areas” is to improve the quality of life in throughout Glendale, with a focus on neighborhoods that contain lower income census tracts, such as South and West Glendale. The City intends to prepare and adopt a Community Plan for West Glendale to guide land use and transportation decisions in the area and encourage investment and revitalization in the project area.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
981 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 27 | January 2022
Funding Sources Project specific grant funding from the State of California, potential funding from SCAG, City General Fund
2021-2029 Objectives Improve quality of life for Glendale neighborhoods, with a special emphasis on neighborhoods with lower income census tracts in southern and western Glendale.
Timeframe West Glendale Community Plan approved by December 2023
982 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 28 | January 2022
Program 2E: Conservation of Existing and Future Affordable Units Program Description A community’s existing affordable housing stock is a valuable resource which should be conserved, and if necessary, improved to meet habitability standards.
The City of Glendale has assisted in the development or substantial rehabilitation of affordable housing units and has approved development of affordable units through density bonus provisions. These units receive funding from several programs through the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), tax credit or bond financing, redevelopment set-aside funds and other governmental and private sources. The City has also provided short term financing (5-15 years) for rehabilitation of privately owned rental units that provide limited affordability for the term of the loan. Staff has reviewed the affordability expiration dates for all sources of funding for the City’s existing affordable housing stock to determine the risk of conversion to market rate units; the City has identified eight projects totaling 241 units at high risk of conversation to market-rate housing during the planning period (i.e., where the earliest date of conversation is within the planning period).
As outlined in Program 1d, Glendale will continue to use code enforcement efforts to maintain existing affordable housing stock. Glendale’s goal is conserve at least 100 units through code enforcement and another 241 units through assistance efforts (reflecting the number of units at high-risk conversion). Units conserved include “red tag” units that have low income renters or affordable rents that are brought into code standard and extensions of the affordability period for another 55 years for multiple family affordable rental units. This program is on-going and is presently being implemented as shown through Glendale efforts discussed in the Background Report. This program is implemented by the Community Development Department.
The City will also continue to implem ent its Rental Rights Program, which expanded Glendale’s Just Cause Eviction ordinance by adding two new programs - Right to Lease and Relocation Assistance - which are intended to address excessive rent increases being served to tenants in Glendale. The Rental Rights Program is designed to provide stability and mitigate the impact of displacement through guaranteed lease offerings and relocation assistance when moving because of a rent increase above 7%.
The City will also continue to consider and implement other creative solutions to assist in preserving the City’s existing and future affordable housing stock.
For example, during the past planning period, the City approved the Monthly Housing Subsidy Program, an $8.4 milli on pilot program that will provide a $300 monthly housing subsidy, for 24 months, to lower-income senior Glendale renter households. The pur pose of the program is to assist extremely low-income senior renter households being impacted by rising 983 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 29 | January 2022
rental rates, particularly those of lower income, who are rent burdened and disabled. From 2021-2029 the City will continue evaluating creative solutions to address this important priority.
Program Goals The goal of this program is to conserve the long-term affordability of the existing and future units in Glendale. This will be accomplished by the following actions: 1) to monitor the expiration dates of affordability restrictions, meet with property managers and proper ty owners 12 to 24 months prior to expiration to determine feasibility of extension of affordability and to minimize the impact on tenants of any conversion to market rate rents; 2) to offer public subsidy and assist in pursuing other state and federal funding to prevent conversion of existing affordable units to market rate or replace the units, if it is not feasible to prevent conversion; 3) to file affordable housing covenants/deed restrictions on future publicly assisted housing projects for a minimum 45 year affordability perio d for ownership units and 55 year affordability period for rental units; 4) to maintain fee title ownership of housing development sites with a long term ground lease provided to the developer for a minimum 56 year affordab ility period when feasible in order to retain local government control and flexibility at the time of expiration of covenants; and 5) to facilitated high quality portfolio management after project completion through annual monitoring of the physical, financial, and occupancy restrictions of development projects with affordability restrictions.
The California Legislature passed AB 1701 in 1998, requiring that property owners give a nine-month notice of thei r intent to opt out of low-income restrictions. The City will work with tenants of at-risk units and provide them with information regarding tenant rights and conversion procedures. The City will also provide tenants with informat ion regarding Section 8 rent subsidies through the Glendale Housing Authority and other affordable housing opportunities. The City will implement State Preservation Notice Law (Gov.
Code 65863.10, 65863.11, 65863.13) whic h requires owners to provide tenants and affected public entities (i ncluding the City) notices regarding expiring rental restrictions starting three years before expiration.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources Redevelopment set-aside as necessary and available. 2021-2029 Objectives Provide for the continued affordability of the City’s low and moderate income housing stock.
Timeframe Proactive outreach to owners beginning three years before expiration of rental agreements; Oongoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning period.
984 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 30 | January 2022
STRATEGY 3: PRODUCTION OF AFFORDABLE AND SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING New construction is a major source of housing for prospective home owners and renters. However, the cost of new construction is substantially greater than ot her program categories. Incentive programs, such as density bonus, offer a cost effective means of providing affordable housing development and will be used to supplement and leverage limited funding resources available to the City. Public sector support for new construction includes the programs listed below for extremely low, very low, low and moderate income housing development as well as special needs housing options.
Glendale’s Community Development Department will continue to be actively involved with developing and promoting other affordable housing programs and programs to develop housing for persons with special needs. The Department of Community Development will continue to promote the development and ongoing provision of affordable housing through the following activities:
• Develop local priority needs and specific objec tives for effective, coordinated neighborhood and community development strategies in cooperation with residents, public and private agencies, social service agencies, City Departments, and private developers. • Fund a wide range of activities by private and nonpr ofit developers to promote the development of and the preservation of affordable housing including purchasing, building, and/or rehabilitating affordable housing for rent or for homeownership.
• Publicize affordable housing and supportive programs by sending statements of interest for affordable housing to developers, property owners, service providers and non-profits when funding is available and issue requests for proposal for unique project development needs on specific sites of concern to the City.
• Provide an interdepartmental development team to assist affordable housing developers by streamlining the development process.
• Proactively seek partnerships with development-rela ted non-profits such as Habitat for Humanity to create low-income and moderate income affordable housing. • Proactively seek partnerships with development-re lated non-profits to supply special needs housing and services.
• Provide subsidy payments for extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households to obtain housing at an affordable cost in the private marketplace (i.e. rental subsidy payments.) • Replace affordable housing that is displaced through redevelopment activity. • Hold homeless service fairs to connect homeless persons experiencing homelessness individuals with services available in the local community.
• Monitor ongoing affordable activities funded by the Housing Authority to ensure developments remain in good physical condition, contribute positively to the adjacent neighborhood, and are available to income eligible residents as required by agreements with developers. • Maintain current housing information on the Community Development Department website. 985 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 31 | January 2022
Program 3A: Density Bonus Program
Program Description The Density Bonus incentives are designed to make affordable housing (both privately and publicly sponsored) projects easier to develop. The Density Bonus Law mandates density bonuses an d other regulatory incentives or concessions for projects that provide certain levels of affordable housing or senior citizen housing. Developers are entitled to incentives, based on the number of affordable units they provide unless the City proves the incentives are not necessary to make the projec t feasible. Density bonus laws also provide favorable parking incentives for affordable housing developers.
The City shall continue to implement its Density Bonus Program, including Density Bonus Incentives, in accordance with State law. Developers granted a density bonus enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to ensure the continued affordability of th e units. Affordable rental units are rented at levels affordable to very low and low income tenants. Affordable rental units are subject to annual rent adjustments based upon changes in the County median income.
Program Goals The City will continue to utilize density bonus incentives to encourage the development of affordable family housing as well as senior housing and other qualifying uses. Specifically, this includes:
• Maintain outreach materials highlighting the incentive/concessions offered under the Density Bonus. Density bonus brochure available on-line. • Advertise density bonus opportunities on the Community Development Department’s webpage
• Update the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance to comply with State law by March 2023
• Continue to periodically evaluate, on an annual basis, the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance for compliance with State law and update as required.
Glendale’s goal is one density bonus project per year (without other public funding assistance), with a minimum of 8 units affordable to Very Low income households. This would provide for a total of 64 Very Low income units during the 2021-2029 planning period. However, this goal is dependent upon applications for this program.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources None necessary
2021-2029 Objectives Continue to encourage development of housing for senior and low-income housing through promotion of density bonuses; 64 affordable to very low income.
Timeframe Projects – ongoing (one project/8 units per year) 986 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 32 | January 2022
Program 3B: Direct City Financial Assistance
Program Description The City intends to facilitate the production of affordable housing serving a wide range of income groups through the investment of federal HOME and Low Moderate Income Housing Asset funds that are directly available to the City, and other leveraged and competitive funding sources.
During the 2014-2021 planning period, the City provided financial assistance that facilitated the production of affordable housing for a wide range of income groups. Specifically:
• The Glendale Housing Authority committed $9.3M to fund a 66-unit affordable rental housing project serving low income seniors and developmentally disabled adults, which opened in 2019.
• In 2018, City Council pledged $20 million in General Funds to identify future affordable housing projects. In 2019, the City authorized the acquisition of two Glendale properties that are designated to be developed as long term affordable housing for lower income residents by committing a combined $25.5 million to acquire the 4.4 acres of land.
The acquisitions represent the most significant and largest investment the City has made to date for affordable housing purposes. Once completed with master planning, the City will issue RFPs for development of the two sites for affordable housing.
• The City assisted with a 100% affordable new construction project, the San Gabriel Valley Habitat for Humanity, 6-unit homeownership project for low income first-time homebuyers.
The City will continue applying for other State and federal funds as they become available to local governments to promote affordable housing.
Because federal funding availability may fluctuate over the eight year plan period, the City will monitor “Notices of Funding Availability” announcements, and maintain contact with housing development and technical assistance organizations in order to obtain advice and training on how to leverage funding for specific project areas. The City intends to actively and aggressively pursue outside resources available directly and through developers, as described above, and pursue new resources as they are identified to achieve a high level of leveraged funds for new housing production. The City will also seek State and Federal monies for direct support of housing construction and r ehabilitation specifically targeted for housing for persons with disabilities.
The City also requires and assists developer partners to apply for available leveraged funding including the State Multi-Family Housing Program (MHP) 987 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 33 | January 2022
for low cost construction loans; Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Programs and WISH funds, private f oundation grants, New Market Tax Credits, Los Angeles County affordable housing funds, State BEGIN/CalHome/CalHFA program funds, HUD 811 supportive housing grants, and State Multi-Family loan programs. There are three ways in which these monies will be made directly ava ilable for the production of affordable housing:
1. Land Assemblage and Write Down
The City plans to use available funds to purchase and assemble developable parcels of land and, if appropriate, write down the cost of land for the development of low and moderate income housing. The intent of this program is to assemble separate parcels of land in order to create a developable site for affordable housing. A ground lease or sale of the land to a well-qualified developer for an appropriate affordable housing project meeting the goals of the City’s affordable housing strategy may also be pursued where feasible.
The land could be sold at a land cost reduced to the point that it could cover the affordability or feasibility gap of a desired affordable housing project. This has the potential for making an otherwise improbable project economically feasible for a private (usually not-for-profit) developer to build units affordable to extremely low, very low, low and moderate income households. As part of the land write-down program, the City may also assist in acquiring and assembling property and in subsidizing on-site and off-site improvements.
2. Below Market Interest Rate Loans
The City can provide construction and permanent financing to a project at below market interest rates using available funds. The need for such financing will be evaluated for each specific proj ect. This program will be considered with other program incentives stated in this production strategy. Each project will be evaluated separately to determi ne the City assistance warranted to make the desired affordable housing project feasible. For home ownership development projects, loans may be converted to mortgage assistance loans held by the home buyers until they sell or transfer ownership of the affordable unit.
3. Grants or Deferred Payment, Forgivable Loans
The City can provide grants or forgivable loans to developers of affordable housing for off-site improvements, city fees, and certain project amenities consistent with the City’s design standards, not paid by other funding sources. 988 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 34 | January 2022
Funds for First Time Home Buyer Loans provided through New Construction Home Ownership developments are ty pically provided through a shared equity upon resale and deferred payment loan forgiven upon completion of the 45 year loan term. The need for this financial assistance will be evaluated for each specific project.
Once a year (as funding is available), the City will encourage the development for housing of affordable housing by outreaching to developers to discuss the development of new housing through the Statement of Interest process described above. During such outre ach, the City will encourage the development of special needs housing for those populations most difficult to serve that may require supportive se rvices with housing units: including extremely low income, disabled (including those with developmental disabilities), and the frail elderly. As described above the City will provide financial or in-kind technical assistance, land write downs, expedited processing, identifying funding and grant opportunities, and provide below market rate loans and/or grant funds to encourage such development Program Goals The eight-year goal for financial assistance from the City to new construction of affordable units is a total of 400 new construction units with approximately 66% of funds directly available to the City committed to rental units and 22% committed to home ownership units.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources HUD-HOME, LMIHAF, Leveraged Affordable Housing Funds 2021-2029 Objectives Assemble property and extend write-down grants to non-profit developers to increase supply of affordable housing; provide construction and permanent financing for affordable housing projects and special needs housing projects including Extremely Low Income; provide funds for off-site improvements, city fees, and certain amenities to encourage development of affordable housing.
Conduct outreach to developers when funds are available, once a year, through the Statement of Interest Process. 400 new construction units.
Timeframe On-going with outreach to developers once a year.
989 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 35 | January 2022
Program 3C: Inclusionary Zoning
Program Description The City will continue to implement its Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO), which is applicable Citywide to multi-family rental developments of eight (8) units or greater. Fifteen percent (15%) of the total units in an otherwise market-rate rental project must be affordable to lower income (60% AMI) individuals or families. Any fractional uni t resulting from the 15% calculation will be rounded up. Inclusionary units will be deed restricted for a period of 55 years. Developers may meet their Inclusionary requirement by paying an In- Lieu Fee based on a fee schedule established by the City multiplied by the per gross floor area. Developer may m eet Inclusionary requirement by any combination of building and/or paying the In-Lieu fee. It is noted that affordable units required under Density Bonus law must be built. There is no optional In-Lieu fee.
Program Goals Continued implementation of the Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance throughout the planning period.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources In-Lieu
2021-2029 Objectives Continue to implement zoning to require qualified developers to meet a housing project’s inclusionary obligation through construction of affordable for-sale units or through in-lieu fees.
Timeframe Ongoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning period.
990 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 36 | January 2022
Program 3D: Community Housing Development Organizations and other Nonprofit Housing Organizations
Program Description Federal HOME funds require that at least 15% of a jurisdiction’s HOME allocation be designated for use by Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs). A CHDO is a nonprofit organization with either specific representation from a low income neighborhood or low income residents on the CHDO board. The City has used CHDO funds in the past.
Unused CHDO funds accumulate with each annual HOME allocation.
However, HUD requires that the City commit all HOME funds, including CHDO reserves, within 24 months of the annual allocation date and expend all funds within 60 months of the annual allocation date. Two CHDOs have developed housing in the City—Wes t Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and the Glendale Housing Corporation.
The City continues to work with and identify organizations that are interested and likely to be able to obtain status as a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). The City will provide technica l assistance to local nonprofit agencies interested in affordable housing development, particularly organizations wanting to meet the CHD O requirements. Staff met with four developers in 2019 about possible CH DO status and are waiting for responses from them.
Incentive programs presented in this program strategy are available to both for profit and nonprofit organizations. However, nonprofit organizations have developed most of the affordable housing projects in the city. These organizations generally have an interest in long term management for special needs populations or for neighborhood revitalization purposes. Annually, staff from the Community Development Department will meet with housing and other related nonprofit organizations from the community to identify needs, resources, potential development opportunities, and any at-risk affordable housing units or programs.
Program Goals Continue to coordinate with local nonprofit organizations and encourage the formation of housing development corporations by interested persons in the community to facilitate the development and improvement of low cost housing in Glendale. The City is especially interested in the formation of CHDOs focused on the City of Glendale.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources HUD-HOME; Project-specific grant funds
2021-2029 Objectives Coordinate with local nonprofit groups to facilitate affordable housing development and improvements.
Timeframe As requested.
991 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 37 | January 2022
Program 3E: Mixed Use Standards on Transportation Corridors Program Description Glendale has been successful in creating and/or modifying zoning standards that encourage mixed-use development with high density residential housing components along the City’s corridors. For many years Glendale has also permitted mixed use developments with high density residential standards in the C1, C2 and C3 commercial zones throughout the City. These zones tend to be located along major and secondary arterials, commercial highways and signature streets where tr ansit options may be available and where nearby goods and services encourage walking, rather than vehicle trips. Although zoning permits mixed residential-commer cial development opportunities in these zones, relatively few privately funded mixed-use developments have been built in commercial zones. The objective of this program is to encourage development in transportation corridors by addressing constraints such as reducing private parking requirements and identifying area for public parking.
The City will complete a review of its transportation corridor zoning, specifically in the C1, C2 and C3 z ones, for barriers to mixed use and multi- family residential development. An y proposed amendments will be included in the upcoming multi-family and mixed-use design guidelines and standards project utilizing SB 2 award grant. This study will be completed by February 2023 and will be implemented by the Community Development Department by February 2024.
Program Goals Review and modify mixed-use development standards on existing commercial corridors to encourage mixed-use development where appropriate.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources General Fund, SB 2 Funds
2021-2029 Objectives Review zoning standard constraints to developing residential and mixed-use projects in the C1, C2, and C3 zones.
Timeframe By Study complete by February 2023 with implementation complete by February 2024.
992 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 38 | January 2022
STRATEGY 4: RENTAL ASSISTANCE
Rental assistance is aimed at ensuring lower income tenants do not have to pay more than 30 percent of their gross income on rent or as otherwise limited by specific programs. The City of Glendale participates in the HUD-sponsored Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program which provides direct rental subsidies to lower income households. This is the largest source of affordable housing funds available to the City and total approximately $24 million per year.
Program 4A: Section 8 Rental Housing Choice Voucher Payments Program Description The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program provides direct rental subsidies to extremely low and very low income households. The subsidy amount equals the difference between 30 percent of the monthly household income and a fair market rent. Extremely Low Income households are served disproportionately by the program. The City continues to assist low income households through Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. As of February 2019, there were 1,333 Glendale and 1,399 “portable” Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers administered by the Housing Authority. The City applied for and was awarded 14 new special-use Section 8 vouchers from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for very low income developmentally disabled, non-senior adul ts who are leaving institutional settings for independent living or at-risk of being homeless.
Due to Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program funding reductions at the federal level, future funding levels are uncertain and the number of vouchers provided may have to be reduced.
Program Goals Continue to provide Section 8 vouchers to approximately 1,333 Glendale and 1,399 portable vouchers, which Glendale administers on behalf of other housing agencies, to extremely low and very low income households. The goals of the program give high priority to special needs populations including:
Victims of retaliation, homeless persons experiencing homelessness , and Veterans. The next largest special needs groups served by Section 8 include those with multiple preferences such as: extremely low income, disabled, and a single person over 62. As a result of the preferences described above, those elderly, single, disabled persons of extremely low income would receive a higher preference than other households that may be on the Section 8 waiting list. The City will continue to place a high priority on serving Extremely Low Income household with these funds, by implementing its existing “points” preference system prioritizing those households given Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers from the waiting lis t. This system provides a preference point for Extremely Low Income persons. It also provides a preference point for Disabled Persons, the majority of whom are Extremely Low Income.
Finally, the City will continue to comply with the program requirement that 993 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 39 | January 2022
75% of all persons taken from the Section 8 waiting list must be Extremely Low Income. The service levels shown below demonstrate that this income targeting has resulted in serving a large number of extremely low income households each year.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources HUD Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
2021-2029 Objectives Continue rental subsidies to extremely low income and very low-income families and elderly. Continued subsidy to 1,300 Glendale and 1,300 other community (portable voucher) households. A minimum of 75% served are Extremely Low Income annually.
Timeframe Ongoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning period.
994 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 40 | January 2022
STRATEGY 5: INCREASED OWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES
Attainable homeownership is an important factor in creative livable and equitable communities.
Homeownership provides an opportunity to invest directly in onesone’s community, supports neighborhood pride, and provides an avenue for economic growth. Glendale strives to have a balance of housing choices and tenancy options, including both increased ownership opportunities alongside affordable rental options.
Program 5A: New Types of Subdivision
Program Description This program will continue to evaluate the potential for allowing new innovative types of subdivisions with in the multi-family zoned areas in Glendale. Nontraditional subdivisions li ke small lots are recognized by the State Department of Housing and Community Development as a best practice for creating homeownership opportunities that are more affordable than traditional single-family homes. New types of subdivisions can have high density and have an urban character, giving them the potential to be compatible in multi-family zones which tend to be walkable and where residential developments tend to be taller, with less open space and less on- street parking than traditional single-family neighborhoods.
Program Goals The goal of this housing program is to find options for promoting infill development within multi-family neighborhoods. Glendale provides a lot width density bonus in multi-family residential zones that reward developers that combine residential lots into larger multi-family projects. However, there are a number of stand alone “widow and orphan” lots in multiple family zones where combining lots is not an option. Costs of developing mult i-family housing on single lots may not be cost effective for a small increase in density (generally one or two units). However, permitting small lot subdivisions of limited scale for the purpose of constructing new single -family homes within multi-family neighborhoods may be an option for increasing home ownership opportunities, replacing older housing stock and increasing neighborhood investment.
Beginning in 2023 and then on a biennial basis, Community Development staff will research and report to the Deputy Director of Community Development on new types of subdivisions which may be appropriate in the City of Glendale.
When and if new strategies are identi fied as appropriate for Glendale, the strategy will be implemented within one year of identification.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources None
2021-2029 Objectives Consider standards to allow small lot su bdivisions as infill projects in multi- family neighborhood.
995 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 41 | January 2022
Timeframe Initial review and presentation of available subdivision options to the Deputy Director of Community Development by December 2023; biennial updates to the Deputy Director of Community Development; implementation of strategies appropriate for Glendale within one year of identification.
996 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 42 | January 2022
Program 5B: Tenant/Community Opportunity to Purchase
Program Description Tenant Opportunity to Purchase (TOPA) or Community Opportunity to Purpose (COPA) policies provide tenants living in multi-family buildings with advance notice that the landlord is pl anning to sell their building and an opportunity for them to collectively purchase the building. TOPA/COPA is an emerging anti-displacement tool that can be used to preserve affordable rental housing stock, empower tenants, and stabilize low-income households.
Based on similar efforts in other jurisdictions, it is expected that the financial impact to the City to prepare and adopt and implement a TOPA ordinance would be minimal.
TOPA and COPA policies and programs are attractive to tenants because they would secure permanently affordable housing and enable tenants to build equity, thereby reducing the racial wealth gap. The City recognizes that existing purchases are already happening with the assistance of community land trusts. As part of this program, the City will work with existing Community Land Trust organizations to better understand available opportunities.
Program Goals Promote the use of SB 1079 (2020), which created a new foreclosure sale process for 2-4 unit buildings that allows qualified parties a means to purchase property in foreclosure, subj ect to certain requirements. Provide technical assistance and support to SB 1079 implementation efforts to achieve an effective notificat ion system. Building off this state law, consider creation of a local tenant/community opportunity to purchase (TOPA/COPA) ordinance that would cover a wider arra y of buildings outside of foreclosure, including rental housing with expiring federal and/or state subsidies and/or affordability protections. Explore funding sources, including grants and loans, to assist tenant and community based organizations purchase multi multi- family buildings; limited equity co-ops could also be explored separately as a financing strategy.. Require purchasers to preserve units as permanently affordable. Promote the creation of City or non-profit ownership entities that could acquire affordable ownership units and buildings.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources General Fund
2021-2029 Objectives Provide to City Council an analysis on the feasibility of implementing a TOPA/COPA ordinance in the City.
Timeframe December 2023
997 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 43 | January 2022
STRATEGY 6: HOUSING SERVICES
In addition to programs designed to increase the availability and adequacy of the City’s affordable housing stock, it is important that services are available that ensure the efficient utilization of the housing stock. The City currently offers housing services targeted at Glendale’s largest special needs group, the elderly. The proposed set of programs expands this focus to include housing services for lower income households and the homelesspersons experiencing homelessness.
Program 6A: Care Management Services
Program Description The City, through the Community Services and Parks Department, provides case management services to elderly residents in their homes and at the City’s Adult Recreation Center. All activities, services, and programs are outreached through the Community Services & Parks monthly newsletter, City webpage, social media pages (Facebook, Instagram, Twitter), City departments, and non- profit community agencies in and around Glendale. The purpose of case management services is to allow seniors to remain independent in the community as an alternative to institutionalization. Staff at the Center helps to coordinate housing services for seniors, such as in-home care and relocation assistance. Seniors are matched with the appropriate agencies in the community to receive needed assistance, such as the County for special circumstance relocation assistance. The City provides case management services to 120 seniors each year. In addition, the Elderly Nutrition Program serves 300 unduplicated seniors annually through the Congregate Meal and Home Delivered Meals Program and Telephone Reassurance Program. This grant has a minimum match requirement of 15% from the City.
Case management is currently funded through federal CDBG funds and City General Funds.
Program Goals Continue to monthly outreach and provide case management services to 120 seniors annually and to serve 300 seni ors annually through the Elderly Nutrition Program.
Responsible Agencies Community Services and Parks Department and Los Angeles County Funding Sources CDBG, City General Fund
2021-2029 Objectives Continue to provide referral assistance to senior citizens to link them with services, enabling them to remain in their homes. Provide case management assistance to 120 individuals annually and serve 300 individuals annually through the Elderly Nutrition Program.
Timeframe Monthly outreach; Oongoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning period.
998 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 44 | January 2022
Program 6B: Homeless Services for Persons Experiencing Homelessness Program Description The City of Glendale has estimated in the 2020 count that there are 169 homeless persons experiencing homelessness in Glendale on any given night. Many of these are individuals and families with special needs requiring attention, such as substance abuse, mental illness, physical disabilities or domestic violence.
The Continuum of Care is comp rised of outreach and assessment, emergency, transitional and permanent housing, and homeless prevention activities. In addition, a variety of supportive services are linked to housing programs that address the problems that contribute to homelessness:
domestic violence, substance abuse, physical and mental health. Supportive services designed to provide enhanced employment opportunities, to assist veterans, and to facilitate placement in, and maintenance of, permanent housing are also offered.
With the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) pr ograms, and through the aggressive pursuit of competitive funding opportuni ties provided by HUD, including the Supportive Housing Program (SHP), m any components of the continuum of care are in place.
Program Goals Continue to work with the Glendale Homeless Coalition on an ongoing basis for the Plan period to support existing programs that have demonstrated effectiveness. And, as funding is ava ilable, work to expand these services and facilities. The programs that will be supported include:
Emergency Shelters
• Provide 45 year round emergency shelter beds and 16 year round domestic violence crisis shelter beds and serve a combined total of 300 persons annually (2,550 for the 8 year period).
Transitional Shelters
• Provide transitional housing through 116 beds for persons in families, serving 122 persons annually (976 persons over the 8 year period.) Permanent Supportive Housing
• Provide access to permanent supportive housing to 50 homeless households with disabilities experiencing homelessness through the Shelter plus Care Program.
999 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 45 | January 2022
• Provide stable housing for persons with special needs through permanent supportive housing. Continue to provide 22 slots for unaccompanied adults.
• Provide stable housing for families with special needs through Chester Street Permanent Supportive Housing Program. Continue to provide 18 beds for persons in families.
Case Management and Supportive Services
• Continue implementation of the Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) program. All funded agencies are using HMIS on a 100% basis.
Homeless Prevention Services
• Provide homeless prevention services through case management, advocacy, and direct financial assistance to households at risk of homelessness to help them maintain/obtain housing. Serve 250 families annually (2,000 for the 8 year period.)
Street Outreach
• Provide street outreach services to the chronically homeless unhoused street population in Glendale and connect clients to the Continuum of Care.
Domestic Violence Programs
• Provide safe emergency housing as part of a year round 16 bed domestic violence shelter and serve a combined total of 96 persons annually (768 for the 8 year period.)
Support Services
• Provide Medical Discharge Counseling services to homeless persons experiencing homelessness being discharged from Glendale Adventist Medical Center to address emergency needs and link them to homeless services under the local preference for homeless families experiencing homelessness.
Funding Applications
• Annual outreach and assistance for annual funding applications Responsible Agencies Community Services and Parks Department Funding Sources HUD-HOME Continuum of Care Progra m; Shelter Plus Care; Emergency 1000 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 46 | January 2022
Solutions Grant, other private and agency resources.
2021-2029 Objectives Provide services in the following areas on an ongoing basis:
• Emergency Shelter: 2,500 persons
• Transitional Shelter: 976 beds for persons
• Permanent Supportive Housing: 720 persons
• Case Management and Supportive Services: 9,600 persons • Homeless Prevention Services: 2,000 persons
• Street Outreach: 2,550 unduplicated clients served
• Domestic Violence Programs: 768 persons
• Supportive Services: 20,000 unduplicated clients served Timeframe Annual assistance for funding applications; Oo ngoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning period.
1001 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 47 | January 2022
Program 6C: Developmental Disabilities Housing Services Program Description Develop an informational brochure by December 2022, and implement other outreach methods as appropriate, that will provide information on City and other agency/organization housing and supportive services for the developmental disabilities community. Update the informational brochure annually. Continue to provide housing-related training for individuals/families through workshops and other identified outreach methods on an annual basis.
Program Goals On an annual basis, Ww ork with nonprofit groups serving persons with developmental disabilities in the Glendale area and with the Lanterman Regional Center to educate, inform, and assist disabled person in locating and maintaining housing in Glendale.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources HOME and LMIHAF Administration, General Funds 2021-2029 Objectives Continued annual outreach to developmental disabilities community to educate, inform, and assist disabled persons in locating and maintaining housing.
Timeframe Development of informational brochure by December 2022 with subsequent annual updates; annual outreach and oO ngoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning period.
1002 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 48 | January 2022
STRATEGY 7: FAIR HOUSING
The City of Glendale worked to implement a fair housi ng strategy consistent with State and Federal law.
Since 1982, the City made a commitment to develop and update a Fair Housing Plan that insures equal housing opportunities for all resident s, regardless of age, race, religion, national origin, physical condition, marital status, or sex. In 2021, the (2020-2025) was updated. Furthermore, tThe City contracts annually with a fair housing provider for fair housing services to Glendale residents.
Program 7A: Fair Housing Plan
Program Description The City’s Fair Housing Plan addresses actions to affirmatively further fair housing. One strategy to further fair housing practices has been an increase in education and outreach for both renters and rental property owners. The City coordinates semiannual community fair housing workshops. The workshops are made available under a CDBG contract with the Housing Rights Center to serve City residents with fair housing education, conciliation, mediation, and resolving tenant/ landlord disputes. Residents who feel discriminated against by rental proper ty owners, rental property managers, real estate agents, or loan and credit agents are also referred to the Council to get information and assistance with their discrimination claim. Services through the Housing Rights Center are available in English, Spanish, and Armenian, the three primary languages in Glendale, as well as others.
Program Goals Continue to implement the 2020-2025 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) and implement its recommendations. Continue to contract with a fair housing service provider for multi-language fair housing and landlord/tenant services to an average annual 500 Glendale residents per year. Encourage the fair housing service provider to solicit input from black, indigenous, and people of color (BIPOC) individuals and families as part of the planning process. Services include: discrimination complaint education, enforcement and legal services, landlord/tenant counseling, and education/outreach. Update Policies and Procedures for Fair Housing as required. Continue to contract with a fair housing service provider who will identify and investigate cases of discrimination, including potential discriminatory practices that may prevent people and/or families from entering the housing market in Glendale.
Responsible Agencies Community Services and Parks Department Funding Sources HUD-CDBG, HOME, Section 8
2021-2029 Objectives Continue to promote and update a Fair Housing Strategy consistent with State and Federal law. Continue to contract with a fair housing provider to meet annual goals: educational; tenant/landlord services; and discrimination services. Implement current 2020-2025 Analysis of Impediments (AI); Update 1003 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 49 | January 2022
the AI as necessary. Implement future federal Fair Housing Rule for Grantees when adopted.
Timeframe Semiannual community fair housing workshops; provide for multi-language fair housing and landlord/tenant services annually; Oongoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning period.
1004 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 50 | January 2022
Program 7B: Anti-Displacement Evaluation
Program Description The most common problem people associate with gentrification is the displacement of residents from a neighborhood experiencing redevelopment.
Displacement happens in various ways. “Direct displacement” is when residents are forced to move because of rent increases and/or building renovations. “Exclusionary displacement” is when housing choices for low- income residents are limited. “Displ acement pressures” are when supports and services that low-income families rely on disappear from the neighborhood.
Program Goals The City of Glendale can reduce the impact of displacement when it occurs by preventing practices that increase or enable displacement. To determine if market force economic displacement is occurring due to development of new housing, increased housing costs, or other factors, the City will conduct a study to determine if individuals and families are being displaced and to evaluate local conditions that may contribute to displacement. The study will analyze gentrification locally and will assess how new development and community investments may potentially influence displacement. If this study shows that displacement is occurring, the City will develop an action program based on the identified causes of displacement, including specific actions to monitor and mitigate displacement. Annual review of the action program may result in modifications to further reduce displacement risk. This program addresses the fair housing issue of disproportionate housing needs, including displacement risk.
As part of this effort, the City will specifically evaluate and consider displacement risk as it impacts black, indigenous, and persons of color (BIPOC) individuals and families and special needs groups in the community, such as persons with disabilities. This includes engaging these groups in the planning process to understand and address unique concerns or risk potential.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources General Plan
2021-2029 Objectives Conduct a Displacement Risk Analysis Study to identify the local conditions that lead to displacement and develop and implement an action program based on the results. Identify potential partners to participate in the study that specialize in eviction-related topics related to displacement, such as fair housing service providers. Annually monitor program effectiveness.
Timeframe Conduct study by August 1, 2023 and begin to establish resulting programs by December 31, 2023. Ongoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning period.
1005 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 51 | January 2022
Program 7C: Affirmatively Furthering Air Housing (AFFH) Program Program Description The City of Glendale is committed to doing its part to affirmatively further fair housing. Affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protect ed characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with civil rights and fair housing laws. The duty to affirmatively further fair housing extends to all of a public agency’s activities and programs relating to housing and community development. The City will consider its duty to affirmatively further fair housing within the local and regional context, to ensure that City goals, policies, and programs address both local and regional fair housing concerns.
Program Goals Facilitate equal and fair housing opportunities by implementing actions to affirmatively further fair housing services and opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, age, marital or familial status, ancestry, national origin, color, disability, or other protected characteristics through providing information, coordination, and education on fair housing law and practices to residents, landlords, an d housing developers. This program addresses the fair housing issues of education and outreach, integration/segregation, and acce ss to opportunity. Efforts will begin immediately and may include, but not be limited to:
Housing Mobility Enhancement
• Update the City’s Circulation El ement by December 2023 to address new transportation connections and plan for multimodal connections between areas of high opportunity and lower opportunity • Continue to provide assistance to aid alleged victims of violence or discrimination in obtaining access to appropriate State or federal agency programs.
• On at least a biennial basis, actively recruiting residents from neighborhoods of concentrated poverty to serve or participate on boards, committees, and other local government bodies as positions are made available due to the regular appointment process or vacancies.
• On an annual basis, provide education to the community on the 1006 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 52 | January 2022
importance of participating in the planning and decision-making process and completing Census questionnaires.
New Housing Choices and Affordability in High Opportunity Areas • Update the City’s Land Use Element by December 2023 to create new land use designations and an updated Land Use Map that plans to accommodate residential growth in areas of high opportunity • Implement Program 1F: Accessory Dwelling Units
Place-Based Strategies for Community Preservation and Revitalization • On an ongoing basis, and at least annually, review land use and planning proposals, including devel opment proposals, general plan amendments, master planning e fforts for parks, recreation, infrastructure, and other facilities and amenities, to ensure that the City is replacing segregated living patterns with integrated and balanced living patterns, where applicable and feasible, and working to transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity without displacement. If the review identifies potential barriers to replacing segregated living patterns with integrated and balanced living patte rns or the ability to transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity without displacement, th e City will, in the subsequent year, take action to further alleviate these conditions through City-led efforts to its General Plan, Zoning Code, other plans.
• On a semiannual basis, conduct a meeting of internal City Staff working in the fields of planning, housing, and code enforcement to identify neighborhoods in need of focused preservation and revitalization efforts and use this information to inform the City’s CBDG funding strategy
Displacement Protection
• Implement Program 7B: Anti-Displacement Evaluation
• On an annual basis, work with local organizations, through Community Action Agency, Continuum of Care, and Housing Authority efforts, to encourage, expand, and publicize fair housing requirements as part of programs th at provide rental assistance to lower income households.
• On a biennial basis, evaluate the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policies and Programs to review the techni cal elements of the policies and programs and determine if they continue to meet the City’s housing objectives as quantified in the Housing Element.
1007 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 53 | January 2022
Education and Outreach
• Providing public information and brochures regarding fair housing/equal housing opportunity requirements including how to file a complaint and access the invest igation and enforcement activities of the State Fair Employment and Housing Commission. This information will continue to be made available on the City’s website and at City Hall. This information will be reviewed annually to ensure that any materials, links, and information provided are up-to-date. • City staff serving will continue to serve as liaison between the public and appropriate agencies in matters concerning housing
discrimination within the City. The City will refer discrimination complaints to the City’s fair housing service provider upon receipt. • Annual training of City staff, including through coordination with local advocacy groups, on how to receive, log, refer, and follow-up on fair housing complaints. If resolution was not obtained for any complaints, refer complaint to HCD the Department of Fair Employment and Housing to ensure that affordable housing laws are actively enforced. • Biennial fair housing update to the Planning Commission and to City Council.
• Annual public service announcements, through coordination with the Housing Authority and HCD, via different media (e.g., newspaper ads, public service announcements at local radio and television channels, the City’s social media accounts or podcast). • Providing fair housing literature to schools, libraries, and post offices by December 2022. This information is available via the City’s fair housing service provider and will be reviewed annually to ensure that the posters and literature being provided are up-to-date. • Evaluate the potential preparation and adoption of an Anti- Harassment Ordinance and provide a briefing to the City Council with available options by October 1, 2023.
• Prepare and adopt a historic context statement for the City of Glendale by December 2022.
• Continue implementing educational programming through the Library, Arts & Culture Department, on at least an annual basis, to enhance and elevate culturally diverse artistic voices and bring additional focus on systemic racism by amplifying cultural voices through a lens of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
1008 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 54 | January 2022
• Conduct a biennial survey, by neighborhood, to identify fair housing issues geographically and conduct targeted outreach, in collaboration with fair housing service providers, to address the specific needs of different Glendale neighborhoods
• Evaluate a Right to Council law for eviction cases and present the results of the evaluation to the City Council by October 1, 2023 Integration/Segregation
Working with local organizations, through Community Action Agency, Continuum of Care, and Housing Authority efforts, to encourage, expand, and publicize fair housing
requirements as part of programs that provide rental
assistance to lower income households.
On an ongoing basis, and at least annually, review land use and planning proposals, including development proposals, general plan amendments, master planning efforts for parks, recreation, infrastructure, and other facilities and amenities, to ensure that the City is replacing segregated living patterns with integrated and balanced living patterns, where
applicable and feasible, and working to transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of
opportunity without displacement.
Access to Opportunity
Assistance to aid alleged victim s of violence or discrimination in obtaining access to appropri ate State or federal agency programs.
On an ongoing basis, actively recruiting residents from neighborhoods of concentrated poverty to serve or
participate on boards, committees, and other local
government bodies as positions are made available due to the regular appointment process or vacancies.
• On an annual basis, provide education to the community on the importance of participating in the planning and decision- making process and completing Census questionnaires.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources General Plan
2021-2029 Objectives Improve fair housing opportunities and response to complaints through 1009 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 55 | January 2022
implementing above actions. Follow-up on 100% of complaints.
Timeframe Ongoing outreach and coordination, beginning immediately; annual review of fair housing brochure and posters to ensure that the most recent information provided by the City’s fair housing se rvice provider is being disseminated; annual presentations and media outreach.
1010 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 56 | January 2022
STRATEGY 8: SUSTAINABILITY
The State passed AB 32 in 2006 and SB 375 in 2007 to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions through a variety of methods, including local long-term planning. The State identified guidelines for local government compliance. As a result, the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) prepared a combined Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communiti es Strategy (RTP/SCS) to provide coordinated transportation and housing with GHG reduction target s for the SCAG region. To comply with AB32 and SB375 State mandates, Glendale received a grant and prepared the three-part Greener Glendale Plan consisting of the following:
• Greener Glendale 2010 Report identifying the status of Glendale GHG reduction efforts; • Greener Glendale Plan for Municipal Operations identifying GHG emissions, programs, strategies and targets for GHG reduction for actions under the direct control of the City of Glendale; and, • Greener Glendale Plan for Community Activities identifying programs, strategies and targets for GHG reductions for activities occurring within the City of Glendale, but outside control of the municipality.
The Greener Glendale Plan was completed in 2012 and provides the basis for the following housing-related programs which further Glendale’s sustainability efforts. These programs, along wi th a variety of other programs included in this Housing Plan (see Programs 2B, 2D, and 3D) are consistent with Greener Glendale Plan policies for increasing efficiencies in government operations and furthering green community efforts related to urban design, energy, water, urban nature and transportation.
Program 8A: Community Plans
Program Description This program includes a review of ex isting neighborhoods, identification of areas to maintain, enhance and transform and an identification of changes necessary to implement community plans in Glendale. A necessary and integral part of developing the South Glendale Community Plan is the preparation of an environmental impact report at a program level. The South Glendale Community Plan Final EIR was adopted by the City Council on July 31, 2018, but is now on hold due to pending litigation. The West Glendale Community Plan is currently under preparation and is expected to be adopted by 2023.
Program Goals Continue with the realignment of Glendale’s General Plan Land Use Element from a citywide view of land uses to a community focus on land uses within neighborhoods. In November 2011, Glendale adopted the North Glendale Community Plan, the first of several community plans, to focus future land use planning to reflect individual neighborhood character. This program to prepare Community Plans to reflec t neighborhood characteristics will continue, with the creation of other Community Plans, including for South and West Glendale. In addition, the City will update its Land Use Element to better align with the goals, policies, and programs necessary to support the 1011 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 57 | January 2022
implementation of adopted Community Plans.
Responsible Agencies Citywide
Funding Sources General Fund
2021-2029 Objectives Continue to prepare and adopt the West Glendale Community Plan.
Timeframe By 2023, as allowable based on environmental review funding
1012 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 58 | January 2022
Program 8B: Permit Streamlining
Program Description This program includes a review of Glendale’s entitlement processes for the purpose of identifying opportunities to reduce or eliminate redundant review processes. This program includes the potential for changes to development codes and the General Plan to increase the number of projects subject to approval by staff and the Director of Community Development and to reduce the number and need for public hearings where other opportunities are provided for public input into the decision-making process. This program is on-going.
Program Goals Identify additional opportunities beyond those already provided to enable permit streamlining to increase the production of housing in Glendale, with a focus on housing affordable to lower income householdsProactively advertise to the development community the City’s preliminary review process, which allows for applicants to discuss the details of an application prior to review by Design Review, Planning Commission, and/or City Council. Utilization of this process has resulted in reduced permit approval times, particularly as it relates to review by the City’s Design Review Board. By working proactively with applicants as part of the prelim inary review process, Staff will provide specific direction on modifications that should be made to receive timely project approval. The City will initiate this proactive outreach by June 2022 and will make information available on a dedicated “Project Review” website by January 2023.
The City will also prepare a project re view flowchart to describe the project review and approval process, including sample timeframes for review and approval, and make this information available online and in hard copy at City Hall by June 2022. By providing more clear direction on the review process, the City can help applicants better navigate the layers of review and ensure that applicants are being prepared and routed in a timely manner.
On an annual basis, as part of its Housing Element Annual Progress Report, the City will review its permit process and identify any potential areas of concern evident over the prior year. By March of each year, the City will identify priority projects to facilitate permit streamlining for the subsequent fiscal year and submit a request for funding to address the issue.
As part of this program, the City will also amend the Citywide Fee Schedule for Planning to reflect that the fee to process a Specific Plan is the same as for a General Plan Amendment.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
1013 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 59 | January 2022
Funding Sources Unknown
2021-2029 Objectives Reduce barriers and processing times for entitlement approval, including entitlement approval related to housing development.
Timeframe Ongoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning periodProactive outreach to the development community to advertise the preliminary review process by June 2022; project review flowchart prepared and shared by June 2022; updated project website by January 2023; annual funding requests; update to the fee schedule to reflect Specific Plan fee upon next Fee Schedule Update (annually) .
1014 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 60 | January 2022
Program 8C: Multimodal Development Housing Standards
Program Description This program includes continuation of the West Glendale Community Plan and implementation of appropriate multimodal development recommendations related to housing. Appropriate policy recommendations would be incorporated into the West Glendale Community Plan to ensure transit-oriented policies become part of Glendale’s General Plan. Zoning standards would also be reviewed to encourage higher density housing. This program is on-going and will be im plemented following approval of environmental review for the West Glendale Community Plan.
The South Glendale Community Plan was approved in July 2018, and included Transit Oriented Development Policies. The City is currently proceeding to draft new zoning standards to implement the TOD policies and will be utilizing SB 2 grant funding to have consultants prepare the final language and objective design criteria for the TOD area.
Program Goals Complete the existing study of the grant-funded West Glendale Community Plan, implement the policies and programs to create a multimodal neighborhood. Review and implement transit-oriented development (TOD) study recommendations in the South Glendale Community Plan, pending the results of current litigation, and in the zoning code as they relate to zoning locations and standards for residential development.
Responsible Agencies Citywide
Funding Sources Unknown
2021-2029 Objectives Following the West Glendale Community Plan, allow for increased development potential in the project area; implement the South Glendale Community Plan, is possible, based on the results of ongoing litigation.
Timeframe Implement by 2023
1015 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 61 | January 2022
Program 8D: Greener Glendale Climate Adaptation Plan
Program Description This program is the monitoring governm ental required for the preparation of Climate Adaptation Plans. The City will continue to monitor climate adaptation plan regulations. If required by the state or federal government, Glendale will seek outside funding to prepare a Cl imate Adaptation Plan as a fourth segment of the Greener Glendale Plan. The first three segments of the Greener Glendale Plan are described above in the preamble for Strategy 8:
Sustainability.
Program Goals Monitor state and federal regulations regarding climate adaptation.
Responsible Agencies Citywide
Funding Sources Unknown
2021-2029 Objectives Monitor state law regarding Climate Adaption Plan requirements.
Timeframe Ongoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning period.
1016 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 62 | January 2022
STRATEGY 9: REMOVE CONSTRAINTS
Under state State law, the Glendale Housing Element must address, and where appropriate and legally possible remove, governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing.
The City must also consider the role of nongovernm ental constraints to housing development and, to the extent feasible, develop programs to reduce the impact s of nongovernmental constraints. The following programs are designed to lessen constraints to housing development.
Program 9A: Monitor Changes in Federal and State Housing, Planning, and Zoning Laws Program Description State law requires that Housing El ements address, and where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing. While Program 9B addresses specific constraints identified in this Housing Element, the City will continue to, at least annually, monitor its development processes and zoning regulations to identify and remove constraints to the development of housing and promote affirmatively furthering fair housing.
The City will also continue to , at least annually, monitor federal and State legislation that could impact housing and comment on, support, or oppose proposed changes or additions to existing legislation, as well as support new legislation when appropriate. Special attention will be given by the City in the minimizing of governmental constraints to the development, improvement, and maintenance of housing and the promotion of affirmatively furthering fair housing.
Program Goals Annually Mmonitor state and federal regulations related to housing, planning, and zoning.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources General Fund
2021-2029 Objectives Monitor State and Federal legislation as well as City development process and zoning regulations to identify and remove housing constraints.
Timeframe Annual monitoring; oO ngoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning period; at least annual updates to the City’s Zoning Code to comply with State law.
1017 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 63 | January 2022
Program 9B: Zoning Code Amendments – Housing Constraints Program Description The City shall update the Zoning Code to remove constraints to a variety of housing types and ensure the City’s standards and permitting requirements are consistent with State law. The update shall address the following:
A. Low barrier navigation centers: The Zoning Code shall be updated to define and permit low barrier navigation centers consistent with the requirements of Government Code Sections 65660 through 65668, including treating low barrier navigation centers as a use by right in areas zoned for mixed use and nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses.
B. Transitional and supportive housing : The Zoning Code shall be revised to ensure that transitional and supportive housing is allowed in any zone subject to the same standards as a residence of the same type in the same zone consistent with Government Code Section 65583(c)(3) and to allow eligible supportive housing as a use by right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted pursuant to Government Code Sections 65650 through 65656.
C. Employee housing and agricultural worker housing: The Zoning Code will be updated to comply with Health and Safety Code Sections 17021.5, .6, .8. Specifically , the City will only refer to it as employee housing and not make a distinction between agricultural worker versus employee housing typesThe Zoning Code will be updated to define employee housing separately from agricultural worker housing and to clarify that employee housing serving six or fewer employees shall be deemed a single family structure and shall be subject to the same standards for a single family residence in the same zone.
D. Agricultural worker housing: The Zoning Code will be updated to define agricultural worker housing and to identify that any agricultural worker housing consisting of no more than 36 beds in a group quarters or 12 units or spaces shall be deemed an agricultural land use and permitted in the same manner as agricultural uses consistent with Health and Safety Code Section 17021.6. The Zoning Code will also be updated to provide for streamlined, ministerial approval of agricultural worker housing that meets the requirements of Health and Safety Code Section 17021.8.
E.D. Streamlined and Ministerial Revi ew for Eligible Affordable Housing Projects: The Zoning Code will be updated to ensure that eligible multifamily projects with an affordable component are 1018 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 64 | January 2022
provided streamlined review and are only subject to objective design standards consistent with relevant provisions of SB 35 and SB 330 as provided by applicable sections of the Government Code, including but not limited to Se ctions 65905.5, 65913.4, 65940, 65941.1, 65950, and 66300. State law defines objective design standards as those that “involve no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant and public official prior to submittal.”
E. Emergency shelter parking: The Zoning Code will be updated to require sufficient parking to accommodate all staff working in the emergency shelter, provided that the standards do not require more parking for emergency shelters than other residential or commercial uses within the same zone, in compliance with AB 139.
F. Reasonable Accommodation Finding. Finding #5 of the
Reasonable Accommodation Findings will be updated to create an objective standard for review.
F.G. Parking Standards in PRD Zone. The Zoning Code will be updated to reduce the guest parking standards in the PRD Zone.
Program Goals Maintain a Zoning Code that is in compliance with State Housing Law.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources General Fund
2021-2029 Objectives Ensure that the City’s Zoning Code is consistent with State law and update the Zoning Code as needed to comply with future changes.
Timeframe Zoning Code Amendments adopted by December 2022.
1019 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 65 | January 2022
Program 9C: General Plan Consistency
Program Description The Housing Element affects a locality’s policies for growth and residential land uses. The General Plan is required to be “internally consistent.” As aort of the Housing Element Update proce ss, the City has determined that the goals, policies, and programs included in the Housing Element are consistent with the other Elements of the City’s General Plan. The City will review the General Plan annually to confirm inter nal consistency as part of its annual General Plan Implementation report required under Government Code section 65400.
The City embarked on a focused update to its General Plan in 2020. As part of this effort, the City will update its Land Use Element and Circulation Element. As those Elements are updated, the City will ensure that the General Plan remains internally consistent. The City does not expect that the updates made to the City’s Land Use and Circulation Elements will impact the goals, policies, programs, or findings included in its 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Program Goals Maintain an internally consistent General Plan.
Responsible Agencies Community Development Department
Funding Sources General Fund
2021-2029 Objectives Monitor General Plan Elements for internal consistency as it is updated/amended during the planning period.
Timeframe Annual review of internal consistency as part of the City’s General Plan Implementation report.
1020 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 66 | January 2022
4 Quantified Objectives
State law requires the Housing Element to include quantified objectives for the maximum number of units that can be constructed, rehabilitated or conserved. Policies and programs in the Housing Element establish the strategies to achieve these objectives. The Ci ty’s quantified objectives are described under each program, and represent the City’s best effort in implementing each of the programs. Assumptions are based on past program performance and funding availability, construction trends, land availability, and future programs that will enhance program effectiveness and achieve full implementation of the City’s housing goals.
The new construction objectives shown in the table below represent a portion of the City’s overall RHNA for the 2021-2029 planning period for all income levels. The objective identified for each income level is based on historic trends and patterns of development; units affordable to lower-income households are historically more difficult to develop due to extremely limited available funding for affordable housing projects. Moderate- and above-moderate income units are more likely to be developed by the private market. The City does not build housing and is not in direct control of the number of units that are constructed during the planning period; the private market is responsible for deve loping new projects in Glendale. Rehabilitation and conservation objectives are based on specific program targets.
The table below summarizes the City’s quantified objectives for housing during the 2021-2029 planning period.
Income Category New Construction Rehabilitation Conservation/ Preservation
Extremely Low 260 20 557*
Very Low 345 40
Low 430 40
Moderate 1,125 -
Above Moderate 3,350 -
Total 5,510 100 373557
*The City will seek to preserve at-risk units at their current affordability levels as recorded in each project’s affordability restrictions.
1021 of 1910
PART 2:
BACKGROUND REPORT
Final Draft
January 2022
1022 of 1910
This page intentionally left blank.
1023 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐1 | January 2022
CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 5
2. ACCOMPLISHMENTS UNDER 5TH CYCLE HOUSING ELEMENT .......................................................................... 7 2A. REVIEW OF 2014 HOUSING ELEMENT ...................................................................................................................... 7 2B. HOUSING PRODUCTION DURING 5TH CYCLE RHNA PERIOD ......................................................................................... 7 2C. APPROPRIATENESS AND EFFECTIVENESS OF 2014 HOUSING ELEMENT ............................................................................ 8
3. HOUSING NEEDS ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................................... 26 3A. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................ 26 3B. POPULATION TRENDS AND CHARACTERISTICS ........................................................................................................... 26 3C. HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS .............................................................................................................................. 29 3D. INCOME ............................................................................................................................................................ 30 3E. HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................................................................. 34 3F. HOUSING COSTS ................................................................................................................................................. 37 3G. FUTURE HOUSING NEEDS ..................................................................................................................................... 42 3H. SPECIAL NEEDS GROUPS ...................................................................................................................................... 43 3I. UNITS AT‐RISK OF CONVERSION ............................................................................................................................ 51 3J. ESTIMATES OF HOUSING NEED .............................................................................................................................. 57
4. CONSTRAINTS .............................................................................................................................................. 58 4A. GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ............................................................................................................................. 58 4A.1 LAND USE CONTROLS .......................................................................................................................................... 58 4A.2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS ........................................................................................................................... 78 4A.3 DEVELOPMENT FEES ............................................................................................................................................ 93 4B. NON‐GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ..................................................................................................................... 97 4C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS .......................................................................................................................... 100 4D. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS .......................................................................................................................... 101
5. RESOURCES ................................................................................................................................................... 103 5A. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) ................................................................................................. 103 5B. PROGRESS TOWARDS THE RHNA ........................................................................................................................ 104 5C. RESIDENTIAL SITES INVENTORY ............................................................................................................................ 107 5D. FINANCIAL, HOUSING, AND ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 126 5E. ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES .............................................................................................................. 129 5F. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ............................................................................................................................. 131
6. AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING (AFFH) ................................................................................. 132 6A. OUTREACH ...................................................................................................................................................... 132 6B. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING ........................................................................................................................... 140 6C. SITES INVENTORY .............................................................................................................................................. 219 6D. ANALYSIS OF CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND FAIR HOUSING PRIORITIES AND GOALS ....................................................... 239
1024 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐2 | January 2022
TABLES
Table 1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation – 5th Cycle Progress ................................................................ 7 Table 2: Evaluation of the 2014 Glendale Housing Element Programs ........................................................ 10 Table 3: Population Trends - Neighboring Jurisdictions ................................................................................ 26 Table 4: Population by Age ............................................................................................................................ 27 Table 5: Race and Ethnicity ........................................................................................................................... 27 Table 6: Job Growth and Employment Status ............................................................................................... 28 Table 7: Jobs by Industry (2019) ................................................................................................................... 28 Table 8: Jobs by Occupation (2019) .............................................................................................................. 29 Table 9: Household by Tenure (2019) ........................................................................................................... 30 Table 10: Median Household and Per Capita Income ................................................................................... 31 Table 11: Household Income for All Households and by Tenure (2019) ....................................................... 31 Table 12: Households by Income Group (2017) ............................................................................................ 32 Table 13: Housing Stock by Type and Vacancy (2020) ................................................................................. 34 Table 14: Vacancy by Type............................................................................................................................ 34 Table 15: Housing Stock Conditions (2019) .................................................................................................. 35 Table 16: Overcrowding by Tenure (2019) .................................................................................................... 36 Table 17: Household Size by Tenure (2019) ................................................................................................. 36 Table 18: Number of Bedrooms by Tenure .................................................................................................... 37 Table 19: Homes for Sale (March 2021) ........................................................................................................ 37 Table 20: Rental Costs (2019) ....................................................................................................................... 38 Table 21: Median Rent by bedrooms ............................................................................................................. 38 Table 22: State Income Limits –Los Angeles County (2020) ......................................................................... 39 Table 23: Housing Affordability by Income Group ......................................................................................... 39 Table 24: Households by Income Level and Overpayment (2017)................................................................ 40 Table 25: Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Units .................................................................................... 41 Table 26: Regional Housing Needs Allocation – 6th Cycle ........................................................................... 42 Table 27: Senior Population and Households ................................................................................................ 43 Table 28: Householder Age by Tenure (2019) ............................................................................................... 44 Table 29: Disabilities by Disability Type ......................................................................................................... 45 Table 30: Disabled Persons by Age and Employment Status ....................................................................... 46 Table 31: Median Income By Household Size ............................................................................................... 47 Table 32: Household Size versus Bedroom Size by Tenure (2017) .............................................................. 48 Table 33: Families and Female Householder with Children Under 18 (2019) ............................................... 48 Table 34: Homelessness in Glendale - 2019-2020 ........................................................................................ 50 Table 35: Homelessness in Los Angeles County* - 2016-2020 .................................................................... 50 Table 36: Population Characteristics for Individuals Experiencing Homelessness in Glendale (2020) ........ 50 Table 37: Facilities and Services for Persons Experiencing Homelessness ................................................. 51 Table 38: Summary of at-Risk Subsidized Housing Units ............................................................................. 52 Table 39: Qualified Entities in Los Angeles County, 2021 ............................................................................. 56 Table 40: Summary of Needs ........................................................................................................................ 57 Table 41: General Plan Residential Land Use Designations ......................................................................... 58 Table 42: Residential Development Standards – Specific Plans ................................................................... 61 Table 43: Permitted Residential Uses by Zone (Residential Districts) .......................................................... 63 Table 44: Permitted Residential Uses by Zone (Commercial Districts) ......................................................... 64 Table 45: Permitted Residential Uses by Zone (Other Districts) ................................................................... 65 Table 46: ADU and JADU Development Standards ...................................................................................... 67 Table 47: Basic Residential Development Standards – Single Unit Per Lot ................................................. 73 Table 48: Basic Residential Development Standards – Multiple Units per Lot .............................................. 74 Table 49: Basic Residential Development Standards – Mixed-Use Districts ................................................ 75 Table 50: Minimum Floor Area ....................................................................................................................... 76 1025 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐3 | January 2022
Table 51: Residential Parking Requirements ................................................................................................. 77 Table 52: Permit Processing Reviewing Body ............................................................................................... 81 Table 53: Development Project Processing Fees (Effective August 7, 2021) ............................................... 94 Table 54: Typical Development Fees for High Density Residential Project .................................................. 96 Table 55: RHNA 2021-2029 ......................................................................................................................... 103 Table 56: Credits Towards the RHNA .......................................................................................................... 105 Table 57: Remaining RHNA ......................................................................................................................... 107 Table 58: Realistic Capacity Adjustment Factors – Residential Zones ....................................................... 109 Table 59: Realistic Capacity Adjustment Factors – Mixed-Use Zones ........................................................ 110 Table 60: Downtown Specific Plan Projects ................................................................................................ 111 Table 61: History of Development in Residential Zones, 2014-2020 .......................................................... 112 Table 62: Credits Towards the RHNA .......................................................................................................... 117 Table 63: Vacant Residential Sites .............................................................................................................. 119 Table 64: Underutilized Residential Sites .................................................................................................... 121 Table 65: Underutilized Mixed-Use Sites ..................................................................................................... 122 Table 66: Downtown Specific Plan Sites ..................................................................................................... 124 Table 67: RHNA Site Inventory .................................................................................................................... 125 Table 68: Compliance with Fair Housing Laws ............................................................................................ 146 Table 69: Demographic Trends ................................................................................................................... 154 Table 70: Median Household Income .......................................................................................................... 158 Table 71: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity ..................................................................................... 194 Table 72: Domains and List of Indicators by Factors ................................................................................... 195 Table 73: Opportunity Resource Levels by Census Tract ........................................................................... 196 Table 74: Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs ......................................... 201 Table 75: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors ............................................................................. 239
FIGURES
Figure 1: Percentage of Families & People Living in Poverty (2019) ............................................................ 33 Figure 2: Median Home Sales Price .............................................................................................................. 37 Figure 3: Proposed Housing Element Sites ................................................................................................. 115 Figure 4: Census Tract Boundaries ............................................................................................................. 149 Figure 5: Dissimilarity Index ......................................................................................................................... 153 Figure 6: Diversity Index by Census Block Group 2018 .............................................................................. 159 Figure 7: Diversity Index by Census Block Group 2010 .............................................................................. 161 Figure 8: Diversity Index by Census Block Group - Countywide ................................................................. 163 Figure 9: Proportion of Population with Disabilities by Census Tract .......................................................... 165 Figure 10: Proportion of Population with Disabilities by Census Tract - Countywide .................................. 167 Figure 11: Percent of Population 18 Years and Over in Households Living with Spouse ........................... 169 Figure 12: Percent of Population 18 Years and Over in Households Living with Spouse - Countywide ..... 171 Figure 13: Percent of Children in Married Couple Households ................................................................... 173 Figure 14: Percent of Children in Married Couple Households - Countywide ............................................. 175 Figure 15: Female-Headed Households by Proportion of Children Present by Census Tract .................... 177 Figure 16: Female-Headed Households by Proportion of Children Present by Census Tract - Countywide ..................................................................................................................................................................... 179 Figure 17: Proportion of Senior Residents by Census Tract ....................................................................... 181 Figure 18: Proportion of Senior Residents by Census Tract - Countywide ................................................. 183 Figure 19: Median Household Income by Block Group ............................................................................... 185 Figure 20: Median Household Income by Block Group - Countywide ......................................................... 187 Figure 21: Ethnicity Analysis - Racial Concentrations ................................................................................. 189 Figure 22: Ethnicity Analysis - Racial Concentrations - Countywide ........................................................... 191 Figure 23: TCAC Economic Score by Census Tract ................................................................................... 205 1026 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐4 | January 2022
Figure 24: TCAC Educational Score by Census Tract ................................................................................ 207 Figure 25: Environmental Score by Census Tract ....................................................................................... 209 Figure 26: TCAC Opportunity Areas by Census Tract ................................................................................. 211 Figure 26: Job Proximity Index by Block Group ........................................................................................... 213 Figure 28: Transit Routes ............................................................................................................................. 215 Figure 29: Cost Burdened Renter Households by Census Tract................................................................. 223 Figure 30: Cost-Burdened Owner Households by Census Tract ................................................................. 225 Figure 31: Cost-Burdened Renter Households by Census Tract - Countywide .......................................... 227 Figure 32: Cost-Burdened Owner Households by Census Tract - Countywide .......................................... 229 Figure 33: Overcrowded Households .......................................................................................................... 231 Figure 34: Overcrowded Households - Countywide .................................................................................... 233 Figure 35: Gentrification and Displacement ................................................................................................. 235 Figure 36: Sensitive Communities ............................................................................................................... 237
1027 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐5 | January 2022
1. Introduction
The City of Glendale was incorporated on February 16, 1906 and spans approximately 30.6 square miles with a current population of approximately 204,392 people (California Department of Finance). Located minutes away from downtown Los Angeles, Pasadena, Burbank, Hollywood, and Universal City, Glendale is the fourth largest city in Los Angeles County and is surrounded by Southern California's leading commercial districts. Glendale continues to be attractive to new re sidents and businesses with its central location near downtown Los Angeles, a major airport, four major freeways, three hospitals and an excellent school system.
State Housing Law (Government Code Section 65583) requires that a “housing element shall consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected hou sing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for t he preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including rental housing, factory-built housing, and mobile homes, and shall make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all economic segments of the community.” This report is an update of the City’s 2014- 2021 Housing Element (5
th Cycle), adopted in January 28, 2014.
The assessment and inventory must include all of the following:
Analysis of population and employ ment trends, documentation of projections, and a quantification of the locality's existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. Such existing and projected needs shall include the locality's share of the regional housing need in accordance with Section 65584 of the Government Code.
Analysis and documentation of household characteri stics, including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock condition. An inventory of land suitable for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment, and an analysis of the relationship between zoning, public facilities, and city services to these sites.
Analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels and fo r persons with disabilities, including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, local processing and permit proc edures, and any locally adopted ordinances that directly impact the cost and supply of residential development. Analysis of potential and actual non-governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, in cluding the availability of financing, the price of land, the cost of construction, requests to develop housing at densities below the minimum densities in the inventory of sites, and the length of time between receiving approval for a housing development and submittal of an application for building permits t hat hinder the construction of a locality’s share of the regional housing need.
Analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the elderly, disabled, including developmentally disabled, large fa milies, farmworkers, families wi th female heads of households, and families and persons in need of emergency shelter.
Analysis of opportunities for energy conserva tion with respect to residential development. Analysis of existing assisted multifamily rental housing developments t hat are eligible to change from low-income housing to market-rate during the next 10 years.
1028 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐6 | January 2022
The Background Report of this housing element identifies the nature and extent of Glendale’s housing needs, including those of special populations, potential housing resources (land and funds), potential constraints to housing production, and energy conservation opportunities. By examining the City’s housings, resources, and constraints, the City can then determine a plan of action for providing adequate housing. This plan is presented in the Housing Plan, which is the poli cy component of the Housing Element. In addition to identifying housing needs, the Background Report also presents information regarding the setting in which these needs occur. This informati on is instrumental in providing a better understanding of the community, which in turn is essential for the planning of future housing needs.
Since the update of the City’s last Housing Element, statutory changes have occurred that must be included in the 2021-2029 Glendale Housing Element (6th Cycl e). These laws have been incorporated in the appropriate sections throughout this Background Report as well as in its accompanying Policy Document. 1029 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐7 | January 2022
2. Accomplishments under 5th Cycle Housing Element
The following section reviews and evaluates the City’s progress in implementing the 2014 Housing Element.
It reviews the results and effectiveness of programs, policies, and objectives from the previous Housing Element planning period, which covered 2014 through 2021. This section also analyzes the difference between projected housing need and actual housing production. 2A. Review of 2014 Housing Element
The 2014 Housing Element program strategy focused on the accomplishment of policies and implementation of programs to ensure adequate sites, encourage the production of new housing, including affordable and special needs housing, to encourage the rehabilitation/retrofit of existing housing, to remove various constraints to housing, including housing for special needs populations, and to encourage fair housing and non-discrimination. The 2014 Housing Element identified the following goals:
Goal 1: A City with a Wide Range of Housing Types to Meet the Needs of Current and Future Residents
Goal 2: A City with High Quality Residential Neighborhoods that are Attractive and Well Designed Goal 3: A City with Increased Opportunities for Affordable Housing Goal 4: A City with Housing Services that Address Groups with Special Housing Needs Goal 5: A City with Equal Housing Opportunities for All Persons Goal 6: A City with Housing that is Livable and Sustainable 2B. Housing Production During 5th Cycle RHNA Period
The City’s 5th Cycle Housing Element specifically addres sed housing needs for Glendale from October 15, 2013 through October 15, 2021. Note, however, that the 5 th Cycle Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) projection period adopted by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) began on January 1, 2014 and concluded on October 1, 2021. Hence, there was a slight offset between the 5th Cycle Housing Element planning period and the 5th Cycle RHNA projection period.
Table 2-1 shows the total number of housing units built in the City during the 5th Cycle RHNA period based on the City’s 2020 General Plan Annual Progress Report and compares this number with the units required to be accommodated under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation. Housing development in Glendale during the 5th Cycle surpassed the City’s RHNA allocation in terms of total units; however, housing production was primarily for above moderate-income, market-rate housing.
During the 2014-2021 RHNA period, 4,493 units were constructed in the City, including 4,131 above moderate market-rate homes, 19 moderate-income units, and 343 lower income units as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Regional Housing Needs Allocation – 5th Cycle Progress Status Extremely
Low Very Low Low Moderate Above
Moderate TOTAL
RHNA Allocation 254 254 310 337 862 2,017
Built 0 125 218 19 4,131 4,493
Remaining Allocation 254 129 92 318 0 793
Sources: City of Glendale 2014-2021 Housing Element; 2020 General Plan Annual Progress Report
1030 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐8 | January 2022
2C. Appropriateness and Effectiv eness of 2014 Housing Element The overarching goals and policies of the 2014 Housi ng Element continue to be appropriate to encourage the City’s housing goals. While the majority of goals, policies, and programs included in the 2014 Housing Element continue to be appropriate to address the City’s housing needs, the Housing Plan will be updated to provide clearer guidance, to remove redundancies, and to provide more specific direction to encourage affordable and special needs housing. The Housing Plan will also be updated to streamline programs so that they are easier for staff to implement and to include a matrix of programs that includes timing to make it easier to identify the applicability and timing of programs. In order to improve the ease of use of the Housing Plan, the housing programs will be presen ted as a user-friendly table. While this change is visual, it is anticipated to simplify the implementation and tracking of the programs.
As discussed in Table 2, the majority of housing programs have been effective or are necessary. The intent of these programs will be kept in the Housing Plan, with revisions to address identified specific housing needs, constraints, or other concerns identified as part of this update. The City implemented many of the housing programs in the last several years and anticipates that these changes will encourage affordable and special needs housing, particularly when combined with the strengthened outreach the City has begun to conduct to encourage interest from the affordable housing development community in the City’s sites identified for lower income housing.
The Housing Plan included in this 2021-2029 Housing Element includes modifications to make programs more effective, clarify objectives, and ensure that the programs are implementable. See the Housing Plan provided in the Housing Element policy document fo r the goals, policies, and programs of this Housing Element.
While the City took a number of significant steps to promote housing, the experience of Glendale and other communities throughout the State demonstrates that it is very difficult for local governments to meet their fair share housing goals for lower and moderate income housing working alone. All cities, including Glendale, have limited financial and staffing resources and require substantial state and/or federal assistance, which is not available at the levels necessary to support the City’s housing needs, as well as the technical assistance of area non-profit housing developers and agencies. As discussed below, the City has strengthened its outreach programs in the updated Housing Plan to provide additional information to affordable housing developers to demonstrate the readiness of the City’s lower income sites and also to demonstrate the minimal permitting requirements.
Cumulative Evaluation of Effectiveness in Meeting the Housing Needs of Special Needs Populations Government Code Section 65588 requires that local gov ernments review the effectiveness of the housing element goals, policies, and related actions to meet the community’s special housing needs. As shown in Table 2, the 2014 Housing Element included numerous programs addressing senior housing needs, emergency shelters and services for unhoused persons, and reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities.
Throughout the 2014-2021 RHNA period, the City worked diligently to address the housing needs of special needs groups (e.g., seniors, disabled persons, large family households, single parent and female-headed households, farmworkers, extremely low-income households, and persons experiencing homelessness). The City supported affordable housing initiatives, including for extremely low and low-income seniors and developmentally disabled adults, by assisting in securing $35 million in funding for a major rehabilitation and restructuring of Park Paseo, a 98-unit affordable rent al project for low-income seniors 62 or older and/or disabled adults over the age of 18. The Glendale Housing Authority committed $9.3M to fund a 66-unit affordable rental housing project serving low-income seniors and developmentally disabled adults. In 2018, the Glendale City Council pledged $20 million in General Funds to identify future affordable housing projects.
In 2019, the City authorized the acquisition of two Glendale properties that are designated to be developed as long-term affordable housing for lower income residents by committing a combined $25.5 million to acquire the 4.4 acres of land. Also in 2019, the City approv ed a new citywide Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance (IZO) 1031 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐9 | January 2022
that requires affordable units as part of any new market -rate residential project of eight units or greater. At least one Inclusionary Housing Plan was approved to pay in-lieu fees for inclusionary housing in 2016 (800 West Doran).
The City continues to assist extremely low and low- income households through Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. As of February 2019, there were 1,333 Glendale and 1,399 “portable” Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers administered by the Housing Authority. The City applied for and was awarded 14 new special-use Section 8 vouchers from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for very low-income developmentally disabled, non-senior adults who are leav ing institutional settings for independent living or at-risk of being homeless. During the planning period, the City approved the Monthly Housing Subsidy Program to provide a $300 monthly housing subsidy for 24 months to assist extremely low-income senior renter households being impacted by rising rental rates. The City continues to perform outreach to provide information on City and other agency housing and suppo rtive services for the developmental disabilities community and to provide housing-related training through workshops and other outreach methods. In July 2017, the Housing Division provided outreach materials and referrals to interested attendees at a Services Fair for Disabled Persons at the VergudoVerdugo Job Center.
The City has continued to provide supportive services for persons experiencing homelessness. During the planning period, the number of year-round emergency shelter beds at Ascencia has increased from 40 to 45, and the number of year-round domestic violence crisis shelter beds at YWCA has increased from 10 to 16.
The Continuum of Care (CoC) Rental Assistance Program served more than 222 unhoused households with disabilities over the 2014-2021 RHNA period. In addition, in 2019-2020, eight disabled, unhoused individuals were provided with permanent supportive housing through the Next Step Permanent Supportive Housing Project and 15 were provided for through the Ascencia Housing Now Program; the Scattered Site housing provided a total of 12 units for families and individuals ; Family Promise of Verdugos provided six units of housing for families experiencing homelessness. Addi tional housing programs such as 1991 Gardena, Orange Grove and Veteran Village also provide housing and supportive services. Case management and supportive services are also provided.
During the planning period, the Housing Rights Cent er has served over 1,942 Glendale residents with landlord/tenant concerns and addressed inquiries from over 104 residents regarding housing discrimination questions. Two workshops, one for tenants and one for property owners, were held to address fair housing questions.
1032 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐10 | January 2022
Table 2: Evaluation of the 2014 Glendale Housing Element Programs Program Accomplishments
Strategy 1: Preservation and Enhancement of Existing Housing Stock Program 1a. Multifamily Rehabilitation Loan Program: The City administers a Multifam ily Rental Rehabilitation Loan Program. This program is des igned to assist nonprofit and private property owners to make r epairs to multi-family rental housing to bring them up to safe, sanitary and secure
standards, and to encourage rental property owners to
continue to provide good quality affordable housing. Eligible work includes roof, plumbing, electrical, heating, safety improvements, exterior repairs/upkeep, and seismic repairs.
The City offers forgivable low-interest housing rehabilitation loans to multifamily rental property owners who provide affordable housing. The loans provide property owners of substandard rental housing units an opportunity to rehabilitate their units with financial assistance from the City. Loans of up to $10,000 per unit (maximum $100,000 per project) are
available. In neighborhood target areas funds are provided up to $14,500 per unit. This is a minor rehabilitation program as rehab does not exceed 25% of the market value of the
structure.
In return for the loans, the City requires that rehabilitated units be rented to low-income households at affordable rental rates prescribed by the City for a period not exceeding 5 years (7 years if the owner chooses a higher investment per unit). To ensure compliance with the loan terms, the City records covenants and/or deed restrictions and performs annual
monitoring. In addition, the City forgives annual loan
repayments in any year that the property is in compliance with the loan terms regarding tenant income, rental rates, and property maintenance.
Because of rising rents in the current housing market, it is expected that the majority of multifamily rehabilitation loans projected for the housing plan period will be with nonprofit organizations with a mission based interest in serving
extremely low, very low, and low income households. Due to the difficult economics of serving Extremely Low income households, it is anticipated that the majority of these units will be Very Low income (90%) and Low income (10%)
households.
Result/Evaluation: The Multifamily Rehabilitation Loan Program was phased out when the State eliminated redevelopment and funding for affordable housing. The City may continue this program once a funding source has been secured.
Continue/Modify/Delete: Modify to direct the City to continue monitoring available funding sources to restart this program, if feasible.
1033 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐11 | January 2022
Program 1b. Multi-family Acquisition/Rehabilitation Loan Program: Assist nonprofit and for profit property owners to acquire and rehabilitate existing rental housing that may or may not currently serve extremely low, very low, and low income households. The City records covenants and/or deed restrictions requiring that the housing units be used to provide affordable housing for very low income households, including those with special needs such as homeless persons and
persons with disabilities. Generally, these loans are
substantial in nature and exceed 25% of the value of the structure. Therefore the affordability covenants are for 55 years or longer and are repaid through residual receipts of income generated by the acquired property.
Result/Evaluation: Through a collaboration with the project sponsor, the City assisted in securing $35 million in funding for a major rehabilitation and restructuring of Park Paseo, a 98-unit affordable rental project for low- income seniors 62 or older and/or disabled adults over the age of 18.
Continue/Modify/Delete: This program is continued for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Program 1c. GWP Public Benefit Programs: State law
mandates that each local public ly owned electric utility shall establish a non-by passable, usage based charge on local distribution service of at least 2.85% of revenues to fund investments in one or more of the following areas:
Cost-effective services to promote energy-efficiency
and energy conservation
New investment in renewable energy resource and
technologies
Research, development and demonstration
programs
Services provided for low-income electricity
customers, including but not limited to, targeted
energy efficiency service and rate discounts.
Glendale promotes 12 programs for residential efficiency and income-qualified electric discounts. Residential energy savings programs include: Smart Home Energy and Water
Savings Survey; Smart Home Energy and Water Savings
Rebates; Smart Home Solar Solutions Program; Tree Power which provides free shade trees for natural home cooling; Peak Hogs which provides incentives to apartment owners to
replace old refrigerators with energy efficient models; and, Smart Home refrigerator recycling. Income qualified programs include: Senior Care program available to those 62 and over; Cool Care to receive an Energy Star refrigerator; Guardian for medical equipment and space conditioning needs; and,
Helping Hand to serve those with a temporary financial
emergency.
Glendale Water and Power promotes its residential programs through its customer service center. Since everyone signing up for Glendale utility service must speak to customer service representatives to sign up or modify service, customers of every income level can learn about residential programs.
Additionally, the City of Glendale website, brochures available at various public venues including the City Hall campus and Result/Evaluation: The City added the My Connect app so all residents can monitor energy use on their cell phones. This will help all households, including lower-income ones to reduce their energy consumption. The City continues to promote residential programs through various avenues including the City of Glendale website, brochures, etc.
Continue/Modify/Delete: This program is continued for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
1034 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐12 | January 2022
libraries, city publications such as the City Views newsletter which is distributed to each household in the City four times a year, and utility billing mailing inserts also promote available residential utility programs. Peri odically, residential programs are promoted through advertisements in the Glendale News- Press. The City of Glendale also produces public service announcements that run on the City’s public access cable TV channel which promote the availability of public assistance programs. Funding for public outreach is provided through energy efficiency programs as required by state mandate.
Program 1d. Code Enforcement: The objective of the City of Glendale’s Code Enforcement program is to maintain
compliance with City codes for the City’s housing stock. This may mean bringing substandard properties back into
compliance through a code enforcement process. The intent of Program 1d is to address housing stock citywide and the intent of Program 1f is to use Code Enforcement, as well as other activities, to target conservation of existing and future affordable units. Having housing stock compliant with City codes eliminates blight and preserves the high quality of life in Glendale’s neighborhoods. To meet this objective, potential code violations are identified on a proactive and reactive basis.
These violations are confirmed by trained, certified inspectors via on-site inspections. After these inspections are performed, a variety of enforcement tools are used to achieve compliance.
These tools consist of verbal warnings, letter notifications, citations, office conferences, criminal prosecution, and abatement.
The letter notification process is the primary tool used to compel property owners to make the necessary corrections.
During this notification process, the property owner is informed of potential assistance in the form of rehabilitation loans or grants that may be available to use toward making the
necessary corrections. In most cases, property owners are given thirty (30) days to make the corrections, at which time a follow-up inspection is conducted.
If code violations remain, a series of violation letters are sent and a Notice of Substandard Building (in the form of a lien) is filed with the County Recorder’s Office which then informs potential purchasers and lending in stitutions of substandard housing conditions on the proper ty. For substandard housing which is not owner-occupied, a Notice of Noncompliance can be filed with the State of California Franchise Tax Board which forfeits potential tax benefits derived from ownership of the property. Continued noncompliance leads to an office
conference, prior to forwarding the enforcement case to the City Attorney’s Office for possible legal action.
Code Enforcement and public outreach staff produce
Result/Evaluation: During the planning period, the City’s Code Enforcement received over 14,661 calls for service and actively responds to code enforcement complaints. The Ci ty continues to work with Code Enforcement and public outreach staff to produce educational materials and programs to provide information on property owner responsibilities for unit maintenance and cleanliness, property owner responsibilities, and technical resources for specific property maintenance issues.
Continue/Modify/Delete: This program is continued for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
1035 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐13 | January 2022
educational materials and programs to provide information on property owner responsibilities for unit maintenance and cleanliness, property owner responsibilities, and technical resources for specific property maintenance issues. These programs and classes support the code enforcement officer’s efforts.
Program 1e. Neighborhood “Target Areas”: Quality of
life factors are a major issue considered by most potential residents when searching for a home. Quality of life factors include everything that influences a family’s day to-day living in a neighborhood and community. Key factors include parks and open space, schools, neighborhood aesthetics, building density, and housing design. Creating walkable, working-class neighborhoods that take advantage of existing public transit opportunities, such as the Glendale Metrolink Station in the Tropico neighborhood (known as Tropico Station) and high- capacity bus lines, will increase the quality of life in South Glendale. Target area activities for revitalization include construction of affordabl e housing, parks and school
improvements, continuation of residential and commercial code enforcement programs, and public education efforts with residents concerning neighborhood standards. Such projects require significant public involvement in planning and
implementation of these efforts. In 2011, Glendale received a Metro Grant for the purpose of studying opportunities for creating a transit-oriented development district around the Glendale Metrolink Station in the Tropico neighborhood of Glendale. This study includes looking at a variety of policy, public improvement and code changes that could be
implemented to encourage development and increase the
quality of life for residents of this area. Milestones include the completion of the study and environmental review in 2015, with implementation of code changes to implement transit-oriented development policy to follow.
Result/Evaluation: The City adopted the Tropico Study Plan on July 31, 2018 as part of the actions taken on the South Glendale Community Plan project. This project included certific ation of the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the South Glendale Community Plan and adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations (SOC). As part of the SOC, Council adopted FEIR Alternative 2, which included implementation of the Tropico Center Plan and up-zoning for the Tropico area where Glendale Memorial Hospital is located. A lawsuit was filed challenging the approvals of the South Glendale Community Plan project, including the Tropico Center Plan and is still pending. The City anticipates continuance of this program pending the outcome of the lawsuit.
Continue/Modify/Delete: This program is continued for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Program 1f. Conservation of Existing and Future
Affordable Units: A community’s existing affordable housing stock is a valuable resource which should be conserved, and if necessary, improved to meet habitability standards. The City of Glendale has assisted in the development or substantial rehabilitation of 1,116 affordable housing units and has approved development of 127 affordable units through density bonus provisions. These units receive funding from several programs through the federal Department of Housing and
Urban Development (HUD), ta x credit or bond financing, redevelopment setaside funds and other governmental and private sources. The City has also provided short term
financing (5-15 years) for reha bilitation of privately owned rental units that provide limited affordability for the term of the loan. Staff has reviewed the affordability expiration dates for all sources of funding for the 26 operating rental developments Result/Evaluation: The City continues to annually monitor the expiration dates of affordability restrictions on affordable housing units.
The City adopted and implemented a Rental Rights Program in response to rising rental rates in the region. The program expands Glendale’s existing Just Cause Eviction ordinance by adding two new programs - Right to Lease and Relocation Assistance - which are intended to address excessive rent increases being served to tenants in Glendale. The Rental Rights Program is designed to provide stability and mitigate the impact of displacement through guaranteed lease offerings and relocation assistance when moving because of a rent increase above 7%.
State housing bill AB 1110, which was passed into law on January 1, 2020, increases the rent noticing per iods for approximately 5.8 million renter households in the state from 60 day notices to a new 90 notice for rent increases above 10%.
1036 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐14 | January 2022
and the remaining 8 multi-family rental rehabilitation loans to determine the risk of conversion to market rate units. The results of this review are found in Chapter 4.5 Preservation of Assisted Units.
As outlined in Program 1d, Glendale will continue to use code enforcement efforts to maintain existing affordable housing stock. Glendale’s goal is conserve at least 25 units through code enforcement and other assistance efforts. Units
conserved include “red tag” units that have low income renters or affordable rents that are brought into code standard and extensions of the affordability period for another 55 years for multiple family affordable rental units. This program is on-going and is presently being implemented as shown through
Glendale efforts discussed in Chapt er 4.1. This program is implemented by the Community Development Department.
The City approved the Monthly Housing Subsidy Program, an $8.4 million pilot program that will provide a $300 monthly housing subsidy for 24 months to lower income senior Glendale renter households. The purpose of the program is to assist extremely low-income senior renter households being impacted by rising rental rates, particularly those of lower income, who are rent burdened and disabled.
Continue/Modify/Delete: This program is continued for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Strategy 2: Production of Affordable Housing
Program 2a. Density Bonus Program: The Density Bonus
incentives are designed to ma ke affordable housing (both privately and publicly sponsored ) projects easier to develop.
The Density Bonus Law mandates density bonuses and other regulatory incentives or concessi ons for projects that provide certain levels of affordable hous ing or senior citizen housing.
Developers are entitled to incentives, based on the number of affordable units they provide unless the City proves the incentives are not necessary to make the project feasible.
Density bonus laws also provi de favorable parking incentives for affordable housing developers.
Additionally, Glendale offers a density bonus incentive for lot consolidation projects where lot widths are 90 feet or greater.
The density bonus incentive for lot consolidation is considered “by right” density and serves as the base density for the Density Bonus Program incent ive program for affordable housing. The amount of Density Bonus for affordable housing is based on the amount by which the percentage of affordable units exceeds the percentage established by housing type up to a 35% density bonus (See Table 3.36-A of the Glendale Municipal Code). For example, a 20,000 square foot lot in the R-1250 Zone with at least 90 feet of lot width would be eligible for 20 units or a “by right” density of 1 unit per 1,000 square feet of lot area, rather than the 16 units or 1 unit per 1,250 square feet per lot area for similarly zoned lots with less width.
If each of these projects proposed to provide 10% of the units as affordable to lower income households, then each would be eligible for a 20% density bonus. Therefore, the project with the lot density bonus would be eligible for a total of 24 units, with 10% or 2 units affordable to low income residents. The project without the lot density bonus would be eligible for a total of 19 units, with 10% or 2 units affordable to low income Result/Evaluation: During the planning period, the City met the program goals in the following manner:
The City issued building permits for 103 very low-income units, 76 low-income units, and 9 moderate-income units.
The City conducted an affordabl e housing lottery for 31 units created under the City’s Density Bonus ordinance. Over 18,414 applied for the Density Bonus lottery.
Periodically evaluated the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance for compliance with State law. The City updated its Density Bonus provisions to match state law in Fall 2018.
The City will continue to implement the density bonus policy.
Continue/Modify/Delete: This program is modified for the 2021-2029 Housing Element to amend based on 2020-2021 changes to the state’s Density Bonus Law.
1037 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐15 | January 2022
residents. Appendix D shows lots in the R-1250 and R-1650 zones which may be suitable for lot consolidation density bonus.
Developers granted a density bonus enter into an Affordable Housing Agreement with the City to ensure the continued affordability of the units. Affordable rental units are rented at levels affordable to very low and low income tenants.
Affordable rental units are s ubject to annual rent adjustments based upon changes in the County median income.
Over 25 new residential affordable housing projects, private as well as publicly-sponsored, have been approved with
affordable units as a result of the Density Bonus Ordinance which was adopted in 2006. The City agrees to continue
ongoing Community Development affordable housing
development activities outlined in this program which support use of density bonus provisions , as well as promote other opportunities for creating affordable housing.
Program 2b. Direct City Financial Assistance: The City intends to facilitate the production of affordable housing serving a wide range of income groups through the investment of federal HOME and Low Moderate Income Housing Asset
funds that are directly available to the City, and other leveraged and competitive funding sources. It is anticipated that approximately $1.4 million per year will be available from these sources, although funding levels are uncertain due to the requirement that repayment of the City loan by the Successor Agency must be approved by the State Department of Finance in the next year and due to the uncertainty of federal spending levels in light of sequester and deficit reduction policies over the next several years.
The type of affordable housing units produced in the later years of the plan, from 2017-2021, will depend upon funding
available directly to the City (HOME, LMIHAF, etc.), land availability, construction cost s, private and other leveraged financing available, as well as State and federal government policies for tax credit project priorities for rental and owner new construction affordable housing which are difficult to predict at this time.
If these components of the market remain as they are today it can be expected that the bulk of affordable rental housing assisted by the City in those later years will be targeted to Extremely Low (0 – 30%) and Very Low Income households
(31– 50% AMI). Production of units may vary based upon the opportunity to partner with special needs nonprofit developers who provide supportive services “rich” rental units for Extremely Low Income residents. Home ownership
construction producti on will target Low Income level
households as they are best able to maintain their homes over Result/Evaluation: During the planning period, the City provided financial assistance that facilitated the production of affordable housing for a wide range of income groups. Specifically:
The Glendale Housing Authority committed $9.3M to fund a 66- unit affordable rental housing project serving low-income seniors and developmentally disabled adults, which opened in 2019.
In 2018, City Council pledged $20 million in General Funds to identify future affordable housing projects. In 2019, the City authorized the acquisition of two Glendale properties that are designated to be developed as long-term affordable housing for lower income residents by committing a combined $25.5 million to acquire the 4.4 acres of land. The acquisitions represent the most significant and largest investment the City has made to date for affordable housing purposes. Once completed with master planning, the City will issue RFPs for development of the two sites for affordable housing.
The City partnered with Meta Housing Corporation on the construction of ACE/121, an artist community built to improve the living conditions and creative opportunities of low-income working artists and their families. The 70-unit (69 affordable) project was completed in 2017.
The City assisted with a 100% affordable new construction project, the San Gabriel Valley Habitat for Humanity, 6-unit homeownership project for low-income first-time homebuyers.
Continue/Modify/Delete: This program is continued for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
1038 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐16 | January 2022
the long term. Those projects funded with Low Income Housing Tax Credit and Low Moderate Income Housing Asset Funds, two of the major sources of funding for the Plan Period for new housing construction, will target a minimum of 20 - 30% of this funding for Extremely Low Income households, as is required by these funding sources and is financially feasible.
The City will be applying for other State and federal funds as they become available to local governments to promote
affordable housing. Because federal funding availability may fluctuate over the eight year plan period, the City will monitor “Notices of Funding Availability” announcements, and maintain contact with housing development and technical assistance organizations in order to obtain advice and training on how to leverage funding for specific project areas. The City intends to actively and aggressively pursue outside resources available directly and through developers, as described above, and pursue new resources as they are identified to achieve a high level of leveraged funds for new housing production. These include the Residential Development Loan Program (RDLP); the Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods (BEGIN) program; the CalHome mortgage assistance program; as well as transportation/housing and transit center development related funds from the State and federal government. The City will also seek State and Federal monies for direct support of housing construction and rehabilitation specifically targeted for housing for persons with disabilities.
The City also requires and assists developer partners to apply for available leveraged funding including the State Multi-Family Housing Program (MHP) for low cost construction loans;
Federal Home Loan Bank Affordable Housing Programs and
WISH funds, private foundation grants, New Market Tax
Credits, Los Angeles County affordable housing funds, State BEGIN/CalHome/CalHFA program funds, HUD 811 supportive
housing grants, and State Multi-Family loan programs. There are three ways in which thes e monies will be made directly available for the production of affordable housing:
1. Land Assemblage and Write Down. The City plans
to use available funds to purchase and assemble
developable parcels of land and, if appropriate, write
down the cost of land for the development of low and
moderate income housing. The intent of this
program is to assemble s eparate parcels of land in
order to create a developable site for affordable
housing. A ground lease or sale of the land to a well-
qualified developer for an appropriate affordable
housing project meeting the goals of the City’s
affordable housing strategy may also be pursued
where feasible.
The land could be sold at a land cost reduced to the
1039 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐17 | January 2022
point that it could cover the affordability or feasibility gap of a desired affordable housing project. This has
the potential for making an otherwise improbable
project economically feasible for a private (usually
not-for-profit) developer to build units affordable to
extremely low, very low, low and moderate income
households. As part of the land write-down program,
the City may also assist in acquiring and assembling
property and in subsidizi ng on-site and off-site
improvements.
2. Below Market Interest Rate Loans. The City can
provide construction and permanent financing to a
project at below market interest rates using available
funds. The need for such financing will be evaluated
for each specific project. This program will be
considered with other program incentives stated in
this production strategy. Each project will be
evaluated separately to determine the City
assistance warranted to make the desired affordable
housing project feasible. For home ownership
development projects, loans may be converted to
mortgage assistance loans held by the home buyers
until they sell or transfer ownership of the affordable unit.
3. Grants or Deferred Payment, Forgivable Loans. The
City can provide grants or forgivable loans to
developers of affordable housing for offsite
improvements, city fees, and certain project
amenities consistent wi th the City’s design
standards, not paid by other funding sources. Funds
for First Time Home Buyer Loans provided through
New Construction Home Ownership developments
are typically provided through a shared equity upon
resale and deferred payment loan forgiven upon
completion of the 45 year loan term. The need for
this financial assistance will be evaluated for each
specific project.
Once a year (as funding is available), the City will
encourage the development for housing of
affordable housing by outreaching to developers to
discuss the development of new housing through the
Statement of Interest process described above.
During such outreach, the City will encourage the
development of special needs housing for those
populations most difficult to serve that may require
supportive services with housing units: including
extremely low income, disabled (including those with
developmental disabilities), and the frail elderly. As
described above the City will provide financial or in-
kind technical assistance, land write downs,
1040 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐18 | January 2022
expedited processing, identifying funding and grant
opportunities, and provide bel ow market rate loans
and/or grant funds to encourage such development.
Program 2c. Inclusionary Zoning: Concurrent with the
zoning changes, the City Council, Glendale Redevelopment Agency and Housing Authority approved a policy with regard to the state-mandated inclusionary housing requirement in the SFRCRPA. The policy requires that the inclusionary
requirement could be met through the following: on-site; off- site and inside the project area; off-site and outside the project area; or by paying a fee in-lieu of building the units.
In cases where the in-lieu fee is paid, the Housing Authority will use the funds to develop the requisite affordable
inclusionary units. This policy will ensure that the SFRCRPA inclusionary requirement can be satisfied within the time period specified by state law.
However, due to the California Superior Court decision, which was upheld by the California Court of Appeals, Palmer vs. City of Los Angeles, 175 CAL App. 4th 1396 (2009) it was
determined that inclusionary zoning for rental units (even within Redevelopment Project areas) was not enforceable without further action by the State legislature.
There is one proposed homeownership development in the
SFRCRPA that would provide one moderate income
homeownership unit as a condition of meeting the inclusionary housing requirement, but that project has not yet received entitlements and so is not included in any projected production at this time.
Result/Evaluation: State law clarified that inclusionary housing applies to rental projects, reversing the Palmer decision. Accordingly, in 2019, the City approved a new citywide Inclusi onary Zoning Ordinance (IZO) that requires affordable units as part of any new market-rate residential project.
The IZO is applied to rental projects with eight or more units. It requires that 15% of the total units in an other wise market-rate rental project be affordable to low-income households. Further, the City Implemented a Commercial Development Impact Fee, a one-time fee charged to new commercial developments ($4 per square foot with a threshold of 1,250 square feet) that will be designated for affordable housing – one of only five agencies in Southern California to do so.
At least one Inclusionary Housing Plan was approved to pay in-lieu fees for inclusionary housing in 2016 (project is located at 800 West Doran).
Continue/Modify/Delete: This program is continued for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Program 2d. Community Housing Development
Organizations and other Nonprofit Housing
Organizations: Federal HOME funds require that at least 15% of a jurisdiction’s HOME allocation be designated for use by Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs).
A CHDO is a nonprofit organization with either specific representation from a low income neighborhood or low income residents on the CHDO board. The City has used CHDO funds in the past. Unused CHDO funds accumulate with each annual HOME allocation. However, HUD requires that the City commit all HOME funds, including CHDO reserves, within 24 months of the annual allocation date and expend all funds within 60 months of the annual allocation date. Two CHDOs have
developed housing in the City—W est Hollywood Community Housing Corporation and the Glendale Housing Corporation.
The City will provide technica l assistance to local nonprofit agencies interested in affordable housing development,
particularly organizations wanting to meet the CHDO
Result/Evaluation: The City continues to work with and identify organizations that are interested and likely to be able to obtain status as a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). Staff met with four developers in 2019 about possible CHDO status and are waiting for responses from them. Prior to 2019, one "all affordable" housing project, located at 634-700 E Lomita Street, received a building permit in partnership with a non-profit partner, San Gabriel Valley Habitat for Humanity. Habitat for Humanity is not a CHDO, but is considering applying for a CHDO designation.
The City continues to provide technical assistance to local nonprofit agencies interested in affordable housing development.
Continue/Modify/Delete: This program is continued for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
1041 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐19 | January 2022
requirements.
Incentive programs presented in this program strategy are available to both for profit and nonprofit organizations.
However, nonprofit organizations have developed most of the affordable housing projects in the city. These organizations generally have an interest in long term management for special needs populations or for neighborhood revitalization purposes.
Annually, staff from the Community Development Department will meet with housing and other related nonprofit
organizations from the community to identify needs, resources, potential development opportunities, and any at-risk affordable housing units or programs.
Program 2e. Mixed Use Sta ndards on Transportation
Corridors: Glendale has been successful in creating and/or modifying zoning standards that encourage mixed-use
development with high density residential housing components in Glendale’s Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) area and along the San Fernando Road corridor. For many years Glendale has also permitted mixed use developments with high density residential standards in the C1, C2 and C3 commercial zones throughout the City. These zones tend to be located along major and secondary arterials, commercial highways and
signature streets where transit options may be available and where nearby goods and services encourage walking, rather than vehicle trips. Although zoning permits mixed residential- commercial development opportunities in these zones,
relatively few privately funded mixed-use developments are built in commercial zones. The objec tive of this program is to encourage development in transportation corridors by
addressing constraints such as reducing private parking requirements and identifying area for public parking. Current zoning standards for mixed-use developments in the C1, C2 and C3 zones will be reviewed to determine if there are zoning standards that inhibit the addition of small scale mixed-use residential-commercial developments in these zones.
Depending on the results of the zoning review, standards in the C1, C2 and/or C3 zones may be revised or new mixed-use zones may be proposed. This program will be implemented by June 2017 and will be implemented by the Community
Development Department.
Result/Evaluation: The City continues to encourage development along transportation corridors by addressing constraints. During the planning period, the City began a review of transportation corridor zoning, specifically in the C1, C2 and C3 z ones, for barriers to mixed use and multi-family residential development. Any proposed amendments will be included in the upcoming multi-family and mixed-use design guidelines and standards project utilizing an SB 2 award grant. Additionally, mixed- use zoning along transportation corri dors is being considered as part of the South Glendale Community Plan, which is currently pending.
Continue/Modify/Delete: This program is continued for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
1042 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐20 | January 2022
Strategy 3: Rental Assistance
Program 3a. Section 8 Rental Housing Choice Voucher
Payments: The Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program
provides direct rental subsidies to extremely low and very low income households. The subsidy amount equals the difference between 30 percent of the monthly household income and a fair market rent. Extremely Low Income households are served disproportionately by the program. Currently the income breakdown of those provided Section 8 Housing Choice
Vouchers is as follows:
91% Extremely Low Income (from 0 – 30% of AMI),
8% Very Low Income (from 31% to 50% of AMI), and
1% Low Income (from 51% to 80% of AMI).
There are 4,868 assisted persons in households with Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. The elderly are served
disproportionately by the pr ogram. The age breakdown for these persons is as follows:
36% Non Elderly Household Members, and
64% Elderly Household Members.
Due to Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program funding reductions at the federal level, future funding levels are uncertain and the number of vouchers provided may have to be reduced.
Result/Evaluation: The City continues to assist low-income households through Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. As of February 2019, there were 1,333 Glendale and 1,399 “portable” Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers administered by the Housing Authority. The City applied for and was awarded 14 new special-use Section 8 vouchers from the Department of Housing and Urban Development for very low-income developmentally disabled, non-senior adults who are leaving institutional settings for independent living or at-risk of being homeless.
Continue/Modify/Delete: This program is continued for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Strategy 4: Increase Homeownership Opportunities
Program 4a. Small Lot Subdivision: This program will
evaluate the potential for allowing small lot development within the multifamily zoned areas in Glendale. The program would include reviewing and amending the City’s Subdivision
Ordinance (Title 16) and Zoning Ordinance (Title 30) to allow the creation of small lots for single-family home development within multi-family zones. Small lot subdivisions are
recognized by the State Department of Housing and
Community Development as a best practice for creating
homeownership opportunities that are more affordable than traditional single-family homes. Small lot developments are high density and have an urban character, giving them the potential to be compatible in multi-family zones which tend to be walkable and where residential developments tend to be taller, with less open space and less on-street parking than traditional single-family neighborhoods. Glendale will begin study of small lot development in 2013, with implementation to follow.
Result/Evaluation: The City attempted but was ultimately unable to implement this program during the planning period. Small lot subdivisions were introduced at Council and aut horized for study on June 1, 2017.
Subsequently, City Management put this item on hold to await the outcome of the City of Los Angeles Revision of their small lot ordinance.
Glendale's environmental review for small lots was included as part of the review for the South Glendale Community Plan. The adoption of a small lot ordinance was timed to follow the South Glendale Community Plan because the vast majority of multif amily zoning is located in South Glendale. The South Glendale Community Plan EIR was certified by City Council in August 2018 and implementation of the South Glendale Community Plan began; however, the South Glendale Community Plan and EIR (including environmental review to adopt a small lot ordinance) was placed on hold due to a lawsuit. At this time the City is defending a CEQA lawsuit so a small lot ordinance cannot proceed.
Continue/Modify/Delete: The program may be revisited during the planning period; however, it is being deleted from the 2021-2029 housing program in light of ongoing litigation.
1043 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐21 | January 2022
Strategy 5: Housing Services
Program 5a. Care Management Services: The City, through the Community Services and Parks Department, provides
case management services to elderly residents in their homes and at the City’s Adult Recreation Center. The purpose of case management services is to allow seniors to remain
independent in the community as an alternative to
institutionalization. Staff at the Center helps to coordinate housing services for seniors, such as in-home care and
relocation assistance. Seniors are matched with the
appropriate agencies in the community to receive needed assistance, such as the County for special circumstance relocation assistance. The City provides case management services to 160 seniors each year. Case management is
currently funded through federal CDBG funds and City General Funds.
Result/Evaluation: The City continues to provide care management services and support to other seni or service programs. Through the Supportive Services Program, also known as Senior Case Management, the City serves an unduplicated 120 s eniors annually. In addition, the Elderly Nutrition Program serv es 300 unduplicated seniors annually through the Congregate Meal and Home Delivered Meals Program and Telephone Reassurance Program. This grant has a minimum match requirement of 15% from the City.
Continue/Modify/Delete: This program is continued for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Program 5b. Homeless Services: The City of Glendale has estimated in the January 2013 count that there are 299
homeless persons in Glendale on any given night. Many of these are individuals and families with special needs requiring attention, such as substance abuse, mental illness, physical disabilities or domestic violence. The Continuum of Care is comprised of outreach and assessment, emergency,
transitional and permanent housing, and homeless prevention activities. In addition, a variety of supportive services are linked to housing programs that address the problems that contribute to homelessness: domestic violence, substance abuse,
physical and mental health. Supportive services designed to provide enhanced employment opportunities, to assist
veterans, and to facilitate placement in, and maintenance of, permanent housing are also offered. With the City’s
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and
Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG) programs, and through the aggressive pursuit of competitive funding opportunities provided by HUD, including the Supportive Housing Program (SHP), many components of the continuum of care are in
place.
Result/Evaluation: The City has continued to provide supportive services for homeless persons experiencing homelessness.
Emergency shelters: During the planning period, the number of year round emergency shelter beds at Ascencia has increased from 40 to 45, and the number of year round domestic violence crisis shelter beds at YWCA has increased from 10 to 16. Transitional Housing: Due to changes in federal funding priorities and conversion of so me transitional housing into permanent, supportive housing, the number of transitional housing units has been reduced. Th is includes the Scattered Family Transitional Housing Progr am (six families plus four beds) and Euclid Villa (seven families, 20 beds). During the planning period, Hamilton Court provided transitional housing for survivors of domestic violence and homeless families experiencing homelessness (13 families, 40 to 41 beds). The transitional housing program was phased out of Continuum of Care funding in October 2017. Both Nancy Painter and Door of Hope Transitional Housing Programs are funded privately, yet integrated with the Continuum of Care. During 2018 to 2019, the agencies provided housing and services to over 57 families. Permanent Supportive Housing: The Continuum of Care (CoC) Rental Assistance Program (for merly known as Shelter Plus Care Program) served 55 homeless unhoused households with disabilities in 2019-2020, 57 unhoused homeless households with disabilities in 2016-2017, 57 unhoused homeless
households with disabilities in 2015-2016, and 53 unhoused homeless households with disabilities in 2014-15. For 2019- 2020, eight disabled homeless individuals experiencing
homelessness were provided with permanent supportive
housing through the Next Step Permanent Supportive Housing Project and 15 were provided for through the Ascencia Housing Now Program; the Scattered Site housing provided a total of 12 1044 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐22 | January 2022
units for families and individuals; Family Promise of Verdugos provided six units of housing for homeless families
experiencing homelessness . In 2019-2020, Ascencia
Scattered Site Housing Pr ogram provided 23 permanent
supportive housing beds for unaccompanied adults. In 2019- 2020 Chester Village continued to provide 16 beds (four units) of permanent supportive housing for families. Additional housing programs such as 1991 Gardena, Orange Grove and Veteran Village also provide housing and supportive services. Case Management and Supportive Services: As of 2019-2020, all funded or non-funded agencies are using HMIS including the Coordinated Entry Assessment on a 100% basis, with
exemptions for domestic viol ence service providers with privacy concerns. The CES program and access center served over 1,500 persons through the Ascencia's CES System. The HMIS system has over 60 case management users, over 20
agencies and over 50 programs. A total of 350 homeless
persons experiencing homelessness were served with
outreach and housing navigation served funded by Measure H. Homeless Prevention Services: In FY 2018-2019, a total of 598 at risk homeless persons were served through Homeless
Prevention Programming and financial assistance and eviction prevention. In FY 2019-2020, a total of 600 at risk homeless persons were served through Homeless Prevention
Programming and financial assistance and eviction prevention. Street Outreach, Domestic Violence Programs, and Support Services: In FY 2019-2020, Ascencia Street outreach program provided outreach services to over 200 unduplicated people.
The Measure H program provides outreach in SPA 2 of the CoC. The YWCA of Glendale provides domestic violence
services, including 16 shelter beds, to persons feeling or at risk.
During FY 2019-2020, the YWCA of Glendale provided
services to 100 unduplicated persons and continues to provide emergency shelter, prevention and housing navigation and services to those at risk of becoming homeless. Additionally, Glendale Adventist Medical Center (GAMC) continues to be committed to provide discharge and coordination for the frequent hospital utilizers and integrate with Continuum of care supportive services programs. In FY 2019-2020, GAMC
committed to serve over 100 persons and to date they have served 38 homeless participants experiencing homelessness.
Continue/Modify/Delete: This program is continued for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
5c. Medical Services (MS) Zone: The City of Glendale has three hospitals which greatly influence the character of the neighborhoods in which they ar e located. Currently, all hospitals are zoned for C3- Commercial Services, a zone aimed at providing for general commercial activities. Hospitals, however, share characteristics t hat are not typical of general Result/Evaluation: The City established a Medi cal Services (MS) Zone in the Zoning Code in 2014. Such zoning is implemented around Glendale Adventist Hospital. This program has been completed.
Continue/Modify/Delete: Delete.
1045 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐23 | January 2022
commercial activities, and could benefit from having distinct standards. In addition, the presence of a hospital often creates demand for housing related to hospital workers including nursing students and visiting doctors. There is often a demand for special-needs housing, convalescent homes, senior
housing, temporary housing for patient families (Ronald McDonald house) and housing with supportive services in areas nearby hospitals. The City will adopt a Medical Services (MS) zone to accommodate a variety of commercial and
residential activities that support hospitals.
5d. Developmental Disabilities Housing Services: Develop an informational brochure and other outreach methods that will provide information on City and other agency/organization housing and supportive services for the developmental
disabilities community. Provide housing-related training for individuals/families through workshops and other identified outreach methods. This program will be implemented by the Community Development Department Housing Division by
June 2015.
Result/Evaluation: The City continues to perform outreach to provide information on City and other agency housing and supportive services for the developmental disabilities community and to provide housing-related training through workshops and other outreach methods. In July 2017, the Housing Division provided outreach mate rials and referrals to interested attendees at a Services Fair for Disabled Persons at the Vergudo Job Center. This information remains available to the public. In April 2019, the Housing Division conducted housing outreach to Foothill Special Education Local Plan Area and provided materials, information, and referrals to interested attendees of affordable housing projects and services for developmentally disabled.
Continue/Modify/Delete: This program is continued for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Strategy 6: Fair Housing
6a. Fair Housing Plan: The City’s Fair Housing Plan
addresses actions to affirmatively further fair housing. One strategy to further fair housing practices has been an increase in education and outreach for both renters and rental property owners. The City coordinates semiannual community fair
housing workshops. The workshops are made available under a CDBG contract with the Housing Rights Center to serve City residents with fair housing education, conciliation, mediation, and resolving tenant/ landlord disputes. Residents who feel discriminated against by rental property owners, rental property managers, real estate agents, or loan and credit agents are also referred to the Center to get information and assistance with their discrimination claim. Services through the Housing Rights Center are available in English, Spanish, and Armenian, the three primary languages in Glendale, as well as others.
Result/Evaluation: During the planning period, the Housing Rights Center has served over 1,942 Glendale residents with landlord/tenant concerns and addressed inquiries fr om over 104 residents regarding housing discrimination questions. Two workshops, one for tenants and one for property owners, were held to address fair housing questions. In 2019, the Housing Rights Center opened and conciliated four housing discrimination cases for Glendale residents. The City continues to address actions to affirmatively further fair housing.
Continue/Modify/Delete: This program is continued for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
1046 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐24 | January 2022
Strategy 7: Sustainability
7a. South Glendale Community Plan: This program includes a review of existing neighborhoods, identification of areas to maintain, enhance and transform and an identification of changes necessary to implement the plan. A necessary and integral part of developing the South Glendale Community Plan is the preparation of an environmental impact report at a program level. The South Glendale Community Plan area
includes the neighborhood “target area” Tropico Station neighborhood, and one purpose of this program will be to incorporate transit-oriented development principles (See Program Strategy #1, Target Areas) into the South Glendale Community Plan. The South Glendale Community Plan is
presently under preparation and will be adopted in 2015 as funding allows.
Result/Evaluation: This program is ongoing. The South Glendale Community Plan Final EIR was adopted by the City Council on July 31, 2018, but is currently on hold due to litigation that is in process (appealed).
City staff is also working on the Tropico neighborhood in the SGCP to develop standards consistent with direction from the City Council.
Continue/Modify/Delete: This program is continued for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Program 7b. Permit Streamlining: This program includes a review of Glendale’s entitlement processes for the purpose of identifying opportunities to reduce or eliminate redundant review processes. This program includes the potential for changes to development codes and the General Plan to
increase the number of projects subject to approval by staff and the Director of Community Development and to reduce the number and need for public hearings where other opportunities are provided for public input into the decision-making process.
This program is on-going.
Result/Evaluation: The City adopted permit streamlining in 2014 and continues to review opportunities to streamline permitting processes. In October 2017, the City Council adopt ed updates to the Density Bonus Ordinance to streamline approvals of density bonus projects. In February 2017, the City Council adopted interim standards to permit accessory dwelling units (ADUs) on lots in all residential zones in the City that are developed with a single family residence. In December 2020, City Council adopted standards and ministerial processes for reviewing and approving ADUs and junior ADUs.
Continue/Modify/Delete: This program is continued for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Program 7c. Transit-Oriented Development Housing
Standards: This program includes continuation of the Tropico Study and implementation of appropriate transit-oriented development recommendations related to housing.
Appropriate policy recommendations would be incorporated into the South Glendale Community Plan to ensure transit- oriented policies become part of Glendale’s General Plan.
Zoning standards would also be reviewed to encourage transit- oriented development, including housing, based upon
recommendations of the Tropico Study. This program is on- going and will be implemented following approval of
environmental review for the South Glendale Community Plan.
Result/Evaluation: This program is ongoing. During the planning period staff received direction from the City Council on c hanges to transit- oriented development (TOD) policies. Staff is currently drafting new zoning standards to implement the TOD policies in the Tropico Neighborhood within the South Glendale Community Plan. SB 2 grant funding will be utilized to have a planni ng consultant prepare the final language and objective design criteria for the TOD area.
Continue/Modify/Delete: This program is continued for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
1047 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐25 | January 2022
Program 7d. Greener Glendale Climate Adaptation Plan:
This program is the monitoring governmental required for the preparation of Climate Adaptation Plans. Governor Brown has stated that a challenge facing the state is preparation for climate change and climate adaptation. While not mandated at this time, the City will continue to monitor climate adaptation plan regulations. If required by the state or federal government, Glendale will seek outside funding to prepare a Climate Adaptation Plan as a fourth segment of the Greener Glendale Plan. The first three segments of the Greener Glendale Plan are described above in the preamble for Strategy 7:
Sustainability.
Result/Evaluation: This program is on hold until the City is able to secure funding for the Greener Glendale Plan for Climate Adaptation. However, the City Council did establish the Sustainability Commission with the role to make advisory recommendations to the City Council on how to promote progress toward sustainability in the Greener Glendale Plan, Climate Action Plans, and on issues relating to the environment, and to recommend priorities to promote regional leadership in sustainability.
Continue/Modify/Delete: This program is continued for the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
1048 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐26 | January 2022
3. Housing Needs Assessment
3A. Introduction and Background
The purpose of the Housing Needs Assessment is to describe housing, economic, and demographic conditions in Glendale, assess the demand for housing for households at all income levels, and document the demand for housing to serve various special needs populations. The Housing Needs Assessment also addresses whether assisted housing projects are at-risk of converting to market rate projects. The Housing Needs Assessment is intended to assist Glendale in developing housing goals and formulating policies and programs that address local housing needs.
Several sources of data were used to describe ex isting demographic and housing conditions, including the following:
Pre-Certified Local Housing Data package for the City of Glendale developed by the Southern California Association of Governm ents (SCAG) and pre-certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for use in 6th cycle housing elements. Data from the 2010 U.S. Census, 2015-2019 U.S. Census American Community Survey (ACS), California Department of Finance (DOF), California Employee Development Department (EDD), and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is included to provide information on population, household, housing, income, employment, and other demographic characteristics. Other sources of economic data such as informatio n from the website rental listings, multiple listing service, and other published data are used where current Census, ACS, DOF, HUD, and other standard data sources do not provide relevant data.
Countywide data and resources, including the Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority’s Greater Los Angeles Point-in-Time Homeless Count.
3B. Population Trends and Characteristics
POPULATION GROWTH
Table 3 shows population growth for Glendale and other jurisdictions in the region from 2010 through 2020.
According to data prepared by the California DOF, the population of Glendale in 2020 was 204,392 persons, an increase of approximately 6.6% since 2010. Gle ndale’s growth has outpaced Countywide growth, with Los Angeles County experiencing significantly lower population growth rates during the 2010 to 2020 period (3.2%), as shown in Table 3. Glendale had both the greatest numeric change in population (12,673 persons), and largest percentage change in population (6.6%) of neighboring jurisdictions.
Table 3: Population Trends - Neighboring Jurisdictions
Jurisdiction 2010 2020 Change % Change
Glendale 191,719 204,392 12,673 6.6%
Burbank 103,340 104,535 1,195 1.2%
La Cañada Flintridge 20,246 20,352 106 0.5%
Pasadena 137,122 145,061 7,939 5.8%
South Pasadena 25,619 25,853 234 0.9%
Los Angeles County 9,818,605 10,135,614 317,009 3.2%
Source: DOF 2010, 2020
1049 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐27 | January 2022
AGE
Changes in the age groups can indicate future housing needs. Table 4 compares age group sizes in 2019 for Glendale. Children under fifteen years of age compri se 14.8% of the City’s population, teens and young adults (15 to 24) represent 10.1%, and adults in family-forming age groups (25 – 44) comprise 29.0%. Adults aged 45 to 64 represent 21.8% of the population and s eniors (65 and over) comprise 21.7%. In 2019, the median age in Glendale (41.9 years) was higher t han that of Los Angeles County, 37.0 years, and the Statewide median age of 37.0 years.
Table 4: Population by Age
Age Glendale Los Angeles County
Number Percent Number Percent
Under 5 Years 9,814 4.9% 611,485 6.1%
5 to 9 9,688 4.8% 596,485 5.9%
10 to 14 10,071 5.0% 627,199 6.2%
15 to 19 9,622 4.8% 641,814 6.4%
20 to 24 10,640 5.3% 717,692 7.1%
25 to 34 31,290 15.6% 1,623,246 16.1%
35 to 44 26,735 13.4% 1,379,814 13.7%
45 to 54 29,136 14.6% 1,355,625 13.4%
55 to 64 14,448 7.2% 629,508 6.2%
65 to 74 13,645 6.8% 562,724 5.6%
75 to 84 18,206 9.1% 758,833 7.5%
85 and Over 11,666 5.8% 393,364 3.9%
TOTAL 200,232 100% 10,081,570 100%
Source: US Census, 2015-2019 ACS
RACE/ETHNICITY
Table 5 shows the ethnic composition of Glendale’s population. A majority of the City’s population identify as White (74.1%). The next largest racial group is Asian (16.2%), followed by “other race” (4.1%), “two or more races” (3.4%), Black and African American (1.8%), Am erican Indian and Alaskan Native (0.2%) and Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander (0.1%). Just under a fifth of the population (17.5%) is of Hispanic origin.
Table 5: Race and Ethnicity
Race/Ethnicity
Glendale Los Angeles County
Number Percent Number Percent
White 148,464 74.1% 5,168,443 51.3%
Black and African American 3,613 1.8% 820,478 8.1%
American Indian and Alaskan Native 407 0.2% 73,393 0.7% Asian 32,415 16.2% 1,473,221 14.6%
Native Hawaiian and Pacific Islander 281 0.1% 27,720 0.3% Some Other Race 8,235 4.1% 2,115,548 21.0%
Two or More Races 6,817 3.4% 402,767 4.0%
TOTAL 200,232 100% 10,081,570 100%
Hispanic Origin (of any race) 35,011 17.5% 4,888,434 48.5% Source: US Census ACS, 2015-2019
1050 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐28 | January 2022
EMPLOYMENT
One of the factors that can contribute to an increase in demand for housing is expansion of the employment base. Table 6 shows the employment and unemployment rates for persons 16 years and older that were in the labor force in 2010 and 2019. In 2019, ACS data indicated that the unemployment rate in Glendale was approximately 6.5%, a decrease from 8.0% in 2010. According to the labor report data compiled by the California EDD, Glendale’s average annual unemployment rate in 2020 was estimated at 4.1%, while Los Angeles County’s rate was 4.4%, and California’s was 7.9%.
Table 6: Job Growth and Employment Status
2010 2019
Number Percent Number Percent
Total Persons in Labor Force 101,668 100% 104,884 100%
Employed 93,509 92.0% 98,098 93.5%
Unemployed 8,159 8.0% 6,786 6.5%
Source: US Census, 2006-2010 ACS and 2015-2019 ACS
INDUSTRY AND OCCUPATION
The 2015-2019 ACS data identified 97,917 civilian employed persons in the Glendale labor force. Table 7 shows 2019 employment by industry for the City. Of Glendale’s employed residents, the “Arts, entertainment, recreation, and services” industry employed the most people at 25.7%. The second largest employment sector was the “Educational, health and social services” industry, which had 14.1% of the total employed persons in Glendale. The City’s workforce holds a variet y of types of jobs as shown in Table 8, with the largest sector (46.0%) working in management, business, science, and arts occupations, followed by 23.6% in the sales and office occupations.
Table 7: Jobs by Industry (2019)
Industry Number Percent
Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining 191 0.2% Construction 4,388 4.5%
Manufacturing 5,709 5.8%
Wholesale trade 2,537 2.6%
Retail trade 9,654 9.9%
Transportation, warehousing, and utilities 5,367 5.5%
Information, finance, insurance, real estate, rental and leasing 5,710 5.8% Professional, scientific, management, administration 6,748 6.9% Educational, health and social services 13,805 14.1%
Arts, entertainment, recreation, and services 25,155 25.7% Other services 8,892 9.1%
Public administration 5,803 5.9%
TOTAL (Civilian Labor Force) 97,917 100%
Armed Forces 181 100%
Source: US Census, 2015-2019 ACS
1051 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐29 | January 2022
Table 8: Jobs by Occupation (2019)
Number of
Jobs Percent Median
Earnings*
Management, business, science, and arts occupations 45,057 46.0% $66,367 Service occupations 15,167 15.5% $20,486
Sales and office occupations 23,141 23.6% $35,726
Natural resources, construction, and maintenance 5,703 5.8% $41,896 Production, transportation, and material moving 8,849 9.0% $27,214 *Median earnings in previous 12 months prior to survey
Source: US Census, 2015-2019 ACS
3C. Household Characteristics
According to the Census, a household is defined as all persons living in a housing unit. This definition includes families (related individuals living together), unrelated individuals living together, and individuals living alone.
A housing unit is defined by the Census as a house, an apartment, a mobile home, a group of rooms, or a single room that is occupied (or if vacant, is intende d for occupancy) as separate living quarters. Separate living quarters are those in which the occupants live and eat separately from any other persons in the building and which have direct access from the outside of the building or through a common hall. The occupants may be a single family, one person living alone, two or more families living together, or any other group of related or unrelated persons who share living arrangements.
People living in retirement homes or other group living situations are not considered “households” for the purpose of the U.S. Census count. The household characteristics in a community, including household size, income, and the presence of special needs households, are important factors in determining the size and type of housing needed in the County.
Table 9 below identifies the ages of householders in Los Angeles County in 2019 based on ACS data from 2015-2019. In the City of Glendale, homeowner households are generally headed by younger residents, with
52.4% of households headed by a resident under 60 years of age. Households who rent their homes are generally younger as well; only about 28.7% of renter households are headed by a person over the age of 60.
1052 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐30 | January 2022
Table 9: Household by Tenure (2019)
Glendale Los Angeles County
Number % Number %
Total: 74,197 -- 3,316,795 --
Owner Occupied: 24,018 32.4% 1,519,516 45.8%
15 to 24 years 0 0.0% 6,614 0.4%
25 to 34 years 902 3.8% 97,029 6.4%
35 to 44 years 4,197 17.5% 234,281 15.4%
45 to 54 years 4,997 20.8% 338,212 22.3%
55 to 59 years 2,477 10.3% 188,854 12.4%
60 to 64 years 2,615 10.9% 178,657 11.8%
65 to 74 years 5,026 20.9% 267,673 17.6%
75 to 84 years 3,245 13.5% 142,275 9.4%
85 years and over 559 2.3% 65,921 4.3%
Renter Occupied: 50,179 67.6% 1,797,279 54.2%
15 to 24 years 2,014 4.0% 78,541 4.4%
25 to 34 years 9,472 18.9% 431,854 24.0%
35 to 44 years 11,096 22.1% 412,986 23.0%
45 to 54 years 8,626 17.2% 356,065 19.8%
55 to 59 years 4,635 9.2% 139,565 7.8%
60 to 64 years 3,693 7.4% 117,733 6.6%
65 to 74 years 5,495 11.0% 148,435 8.3%
75 to 84 years 4,065 8.1% 75,593 4.2%
85 years and over 1,083 2.2% 36,507 2.0%
Source: US Census ACS 2015-2019
3D. Income
HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Household income is the most important, although not the only factor, affecting housing opportunity because it determines a household's ability to purchase or rent housing and balance housing costs with other necessities. Income levels can vary considerably among households, affecting preferences for tenure, location, and housing type. While higher-income households have more discretionary income to spend on housing, low- and moderate-income households have a more limited choice in the housing they can afford.
From 2010 to 2019, after adjusting for inflation, the median household income increased by approximately 21% and the per capita income increased by 23.5%. Table 10 identifies the per capita and median household income.
1053 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐31 | January 2022
Table 10: Median Household and Per Capita Income
2010 2019
Median Household Income $ 54,677 $66,130
Per Capita Income $ 29,823 $ 36,857
Source: US Census, 2015-2019 ACS
In 2019, the majority (60.2%) of Glendale’s households earned in excess of $50,000 per year. The incidence of households earning less than $35,000 per year was higher among renter households (38.8%) than owner households (12.8%). Table 11 identifies household inco me by tenure. As shown in Table 11, the average income of owner households is just over $66,000 more than renter households.
Table 11: Household Income for All Households and by Tenure (2019) All Households Owner Households Renter Households
Income Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Less than $5,000 1,992 2.7% 557 2.3% 1,435 2.9%
$5,000 to $9,999 1,980 2.7% 241 1.0% 1,739 3.5%
$10,000 to $14,999 5,372 7.2% 433 1.8% 4,939 9.9%
$15,000 to $19,999 3,992 5.3% 553 2.2% 3,439 6.9%
$20,000 to $24,999 3,639 4.9% 461 1.9% 3,178 6.3%
$25,000 to $34,999 5,587 7.5% 911 3.7% 4,676 9.3%
$35,000 to $49,999 7,201 9.6% 1,639 6.7% 5,562 11.1%
$50,000 to $74,999 11,362 15.2% 3,218 13.1% 8,144 16.3% $75,000 to $99,999 8,411 11.3% 2,585 10.5% 5,826 11.6%
$100,000 to $149,999 11,576 15.5% 5,042 20.5% 6,534 13.0% $150,000 or more 13,586 18.2% 8,982 36.5% 4,604 9.2%
Median Household
Income $66,130 $116,242 $50,148
Source: US Census, 2015-2019 ACS
HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME GROUP
A special aggregation of 2013-2017 ACS data performed by HUD provides a breakdown of households by income group by tenure, as shown in Table 3-10. The number of households in extremely low, very low, low, and moderate/above moderate-income groups is shown in Table 12. A slight majority of households (52%) are below the median income. The HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data indicates the extremely low-income group represents 23.1% of households and a higher proportion are renters (14,530) than owners (2,305). The very low-income group represents 12.6% of households and the low income group represents 16.3% of households. The small amount of extremely low and very low income households in the City is likely due to the limited housing opportunities for the lower income groups in the City, including a lack of housing with restricted affor dable rents. The City’s RHNA (see Table 55) identifies the City’s share of regional housing needs of the extremely low, very low, and low-income households, as well as for moderate and above moderate-income househol ds. As shown in Table 12, there is a larger proportion of renters in the extremely low, very low, and low-income groups, while there is a larger rate of moderate and above moderate-income groups in owner households. 1054 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐32 | January 2022
Table 12: Households by Income Group (2017)
Income Group Total Owner Renter
Households Percent Households Percent Households Percent Extremely Low 16,835 23.1% 2,305 9.4% 14,530 30.2%
Very Low 9,155 12.6% 1,590 6.5% 7,565 15.7%
Low 11,890 16.3% 3,245 13.2% 8,645 18.0%
Moderate and Above Moderate 34,860 47.9% 17,460 71.0% 17,400 36.1% TOTAL 72,740 100% 24,600 100% 48,140 100%
Source: HUD CHAS, 2013-2017
Available: https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html
POVERTY LEVELS
The 2015-2019 ACS data indicates that 4,985 (9.9%) of all Glendale families and 26,820 individuals (13.5%), had incomes at or below the poverty level. Approximat ely 11.2% of all Los Angeles County families were classified at or below the poverty level in 2019.
The level of poverty in a jurisdiction often infl uences the need for housing to accommodate those persons and families in the very low and low-income categories. The U.S. Census Bureau measures poverty by using a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition of who is in poverty. If a family’s total income is less than the family’s threshold, then t hat family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. For example, the poverty threshold for a family of two with no children would be $17,120, a household of two with a householder aged 65 or older and no children has a poverty threshold of $15,453, and the poverty threshold of a family of four with two children under the age of 18 would be $25,926. (Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, 2019).
Poverty rates in neighboring cities within Los Angeles County are shown in Figure 1, which compares the numbers of families and individuals living in poverty in the County to those living in the nearby cities.
Approximately 13.5% of the populati on and 9.9% of families in Glendale live below the poverty line. While there is a lower percentage of both individuals and fam ilies living in poverty in Glendale when compared to the County, Glendale has a higher percentage of families living in poverty than neighboring jurisdictions, as outlined in Figure 1. The City of Pasadena has a higher percentage of individuals living in poverty (14.5%) than Glendale (13.5%).
1055 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐33 | January 2022
Source: U.S. Census Bureau, ACS 2015 - 2019 (S17001 and S17012) Extremely Low-Income Households
Extremely low-income (ELI) households are defined as those earning up to 30% of the area median household income. For Los Angeles County, the area median household income in 2019 was $68,044. For ELI households in Los Angeles County (including those in the City of Glendale), this results in an income of $33,800 or less for a four-person household or $23,700 for a one-person household. ELI households have a variety of housing situations and needs. For example, most families and individuals receiving only public assistance, such as social security insurance or disability insurance, are considered ELI households.
According to HUD CHAS data (2013-2017), most (86.3%) ELI households are renters and experience a high incidence of housing problems. For example, 88.9% of ELI households faced housing problems (defined as cost burden greater than 30% of income and/or overcr owding and/or without complete kitchen or plumbing facilities) and 87.9% were in overpayment situations. Further, 80.3% of ELI households severely overpay for housing (pay over 50% of their monthly income), compared to 29.6% for all households.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(a)(1), 50% of the City’s very low-income regional housing needs assigned by HCD are extremely low-income households. As a result, from the very low-income need of 217,565 units, the County has a projected need of 108,783 units for extremely low-income households.
Based on current figures, extremely low-income households will most likely be facing an overpayment, overcrowding, or substandard housing conditions. Some extremely low-income households could include individuals with mental or other disabilities and special needs. To address the range of needs of ELI households, the City will implement several programs including the following programs (refer to the Housing Element Policy Document for more detailed descriptions of these programs):
Program 4: Replacement of Affordable Units
Program 5: Facilitate Affordable and Special Needs Housing Construction Program 6: Inclusionary Housing
Program 14: Housing Choice Vouchers
Program 16: Conservation of Exis ting and Future Affordable Units
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
City of Glendale City of La Cañada
Flintridge
City of Pasadena City of Burbank Los Angeles County
Families People
Figure 1: Percentage of Families & People Living in Poverty (2019) 1056 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐34 | January 2022
3E. Housing Characteristics
HOUSING TYPE
Table 13 identifies the types of housing units in Glendale in 2020 as reported in the Department of Finance, E-5 Report. The table summarizes total housing stock according to the type of structure, total occupied units, and the vacancy rate. As shown in the table, the majority of housing in Glendale is multifamily 5+ unit housing, which accounted for 52.6% of units in 2020, with dupl ex through fourplex units accounting for 8.6%. Single family detached homes represent about a third of the housing stock, with 34.4% of housing units. Single family attached homes represent 4.4% of housing unit s and mobile homes represent less than 0.1% of the housing stock.
Table 13: Housing Stock by Type and Vacancy (2020)
Total Single Family Multifamily Mobile
Homes Occupied Vacant Detached Attached 2 – 4 5 + Units Units 81,019 27,855 3,562 6,963 42,589 50 76,737 4,282
Percent 100% 34.4% 4.4% 8.6% 52.6% <0.1% 94.7% 5.3%
Source: State of California Department of Finance (DOF), 2020.
VACANCY RATE
Table 13 also shows the number and percentage of occupied units and the percentage of vacant units. It is important to note that these counts include all vacant units, including those units that are newly constructed but not yet occupied. Glendale has shown a relatively stea dy vacancy rate over the last decade, at 5.3% in 2020 compared to 5.2% in 2010.
The 2019 ACS data indicates that there were 4,264 vacant units in 2019 (5.2% of total units). As shown in Table 14, of the total vacant units in 2019, 1,279 were for rent (30%), 114 were for sale (12.6%), 328 were rented or sold but not yet occupied (7.7%), 1,879 were classified as “other vacant” (44.1%), and 538 were for seasonal, recreational, or occasional worker use (12.6%). According to DOF data, the overall vacancy rate in Glendale in 2020 was 5.3%.
Table 14: Vacancy by Type
Vacancy Type Number Percent
For rent 1,279 30.0%
Rented or sold, not occupied 328 7.7%
For sale only 114 2.7%
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 538 12.6% For migrant workers 0 0.0%
Other vacant 1,879 44.1%
TOTAL 4,264 100%
Source: US Census, 2015-2019 ACS
HOUSING CONDITIONS
The U.S. Census provides only limited data that can be used to infer the condition of Glendale’s housing stock. In most cases, the age of a community's housing stock is a good indicator of the condition of the housing stock. The 2015-2019 ACS data indicates that only about a third of the housing in the City is less than 50 years old; 36.6% of units were built in 1970 or later. The majority (63.4%) of housing units were built prior to 1970, with 30.6% built prior to 1950. The a ge of the housing stock indicates that the need for maintenance and rehabilitation assistance may grow during the planning period. Units built prior to 1970 may require aesthetic and maintenance repairs including roof, window, and paint improvements and some units in this age range may also require significant upgrades to structural, foundation, electrical, plumbing, and 1057 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐35 | January 2022
other systems.
When examining a housing stock to figure out what condition it is in, there are certain factors that the Census considers. For example, older units may not have plumbing that is fully functional or the plumbing might be substandard. Table 15 indicates that 47 owner occupi ed units (0.2%) and 150 (0.3%) rental occupied units lacked complete plumbing facilities in 2019.
Table 15: Housing Stock Conditions (2019)
Year Structure Built Owner Renter Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Built 2014 or later 50 1.5% 1,053 0.2% 1,103 2.1%
Built 2010 to 2013 93 1.2% 839 0.4% 932 1.7%
Built 2000 to 2009 486 2.7% 1,496 2.0% 1,982 3.0%
Built 1990 to 1999 1,143 4.6% 2,275 4.6% 3,418 4.5%
Built 1980 to 1989 2,663 12.9% 6,936 10.8% 9,599 13.9%
Built 1970 to 1979 2,915 13.8% 7,400 11.8% 10,315 14.8% Built 1960 to 1969 2,837 17.7% 10,378 11.5% 13,215 20.7% Built 1950 to 1959 4,307 15.1% 6,969 17.5% 11,276 13.9% Built 1940 to 1949 3,130 9.3% 3,853 12.7% 6,983 7.7%
Built 1939 or earlier 6,998 21.3% 8,877 28.4% 15,875 17.7% TOTAL 24,622 100% 50,076 100% 74,698 100%
Plumbing Facilities
Units With Complete Plumbing Facilities 24,575 99.8% 49,926 99.7% 74,501 99.7% Units Lacking Complete Plumbing
Facilities 47 0.2% 150 0.3% 197 0.3%
Source: US Census, 2015-2019 ACS
As noted, the City’s housing stock is aging with 74.8% of dwelling units in Glendale having been constructed prior to 1980, and as such, structural deterioration and maintenance problems may be prevalent. A citywide housing conditions survey was last performed in 2019 and indicated at the time that approximately 2% of housing units were in need of maintenance and rehabilitation while 0% of housing units were in need of replacement. The City’s Building and Safety Division has estimated that 2% of housing units are currently in need of substantial rehabilitation or replacement.
To supplement the Census information regarding housing conditions, the City of Glendale included specific questions pertaining to the quality of the City’s hou sing stock in its Housing Element Update community survey, which was available in Spanish, English, Ar menian, Korean, and Filipino, and posted from April 5, 2021 to May 2, 2021 (this is further detailed in Appendix B). When asked to rate the physical condition of the residence they lived in, the majority of residents (42.5%) responded that their home was in excellent condition, while almost a third (31.3%) of residents indicated that their home shows signs of minor deferred maintenance such as peeling paint or chipped stucco. Another 23.8% of resident respondents indicated that their home was in need of one or more major systems upgrades (such as new roof, windows, electrical, plumbing, HVAC system, etc.).
Residents were also asked to report the type of hom e improvements they have considered making to their homes. The most popular answers that applied were improvements for kitchen or bathroom remodels, painting, solar, and roofing.
1058 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐36 | January 2022
OVERCROWDING
Typically, a housing unit is considered overcrowded if there is more than one person per room and severely overcrowded if there are more than 1.5 persons pe r room. Table 16 summarizes overcrowding data for Glendale. It should be noted that kitchenettes, strip or Pullman kitchens, bathrooms, porches, balconies, foyers, halls, half-rooms, utility rooms, unfinished attics, basements, or other space for storage are not defined as rooms for Census purposes.
Overcrowded households are usually a reflection of the lack of affordable housing available. Households that cannot afford housing units suitably sized for their families are often forced to live in housing that is too small for their needs, which may result in poor physical condition of the dwelling unit. In 2019, 4,045 housing units (5.5% of the total occupied units) were overcrowded, which represents 3.1% of owner units and 6.6% of renter units.
Table 16: Overcrowding by Tenure (2019)
Persons per Room Owner Renter Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1.00 or less 23,283 96.9% 46,869 93.4% 70,152 94.6%
1.01 to 1.50 551 2.3% 1,626 3.2% 2,177 2.9%
1.51 or more 184 0.8% 1,684 3.4% 1,868 2.5%
TOTAL 24,018 100% 50,179 100% 74,197 100%
Overcrowded 735 3.1% 3,310 6.6% 4,045 5.5%
Source: US Census, 2015-2017 ACS
As shown in Table 17, the average household size in Glendale was 2.72 persons. The average household size is higher for owners (2.90 persons). Renter households have an average size of 2.54 persons, with the majority of owner and renter households having one to 3 persons (51.1% for owners, 60.7% for renters).
Approximately 48.9% of owner households and 21.4% of renter households are three persons or more in size. Table 18 identifies bedrooms by tenure. While renter households are generally smaller than owner households, the proportion of larger (4 or more bedroom homes) is higher for owner households.
Table 17: Household Size by Tenure (2019)
Household Size Owner Renter Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
1-person 4,820 19.6% 15,233 30.4% 20,053 27.0%
2-person 7,768 31.5% 15,195 30.3% 22,963 30.9%
3-person 4,987 20.3% 9,008 18.0% 13,995 18.9%
4-or-more-person 4,710 19.1% 7,797 15.6% 12,507 16.9%
5-person 1,474 6.0% 2,082 4.2% 3,556 4.8%
6-person 551 2.2% 582 1.2% 1,133 1.5%
7-or-more-person 312 1.3% 179 0.4% 491 0.7%
TOTAL 24,622 100% (33.2%
of total) 50,076 100% (67.5%
of total) 74,197 100%
Median Household Size 2.90 2.54 2.72
Source: US Census, 2015-2019 ACS
1059 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐37 | January 2022
Table 18: Number of Bedrooms by Tenure
Bedroom Type Owner Renter Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
No bedroom 205 0.9% 4,264 8.5% 4,469 6.0%
1-bedroom 1,039 4.3% 19,729 39.3% 20,768 28.0%
2-bedroom 7,130 29.7% 21,371 42.6% 28,501 38.4%
3-bedroom 10,497 43.7% 4,388 8.7% 14,885 20.1%
4-bedroom 4,318 18.0% 390 0.8% 4,708 6.3%
5 or more bedroom 829 3.5% 37 0.1% 866 1.2%
TOTAL 24,018 100% 50,179 100% 74,197 100%
Source: US Census, 2015-2019 ACS
3F. Housing Costs
FOR SALE HOUSING
Table 19: Homes for Sale (March 2021)
Home sales in Glendale have fluctuated significantly
over the past decade. As shown in Figure 2, median
housing prices in Glendale have risen over the past
seven years, increasing from approximately $516,000
in April 2011 to a high of $981,000 in February 2021.
In March 2021, there were 116 homes listed for sale on
Zillow.com with prices ranging from $334,950 to
$6,250,000 in price. Of these homes, there were 47
detached single-family homes, with sales prices
beginning at $359,000. As shown in Ta ble 19, the majority of homes for sale are in the $500,000+ price ranges, with 3.4% of homes in the $300,000 to $399,999 range and 2.6% in the $400,00 to $499,999 range.
Zillow identifies the February 2021 home index value as $970,000, which is approximately 29.7% higher than Los Angeles County (Zillow report ed a median home value index of $719, 000 for Los Angeles County in February 2021).
Source: SCAG 6th Cycle Data Package
Price Homes Percent
$500,000 and more 109 94.0%
$400,000 - $499,999 3 2.6%
$300,000 - $399,999 4 3.4%
$200,000 - $299,999 0 0.0%
$100,000 - $199,999 0 0.0%
$0 - $99,999 0 0.0%
Source: zillow.com, 2021
Figure 2: Median Home Sales Price
1060 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐38 | January 2022
RENTAL HOUSING
Table 20 summarizes rents paid in Glendale by rental range. There were 1,344 units (2.8%) renting for less than $500 dollars, however, the majority (65.4%) of uni ts rented for $1,500 or more. Only 6.8% of rentals were in the $500 to $999 range, with another 25% in the $1,000 to $1,499 range, and 34.7% in the $1,500 to $1,999 range.
According to the 2015-2019 ACS data, the median rent in Glendale is $1,723 per month. Table 21 summarizes rental rates Citywide by bedrooms in 2019, based on ACS data.
Table 20: Rental Costs (2019)
Rent Range Number Percent
Less than $500 1,344 2.8%
$500 to $999 3,328 6.8%
$1,000 to $1,499 12,163 25.0%
$1,500 to $1,999 16,890 34.7%
$2,000 to $2,499 9,310 19.1%
$2,500 to $2,999 3,073 6.3%
$3,000 or more 2,601 5.3%
Median (dollars) $1,723
Source: 2015-2019 ACS
Table 21: Median Rent by bedrooms
Bedroom Type Median Rent (2019)
Studio $1,301
1 bed $1,518
2 bed $1,897
3 bed $2,346
4 bed $3,500+
5 bed or more -
Source: 2015-2019 ACS
INCOME GROUPS
The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) publishes household income data annually for areas in California. Table 22 shows the maximum annual income level for each income group adjusted for household size for Los Angeles County. The maximum annual income data is then utilized to calculate the maximum affordable housing payments for different households (varying by income level) and their eligibility for housing assistance programs.
Extremely Low Income Households have a combined income at or lower than 30% of area median income (AMI), as established by the state Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Very Low Income Households have a combined income between 30 and 50% of AMI, as established by HCD.
Low Income Households have a combined income between 50 an d 80% of AMI, as established by HCD.
Moderate Income Households have a combined income between 80 and 120% of AMI, as established by HCD.
Above Moderate Income Households have a combined income greater than 120% of AMI, as 1061 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐39 | January 2022
established by HCD.
Table 22: State Income Limits –Los Angeles County (2020) Income Group 1 Person 2 Person 3 Person 4 Person 5 Person 6 Person 7 Person 8 Person Extremely Low $23,700 $27,050 $30,450 $33,800 $36,550 $39,250 $41,950 $44,650 Very Low $39,450 $45,050 $50,700 $56,300 $60,850 $65,350 $69,850 $74,350 Low $63,100 $72,100 $81,100 $90,100 $97,350 $104,550 $111,750 $118,950 Moderate $64,900 $74,200 $83,500 $92,750 $100,150 $107,600 $115,000 $122,450 Above Moderate $64,900+ $74,200+ $83,500+ $92,750+ $100,150+ $107,600+ $115,000+ $122,450+ Source: Housing and Community Development Department, 2020
HOUSING AFFORDABILITY
Table 23 shows the maximum amount that a household can pay for housing each month without incurring a cost burden (overpayment). This information can be co mpared to current housing prices and market rental rates to better understand what types of housing options are affordable to different types of households Affordability is based on a household spending 30% or le ss of their total household income for shelter.
Affordability is based on the maximum household income levels established by HCD (Table 22). The annual income limits established by HCD are like those us ed by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for administering various affordable housing programs. Maximum affordable sales price is based on the following assumptions: 4.5% interest rate, 30-year fixed loan, 10% down payment, and 15% monthly affordable cost for taxes and insurance.
Comparing the maximum affordable housing costs in Table 23 to the rental rates in Table 20, rental rates in Glendale are generally affordable to moderate inco me households of two or more persons and to above moderate income households. While there may be some units affordable to extremely low, very low, and low income households, there is a very limited number of the more affordable units. The median rental rates reported by 2015-2019 ACS (Table 21) are in the affo rdability range of large low income households and moderate and above moderate income households.
According to RentCafe.com, the average rent in Glendale in March 2021 was $2,444 per month across unit sizes. According to Zillow, the median home pric e for a single-family home in March 2021 was $981,285.
Local housing trends indicate that rents and home prices will continue to rise in Glendale during the planning period.
Table 23: Housing Affordability by Income Group
Income Group
1-Person 2-Person 4-Person 6-Person
Max.
Purchase
Price
Max.
Monthly
Rent
Max.
Purchase
Price
Max.
Monthly
Rent
Max.
Purchase
Price
Max.
Monthly
Rent
Max.
Purchase
Price
Max.
Monthly
Rent
Extremely Low $53,405 $348 $60,395 $398 $96,392 $655 $127,707 $879 Very Low $90,558 $579 $60,395 $663 $125,333 $828 $143,856 $960 Low $144,708 $926 $102,266 $1,059 $200,566 $1,324 $230,251 $1,535 Moderate $220,531 $1,389 $163,328 $1,588 $304,572 $1,984 $349,418 $2,301 Above Moderate $220,531+ $1,389+ $163,328+ $1,588+ $304,572+ $1,984+ $349,418+ $2,301+ *Maximum affordable sales price is based on the following assumptions: 4.5% interest rate, 30-year fixed loan, 10% down payment:
property tax, utilities, and insurance as 15% of monthly housing cost. Utilities based on Los Angeles County Utility Allowance; utilities allowance and taxes and insurance are included in Affordable Monthly Housing Costs.
Sources: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2020 Income Limits; De Novo Planning Group, 2021
1062 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐40 | January 2022
OVERPAYMENT
As with most communities, the location of the home is one of the biggest factors with regards to price.
Compared to some areas in Los Angeles County, housing in Glendale is still relatively affordable, especially with multifamily units. However, housing is not affordable for all income levels, particularly the very-low and low-income households.
As shown in Table 24, more than half (57%) of renters in Glendale and more than a third (37%) of homeowners overpay for housing. The majority of renters that overpay are in the lower income groups, with 75% in the extremely low income group and 48% in the very low income group severely overpaying for housing (over 50% of their monthly income), compared to 81% of extremely low income owners and 55% of very low income owners severely overpaying. While overpayment is more predominate among lower income renter households, overpayment is an issue for both renter and owner households as half (50%) of all Glendale households overpay for housing.
Table 24: Households by Income Level and Overpayment (2017) Household Overpayment Owners Renters Total % of
Income Category
Extremely Low Income Households 2,305 14,530 16,835 100% With Cost Burden >30% 1,915 / 83% 12,890 / 89% 14,805 88% With Cost Burden >50% 1,730 / 75% 11,795 / 81% 13,525 80% Very Low Income Households 1,590 7,565 9,155 100%
With Cost Burden >30% 1,065 / 67% 7,150 / 95% 8,220 90% With Cost Burden >50% 765 / 48% 4,195 / 55% 4,965 54%
Low Income Households 3,245 8,645 11,890 100%
With Cost Burden >30% 2,085 / 64% 5,600 / 65% 7,685 65% With Cost Burden >50% 1,230 / 38% 885 / 10% 2,115 18%
Total Extremel y Low, Ver y Low, and
Low Income Households Paying
>30%
5,065 / 71% 25,640 / 83% 30,705 81% of lower income households Moderate and Above Moderate
Income Households 17,460 17,400 34,860 100%
With Cost Burden >30% 4,050 / 23% 1,935 / 11% 5,985 17% With Cost Burden >50% 890 / 5% 70 / 0% 960 3%
Total Households 24,600 48,140 72,740 100%
With Cost Burden >30% 9,115 / 37% 27,575 / 57% 36,690 50% With Cost Burden >50% 4,615 / 19% 16,945 / 35% 21,560 30% Note: Data is rounded to the nearest 5.
Source: HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013-2017
1063 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐41 | January 2022
AFFORDABLE HOUSING INVENTORY
The City uses various funding sources to preserve and increase the supply of affordable housing through new construction and the acquisition and/or rehabilitation of renter-occupied units. Affordability covenants in Glendale include developments that hold federal subsidy contracts, received tax credits or mortgage revenue bonds, and/or were financed by redevelopment funds or non-profit developers.
Table 25 shows assisted units with covenants that requi re rents to be maintained at affordable levels for various agreed upon periods of time. In 2020, Glendal e had 1,096 total deed-restricted affordable units. A recorded deed restriction serves as an affordability covenant that restricts the income level of a person who occupies the property, and ensures the property will remain available for low to moderate-income persons through the foreseeable future.
Table 25: Deed Restricted Affordable Housing Units
Project Name Address Type
No. of
Restricte
d Units
No. of
Total
Units
Expiration
412-422 Harvard 412 E Harvard St All 52 52 2025
700 Orange Grove 700 Orange Grove Ave All 24 24 2023
Ascencia 1911 Gardena Ave Supportive Housing 9 9 2025
Casa de la Paloma 133 S Kenwood St Elderly or Disabled 167 167 2033 Cypress Senior Living 311 E Cypress St Elderly or Disabled 18 18 2031 The Gardens 333 Monterey Rd Section 8
Elderly or Disabled
74 75 2034
Gardens on Garfield 303 E Garfield Ave LIHTC
Family
29 30 2064
Gardens on Garfield Affordable
Apartments
307 E Garfield Ave 29 30 2030
Glendale Accessible
Apartments
6206 San Fernando Rd Disabled 24 24 2030
Glendale City Lights 3673 San Fernando Rd Family 68 68 2030 Heritage Park at Glendale 420 E Harvard St LIHTC
Elderly or Disabled
51 52 2058
Ivy Glen Apartments 113 N Cedar St Section 8
Elderly or Disabled
24 25 2035
Maple Park Apartments 711 E Maple St Elderly or Disabled 25 25 2033 Monte Vista Apartments 714 E Elk Ave LIHTC
Elderly or Disabled
9 9 2023
Metro Loma 328 Mira Loma Ave Family 44 44 2029
Metropolitan City Heights 1760 Gardena Ave Family 65 65 2028 Orange Grove Apartments 626 Orange Grove Ave LIHTC 23 24 2029 The Otter Gruber House 143 S Isabel St Elderly or Disabled 40 40 2023 Palmer House 555 E Palmer Ave LIHTC 21 21 2021
Palmer Park Manor 617 E Palmer Ave Family 12 12 2022
Park Paseo 123 S Isabel St Section 8
Elderly or Disabled
96 98 2037
1064 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐42 | January 2022
Salvation Army 615 Chester
Project
615 Chester St Family 4 4 2030
Silvercrest Glendale 313 W Garfield Ave Section 8
Elderly or Disabled
74 75 2021
Vassar City Lights 3685 San Fernando Rd Family 70 70 2030 Veteran Village of Glendale 327 Salem St Family 44 44 2036 Source: National Housing Preservation Database, 2021
3G. Future Housing Needs
A Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) is mandated by the State of California (Government Code [GC], Section 65584) for regions to address housing issues and needs based on future growth projections for the area. The RHNP for Glendale is developed by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), and allocates a “fair share” of regional housing needs to individual cities. The intent of the RHNP is to ensure that local jurisdictions address not only the needs of their immediate areas but also that needs for the entire region are fairly distributed to all communities. A major goal of the RHNP is to assure that every community provides an opportunity for a mix of affordable housing to all economic segments of its population.
This Housing Element addresses SCAG’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) schedule for the 6 th
Cycle, from 2021 through 2029. The City will need to plan to accommodate 13,425 new units, which includes 1,719 extremely low-income units, 1,720 very low, 2, 163 low, 2,249 moderate, and 5,574 above moderate- income units. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(a)(1), 50% of Glendale’s very low-income regional housing needs assigned by HCD are extr emely low-income households, and hence the 1,719 ELI units. Table 26 summarizes Glendale’s fair share, progress to date, and remaining units.
Table 26: Regional Housing Needs Allocation – 6th Cycle Project Extremely
and Very Low
income (0-
50% AMI)
Low income
(51-80% AMI)
Moderate
income (81-
120% AMI)
Above
Moderate
income
(121%+ AMI)
Total
2021-2029 RHNA 3,439 2,163 2,249 5,574 13,425
Completed/Under
Construction/Permits Issued
9 0 0 243 252
Conversion of Existing
Multifamily Units to Deed-
Restricted Affordable Units
820 700 562125 0 714125
Units Approved/ Entitled 188186 329329 20 587605 1,1061,120 Subtotal 279195 399329 564125 830848 2,0721,497
Remaining Allocation 3,1603,244 1,7641,834 1,6852,124 4,7444,726 11,35311,928 Source: City of Glendale, 2021 January 2022
1065 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐43 | January 2022
3H. Special Needs Groups
Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) requires a Housing Element to address special housing needs, such as those of the elderly; persons with disabilities, including a development al disability, as defined in Section 4512 of the Welfare and Institutions Code; large families; farmworkers; families with female heads of households; and families and persons in need of emergenc y shelter. The needs of these groups often call for targeted program responses, such as temporary housing, preservation of residential hotels, housing with features to make it more accessible, and the development of four-bedroom apartments. Special needs groups have been identified and, to the degree possible, responsive programs are provided. A principal emphasis in addressing the needs of these group is to continue to seek State technical assistance grants to identify the extent and location of those with special needs and identify ways and means to assist them. Local government budget limitations may act to limit effectiveness in implementing programs for this group. Please refer to Section 5C of this Housing Element for a di scussion of agencies and programs that serve special needs populations in Glendale.
Where data is available, estimates of the population or number of households in Glendale falling into each group is presented. The special housing needs are a subset of the overall housing needs.
SENIORS
Seniors are considered persons age 65 or older in th is Housing Element. However, it must be noted that some funding programs have lower age limits for persons to be eligible for their senior housing projects.
Seniors have special housing needs primarily resulting from physical disabilities and limitations, fixed or limited income, and health care costs. Additionally, senior households also have other needs to preserve their independence including supportive services to maintain their health and safety, in-home support services to perform activities of daily living, conserva tors to assist with personal care and financial affairs, public administration assistance to manage and resolve estate issues and networks of care to provide a wide variety of services and daily assistance.
Various portions of the Housing Element describe characteristics of the senior population, the extent of their needs for affordable housing, housing designated for seniors, and City provisions to accommodate their need. Senior population growth in Glendale from 2010 to 2019 is shown in Table 3-25. The large increase in elderly persons is likely due to the residential growth experienced in Glendale as well as aging in place of Glendale’s residents. While seniors represent approx imately 17.5% of the City’s population, senior households represent approximately 25.9% of total households, which is primarily due to the smaller senior household size.
Table 27: Senior Population and Households
Table 27 summarizes senior households by age and
tenure. Most senior households are owners, 7,643 or
39.6%. Approximately 60.4% of senior households,
11,668, are renters. Elderly renters tend to prefer
affordable units in smaller singl e-story structures or multi- story structures with an elevator, close to health facilities, services, transportation, and entertainment.
The 2015-2019 ACS survey indicates that 6,213 seniors in Glendale are below the poverty level. It is likely that a portion of these senior households overpay for housing due to their limited income. The median income of households with a head of household that is 65 year s and over is $32,688, si gnificantly less than the median household income of $66,130.
Population 2010 2019
Number 28,011 35,143
Percent Change - 25.5%
Annual Percent Change - 2.8%
Source: US Census, 2015-2019 ACS
1066 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐44 | January 2022
Table 28: Householder Age by Tenure (2019)
Age Group Owners Renters
Number Percent Number Percent
65-74 years 4,320 56.5% 5,764 49.4%
75-84 years 2,384 31.2% 4,087 35.0%
85 plus years 939 12.3% 1,817 15.6%
TOTAL 7,643 39.6% (of
total) 11,668 15.6% (of
total)
Source: US Census, 2015-2019 ACS
Senior Housing
There is increasing variety in the types of housing available to the senior population. This section focuses on three basic types.
Independent Living – housing for healthy seniors who are self-sufficient and want the freedom and privacy of their own separate, apartment or house. Many seniors remain in their original homes, and others move to special residential communities which provide a greater level of security and social activities of a senior community.
Group Living – shared living arrangements in which seniors live in close proximity to their peers and have access to activities and special services.
Assisted Living – provides the greatest level of support, including meal preparation and assistance with other activities of daily living.
The Glendale zoning code defines senior housing as “a development consisting of dwelling units, in which each unit is restricted for occupancy by at least one (1) person in each household who is sixty-two (62) years of age or older, or fifty-five (55) years or older if the development consists of thirty-five (35) units or more.” The City permits senior housing by right in the R-3050 (Moderate Density Residential) Zone, R-2250 (Medium Density Residential) Zone, R-1650 (Medium-High Density Residential) Zone, and R-1250 (High Density Residential Zone), as well as the C1, C2, C3, CR, and CH zones, subject to the provisions of the R-1250 zone and provided that the ground floor level is occupied with permitted commercial uses. Senior housing is permitted with a conditional use permit at the ground fl oor level of the same commercial zones, subject to the provision of the R-1250 zone. Further, senior housing is permitted by right in the MS zone, SFMU zone, by conditional use permit in the IMU-R zone, and in ni ne of the 10 Districts in the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP).
The California Department of Social Services Communi ty Care Licensing Division reports that as of June 2021, 27 licensed residential care facilities serve seniors in Glendale. These facilities are spread throughout the City.
DISABLED PERSONS
A “disability” includes, but is not limited to, any physical or mental di sability as defined in California Government Code Section 12926. A “mental disability” involves having any mental or psychological disorder or condition that limits a major life activity. A “physical disability” involves having any physiological disease, disorder, condition, cosmetic disfigurement, or anatom ical loss that affects body systems. In addition, a mental or physical disability limits a major life activity by making the achievement of major life activities difficult including physical, mental, and social activities and working.
Physical, mental, and/or developmental disabilities could prevent a person from working, restrict a persons’ mobility or make caring for oneself difficult. Therefore, disabled persons often require special housing needs related to potential limited earning capacity, the lack of accessible and affordable housing, and higher health 1067 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐45 | January 2022
costs associated with disab ilities. Additionally, people with disabilit ies require a wide range of different housing, depending on the type and severity of their dis ability. Housing needs can range from institutional care facilities to facilities that support partial or full independence (i.e., group care homes). Supportive services such as daily living skills and employment assistance need to be integrated in the housing situation.
Special housing needs for disabled persons include:
Individuals with a mobility, visual, or hearing limitation may require housing that is physically accessible. Examples of accessibility in housin g include widened doorways and hallways, ramps, bathroom modifications (i.e., lowered countertops, grab bars, adjustable shower heads, etc.) and special sensory devices including smoke alarms and flashing lights. Individuals with self-care limitations (which can in clude persons with mobility difficulties) may require residential environments that include in-home or on-site support services ranging from congregate to convalescent care. Support services can include medical therapy, daily living assistance, congregate dining, and related services.
Individuals with developmental disabilities and ot her physical and mental conditions that prevent them from functioning independently may require assisted care or group home environments. Individuals with disabilities may require financial assistance to meet their housing needs because a higher percentage than the population at large are low-income and their special housing needs are often more costly than conventional housing.
According to the 2015-2019 ACS, there were 27,451 per sons with one or more disabilities in Glendale. Of the disabled population, 39% are aged 5 to 64 and 61% are aged 65 and over. No disabilities were reported in the population aged five and under. Table 29 identifies disabilities by type.
Table 29: Disabilities by Disability Type
Type of Disability Persons Ages 5-64 Persons Ages 65 + Total Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Hearing Difficulty 1,480 13.8% 4,359 26.0% 5,839 20.20% Vision Difficulty 1,469 13.7% 1,975 11.8% 3,444 18.50%
Cognitive Difficulty 4,396 41.0% 6,103 36.5% 10,499 34.90% Ambulatory Difficulty 5,726 53.4% 12,405 74.1% 18,131 47.50% Self-Care Difficulty 4,163 38.9% 10,448 62.4% 14,611 19.70% Independent Living
Difficulty 5,412 50.5% 13,204 78.9% 18,616 39.60%
Total Persons with One or
More Disabilities
10,714
100% /
39.0% of
disabled
16,737
100% /
61.0% of
disabled
27,451
100%
1A person may have more than one disability, so the total disabilities may exceed the total persons with a disability Source: US Census ACS, 2015-2019
As shown in Table 30, the 2015-2019 ACS indicates that for individuals between the ages of 16 and 64, approximately 22,684 persons (84.6%) had some form of disability preventing them from entering the labor force. This indicates that their di sability may impede their ability to ear n an adequate income, which in turn could affect their ability to afford suitable housing accommodations to meet their special needs. As a result, many in this group may be in need of housing assistance. 1068 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐46 | January 2022
Table 30: Disabled Persons by Age and Employment Status Ages 16 to 64 Percent
Employed with Disability 3,512 13.1%
Unemployed with Disability 617 2.3%
Not in Labor Force 22,684 84.6%
Total 26,813 100%
Source: US Census ACS, 2015-2019
While recent Census data does not provide income levels or overpayment data for persons with a disability, the 2015-2019 ACS survey does report on indicators that relate to a disabled person’s or household’s income.
The 2015-2019 ACS data indicates that 11,714 persons with a disability are below the poverty level. It is likely that a portion of these disabled persons are in households that overpay for housing due to their limited income. The 2015-2019 ACS data indicates that 41% of households receiving food stamps or similar assistance have a disabled member. Of the 20,086 households with a disabled member, 2,540 households receive food stamps or similar assistance. The 2015-2019 ACS data indicates that the median earnings for males 16 years and over with a disability were $31,673 compared with $46,253 for males with no disability.
Median earnings for females 16 years and over with a disability were $21,334, compared to $38,497 for females with no disability.
The persons in the “with a disability” category in Table 29 and Table 30 include persons with developmental disabilities. “Developmental disability” means “a disability that originates before an individual attains age 18 years, continues, or can be expected to continue, indefinitely, and constitutes a substantial disability for that individual.” This term includes cerebral palsy, epilepsy, autism, and disabling conditions found to be closely related to intellectual disabilities or to require treatment similar to that required for individuals with intellectual disabilities, but does not include disabilities that are solely physical in nature.
While the U.S. Census reports on a broad range of disabilities, the Census does not identify the subpopulation that has a developmental disability. The California Department of Developmental Services (DDS) maintains data regarding people with developmental disabilities, defined as those with severe, life-long disabilities attributable to mental and/or physical impairments. The DDS data is reported by zip code, so the data reflects a larger area than the City of Glendale; however, the dat a was joined at the jurisdiction level by SCAG to approximate the counts for Glendale. According to the U.S. Administration on Developmental Disabilities, an accepted estimate of the percentag e of the population that can be defi ned as developmentally disabled is
1.5 percent. This equates to 3,003 persons in the City of Glendale with developmental disabilities based on the 2019 population. The City of Glendale is primaril y served by the Frank D. Lanterman Regional Center, which provides services for persons with developmental disabilities in zip codes 91201-91206. As of January 2019, the Frank D. Lanterman Regional Center served 10,680 persons.
Housing for Disabled Persons
Households with a disabled member will require a mixture of housing units with accessibility features, in- home care, or group care housing facilities. Some of these households will have a member with developmental disability and are expected to have special housing needs. Developmentally disabled persons may live with a family in a typical single family or multifamily home, but some developmentally disabled persons with more severe disabilities may have special housing needs that may include extended family homes, group homes, small and large residential care facilities, intermediate care, and skilled nursing facilities and affordable housing such as extremely low/very low/low income housing (both rental and ownership), Section 8/housing choice vouchers, and single room occupancy-type units.
In Glendale, there are nine licensed residential facilities serving adults with special needs, including physical, mental, and developmental disabilities.
1069 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐47 | January 2022
ACS 2015-2019 data indicated that for individuals between the ages of 5 and 64, approximately 2.7% of the total population of Glendale has an ambulatory difficulty, 1.2% have vision difficulty, 0.9% have a hearing difficulty, and 2.6% have an independent living difficulty. These types of disabilities may impede their ability to find suitable housing accommodations to meet their special needs. Therefore, many in these groups may be in need of housing assistance. Households containing physically handicapped disabled persons may also need housing with universal design measures or specia l features to allow better physical mobility for occupants.
The 2015-2019 ACS data indicates that 20,086 househol ds (26.9%) in Glendale had one or more disabled persons, including developmentally dis abled persons. It is ant icipated that this rate will remain the same during the planning period. Housing needed for persons with a disability during the planning period is anticipated to include community care facilities or at-home supportive services for persons with an independent living difficulty or self-care difficulty (approximately 16.6% of the population), as well as housing that is equipped to serve persons with ambulatory and sensory disabilities. Approximately 27% of the RHNA, 3,625 units, may be needed to have universal design measures or be accessible to persons with a disability.
LARGE FAMILY HOUSEHOLDS
Large family households are defined as households of five or more persons. Large family households are considered a special needs group because there is o ften a limited supply of adequately sized housing to accommodate their needs. The more persons in a household, the more rooms are needed to accommodate that household. Specifically, a fi ve-person household would require thr ee or four bedrooms, a six-person household would require four-bedrooms, and a seven-person household would require four to six bedrooms.
Table 31 compares the median income for households wi th five or more persons to the Citywide median income. The median income is higher for five, six and seven or more person households ($103,589, $106,000, and $82,900, respectively) than the Citywide median of $77,506.
Table 31: Median Income By Household Size
Size Median Income
Five Person Households $103,589
Six Person Households $106,000
Seven or More Person Households $82,900
Median Household Income (All Households) $77,506
Source: US Census, 2015-2019 ACS
Large families can have a difficult time finding housing units large enough to meet their needs. In Glendale, there appears to be an adequate amount of housing available to provide units with enough bedrooms for large families consisting of five person households t hat own their home and that rent, as well as for large families with six person or larger households that own their home; however, there is a shortage for large families with six person or larger households who re nt. Table 32 identifies the number of large households by household size versus the number of large owner and rental units. While there are adequate units in Glendale to accommodate most large owner and renter households, it does not mean that there is a match between housing units that exist and large families. As described in Table 16, 3.1% of owner-occupied homes and 6.6% of renter-occupied homes are overcrowded.
1070 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐48 | January 2022
Table 32: Household Size versus Bedroom Size by Tenure (2017) Tenure 3 BR
Units
5 Person Households 4+ BR
Units
6 Person and Larger
Households
House-
holds
Shortfall/
Excess
House-
holds
Shortfall/
Excess
Owner 10,497 1,474 9,023 5,147 863 4,284
Renter 4,388 2,082 2,306 427 761 -334
Source: US Census, 2015-2019 ACS
Large households require housing units with more bedrooms than housing units needed by smaller households. In general, housing for these households should provide safe outdoor play areas for children and should be located to provide convenient access to schools and child-care facilities. These types of needs can pose problems particularly for large families that cannot afford to bu y or rent single-family houses. It is anticipated that approximately 7% of the regional housing needs allocation units will be needed to accommodate large households and an emphasis should be placed on ensuring rental units are available to large households.
SINGLE PARENT AND FEMALE-HEADED HOUSEHOLDS
Single parent households are households with children under the age of 18 at home and include both male- and female-headed households. These households generally have a higher ratio between their income and their living expenses (that is, living expenses take up a larger share of income than is generally the case in two-parent households). Ther efore, finding affordable, decent, and safe housing is often more difficult for single parent and female-headed households. Additional ly, single parent and female-headed households have special needs involving access to daycare or childcare, health care and other supportive services.
While the majority of households in Glendale are either two-spouse couples or single person households, about a quarter (27.2%) of family households are headed by a single male or single female. There are 4,250 male heads of household with no wife present and 825 of these households have children under 18. There is a larger number of female householders with no husband present, 9,473 households or 18.8% of households, and 967 of these female-headed households have children under 18. Table 33 identifies single parent households by gender of the householder and presence of children.
Table 33: Families and Female Householder with Children Under 18 (2019) Category Number Percent
Total Families 50,349 --
Male householder, no wife present: 4250 8.4%
With children under 18 825 1.6%
Female householder, no husband present: 9,473 18.8%
With children under 18 967 1.9%
Source: ACS, 2015-2019
As Glendale’s population and households grow, there will be a continued need for supportive services for single parent households with children present. To address both the housing and supportive service needs of female-headed households, additional multifamily housing should be developed that includes childcare facilities (allowing single mothers to actively seek employment).
1071 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐49 | January 2022
In addition, the creation of innovat ive housing for female-headed households could include co-housing developments where childcare and meal preparation responsibilities can be shared. The economies of scale available in this type of housing would be advantageous to this special needs group as well as all other low- income household groups. Limited equity cooperatives sponsored by non-profit housing developers are another financing structure that could be considered for the benefit of all special needs groups.
FARMWORKERS
Farm workers traditionally are defined as persons whose primary incomes are earned through permanent or seasonal agricultural labor. Permanent farm workers work in the fields, processing plants, or support activities on a year-round basis. When workloads increase during harvest periods, the labor force is supplemented by seasonal or migrant labor. Farm workers’ special housing needs typically arise from their limited income and the unstable, seasonal nature of their employment, ac cording to the California Institute for Rural Studies.
Because of these factors, farm worker households have limited housi ng choices and are often forced to double up to afford rents.
According to the 2015-2019 ACS Census, there are approximately 191 people employed in the “Agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting, and mining.” This represents 0.2% of the City’s workforce. The City of Glendale has no land zoned for agricultural uses. Furthermore, Glendale is unaware of any agricultural uses in Burbank, La Canada-Flintridge, or in portions of uni ncorporated Los Angeles County or the City of Los Angeles immediately surrounding Glendale in which farmin g, fishing or forestry industry is practiced which could necessitate the need for farm worker housing in Glendale. Therefore, the City has not identified a need for farmworker housing and such use is not identified in the Zoning Code.
HOMELESS PERSONS EXPERIENCING HOMELESSNESS
Government Code Section 65583(a)(7) requires that the Housing Element include an analysis of the needs of homeless persons and families experiencing homelessness. Homeless These persons and families are defined as those who lack a fixed and adequate residence. People who are experiencing homeless may be chronically homeless unhoused (perhaps due to substance abuse or mental health issues) or situationally homeless unhoused (perhaps resulting from job loss or family strife). Homeless pP eople experiencing homelessness face critical housing challenges due to their very low incomes and lack of appropriate housing.
Thus, State law requires jurisdictions to plan to help meet the needs of their homeless unhoused populations.
The law also requires that each jurisdiction address community needs and available resources for special housing opportunities known as transitional and suppo rtive housing. These housing types provide the opportunity for families and individuals to “transition” from a n unhoused homeless condition to permanent housing, often with the assistance of supportive services to assist individuals in gaining necessary life skills in support of independent living.
Homeless Estimates of Persons Experiencing Homelessness Counting the homeless unhoused population is problematic due to their transient nature; however, through the efforts of the City of Glendale Continuum of Care (CoC), estimates have been developed. The CoC is a consortium of individuals and organizations with the common purpose of developing and implementing a strategy to address homelessness in Glendale. The Co C is responsible for managing U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) funds for homelessness in Glendale, and is uniquely positioned to identify system needs and take steps to address them wi th the collaboration and partnership of community stakeholders.
As the primary coordinating body for homeless issues and assistance for Glendale, the CoC accomplishes a host of activities and programs vital to the City, including an annual point-in-time “snapshot” survey to identify and assess the needs of both the sheltered and unsheltered homelessunhoused population. The Glendale 2020 Point-in-Time Count was conducted in Januar y 22, 2020 and was planned, coordinated, and carried out by the City of Glendale CoC along with the Glendale Community Services and Parks department, non- profit service providers, and volunteers.
1072 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐50 | January 2022
Table 34: Homelessness in Glendale - 2019-2020
Sheltered Unsheltered TOTAL
Homeless Point-in-Time Survey 2020 94 75 169
Homeless Point-in-Time Survey 2019 96 147 243
Change: 2019 to 2020 -2/-2.0% -72/-49.0% -74/-30.0%
Source: City of Glendale Continuum of Care Survey, 2020 In 2020, the Greater Los Angeles Point in Time Homeless Count, conducted by the Los Angeles Continuum of Care (which excludes the cities of Glendale, Pasadena and Long Beach) identified 17,616 sheltered and 46,090 unsheltered homeless unhoused persons Countywide (excluding Glendale, Pasadena, and Long Beach).
Countywide, there has been an increase in the homeless population of persons experiencing homelessness since the 2016 homeless surveys (see Table 35), primarily due to more accurate counting measures. During this time frame, the number of homeless individuals in shelters has increased by approximately 99.1% (8,769 homelesspersons), while the unsheltered homeless individuals increased by 49.9% (15,337 homelesspersons).
Table 35: Homelessness in Los Angeles County* - 2016-2020 Sheltered Unsheltered TOTAL
Homeless Point-in-Time Survey 2020 17,616 46,090 63,706 Homeless Point-in-Time Survey 2018 8,965 36,084 45,049
Homeless Point-in-Time Survey 2016 8,847 30,753 39,600
Change: 2016 to 2020 +8769/+99.1% +15,337/+49.9% +24,106/+60.9% *Data excludes the cities of Glendale, Pasadena, and Long Beach.
Source: Greater Los Angeles Continuum of Care Survey, 2020 Data is available regarding certain characteristics of Glendale’s homeless unhoused population. As shown in Table 36, subpopulations of the homeless unhoused include the chronically homelessunhoused, severely mentally ill persons, persons with chronic substance abuse, veterans, and victims of domestic violence. The largest subpopulations in Glendale are chronically homeless unhoused (38 homeless persons), severely mentally ill (33 homeless persons), victims of domestic violence (19 homeless persons), chronic substance abusers (17 homeless persons), and veterans (8 homeless persons).
Table 36: Homeless Population Characteristics for Individuals Experiencing Homelessness in Glendale (2020) Characteristics Sheltered Unsheltered Total
Chronically Homeless 14 24 38
Veterans 0 8 8
Chronic Substance Abuse 3 14 17
Mentally Ill 22 11 33
Victims of Domestic Violence 13 6 19
Source: City of Glendale Continuum of Care Survey, 2020.
Emergency Shelters
A network of local and regional service providers operates a number of programs to serve the needs of varied homeless subpopulations of persons experiencing homelessness. Table 37 provides a list of emergency and transitional shelters and available services for the homeless unhoused population in and around Glendale. 1073 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐51 | January 2022
Table 37: Facilities and Services for Persons Experiencing Homelessnessthe Homeless Organization Name Type of Service Provided Homeless
Population Served Number of Beds
YWCA of Glendale Emergency shelter
Women and families
fleeing from domestic
violence
16 The Salvation Army, Chester Street Transitional housing Families with children 8
Door of Hope Transitional housing
Survivors of
domestic violence,
single parent
households, families
N/A
Family Promise of Verdugo’s
Emergency shelter,
transitional housing, Rapid
Re-housing
Families 14
Armenian Relief Society Rapid Re-housing All N/A
Glendale Youth Alliance Employment services,
Rapid Re-housing Youth N/A
Ascencia Emergency shelter All 45
New Directions for Veterans (Veterans
Village)
Permanent supportive
housing Veterans N/A
Assessment of Need
Based on the available information, there is a citywide homeless unhoused population of 169 persons but only 83 beds, indicating an unmet demand for 86 homeless persons. It is noted that the 2020 point-in-time survey identified 94 sheltered unhoused homeless persons and 75 unsheltered unhoused homeless persons.
The discrepancy between sheltered homeless persons and the city’s total capacity to house homeless persons experiencing homelessness indicates a need for additional community services resources to assist and match the homeless unhoused population with the countywide shelter and housing resources. Although there are seasonal fluctuations in bed counts, these figures demonstrate a demand for supportive housing. 3I. Units At-Risk of Conversion
ASSISTED HOUSING AT-RISK OF CONVERSION
California housing element law requires jurisdiction s to provide an analysis of low-income, assisted multifamily housing units that are eligible to change from low-income housing uses during the next 10 years (2021-2031) due to termination of subsidy contracts, mortgage prepayment, or expiration of restrictions on use (Government Code 65583). These units risk the te rmination of various subsidy groups which could convert certain multifamily housing from affordable to market rate. State law requires housing elements to assess at-risk housing in order to project any potential loss of affordable housing.
The California Housing Partnership (CHP) provides data on assisted housing units, including those in Glendale. Table 38 indicates the extent of subsidized multifamily rental housing in the City, the subsidy programs that are in place for each project, and the likelihood of current housing assisted projects to convert to market rate projects that would not provide assistance to lower income residents. Projects that are at risk of conversion to market rate within the next five years (2021-2026) are considered high risk, and projects at risk of conversion in six to ten years are considered moderate (medium) risk. 1074 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐52 | January 2022
Table 38: Summary of at-Risk Subsidized Housing Units
Project/Address
No. & Type of
Units
Type of
Subsidy Current Owner
Earliest
Date of
Conversion Risk
412-422 Harvard
412 E Harvard St 52 HOME GLENDALE HERITAGE
PARK LP 2025 High
700 Orange Grove
700 Orange Grove Ave 24 HOME
WEST HOLLYWOOD
COMMUNITY HOUSING
CO
2023 High
Ascencia
1911 Gardena Ave 9 HOME ASCENCIA
2025 High
Casa de la Paloma
133 S Kenwood St
167
Elderly or
Disabled
Section 8
LIHTC CASA DE LA PALOMA LP 2033 Low
Cypress Senior Living
311 E Cypress St
18 Elderly or
Disabled
HOME CYPRESS SENIOR LIVING
INVESTORS LP 2031 LowMedi
um
The Gardens
333 Monterey Rd
74 Elderly or
Disabled
Section 8
SOROPTIMIST GARDENS
HOUSING CORPORATION 2034 Low
Gardens on Garfield
303 E Garfield Ave
29 Family
LIHTC
GARDENS ON GARFIELD
LP 2064 Low
Gardens on Garfield Affordable
Apartments
307 E Garfield Ave
29 THOMAS SAFRAN AND
ASSOCIATES 2030 Low
Glendale Accessible Apartments
6206 San Fernando Rd
24 Disabled
Section 8
GLENDALE HOUSING
CORPORATION 2030 LowMedi
um
Glendale City Lights
3673 San Fernando Rd
68 Family LIHTC GLENDALE CITY LIGHTS 2030 LowMedi
um
Heritage Park at Glendale
420 E Harvard St
51 Elderly or
Disabled
LIHTC
COMMUNITY HOUSING
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
(CHAPA)
2058 Low
Ivy Glen Apartments
113 N Cedar St
24 Elderly or
Disabled
Section 8
IVY GLEN HOUSING
CORPORATION 2035 Low
Maple Park Apartments
711 E Maple St
25 Elderly or
Disabled
Section 8 MAPLE PARK APTS
PRESERVATION LP 2033 Low
1075 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐53 | January 2022
Monte Vista Apartments
714 E Elk Ave
9 Elderly or
Disabled
LIHTC
MONTE VISTA HOUSING
FOUNDATION 2023 High
Metro Loma
328 Mira Loma Ave
44 Family LIHTC
ADVANCED
DEVELOPMENT &
INVESTMENT INC
2029 Medium
Metropolitan City Heights
1760 Gardena Ave
65 Family LIHTC
ADVANCED
DEVELOPMENT &
INVESTMENT INC
2028 Medium
Orange Grove Apartments
626 Orange Grove Ave 23 LIHTC
WEST HOLLYWOOD
COMMUNITY HOUSING
CORP
2029 Medium
The Otter Gruber House
143 S Isabel St
40 Elderly or
Disabled
Section 8 SENIOR AFFORABLE
HOUSING CORP NO 1 2023 High
Palmer House
555 E Palmer Ave 21 LIHTC PALMER AVENUE
RETIREMENT CORP 2021 High
Palmer Park Manor
617 E Palmer Ave
12 Family Section 8 PALMER PARK MANOR 2022 High
Park Paseo
123 S Isabel St
96 Elderly or
Disabled
Section 8
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
PRESBYTERIAN HOMES 2037 Low
Salvation Army 615 Chester Project
615 Chester St 4 HOME
SHP
SALVATION ARMY OF
GLENDALE 2030 LowMedi
um
Silvercrest Glendale
313 W Garfield Ave
74 Elderly or
Disabled
Section 8
THE SALVATION ARMY
GLENDALE RESIDENCES
INC
2021 High
Vassar City Lights
3685 San Fernando Rd
70 Family LIHTC VASSAR CITY LIGHTS LP 2030 LowMedi
um
Veteran Village of Glendale
327 Salem St
44 Family LIHTC VETERAN VILLAGE OF
GLENDALE LP 2036 Low
1076 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐54 | January 2022
PRESERVATION OPTIONS
Depending on the circumstances of the at-risk projects, different options may be used to preserve or replace the units. The following discussion highlights ways that the City’s high and moderate at-risk units could be preserved as affordable housing. All of the presented alternatives are costly and beyond the ability of the City of Glendale to manage without large amounts of subsidy from federal and/or state resources.
Replacement Through New Construction
The construction of new lower income housing units is a means of replacing the at-risk units should they be converted to market rate. The cost of developing new housing depends on a variety of factors such as density, size of units, location and related land costs, and type of construction. Assuming an average development cost of $200,000 per unit for multifamily rental housing, replacement of the 557373 units with a high (241 units) or moderate ( 132316 units) risk of conversion would require approximately $ 111.474.6M, excluding land costs, which vary depending upon location.
Purchase of Replacement Units
One preservation option is for a non-profit organization to purchase similar units. By purchasing similar units, a non-profit organization can secure lower-income restrictions and potentially enable the project to become eligible for a greater range of governmental assistan ce. The cost of purchasing similar units depends on a number of factors, including the market conditions at the time, occupancy rate, and physical conditions of the units to be acquired.
Current market value for the at-risk units is estimated on the basis of the units’ potential annual income, and operating and maintenance expenses. The estimated market value of Glendale’s current stock of units with a moderate to high risk of conversion is $ 139.393.3M ($250,000 per unit). This estimate is provided for the purpose of comparison and understanding the magnit ude of costs involved and does not represent the precise market value of the at-risk units or units that could be purchased to offset converted units. The actual market value at time of sale would depend on market and property conditions, lease-out/turnover rates, among other factors.
Purchase of Affordability Covenants
Another option to preserve the affordability of at-risk projects is to provide an incentive package to the owners to maintain the projects as affordable housing. Incentives could include writing down the interest rate on the remaining loan balance, and/or supplementing the subsidy amount received to market levels.
To purchase the affordability covenant on these proj ects, an incentive package should include interest subsidies at or below what the property owners can obtain in the open market. To enhance the attractiveness of the incentive package, the interest subsidies may need to be combined with rent subsidies that supplement the HUD fair market rent levels.
Rental Assistance
Tenant-based rent subsidies could be used to preserve the affordability of housing. Similar to Housing Choice Vouchers, the City, through a variety of potential fundi ng sources, could provide rent subsidies to very low- income households. The level of the subsidy required to preserve the at-risk units is estimated to equal the Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a unit minus the housing cost affordable by a very low-income household.
Approximately $ 498,515333,835 in rent subsidies would be required monthly (or $ 6.04.0M annually).
Assuming a 20-year affordability period, the total subsidy is about $119.680.1M.
1077 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐55 | January 2022
Cost Comparisons
In terms of cost effectiveness for preservation of the 557 at-risk units, 20 years’ worth of rent subsidies ($119.6M) is fairly comparable to the cost of construction of replacement units ($111.4 million); however, the cost identified to construct replacement units excludes the price of land, which can add a significant expense to the overall project. While the cost of purchasing the affordability covenants is unknown, it is possible that it would provide a cost-effective strategy for preser ving the at-risk units and should be explored further to support the City’s preservation objectives. The following are strategies the City will undertake to work towards preservation of the 557 at-risk units in these projects:
Monitor At-Risk Units: Contact property owners with in at least one year of the affordability expiration date to discuss City’s desire to preserve as affordable housing. Explore Funding Sources/Program Options: As ne cessary, contract with the California Housing Partnership Corporation to explore outside funding sources and program options for preservation. Purchase of Affordabilit y Covenants: Proactively identify potential partners interested in purchasing and extending expiring affordability covenants.
Tenant Education: Property owners are required to give a twelve-month notice of their intent to opt out of low-income use re strictions. The City will work with tenants, and as necessary contact specialists like the California Housing Partnership to provide education regarding tenant rights and conversion procedures.
Qualified Entities
Qualified entities are non-profit or for-profit organizations with the legal and managerial capacity to acquire and manage at-risk properties that agree to maintain the long-term affordability of projects. HCD maintains a list of qualified organizations, and there are many that have an interest in properties located in Glendale and Los Angeles County, including Southern Califor nia Presbyterian Homes and California Community Reinvestment Corporation, both of which are located in Glendale. Table 39 lists the qualified entities in Los Angeles County. Federal, State, and local financing and subsidy programs that may be considered to preserve at-risk units are listed in the Resources section below.
1078 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐56 | January 2022
Table 39: Qualified Entities in Los Angeles County, 2021
Source: California Department of Housing and Community Development, 2021 Organization City
West Hollywood Community Housing Corp. Pomona
City of Pomona Housing Authority Hollywood
Hollywood Community Housing Corp. Los Angeles
Hope - Net Los Angeles
Skid Row Housing Trust Long Beach
The Long Beach Housing Development Co. Los Angeles
Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles Culver City Century Housing Corporation Los Angeles
FAME Corporation Midway City
American Family Housing Lafayette
The Long Beach Housing Development Co. Los Angeles
PICO Union Housing Corporation Los Angeles
Korean Youth & Community Center, Inc. (KYCC) Long Beach Long Beach Affordable Housing Coalition, Inc Laguna Beach Housing Corporation of America Los Angeles
Abode Communities Glendale
Southern California Presbyterian Homes Los Angeles
The East Los Angeles Community Union (TELACU) Los Angeles LTSC Community Development Corporation Orange
Nexus for Affordable Housing Inglewood
Francis R. Hardy, Jr. Irvine
A Community of Friends Thousand Oaks
Many Mansions, Inc. Los Angeles
Winnetka King, LLC Los Angeles
Los Angeles Housing & Community Invest Dept Orange
Orange Housing Development Corporation Los Angeles
Home and Community Anaheim
Hart Community Homes San Diego
Keller & Company Los Angeles
Poker Flats LLC Los Angeles
Coalition for Economic Survival Los Angeles
Clifford Beers Housing, Inc. Monrovia
CSI Support & Development Services Santa Clara
ROEM Development Corporation North Hills
Abbey Road Inc. Irvine
Innovative Housing Opportunities, Inc. Los Angeles
Community Development Commission Alhambra
Los Angeles County Development Authority Los Angeles
Santa Fe Art Colony Tenants Association Azusa
San Gabriel Valley Habitat for Humanity, Inc. Los Angeles New Economics for Women Los Angeles
Santa Fe Art Colony Tenants Association Westchester
L + M Fund Management LLC El Segundo
Alliance Property Group Inc Pomona
1079 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐57 | January 2022
3J. Estimates of Housing Need
Several factors influence the degree of demand, or “need,” for housing in Glendale. The major needs categories considered in this element include:
Housing needs resulting from the overcrowding of units. Housing needs that result when households pay more than they can afford for housing. Housing needs of “special needs groups” such as elderly, large families, female-headed households, households with a disabled person, and persons experiencing homelessnessthe homeless.
State law requires that cities quantify existing housing need in their Housing Element. Table 40 summarizes the findings.
Table 40: Summary of Needs
Summary of Households/Persons with Identified Housing Need Percent of Total Population/Households
Households Overpaying for Housing:
% of Renter Households Overpaying 57%
% of Owner Households Overpaying 37%
% of Extremely Low-income Households (0-30% AMI) Overpaying 88% % of Very Low-income Househ olds (0-30% AMI) Overpaying 90% % of Low-income Households (0-30% AMI) Overpaying 65%
Overcrowded Households:
Overcrowded Renter Households 6.6%
Overcrowded Owner Households 3.1%
All Overcrowded Households 5.5%
Special Needs Groups:
Elderly Persons/Households 17.5% of pop.
25.9% of households
Disabled Persons 13.7% of pop.
Developmentally Disabled Persons 1.5% of pop.
Large Households 7.0% of households
Female-Headed Households 18.8% of households
Female-Headed Households with Children 1.9% of households Farmworkers 0.2% of labor force
HomelessPersons Experiencing Homelessness 169 persons (2020) Affordable Housing Units At-Risk of Conversion to Market Rate Costs 373 557 units Sources: US Census, 2015-2019 ACS; HUD Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS), 2013-2017
1080 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐58 | January 2022
4. Constraints
Constraints to housing development are defined as government measures or non-governmental conditions that limit the amount or timing of residential development.
Government regulations can potentially constrain the supply of housing available in a community if the regulations limit the opportunities to develop housing, impose requirements that unnecessarily increase the cost to develop housing, or make the development process so arduous as to discourage housing developers.
State law requires housing elements to contain an analysis of the governmental constraints on housing maintenance, improvement, and development (Government Code Section 65583(a)(4)).
Non-governmental constraints (required to be analyzed under Government Code Section 65583(a)(5)) cover land prices, construction costs, and financing. While local governments cannot control prices or costs, identification of these constraints can be helpful to Glendale in formulating housing programs. 4A. Governmental Constraints
Housing affordability is affected by factors in both the private and public sectors. Actions by the City can have an impact on the price and availability of housing in Glendale. Land use controls, site improvement requirements, building codes, fees, and other local programs intended to improve the overall quality of housing may serve as a constraint to housing devel opment. These governmental constraints can limit the operations of the public, private, and non-profit sectors, making it difficult to meet the demand for affordable housing and limiting supply in a region. All City zoning regulations, development standards, specific plans, and fees are posted online and available to the public, consistent with the requirements of AB 1483. 4A.1 Land Use Controls
Local land use policies and regulations impact the price and availability of housing, including affordable housing. This section discusses the General Plan land use designations and provisions in the Zoning Code relative to the types of housing allowed within Glendale as a potential governmental constraint.
GENERAL PLAN
The General Plan Land Use Element sets forth land use designations that guide the location, type, and intensity or density of permitted uses of land in th e City of Glendale. The Zoning Code (Title 30 of the Municipal Code) implements the General Plan by providing specific direction and development standards for each zoning district. Table 41 shows residential land uses, the corr esponding zoning designation, and permitted densities allowed for housing. In addition to residential land uses, the City’s Land Use Element establishes a Mixed Use District which allows for a more flexible mix of commercial, industrial, and residential land uses. Areas within the General Plan Land Use Map that are subject to Specific Plans are described below.
Table 41: General Plan Residential Land Use Designations General Plan
Designation Description Zone
Symbol Zoning Description
Very Low
Density/Open Space
Variable density development located in Glendale’s major mountainous areas. This designation allows a maximum
density of 0.45 – 3.0 du/ac based on the steepness of the slope.
ROS Residential Open Space
(up to 3 du/ac)
Low Density
Residential
For development compatible with Glendale’s existing single family developed neighborhoods. This designation allows a variable density of 0.45 – 8 du/ac based on the steepness of the slope and development characteristics of existing
neighborhoods.
R1R, R1
Restricted Residential
(up to 3 du/ac); Low
Density Residential (up
to 7 du/ac)
1081 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐59 | January 2022
General Plan
Designation Description Zone
Symbol Zoning Description
Moderate Density
Residential
For a mixture of single-family and moderate size townhouse developments located in the western, southeastern, and
northern portions of the City. This designation allows a maximum density of 9 – 14 du/ac.
R-3050
Moderate Density
Residential (up to 14
du/ac)
Medium Density
Residential
For townhomes and smaller garden apartments located mainly in the southern portions of the City, with small pockets in the western and northern portions. This designation allows a maximum density of 15 – 19 du/ac.
R-2250
Medium Density
Residential (up to 19
du/ac)
Medium High Density
Residential
Intended for medium size garden apartments located in
northern and central Glendale. This designation allows a maximum density of 20 – 26 du/ac.
R-1650
Medium High Density
Residential (up to 26
du/ac)
High Density
Residential
Provides for relatively large multiple dwelling complexes generally centered around the Downtown Specific Plan area.
This designation allows a maximum density of 35 – 60 du/ac.
R-1250 High Density Residential
(up to 34 du/ac)
Mixed Use
Intended compatible mix of commercial, industrial, and
residential land uses, which ca n be vertically or horizontally integrated and are generally located along the City’s major arterials. This designation allows density of 35 to 100 du/ac depending on the adjoining land use and zone district
designation.
SFMU,
IMU-R
Commercial/Residential
Mixed Use
1;
Industrial/Commercial-
Residential Mixed Use
1 Sources: City of Glendale General Plan, 2016; City of Glendale Zoning Code, 2021
1. 35 dwelling units per acre when abutting the R1, R1R or ROS zones; 87 dwelling units per acre when abutting the R-3050, R-2250, R-1650 and R-1250 zones; 100 dwelling units per acre when not abutting the R1, R1R, ROS, R-3050, R-2250, R-1650 or R-1250 zone; properties separated by an alley shall be considered as abutting The City recognizes that its High Density Residential Zone allows for densities between 35 and 60 du/ac, but the corresponding zone (R-1250) provides for a lo wer density of approximately 34 du/ac. While this inconsistency has not been an obvious problem in the past (the City has not received any inquires, questions, or complaints regarding this misalignment), the City is in the process of updating its General Plan Land Use Element and will be including, as part of that Element, the necessary evaluation for right-sizing density and directing subsequent efforts to update the City’s Zo ning Code to create consistency between the land use designations and zoning designations. Moreover, the City’s existing Land Use Element is several decades old, and it is possible that areas designated for “high density residential” are effectively implemented through alternative zoning techniques, such as one of the City’s Specific Plans. This will also be studied as part of the City’s Land Use Element Update.
SPECIFIC PLANS
A specific plan is a comprehensive planning document that guides the development of a defined geographic area in a mix of uses including residential, comme rcial, industrial, schools, and parks and open space.
Specific plans typically include more detailed info rmation than the General Plan about land use, traffic circulation, development standards, affordable hous ing programs, resource management strategies, and a comprehensive infrastructure plan. Specific plans are also used as a means of achieving superior design by providing flexibility in development standards beyond those contained in the Zoning Code.
The City Council has adopted two specific plans. Ea ch one contains detailed regulations, conditions, programs, and design criteria unique to a defined geographic area within Glendale and is intended to implement the General Plan. The adopted specific plans are consistent with the General Plan. Future specific plans, specific plan amendments, and development projects must be consistent with policies contained in the General Plan, including the General Plan Land Use Element. The following discussion summarizes the 1082 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐60 | January 2022
two specific plans, which may accommodate a significant portion of the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) through the planning period.
Glendale Downtown Specific Plan
The Glendale Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) was first adopted in 2006 and amended most recently in 2019.
The DSP is an urban design-oriented plan that establishes physical standards and land use regulations within the Downtown, based on an urban form that is compact and pedestrian-friendly. The plan outlines a framework for growth and redevelopment of the 220- acre planning area, which is centered along Brand Boulevard and generally bounded by Glenoaks Avenue to the north, Central and Columbus Avenues to the west, Glendale and Maryland Avenues to the east, and Elk and Colorado Streets to the south. The Specific Plan consists of eleven (11) districts, each with its own permitted land uses and design requirements. Uses in the Town Center District are subject to the Town Center Specific Plan. Residential uses are permitted (with 100% residential projects allowed by-right) in all districts with the exception of the Civic Centers District. The applicable development and parking standards are discussed in Table 42 below.
In the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) zone only, off-street parking requirements (discussed in Table 42 and Glendale Municipal Code Section 30.32.050) may be satisfied by paying a fee in lieu of each parking space not provided on-site, subject to the following restrictions:
New construction and building expansion projects shall pay a one-time fee prior to the issuance of a building permit;
Change of use for which a greater number of off-st reet parking spaces is required shall pay an annual fee. The first year’s fee shall be paid prior to the earlier issuance of a building permit or a zoning use certificate, and subsequent annual fees shall be pai d on the yearly anniversary date of the first payment;
New construction and building expansion projects ma y pay an in-lieu parking fee in order to satisfy any portion up to fifty (50) percent of required parking; Change of use projects may pay an in-lieu parking fee in order to satisfy any portion up to one hundred (100) percent of required parking;
The in-lieu parking fee may be used in conjuncti on with other methods for satisfying the minimum parking requirements; and
The in-lieu fees payable under this section shall be in the amount set by the council by resolution.
Glendale Town Center Specific Plan
The Glendale Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) is a transit-oriented, mixed-use revitalization plan for Glendale’s Central Business District. The TCSP is on 16.5-acres located in Downtown and bounded by Brand Boulevard to the east, Colorado Street to the south, Central Avenue to the west, and the Glendale Galleria to the north. The TCSP serves as the guiding document to provide policy, regulatory, and design guidance within the project area. The TCSP sets forth a plan that transitions the project area from blighted parking lots and vacant office buildings into a compact transit-oriented mixed-use district that allows for development of new commercial/retail mixed-use and housing projects.
The TCSP allows for a mixture of multi-family resid ential uses, which are permitted by right, and live-work units, which are permitted subject to an Administra tive Use Permit (AUP). Table 42 outlines the site development standards established for residential units within the Specific Plan area.
The plan area is completely built-out as the Amer icana lifestyle center with no remaining development capacity remaining. The Housing Element does not inclu de any sites in the Town Center Specific Plan. All development standards associated with the TCSP are out lined in the following table, however, these standards are effectively irrelevant given that the project area is recently built-out with no plans for redevelopment within the next twenty years. The project was developed in accordance with these standards 1083 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐61 | January 2022
and given that it completely developed, no existing standards for the TCSP represent a constraint to development of housing at this location.
Table 42: Residential Development Standards – Specific Plans Development Standard (Residential) DSP TCSP
Density (acre) 90 - 250 du/ac 100 du/ac (338 units max. over planning area)
Minimum Unit Size
Affordable/Senior 540 sf --
Efficiency/One-
bedroom units 600 sf 600 sf
Two-bedroom 800 sf 800 sf
Three-bedroom
1,000 sf + 90 cubic ft of
private
storage space/unit
1,000 sf
Setbacks
Total Setback Width 15’ (residential)
16’ (mixed-use residential)
N/A
Parkway 4’ (residential)
5’ (mixed-use residential)
N/A
Sidewalk 6’ (residential)
8’ (mixed-use residential)
N/A
Building Adjacent
Zone (Average)
5’ (residential)
3’ (mixed-use residential)
N/A
Maximum Building Height 35’-245’
50’-380’ w/ public benefit2
75’ or 7 stories, whichever
is less
Private Open Space 140 sf per du 1 140 sf per du
Parking
One-bedroom units – 1
space
Two-or-more-bedroom units
– 2 spaces
+ 1 guest parking space per
every 10 units
2 spaces per du + 0.25
guest per du
Source: Glendale Town Center Specific Plan, 2017
1. Open Space: New residential development shall meet the requirements of 5.3 (1) and (2) and shall also provide additional outdoor space equal to a minimum of 140 square feet per residential and/or live-work unit.
2. Three story multifamily developments are allowed by right in the Downtown Specific Plan areas that limit height to a maximum of 35 feet.
On-site parking requirements for each separate land use (e.g., residential and retail development as part of a mixed-use project) are applicable and shall be added together to determine the total parking requirements for the project. All residential parking must be fully enclosed in a subterranean and/or above-grade parking structure, with provisions allowing for shared park ing between residential and commercial uses as well as tandem parking for residential uses and attendant and valet parking.
1084 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐62 | January 2022
ZONING CODE
Land use policies in the General Plan are implemented primarily through the Zoning Code. The Zoning Code provides for a range of densities and residential uses and is designed to protect and promote the health, safety, and general welfare of residents, which includes preserving the character and integrity of established residential neighborhoods. To that end, the City has established specific development standards that apply to residential construction in various districts. These include density, lot coverage, building height, parking standards, and other applicable requirements.
Provisions for a Variety of Housing Types
State housing element law requires that jurisdictions facilitate and encourage a range of housing types for all economic segments of the community. This includes the production of housing to meet the needs of different types of households with incomes ranging from low to above moderate. The Housing Element is the City’s plan for achieving this objective.
As shown in Table 43 through Table 45, the City’s Zoning Code accommodates a wide variety of conventional and special needs housing, including single-family dw ellings, duplexes, multifamily, ADUs, manufactured housing, residential care facilities (small and large), and tr ansitional and supportive housing. In an effort to minimize constraints and allow greater flexibility in the types of residential uses, the City of Glendale simplified its housing types. Having fewer, but broader, housing categories allows greater consistency and predictability, as well as flexibility in zoning to accommodate new housing types and supportive services.
The City identifies five primary residential categories for the purposes of zoning, as follows:
Dwelling, One Residential
Dwelling, Multiple Residential
Residential Congregate Living Limi ted (6 or fewer individuals) Residential Congregate Living, Non- Medical (7 or more individuals) Residential Congregate Living, Medical (7 or more individuals) These residential categories and special needs housing types are described below. The City’s Zoning Code allows for 100% residential projects, by-right, in the SFMU zone and with an AUP in the IMU-R zone.
1085 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐63 | January 2022
Table 43: Permitted Residential Uses by Zone (Residential Districts) Housing Type
Residential Zones
ROS R1R R1 R3050 R2250 R1650 R1250
Conventional Housing
One Residential Dwelling
Per Lot P P P P P P P
Multiple Residential
Dwellings -- -- -- P P P P
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P P
Mobile/Manufactured
Housing P P P P P P P
Special Needs Housing
Domestic Violence Shelter P P P P P P P
Residential congregate
living, limited P P P P P P P
Residential congregate
living, medical -- -- -- -- C C C
Residential congregate
living, non-medical -- -- -- C C C C
Senior housing -- -- -- P P P P
Source: City of Glendale Zoning Code, 2021
Notes: “P” = Permitted; “C” = Conditional Use Permit; “A” = Administrative Use Permit; and “--” = Not Permitted
1086 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐64 | January 2022
Table 44: Permitted Residential Uses by Zone (Commercial Districts) Housing Type
Commercial Zones
C1 C2 C3 CR CPD CH
Conventional Housing
One Residential Dwelling
Per Lot 1 P P P P P P
Multiple Residential
Dwellings
2 P P P P -- P
Multiple residential
dwellings with dwelling
units at the ground floor
level
1 C C C -- -- C
Accessory Dwelling Unit P P P P P P
Special Needs Housing
Domestic Violence Shelter P P P P P P
Emergency Shelter -- C C -- -- C
Residential congregate
living, limited
3 P P P P P P
Residential congregate
living, medical A P P -- -- P
Residential congregate
living, non-medical
2 P P P -- -- P
Residential congregate
living, non-medical at the
ground floor level
1 A A A -- -- A
Senior Housing 2 P P P P -- P
Senior Housing at the
ground floor level
1 C C C C -- C
Source: City of Glendale Zoning Code, 2021
Notes: “P” = Permitted; “C” = Conditional Use Permit; “A” = Administrative Use Permit; and “--” = Not Permitted
1. Subject to the provisions of the R-1250 zone.
2. Subject to the provisions of the R-1250 zone and provided further that ground floor level is occupied with permitted commercial uses.
3. Subject to the provisions of one residential dwelling per lot in the R-1250 zone.
1087 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐65 | January 2022
Table 45: Permitted Residential Uses by Zone (Other Districts) Housing Type
Industrial Special
Purpose Mixed Use Specific Plans
IND MS IMU IMU-R SFMU DSP4 TCSP
Conventional Housing
One Residential Dwelling
Per Lot -- P 1 -- -- -- -- --
Multiple Residential
Dwellings Units -- P
1 -- A P 2 P P
Live/Work Unit C -- A A P 3 P A 5
Live/Work Units with
conditionally permitted uses C -- C C C
3 C A 5
Accessory Dwelling Unit -- P -- P P P --P
Special Needs Housing
Domestic Violence Shelter P P P P P P --
Emergency Shelter P P P -- -- -- --
Residential congregate
living, limited -- P -- -- P C --
Residential congregate
living, medical -- P -- A A -- --
Residential congregate
living, non-medical -- P -- A A P --
Senior Housing -- P -- C P 2 P --
Source: City of Glendale Zoning Code, 2021
Notes: “P” = Permitted; “C” = Conditional Use Permit; “A” = Administrative Use Permit; and “--” = Not Permitted
1. Subject to provisions of the R-2250 zone.
2. When fronting San Fernando Road, Broadway, or Colorado Street, only allowed as mixed-use projects with commercial uses located along the street frontage as required in Section 30.34.100.
3. For lots having frontage along San Fernando Road, Broadway, and Colorado Street, manufacturing and processing uses shall not be on the ground floor fronting these streets.
4. Includes all Downtown Specific Plan districts except for Civic Centers and Town Center districts.
5. Minor Administrative Use Permit.
Dwelling, one residential: means a detached building designed exclusively for occupancy by one (1) household. On-site support services personnel and equi pment to maintain independent living is limited to residents of the dwelling. This housing type is permitted by right in all residential and commercial zones, as well as the MS zone. Projects are subject to a ministerial review. Projects proposing a subdivision are subject to review by the Planning Commission or Planning Commission and City Council.
Dwelling, multiple residential: means a building or portion thereof designed for occupancy by two (2) or more persons or households living independently of each other in separate units. Includes apartments, townhouses or similar buildings. On-site support services personnel and equipment to maintain independent living is limited to residents of the dwelling. This housing type is permitted by right in the R3050, R2250, R1650, R1250, C1, C2, C3, CR, CH, MS, SMFU, DS P, and TCSP zones, and permitted in the IMU-R zone subject to an Administrative Use Permit.
1088 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐66 | January 2022
Live/Work Unit: means an integrated dwelling unit and working space (e.g., the creation and retail sales of arts and crafts), occupied and utilized by a single housekeeping unit in a structure that has been modified or designed to accommodate joint residential occupancy and work activity, and which includes complete kitchen and sanitary facilities in compliance with applicable building standards and working space reserved for and regularly used by one (1) or more occupants of the unit, in addition to any other employees. The commercial use must be one permitted by the applicable land use tables. Live/work units are permitted in the SFMU and DSP zones by right, in the IND zone subject to a conditional use permit, in the TCSP zone subject to a Minor Administrative Permit, and in the IMU, and IMU-R, zones subject to an Administrative Use Permit, unless the commercial use permitted is a conditional use in which case the live/work unit is subject to a Conditional Use Permit or Administrative Use Permit.
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU): Government Code Section 65852.2(a)(1) allows local agencies to designate areas within a city where accessory dwelling units (A DU) may be permitted and to impose development standards addressing issues such as uni t size, height, setbacks, lot coverage, parking, landscaping, and architectural review. The City recently (2020) updated Chapter 30.34 of its Municipal Code to be consistent with California Government Code Sections 65852.150 and 65852.2, which establish regulations for accessory dwelling units.
Glendale Municipal Code Section 30.34.080 was amended to define an accessory dwelling unit as “an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping eating, cooking, and s anitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multifamily dwelling is or will be situated.” An access ory dwelling unit also includ es: an efficiency unit as defined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code; a manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.
Construction of an ADU or JADU (junior accessory dwelli ng unit) is permitted on a lot in zones that allow residential uses and include a proposed or existing dw elling. A building permit is required for an ADU and JADU pursuant to compliance with the minimum requirements described below and in Section 30.34.080 of the Zoning Code. Construction of ADUs shall be permitted on any residential or mixed-use zone that allows residential units, subject to the following criteria, which include (but are not limited to):
Sites developed or proposed to be developed with a single-family residence shall not be permitted more than one ADU.
Sites developed with a multifamily building ma y convert existing non-habitable square footage, including detached accessory buildings, garages, ca rports, or covered parking structures to a minimum one ADU and a maximum that shall not exceed twenty-five percent of the number of units on the site. Sites developed with a multifamily building are also permitted to construct up to three ADUs.
A maximum of one JADU shall be permitted on a site developed or proposed to be developed with a single-family residence.
The approval process is ministerial in nature, and the City must approve or deny an application for a building permit to construct an ADU or JADU within 60 days afte r receiving a complete application. If a complete application for a building permit to construct an ADU or JADU is submitted in connection with an application to construct a new primary dwelling on a lot, the app lication may not be approved until the application is approved for the new dwelling. The application for t he ADU or JADU must be processed ministerially regardless of the approvals required for the primary dwelling. Further, the ordinance sets forth the following development standards for ADUs:
1089 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐67 | January 2022
Table 46: ADU and JADU Development Standards
Specific Regulations ADU JADU Additional Provisions Attached Detached Minimum Size 220 sf 220 sf 150 sf
Maximum Size 0-1 bdrm: 850 sf
2+ bdrm: 1,000 sf
0-1 bdrm: 850 sf
2+ bdrm: 1,000 sf 500 sf (1)(2)
Maximum Height 16 ft 16 ft --
Minimum Interior Setback 4 ft 4 ft --
Maximum Lot Coverage/Use Intensity Subject to underlying zoning development standards --
Open Space Subject to underlying zoning
development standards --
Maximum parking 1 space 1 space 1 space (3)(4)
Tandem Parking Yes Yes Yes
Source: City of Glendale Zoning Code, 2021
1. An attached accessory dwelling unit may not exceed 50% of the existing floor area of the primary dwelling on the site, not to exceed 850 square feet or 1,000 square feet in size for more than one bedroom.
2. For accessory dwelling units and/or junior accessory dwelling units where only one residential dwelling unit exists or is proposed on a lot, a new construction attached or detached accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted that is 800 square feet or less in size.
3. No parking for the ADU is required if one or more of the following applies:
a. The property is located within one-half (1/2) mile walking distance of a public transit stop. b. The property is listed on the California Register of Historic Places, Glendale Register of Historic Properties, or any property in an adopted historic district overlay zone with a building identified as a contributing building or structure in an adopted historic resources survey.
c. When the accessory dwelling unit is located within the existing primary residence or accessory living quarters. d. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of an accessory dwelling unit. e. When there is a car share vehicle lot, such as ZIP car, located within one (1) block of the accessory dwelling unit. f. When it is a junior accessory dwelling unit.
g. When an accessory dwelling unit(s) qualifies for approval under subsection 30.34.080(E)(4) or (F)(2).
4. Parking spaces shall not be required to be replaced when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or converted to an accessory dwelling unit.
Mobile Homes and Manufactured Housing: Mobile homes and manufactured homes are permitted in residential zones subject to the same zoning requirements as single-family residences, except for architectural requirements limited to roof overhangs, roofing material, and siding material.
Manufactured homes may be placed on individual lots that allow single-family residential uses provided that the homes are attached to a foundation system in compliance with all applicable building regulations and Section 18551 of the Health and Safety Code and occupied only as a residential use. Manufactured homes are subject to all Zoning Code provisions applicable to residential structures. A manufactured home is also permitted as an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) under the Zoning Code.
Mobile Home Park: The City of Glendale has no mobile home parks and mobile home parks are not permitted in the City.
1090 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐68 | January 2022
Lodging, Boarding House: See Residential congregate care living, limited.
Residential congregate care living, limited: means a dwelling including a common eating area, with or without on-site assistance with acti vities of daily living, limited to six (6) or fewer individuals or one (1) household. Residential congregate living, limited includes assisted living centers; boarding or lodging houses; residential congregate care facilities, limited; retirement and rest homes; supportive housing; and transitional housing. Residential congregate care living, limited uses are permitted by right in all residential zones, MS, and SFMU zones, all commercial zones subject to provisions of one residential dwelling unit per lot in the R- 1250 zone, and permitted in the DSP zone (except for Civic Centers and Town Center districts) subject to a CUP.
Residential congregate living, medical: means a residential use with or without private kitchens and including a common eating area, with or without on-site assistance with activities of daily living and on-site assistance with counseling or medical care, and with seven (7) or more beds. Residential congregate living, medical includes convalescent homes, extended care, and skilled nursing facilities. This use does not include hotels or motels which are defined separately. Residential congregate living, medical uses are permitted by right in the C2, C3, CH, and MS zones, permitted subject to a CUP in the R2250, R1650 and R1250 zones, and permitted subject to an AUP in the C1, IMU-R and SFMU zones.
Residential congregate living, non-medical: means a residential use with or without private kitchens and including a common eating area, with or without on-site assistance with activities of daily living, and with seven (7) or more individuals. Residential congregate living, non-medical includes assisted living centers; dormitories; fraternities or sororities; residential congregate care fac ilities, retirement and rest homes; supportive housing and transitional housing. This use does not include hotels and motels which are defined separately. Residential congregate living, non-medical uses are permitted by right in the C1, C2, C3, and CH zones (if located on the ground floor, an AUP is needed), permitted by right in the MS zone and in the DSP zone except for the Civic Centers and Town Center Districts, permitted subject to a CUP in R3050, R2250, R1650 and R1250 zones, and permitted subject to an AUP in IMU-R and SFMU zone.
Senior Housing: means a development consisting of dwelling un its, in which each unit is restricted for occupancy by at least one (1) person in each household who is sixty-two (62) years of age or older, or fifty- five (55) years or older if the development consists of thirty-five (35) units or more. Senior housing is permitted by right in the R3050, R2250, R1650, R1250, MS, SMFU, and DSP zones, and permitted in the IMU-R zone subject to an Administrative Use Permit. Senior hou sing is permitted by right in the C1, C2, C3, CR, CH zones, subject to the provisions of the R-1250 zone and provided further that ground floor level is occupied with permitted commercial uses. If senior housing occupies the ground floor in the commercial zones, it is permitted in the C1, C2, C3, CR, and CH zones subject to a conditional use permit and subject to the provisions of the R-1250 zone development standards.
Emergency Shelter: Emergency shelters are allowed in the C2, C3, and CH zones subject to a conditional use permit, which is discretionary action intended to ensure that the proposed site is suitable for emergency shelter use. Emergency shelters are also permitted in the IND, MS, and IMU zones by right, subject to ministerial review and approval and compliance with objective standards consistent with the requirements identified in Government Code Section 65583(a)(4). The City’s Zoning Code does not identify additional requirements or development standards for emergency shelters.
1091 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐69 | January 2022
The IND, MS, and IMU zones are suitable for emergency shelters because:
Shelters are compatible with a range of uses t hat are common in suburban communities and allowed in the industrial zo nes (e.g., live/work units, office buildings , assembly/meeting facilities, retail and service uses, etc.);
The IND and IMU zones are located along majo r corridors (San Fernando Road, Verdugo Road, Verdugo Boulevard) with easy access to public transit (bus and Metrolink Antelope Valley and Ventura Lines). The MS zone is largely concentrated around E Chevy Chase Drive near State Route- 134 (SR-134) and SR-2, and is also well served by public transportation; There is a mixture of existing uses in the industr ial zones that include light industrial, manufacturing, warehousing, office uses, and non-industrial uses; and
Although hazardous materials may be present and us ed on some of the properties within the IND zones, the majority of parcels are not known to be constrained by the presence of hazardous materials.
Three emergency shelters are currently located within Glendale with 83 beds available for homeless unhoused individuals. The Glendale 2020 Point-in-Time Count conducted by the City of Glendale Continuum of Care identified a citywide homeless unhoused population of 169. The sites inventory identifies 71 vacant sites with IND, MS, or IMU zoning (totaling 89.61 acres) with no recorded residential or nonresidential development according to the County Assessor, and 94 sites with C2, C3, and CH zoning (totaling 26.62 acres) with no recorded residential or nonresidential development according to the County Assessor. Looking specifically to sites between 1 acre and 3 acres in si ze (generally suitable to accommodate development of an emergency shelter), the City has identified 8 si tes across these zones which would be suitable for emergency shelters, totaling 14.04 acres. The vaca nt sites identified would be adequate to accommodate the remaining 86 emergency shelter beds needed to serve Glendale’s unhoused population, based on the latest point-in-time count.
Domestic Violence Shelter: means a residential facility which provides temporary accommodations to persons or families who have been the victims of domestic violence. Such a facility may also provide meals, counseling, and other services, as well as common areas for the residents of the facility. Domestic violence shelters are permitted by right in all residential and commercial districts, as well as the IND, MS, IMU, IMU- R, SFMU, and DSP zones.
Low Barrier Navigation Center: A low barrier navigation center is a housing first, low-barrier, service- enriched shelter focused on moving people into permanent housing that provides temporary living facilities while case managers connect individuals experienci ng homelessness to income, public benefits, health services, shelter, and housing. AB 2162 requires jurisdicti ons to further streamline approval of eligible low barrier navigation center applications in areas zo ned for mixed-use and residential zones permitting multifamily uses, subject to specific criteria. The City’s Zoning Code does not conform to these recent requirements; however, Program 9B in the Housing Plan requires the Zoning Code to be updated to address AB 2162.
Transitional and Supportive Housing: Transitional housing is a type of housing used to facilitate the movement of homeless individuals and families experiencing homelessness to permanent housing.
Transitional housing can take several forms, including group quarters with beds, single-family homes, and multifamily apartments and typically offers case management and support services to return people to independent living (usually between 6-24 months). T he Zoning Code defines transitional housing as “a residential use operated under program requirements t hat calls for the termination of assistance and recirculation of the assisted unit(s) to another eligible program recipient at some predetermined future point in time, which shall be no less than six (6) months.” This definition is consistent with Government Code Section 65582(j).
1092 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐70 | January 2022
According to the National Housing Institute, suppo rtive housing is permanent housing with a service component, which can be provided either on-site or off-site. The Zoning Code defines supportive housing as “a residential use with no limit on lengt h of stay, that is occupied by the target population, and that is linked to onsite or offsite support services that assist the resident in retaining housing, living independently, working in the community and improving his or her health status.” The target population includes persons with disabilities, elderly, youth aging out of the foster system, veterans, and homelesspersons experiencing homelessness. The City’s definition is consistent with Government Code Section 65582(g).
Senate Bill 2 provides that transitional housing and supportive housing that is a rental housing development constitutes a residential use. It requires zoning to trea t such uses as a residential use and subject only to those restrictions that apply to other residential uses of the same type in the same zone. The Currently, transitional and supportive housing would be classified in the Zoning Code under the Residential congregate care living, limited and residential congregate living, non-medical housing types. Program 9B in the Housing Plan would revise the Zoning Co de to allow transitional and supportive housing in any zone subject to the same standards as a residence of the same type in the same zone consistent with Government Code Section 65583(c)(3) and to allow eligible supportive housing as a use by right in zones where multifamily and mixed uses are permitted pursuant to Government Code Sections 65650 through 65656.allows transitional and supportive housing as a residential use, subject to the same permitting process and development standards as other residential uses. See Residential congregate care living, limited and residential congregate living, non-medical.
Single-Room Occupancy (SRO): Single-room occupancy (SRO) fac ilities are a housing type that is considered suitable to meet the needs of extremely low, very low, and low-income households. With high housing costs, many communities in California are exploring the use of single-room occupancy housing to fulfill the affordable housing needs of certain segments of the community, such as seniors, students, and single workers. The Glendale Zoning Code includes this housing type under the definition of “hotel or motel,.” which is permitted by right in the C2, C3, CH, and MS zones, permitted by right above the first floor in the CR zone, and permitted subject to a CUP in the IMU, IM U-R, and SFMU zones. Within the DSP, SROs are permitted by right in all districts except for the Town Center, where it is permitted subject to Administrative Use Permit, and the Civic Centers.
Housing for Disabled Persons: On January 1, 2002, SB 520 bec ame effective and required local jurisdictions to analyze local government constraints on developing, maintaining, and improving housing for persons with disabilities. In accordance with SB 520 and Government Code 65583(a)(7), the City recognizes the importance of providing housing for persons with disabilities. Persons with disabilities have a number of specific housing needs, including those related to des ign and location. Design needs generally include the removal of architectural barriers that limit the acce ssibility of dwelling units and construction of wheelchair ramps, railings, etc. Location needs include accessibility to public transportation, commercial services, health care, and supportive services. Some persons with disabilities need group housing opportunities, especially those who are lower-income or homelessexperiencing homelessness. The following discussion addresses these issues and determines that no specific City policy or regulation serves to impede the access that persons with disabilities have to housing that suits their specific needs.
Zoning and Land Use: The General Plan and Zoning Code provide for the development of multiple dwelling unit residential housing in the R3050, R2250, R1650, R1250, C1, C2, C3, CR, CH, MS, SMFU, DSP, and TCSP zones by right, and in the IMU-R zone subject to an Administrative Use Permit. Traditional multiple residential dwelling units for persons with special needs, such as apartments for the disabled, are considered regular residential uses permitted in these zones. The City’s land use policies and zoning provisions do not constrain the development of such housing.
1093 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐71 | January 2022
Under the Lanterman Developmental Disabilities Se rvices Act (Lanterman Act), small State-licensed residential care facilities for six or fewer persons must be permitted in all zones that allow single or multiple unit residential uses, subject to the same permit processing requirements and development standards. Small residential care facilities are addressed in the City’s Zoning Code under the housing category “residential congregate living, limited” and are permitted in in all zones that allow single or multiple unit residential uses, in compliance with the Lanterman Act. Large residential care facilities serving seven or more clients are addressed under the housing category “residential congregate living, non-medical” and are permitted by right in the C1, C2, C3, CH, and MS zones, the R3050, R2250, R1650, and R1250 zones subject to a conditional use permit, and the IMU-R and SFMU zones subject to Administrative Use Permit. The City is not aware of any residential care facilities serving seven or more people that have been burdened by the permitting process or unable to find a suitable site to locate, if desired. The City provides clear guidance for permitted and conditionally permitted uses in all zones and wo rks proactively with applicants to ensure that all requirements of the Zoning Code are understood. If an applicant for this type of use was to identify an issue with site selection or zoning standards, the City w ould work cooperatively to address any potential issues.
The City finds that the wa y it permits large resident ial care facilities does not constrain housing options for persons with disabilities. Occupancy standards for residential care facilities are the same as occupancy standards for all other residential uses. The Zoning Code definition of “residential congregate living, limited” and “residential congregate living, non-medical” en compasses and thus accommodates transitional and supportive housing in all residential zoning districts and subject only to the same requirements for residential uses of the same type in the same zone. These facilities may serve persons with disabilities.
Building Code: Building construction and procedures within Glendale are required to conform to the 2019 California Building Code. Standards within the Buildi ng Code include provisions to ensure accessibility for persons with disabilities. These standards are consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). No local amendments that would constr ain accessibility or increase the cost of housing for persons with disabilities have been adopted and City officials are not aware of any instances in which an applicant experienced delays or rejection of a retrofitting proposal for accessibility to persons with disabilities.
Reasonable Accommodation: Both the federal Fair Housing Act and the California Fair Employment and Housing Act direct local governments to make reasonable accommodation (i.e., modifications or exceptions) in their zoning laws and other land use regulations to allow disabled persons an equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling. For example, it may be a reasonabl e accommodation to waive a setback requirement so that elevated ramping can be constructed to provide access to a dwelling unit for a resident who has mobility impairments. Whether a particular modification is re asonable depends on the circumstances and must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
Reasonable accommodation refers to flexibility in standards and policies to accommodate the needs of persons with disabilities. The City’s zoning and buildi ng codes, as well as approach to code enforcement, allow for special provisions that meet the needs of per sons with disabilities without the need for variances.
The City’s Reasonable Accommodation Ordinance is codified in Chapter 30.52 of the Zoning Code.
The City’s Community Development Director has admin istrative/ministerial authority to hear and decide applications for reasonable accommodation to allow reasonable remedy from zoning and other land use regulations, policies, and procedures for individuals with physical or mental impairment. A request for reasonable accommodation may include a modification or exception to the rules, standards, and practices for the siting, development, and use of housing or housing-related facilities that would eliminate regulatory barriers and provide a person with a disability equal opportunity to housing of their choice.
1094 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐72 | January 2022
Reasonable accommodation applications are not charged a fee for review and the reviewing authority must consider all of the following factors:
1. That the dwelling, which is the subject of the request for reasonable accommodation(s) is used by an individual with a disability protected under the Acts;
2. That the requested accommodation is necessary to make the dwelling available to an individual with a disability protected under the Acts;
3. That the requested accommodation(s) would not impose an undue financial or administrative burden on the city;
4. That the requested accommodation(s) would not re quire a fundamental alteration in the nature of the city’s overall land use and zoning program;
5. That the requested accommodation(s), considered si ngly and the project in total, would be in keeping with and not detrimental to the neighborhood character and would not result in a substantial increase in traffic; and
6. If the director of community development grant s, or grants with modifications, the request, the request shall be granted to the disabled individual and shall not run with the land unless the director of community development also finds that the modification is physically integrated into the structure and cannot be easily removed or altered to comply with the city’s zoning regulations or policies.
Conclusion: Current planning policies and zoning regul ations have mitigated potential constraints to the availability of housing for persons with disabilities. The City has analyzed its Zoning Code and procedures to ensure that it is providing flexibility in, and not co nstraining the development of, housing for persons with disabilities. Additionally, the City does not have a definition of “family” thereby providing maximum flexibility.
The City has concluded that Finding 5 above could be co nsidered a constraint to housing for persons with disabilities; the City has included Program 9B to modify this Finding to create a more objective standard.
Employee Housing: The Employee Housing Act asserts that employee housing for six persons or less shall be allowed in the same way residential structures are a llowed in zones allowing residential uses and that employee housing for up to 12 units or 36 beds shall be deemed an agricultural use and must be subject to the same regulations as any other agricultural use in the same zone (Health and Safety Code, Section 17000 et seq.). There are no provisions in the City’s Zoni ng Code to restrict employee housing for six or fewer employees. As stated previously in this report, the City of Glendale is not an agricultural community and there are no parcels zoned for agricultural use. Nonetheless, Program 9B in the Housing Plan will update the City’s Zoning Code to comply with the Employee Housing Act.
Development Standards
Development standards directly shape the form and intensity of residential development by providing controls over land use, heights and volumes of buildings, open space on a site, etc. Site development standards also ensure a quality living environment for all household groups in the City, including special groups such as lower and moderate-income households and senior ci tizens. Table 47 summarizes development standards in the residential, single unit per lot zones (ROS, R1R, R1); Table 48 summarizes development standards in the residential, multiple units zones (R3050, R2250, R1650, R1250); and Table 49 summarizes development standards in the mixed-use zones, including density, minimum lot size, setbacks, lot coverage, and building height, by zoning district.
1095 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐73 | January 2022
Table 47: Basic Residential Development Standards – Single Unit Per Lot Development Standard ROS R1R R1
Density Maximum 1 du/lot 1 1 du/lot 1
1 du/lot. For residential
subdivision w/ 5 lots or
more, not to exceed an
average of 1 du per
each 5,500 sq. ft. of site
area
Minimum Lot Size
Area (sq. ft) 12,000 2 12,000 2 5,500 2
Width (ft) 100 ft except lots at terminus of cul-de-sac street, which have min. 80 ft N/A
Maximum Lot Coverage (% of lot area) 40%
FAR Maximum
District I: 0.30 for the 1st 10,000 sq. ft. of lot area and 0.10 for the portion of lot area thereafter
District II: 0.40 for the 1st 10,000 sq. ft. of lot area and 0.10 for the portion of lot area thereafter
District III: 0.45 for the 1st 10,000 sq. ft. of lot area and 0.10 for the portion of lot area thereafter
FAR shall not include up to 500 sq. ft. of garage area as specified in the definition of the term for dwelling units having a floor area of less than 3,500 sq. ft. Up to 700 sq. ft. of garage area shall not be included for dwelling units having a floor area of 3,500 sq. ft. or more.
Lots with an average current slope of 40% or
greater, the maximum floor area ratio shall be
0.30 for the first 10,000 sq. ft. of lot area and 0.10
for the portion of lot area thereafter.
N/A
Setbacks 3
Street Front 15 ft. 25 ft.
Side Street 15 ft. 6 ft.
Interior 10 ft. 10 ft. 4 6 ft.4
Maximum Primary Dwelling Height 2 Stories 5 or 32 ft (plus 3 feet for any roofed area having a minimum pitch of 3 feet in 12 feet)
25 ft (plus 3 feet for any
roofed area having a
minimum pitch of 3 feet
in 12 feet)
Minimum Open Space 40% minimum of the lot area (See Chapter 30.31 for additional requirements) Sources: City of Glendale Zoning Code, 2021.
1. See Section 30.11.040 (D)(1) for density requirements.
2. As required by Section 30.11.060.
3. See Section 30.11.070 for setback exceptions.
4. All buildings and structures and additions to such buildings and structures for which a building permit has been issued in the R1R and R1 zone permitted prior to May 2, 1991, shall be set back from the interior property lines a minimum of 4 feet for building s or structures 20 feet or lower in height; not less than 5 feet for buildings or structures over 20 feet and equal to or less than 30 feet in height; and, not less than 6 feet for buildings or structures over 30 feet in height.
5. An additional story shall be permitted where the primary building is located on a portion of a lot having an average current slope of forty (40) percent (21.8 degrees) or steeper. The portion of a lot to be measured for the purpose of this section shall be the smallest possible polygon, in terms or area, necessary to enclose the primary building and having a maximum of four (4) sides.
1096 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐74 | January 2022
Table 48: Basic Residential Development Standards – Multiple Units per Lot Development Standard R3050 R2250 R1650 R1250
Density Maximum 1 du/3,050 sq.
ft.
1 du/2,250 sq. ft.
(1 du/1,800 sf. ft.
for lots with width
of 90 ft. or
greater)
1 du/1,650 sq. ft.
(1 du/1,320 sf. ft.
for lots with width
of 90 ft. or
greater)
1 du/1,250 sq.
ft. (1 du/1,000
sf. ft. for lots
with width of 90
ft. or greater)
Minimum Lot Size (Area/Width) N/A
Maximum Lot Coverage (% of lot area) 50%
FAR Maximum 0.65 0.85 1.0 1.2
Setbacks 1
Street Front 25 ft. min.
20 ft. min. and an average of 23 ft. for any garage or first residential floor; 23 ft. min. and an average of 26 ft. for 2 nd and 3rd residential floors (see Diagram 1 in Figure
30.11.030)
Side Street
5 ft. min and an average of 8 ft. for 1 st residential floor; 8 ft. min and an average of 11 ft. for 2 nd residential floor; and 11 ft. min. and an average of 14 ft. for 3 rd residential floor (see Diagram 2 in Figure 30.11.030) Interior 2
5 ft. min and an average of 8 ft. for 1 st residential floor; 8 ft. min and an average of 11 ft. for 2 nd residential floor; and 11 ft. min. and an average of 14 ft. for 3 rd residential floor (see Diagram 2 in Figure 30.11.030) Maximum Primary Dwelling Height 3 stories or 36 ft. 3
2 stories or 26 ft. 3 on lots w/ width of 90 ft. or less Minimum Open Space
30% of lot area
(see Chapter
30.31 for
additional
requirements)
25% of lot area (see Chapter 30.31 for additional
requirements)
Sources: City of Glendale Zoning Code, 2021.
1. See Section 30.11.070 for setback exceptions.
2. If abutting ROS, R1R or R1 zones (excluding chimneys, railings and vents), 8 feet minimum and an average of 11 feet for the first residential floor; not less than 11 feet and an average of 14 feet for the second residential floor; and not less than 17 feet and an average of 20 feet for the third residential floor.
3. Additional five (5) feet of height shall be permitted for any roofed area having a minimum pitch of three (3) feet in twelve (12) feet.
1097 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐75 | January 2022
Table 49: Basic Residential Development Standards – Mixed-Use Districts Development Standard IMU IMU-R SFMU
Density Maximum N/A
35 dwelling units per acre when abutting the R1, R1R or ROS zones; 87 dwelling units per acre when abutting the R-3050, R-2250. R-1650 and R-1250 zones; 100
dwelling units per acre when not abutting the R1, R1R,
ROS, R-3050, R-2250, R-1650 or R-1250 zone
Minimum Lot Size Area 10,000 sq. ft. 10,000 sq. ft. 1 10,000 sq. ft.
Width 100 ft.
Maximum Lot Coverage (% of lot area) N/A N/A
FAR Maximum N/A N/A N/A
Setbacks 2
Street Front
& Side Street None3 (10 ft. at corner of an intersection 4) Interior None
Abutting a
Residential
Zone
15 ft. for the first two stories when abutting an R1, R1R or ROS zone and 25 ft. for the third story
5 Maximum Primary Dwelling Height 50 ft. 6
36 ft. and 3 stories, when abutting the R1, R1R or ROS
zones; 60 ft. and 4 stories when abutting the R-3050, R- 2250, R-1650 and R-1250 zones; 75 ft. and 6 stories
when not abutting the R1, R1R, ROS, R-3050, R-2250,
R-1650 or R-1250 zone 6
Landscaping N/A Minimum 10% of lot area (see Chapter 30.31 for additional requirements)
Sources: City of Glendale Zoning Code, 2021.
1. Minimum lot size for multi-family development. The minimum lot size in the IMU-R zoning district shall be 15,000 sq. ft. for new multifamily housing development.
2. See Section 30.14.050 for setback exceptions
3. Minimum setbacks. In the IMU, IMU-R and SFMU zoning districts, there are no setbacks required from the street property line, except as required for corner cutoffs at intersections. If setbacks are provided, these areas shall only be used for landscaping and active pedestrian areas (e.g., plazas, outdoor dining). Surface parking lots and vehicle accessways such as drive-through lanes shall not be located in the area between a street property line and a building. All street adjacent parking shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet and the setback area shall be fully landscaped.
4. Corner cutoff at intersection. In order to maintain visibility at intersections and to provide architectural interest for buildings at corner locations, buildings shall provide a 10-foot minimum corner cutoff and shall have an entrance to the building from this area. The minimum cutoff area shall be a triangular area that is determined by measuring 10 feet back from the corner along both street property lines and drawing a line between the two points.
5. Landscaped buffer within setback area. Landscaped buffer required. A minimum 5-foot wide landscaped buffer shall be provided on the subject property adjacent to any residentially zoned property or intervening alley regardless of the actual building setback that is provided. A landscaped buffer is not required adjacent to an alley at areas where direct vehicular access is provided to the subject property.
6. Enclosed or screened rooftop equipment not exceeding 5 feet in height above the roof of a building shall not be computed as part of the height of the building. Elevator shafts and roof top stairwells not exceeding 15 feet in height above the roof of a building shall not be computed as part of the height of the building. See Chapter 30.70 (Definitions).
1098 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐76 | January 2022
To facilitate housing development, the City allows mi nimum unit sizes that vary by the type of housing and number of bedrooms. These minimum unit size requirements are typical and can facilitate a range of housing types in the City. The minimum unit size standards are established to facilitate the inclusion of smaller units in the multiple unit residential and mixed-use zones. Table 50 summarizes the unit size development standards for the residential and MU Overlay districts.
Table 50: Minimum Floor Area
Unit Type ROS, R1R, R1 R3050, R2250,
R1650, R1250 IMU, IMU-R, SFMU
Efficiency/One-bedroom unit (N/A) 600 600 sq. ft.; average of 650 sq.ft. for the residential development
Two-bedroom unit (N/A) 800 800 sq. ft.; average of 900 sq.ft. for the residential development
Three- or more bedroom unit (N/A) 1,000 1,000 sq. ft.; average of 1,100 sq.ft. for the residential development
Senior/Affordable units (N/A) -- 540 sq. ft.
Source: City of Glendale Zoning Code, 2021.
Residential Parking Requirements
Parking standards are an important development regulation in communities. The City’s parking requirements are intended to ensure that adequate off-street parking and loading facilities are provided in proportion to the need created by the type of use. Adequate parking for residential projects contributes to the value of a project, the safety of residents, and the quality of a project’s appearance. However, excessive parking standards can pose a significant constraint to the development of housing because they can reduce the buildable area on a site and impact the funding available for project amenities or additional units. The parking requirements for residential and mixed-use developments are shown in Table 51.
1099 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐77 | January 2022
Table 51: Residential Parking Requirements
Use Requirement
Dwelling units in the R-3050, R-2250,
R-1650, R-1250, SFMU, IMU and IMU-
R zones where more than one dwelling
unit exists on a lot; and duplexes,
multi-family dwellings, condominiums,
and townhouses in all zones.
Efficiencies of up to 1,500 sq. ft. and 1-bedroom units - 2 spaces 2 bedroom units - 2 spaces
Efficiencies of 1,501 to 2,000 sq. ft. and 3 bedroom units - 2.5 spaces Efficiencies of more than 2,000 sq. ft. and any unit containing 4 or more bedrooms -- 3 spaces
Guest parking – 0.25 space per unit fo r residential projects of 4 or more units in the R-3050, R-2250, R-1650, R-1250, SFMU, IMU and IMU-R zones. In the PRD zone, 1 uncovered guest space per dwelling unit in addition to enclosed parking spaces .
Projects in the DSP zone with more
than 1 dwelling unit
1-bedroom units - 1 .25 spaces
Units of 2 bedrooms or more - 2 spaces, except that only 1 parking space is required for each senior residential unit
Guest parking - 0.25 space per unit fo r projects of 4 or more units and residential use is more than 80% of the entire floor area Residential congregate living, Medical 1 space per every 4 beds Residential congregate living, non-
medical, except for Senior housing 1 space for every 3 residents Senior housing 1 space per unit in projects with more than 1 dwelling unit Dwelling units where only one dwelling
unit exists on a lot;
Domestic Violence Shelter;
Residential Congregate Living, Limited
Cumulative Gross Floor Area of dwelling:
0-3,499 sq. ft. - 2 spaces
3,500 - 5,999 sq. ft. - 3 spaces
6,000 - 7,999 sq. ft. - 4 spaces
8,000+ sq. ft. - 5 spaces
Live/work units 3 spaces for the first 2,000 sq. ft. and 3 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft for any additional floor area over 2,000 sq. ft.
Accessory Dwelling Units 1 space (see Section 30.34.080) Affordable Housing Projects Using
Density Bonus
0 - 1 bdrm: 1 on-site parking space
2 - 3 bdrm: 2 on-site parking spaces
4+ bdrm: 2.5 on-site parking spaces
Source: City of Glendale Zoning Code, 2021
The City has identified the guest parking requireme nts for the Planned Residential Development (PRD) Overlay zZone as a potential constraint to development; however, in practice, this overlay zone is rarely applied. The City will update the Zoning Code (see Program 9B) to revise the guest parking standards in the PRD Overlay Zone.
The City has also considered parking requirements for efficiency and one-bedroom units. The City has provisions to reduce and/or waive parking requirements for a variety of projects, including affordable housing units, mixed-use projects, uses adjac ent to transit, as well as for perso ns with disabilities. Moreover, affordable housing developments that are eligible for a density bonus pursuant to Government Code Section 65915-65918 are eligible to use parking standards established by State Density Bonus law. Based on the history of development in Glendale and community priori ties, including a strong desire to provide sufficient parking for residential projects, the City finds that this is not a constraint to development because demand for parking associated with market rate units is sufficiently high so as to not constrain development and not a constraint for affordable projects, which are provided relief from these standards.
1100 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐78 | January 2022
4A.2 Development Review Process
The time and cost of permit processing and review can be a constraint to housing development if significant development review is required. Project review and per mit processing are necessary steps to ensure that residential construction proceeds in an orderly manner. The time required for project approval is often not so much a factor of the approval body (Director versus Planning Commission), but the complexity of the project and associated environmental issues. However, small in fill projects that can be approved administratively are generally less complex and take a shorter time to obtain appropriate approvals. Large mixed-use projects or residential subdivision maps, subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), require a public hearing before the Planning Commission or the Design Review Board.
The City reviews all applications for development to ensur e the construction of projects that contribute in a positive manner to the community and improve quality of life. Residential development projects typically undergo several types of approvals – mi nisterial, discretionary actions (either with or without a public hearing), and legislative actions. This section outlines the timeline for typical residential development review and describes the permitting requirements and procedur es for Design Review, Conditional Use Permits (CUP), Subdivision Maps, etc. Given the development activity during the 5 th Cycle RHNA period, the City’s processing and permit procedures do not appear to unduly constrain the development of housing.
PERMIT PROCESSING AND APPROVAL PROCEDURES
The City updated the Zoning Code in 2013 in an effort to streamline processing times; maximize the efficiency of discretionary decision making bodies; simplify the process for applicants; r educe subjectivity where possible; and make a final decision more quickly and efficiently, while retaining opportunities for public review and comment. The amendments included elimination of CUPs for new single-family dwellings in the R1R and ROS zones, introducing a new Administrative Use Pe rmit (AUP) process that allows less controversial types of projects to be reviewed in a discretionary manner with public notice and without the delay and expense of a public hearing, and also a new Administrati ve Design Review (ADR) process that also allows minor projects to be administratively review by the Urban Design Studio and Community Development Director as part of a notice process with a public review period prior to a project determination. These changes have shown to improve processing times, reducing impediments to housing development.
With these changes still in place, the City’s current local processing and approval procedures for housing developments in all zones is summarized as follows:
All development in single family zones (ROS, R1, and R1R), whether new construction or additions, are subject to Design Review (GMC 30.47), and the applic able Single Family Design Guidelines (and Hillside Design Guidelines, when applicable). Minor additions less than 700 SF and remodels of single family homes are typically deemed “Exempt” from Design Review, and can proceed into plan check directly. Projects involving additions greater than 700 SF or more than 200 SF visible from the street must go through the Administrative Review Process; this process typi cally takes two to three months. New single family residences require Design Review by the Design Review B oard (DRB) at a noticed public hearing; this process requires three to four months from formal application submittal to project determination. Appeals of ADRs are heard by the DRB, and appeals of DRB case s are heard by the City Council; appeals of ADRs typically take two to four months, while appeals of DRBs take three to five months. Once approved, projects can proceed into plan check.
All multi-family residential development in multi-fa mily and mixed use zones (R-3050, R-2250, R-1650 and R-1250 for multi-family residential zones and IMU-R and SFMU mixed use zones) are also subject to Design Review (GMC 30.47) and applicable Multi-Family and Mixed Use Design Guidelines. Projects less than seven units are eligible for Administrative Design Review (same process and timeline as noted above), while projects seven units or more must go through the Design Review process with a determination by the Design Review Board (see above). The same appeal review authorities and timelines summarized above apply to multi-family Design Review determinations.
1101 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐79 | January 2022
New multi-family projects in Downtown Specific Plan area must also go through the Design Review process.
However, the design review authority for projects in the Downtown Specific Plan area is the City Council, and in 2020, in addition to adopting objective design standards, City Council amended the Zoning Code to require a three-stage Design Review process in the DSP: St age I Preliminary Design Review by City Council, advisory review by the Design Review Board, and Stage II Final Design Review by City Council. City Council intentionally implemented this multi-phase process to insure the highest quality of development for the largest projects in the City in the Downtown core, despite the additional time added to the process.
Housing projects in the IMU-R mixed use zone also require approval of Administrative Use Permits (AUP) in order to ensure the compatibility of the proposed multi-family use with the existing commercial and industrial uses found in the IMU-R zones, prior to Design Revi ew consideration. The AUP process typically takes approximately three months and includes a notice public hearing before the Planning Hearing Officer. In addition to the AUP standard findings of fact related to general plan consistency, public health, safety and welfare, no adverse conflicts with adjacent uses, and adequacy of public and private facilities, the review authority (Planning Hearing Officer) must consider additional finding of fact when granting an AUP:
GMC 30.49.030 AUP Findings of fact.
An administrative use permit shall be granted only if the review authority first finds that each of the following exists:
A. That the proposed use will be consistent with the various elements and objectives of the general plan.
B. That the use and its associated structures and facilities will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, the general welfare, or the environment.
C. That the use and facilities will not adversely affect or conflict with adjacent uses or impede the normal development of surrounding property.
D. That adequate public and private facilities such as utilities, landscaping, parking spaces and traffic circulation measures are or will be provided for the proposed use.
F. Applications for new multi-family residential uses proposed to be located within the IMU-R zone shall consider the following criteria in making the findings in addition to subsections A. through D. above:
1. That the proposed multi-family housing development is allowed within the respective zoning district with the approval of a [administrative] use permit and complies with all other applicable provisions and performance standards identified in this zoning ordinance and the Municipal Code.
2. That the proposed multi-family housing development would not result in the displacement of existing, or limit future, employment on the subject site or on surrounding sites.
3. That the subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of the proposed multi-family housing development.
4. That the proposed multi-family housing development will be compatible with the surrounding existing and future land uses allowed in the IMU-R zoning district.
Live-work residential units are permitted in IMU and IMU-R mixed use residential zones, subject to approval of an AUP, as outlined above. In addition to the st andards Findings of Fact A-D, live-work units have specialized AUP findings relating to compatibility of uses, given that commercial and residential uses are proposed in the same unit, and in close proximity to residential units as well as existing commercial and industrial uses:
GMC 30.49.030 AUP Findings of fact.
G. Applications for live/work units to be located in the IMU and IMU-R zones shall consider the following criteria in making the findings in addition to subsections A. through D. above:
1. The establishment of live/work units will not conflict with nor inhibit commercial or industrial uses in the area where the project is proposed;
2. The structure containing live/work units and each live/work unit within the structure has been designed to ensure that they will function predominantly as work spaces with incidental 1102 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐80 | January 2022
residential accommodations meeting basic habitability requirements in compliance with applicable regulations; and
3. Any changes proposed to the exterior appearance of an existing structure will be compatible with adjacent commercial or industrial uses where all adjacent land is zoned for commercial or industrial uses.
While these additional AUP findings may appear as a constraint for multi-family developments in the IMU-R zones, in particular the employment and compatibilit y findings, as well as the live work findings, including inhibiting commercial or industrial uses, these findings were intentionally adopted by City Council to protect the existing commercial and industrial base of the City; the IMU-R zone was adopted in 2004 in the San Fernando Road Redevelopment Area as a way of introducing multi-family residential uses in an area of the City that previously only allowed certain commercial and general industrial uses. The AUP requirement for residential development may need to be re-evaluated in light of the State’s direct ion of increasing housing production.
Furthermore, as the City embarks on implementing obj ective design standards for multi-family and mixed- use developments in the coming years, the Design Revi ew process for residential projects may be revised and/or possibly eliminated.
TIMEFRAMES
Processing times for applications in Glendale vary based upon the scope and type of project. The amount of time involved in processing applications depends on the type of project, the applicant’s compliance with the City’s ordinances, and the completeness of the app lications. Certain types of applications/permits are discretionary and require a public hearing, while others are processed administratively. Through administrative approval, the applicant bypasses the public hearing requirement and shortens the processing time.
Some projects may take an extended period for final approval. However, these projects generally have significant environmental impacts, involve General Plan or specific plan amendments, rezoning, or need additional community workshops. Developers may be responsible for delays by failing to provide information or requesting continuances. Permit approval under these circumstances requires more time for public notice, public hearings, and negotiation of design modifications to resolve problems.
On average, the typical processing time for a single- family home ranges from 60-90 days, which assumes plan check and building permits with no additional entitlements required. These residential projects tend not to create substantial environmental impacts, thereby greatly reducing the time needed for review. The typical processing time for a multifamily unit is 3-6 months, which assumes that additional entitlements are required, a moderate level of environmental analysis is necessary, and public hearings with the Design Review Board and/or City Council will occur.
Table 52 outlines the typical permit processing times and associated reviewing body by the type of approval or permit. It should be noted that many projects require multiple entitlements, which are often processed concurrently, thereby shortening t he overall processing time. The City has established a list of standard permits that apply to residential development projects ranging from building permits to use permits.
1103 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐81 | January 2022
Table 52: Permit Processing Reviewing Body
Type of Approval or Permit
Review Authority
Director DRB PHO PC CC Typical
Timeframe
Public
Hearing
Administrative Design Review D
3-4 months No (public
notice, no
hearing)
Design Review D 3-4 months Yes
Administrative Use Permit D
3 months No (public
notice, no
hearing)
Conditional Use Permit D 3-5 months Yes
Variance D 4-5 months Yes
Zoning Amendment or Zone Change R D 6-8 month Yes
General Plan Amendment R D 6-9 months Yes
Tentative Map/Parcel Map D 4-5 months Yes
Reasonable Accommodation D 1-2 months No
Source: City of Glendale, 2021.
D = Deciding body whose decision is final unless appealed R = Advisory body required to make recommendations
A = Appeal authority
Design Review
In accordance with Chapter 30.47 of the Zoning C ode, Design Review is required for new buildings and structures, exterior remodeling and exterior changes of or to existing buildings and structures for which a building permit is required, subject to exemptions and requirements set forth in Section 30.47.020 of the Zoning Code (notably, ADUs are exempt). Design Review is a discretionary action performed by the design review board, the city council, the director of community development, the historic preservation commission, or the arts and culture commission, depending on the project.
The intent of design review is to promote the general welfare of the community by achieving the following purposes:
A. To protect the community from the adver se effects of poor design and to encourage good professional design practices;
B. To enhance the beauty, livability and prosperity of the community; C. To encourage high quality development;
D. To discourage poor exterior design, appearance and inferior quality which are likely to have a depreciative effect on the local environment and surrounding area; E. To encourage originality, creativity and diversity in design and to avoid monotony; F. To ensure the compatibility of multiple-dwelling pr ojects with adjoining single-family neighborhoods; G. To ensure single-family design which is compatible with the character inherent within the surrounding neighborhood;
H. To preserve the city’s histor ical and architectural heritage in geographical areas designated as historic district overlay zones pursuant to Chapter 30.25 of this title. (Ord. 5399 Attach. A, 2004)
1104 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐82 | January 2022
For buildings and structures in the DSP zone over ten thousand (10,000) square feet, or any addition over ten thousand (10,000) square feet to an existing building, the city council shall be the review authority instead of the design review board.
Review authority is as follows:
A. For the purposes of the City’s Zoning Code, the term “review authority” shall mean the design review board, the city council, the director of community development, the historic preservation commission, or the arts and culture commission, as applicable.
B. For buildings and structures in the DSP zone ov er ten thousand (10,000) square feet, or any addition over ten thousand (10,000) square feet to an existi ng building, the city council shall be the review authority instead of the design review board.
C. For building and structures in the DSP zone, out side of a redevelopment project area, ten thousand (10,000) square feet or less, or any addition ten thousand (10,000) square feet or less to an existing building, the director of community development shall be the review authority.
D. For creative signs in the DSP zone outside a rede velopment project area, the city council shall be the review authority instead of the design review board, when the creative sign is proposed in conjunction with a new building greater than ten thousand (10,000) square feet or an addition greater than ten thousand (10,000) square feet to an existing building. In all other cases in the DSP zone the review authority shall be the director of community development.
E. For buildings, structures, and creative signs in a Hi storic District Overlay Zone, plans and proposals shall be reviewed by the historic preservation commission.
F. Except for properties located in the SR zone or PPD overlay zone, the director of community development shall be the review authority for:
1. Additions and remodels of single-family dwellin gs; provided that a proposed addition or remodel of a single-family dwelling that does not meet the limitations of Section 30.60.040(8)(2) shall be considered new construction; and
2. New multifamily buildings of six (6) or fewer units and additions of six (6) or fewer units to existing multifamily buildings; and
3. Nonresidential or mixed use projects of ten t housand (10,000) square feet or less or any addition of ten thousand (10,000) square feet or less to an existing nonresidential or mixed use building.
4. The design review board may review final design review projects listed in this subsection H when, in the opinion of the director of community development, a new building or structure, or alteration or addition to an existing building or structure is determined by staff to be incompatible with the surrounding neighborhood character or with existing buildings or structures on the lot. In making their determination of incompat ibility, staff shall consider evidence such as neighborhood predominance of street front setback, roof styles, use of eaves and overhangs, variation in plane (both horizontal and vertical), building location on the site, massing, scale, use of colors and materials and other architectural treatments whic h, if otherwise ignored, could be injurious to surrounding properties.
G. For sign programs, the director of community development shall be the review authority.
H. For murals, the arts and culture commission shall be the review authority.
In all other cases, plans and proposals shall be reviewed by the design review board.
1105 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐83 | January 2022
Review of plans and conditions of approval . The review authority may impose conditions related to site planning, design, general layout, and appearance. For any project where the property has an average current slope exceeding fifty (50) percent, or where the project grading will exceed one thousand five hundred (1,500) cubic yards, the review authority may impose conditions to address impacts related to construction and grading, including, but not limited to, haul routes, pr otection of indigenous trees and requirements and conditions of approval of any city department that ar e reasonably related to the public health, safety or welfare. The review authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny the design of the project. The review authority shall not have the authority to require full working drawings. In the event of denial, the review authority shall specify those areas in which the project fails to comply with the provisions of this title.
Notwithstanding any provision of Title 30, the review authority shall have the authority to impose conditions in order to ensure compatibility with surrounding develo pment in terms of size, scale, bulk/mass, roofline orientation, setbacks, and site layout. Regarding privacy, access to natural light, and placement of windows, the review authority shall consider alternative arrangement of windows or building massing or site layout to avoid conflicting relationships to adjacent buildings, structures, improvements and uses; for these reasons alone, however, the review authority shall not reduce the size or scale of a project or shall not prohibit construction with a reasonable number or size of windows in a new or remodeled building, or an addition thereto. The review authority is not required to review plans that are not in reasonable conformance with the provisions of this title unless applications for appropriate discretionary permits are pending. The director of community development is authorized to withhold plans from the review authority when such plans are in violation of the provisions of this title and the required redesign would have a substantial effect on the appearance of the project, or are otherwise not in s ubstantial conformance with relevant adopted design guidelines.
Notwithstanding the above, the review authority shall have authority to impose conditions for sign programs in the DSP zone or for vehicle sales, leasing and rent al agencies in the CA zoning district, as applicable, according to Section 30.33.220 in order to ensure co mpatibility with surrounding development, size, scale, bulk/mass, setbacks and site layout. The review authorit y is not required to review plans that are not in reasonable conformance with provisions of this titl e. The review authority shall approve, approve with conditions or deny sign programs as applicable.
Changes to projects/plans. Upon request of the applican t, the review authority shall have the authority to modify its previous actions. The review authority, as applicable, may delegate authority to the director of community development for review and approval of minor changes, and to approve resubmitted plans with modifications or changes provided such modifications or changes are in substantial conformance with plans and conditions approved by the review authority, in keep ing with the architectural style of the building or structure, and consistent with the objectives of this code, any applicable design guidelines, and conditions of approval.
When changes to projects approved by the review authority occur at project sites during the course of construction, the director of community development has the authority for review and approval of minor design changes that are in subst antial conformance with plans and conditions approved by the review authority, in keeping with the architectural style of the building or structure, and consistent with the objectives of this code, any applicable design guidelines, and conditions of approval. Other design changes shall be presented to the review authority for their consideration. The review authority may then approve or deny any changes. The poster-size sign on the property in question that is normally required for design review cases by Section 30.61.010 shall not be a requirement for public notice purposes in these cases.
Projects that do not conform to designs approved by a review authority and/or the planning division of the community development department shall be deemed to be in violation of this code.
1106 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐84 | January 2022
The director of community development shall have the authority to modify approved landscape plans when modifications are consistent with California-friendly plantings or California-friendly landscaping as defined in Section 13.36.040 of this code.
Building permit plan check and conformance with design review. Except as provided herein or authorized by the director of community development, no building permit plan check application shall be accepted for a project which requires design review unless said plans are in conformance with plans approved and any conditions imposed by the review authority. Upon application for any design review consideration, a building permit plan check application may be accepted for a nonresidential project which requires design review prior to final action by the review authority if the review authority authorizes procee ding to building plan check during the public comment period for the environmental documentation of a project. Plans are in conformance with plans approved and any conditions imposed by the review authority if they comply in all material respects with all plans submitted and approved as part of the design review including, but not limited to, the site plan and all elevations as to all matters regulated by this ch apter, including, without lim itation, site layout and planning (which shall include location of primary and ac cessory structures), design, architectural style and treatments, appearance, size, scale, bulk/mass, roofline orientation, and setbacks. (Ord. 5955 § 6, 2020; Ord. 5849 § 3, 2015; Ord. 5847 § 11, 2015; Ord. 5837 § 8, 2014; Ord. 5818 § 28, 2013; Ord. 5803 § 109, 2013; Ord. 5765 § 26, 2012; Ord. 5752 § 13, 2011; Ord. 5747 § 91, 2011; Ord. 5728 § 6, 2011; Ord. 5687 § 3, 2010; Ord. 5677 § 2, 2009; Ord. 5648 § 8, 2009; Ord. 5605 § 3, 2008; Ord. 5571 § 11, 2007; Ord. 5535 § 12, 2006; Ord. 5503 § 2, 2006; Ord. 5399 Attach. A, 2004).
In consideration of applications for design review, t he review authority shall be guided by the intent and purpose of Section 30.47.010 and the standards set forth in this section. The design review board shall adopt written guidelines consistent with such intent, purposes, and standards, as it may deem necessary to properly exercise its powers and duties. Such guidelines shall be approved by the city council and shall be kept on file in the office of the director of community development, and a copy thereof shall be furnished to any person upon request. Within the DSP zone, all design review shall be subject to the guidelines and standards established by the downtown specific plan.
For the purposes of this section, t he term “review authority” shall mean the design review board, the city council, the director of community development, the historic preservation commission, or the arts and culture commission, as applicable.
A. The review authority shall ensure that all projects are consistent with adopted community plans.
B. The following standards and criteria may be utilized by the review authority which may require changes in materials, color, general design and layout, projections in the vertical or horizontal plane or such other design changes as may be necessary.
1. In addition to the height and minimum setb ack requirements set forth for the zone in which the property is located, changes in material, height, projections in the vertical or horizontal plane or similar façade changes should be encouraged on visible exterior building walls. Primary attention shall be given to those sides visible from the public right- of-way.
2. The appropriateness of a new or remodeled building to the zoning and area within which it is located, surrounding architectural design, scale and streetscape appearance should be considered provided they are in keeping with the intent and purpose of this chapter.
Integrated and harmonious design themes are encouraged, including the use of consistent materials, colors, textures and signs on exposed building walls. New development or remodeling should be designed in such a way as to upgrade the appearance and quality of the area and be harmonious with existing improvements.
1107 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐85 | January 2022
3. Conflicting relationships to adjacent bu ildings, structures, improvements and uses should be avoided as appropriate to the zone and area. For buildings in the R1, R1R or ROS zones, new development or remodeling that includes more than one (1) story in height shall continue to allow reasonable access to natural light for buildings in the R1, R1R and ROS zones, and shall not unreasona bly impact the privacy of buildings and outdoor spaces in the R1, R1R and ROS zones. Privacy shall be judged by the view from the living room, den, study, family r oom, great room, library, dining room or balconies (greater than twenty-five (25) square feet) of the new development into the buildings and backyard outdoor space of existing buildings. For new development and remodeling in the R 1, R1R and ROS zones, consideration shall be given to the placement of windows in the new development vis-à-vis the placement of windows in adjacent residential buildings.
4. Boundary and other walls should generally be of decorative masonry and/or wrought iron which is complementary in color, texture and material to the development as a whole, although it is recogni zed that these materials ma y not be appropriate in all situations (i.e., wood fencing in residentia l zones and chain link fencing in industrial zones).
5. Landscaping shall be integrated into the architectural scheme so as to accent and enhance the appearance of the development. Existing mature trees (including those regulated in Chapter 12.44 of this code pertaining to preservation and protection of indigenous trees) over eight (8) inches in diameter on the site and within the parkway as well as trees on adjacent property within twent y (20) feet of the common property line should be considered for preservation in the site planning.
6. Subject to any applicable height limits, roo ftop equipment shall be incorporated into the design of the project in such a manner that it is completely enclosed on all sides or concealed from view by screening, roofing or parapets at least six (6) inches higher than the height of the uppermost part of such equipment.
7. Any dish antenna that is ground-mounted but attached to a building or structure, and any roof-mounted dish antenna, shall be designed in accord with the criteria in Section
30.34.050.
In evaluating any proposed ground-mounted dish antenna that is attached to a building or structure, any roof-mounted dish antenna, or any ground-mounted dish antenna not qualifying for exemption under the criteria of Section 30.47.020 of this chapter, the review authority shall determine whether the color would be unobtrusive, whether the dish antenna can be installed in a location and in a manner which would minimize visual intrusion while maintaining practical operation, and whether the dish can be screened so that it is suitably concealed from view, in order to promote aesthetic objectives, including, but not limited to, compatibility of neighborhood properties, the preservation of views and vistas, and the ov erall harmonious development of property. The criteria set forth herein shall apply only insofar as such criteria do not prevent the reception of satellite delivered signals or do not impose costs on the users of such antennas that are excessive in light of the purchase and inst allation costs and intended use of the dish antenna.
8. Any wireless telecommunications facility sha ll be designed in accord with the criteria specified in Chapter 30.48 of this title. The standards outlined elsewhere in this Section
30.47.040 notwithstanding, all wireless telecommunications facilities shall be designed in accordance with Chapter 30.48 of this title.
1108 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐86 | January 2022
9. In addition to paragraphs 1 through 8 of this subsection, within designated “HD” historic district overlay zones, design review standards shall be as adopted by the city council in the citywide historic district design guide lines, as may be supplemented by the city council for each district, or any guidelines for non-residential buildings for each district as adopted by the city council at the time of designation of that district. In the event of a conflict between paragraphs 1 through 8 of this subsection A, and the citywide historic district design guidelines, and as may be supplemented by the city council for each district at the time of designation of that district, or any guidelines for non-residential buildings for each district, as adopted by the city council at the time of designation of that district, the citywide historic district design guidelines and applicable supplements thereto, and any guidelines for non-residential buildings as may be adopted by the city council for that district, shall take preceden ce, with the final determination of whether there is a conflict to be made by the director of community development.
C. The review authority shall ensure the compatible design of all multi-unit projects that abut a single-family zone. To accomplish this goal, the review authority shall have the authority to impose more restrictive development standards than the provisions of the zone in which the project is located. The review authority shall review each multi-unit project in terms of its impact on the single-family residential neighborhood, including, but not limited to, such design elements as window location, balconies, location of recreational facilities, entryways, and garage location. Although street setbacks are not required in the IMU, IMU-R and SFMU zones, the review authority may add conditions to ensure pedestrian activity at the street edge including the location of building entrances and surface parking lots and the use of setback areas as plazas, open space, or other active uses. In the IMU, IMU-R and SFMU zones, façades on the corner cutoff areas at intersections should incorporate significant architectural design features (e.g., a tower). The review authority may require transitional height increases in order to promote a vi sual transition between the single-family neighborhood and multiple-family zone and to ensure that adequate landscape buffering is provided and permanently maintained. The review authority shall also consider the multiple dwelling building façades, roof designs, and use of mate rials and colors to ensure compatibility with the architectural design elements generally found in the neighboring single- family zone.
D. The review authority shall ensure single-family design that is compatible with the character inherent within the surrounding neighborhood. Primary emphasis on what constitutes a neighborhood should generally be given to the existing development pattern within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property. Special attention should also be placed on ensuring a positive design relationship with the adjacent developments and developments on the block on which the proposed project is located. The director of community development shall have the discretion to consider an alternate area to be the neighborhood of primary emphasis. To accomplish compatibilit y, the review authority shall review each single-family residential project in terms of its specific impact on the surrounding single- family neighborhood, including, but not limited to, such design elements as massing, scale, height, setback, landscaping, impacts from average current slopes exceeding fifty (50) percent and grading of more than one thousand five hundred (1,500) cubic yards and window location. The review authority shall consider the setbacks of buildin gs and structures on adjacent properties and ensure that a proj ect’s proposed height and setback promote a visual transition between the project and neigh boring buildings. The review authority shall also consider garage location and design to promote compatibility with neighborhood patterns. The review authority shall also cons ider the single-family building façades, roof designs, and use of material and colors to ensure compatibility with the architectural design elements generally found in the surrounding single-family zone. 1109 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐87 | January 2022
E. Decisions related to development in the ROS and R1R zones shall consider the hillside development review policy contained in Section 30.11.040(A).
The City has carefully considered the role of Design Review as part of the project review process and recognizes that it can be a challenging process. Howe ver, the Design Review process is a cornerstone of development in Glendale, and a process that is very important to the City and community. It is through this process that the City can protect its historic character, create timeless projects, contribute to the architectural landscape of Los Angeles County, and preserve and protect its residents from undue aesthetic impacts related to new development.
Looking forward, the City continues to see a role for design review as part of the planning process. However, the City also recognizes the need for higher levels of approval certainty. The City will prepare new objective design standards are required by State law and review applicable projects based on those requirements. The City will also continue promoting the use of its free preapplication review option so that applicants can receive clear feedback on what is needed to receive design review.
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Chapter 30.42 of the Zoning Code regulates the issuance of Conditional Use Permits (CUP). Land uses that require a CUP generally have a unique and distinct impac t on the area in which they are located or are capable of impacts to adjacent properties unless given special review and conditions. The following residential uses require a CUP:
Residential congregate living, limited in the DSP zone (except for Civic Centers and Town Center districts);
Residential congregate living, medical in the R2250, R1650, and R1250 zones; Residential congregate living, non-medical in the R3050, R2250, R1650, and R1250 zones; Multiple residential dwe llings with dwelling units at the ground floor level in C1, C2, C3, CH zones; Emergency Shelter in the C2, C3, and CH zones;
Senior housing in the IMU-R zone;
Senior housing at the ground floor level in the C1, C2, C3, CR, and CH zones; Live/Work Unit in the IND zone, and live/work units with conditionally permitted uses in the IND, IMU, IMU-R, SFMU, and DSP zones (except for Civic Centers and Town Center districts).
The hearing officer approves, conditionally approves, or denies a CUP application unless the application includes concurrent processing of a permit that requires City Council action. The approving body must make the following findings prior to approval, pursuant to Section 30.42.030 of the Zoning Code:
1. That the proposed use will be consistent with the various elements and objectives of the general plan;
2. That the use and its associated st ructures and facilities will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, the general welfare, or the environment;
3. That the use and facilities will not adversely affect or conflict with adjacent uses or impede the normal development of surrounding property; and,
4. That adequate public and private facilities such as utilities, landscaping, parking spaces and traffic circulation measures are or will be provided for the proposed use.
These findings apply to all uses that require a CUP. In addition to the above, the following special or unique findings are required for certain residential uses:
1110 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐88 | January 2022
1. Applications for new multi-family residential uses proposed to be located within the IMU-R zone shall consider the following criteria in making the findings:
a. That the proposed multi-family housing devel opment is allowed within the respective zoning district with the approval of a conditional us e permit and complies with all other applicable provisions and performance standards identified in this zoning ordinance and the municipal code;
b. That the proposed multi-family housing developm ent would not result in the displacement of existing, or limit future, employment on the subject site or on surrounding sites; c. That the subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of the proposed multi-family housing development; and,
d. That the proposed multi-family housing devel opment will be compatible with the surrounding existing and future land uses allowed in the IMU-R zoning district.
2. Applications for live/work units to be located in the IND, IMU, IMU-R, and SFMU zones shall consider the following criteria in making the findings:
a. The establishment of live/work units will not conflict with nor inhibit commercial or industrial uses in the area where the project is proposed;
b. The structure containing live/work units and ea ch live/work unit within the structure has been designed to ensure that they will function pred ominantly as work spaces with incidental residential accommodations meeting basic habitability requirements in compliance with applicable regulations; and,
c. Any changes proposed to the exterior appearance of an existing structure will be compatible with adjacent commercial or industrial uses where all adjacent land is zoned for commercial or industrial uses.
3. Decisions related to development in the ROS and R1R zones shall consider the hillside development review policy contained in Section 30.11.040(A).
The IMU-R zoning district is applied to areas appropriate for a mix of commercial, industrial, and residential activities and provides for a full range of goods and services to the community located along portions of industrial/commercial thoroughfares, in conformance with the general plan. This district allows for a mix of commercial and residential or just commercial, industrial, or residential (stand alone) land uses. The findings related to employment and compatibility are to ensure that new residential uses would not be significantly impacted by industrial uses that already exist and would remain onsite. The City has considered whether these findings represent a constraint to development and finds that they do not. Moreover, to protect the health and safety of Glendale’s residents, the City believes that these findings are an important part of project review when residential and industrial uses are located close together.
1111 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐89 | January 2022
Administrative Use Permit
Chapter 30.49 of the Zoning Code regulates the issuance of Administrative Use Permits (AUP). The purpose of an AUP is to allow special consideration for certain uses without the need for a noticed public hearing. The Community Development Director is the deciding body.
An administrative use permit shall be granted only if the review authority first finds that each of the following exists:
A. That the proposed use will be consistent with the various elements and objectives of the general plan.
B. That the use and its associated structures and facilities will not be detrimental to the public health or safety, the general welfare, or the environment.
C. That the use and facilities will not adversely affe ct or conflict with adjacent uses or impede the normal development of surrounding property.
D. That adequate public and private facilities such as utilities, landscaping, parking spaces and traffic circulation measures are or will be provided for the proposed use.
F. Applications for new multi- family residential uses proposed to be located within the IMU-R zone shall consider the following criteria in making the findings in addition to subsections A. through D. above:
1. That the proposed multi-family housing de velopment is allowed within the respective zoning district with the approval of a conditional use permit and complies with all other applicable provisions and performance standards identified in this zoning ordinance and the Municipal Code.
2. That the proposed multi-family housing development would not result in the displacement of existing, or limit future, employment on the subject site or on surrounding sites.
3. That the subject site is physically suitable for the type and density/intensity of the proposed multi- family housing development.
4. That the proposed multi-family housing development will be compatible with the surrounding existing and future land uses allowed in the IMU-R zoning district.
G. Applications for live/work units to be located in the IMU and IMU-R zones shall consider the following criteria in making the findings in addition to subsections A. through D. above:
1. The establishment of live/work units will not conflict with nor inhibit commercial or industrial uses in the area where the project is proposed;
2. The structure containing live/work units a nd each live/work unit within the structure has been designed to ensure that they will function predomina ntly as work spaces with incidental residential accommodations meeting basic habitability requirements in compliance with applicable regulations; and
3. Any changes proposed to the exterior appearance of an existing structure will be compatible with adjacent commercial or industrial uses where all adjacent land is zoned for commercial or industrial uses. (Ord. 5818 § 32, 2013)
1112 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐90 | January 2022
Subdivisions
This review process applies to all residential land divisions within the City. Title 16 of the Glendale Municipal Code includes the standards and processes for subdivis ions. It is based primarily on the State Subdivision Map Act. As it relates to residential development, the regulations apply to all land divisions that create lots for single-family homes and lots, or condominiums, for multifamily development. As part of the review process for subdivisions, the City reviews applications for compliance with lot size and shape standards, the general layout of the subdivision, and infrastructure requirements. If the project complies with the subdivision standards and General Plan density, the project can proceed through the approval process.
Reasonable Accommodation
The City’s process for providing reasonable accommodation allows individuals, or their representatives, to make requests for re asonable accommodations for persons with disabilities as part of the permit process.
No additional permits are required or additional f ees charged by the City. Requests for reasonable accommodation to meet the needs of persons with di sabilities are approved administratively, and a use permit is not required. City staff is available to prov ide assistance regarding the processing of requests for the construction of accessory structures intended to accommodate persons with disabilities. Information regarding the approval of these structures is included within all public notices and agendas, as applicable.
Glendale’s reasonable accommodation procedure complies with Housing Element law and provides an accessible way for disabled residents to make necessary changes to their properties.
Impact of Processing and Permit Procedures on Housing Supply and Affordability The City has considered the totality of its processing and permit procedures and has concluded that they do not represent a significant constraint to housing supply or affordability. The City works proactively with applicants, including a no-cost pre-appl ication review, to encourage submittal of a complete application.
Issues with project applications that cause significant delays are typically outside of the City’s control (i.e., a change in the development plan, changes in material s or architectural styles, changes to request for concessions, etc.). The City will continue to work with developers of all housing products to ensure that the City’s processing and permit procedures are clear and effective.
FACILITATED ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The City has adopted uniform procedures for complying with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for assessing the potential environmental impacts of those development applications determined to be a “project” as defined by Public Re sources Code 21000-21177. Environmental review is required for most discretionary actions including Design Review, Conditional Use Permits, Subdivision Maps, and legislative actions including General Plan amendments, zone changes, and code amendments.
Environmental review occurs while the application is being processed. An environmental determination by City staff for a project is made in order to prepar e the appropriate environmental document that can be considered by the decision-making authority with the legislative or discretionary application.
DEVELOPED DENSITES AND PERMIT TIMES
The City has not received any requests during the prior planning period to develop housing at densities below those anticipated. Based on a typical residential project, the City estimates that the time between discretionary approval and submittal of an application for a building permit is between 4 and 12 weeks. The City finds that this is a reasonable timeline and works diligently with applicants once they submit material for review.
1113 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐91 | January 2022
STREAMLINING APPROVALS
Lower Income Sites Included in Previous Elements
While the Design Review process is not considered a constraint to housing, Program 9B has been included to comply with Government Code 65583.2. This program will provide for ministerial approval (e.g., Planning Director approval of Design Review and entitlements other than a subdivision map) of housing projects with a minimum of 20 percent of units affordable to lower income households and will increase certainty for affordable and multifamily developers related to resid ential sites throughout the community, as identified in Appendix A.
Senate Bill (SB) 35
SB 35 provides provisions for streamlining projects based on a jurisdiction’s progress towards its RHNA and timely submittal of the Housing Element Annual Pr ogress Report. When jurisdictions have insufficient progress toward their above moderate-income RHNA and/or have not submitted the latest Housing Element Annual Progress Report, these jurisdictions are subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining) for proposed developm ents with at least 10 percent affordability.
HCD reviews the annual progress report deadlines and RHNA progress on an annual basis. Glendale is currently subject to SB 35 streamlining provisions when proposed developments include 50 percent affordability. Program 9B in the Housing Plan has been provided to incorporate the mandatory streamlining provisions into the City’s Zoning Code. These streamlining provisions will reduce approval requirements for projects that include a minimum of 50 percent of units affordable to lower income households and that meet the criteria specified by State law.
FLEXIBILITY IN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Development standards affect the financials of a re sidential project, both from the revenue side (through achievable density) and through the costs of acco mmodating specific development standards. However, there is no specific threshold that determines whether a particular standard or combination constrains the affordability or supply of housing. Many factors determi ne project feasibility. While prior sections discussed how to reduce development costs, the following describes ways that the Zoning Code offers flexibility in development standards.
Residential Density Bonus
In 2017, the City updated the Zoning Code to allow den sity bonuses for affordable and senior residential projects in accordance with State Density Bonus law. Chapter 30.36 of the Zoning Code requires density bonuses and other incentives for housing and/or child ca re facilities to be granted in accordance with the requirements of State law, including Government Code Title 7, Division 1, Chapter 4.3 (Density Bonuses and Other Incentives).
1114 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐92 | January 2022
Inclusionary Housing
In 2004, the City adopted an Inclusionary Housing ordinance to assist the city in meeting its regional share of housing needs and implementing the goals and objectives of the general plan. Chapter 30.35 of the Zoning Code enacts a citywide inclusionary housing ordinance that requires the development of rental housing affordable to lower income households in conjunction with market-rate housing, or payment of an in-lieu fee.
In order to meet the inclusionary housing requirement, the developer of any new rental housing development of eight units or greater has the following four options:
Reserve 15 percent of the lesser of either the maximum residential density or the number of residential units proposed by the developer (prior to the grant of any density bonus) on-site to be made affordable to low-income households;
Develop inclusionary units off-site;
Acquire and rehabilitate existing market rate units; or Pay an in-lieu fee. The fee is paid into the Housing Trust Fund. Demand for residential development in Glendale is extremely high. Since adoption of its Inclusionary Housing ordinance, the City has continued to see an increase in applications to develop housing affordable to all income levels. It does not appear that housing supply has been constrained as a result of the City’s Inclusionary Ordinance. In practice , the City sees that most developers are currently choosing to build the units versus pay an in-lieu fee; this is a positive outco me in that it creates mixed-income communities. The cost of housing has not noticeably increased as a result of the City’s Inclusionary Housing ordinance, however, housing costs continue to be at an all-time high so it is difficult to determine the potential cost implications in such an “up” market. The City will cont inue to monitor its Inclusionary Housing ordinance for effectiveness and potential impacts on supply and affordab ility, but at this time, the City has not identified any issues related to this requirement.
Short-Term Rentals
The Glendale Municipal Code addresses short-term rentals for parcels with an accessory dwelling unit and/or junior accessory dwelling unit. Section 30.34.080 prohibits short-term rentals of less than thirty days for the primary residential dwelling, accessory dwelling unit, and junior accessory dwelling unit. There were over one-hundred300 short-term rentals in Glendale listed on Airbnb.com in July January 2022, largely operating outside of the City's short-term rental requirements2021. The majority (200+ rentals) (88) of these were for an entire house, apartment, or condominium unit. Given the large number of residences in Glendale, this does not represent a significant decrease the amount of housing stock available for permanent occupancy.
It is reasonable to assume that prior to adoption of the short-term rental restrictions, more units were listed as short-term rentals. By providing these restrictions , the City was able to encourage at least some of the short-term rental housing stock back into the traditional market, opening up opportunities for long-term rentals and theoretically reducing housing costs (by increasing supply).
1115 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐93 | January 2022
BUILDING CODES AND ENFORCEMENT
New construction in Glendale, including additions a nd remodels, must comply with the 2019 California Building Code (CBC). The City adopted the 2019 Ca lifornia Building Code with all required updates. The Building Code establishes construction standards necessary to protect public health, safety, and welfare, and the local enforcement of this code does not unduly constrain development of housing. The 2019 California Building Code, Title 24, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2, pub lished by the International Code Council, is enforced by the Glendale Building and Safety Division.
No local amendment to the Building Code has either been initiated or approved that directly impacts housing standards or processes. Code enforcement is conducted by the City and is based upon issues identified by the community and reported to City staff. The City maintains general records of neighborhoods where code complaints are most prevalent and works proactively with these neighborhoods to address potential issues before they become significant concerns. The City enforces its code requirements equitably throughout the community, as necessary. Strategy 2 in the Hous ing Plan has been included to help support homeowners with rehabilitating substandard housing. The Code Enforcement Department works with property owners and renters to assist in meeting State health and safety codes. 4A.3 Development Fees
The City of Glendale charges fees to process plans submitted for residential projects and to fund the provision of important services that are needed to accommodate housing and population growth. Fees and exactions are used to finance public facilities, roadways, water and sewer infrastructure, schools, and other community services. Nearly all these fees are assessed through a pro rata share system, based on the magnitude of the project’s impact or the extent of the benefit that will be derived. Fa ilure to adequately plan for residential development is a key reason why jurisdictions are so financially constrained today. In general, these fees can be a constraint on housing development and compromise market-rate affordability because the additional cost borne by developers contributes to overall increased housing unit cost. However, the fees are necessary to maintain adequate planning services and other public services and facilities in the City.
For new residential projects, developers in Glendale may be required to pay one or more of the following fees depending on the location, type, and size of the project:
Planning, Building, and Environmental Fees: The City of Glendale charges developers standard plan check fees, fees for processing applications, building permits, tentative tract maps, environmental initial study, variance, conditional use permit, or other permits to pay for the cost of processing applications and conducting inspections for specific projects. This does not include additional fees paid by the developer for project-specific environmental impact reports.
City Impact Fees: The City charges impact fees to finance new or expanded infrastructure and public facilities required to serve residents. The fee must have a reas onable relationship to the infrastructure costs and represent the marginal cost of improvements required to serve residents of the new residential projects. The City charges fees to offset impacts to parks, lib raries, and sewers. Other fees and assessments may apply depending on the location.
Regional Impact Fees: Regional impact fees include water and sewer fees collected by the water district and sanitation district, and school impact fees collected by the school districts as allowed by State law to finance the construction and expansion of schools to accommodat e student enrollment. The water, sanitation, and school districts have the authority to set the fee levels; the City does not have any ability to adjust these fees.
Planning and permitting fees are charged on an at-cost basis to cover staff services and administrative expenses for processing development applications. Development impact fees are required to provide essential services and infrastructure to serve new residents. Impact fees are governed by State law to demonstrate a nexus between development and potential impacts. State law also requires the proportionality 1116 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐94 | January 2022
test to ensure the pro rata share of costs to provide services and infrastructure by individual developments is reasonable. The City recognizes that planning/per mitting and development fees add to the cost of residential development. To mitigate the impact of planning/permitting and impact fees on the cost of residential development, the City uses HOME, CDB G, and other funding sour ces including Emergency Solutions Grants (ESG) to gap-finance affordable housing development.
Table 53 details the City’s Planning Department processing fees for development project entitlements and Table 54 describes the fee schedule for residential buildi ng permits. One or more of the entitlements would be required to process a residential project depending on the scale and complexity of the project and a building permit is required for each residential structure. All fees apply to both single-family and multifamily projects, with the exception of development fees for parks and parks and library mitigation, which only apply to multfifamilymultifamily projects.
Table 53: Development Project Processing Fees (Effective August 7, 2021) Entitlements
Planning and Application Fees
Administrative Use Permit $1,898.00
Conditional Use Permit (New Projects with up to 50 res. Units, or commercial or industrial projects with up to 20,000 sq. ft. of floor area) $4,599.00 Conditional Use Permit (New Projects with more than 50 res. Units, or commercial or industrial projects with more than 20,000 sq. ft. of floor area) $11,760.00 Design Review; Administrative Review for single family homes $2,297.00 Design Review; Administrative Re view for multi-family and non-rt esidential projects $5,661.00 Design Review (DRB, HPC, City Council); New Application All Single Fa mily Projects (under 3,500 sq. ft.) $4,311.00
Design Review (DRB, HPC, City Council); New Application All Single Fa mily Projects (3,500 sq ft and over) $4,311.00
Design Review (DRB, HPC, City Council); New or Amended Application 2-50 Residential units, or commercial or industrial with less than 20,000 sq. ft. of floor area $8,343.00 Design Review (DRB, HPC, City Council); Ne w or Amended Application 51 -100 residential units $7,642.00
Design Review (DRB, HPC, City Council); New or Amended Applic ation 101 or greater residential units, or commercial, or industrial with 20,000 sq. ft. or more of floor area $8,130.00 Development Agreements $3,080.00
General Plan Amendment $13,523.00
Parking In-Lieu Fees (G.M.C. § 30.32.172) – One-time fee per space $28,332.00 Parking In-Lieu Fees (G.M.C. § 30.32 .172) – Annual fee per space $706.00 Preliminary Design Review $3,448.00
Urban Art Program; Buildings or Structur es valued at $500,000 or more; In-lieu fee 1.0% of the project value Variance Setback or Standards New Projects with up to 50 res. Units, or commercial or industrial projects with up to 20,000 sq. ft. of floor area, or new hillsid e single family projects $5,584.00 Variance Setback or Standards New Projects with up to 50 res. Units, or commercial or industrial projects with up to 20,000 sq. ft. of floor area, or new hillsid e single family projects Additional exception
$1,942.00
Variance Setback or Standards Ne w Projects with more than 50 res. Units, or commercial or industrial projects with more than 20,000 sq. ft. of floor area $6,885.00 Variance Setback or Standards Ne w Projects with more than 50 res. Units, or commercial or industrial projects with up to 20,000 sq . ft. of floor area Additional exception $1,553.00 1117 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐95 | January 2022
Source: City of Glendale, 2021
Note: This is only a partial list of typical Planning fees; all fees are posted online in accordance with transparency requirements.
There is no site plan fee. For a S pecific Plan, the applicant would be charged the fee associated with a General Plan Amendment. The City has included Program 8B to amend the Fee Structure to provide this clarification. The City has also revi ewed its annual parking fee to assess w hether or not it is a constraint to housing development or affordability. The City has review ed any past applications fo r use of this fee, and finds that there are sufficient alternative programs available, typically with a smaller financial impact, that the development community utilizes. The annual parking fee has only been utilized once since it was implemented, and it was used for a hotel project not a re sidential project. The City finds that this is not a constraint on the supply or affordability of housing.
Variance Use $13,471.00
Variance - Use / Single Family Zone - Projects
Approved Prior to Adoption of Ordinance #5644 $1,344.00 Zone Change Map Amendment $13,694.00
Zone Change Map Amendment Per Lot Fee $82.00
Zoning Code Text Amendment $13,523.00
Subdivisions
Lot Line Adjustment $2,873.00
Subdivision Parcel Map $17,006.00
Subdivision Parcel Map Per Unit Amount $572.00
Environmental Review
EIR Environmental Review Fee for EIRs prepared by applicants $6,772.00 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Contract Prepar ation Fee / Professional Services $4,154.00 Environmental Information Form (New or Addendum) Residential One Unit $1,195.00 Environmental Information Form (New or Addendum) Residential 2 to 19 units $2,393.00 Environmental Information Form (New or Addendum) Residential 20 to 50 units $2,992.00 Environmental Information Form (New or Addendum) Residential 51 units or more $6,381.00 1118 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐96 | January 2022
Table 54 illustrates the total typical development fees fo r a high-density, multifamily application. The fees described in Table 54 are based on a hypothetical 45-unit apartment project. As stated previously, all fees expect for parks and parks and library mitigation fees are consistent between single-family and multifamily projects. The overall fee identified below, per unit based on a 45-unit project, is $6,187.73 per unit. Removing the multifamily-unit specific fees, the expected fee for a single-family project would be $5,393.13 per unit.
The cost of construction for a typical 1,000 sf multifamily project is approximately $210,000 (note that this will vary widely based on the location of the project). As a percentage of overall construction, fees for multifamily units represent approximately 3% of construction costs. The cost of construction for a typical 1,200 sf single- family house is approximately $240,000. As a percentage of overall construction, fess for single-family units represent approximately 2.5% of construction costs.
Table 54: Typical Development Fees for High Density Residential Project Expected Permits/Development Impact Fees for 45-Unit Apartment Project Planning
Design Review $8,343.00
Environmental Review (CEQA) $2,604.00
Building
Plan Check $19,179.40
Building $22,564.00
Electrical Service Fee $20,000.00
Residential Development Impact Fees
School Fees $106,515.00
Street Improvement $5,000.00
Parkway Improvement $55.00
Water Improvements $10,000.00
Sewer Connection $48,430.31
Parks (Quimby, residential multi-family) $17,006.00
Park and Library Mitigation (residential multi-family) $18,751.00 Total Fees for 45-Unit Project $278,447.71
Total Fees per Unit $6,187.73
Sources: City of Glendale, 2021
1119 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐97 | January 2022
4B. Non-Governmental Constraints
Non-governmental constraints refer to market factor s such as the demand for housing, the price of land, construction costs, availability of financing, and other factors that increase the cost of housing development.
DEVELOPMENT COSTS
Land Prices
The cost to develop housing is influenced by the cost of the raw land, the cost of holding the land during the development process, and the cost of providing services to meet City standards for development. The cost of raw land is influenced by variables such as scarcity , location, availability of public utilities, zoning, and unique features like trees and adjoining uses. In Los Angeles County, undeveloped land is limited and combined with a rapidly growing population land prices have generally increased. A review of lots for sale and recently sold, using Zillow and LoopNet listings, found ten vacant lots zoned for residential use in Glendale, ranging from $115,000 for two unentitled adjacent lots zoned R1R ($8 per square foot) to $12,000,000 for three adjacent parcels zoned C3 ($310 per square foot).
A number of underdeveloped parcels with a single-family unit that could be redeveloped with larger, single- family homes (with ADUs) or duplexes have been sold for $450,000 to $640,000 or approximately $111 to $135 per square foot, largely depending on the location within the community.
A number of multi-family developments have recently been sold in Glendale. A 2-unit property (duplex) at 1432-1434 E Windsor Rd. sold in July 2020 for $905,000 or $139 per square foot ($452,500 per unit). A 6- unit multi-family property at 917 E Elk St. sold in September 2019 for $2,400,000 or $350 per square foot ($400,000 per unit). A 13-unit multi-family property at 204 E Chestnut St. sold in November 2018 for $7,450,000 or $428 per square foot ($573,077 per unit).
Cost of Construction
Construction cost is determined primarily by the cost of labor and materials. The relative importance of each is a function of the complexity of the construction jo b and the desired quality of the finished product. As a result, builders are under constant pressure to complete a project for as low a price as possible while still providing a quality product. This pressure has led (and is still leading) to an emphasis on labor-saving materials and construction techniques.
The International Code Council (ICC) provides estima tes for the average cost of labor and materials for typical Type VA protected, wood-frame housing. Es timates are based on “good-quality” construction, providing for materials and fixtures well above the minimum required by state and local building codes. In the 2018 edition of the Building Safety Journal, the ICC estimated that the average per square foot cost for good- quality housing in the Glendale area was approximately $210 for multifamily housing and $200 per square foot for single-family homes. Although construction costs are a substantial portion of the overall development cost, they are consistent throughout the region and therefore are not considered a major constraint to housing production. The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic social distancing guidelines may increase constructions costs for an unknown period.
Construction cost increases, like la nd cost increases, affect the abilit y of consumers to pay for housing.
Construction cost increases occur due to the cost of materials, labor, and higher government-imposed standards (e.g., energy conservation requirements). Without public assistance, the development community is generally producing market rate for-sale housing that is affordable to moderate and above moderate- income households.
1120 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐98 | January 2022
Cost and Availability of Financing
Financing is critical to the housing market. Develope rs require construction financing and buyers require permanent financing. The two principal ways in which financing can serve as a constraint to new residential development are the availability and cost of construction financing and the availability and cost of permanent financing.
If financing is not easily available, then more equity may be required for developing new projects and fewer homebuyers can purchase homes, since higher down payments are required. Higher construction period interest rates for developers result in higher development costs. For homebuyers, higher interest rates translate into higher mortgage payments (for the same loan amount), which therefore reduces the purchasing power of homebuyers.
On May 6, 2021, the reported average rate for a 30-year mortgage was 2.96% with 0.6 fees/points (Freddie Mac, 2021). From 2005 through 2021, average monthly mortgage rates have ranged from a high of 6.76% in July 2006 to today’s record lows. For homebuyers, it is necessary to pay a higher down payment than in the recent past, and demonstrate credit worthiness and adequate incomes, so that loan applications meet standard underwriting criteria. While adherence to strict underwriting criteria was not required during the early and mid-2000s, the return to stricter standards is consistent with loan standards prior to 2001.
Approved and Built Densities
While the City’s zoning regulations identify minimum and maximum densities that can be developed in Glendale, individual developers may opt to build at the lower, mid-range, or higher end of allowed densities.
Recent projects in Glendale that are built or ar e under construction are consistent with the densities anticipated by the City’s General Plan, Downtown Spec ific Plan, and Zoning Code and typically built within 5% of the maximum allowable density. The City has received feedback from the development community that the maximum density levels are realistic and achievable, and the City expects to continue to see projects built at or around the maximum allowable density.
Market Conditions
Additional considerations include the market conditio ns of the local area, as viewed by the development community. Developers are risk-adverse by nature to avoid bankruptcy, and therefore seek to develop products that can sell or rent within the existing market as quickly as possible to reduce holding costs. Without some level of certainty that their final product can be occupied, the project would be considered infeasible and never initiated. Consumer preference also plays a role in determining viability. City zoning that allows for a high-density product does not guarantee it will be interesting to consumers or viable for developers.
1121 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐99 | January 2022
AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CONSTRAINTS
In addition to the constraints to market rate housing development discussed above, affordable housing projects face other constraints. While there is a r ange of sites available for potential affordable housing projects, as well as projects that focus on special needs populations, financial assistance for the development of affordable housing is limited and highly competitive.
Multiple funding sources are typically needed to construct an affordable housing project since substantial subsidies are required to make the units affordable to extremely low, very low, and low-income households.
It is not unusual to see five or more funding sources assembled to make a project financially feasible. Each of these sources may have different requirements and application deadlines, and some sources may require that the project has already successfully secured financing commitments. Since financing is so critical and is also generally competitive, organizations and agencies that provide funding can often effectively dictate the type and size of projects. Thus, in some years senior housing may be favored by financing programs, while in other years family housing may be preferred. Target income levels can also vary from year to year.
This situation has worsened in recent years. Federal and state funding has decreased and limited amounts of housing funds are available. Tax credits, often a fundamental source of financing for affordable housing, are no longer selling on a one for one basis. In other words, once a project has received authorization to sell a specified amount of tax credits to equity investors, the investors are no longer purchasing the credits at face value but are purchasing them at a discount.
Nonetheless, the City has had succ ess in collaborating with other stakeholders for the development of affordable housing in Glendale. Since its inception in 1975, the Glendale Housing Authority has developed over 1,200 units of affordable housing for both low-income renters and homeowners. A recent public private partnership or P3 to provide middle-income rental units includes The Link, a 143-unit apartment complex which was purchased by Standard Communities in partn ership with the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) and the City of Gle ndale using tax-exempt bond funding. Two projects in- progress include Citrus Crossing, providing 126 rental units to very low and low-income seniors, and Harrower Village, providing 39 rental units to very low and low-income seniors.
1122 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐100 | January 2022
4C. Environmental Constraints
According to the City’s 2018 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, environmental hazards affecting residential development in the City include geologic and seismic conditions, as well as wildfire, which provide the greatest threat to the built environment, and aircraft ac cident. In addition, the local topography serves to constrain residential development. The following hazards and other considerations may impact development of residential units in Glendale.
Geologic and Seismic Hazards
Similar to other southern California cities, the City of Glendale is located in an area of high seismic activity.
Several active or potentially active faults traverse the City, including the Sierra Madre and Hollywood faults which extend through the northern and southwestern portions of Glendale, respectively, and the Verdugo and Raymond faults which extend through the central and southeastern portions of Glendale. In addition, the City is close to other major fault zones including the Elysian Park Fault, San Gabriel Fault, East Montebello Fault, and the San Andreas Fault. The City prohibits cons truction directly atop or astride the Sierra Madre fault, and the Verdugo and Sycamore Canyon faults whic h are recognized by the City as potentially active.
Surface rupture in Glendale is unlikely; however, the City is likely to experience ground shaking, the degree to which would be based on the fault from which the earthquake occurs, distance from the City, and the magnitude. Impacts of an earthquake include potentia l liquefaction, which occurs when the strength and stiffness of a soil is reduced by intense ground shaking. Structures particularly susceptible to earthquake damage include tilt-up structures, unreinforced masonry buildings, older buildings, and mobile homes. After the 1971 San Fernando earthquake, building codes and design criteria were updated to address seismic occurrences. Further recommendations and land use restrictions are described in the Safety Element.
Wildfire
The presence of naturally-occurring shrub-dominated vegetation (i.e., chaparral and coastal sage scrub), in conjunction with the City’s many hillsides and steep topography, results in high and extreme fire risks. More than half of the City lies within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ) according to CAL FIRE. 1 In
order to reduce the risk, new development must comply with applicable City requirements for fuel modification zones, fire-safe site design principals, and other fire prevention activities.
Aircraft Accident
Glendale is on the landing path of commercial airpla nes inbound to the Los Angeles International Airport (LAX) and Bob Hope Airport (BUR). The Glendale Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Glendale Safety Element contain details and programs on emergency preparedness and aviation disaster response.
Hillside/Slope
The topography in the mountainous portions of Glendale serves as a constraint to residential development.
Slopes in these areas often exc eed 60 percent grade, and development necessitates extreme terrain modifications which significantly add to the cost of development. Allowable development densities and standards are governed by the Slope Density Formula outlined in the City’s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.
1 “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA,” CAL FIRE (September 2011). 1123 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐101 | January 2022
Indigenous Tree Ordinance
Chapter 12.44 of the Glendale Municipal Code protects native tree species including oak, sycamore and bay trees above a certain size. This ordinance prevents these indigenous trees from being cut down, removed or moved without the City’s review and issuance of a permit.
Ridgeline Areas and Blue-Line Streams
Chapter 16.08 of the Glendale Municipal Code prot ects scenic viewsheds to primary and secondary ridgelines, as well as properties with blue-line streams (defined as any natural stream course mapped with a blue-line pattern on the most recently published U.S. Geological Survey 7.5 minute series topographic map) within its boundaries. The geographic areas that are a ffected by the ridgeline ordinances include the San Gabriel Mountains, San Rafael Hills and the Verdugo Mountains. There is also a potential to impact tentative tract and parcel maps, building plans and grading plans for any property with blue-line streams within its boundaries. Other than improved drainage channels, blueline streams are located in hillside areas, most of which are zoned open space. A few blueline streams are located within developed single-family areas zoned R1R. Blueline streams are evaluated on a site-by-site basis as single-family residential projects are proposed.
Past history has shown that flexible development design has allowed use of single family lots within blueline stream areas.
4D. Infrastructure Constraints
Another factor adding to the cost of new construction is the provision of adequate infrastructure: major and local streets; curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; water and sewer lines; storm drains; and street lighting. All these improvements are required to be built or installed in conjunction with new development. In most cases, these improvements are dedicated to the City, which is then responsible for their maintenance. The cost of these facilities is borne by developers, added to the cost of new housing units, and eventually passed on to the homebuyer or property owner. As noted in the Re sources chapter of this Housing Element, public infrastructure and services are available, or are programmed to be made available, for all the sites included in the sites inventory, including the capacity to accommodate Glendale’s total share of the regional housing need (RHNA).
Senate Bill 1087 (enacted 2006) requires that water provid ers develop written policies that grant priority to proposed development that includes housing affordable to lower income households. The legislation also prohibits water providers from denying or conditioning the approval of development that includes housing affordable to lower income households, unless specific written findings are made. Senate Bill 1087 also mandates priority sewage collection and treatment service to housing developments providing units affordable to lower income households. The City will provide a copy of the Housing Element to its water and sewer providers in compliance with Government Code Section 65589.7 and SB 1087. As well, the Planning Department will continue to coordinate with the water and sewer providers to ensure priority service provision to affordable housing developments.
Water Capacity
Water supply and distribution in Glendale is provided by Glendale Water and Power (GWP) and, in the eastern portion of the City, Crescenta Valley Water District (CVWD). GWP covers 98.75 percent of the City’s municipal boundary. Water delivered to customers in t he City is a combination of groundwater from San Fernando and Verdugo Basins, recycled water, and imported purchased water from Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) via the Colorado River Aqueduct and the State Water Project).
1124 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐102 | January 2022
The 2020 City of Glendale Urban Water Management Plan (U WMP) states that it will be able to serve 100 percent of projected demands for the City of Glendale in normal, single-dry and multiple-dry years. Because of this, the projected purchases from MWD are assumed to make up differences between demand and other projected (groundwater and recycled water) supplies. Collectively, water supplies are projected to be sufficient to meet demands in all year types through the planning horizon (20 years).2 The GWP projects that its service population will increase during the 2021-2029 planning period, from 202,831 in 2020 to 206,908 in 2030. Despite that population increase, the City projects a surplus water supply of 18,577 acre-feet in 2030 during a normal year. Therefore, the City has adequate water supply to serve projected demand, including the City’s RHNA, through the time frame of this housing element (2029).
Sewer Capacity
The Glendale Public Works Department (GPWD) provides sewer collection and treatment services in the City. Sewage from the City is treated by the City of Los Angeles Hyperion System, which includes the Los Angeles-Glendale Water Reclamation Plant (LAGWRP), located outside the Glendale City limits in Los Angeles, and the Hyperion Water Reclamation Plant (H WRP), located in Playa del Rey. The City and the City of Los Angeles jointly own and share operating capacity of the LAGWRP. LAGWRP is part of an integrated network of facilities, known as the Nort h Outfall Sewer (NOS), which includes four wastewater treatment plants (WRPs). The upstream treatment plants (TillmanWRP, LA GWRP, and Burbank WRP) discharge solids to the HWRP. Wastewater conveyed to LAGWRP receives secondary and tertiary treatment to generate recycled water. The sludge generated at LAGW RP is sent back to the sewer, and conveyed to HWRP. The excess tertiary water is s discharged to the Los Angeles River. The LAGWRP has a capacity of 80 million gallons per day (mgd) and processes an aver age daily flow (DWF) of 20 mgd. The plant has a remaining capacity of about 60 mgd. The HWRP has a capacity of 450 mgd (up to 800 mgd during wet weather) and processes approximately 275 mgd of wastewater. 3 According to the 2020 UWMP, the GPWD
collected 6,024 acre-feet (approximately 5.38 mgd) of wastewater from the UWMP service area in 2020.
The local system of collector and lateral sewer lines is overseen by the City, while the City’s overall wastewater collection system is regulated under the jurisdiction of the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board, the State Water Re sources Control Board, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Approximately 360 miles of underground sewer mains ranging in size from 8 inches to 36 inches in diameter are located throughout the City of Glendale.4 No deficiencies presently exist in the District’s regional facilities that serve Glendale. Therefore, the City has adequate sewer capacity to accommodate projected demand, including the City’s RHNA, through the time frame of this housing element (2029).
Dry Utilities
GWP provides electrical service and Southern Califor nia Gas Company (SoCalGas) provides natural gas services to residences and businesses throughout the Ci ty of Glendale. Infrastructu re to deliver electricity and natural gas throughout Glendale is currently in pl ace. GWP and SoCalGas can generally can provide these services to newer development on request.
Telecommunications services in Glendale are provided by a variety of service providers including AT&T, Spectrum, and Viasat.5 Infrastructure to deliver telecommunications throughout Glendale is currently in place and can generally be provided to newer development upon request.
2 “2020 City of Glendale Urban Water Management Plan,” Glendale Water and Power (July 2021). 3 “Clean Water,” LA Sanitation & Environment (July 2021). 4 “2010 City of Glendale Urban Water Management Plan,” Glendale Water and Power (July 2010). 5 “Internet Providers in Glendale,” HighSpeedInternet.com, https://www.highspeedinternet.com/ca/glendale (January 2022). 1125 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐103 | January 2022
5. Resources
This section of the Housing Element describes resources available for housing development. Resources include land designated for housing development and financ ial resources to assist with the development of housing.
5A. Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA)
The City of Glendale falls under the jurisdiction of the Southern California A ssociation of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is responsible for developing a Regional Housing Needs Plan (RHNP) allocating the region’s share of the statewide housing needs to lower-level councils of governments, which then allocate the needs to cities and counties in the region. The Regional Housing Need Assessment (RHNA) is a minimum projection of additional housing units needed to accommodate projected household growth of all income levels by the end of the Housing Element’s statutory planning period.
This RHNA covers an 8-year planning period (2021 through 2029) and is divided into four income categories:
very low, low, moderate, and above moderate. T he City’s 2021-2029 RHNA is 13,425 units, as shown in Table 55. Pursuant to AB 2634, local jurisdictions are also required to project the housing needs of extremely low-income households (0-30% Area Median Income (A MI)). In estimating the number of extremely low- income households, a jurisdiction can use 50% of the very low-income allocation; therefore, the City’s very low income RHNA of 3,439 units can be split into 1, 720 extremely low income and 1,719 very low-income units.
The largest component of Glendale’s RHNA (42%) is for above-moderate income households, which is primarily addressed through the development of single-family homes (attached and detached). Multifamily projects like apartments and condominiums, especially smaller unit sizes, are most likely to be affordable to lower income households. Housing for lower income households is not typically provided in the Los Angeles market without some level of subsidy or regulatory requirement, and th us the Housing Element will need to provide sites at sufficient densities, combined with programs to support affordability, to address the housing needs of lower income households.
Table 55: RHNA 2021-2029
Income Group Total Housing Units
Allocated Percentage of Units
Extremely/Very Low 3,439 26%
Low 2,163 16%
Moderate 2,249 17%
Above Moderate 5,574 42%
Total 13,425 100%
Source: Southern California Association of Governments, 2021 Housing Element law does not require the City to ensure that the numbers of dwelling units identified in the RHNA are built within the planning period. The law does, however, require that the City provide an inventory of land suitably zoned and with available infrastructu re and utilities to meet that need. Government Code Section 65583.2(c)(3)(B) specifies that a minimum dens ity of 30 units per acre qua lifies to meet the City’s low- and very low-income housing needs.
1126 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐104 | January 2022
5B. Progress Towards the RHNA
Since the RHNA uses June 30, 2021 as the baseline for growth projections for the 2021-2029 planning period, jurisdictions may count housing units that have been developed, are under construction, and/or have received their building permits after June 30, 2021 toward their RHNA obligation. Since this date, 2,052252 housing units have been developed, are under construction, or have received building permits in Glendale (Table 56Table 56).
Pursuant to Assembly Bill No. 787, the City may also count as a credit towards meeting a portion of its 6 th Cycle RHNA, units in an existi ng multifamily building that were will be converted to deed-restricted rental housing for moderatelower-income households by the imposition of affordability covenants and restrictions for the unit. Units credit sed through this method may account for up to 25 percent of the City’s moderate- moderate-income RHNA. Glendale’s 6th Cycle moderate-income RHNA is 2,249 units, meaning that the City may take credit for up to a maximum of 562 moderate-income units through this opportunity.
Two One existing market-rate multifamily project s in Glendale ( Brio Apartments and Next on Lex1717 Verdguo) have beenwill be converted to deed-restricted projects moderate-income units during the 2021- 2029 planning period and qualify qualifies to represent a portion of the City’s progress towards meeting its RHNA. The City has confirmed all compliance with a ll statutory requirements (Government Code section 65583.1), including that the units will be preserved via deed-restriction with committed assistance from the City of Glendale. These This projects ar ise not newly constructed, however, deed restrictions have will been put in place to provide for very low, low, and moderate income units (see Program 1BXX). Together, the two projects provide for 559 deed-restricted units affordable to moderate-income households, and an additional 70 deed-restricted units affordable to very-low income households and 70 deed-restricted units affordable to low-income households. Using these units as a credit towards the City’s RHNA, the City can count 100% of the sincomeproject’s 125 units towards its moderate income RHNA. This opportunity results in a total credit of 125 units. It should be noted that prior to the 2021-2029 planning period the City converted numerous other market-rate projects to deed-restricted affordable projects, such as Brio Apartments, Next on Lex, Altana, and The Link; however, because the deed restrictions for these units were recorded prior to the planning period (prior to July 1, 2021), these units cannot be counted as a credit towards the City’s 2021- 2029 RHNA and will be counted as progress towards meeting the City’s prior planning period RHNA.
Jurisdictions may also count projects that are approved/entitled but not yet built or under construction; 1,3441,120 units at all income levels are expected to be constructed during the planning period. These credits towards meeting the City’s RHNA obligation are specified in Table 56. All units identified as being affordable to lowe r-income households are deed-restricted. Units identified as being affordable to moderate-income households represent a combination of deed-restricted units and units affordable to this income category based on market rentsAll other units are identified as affordable to above- moderate income households.
1127 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐105 | January 2022
Table 56: Credits Towards the RHNA
Project
Extremely and
Very Low income
(0-50% AMI)
Low income (51-
80% AMI)
Moderate income
(81-120% AMI)
Above Moderate
income (121%+
AMI)
Total
Status
Units Constructed/Under Construction/Buildi ng Permits Issued since June 30, 2021 3903 (3901-3915) San Fernando
Rd
12 132 144
1407 W Glenoaks Blvd 5 50 55 COO 12/23/21
4201 Pennsylvania Ave 30 30
352-358 W Milford St 4 28 32 Under
construction
361 Myrtle St 15 15 Under
construction
348-352 Salem St 12 12 COO 10/01/2021
373 W. Doran St 5 5 Under
construction
337 N. Cedar St 4 4 Under
construction
518-520 E. Windsor 9 25 34
600 W. Wilson Ave 3 3 COO 07/19/2021
2608 Honolulu Avenue 28 28 Under
construction
520 N Central 53 53 Under
construction
521 N Orange 45 45 Under
construction
520 N. Central 99 99
364 W. California Ave 5 5
518 Glenwood 1 4 5
327 Salem 22 21 43
515 W Broadway 8 172 180
633 N Central (Bldg A), 540 N
Central (Bldg B)
507 507
3903 San Fernando Rd 12 130 142
507 E Colorado 5 85 90
185 N Orange 156 156
600-610 N Central 235 235
1128 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐106 | January 2022
300 N Central 71 71
319 N Central (aka 313 W.
California)
4 90 94
301 N. Central (aka 304 Myrtle) 4 87 91
Subtotal 977 210 7780 1176243 2,0522
52 Conversion of Existing Multifamily Units to Deed-Restricted Affordable Units 1717 Verdugo 125 125 To be recorded
in 2022
Units Credited/ Subtotal 070 700 559125 0 69912
5 Approved/Entitled Units Not Yet Under Construction
Various Single Family Residences 70 70 Approved
130 N. Central Ave 158 158
413 N. Brand Blvd 228 228 Approved
2612 Honolulu Ave 28 28 Approved
429-503 N. Kenwood St 3 18 21 Approved
1815-1821 S Brand Blvd 38 38 38 Approved
1820 S Brand Blvd 28 26 2826 Approved
1412-1422 5th St. & 1116 Sonora
Ave
50 15 65 Approved
400 N. Maryland 4 24 28 Approved
238 Concord St 2 11 13 Approved
722 E. Arcadia Ave 14 14 Approved
913 S Adams St 2 16 18 Approved
3950 Foothill Blvd 5 29 34 Approved
423 Oak St 2 16 18 Approved
314-324 W Doran 3 30 33 Approved
1838 S Brand Blvd 5 75 80 Approved
1820 S Brand Blvd 28 28 Approved
2941 Honolulu Ave 3 15 18 Approved
515 Pioneer Dr. 116 221 337 Approved
900 E. Broadway 26 100 1 1 127 Approved
920 E. Broadway 21 8 1 1 30 Approved
Subtotal 186242 344329 2260 532605 1,3441
,120
Total 195389
276
435
399329
1251,563
573
1,708
900848
1,4974
,095
2,148
1129 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐107 | January 2022
Source: City of Glendale, January 20222021
As of October December 2021, the City has achieved approximately 3010% of its overall RHNA obligation with housing units constructed, under construction (252), existing units to be converted to deed-restricted affordable units (125), or approved/entitled (4,0951,120 units). With these units taken into account, the City has a remaining RHNA of 9,33011,928 units as shown in Table 57 ((3,0503,244, extremely low/very low- income units, 1,7281,834 low-income units, 686 2,124 moderate-income units, and 3,8664,726 above moderate-income units).
Table 57: Remaining RHNA
Project Extremely
and Very Low
income (0-
50% AMI)
Low income
(51-80% AMI)
Moderate
income (81-
120% AMI)
Above
Moderate
income
(121%+ AMI)
Total
2021-2029 RHNA 3,439 2,163 2,249 5,574 13,425
Completed/Under
Construction/Permits Issued
977 210 7780 1176243 2,052252
Conversion of Existing
Multifamily Units to Deed-
Restricted Affordable Units
070 700 559125 00 699125
Units Approved/ Entitled 186242 344329 2260 532605 1,3441,120 Subtotal 195389 435329 1,563125 1,708848 4,0951,497 Remaining Allocation 3,2443,050 1,7281,834 6862,124 3,8664,726 9,33011,928 Source: City of Glendale, January 20222021, SCAG, 2021
5C. Residential Sites Inventory
Housing element law requires an inventory of land suitable for residential development (Government Code Section 65583(a)(3)). An important purpose of this in ventory is to determine whether a jurisdiction has sufficient land allocated for the development of housing to meet the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need, including housing to accommodate households of all income levels.
This section provides an analysis of the land available within the City for residential development. In addition to assessing the quantity of land available to accommodate the City’s total housing needs, this section also considers the availability of sites to accommodate a va riety of housing types suitable for households with a range of income levels and housing needs.
This Housing Element identifies underutilized sites that can accommodate residential uses (including 100% residential projects) within Glendale. It is noted that Glendale is essentially built-out with no remaining vacant land designated for residential development.
A citywide parcel database, City of Glendale project data, Los Angeles County Assessor Data, aerial photos, and General Plan Geographic Information System (GIS) dat a were used to identify parcels for this update.
Parcel acreages by land use designation referenced herein are based on Los Angeles County Tax Assessor and GIS data. The opportunity sites shown here consist of proposed developments, accessory dwelling units, vacant residential sites, underutilized residential sites, underutilized mixed-use sites, and sites within the Downtown Specific Plan to accommodate the RHNA.
1130 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐108 | January 2022
SITES INVENTORY CONSIDERATIONS
The City has considered several key issues relevant to the sites inventory presented in this section.
Zoning Appropriate to Accommodate Housing Affordable to Lower-Income Households The capacity of sites that allow development densities of at least 30 units per acre are credited toward the lower-income RHNA based on State law. Much of the moderate and above-moderate income need will be met by private market construction of non-subsidized rental units, conversion of market-rate units to deed- restricted affordable units, redevelopment of underutilized residential lots, development of vacant residential lots, and entry-level condominiums.
Assembly Bill 1397
Consistent with updated Housing Element law (Assembly Bill 1397) related to the suitability of small and large sites, the lower-income sites inventory presented in this section is specifically limited to parcels that are between 0.5 and 10 acres in size and thirteen city-owned parcels that are less than 0.50 acres but intended for development as affordable housing, as the State has indicated these size parameters are most adequate to accommodate lower-income housing need.
AB 1397 also adds specific criteria for assessm ent of the realistic availability of non -vacant sites during the planning period. If non-vacant sites accommodate half or more of the lower-income need (as is the case in Glendale), the housing element must describe “substantial evidence” that the existing use does not constitute an impediment for additional residential use on the site. Due to the built-out nature of Glendale, all sites suitable to accommodating the City’s lower-income need have existing uses. Non-vacant sites included in the inventory have been chosen due to their location, age, existing uses, improvement-to-land value ratios, floor area ratio (FAR), lot coverage, and potential for intensification based on current market trends and a history of similar redevelopment projects in Glendale and the region . To ensure that appropriate sites have been chosen, properties that show recent investments or updates or that contain uses of local importance are not included, and clear criteria were used to evaluate all sites, as described below under the Detailed Sites Inventory.
AB 1397 requires that vacant sites identified in the previous two Housing Elements and non-vacant sites identified in the previous Housing Element onl y be deemed adequate to accommodate a portion of the housing need for lower-income households if the site is zoned at residential densities consistent with the default density established by HCD (30 units per acre) and the site allows residential use by right for housing developments in which at least 20 percent of the units are affordable to lower-income households. The City has included Policy 1.11 to comply with this requirement. Non-vacant sites identified in the previous Housing Element and vacant sites identified in the previous two Housing Elements but credited toward the moderate or above moderate-income RHNA in the current Housin g Element are not subject to the provisions of AB 1397 since they are not intended to meet the lower-in come RHNANone of the sites identified to meet the City’s 2021-2029 lower income RHNA have been identified in a prior planning period and are not subject to this requirement; however, the City has included Prog ram 1GXX should a site meeting these criteria be identified as part of the City’s inventory at a later date during the planning period.
No Net Loss Provision
Government Code Section 65863 stipulates that a jurisdiction must ensure that its Housing Element inventory can accommodate its share of the RHNA by income level throughout the planning period. If a jurisdiction approves a housing project at a lower density or with fewer units by income category than identified in the Housing Element, it must quantify at the time of approval the remaining unmet housing need at each income level and determine whether there is sufficient capacity to meet that need. If not, the city must “identify and make available” additional adequate sites to accommodate the jurisdiction’s share of housing need by income level within 180 days of approving the reduced-density project. Program 1B is included in the Housing Plan to set up a process for compliance.
1131 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐109 | January 2022
Realistic Capacity Assumptions
Consistent with HCD guidelines, the review of existi ng and proposed multifamily projects within a zone or particular area helps to identify the realistic density that can be anticipated for potential development.
Vacant and Underutilized Residential Sites (Residential Recycling) Currently, the City is processing multiple applications for intensification of existing residential properties, including several applications involving the demolition of a single-family dwelling and development of three or four units on the lot, thereby tripling or quadrup ling the number of units on a parcel. These residential recycling projects are achieving maximum density capaci ties consistent with those defined in the Zoning Code, ranging from 14-35 dwelling units per acre. Sites identified as likely candidates for residential recycling are currently developed with residential units with capacity for at least two additional units per site (note that sites which only demonstrated the potential for one additional unit were excluded from the inventory). Vacant residential sites (for which there are only 9 sites providing for 37 total units) are expected to develop at their maximum capacities. All Nearly all residential recycling sites are expected to produce units affordable to above moderate-income households. None of the City’s lower-income RHNA is expected to be accommodated within the City’s residential zoning designationsOnly one residential recycling site meets the size and density criteria to be credited towards the City’s lower-income RHNA; this single site can accommodate up to 103 lower-income units . This represents just 4% of all units expected to result from residential recycling and just 2% of the City’s remaining lower-income RHNA. Note that all units expected to be produced through residential recycling are net new units. Adjusting for replacement of existing units, the effective capacity for sites designated exclusively for residential uses is 72% of the maximum capacity allowed.
The City’s estimate of an effective density of 72% es timate considers the follow ing capacity factors, as identified in housing element statue (Gov. Code se ction 65583.2(c)(2)): land use controls and site improvements, realistic capacity of the site, and typical densities. Of the five fa ctors only land use controls and site improvements, realistic capacity of the site, and typical densities are relevant when considering the capacity of sites in Glendale; infrastructure constraints and environmental constraints are not applicable Table 58: Realistic Capacity Adjustment Factors – Residential Zones Capacity Factor Adjustment Reasoning
Land use controls and site
improvements
95% For net acreage due to on-site improvements
(sidewalks, easements)
Realistic capacity of the site 77% Adjustment based on past redevelopment trends in residential zones in Glendale and Los Angeles County
and programs to incentivize development in infill
residential areas
Typical densities 100% Based on ongoing project re view, residential projects are achieving maximum density
Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, no constraint Environmental constraints No adjustment Not applicable, no constraint Source: City of Glendale, 2021
1132 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐110 | January 2022
Underutilized Mixed‐Use Sites
The City has identified two mixed-use areas where resi dential development is permitted and desired; there areas include Mixed-Use Commercial/Residential (i.e., San Fernando Mixed Use or SFMU) and Mixed-Use Industrial/Commercial-Residential. In both cases, the maximum density allowed is based on adjacent zoning.
Specifically, for both Mixed-Use zones considered as opportunity sites herein, if the parcel abuts a property zoned R1, R1R or ROS, the maximum density shall be 35 du/ac; if the parcel abuts a property zoned R- 3050, R-2250,. R-1650 and R-1250, the maximum density shall be 70 du/ac; and, if the property does not abut any of the previously listed zones the maximum density shall be 100 du/ac. Historically, the majority of projects in Glendale utilize density bonus provisions, and as a result projects nearly always achieve their maximum allowable density (or above). However, to determine a realistic capacity for underutilized mixed- use sites, the City has assumed 50% of maximum capac ity, excluding any potential density increases as a result of density bonus provisions.
In order to determine a realistic development capacity estimate for the mixed-use designated areas, the City assumed that these sites will only develop at 60% of their development potent ial. This is based on a list of projects approved or proposed in the SFMU and IMU-R zones, which are currently achieving at least 80% of maximum capacity (with most projects proposed in 2021 and 2022 at levels above maximum capacity due to potential density bonus provisions). This conservative estimate considers the following capacity factors, as identified in housing element statue (Gov. Code section 65583.2(c)(2)): land use controls and site improvements, realistic capacity of the site, and typical densities. Of the five fa ctors only land use controls and site improvements, realistic capacity of the site, and typical densities are relevant when considering the capacity of sites in Glendale; infrastructure constr aints and environmental constraints are not applicable.
While the underlying zoning currently allows for 100 percent nonresidential uses, the City has not seen any applications or had pre-application discussions for mi xed-use projects where residential uses represent anything less than 80% of the site’s development potential. The City finds that it is not financially feasible or desirable for developers to redevelop any of the sites listed in the Housing Element inventory for 100% nonresidential uses. In an abundance of caution, the City has applied a 60% reduction to the maximum site capacity, but all evidence suggests that residential uses will comprise the vast majority of new development in the City, even if the underlying zone allows for 100% non-residential uses.
Table 59 summarizes how the various factors identified in housing element statute (Gov. Code section 65583.2(c)(2)) result in an adjusted site capacity of 60 percent the maximum densities in the mixed-use districts.
Table 59: Realistic Capacity Adjustment Factors – Mixed-Use Zones Capacity Factor Adjustment Reasoning
Land use controls and site
improvements
90% For net acreage due to on-site improvements
(sidewalks, easements)
Realistic capacity of the site 85% Adjustment based on past redevelopment trends in mixed-use zones in Orange County Glendale and Los
Angeles County and programs to incentivize
development in mixed-use areas
Typical densities 85% Based on Table 60, market rate projects develop between 70-80% of maximum capacity but affordable
housing projects are more likely to be built out to
maximum or above-maximum (through density bonus
provisions) density
Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, no constraint Environmental constraints No adjustment Not applicable, no constraint 1133 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐111 | January 2022
Source: City of Glendale, 2021
Downtown Specific Plan
The Downtown Specific Plan is designed to provide si gnificantly flexibility to developers in designing and implementing high-density projects. While the Downto wn Specific Plan does not set a maximum density, it does establish maximum heights and FARs by right, and with incentives, based on the subzone of the Specific Plan. Due to the wide variety of development scenarios possible under the Downtown Specific Plan, the City has inventoried all projects proposed and/or developed under the Downtown Specific Plan parameters in order to establish a realistic density for development in this very unique project area.
There have been 15 projects developed in the Downtown Specific Plan area and two more entitled. Together, these projects represent the delivery of 2,440 units over 17.19 acres. Based on the combined totals of these 17 projects, the average density of development in the Downtown Specific Plan area is 142 dwelling units per acre. In all some cases, the project utilized density bonus provisions to secure additional development potential through the provision of affordable and/or senior units. All projects developed and proposed in the Downtown Specific Plan area are outlined in Table 60 the table below.
Table 60: Downtown Specific Plan Projects
Project Address Acres Units Density Zone
Onyx south (I) 301 N. Central (aka 304 Myrtle) 0.65 94 144 DSP - T Onyx north (II) 319 N Central (aka 313 W.
California)
0.76 91 119 DSP - T
Legendary 300 N Central 0.63 80 127 DSP - OC
Altana (Site B) 540 N Central 2.02 192 95 DSP - OC
Altana (Site A) 633 N Central 2.43 315 130 DSP - T
Central+Wilson Not constructed 0.96 158 165 DSP - OC
Harrison 318 W Wilson (& 115 N. Central) 1.37 164 120 DSP - T Orange+Wilson 200 W Wilson (& 185 N Orange) 0.91 159 176 DSP - BC Brand+Wilson 120 W Wilson 1.38 235 170 DSP - BC
Next on Lex 201 W Lexington (& 321 N Orange) 3.18 489 154 DSP - OC The Campus 411 N Brand (& 414 N Orange) 1.34 228 170 DSP - Gat Moderna 600-610 N Central 1.56 235 151 DSP - Gat
Total - 17.19 2,440 142 -
Source: City of Glendale, 2021
Recent changes to State density bonus law will likely increase the number of units available to be developed in the Downtown Specific Plan area and the City expects the average density of development to increase in coming years. However, for the pu rposes of assuming a realistic capa city for projects proposed in the Downtown Specific Plan area, the City has assum ed an average density of 142 dwelling units per acre, consistent with the average density of all developed and proposed projects in the project area. It is noted that the majority of these projects were constructed prior to implementation of the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance; as a result, many of these projects only include limited numbers of affordable residential units.
The intent of the inclusionary ordinance is to change this pattern of development. Coupled with the City’s strong programs outlined in the Housing Plan to proactively advertise development opportunities and work with the development community to develop affordable units Downtown, the City expects to see the same or higher density levels for affordable projects who are better positioned to take advantage of incentives and 1134 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐112 | January 2022
concessions.
Suitability of Non-vacant Sites
Because non-vacant sites comprise more than half of Glendale’s sites inventory, Government Code Section 65583.2(g)(2) requires that the City analyze the extent to which existing uses may constitute an impediment to additional residential development, past experience in converting existing uses to higher density residential development, market trends and conditions, and regulatory or other incentives to encourage redevelopment.
Furthermore, the City will make fi ndings based on substant ial evidence that the existing use is not an impediment and will likely discontinue during the planning period.
City of Glendale is essentially entirely built out with only nine vacant unentitled parcels remaining to accommodate new multifamily residential development. In order to accommodate its fair share of regional housing growth (nearly 14,000 new units), the City must identify non-vacant sites to accommodate its remaining RHNA for all income levels (not only its lower income requirements).
Increase in Development Potential in Residential Areas
The City has conducted a records search of residentia l projects developed in the City’s residential zones from 2014 through 2020 and analyzed the presence of existing residential units (if any) and the number of new units constructed. Year after year, the City has seen existing residential units demolished and replaced with new multifamily projects incr ease existing capacity by 300%-1,600%. The presence of existing residential uses is not an impediment to the development of residential uses in residentially zoned areas.
Table 61: History of Development in Residential Zones, 2014-2020 Year Number of Projects
Surveyed
Existing Units
Demolished
Units Constructed Percent Increase
2014 4 4 26 550%
2015 3 2 38 1800%
2016 8 15 66 340%
2017 18 13 78 500%
2018 3 3 50 1567%
2019 8 13 79 508%
2020 3 3 17 467%
Total 47 53 354 568%
Source: City of Glendale, 2021
The City used this evidence to determine the realistic capacity of residential recy cling sites (as described earlier in this section). The research provided the evidence that sites in residential zones have redeveloped even when residential uses existed on the site. The City continues to receive expressed interest from property owners in residential areas interested in redeveloping their property to achieve higher unit counts. With the forthcoming update to the City’s Land Use Element, the City expects to continue to receive as much or increased interest in this development opportunity. The City finds that based on past development trends, current interest from property owners, and State legisl ation (i.e., SB 9) which continues to streamline infill residential development in residential zones, these sites are suitable sites to accommodate a portion of the City’s RHNA and existing uses do not represent a constraint to development of new developmentresidential units.
Increase in Development Mixed‐Use Areas
As a built-out city, Glendale established innovative ways to provide housing opportunities for its residents. 1135 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐113 | January 2022
As residential land has become increasingly scarce and traffic congestion a constant battle, the mixed-use and transit-oriented development concept became a viable option for Glendale. Mixed-use development has been permitted for years in most commercial zones in Glendale, but few mixed-use projects in commercial zones were built. To facilitate mixed-use and transit-oriented development, the City adopted several mixed- use zones, which were incorporated in a new zoning chapter of the Glendale Municipal Code (Chapter 30.14 – Mixed-Use Districts). The City has found that the potential for residential development in mixed-use areas is not well known or understood by the development community, and has included programs in the Housing Plan to advertise the availability of sites and proac tively engage developers in a discussion regarding opportunities along the City’s mixed-use corridors. This e ffort dovetails with the State’s objectives to locate more affordable housing closer to goods, services, and transit lines; the City expects that given the State’s objectives, new funding will be available for the devel opment of housing in this mixed-use areas, which are near transit stops, making them more attractive for investment and revitalizati on. Development in nearby cities including Pasadena, Burbank, and the City of Los Angeles demonstrate that the redevelopment of underutilized commercial or light industrial properties into residential or mixed-use developments is viable.
Demand for Development Downtown
Downtown Glendale is the most in-demand location for new multifamily development in the City. At any given time, the City is facilitating multiple discussions with property owners and/or applications regarding the potential redevelopment of sites Downtown. The sites that are most ripe for redevelopment include those that are at least 30 years old, have a floor area ratio of no more than 3, have an improvement-to-land value ratio of less than 2, and demonstrate blighted characteristics or are in need of significant repair or maintenance.
The City has evaluated these metrics for all Downtown sites and has conducted a visual survey of sites to assess their quality and development potential. The City has also considered any known long term leases or other constraints that would preclude, or even hinder, the redevelopment of the site. A draft of potential sites for development Downtown was reviewed by the Glendale Association of Realtors®; based on input provided by this group, the City reviewed and substantially revised the inventory of parcels suitable for redevelopment Downtown to better reflect current development trends and additional information on potential constraints, such as long-term leases. In addition to providing further context and information as part of this Background Report, the City has included specific parcel-level detail regarding existing uses (not only for Downtown, but for all non-vacant sites) in Appendix A.
Suitability of Non‐vacant Sites Findings
The City has specifically analyzed whether existing uses constitute an impediment for residential uses on the site. Additional information provided in Appendix A demonstrates that existing uses on the sites identified to accommodate the City’s RHNA do not constitute an im pediment for residential uses on the site. Additional information regarding floor area ratio, improvement to land value, and existing uses are included. The City has considered each site individually and has conclu ded that based on the subst antial evidence provided, current uses are not an impediment to the sites redevelopment for residential uses.
Environmental Constraints
The sites inventory analysis reflects zoning designations and densities established in the current Zoning Code and approved planning documents, including the Do wntown Specific Plan. Thus, any environmental constraints that would lower the potential yield (e .g., flood hazards) have alread y been accounted for. Any additional constraints that would occur on a more deta iled site review basis would be addressed as part of the individual project review process. The City’s capacity to meet its RHNA allocation is not constrained by environmental conditions.
The City is in the process of resolving litigation regarding the Environmental Impact Report for South Glendale. The City won the suit, which has been appealed, and will not be heard until the summer of 2023 (at the earliest). However, the South Glendale Community Plan does not change any density within the plan area with the exception of the site of Dignity Health Medical Center that will be upzonedup zoned to 100 units per acre and include increases in 200 feet in height. No sSites in the South Glendale Community Plan (SGCP) 1136 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐114 | January 2022
are included in the City’s list of suitable sites to accommodate its 2021-2029 RHNA since densities in the this area are already provided for with the existing zoning and no changes to densities in this area are proposed as part of the SGCP. Therefore, any litigation w ould not impact the sites from being developed since no changes to the existing allowable densities is being proposed.
Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Office Uses
The COVID-19 pandemic has brought forward a reimaging of office space, especially in urban markets. While many offices emptied out in the early months of the pandemic, the companies who occupied them were generally well-positioned to adapt to remote working arrangements and continued to operate productively.
While many companies are still operating completely remotely or with a hybrid arrangement, most anticipate at least a partial return to the offi ce, suggesting that the demand for office space will come back to some degree. One potential trend, given the tight labor market, is that companies may look to locate closer to where their workers live to improve comm ute conditions. The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on commercial real estate, and office space in particular, remain to be seen but the City of Glendale expects that some additional development opportunities will emerge as a result in shifting worker location patterns.
DETAILED SITES INVENTORY
The following sections provide details on the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element sites inventory. The opportunity areas identified involve sites that can realistically be redeveloped with residential units during the planning period. The sites chosen are suitable for redevelopment given their size, location, existing development pattern, vacancy rates, low lot coverage, low improv ement-to-land value ratio, low floor area ratio, age of structure, underutilization, and/or density levels. As market forces continue to push toward higher densities, recycling of underutilized land is expected to occur at an increasing rate. If the trend continues, the City can anticipate increased recycling of land, particularly in higher-density areas where economies of scale can be realized.
The City of Glendale’s 6th Cycle residential capacity falls into six categories:
1) Proposed projects;
2) Accessory dwelling units;
3) Vacant residential sites;
4) Underutilized sites in residential areas;
5) Underutilized sites in mixed-use areas; and
6) Sites in the Downtown Specific Plan area.
As described throughout this section, the City has sufficient land appropriately zoned for residential uses throughout the community to accommodate its RHNA allocation for the 2021-2029 planning period.
Moreover, Glendale has a proven track record of supporting development of affordable housing, working with affordable housing developers, promoting home type s that are affordable to lower-income households, including multifamily projects and mixed-use developments, and addressing needs of the community’s vulnerable populations, including seniors. The City will continue to implement its Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance to ensure the production of affordable units . Sites designated to accommodate the City’s RHNA allocation for the 2021-2029 planning period are illustrated on Figure 3, Housing Sites Inventory, and detailed in Appendix A.
1. Proposed Projects
As of December 2021, Thethe City is currently reviewing 11 16 multifamily projects and 54 single-family development applications which would result in the production of 503 782691 new units (in total, the proposed projects include 779 units but there are 63 units existing at these sites for a total net increase of 657 new units), including a net of 20 new units affordable to lower-income households (these will be deed-restricted), 61 units affordable to moderate-income households, and 691 new units affordable to above-moderate income households.
1137 of 1910
B u r b a n kB u r b a n k
L a C a n a d aL a C a n a d a
F l i n t r i d g eF l i n t r i d g e
P a s a d e n aP a s a d e n a
U n i n c o r p o r a t e dU n i n c o r p o r a t e d
L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t yL o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y L o s A n g e l e sL o s A n g e l e s
L o s A n g e l e sL o s A n g e l e s
LosAngelesRiver
Verdugo Wash
Glendale City Boundary
Glendale Sphere of Influence
Glendale Planning Area
Sites Suitable for Moderate and Above
Moderate Income Households
Downtown Specific Plan (<0.5 ac)
Residential: Vacant
Residential: Underutilized
Proposed Project
Sites Suitable for All Income Levels
Downtown Specific Plan (>0.5 ac)
Mixed Use: Commercial/Residential (SFMU)
Mixed Use: Industrial/Commercial-
Residential (IMU-R)
Proposed Project (A)
Sources: City of Glendale; Los Angeles County. Map date: December 8, 2021.
CITY OF GLENDALE
GENERAL PLAN
F i g u r e 3 . O v e r a l l H o u s i n g S i t e s M a p 1 0 1½
Miles
1138 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐116 | January 2022
This page intentionally left blank.
1139 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐117 | January 2022
Table 62: Credits Towards the RHNA
Proposed Project
Extremely and
Very Low income
(0-50% AMI)
Low income (51-
80% AMI)
Moderate income
(81-120% AMI)
Above Moderate
income (121%+
AMI)
Total
126-132 S Kenwood St 42 42
620 N Brand Blvd/625 N Maryland 294 294
401-409 Hawthorne St 5 2320 2825
452 W Milford 2 15 17
534 N Kenwood 11 11
1642 S Central Ave 3 28 28 31
822 E Chesnut St 1 1213 13
1242 S Maryland 1 1112 12
526 Hazel St 2 15 15 17
3450 N Verdugo 4 18 18 22
238 Concord 13 13
345 W Cerritos 44 44
246 N Jackson 11 11
441-445 W Glenoaks 27 27
1303 N Central 118 118
400 N Maryland 4 24 28
Various Single Fami ly Applications 54 54
Total 1920 10 75610 759408701 503782779
Existing Units at Proposed Project
Locations
0 0 0 68 68
Net Increase in Units 20 0 0 691 711
Source: City of Glendale, December 2021
1140 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐118 | January 2022
2. Accessory Dwelling Units
In January 2020, new State legislati on pertaining to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) went into effect. The legislation amended Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22. The City subsequently updated its zoning ordinance for consistency with State law.
The City approved 150 ADUs in 2018, 148 ADUs in 2019, and 179 ADUs in 2020. The City has taken significant proactive steps to advertise the opportunity for residents to construct ADUs, including information on the City’s website, hosting presentations to the, community, Planning Commission and City Council, and answering questions from the public in-person at City Hall and over the telephone. The City is also exploring the opportunity to prepare pre-approved plans to further streamline the ADU review and approval process.
Glendale made a conservative estimate of the number of ADUs that will meet a portion of the City’s RHNA obligation. The City used the average annual number of ADUs constructed permitted over the past three years multiplied by 8 (the number of years in the planning period), to estimate the number of ADUs (at a minimum) to be constructed during the planning period. While there is a slight difference between the number of units permitted and the number constructed in any given year, the City of Glendale, specifically, has observed that permitted ADUs are constructed and occupied within approximately 12 months. Currently, there is a small lag between units permitted and constr ucted due to changes in ADU requirements at the State-level which have caused homeowners to pause and refine their plans, but the City has received no indication that permitted units will not be constructed within the planning period. For example, in 2021, the City received 213 requests for permits for ADUs or JADUs (218 for ADUs and 13 for JADUs), approved 72 applications (56 ADUs and 16 JADUs), and realized construction of 257 new units (230 ADUs and 27 JADUs).
The number of ADUs and JADUs constructed in 2021 is a 42% increase over the City’s projected assumption for the development of ADUs and JADUs during the planning period, further supporting the City’s estimates outlined in this section.
The City fully expects that based on the trends seen in 2020 and 2021, ADU production will outpace assumptions during the planning period. The City has included Program 1F to monitor the production of this housing type, including affordability levels served, and the City is prepared to make adjustments to the City’s inventory if production lags behind projections.
The average annual number of ADUs developed permitted from 2018-2020 was 159, multiplied by 8, yields the estimate of 1,272 ADUs to be permitted and constructed between 2021 and 2029. This is a conservative assumption and production will likely outpace this target during the planning period. Additionally, the affordability level of these ADUs is assumed to be consistent with the findings of SCAG’s ADU affordability study and the findings for Los Angeles County 2.6
6 SCAG estimates an affordability breakdown of ADUs in the Los Angeles County 2 subregion as follows: 15.0% extremely low-income,
8.5% very low-income, 44.6% low-income , 2.1% moderate-income, and 29.8% above moderate-income. 6th Cycle Housing Element Update Technical Assistance – ADU Affordability Analysis, August 27, 2020. 1141 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐119 | January 2022
3. Vacant Residential Sites
The City has identified nine vacant parcels designated for residential development. In total, these sites can accommodate 37 new units. As previously stated, vacant resi dential sites are not anticipated to accommodate any portion of the City’s lower-income RHNA. All of these sites were identified in the City’s 2014-2021 Housing Element. It is noted that the 2014-202 1 Housing Element identified a total of 12 vacant sites, three of which were developed during the past planning period. The City continues to support the development of its very limited existing vacant proper ty, and this history demonstrates the development of these sites is feasible and reasonably expected as vacant property in the City gets even more limited.
Table 63: Vacant Residential Sites
Zoning Designation Number of
Parcels
Acres Assumed
Density
Total Capacity (Above
Moderate-Income
Capacity)
R 1250 2 0.35 35 13
R 1650 1 0.20 26 5
R 2250 3 0.43 19 8
R 3050 3 0.81 14 11
Total Vacant Residential Site
Potential 9 1.79 - 37
Source: City of Glendale, 2021
1142 of 1910
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report‐120 | January 2022
4. Underutilized Residential Sites (Residential Recycling) The potential resource for residential development in Gl endale is in the “underutilized” areas of the City. A portion of the City’s higher density residential acreage (R-3050, R-2250, R-1650 and R-1250 zones) is currently developed at less than maximum capacity, such as with single family dwellings and duplexes. These lower-density residential uses typically are redeveloped when it becomes economically feasible to increase the intensity of use allowed in the zone by acquirin g the improved site, demolishing the existing units, and constructing new, higher density units. Glendale’s four multifamily zones permit significant increases above single family densities, thereby increasing the ec onomic viability of recycling existing lower density developments with higher density apartments and condominiums. Glendale’s population growth in the 1980’s in particular was fueled by the recycling of underutilized lots into higher density multifamily apartments and condominiums. Land recycling such as this continues and demonstrates that the r edevelopment of parcels by the private sector is economically feasible.
Between 1980 and 1990, Glendale’s population expanded by over 40,000 individuals. Growth between the 1980’s and 1990’s was accommodated, for the most part, by the redevelopment of underutilized properties in the multiple family residential zone categories. During the 1980’s and 1990’s, over 10,500 dwelling units were added to the City.
The City completed several rezoning programs over the past several decades to accommodate increased development potential throughout the City. In 1986, the City performed a comprehensive rezoning program in which all residential land use categories were reevaluated. This resulted in both changes of zones and the development of new standards. A further rezoning strategy also occurred in 1991, resulting in the refinement of the City’s multiple family zoning standards. As a result of these two programs, the zoning distribution represents an accurate portrayal of the land use pa tterns in the City. Areas with a concentration of economically viable single family units were zoned either si ngle family or in the lowest category of multiple family zoning. Also, as a result of these zoning efforts, the underutilized properties in the multiple family zones are generally those that do not have a high economic value as a single family or duplex use. Therefore, the total development potential expressed in Table 64 is an accurate representation of viable development potential of this type of property.
The City has identified 854 854 parcels (totaling 158 161.06 acres) designated for higher density residential development suitable for residential recycling during the planning period, where each identified parcel can accommodate at least two additional units (there are m any more underutilized parcels with capacity for at least one additional unit each, but those have not been included in the inventory). In total, these sites can accommodate a minimum of 2,4962,591 new units. All properties are underutilized, having potential for at least two additional units, and all existing uses were developed before 1990 (making them over 31 years old). As previously stated, all except for one of the underutilized residential sites are not anticipated to accommodate any portion of the City’s lower-income RH NAthe City’s above-moderate income RHNA . The City has identified one site zoned for R-1250 (which a llows for at least 35 du/ac ) that is 2.95 acres as appropriate to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower-income RHNA. All other net new residential units (2,488) expected to be developed as a result of resident ial recycling have been credited towards the City’s above moderate-income RHNA. The net capacity of eac h site has been calculated by multiplying the site acreage times the maximum density and subtracting the existing number of units at the site (i.e., the capacity for each underutilized residential site is the site’s ne t capacity, after subtracting for existing development).