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
296 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 45 | February November 2022 STRATEGY 6: HOUSING SERVICES
In addition to programs designed to increase the avai lability 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.
297 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 46 | February November 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, physi cal 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.
298 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 47 | February November 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 299 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 48 | February November 2022 Solutions Grant, other private and agency resources.
2021-2029 Objectives Provide services throughout the community 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.
300 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 49 | February November 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.
301 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 50 | February November 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 with an emphasis on education in areas with high proportions of special needs populations, including seniors, persons with disabilities, lower income households, and female-headed households . 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 counseli ng, 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 disc riminatory 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 302 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 51 | February November 2022 meet annual goals: educational; tenant/landlord services; and discrimination services. Implement current 2020-2025 Analysis of Impediments (AI); Update 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.
303 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 52 | February November 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 , including specific actions targeted to sensitive communities already identified as at-risk of displacement . Identify potential partners to participate in the study t hat 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 2024 and begin to establish resulting programs by December 31, 20232024. Ongoing implementation and annual 304 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 53 | February November 2022 reporting throughout the planning period.
Program 7C: Affirmatively Furthering FAair 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 commun ities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protect ed characteristics. Specifically, affirmatively furthering fair housing means taking meaningfulimplementing 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 taking meaningful actions to affirmatively further fair housing and ad dress impediments identified in the AFFH analysis located in the Background Report. In summary, the City offers higher opportunity areas but faces challenges in promoting and providing a range of housing types and prices suitable for lower income households.
Providing a range of affordable housing can help foster more inclusive communities and increase access to opportunities for persons of color, persons with disabilities, and othe r protected classes. Table HP-1 summarizes fair housing issues, contributing factors, and implementing actions.
The actions listed below, along with the other programs identified in this Housing Plan, were developed to cumulatively address the AFFH goals to counteract the disparities and issues that were identified in the AFFH analysis located in the Background Report. The timeframes and priority levels are added to ensure the implementation of these actions in a timely manner. The priority levels for these actions are defined as follows:
High Priority contributing factors are those that have a direct and substantial impact on fair housing, and are core municipal functions that the City can control;
Medium Priority factors are thos e that have a direct and substantial impact on fair housing, but the City has limited capacity to control 305 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 54 | February November 2022 their implementation;
Low Priority factors may have a direct and substantial impact on fair housing choice, but the City lacks capacity to address it, or the factor may have only a slight or indirect impact on fair housing choice.
As shown in Table HP-1, the City intends to complete the necessary actions to meet the State AFFH requirements. These actions are integrated into the Housing Plan for the overall 6 th Cycle Housing Element with the specialized timeframes for expedited implementation. The rationale for identifying these actions is to ensure they are implemented in a timely manner to better serve the Glendale community. These actions are intended to alleviate the main issues identified in the AFFH analysis and the City intends to implement these and all the programs outlined in the Housing Plan during the 2021-2029 planning period. In addition, the City intends to monitor the AFFH actions on an annual basis in conjunction with the preparation of the Annual Progress Report (APR) to ensure the goals are being met. If any action items are not being achieved, the City will adjust its metrics, timeframes, and commitments as necessary to ensure it meets its AFFH 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, ances try, national origin, color, disability, or other protected characteristics through providing information, coordination, and education on fair housing law and practices to residents, landlords, and housing developers. This program addresses the fair housing issues of education and outreach, integration/segregation, and access to opportunity.
Efforts will begin immediately and may include, but not be limited to:
Housing Mobility Enhancement
Update the City’s Circulation Element 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 ai d 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 importance of participating in the planning and decision-making process and completing 306 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 55 | February November 2022 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 development pr oposals, 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 pa tterns, 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 patterns or the ability to transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity without displacement, the 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 Housi ng Authority efforts, to encourage, expand, and publicize fair housing requ irements as part of programs that provide rental assistance to lower income households.
On a biennial basis, evaluate the City’s Inclusionary Housing Policies and Programs to review the technical elements of the policies and programs and determine if they continue to meet the City’s housing objectives as quantified in the Housing Element.
307 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 56 | February November 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 investigation 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 Em ployment 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 sc hools, 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 an d 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 st atement for the City of Glendale by December 2022.
Continue implementing educational programming through the Library, Arts & Culture Department, on at least an an nual basis, to enhance and elevate culturally diverse artistic voices and bring additional focus on systemic racism 308 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 57 | February November 2022 by amplifying cultural voices through a lens of diversity, equity, and inclusion. • 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 Counsel 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 pa rt 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 victims of violence or discrimination in obtaining access to appropriate 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, fair housing services provider Funding Sources General Fund, CDBG, grant fundingGeneral Plan 2021-2029 Objectives Facilitate equal and fair housing opportunities by implementing measures to affirmatively further fair housing and opportunities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, age, marital or familial status, ancestry, national origin, 309 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 58 | February November 2022 color, disability, or other protected characteristics through actions identified in Table HP-1.Improve fair housing opportunities and response to complaints through implementing above actions. Follow-up on 100% of complaints.
Timeframe Ongoing for the 2021-2029 planning period beginning immediately, and as further outlined in Table HP-1.Ongoing outreach and coordination, beginning immediately; annual review of fair housing brochure and posters to ensure that the most recent information provid ed by the City’s fair housing service provider is being disseminated; annual presentations and media outreach. 310 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 59 | February November 2022 Table HP-1: Fair Housing Program Action Items
Action Area Programs Specific Commitment Timeframe
Geographic
Targeting Metrics
Fair Housing Education and Outreach
Education and Outreach to
Reduce Discrimination
Reduce fair housing discrimination by
landlords resulting from a lack of local fair
housing education and outreach, resources for
fair housing agencies and organizations, and
state or local fair housing laws to support
strong enforcement.
Provide information and
brochures regarding fair
housing/equal housing
opportunity requirements
with links to the City website;
Act as liaison between the
public and appropriate
agencies in matters
concerning housing
discrimination within the City
and refer discrimination
complaints to the City’s fair
housing services provider;
Provide fair housing updates
to the Planning Commission
and City Council;
Provide public service
announcements, through
coordination with HCD, via
social media and the City’s
website;
Consider preparing an Anti-
Harassment Ordinance;
Prepare a historic context
statement for the City of
Glendale;
Actively recruit residents
from neighborhoods of
concentrated poverty to
serve or participate on
boards, committees, and
other local government
bodies as positions are made
High priority/
within 18
months of
Housing
Element
adoption
Citywide Provide information
(2023) and review
annually to ensure
that any materials,
links, and info
provided are
current;
Biennial fair
housing updates to
Planning
Commission and
City Council;
Annual public
service
announcements;
Evaluate preparing
an Anti-Harassment
Ordinance and
provide briefing to
the City Council
with available
options by October
1, 2023;
Adopt a historic
context statement
by December 2023;
Ongoing
recruitment
(biennial basis) of
residents from
neighborhoods of
concentrated
poverty for
311 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 60 | February November 2022 Action Area Programs Specific Commitment Timeframe
Geographic
Targeting Metrics
available due to the regular
appointment process or
vacancies.
participation in local
government.
Housing Mobility Enhancement
Accessory Dwelling Units
(ADUs)
Encourage the development of ADUs and
JADUs throughout the City to expand housing
opportunities for all income levels (particularly
lower and moderate-income households) and
special needs groups. (Program 1F)
Evaluate strategies to
encourage ADU development
affordable to LMI households
and throughout the
community including in high
resource areas;
Update the City’s ADU
regulations to facilitate ADU
development;
Prepare and distribute ADU
factsheet in multiple
languages;
Provide HOAs and civic
organizations with
information related to
development of ADUs;
Monitor the production and
affordability of ADUs to
ensure the City is meeting
the assumption of 159 ADUs
per year as outlined in this
Housing Element.
High priority/
within 18
months of
Housing
Element
adoption
Citywide; target
marketing in
high resource
areas
Evaluate potential
incentives to
encourage ADU
production (2023)
and present
findings to Planning
Commission
(2023);
Prepare and
distribute ADU
factsheet (2023);
Survey existing
ADUs to determine
affordability (2023);
Monitor production
of ADUs by income
level at the time of
the Annual
Progress Report
(APR);
Target 20% of
ADUs in higher
opportunity areas.
Housing Choice Vouchers
(Rental Assistance)
Promote the Housing Choice Voucher
Program, with a particular emphasis on
promoting the program to the City’s special
needs populations. (Program 4A)
Continue to provide Housing
Choice Vouchers to
approximately 1,300
Glendale and 1,300 portable
vouchers, which Glendale
administers on behalf of other
housing agencies, to
extremely low and very low-
Medium
priority/ within
24 months of
Housing
Element
adoption
Increase the
number of
voucher
assistance
recipients in
higher
opportunity
areas;
Increase the
number of low-
income recipients in
receiving voucher
assistance in higher
opportunity areas
by 5% by FY 25/26;
Have discussions
312 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 61 | February November 2022 Action Area Programs Specific Commitment Timeframe
Geographic
Targeting Metrics
income households;
Aim to increase voucher
usage in higher opportunity
areas;
Work with the City’s fair
housing services provider to
encourage property owners
to participate in the Housing
Choice Voucher Program.
Target education
and marketing
efforts
throughout the
community with
an emphasis on
higher
opportunity
areas.
with at least one
multifamily
apartment manager
annually about the
Housing Choice
Voucher Program.
New Housing Choices and Affordability in Higher Opportunity Areas Provide Housing
Opportunities in Higher
Opportunity Areas for all
Members of the
Community
Public Property Conversion to Housing
Program (Program 1C)
Prepare list of surplus City-
owned lands and update
semiannually;
Work with nonprofits and
other public agencies to
evaluate the feasibility of
transferring surplus lands for
use in the development of
affordable housing by the
private sector;
Advertise available sites to
developers.
High priority/
within 18
months of
Housing
Element
adoption
Citywide with
emphasis on
sites located in
higher resource
areas.
Issue RFP for
development of
affordable housing
project(s) on at
least two City-
owned site(s) by
October 2024;
Evaluate feasibility
of issuing a second
RFP for
development of
affordable
project(s) on at
least two additional
City-owned site(s)
by end of planning
period (Oct 2029);
Develop 50 deed-
restricted affordable
units on City-owned
sites by end of
planning period.
Provide Housing
Opportunities in Higher
Opportunity Areas for all
Direct City Financial Assistance (Program 3B) Assemble property and extend write-down grants to
non-profit developers to
increase supply of affordable
Medium
priority/ within
24 months of
Housing
Citywide with
focus on areas
with higher
proportions of
Subject to
availability of
funding, assist with
construction of 400
313 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 62 | February November 2022 Action Area Programs Specific Commitment Timeframe
Geographic
Targeting Metrics
Members of the
Community
housing;
Provide construction and
permanent financing for
affordable housing projects
and special needs housing
projects, including extremely
low-income developments;
Provide funds for off-site
improvements, City fees, and
amenities to encourage
development of affordable
housing;
Conduct outreach to
developers when funding is
available.
Element
adoption
overcrowded
households and
lower levels of
owner-occupied
households.
new affordable
units with 25% of
units located in
areas with higher
proportions of
overcrowded
households or
lower levels of
owner-occupied
households.
Provide Housing
Opportunities in Higher
Opportunity Areas for all
Members of the
Community
Inclusionary Zoning (Program 3C) Require developers to meet a housing project’s inclusionary
obligation through
construction of affordable for-
sale units or through in-lieu
fees;
Conduct biennial review of
Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance for consistency
with State law.
High priority/
within 18
months of
Housing
Element
adoption
Citywide across
all opportunity
levels.
Development of
600 deed-restricted
affordable units
produced through
implementation of
the Inclusionary
Zoning Ordinance;
Biennial review of
Inclusionary Zoning
Ordinance.
Provide Housing
Opportunities in Higher
Opportunity Areas for all
Members of the
Community
Density Bonus Program (Program 3A) Use density bonus incentives to encourage the
development of affordable
and senior housing;
Advertise the Density Bonus
Program on the City’s
website and through outreach
materials, highlighting the
incentives/concessions
offered under the program,
High priority/
within 18
months of
Housing
Element
adoption
Target projects
in areas of high
or highest
opportunity.
Production of 400
new units
affordable to low-
income households
via density bonus
projects, with 25%
of units located in
TCAC areas of high
or highest
opportunity.
Provide Housing Adaptive Reuse (Program 1E) Evaluate opportunities for Medium Identify how Evaluate 314 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 63 | February November 2022 Action Area Programs Specific Commitment Timeframe
Geographic
Targeting Metrics
Opportunities in Higher
Opportunity Areas for all
Members of the
Community
adaptive reuse of commercial
and office buildings for
housing, including incentives
to facilitate affordable and
supportive housing
production;
Prepare an Adaptive Reuse
Ordinance.
priority/ within
24 months of
Housing
Element
adoption
Adaptive Reuse
Ordinance could
facilitate new
residential
development in
TCAC
opportunity
areas of high or
highest
resource.
opportunities for
adaptive reuse by
April 2023;
Adopt Adaptive
Reuse Ordinance
by December 2023;
Target 30% of units
from adaptive reuse
projects in higher
opportunity areas.
Provide Housing
Opportunities in Higher
Opportunity Areas for all
Members of the
Community
Adequate Alternative Sites (Program 1H) Expand the availability of workforce housing by
converting market-rate units
to deed-restricted affordable
units.
Medium
priority/ within
24 months of
Housing
Element
adoption
Citywide with an
emphasis on
evaluating
opportunities in
areas at highest
risk of
displacement.
Convert 125
market-rate units to
workforce housing;
Evaluate at least
one conversion
opportunity
annually.
Place-Based Strategies for Community Preservation and Revitalization Public Investment in Specific
Neighborhoods, Including
Services and Amenities
Neighborhood “Target Areas” (Program 2D) Improve the quality of life throughout Glendale, with a
focus on neighborhoods that
contain lower income census
tracts, such as South and
West Glendale;
Prepare a Community Plan
for West Glendale to guide
land use and transportation
decisions and to encourage
public and private investment
and revitalization in the
project area.
Medium
priority/ within
24 months of
Housing
Element
adoption
Target
neighborhoods
in lower income
census tracts in
southern and
western
Glendale;
Prioritize funding
for public
infrastructure
improvements in
targeted areas.
Adopt West
Glendale
Community Plan by
December 2023;
Ongoing
coordination with
property owners in
the project area to
implement the
Community Plan.
Public Investment in Specific
Neighborhoods, Including
Services and Amenities
Multifamily Acquisition/Rehabilitation Loan
Program (Program 2A)
Maintain quality of housing,
particularly for extremely low,
very low, and low-income
households;
Medium
priority/ within
24 months of
Housing
Citywide with
focus on census
tracts with higher
proportions of
As funding is
available,
rehabilitate 100
multifamily units
315 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 64 | February November 2022 Action Area Programs Specific Commitment Timeframe
Geographic
Targeting Metrics
Provide multifamily rental
acquisition/rehabilitation
loans or work collaboratively
with project sponsors to
secure funding.
Element
adoption
special needs
populations,
including
seniors, persons
with disabilities,
lower income
households, and
female-headed
households.
with 80% in areas
with higher
proportions of
special needs
populations.
Public Investment in Specific
Neighborhoods, Including
Services and Amenities
Mixed Use Standards on Transportation
Corridors (Program 3E)
Review and modify mixed-
use development standards
on existing commercial
corridors to encourage
mixed-use development;
Amend mixed-use standards
to reduce government
constraints.
Medium
priority/ within
24 months of
Housing
Element
adoption
Focus on
standards for the
C1, C2, and C3
commercial
zones where
mixed-use
development is
planned to
occur.
Complete review by
December 2023
and amend
standards by June
2024;
Increase number of
development
applications for
multifamily or
mixed-use projects
in commercial
zones by 20% by
end of the planning
period.
Code Compliance for
Preservation of Housing Stock
Code Enforcement (Program 2C) Improve the quality of existing housing and correct
City code violations;
Provide information and
guidance regarding the City’s
housing rehabilitation
programs to households
cited for code violations.
High priority/
within 18
months of
Housing
Element
adoption
Citywide with
identification of
areas that may
require special
support.
Review code
enforcement trends
on a quarterly basis
to identify any
areas of the
community that
warrant special
support and focus
future code
compliance
education in those
areas as needed.
Public Investment in Specific Encourage mixed-income strategy in housing Promote development of Medium Citywide with Annual outreach to 316 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 65 | February November 2022 Action Area Programs Specific Commitment Timeframe
Geographic
Targeting Metrics
Neighborhoods, Including
Services and Amenities
development. affordable housing through
mixed-use and infill
opportunities and near
services (transit and jobs);
Proactively advertise housing
sites to the development
community and conduct
outreach to developers to
discuss housing programs in
Glendale;
Continue to invest in public
facilities and infrastructure
projects that improve the
quality of life for residents,
especially in the City’s
disadvantaged communities;
Utilize a place-based
approach to investing CDBG
funds for public
improvements in areas in
need of focused preservation
and revitalization efforts
including areas with
concentrated low and
moderate-income pops.
priority/ within
24 months of
Housing
Element
adoption
focus on census
tracts with
highest
concentrations
of LMI
households;
Prioritize funding
for infrastructure
improvements in
areas with
highest
concentrations
of LMI
households.
the development
community;
Annual review of
CDBG funding
allocation with
emphasis on
investment in areas
with concentrated
LMI populations.
Displacement Protection
Displacement Risk of Lower
Income Residents Due to
Economic Pressures
Anti-Displacement Evaluation (Program 7B) 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
Medium
priority/ within
24 months of
Housing
Element
adoption
Focus analysis
where
development is
anticipated to
occur, e.g.,
Downtown,
mixed-use
areas;
Target specific
actions to
Conduct analysis
by August 1, 2024
and establish
resulting programs
(if any) by
December 31,
2024. Annually
monitor program
effectiveness;
Ongoing, and at
317 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 66 | February November 2022 Action Area Programs Specific Commitment Timeframe
Geographic
Targeting Metrics
and displacement topics,
such as fair housing services
providers;
Review land use and
planning proposals to ensure
that the City is replacing
segregated living patterns
with integrated and balanced
living patterns.
sensitive
communities
already identified
as at-risk of
displacement.
least annual, review
of planning
proposals.
Preservation of Affordable
Housing
Conservation of Existing and Future Affordable
Units (Program 2E)
Provide for the continued
affordability of the City’s low
and moderate-income
housing stock;
Conduct proactive outreach
to owners of deed-restricted
affordable units at risk of
switching to market rate.
Medium
priority/ within
24 months of
Housing
Element
adoption
Citywide,
depending on
location of deed-
restricted units.
Preserve XX deed-
restricted affordable
units, in
accordance with
the City’s quantified
objectives;
Ongoing
implementation and
annual monitoring
and reporting
throughout the
planning period.
318 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 67 | February November 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 i dentifying 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 S outh 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 319 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 68 | February November 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
320 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 69 | February November 2022 Program 8B: Permit Streamlining
Program Description This program includes a review of Gl endale’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 March 2023 and will make information available on a dedicated “Project Review” website by June 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 2023. 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
321 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 70 | February November 2022 Funding Sources Unknown
2021-2029 Objectives Reduce barriers and processing times for entitlement approval, including entitlement approval related to housing development ; reduce the average permit approval times Citywide by 15% by June 2025.
Timeframe Ongoing implementation and annual reporting throughout the planning periodProactive outreach to the development community to advertise the preliminary review process by March 2023; project review flowchart prepared and shared by June 2023; updated project website by June 2023; annual funding requests; update to the fee schedule to reflect Specific Plan fee upon next Fee Schedule Update (annually) .
322 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 71 | February November 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 20232024
323 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 72 | February November 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.
324 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 73 | February November 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 hou sing 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.
325 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 74 | February November 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 navigat ion 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) (a)(5) and to allow eligible supportive housing as a use by right in zones where multifam ily 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 326 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 75 | February November 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 :. Review the City’s reasonable accommodation procedure for constraints and revise the procedure as needed to create an objective standard for review (including revising or removing Finding #5).
G. Parking Standards.:: The Zoning Code will be updated to reduce the guest parking standards in the PRD Zone and to reduce required parking standards for efficiency and one-bedroom units.
H. Multifamily and Mixed-Use Development and Permitting Standards. The City will update its multifamily and mixed-use development and permitting standards, including lot coverage and height requirements, to reduce cons traints to the development and affordability of housing and provide higher levels of approval certainty. This includes replacing the requirement that multifamily and mixed-use projects in Commercial zones rely on R-1250 standards.
The City will also evaluate the requirement that 100% residential projects in commercial zones require a CUP and that multifamily projects in the IMU-R zone requires an AUP to affirm that 1) these requirements are intended to protect public health and safety and 2) the Findings associated with these pe rmits are objective and, if not, modify them to be objective.
I. Objective Standards. The City will prepare and adopt new objective design standards for multifamily and mixed-use projects.
J. Residential Care Facilities fo r Seven or More Residents . The Zoning Code will be updated to ensure zoning permits group homes 327 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 76 | February November 2022 objectively with approval certainty for residential care facilities for seven or more residents.
F.K. High Density Residential General Plan/Zoning Alignment . The City will evaluate the misalignment between the Ci ty’s current General Plan High Density Residential designation which allows for 35-60 du/ac and the corresponding zone allowing for up to 34 dwelling units per acre and prepare and adopt a new zoning district that allows for a density of up to 60 du/ac to implement the General Plan High Density Residential designation.
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 20222024.
328 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 77 | February November 2022 Program 9C: General Plan Updates and 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 paort 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 Complete an update to the City’s Land Use and Circulation Elements by December 2024; annual review of internal consistency as part of the City’s General Plan Implementation report.
329 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Housing Plan | 2021-2029
Housing Element Housing Plan ‐ 78 | February November 2022 4 Quantified Objectives
State law requires the Housing Element to include q uantified 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 num ber 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.
Table HP-2: Quantified Objectives 2021-2029
Income Category New Construction Rehabilitation
Conservation/
Preservation
Extremely Low 260 20 49
Very Low 345 40 307
Low 430 40 301
Moderate 1,125 - -
Above Moderate 3,350 - -
Total 5,510 100 557657
* *The City will seek to preserve at-risk units at their current affordability levels as recorded in each project’s affordability restrictions.
330 of 1381
PART 2:
BACKGROUND REPORT
Adopted February 2022
Revised November 2022
331 of 1381
This page intentionally left blank.
332 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 1 | February 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 ........................................................................................................................... 81 4A.3 DEVELOPMENT FEES ............................................................................................................................................ 97 4B. NON‐GOVERNMENTAL CONSTRAINTS ................................................................................................................... 101 4C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS .......................................................................................................................... 104 4D. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS .......................................................................................................................... 105
5. RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... .................... 107 5A. REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) ................................................................................................. 107 5B. PROGRESS TOWARDS THE RHNA ........................................................................................................................ 108 5C. RESIDENTIAL SITES INVENTORY ............................................................................................................................ 111 5D. FINANCIAL, HOUSING, AND ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES ......................................................................................... 138 5E. ENERGY CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES .............................................................................................................. 141 5F. GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY ............................................................................................................................. 143
6. AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FAIR HOUSING (AFFH) ................................................................................. 144 6A. OUTREACH ...................................................................................................................................................... 144 6B. ASSESSMENT OF FAIR HOUSING ........................................................................................................................... 152 6C. SITES INVENTORY .............................................................................................................................................. 236 6D. ANALYSIS OF CONTRIBUTING FACTORS AND FAIR HOUSING PRIORITIES AND GOALS ....................................................... 261
333 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 2 | February 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) .......................................................... 64 Table 44: Permitted Residential Uses by Zone (Commercial Districts) ......................................................... 65 Table 45: Permitted Residential Uses by Zone (Other Districts) ................................................................... 66 Table 46: ADU and JADU Development Standards ...................................................................................... 68 Table 47: Basic Residential Development Standards – Single Unit Per Lot ................................................. 74 Table 48: Basic Residential Development Standards – Multiple Units per Lot .............................................. 75 Table 49: Basic Residential Development Standards – Mixed-Use Districts ................................................ 76 Table 50: Minimum Floor Area ....................................................................................................................... 77 334 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 3 | February 2022
Table 51: Residential Parking Requirements ................................................................................................. 79 Table 52: Permit Processing Reviewing Body ............................................................................................... 85 Table 53: Development Project Processing Fees (Effective August 7, 2021) ............................................... 98 Table 54: Typical Development Fees for High Density Residential Project ................................................ 100 Table 55: RHNA 2021-2029 ......................................................................................................................... 107 Table 56: Credits Towards the RHNA .......................................................................................................... 109 Table 57: Remaining RHNA ......................................................................................................................... 111 Table 58: Realistic Capacity Adjustment Factors – Residential Zones ....................................................... 114 Table 59: Realistic Capacity Adjustment Factors – Mixed-Use Zones ........................................................ 115 Table 60: Realistic Capacity Adjustment Factors – Commercial Zones ...................................................... 116 Table 61: Commercial Zone Example Projects ............................................................................................ 116 Table 62: Downtown Specific Plan Projects ................................................................................................ 117 Table 63: History of Development in Residential Zones, 2014-2020 .......................................................... 120 Table 64: City-Owned Sites ........................................................................................................................ 123 Table 65: Proposed Projects ........................................................................................................................ 128 Table 66: Vacant Residential Sites .............................................................................................................. 130 Table 67: Underutilized Residential Sites .................................................................................................... 132 Table 68: Underutilized Mixed-Use Sites ..................................................................................................... 133 Table 69: Underutilized Commercial Sites ................................................................................................... 134 Table 70: Downtown Specific Plan Sites ..................................................................................................... 136 Table 71: RHNA Site Inventory .................................................................................................................... 137 Table 72: Compliance with Fair Housing Laws ............................................................................................ 160 Table 73: Demographic Trends ................................................................................................................... 168 Table 74: Median Household Income .......................................................................................................... 172 Table 75: Opportunity Indicators by Race/Ethnicity ..................................................................................... 208 Table 76: Domains and List of Indicators by Factors ................................................................................... 209 Table 77: Opportunity Resource Levels by Census Tract ........................................................................... 210 Table 78: Demographics of Households with Disproportionate Housing Needs ......................................... 216 Table 79: Distribution of RHNA Capacity by Census Tract ......................................................................... 237 Table 80: Fair Housing Issues and Contributing Factors ............................................................................. 261
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 ................................................................................................. 126 Figure 4: Census Tract Boundaries ............................................................................................................. 163 Figure 5: Dissimilarity Index ......................................................................................................................... 167 Figure 6: Diversity Index by Census Block Group 2018 .............................................................................. 173 Figure 7: Diversity Index by Census Block Group 2010 .............................................................................. 175 Figure 8: Diversity Index by Census Block Group - Countywide ................................................................. 177 Figure 9: Proportion of Population with Disabilities by Census Tract .......................................................... 179 Figure 10: Proportion of Population with Disabilities by Census Tract - Countywide .................................. 181 Figure 11: Percent of Population 18 Years and Over in Households Living with Spouse ........................... 183 Figure 12: Percent of Population 18 Years and Over in Households Living with Spouse - Countywide ..... 185 Figure 13: Percent of Children in Married Couple Households ................................................................... 187 Figure 14: Percent of Children in Married Couple Households - Countywide ............................................. 189 Figure 15: Female-Headed Households by Proportion of Children Present by Census Tract .................... 191 Figure 16: Female-Headed Households by Proportion of Children Present by Census Tract - Countywide ..................................................................................................................................................................... 193 Figure 17: Proportion of Senior Residents by Census Tract ....................................................................... 195 Figure 18: Proportion of Senior Residents by Census Tract - Countywide ................................................. 197 335 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 4 | February 2022
Figure 19: Median Household Income by Block Group ............................................................................... 199 Figure 20: Median Household Income by Block Group - Countywide ......................................................... 201 Figure 21: Ethnicity Analysis - Racial Concentrations ................................................................................. 203 Figure 22: Ethnicity Analysis - Racial Concentrations - Countywide ........................................................... 205 Figure 23: TCAC Economic Score by Census Tract ................................................................................... 221 Figure 24: TCAC Educational Score by Census Tract ................................................................................ 223 Figure 25: Environmental Score by Census Tract ....................................................................................... 225 Figure 26: TCAC Opportunity Areas by Census Tract ................................................................................. 227 Figure 27: Job Proximity Index by Block Group ........................................................................................... 229 Figure 28: Transit Routes ............................................................................................................................. 231 Figure 29: Cost Burdened Renter Households by Census Tract................................................................. 245 Figure 30: Cost-Burdened Owner Households by Census Tract ................................................................. 247 Figure 31: Cost-Burdened Renter Households by Census Tract - Countywide .......................................... 249 Figure 32: Cost-Burdened Owner Households by Census Tract - Countywide .......................................... 251 Figure 33: Overcrowded Households .......................................................................................................... 253 Figure 34: Overcrowded Households - Countywide .................................................................................... 255 Figure 35: Gentrification and Displacement ................................................................................................. 257 Figure 36: Sensitive Communities ............................................................................................................... 259
336 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 5 | February 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) r equires 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 ident ify 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 comm unity.” This report is an update of the City’s 2014- 2021 Housing Element (5th 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 mu ltifamily rental housing developments that are eligible to change from low-income housing to market-rate during the next 10 years.
337 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 6 | February 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. 338 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 7 | February 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
339 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 8 | February 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 outr each 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 H ousing 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) 340 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 9 | February 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 Depar tment 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 fo r 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.
341 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 10 | February 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 hi gher 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.
342 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 11 | February 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 incent ives 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.
343 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 12 | February 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.
344 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 13 | February 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, w ill 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 r egion. The program expands Glendale’s existing Just Cause Eviction ordi nance 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%.
345 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 14 | February 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.
346 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 15 | February 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.
347 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 16 | February 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 fede ral 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 af fordable 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
348 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 17 | February 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,
349 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 18 | February 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 poli cy 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.
350 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 19 | February 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 z oning 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.
351 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 20 | February 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.
352 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 21 | February 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 12 353 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 22 | February 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.
354 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 23 | February 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 per form 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 rent al 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.
355 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 24 | February 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 th is 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 re sidential 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.
356 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 25 | February 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.
357 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 26 | February November 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), Calif ornia 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
358 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 27 | February November 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%), American 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
359 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 28 | February November 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 employ ed 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 mo st 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
360 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 29 | February November 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 livin g 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 y ears 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.
361 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 30 | February November 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.
362 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 31 | February November 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 extr emely 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. 363 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 32 | February November 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%).
364 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 33 | February November 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 Sect ion 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 house holds 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) 365 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 34 | February November 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 th e 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 vaca nt 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 other systems.
366 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 35 | February November 2022 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 rehabilit ation 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.
367 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 36 | February November 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, stri p or Pullman kitchens, bathrooms, porches, balconies, foyers, halls, half-rooms, utility rooms, unfinished a ttics, 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
368 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 37 | February November 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 t hese 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
369 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 38 | February November 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 established by HCD.
370 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 39 | February November 2022 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
371 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 40 | February November 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
372 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 41 | February November 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
373 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 42 | February November 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
374 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 43 | February November 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 developmental 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 pr imarily 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
375 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 44 | February November 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 376 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 45 | February November 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. 377 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 46 | February November 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 mixt ure 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.
378 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 47 | February November 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 person s 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.
379 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 48 | February November 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 la rge 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 la rger 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 eit her 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 a ddress 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).
380 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 49 | February November 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.
381 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 50 | February November 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 cert ain 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. 382 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 51 | February November 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, mo rtgage 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 Partnershi p (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. 383 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 52 | February November 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
384 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 53 | February November 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
385 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 54 | February November 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 t hat 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 housi ng 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.
386 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 55 | February November 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.
387 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 56 | February November 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
388 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 57 | February November 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
389 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 58 | February November 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 pric e 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 t hat 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)
390 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 59 | February November 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 Zoning 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 391 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 60 | February November 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 co mpact 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 DSP districts with the exception of the Civic Centers District.
To accomplish pedestrian-oriented objectives of the DSP, certain streets have use restrictions at the ground floor. On designated Primary Frontage Streets and Entert ainment Streets, Frontage Requirements apply to the first 25 feet of lot depth of the ground floor on ly. These Frontage Requirements support active uses including retail, restaurants, and entertainment, and are concentrated within a 5-minute walk (approximately 1/4 mile radius) of the Brand/Broadway intersection (located along Brand Boulevard between Lexington Drive and Colorado Street; and along Louise Street between Wilson Avenue and Harvard Street). As identified in Figure 3, Proposed Housing Element Sites, none of the RHNA sites identifi ed in this Housing Element are within areas that have non-residential Frontage Requirements. While 100% residential projects are permitted in all DSP districts (with the exception of the Civic Centers District and on the first 25 feet of the ground floor on designated Primary Frontage and Entertainment Streets), the DSP does not require projects to contain a certain percentage of residential uses. This allows for flexibility to respond to market conditions. Therefore, although parcels within the DSP may allow for 100% commercial uses, these sites are anticipated to develop with predominately residential uses; refer to Section 5C of this Housing Element for projects and conditions to support this conclusion. The applicable development and parking standards are discussed in Table 41 below.
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 392 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 61 | February November 2022 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 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 393 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 62 | February November 2022 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.
394 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 63 | February November 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 est ablished 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 t he SFMU zone and with an AUP in the IMU-R zone. The City’s Zoning code permits multifamily residential projects with ground-floor commercial uses by-right in the C1, C2, C3, CR, and CH zones and permits 100% multifamily residential projects with a CUP in the C1, C2, C3, and CH zones. As described later in this section, the intent of requiring an AUP (for the IMU-R) zone and a CUP (in the C1, C2, C3, and CH zones) is to protect the health and safety of future residents who will be moving into the area, given that new residential uses may be located adjacent to nonresidential development.
The City has never denied an AUP for a multifamily development in the IMU-R zone or a CUP for a 100% multifamily development in a commercial zone. Furthermore, projects exercising density bonuses are entitled to using a concession or waiver to forgo the AUP/CUP process for 100% residential projects.
395 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 64 | February November 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
396 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 65 | February November 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
level1
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.
397 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 66 | February November 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 housi ng 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.
398 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 67 | February November 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 w here 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 C ode 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 si tuated.” An accessory 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:
399 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 68 | February November 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.
In accordance with State law, Mmanufactured homes may be placed on individual lots that allow single-family residential uses provided that the homes are attac hed 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.
The City uses the same definition of “manufactured home” and “mobilehome” as provided in the Health and Safety Code Sections 18007 and 18008. For purposes of zoning, mobile/manufactured housing is considered the same as any single family detached dwelling; refer to Dwelling, one residential. The Zoning Code does not define “mobilehome park” and instead relies on the Mobilehome Parks Act (commencing with Health and Safety Code, Section 18200 et seq.), which the City complies with. There are currently no mobilehome parks within the City.
400 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 69 | February November 2022 Mobile Home Park: The City of Glendale has no mobile home parks and mobile home parks are not permitted in the City.
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 sororiti es; 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 occupi es 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 obj ective 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.
401 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 70 | February November 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 identified 8 sites (totaling 14.04 acres) across these zones which wouldmay be suitable for emergency shelters and warranted further study, totaling acres. The City reviewed the aerial photographs and street-view images available for a ll 8 potential parcels and determined that one of the parcels has recently been dev eloped as a self-storage facility. Of t he seven remaining sites (totaling 12.64 acres), six are vacant and one is developed with a low-rise medical facility built in the 1970s; due to the age of the building and demand for more modern medical facilities, the City finds it reasonable that this site could redevelop with an emergency shelter. The vacant 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 402 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 71 | February November 2022 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).
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 length 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(ca)(35) 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 ex ploring 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 403 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 72 | February November 2022 constrain the development of such housing.
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. The City has included Pr ogram 9B to update its Zoning Code to ensure zoning permits group homes objectively with approval certainty for residential care facilities for seven or more residents. Occupancy standards for residential care facilitie s 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” encompasses and thus accommodates transitional and supportive housing in all residential zoning districts and subject only to t he 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 wi thin 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.
404 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 73 | February November 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 im pose 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.
405 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 74 | February November 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 buildings 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.
406 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 75 | February November 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)
Dwelling Units/Acre (Equivalent) 4 14.28 du/ac
19.36 du/ac (24.2
du/ac for lots with
width of 90 ft. or
greater)
26.4 du/ac (33
du/ac for lots
with width of 90
ft. or greater)
34.85 du/ac
(43.56 du/ac 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.
4. This row has been added to assist in the State’s review of the City’s Housing Element and is not a provision of the Glendale Zoning Code.
407 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 76 | February November 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).
408 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 77 | February November 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.
As a built-out city, Glendale’s residential development standards are designed to provide for a diversity of housing types, densities, and geographical areas, while taking into account existing development and land use patterns. For instance, there is no minimum lot width in the non-constrained single-family residential zone (R1) and no minimum lot size in the multifamily zo nes (R3050, R2250, R1650, R1250). This is because residential lots throughout the City, with the exception of corner lots and those with geographical features such as mountainous terrain, are typically narrow and deep. The standard lot size for multifamily zones based on existing subdivision conditions is 50 feet by 150 feet. As such, the two-story limit for a narrower lot (less than 90 feet) ensures developments ha ve adequate separation and access to light and air. The Code, by allowing for three-story development on lots greate r than 90 feet in width, works to incentivize lot consolidation and greater densities, since maximum densities also increase in the R1250, R1650, and R2250 zones for lot widths greater than 90 feet. For instance, on a 50’ by 150’ lot, the maximum number of units in the R-1250 zone is six, but this would increase to 15 units if two lots are consolidated to become 100’ by 150’ (not including any additional density bonus that might be requested). This provides opportunities for developers to take advantage of more efficient land us e patterns through incremental changes to existing subdivisions, without introducing additional lot size requirements that could constrain development.
Moreover, development standards, including height and lot coverage requirements for multifamily zones, do not interfere with a development’s ability to reac h the maximum density for each zone. For instance, a hypothetical 7,500 square foot (50 by 150-foot) lot in the R1250 zone would have a maximum building lot coverage of 50 percent or 3,750 square feet. Assuming a height of two stories, the building's gross floor area would be 7,500 square feet, resulting in a FAR of 1.0, which is under the maximum FAR of 1.2. And assuming the maximum density is developed (six units), each unit in this hypothetical development could be up to 1,250 square feet, which is large enough to accommodate one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. Further, the 50 percent maximum building lot coverage for multifamily zones allows a buffer for required setbacks, ensuring multifamily developments have adequate ingress/egress and access to light and air, as well as the minimum required 25 percent open space (1,875 square feet, or 312.5 square feet per unit in our hypothetical development scenario).
The City has considered the impact of its development standards on the supply and affordability of housing.
Through this analysis, the City has determined that, based on input from the development community and a history of successful development of projects in accordance with the City’s development standards, they do not present a significant constraint to the development of housing or on the cost of housing. Specifically, the 409 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 78 | February November 2022 maximum lot coverage requirements of 40-50% have not limited the development of housing or limited the ability for applicants to develop housing affordable to households at all income levels in the multifamily zones.
However, for projects utilizing density bonus provisi ons in mixed-use zones, applicants do periodically request, as a concession, relief from the two-story limit for projects in mixed-use areas where the lot is less than 90 feet wide and the City grants this request. For th is reason, the City finds that the requirement does not limit the development or supply of housing, because projects which include affordable units have and will utilize the City’s density bonus program and receive relief from this requirements. In fact, data suggest that the requirement may have contributed to a greater nu mber of density bonus projects and a greater number of overall units than would have been built by-right. Of 16 multifamily projects that have been proposed, approved, and/or constructed in mu ltifamily zones on lots of less than 90 feet between August 2016 and September 2022, 14 have been density bonus projects, resulting in 625 dwelling units over the maximum allowed.
Despite a strong history of affordable housing development, the City remains committed to removing potential government constraints associated with the development of multifamily housing. In late 2019 the City Council directed Staff to examine the multifamily development standards. Per public comments received, questions were raised as to whether existing developmen t and design standards were preventing multifamily developments from achieving maximum development potential. These standards include but are not limited to: height, subterranean parking, common open space, setbacks, and lot coverage. As described above and in Section 5 of this Report, the City has regularly a pproved projects at or above the site’s maximum density due to density bonus provisions. The City has included Program 9B in the Housing Plan to complete this assessment of multifamily development standards and update the standards, including the lot coverage and height standards, in order to remove potential constraints to multifamily development.
On/Off-Site Improvements
The City must identify subdivision level improvement requirements, such as minimum street widths, and analyze their impact as potential constraints on hou sing supply and affordability. On- and off-site improvement requirements for residential development in the City are imposed when necessary for the proper development of the area. Per Chapter 16.28, of the City’s Municipal Code, subdivisions on-site improvement requirements include: curb, gutter, sidewalks and walkways; storm sewers and drains; erosion control; street surfacing; street trees; street nameplate signs, stop signs, and other traffic control signs and signals; and fire alarm call boxes. Off-site improvements may also be required and include: water supply system for domestic and fire-protection purposes; contribution to the improvement of sewage disposal facilities and infrastructure; roads; extension of other utilitie s; storm drainage facilities; and easements. The City’s improvement standards are typical for most jurisdictions. While impr ovement requirements increase the cost of housing, they are necessary to protect health, safety, and welfare, maintain the City’s quality of life, and ensure the adequate provision of public services and facilities. Curb, gutter, and sidewalk improvements in particular are necessary to avoid drainage problems and ensure pedestrian access and handicapped accessibility, as are erosion control and fire-protection measures to minimize and mitigate natural hazards.
Street width standards are established in the Glend ale General Plan Circulation Element: major arterials have a minimum right-of-way (ROW) width of 96 feet and minimum roadway width of 76 feet; minor arterials have a minimum ROW width of 84 feet and minimum r oadway width of 64 feet; collectors have a minimum ROW width of 56 feet and minimum roadway width of 40 feet; and local streets have a minimum ROW of 46 feet and roadway width of 36 feet. Fo r mountainous streets, collectors have a minimum ROW width of 35 feet and minimum roadway width of 24 feet; and local st reets have a minimum ROW width of 28.5 feet and minimum roadway width of 22 feet. Dedications for st reet improvements are requi red as part of regular development; the City’s Public Works department re lies on the Circulation Element to hold applicants accountable for right-of-wayROW dedi cation should the existing street not comply with the Circulation Element. The City is currently preparing an update to its Circulation Element,; it is expected that the revised element will require similar ROW dedications as well as pedestrian and bicycle improvements. The City has seen the successful development of proj ects at all income levels that comply with the City’s on and off-site 410 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 79 | February November 2022 improvements and finds that they are not a constraint to housing supply or affordability.
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.
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 gues t 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.
411 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 80 | February November 2022 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 disabilit ies. 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 suffici ently high so as to not constrain development and not a constraint for affordable projects, which are provided relief from these standards.
412 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 81 | February November 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 Permit (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 Administrative 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. Once a complete application has been submitted, the typical total review time for singl e- and multifamily projects is 3-4 months (with the exception of new multifamily projects in the Downto wn Specific Plan area, as described below); however, this timeline can vary based on the project.
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 multifamily residential development in multifamily and mixed-use zones (R-3050, R-2250, R-1650 and R- 1250 for multifamily 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 413 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 82 | February November 2022 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.
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: Stage I Preliminary Design Review by City Council (typical review time 2-3 months), advisory review by the Design Review Board (typical review time 4-6 weeks), and Stage II Final Design Review by City Council (typical review time 2-3 months). Environmental (CEQA) analysis would occur concurrent ly and, depending on a variety of factor s, including the complexity of the project and/or community opposition, could cause significant delays to this timeline. City Council intentionally implemented this multi-phase process to ensure the hi ghest 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:
414 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 83 | February November 2022 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 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 and to protect future residents from the potential health and environmental concerns with co-locating housing and commercial and industrial projects; the IMU-R zone was adopted in 2004 in the San Fernando Road Re development 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 IMU-R zone is limited to the s outhwest portion of the City, located adjacent to San Fernando Road and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of-way, along a corridor that had traditionally housed manufacturing and other industrial uses that may have involved the use or storage of hazardous materials.
Many industrial-type uses such as manufacturing, warehousing/distribution, and automotive uses remain in these zones and may present a variety of challenges to residents, including safety, odor, and noise. The requirement of an AUP for residential uses in the IMU-R zone was designed to protect the public health and welfare of future residents from previous and current incompatible uses by providing an appropriate level of scrutiny. Further, the City has never denied an applicat ion for a residential project in a mixed-use area, including the IMU-R zone. For these reasons, the City finds that the AUP requirement for residential uses in IMU-R zones does not unduly constrain housing development in the City and protects the health and safety of future residents.
The City has included Program 9B in the housing plan to update the development standards and permit procedures for the development of mixed-use and multifamily projects to streamline the future development of multifamily projects. The City has also included Program 9B to develop objective design standards for all multifamily and mixed-use projects. As part of this e ffort, the City is committed to evaluating the permit process for multifamily projects, including in instances where an AUP or CUP is required, and ensuring that the required Findings are objective and consistent with State Housing Law.
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 Pl an 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 415 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 84 | February November 2022 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 requi re 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.
416 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 85 | February November 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)
417 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 86 | February November 2022 For buildings and structures in the DSP zone over te n 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 t he 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.
418 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 87 | February November 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 appropr iate 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 re quired 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 c onditions 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.
419 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 88 | February November 2022 The director of community development shall have t he 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 per mit 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.
420 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 89 | February November 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 ar chitectural 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 ant enna, 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 t he 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 su ch 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.
421 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 90 | February November 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 th is 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 histor ic 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 compatib le 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 av erage 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. 422 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 91 | February November 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 t hat 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:
423 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 92 | February November 2022
1.5. 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.
2.6. 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.e. 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.f. The structure containing live/work units and each 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.g. 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.
3.7. Decisions related to development in the ROS and R1R zones shall consider the hillside development review policy contained in Section 30.11.040(A).
As previously stated, multifamily projects with ground-floor commercial uses are permitted by right in the City’s commercial zones and 100% residential projects in commercial zones require a conditional use permit (only Findings 1-4 above). The requirement fo r a conditional use permit for 100% multifamily residential development commercial zones is designed to protect future residents from hazards and other incompatible uses and to protect the existing commercial and industrial base of the City as well as ensure that sufficient commercial services are available to meet the needs of residents in these areas. The City has never denied an application for a residential projec t in a commercial area. 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 commercial uses are located close together.
424 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 93 | February November 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 devel opment 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)
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. As previously 425 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 94 | February November 2022 stated, the requirement for an AUP for multifamily re sidential development the IMU-R zone is designed to protect future residents from hazards and other incompatible uses and to protect the existing commercial and industrial base of the City. 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. The City has never denied an application for a residential project in a mixed-use area. 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. The creation of the IMU-R zone and the zone’s AUP findings for multifamily residential uses help support the City’s goals by:
allowing for a range of housing types, particularly in areas with access to transit and in close proximity to jobs and services; promoting health and safety by protecting residents from incompatible uses; and maintaining an appropriate jobs-housing balance to support gainful employment in the City, reduce work-related vehicle trips, and foster a diversified local economy.
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 regul ations 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 require ments. 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 di sabilities 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 stru ctures 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 wi th 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 envir onmental 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 am endments, 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. 426 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 95 | February November 2022
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 pr oject, 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.
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, t he 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).
427 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 96 | February November 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 re sult 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 continue 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).
428 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 97 | February November 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 co nstrain 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 permit s, 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. De velopment 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 429 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 98 | February November 2022 test to ensure the pro rata share of costs to provi de 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 (note that developmen t fees for parks and parks and library mitigation are single- and multifamily , which only apply to multfifamilymultifamily projects, as shown in Table 54.
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- rtesidential 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 Ne w 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 Ne w 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 $1,553.00 430 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 99 | February November 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 Progra m 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 affor dability. 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.
Projects are not required to have Development Agreements. Typically, Development Agreements are requested to extend discretionary approval timelines, freeze development impact fees, and identify community benefit incentives which allow greater development (e.g., FAR and height increases above by right standards) in exchange for defined community benefits in the DSP, such as additional publicly accessible open space. As shown in Table 53, the Development Agreement fee is $3,080.00.
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 $6,381.00 431 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 100 | February November 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. The overall fee identified below, per unit based on a 45-unit project, is $28,963 per multifamily unit. The expected fee for a single-family project would be less than a multifamily unit, because the build ing fees are taken as a percentage of cost of construction and construction costs of a single-family unit are lower than a multifamily unit. Based on the information below, the fees for a single-family unit are expected to be approximately $25,530 per unit.
The cost of construction for a typical 1,000 sf multifamily project is approximately $300,000 (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 9.5% of construction costs. The cost of construction for a typical 1,200 sf single-family house is approximately $200,000. As a percentage of overall construction, fess for single-family units represent approximately 12.7% of construction costs. While the City recognizes that these fees could have an impact on the cost and supply of housing, the City has experienced significant demand and development during the past planning period for housing at all income levels and has determined that these fees are not an undue constraint to development of future residential projects.
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$87,000*
Building $22,564.00$105,000*
Electrical Service Fee $20,000.00
Residential Development Impact Fees
School Fees $106,515.00$208,000
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$844,000* Total Fees for 45-Unit Project $278,447.71$1,303,377
Total Fees per Multifamily Unit $6,187.73$28,963
Sources: City of Glendale, 2021
*The Park and Library Mitigation Fee is $18,751 per multifamily unit and $21,828 per single-family unit. To determine the total fees for a single-family home, the City has assumed that Plan Check and Building fees will be approximately 20% lower.
432 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 101 | February November 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, undev eloped 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 so ld 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.
433 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 102 | February November 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. Financing is widely available in the City and the City has not received any complaints from current or future residents that financing was unavailable.
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 Specific Plan, and Zoning Code and typically built within 5% of the maximum allowable density. The City ha s 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 t herefore 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.
434 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 103 | February November 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.
435 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 104 | February November 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 in tense ground shaking. Structures par ticularly 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 Form ula outlined in the City’s Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance.
1 “Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA,” CAL FIRE (September 2011). 436 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 105 | February November 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 developm ent 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).
437 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 106 | February November 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) provid es 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 treatm ent 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). 438 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 107 | February November 2022
5. Resources
This section of the Housing Element describes res ources 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 thus 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.
439 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 108 | February November 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 existing mult ifamily building that were converted to deed-restricted rental housing for moderate-income households by t he imposition of affordability covena nts and restrictions for the unit.
Units credits through this method may account for up to 25 percent of the City’s moderate-income RHNA.
Glendale’s 6th Cycle moderate-income RHNA is 2,249 units, meaning that the City may take credit for up to 562 moderate-income units through this opportunity.
Two existing multifamily projects in Glendale (Brio Apartments and Next on Lex) have been converted to deed-restricted projects and qualify to represent a portion of the City’s progress towards meeting its RHNA.
These projects are not newly constructed, however, deed restrictions have been put in place to provide for very low, low, and moderate income units1B. 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. sincome 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.
440 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 109 | February November 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
300 N Central 71 71
441 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 110 | February November 2022 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 Subtotal 70 70 559 0 699
Approved/Entitled Units No t 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
01,563
573
1,708
900848
1,3724
,095
2,148
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) and, existing units converted to deed-restricted affordable units, or approved/entitled (4,0951,120 units). With these units taken into account, the City has a 442 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 111 | February November 2022 remaining RHNA of 9,33012,053 units as shown in Table 57 ((3,0503,244, extremely low/very low-income units, 1,7281,834 low-income units, 686 2,249 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
70 70 559 0 699
Units Approved/ Entitled 186242 344329 2260 532605 1,3441,120 Subtotal 195389 435329 1,5630 1,708848 4,0951,372
Remaining Allocation 3,2443,050 1,7281,834 6862,249 3,8664,726 9,33012,053 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 site s, underutilized mixed-use sites, and sites within the Downtown Specific Plan to accommodate the RHNA.
443 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 112 | February November 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 Pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c)(3), the housing element must include analysis of identified sites which must demonstrate how adopt ed densities accommodate the regional housing need for lower-income households. The analysis shall include, but is not limited to, factors such as market demand, financial feasibility, or information based on development project experience within a zone or zones that provide housing for lower-income households.
As an option and alternative to preparing the analysis described above, Government Code section 65583.2, subdivision (c)(3)(B), allows local governments to utilize “default” density standards that are “deemed appropriate to accommodate housing for lower income households.” The default density option is not a mandated density. The default density standard provides a streamlined option for local governments to meet the density requirement. No analysis to establish the appropriateness of the default density is required, and the California Department of Hous ing and Community Development (HCD) must accept that density as appropriate in its review. Default densities are esta blished using census population figures and based on methodology detailed in Government Code section 65583. 2, subdivisions (b)(i)-(iv), and section 65583.2, subdivisions (d)-(f).
The default density for the City of Glendale is 30 du/ac. The capacity of sites that allow development densities of at least 30 units per acre are credited towa rd the lower-income RHNA based on State law. This includes sites 0.50 acres or larger in the City’s commercial zones, mixed-use zones, and the Downtown Specific Plan and sites in the City’s mixed-use zones that are smaller than 0.50 acres but owned by the City where the City has proven that it has a hi story of developing similarly sized site s for affordable housing during the prior planning period. 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 unit s 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 444 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 113 | February November 2022 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.
445 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 114 | February November 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 demolitio n 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 resident ial 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
446 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 115 | February November 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 447 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 116 | February November 2022 Source: City of Glendale, 2021
Underutilized Commercial Sites
The City has identified 15 parcels zoned for commercial uses where residential development is permitted at a density of up to 43 du/ac as appropriate location s to accommodate a portion of the City’s RHNA. As described in the prior section on underutilized mixed-use sites, historically, the majority of projects in Glendale utilize density bonus provisions, and as a result proj ects nearly always achieve their maximum allowable density (or above).
In order to determine a realistic development capacity estimate for the commercial designated areas, the City assumed that these sites will develop at 80% of their development potential. This is based on a list of projects approved or proposed in the C2 and C3 zones, which are currently achieving an average of 167% of maximum capacity due to density bonus provisions. The City has assumed an 80% capacity because this is the lowest percentage of maximum capacity developed under a C2 or C3 zone during the prior planning period. This extremely 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 factors only land use controls and si te improvements, realistic capacity of the site, and typical densities are relevant when considering the capacity of sites in Glendale; infrastructure constraints and environmental constr aints are not applicable. While the underlying zoning currently allows for 100 percent nonresidential uses, the sites are currently developed with commercial uses and the City has not seen any existing commercial uses redevelop exclusively as new commercial uses in cases where residential uses are allowed. 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 an 80% reduction to the maximum site capacity, but all evidence suggests that resident ial uses will comprise the vast majo rity of new development in the City, even if the underlying zone allows for 100% non-residential uses.
Table 60: Realistic Capacity Adjustment Factors – Commercial Zones Capacity Factor Adjustment Reasoning
Land use controls and site
improvements
80% For net acreage due to on-site improvements
(sidewalks, easements)
Realistic capacity of the site 100% Adjustment based on past redevelopment trends in commercial zones in Glendale and programs to
incentivize development in commercial areas
Typical densities 100% Based on Table 61, projects in commercial zones have developed at an average density of 167% of maximum
capacity
Infrastructure availability No adjustment Not applicable, no constraint Environmental constraints No adjustment Not applicable, no constraint Source: City of Glendale, 2022
Table 61: Realistic Capacity Adjustment Factors – Commercial ZonesCommercial Zone Example Projects Project Zoning Previous Use Units Acres Max
Density
Actual
Density
Percent of Maximum
Density
3450 N.
Verdugo
C3 (I) Commercial 22 0.48 43 45.8 106.50%
900 E. C3 (I) Commercial 127 0.79 43 160.8 374.00%
448 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 117 | February November 2022 Broadway
920 E.
Broadway
C3 (I) Commercial 51 0.79 43 64.6 150.20%
3950 Foothill CH Commercial 34 0.71 43 47.9 111.40%
3510 N.
Verdugo
C3 (I) Commercial 14 0.41 43 34.1 79.30%
1407 W.
Glenoaks
C2 (II) Commercial 55 0.71 43 77.5 180.20%
Total - - 303 3.89 - 71.8 166.93%
Source: City of Glendale, 2022
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 an d/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 62 the table below.
Table 62: 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
449 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 118 | February November 2022 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 cha nge this pattern of development. Coupled with the City’s strong programs outlined in the Housing Plan to proa ctively 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 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 essentia lly entirely built out with only six 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).
Development Potential Characteristics Analysis
In order to evaluate the suitability of non-vacant sites for inclusion in t he City’s site inventory, the City developed a process to analyze the ch aracteristics of projects that are currently under construction, approved/entitled but not yet under constr uction, or currently under review in the City. Given that these projects are extremely current, they provide the best insight into development patterns and trends in Glendale and help the City evaluate potential opportunity sites to identify those sites where redevelopment with residential uses is most likely based on shared characteristics with the current/proposed projects described above. This analysis forms the basis of the City’s nonvacant sites analysis. All sites included in the inventory shared specific objective characteristics with the “evidence projects” list (i.e., the projects in various stages of construction/entitlement that provide evidence re garding the redevelopment potential of sites throughout the City) which provides the City with evidence that the identified sites, based on these shared characteristics, are likely sites to redevelop during the planning period.
There are 60 multifamily projects under construction, approved/entitled but not yet under construction, or under review in Glendale as of Fall 2022. These projects provide the City with the best insight into existing site conditions that lend themselves most favorably to redevelopment. The City analyzed these 60 projects to identify objective site characteristics that can be applied to other opportunity sites to determine their suitability. The City has analyzed 1) zoning, 2) year built, 3) existing floor area ratio, 4) existing improvement to land value ratio, and 5) existing uses. The City us ed these characteristics as a lens to identify sites throughout the City where redevelopment is most lik ely to occur during the planning period, given shared characteristics between the evidence projects and the pot ential sites. As described throughout this section, all sites within the City’s inventory meet the objective characteristics identified through this analysis.
1. Existing Zoning. Of the 60 sites analyzed, the following zoning trends emerged:
Residential Zoning: 38 projects
Mixed-Use Zoning: 7 projects
450 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 119 | February November 2022 Commercial Zoning: 8 projects
Downtown Specific Plan Zoning: 7 projects
Finding and Response: Site should be located in the re sidential, mixed-use, and commercial zones and in the Downtown Specific Plan area. There are 44,120 devel opable parcels in the City of Glendale. Of these parcels, 31,688 are zoned residential, 699 are zoned mixed-use 1,814 are zoned commercial, and 458 are zoned Downtown Specific Plan. The City has only ident ified sites within these zones and has not included sites outside of these zones. As described later in this section, through a rigorous objective analysis of site characteristics and development patterns, the City has identified 843 residential parcels (2.6% of all residential parcels), 48 mixed-use parcels (6.8% of al l mixed-use parcels), 15 commercial parcels (0.8% of all commercial parcels), and 20 Downtown Specific Plan parcels (4.4% of Downtown Specific Plan parcels) in its site inventory. The City wa s highly selective in identifying pot ential development sites to ensure that only sites with the highest likelihood of redevelopment are included in the inventory. Together, these sites represent only 2.1% of all developable parcels in Glendale. Future residential development is not precluded in other areas, but rather, the characteristics of these sites demonstrate most appropriately that they are the best and most likely sites to be redeveloped during t he planning period. This non-vacant sites analysis includes a specific discussion regarding the patterns and trends associated with the redevelopment of sites within these zoning districts following the discussion of these five key indicators.
2. Year Built. Of the 60 sites analyzed, the following year built trends emerged:
The majority of sites (56 out of 60) were built before 1991 (meaning that the building is at least 30 years old_
Four sites were built after 1991; three of these si tes are parking lots associated with a residential use and one site (built in 1998) is an office building
Finding: Year built should be 1991 or earlier (at least 30 years old). All sites identified are at least 30 years old.
3. Floor Area Ratio. Of the 60 sites analyzed, the following floor area ratio trends emerged:
Of the sites with a valid floor area ratio (22 sites), the floor area ratio ranged from 0.08 to 3.75 Only one site had a floor area ratio higher than 2.0; this site had a floor area ratio of 3.75 and is an office building built in 1986
Finding and Response: Existing floor area ratio should be 2.0 or lower. The vast majority of underutilized sites have a floor area ratio of less than 2.0 Only six out of 1.071 sites in the inventory (all located within the Downtown Specific Plan) have a floor area ratio greater than 2.0. The City has specifically evaluated these six outlier sites and has determined that the higher floor ar ea ratios are a result of the parcel’s association with surrounding use (for example, the parcel has a building but the building’s parking in on an adjacent parcel) is not a constraint to the r edevelopment of these sites and that t he other characteristics of the site including its zoning, improvement to land value ra tio, and limited demand for existing uses warrant its inclusion in the inventory.
4. Improvement to Land Value Ratio. Of the 60 sites analyzed, the following improvement to land value ratio trends emerged:
Of the sites with a valid improvement to land valu e ratios (48 sites), the values ranged from 0.01 to
10.36 Of the sites with valid improvement to land value ra tios, the majority of sites (43) had an improvement to land value ratio of less than 2.0
Of the five sites with an improvement to land valu e ratio of greater than 2.0, all are single-family residential homes
451 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 120 | February November 2022 Finding and Response. Existing improvement to land value ratio should be less than 2.0. The vast majority of underutilized sites have an improvement to land value ratio of less than 2.0. Of the 1,071 sites in the inventory, 989 (92.3%) have an impr ovement to land value ratio of less than 1.0; 65 sites (6.1%) have an improvement to land value ratio between 1.0 and 2.0. While the remaining 17 sites (1.6%) have an improvement to land value ratio between 2.0 and 4.94, the City has specifically evaluated these outlier sites and has determined that other site ch aracteristics including its zoning, floor area ratio, and limited demand for existing uses warrant its inclusion in the inventory.
5. Existing Uses. Of the 60 sites analyzed, the following trends related to existing uses emerged:
Eighteen sites are developed with residential uses with four or more units Seventeen are single-family homes
Seven sites are developed with commercial uses (auto service, banks, restaurants and stores) Seven sites are parking lots
Five sites are developed with public/semi-public uses (schools, churches) Five sites are developed with office uses
One site is developed with industrial uses
Finding and Response. Existing uses do not typically constrain the redevelopment of a site and opportunity sites may be developed with a range of existing uses, including residential, commercial, office, and public facilities. All sites identified in t he inventory are developed with one of the existing uses exemplified in the current project list. Coupled with the other site characteristics, including current zoning, year built, floor area ratio, and improvement to land value ratio, no curr ently developed uses are expected to prevent the redevelopment of a site.
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 exis ting 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 63: 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 452 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 121 | February November 2022 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 in Mixed‐Use Areas
As a built-out city, Glendale established innovative ways to provide housing opportunities for its residents.
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 effort dovetails with the State’s objectives to locate more affordable housing closer to goods, services, and tr ansit 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.
Increase in Development in Commercial Areas
As has been well-documented in various planning and commercial real estate trade publications, since the early 2000s the country has experienced a pronounced and ongoing structural shift in consumer retail preferences. Specifically, the growth of e-commerce c ontinues to present a significant threat to brick and mortar retail expansion, particularly in categories such as consumer electronics, appliances, clothing and clothing accessories, and books and music. To combat online retail sales erosion, developers and retail operators have focused on creating services and environments that cannot be replicated online. This can be accomplished by retail environments with a strong sense of place, special programming to encourage repeat visits, and other forms of in-person experience, coupled with a mix of other uses. Americana at Brand is a prime example of this model, one that can serve not only as a regional destination for dining, entertainment, and shopping, but as a center of activity that attracts and retains residents and businesses. As demand for traditional non-experiential shopping declines, and demand for residential development in attractive markets like Glendale continues to grow, the redevelopment of dated commercial uses into new mixed-use or residential development is expected to increase.
In addition to hosting a range of retail and service uses, the majority of Glendale’s office development is located within commercial zones. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought forward a reimaging of office space, especially in urban markets. While many offices em ptied 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 office, suggesting that the demand for office space will come back to some degree. One potent ial trend, given the tight labor market, is that companies may look to locate closer to where their workers live to improve commute 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.
453 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 122 | February November 2022 Mixed-use development and stand-alone multifamily re sidential development have been allowed within the City’s commercial zones for years. Over the last te n years, the City has approved six applications for multifamily projects in the commercial zones, at an average density of 167% of the maximum (43 du/ac) due to the popularity of utilizing density bonus provisions in the City, and this trend is expected to continue due to decreasing demand for dated commercial centers/strip centers. Currently, mixed-use and 100% multifamily projects in the City’s commercial zones must rely on the City’s R-1250 development standards.
The City has determined that these standards can be a constraint on the development of multifamily uses in its commercial zones, and has included Program 9B to update the commercial zoning standards to streamline mixed-use and residential development in commercial corridors and centers.
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 based on development patterns and trends extrapolated from an analysis of current and proposed projects, including an analysis of the existing zoning (and patterns and trends associated with that use), the age of a building, existing floor area ratio, existing im provement to land value ratio, and existing uses. The analysis provided above demonstrates that the demand fo r residential development in Glendale is strong, and that the City has clear evidence based on at least 60 active projects that redevelopment is most likely to occur in residential areas, mixed-use areas, comme rcial zones, and in the Downtown Specific Plan, Additional information provided in Appendix A demonstrat es that existing uses on the sites identified to accommodate the City’s RHNA do not constitute an impediment for residential uses on the site. The City has considered each site individually and has concluded that based on the substantial 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) 454 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 123 | February November 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.
City-Owned Sites/Small Sites
The City has identified 13 parcels (t otaling 2.66 acres) owned by the City of Glendale zoned for mixed-use development that will be made available for affordable housing development during the planning period consistent with the requirements of the Surplus Lands Act (see Program 1C); while their size is smaller than the minimum threshold applied to privately owned sites (as discussed above, privately-owned sites are 0.50 or larger), the City’s public control of these sites provides an additional level of assurance that these sites will be made available to lower-income households. These sites meet all of the development patterns and trends analyzed earlier as part of the non-vacant sites analysis (i.e., desirable zoning/densities, year built, floor area ratio, improvement to land value ratio, and declining demand for existing uses). All 13 sites are designed as Mixed-Use in the General Plan and within the SFMU zoning district which allows for residential development at a density of up to 100 du/ac. There is low demand for existing uses (the sites are currently being used for industrial uses and half of the sites have no existing structures).
The City understands that sites smaller than a hal f-acre in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless it is demonstrat ed that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equiva lent number of lower-income housing units as projected for the site or unless the housing element describes other evidence to HCD that the site is adequate to accommodate lower income housing. The City is currently reviewing 10 projects that include deed- restricted affordable units; eight of these projects are on sites less than 0.50 acres (sites range from 0.09 acres to 0.28 acres). Development of smaller sites in Glendale is feasible and given that these sites are city- owned and subject to the Surplus Lands Act that requires the City make them available for affordable housing, we can be confident that they will be developed with affordable units.
During the prior planning period, the City made available three small city-owned sites available for affordable development. These projects include the Habitat for Humanity – Lomita project (6 units on 0.32 acres of city- owned land), the Habitat for Humanity – Chestnut Homes project (3 units on 0.16 acres of city-owned land), and the Cypress Senior Living Projec t (18 units on 0.25 acres of city-o wned land). Numerous other small projects were developed prior to the last planning period as well, and the City is committed to continuing to make small city-owned sites available for the development of 100% affordable projects.
Table 64: City-Owned Sites
APN General
Plan/
Zoning
Maximum
Density
Assumed Number
of Lower-Income
Units
Existing Use Acres
5640-031-902
Mixed-
Use/SFMU
100 du/ac
9 Industrial/no structures
0.15 5640-031-903
Mixed-
Use/SFMU
100 du/ac
8 Industrial/no structures
0.14 5640-031-904
Mixed-
Use/SFMU
100 du/ac
9 Industrial/no structures
0.14 5640-031-905
Mixed-
Use/SFMU
100 du/ac
8 Industrial/no structures
0.14 455 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 124 | February November 2022 5640-031-906
Mixed-
Use/SFMU
100 du/ac
10 Industrial/no structures
0.17 5640-031-907
Mixed-
Use/SFMU
100 du/ac
10 Industrial/no structures
0.17 5640-031-911
Mixed-
Use/SFMU
100 du/ac
20 Industrial/no structures
0.33 5640-031-913
Mixed-
Use/SFMU
100 du/ac
10 Lgt Manf.Sm. EQPT.
Manuf Sm.Shps
Instr.Manuf. Prnt Plnts
(5,047 sf) 0.16
5640-031-914
Mixed-
Use/SFMU
100 du/ac
20 Commercial/no
structures 0.33
5640-031-916
Mixed-
Use/SFMU
100 du/ac
20 Lgt Manf.Sm. EQPT.
Manuf Sm.Shps
Instr.Manuf. Prnt Plnts
(9,860 sf) 0.34
5640-031-917
Mixed-
Use/SFMU
100 du/ac
10 Lgt Manf.Sm. EQPT.
Manuf Sm.Shps
Instr.Manuf. Prnt Plnts
(4,400 sf) 0.17
5640-031-918
Mixed-
Use/SFMU
100 du/ac
17 Lgt Manf.Sm. EQPT.
Manuf Sm.Shps
Instr.Manuf. Prnt Plnts
(4,658 sf) 0.29
5640-031-919
Mixed-
Use/SFMU
100 du/ac
8 Parking Lots
(Commercial Use
Properties) (5,750 sf) 0.13
Total - - 159 - 2.66
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 as described in the non-vacant sites analysis described above. The sites chosen are suitable for redevelopment given their size (per direction from the State, sites between 0.50 and 10 acres may be used to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower-income RHNA unless over unique evidence is otherwise provided), density (where sites with densities of at least 30 du/ac may be used to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower-income RHNA), locationzoning, age of structure, exis ting development pattern , floor area ratio, improvement to land va lue ratio, age of structure , and low demand for existing uses underutilization, and density levels. As previously described, these factors are based on evidence provided through a robust analysis of current and proposed projects , which provide the most relevant insight into patterns and trends that support the redevelopment potent ial of sites throughout the City. As market forces continue to push toward higher densities, recycling of underutilized land in residential, mixed-use, and commercial zones and in the Downtown Specific Plan area 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:
456 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 125 | February November 2022 1) Proposed projects;
2) Accessory dwelling units;
3) Vacant residential sites;
4) Underutilized sites in residential areas;
5) Underutilized sites in mixed-use areas;
5)6) Underutilized sites in commercial areas; and
6)7) 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 illustra ted on Figure 3: Proposed Housing Element Sites , Housing Sites Inventory, and detailed in Appendix A.
1. Proposed Projects
As of December 2021, Thethe City is currently reviewing 11 1619 multifamily projects and 54 single-family development applications which would result in the production of 503 7821,141 new units (in total, the proposed projects include 1,209 units but there are 63 units existing at these sites for a total net increase of 1,141 new units), including a net of 34 new units affordable to very lower-income households (these will be deed-restricted), 207 new units affordable to lower-inc ome households (these will be deed-restricted) , 61 units affordable to moderate-income households, and 900 new units affordable to above-moderate income households.
457 of 1381
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)
Commercial
Sources: City of Glendale; Los Angeles County. Map date: November 1, 2022.
CITY OF GLENDALE
GENERAL PLAN
F i g u r e 3 . P r o p o s e d H o u s i n g E l e m e n t S i t e s 1 0 1½
Miles
458 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 127 | February November 2022 This page intentionally left blank.
459 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 128 | February November 2022 Table 65: Credits Towards the RHNAProposed Projects
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 10 3 102 115
400 N Maryland 4 24 28
2817 Montrose Ave 4 38 42
110-132 N Glendale Ave 180 0 180
444 W Cypress 24 187 211
Various Single Fami ly Applications 54 54
Total 192034 10207 75610 968408701 5037821,209
Existing Units at Proposed Project
Locations
0 0 0 68 68
Net Increase in Units 34 207 0 900 1,141
Source: City of Glendale, December 2021
460 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 129 | February November 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 permitted 150 ADUs in 2018, 148177 ADUs in 2019, and 179 177 ADUs in 2020 , 261 ADUs in 2021, and is on-track to permit 252 in 2022 (202 2 projection is based on the actual permits issued between January and August 2022 at an average of 21 per month). 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 Co mmission and City Council, and answering questions from the public in-person at City Hall and over the te lephone. 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 occ upied 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 an d 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 issued 213 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 36% increase over t he 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 20182019-20210 was 159205, multiplied by 8, yields the estimate of 1,2721,640 ADUs to be permitted constructed between 2021 and 2029 (if the City was to use the average of 2020-2022 estimates, the annual average for ADU permits would actually be 230 units for a total potential of 1,840 permits during the planning period). However, in recognition that a small portion of these units may be permitted but for some reason not developed during the planning period (although the City finds this to be unlikely and not consistent with past experience), the City has only credited 1,272 (78%) of the expected perm itted ADU units towards meeting a portion of its RHNA. This is a conservative assumption and production will likely outpace this target during the planning period, either due to increasing interest in developing ADUs and/or a higher proportion of permitted units being constructed. As previously discussed, it is the City’s expectation that while there is a small lag between permitted and constructing an ADU, the vast majority of permitted units are constructed within 12 months and, given the increasing number of pe rmits, the average number of ADUs actually constructed year over year is expected to increase. 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. 461 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 130 | February November 2022
3. Vacant Residential Sites
The City has identified nine four vacant parcels designated for residential development. In total, these sites can accommodate 37 21 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 six 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 66: Vacant Residential Sites
Zoning Designation Number of
Parcels
Acres Assumed
Density
Total Capacity (Above
Moderate-Income
Capacity)
R 1250 21 0.350.16 35 136
R 1650 1 0.20 26 5
R 2250 31 0.430.14 19 83
R 3050 31 0.81.50 14 117
Total Vacant Residential Site
Potential 94 1.791.0 - 3721
Source: City of Glendale, 2021
462 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 131 | February November 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 underutiliz ed 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 67 is an accurate representation of viable development potential of this type of property.
The City has identified 854 844 parcels (totaling 158 159.1 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 2,4962,562 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 RHNAthe 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 (2,459) 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).
The average net additional units across all 158 159.1 acres identified as underutilized is 5 new units per acre.
463 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 132 | February November 2022 Table 67: Underutilized Residential Sites
Zoning Designation Number of
Parcels
Acres Assumed
Density
Total Capacity
Lower Income Above Moderate
Income
R 1250 (larger than 0.50 acres) 1 2.95 35 103 0
R 1250 (smaller than 0.50 acres) 131 23.45 35 0 611
R 1650 197196 36.49 26 0 673
R 2250 401392 71.4669.76 19 0 944895
R 3050 123124 26.44 14 0 252280
Total Underutilized Residential
Site Potential 854844 158.37159.1 - 103 2,4952,459
Source: City of Glendale, 2021
5. Underutilized Mixed-Use Sites
As a built-out city, Glendale established innovative ways to provide housing opportunities for its residents.
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). Additionally, the Downtown S pecific Plan makes greater provision for housing than previous zoning (discussed later in this section).
The City has identified 37 48 sites parcels (totaling 31.3531.69 acres) designated for mixed-use development that are between 0.50 acres and 2 acre s in size (there are no feasible parcels available for redevelopment larger than 2 acres) that are suitable for redevelopment during the planning period. All sites allow for a density of at least 35 dwelling units per acre and provide appropriate zoning to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower-income RHNA. In total, these sites can accommodate a minimum of 1,3031,659 units. All sites are developed with uses at least 30 years old and are c haracterized by blighted conditions, inefficient site design/low lot coverage, low utilization (an FAR of less than 1) or high vacancies or other market conditions rendering them likely for redevelopment during the planni ng period. These sites share characteristics with those sites recently constructed and/or approved for development, where t he proposed densities are at or above the maximum density established by t he Zoning Code based on density bonus provisions. See the City’s non-vacant sites analysis earlier in this section. In recognition of the potential for mixed-use development at these locations, the capacity of each site is based on 5060% of the maximum allowable density, excluding potential increases in density allowed through density bonus. In other words, a 0.75 acre site which allows for 70 dwelling units per acre has a maximum capacity of 52 units, however, this inventory only assumes 26 31 units for the site (5060% of the maximum capacity).
464 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 133 | February November 2022 Table 68: Underutilized Mixed-Use Sites
Zoning Designation Number of
Parcels
Acres Assumed
Density
Assumed
Capacity
(Lower
Income)
Percent of
Remaining
Lower
Income
RHNA
Commercial/Residential Mixed Use
(adjacent to R1, R1R or ROS) 21 2.911.32 35 5133 1%0.65% Commercial/Residential Mixed Use
(adjacent to R-3050, R-2250. R-1650
and R-1250)
6 4.13 70 145173 2.6%3%
Commercial/Residential Mixed Use
(not adjacent to R1, R1R, ROS, R-
3050, R-2250. R-1650 and R-1250)
518 3.786.41 100 189391 3.3%8%
Industrial/Commercial Residential
Mixed Use (adjacent to R1, R1R or
ROS)
3 1.78 35 3137 0.5%0.7%
Industrial/Commercial Residential
Mixed Use (adjacent to R-3050, R-
2250. R-1650 and R-1250)
4 3.32 70 116140 2%3%
Industrial/Commercial Residential
Mixed Use (not adjacent to R1, R1R,
ROS, R-3050, R-2250. R-1650 and
R-1250)
1817 15.4214.73 100 771885 13.8%17%
Total Underutilized Mixed-Use
Site Potential 3748 31.3531.69 - 1,3031,659 23.3%32.6% Source: City of Glendale, December 2021
6. Underutilized Commercial Sites
The City has identified 15 commercially-zoned parcels (totaling 17.07 acres) that are between 0.50 acres and 3.15 acres in size and that are suitable for redevelopment during the planning period. All sites allow for a density of at least 43 dwelling units per acre and provide appropriate zoning to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower-income RHNA. In total, these sites can accommodate a minimum of 586 units. In recognition of the potential for mixed-use development at these locations, the capacity of each site is based on 80% of the maximum allowable density, excluding potential increases in density allowed through density bonus. In other words, a 0.75 acre site which allows for 43 dwelling units per acre has a maximum capacity of 32 units, however, this inventory only assumes 25 units for the site (80% of the maximum capacity). See the City’s discussion of capacity adjustments earlier in this section.
The City considered numerous factors in identifying sites feasible for development during the planning period and relied on a variety of information, including pres ent development patterns, commercial real estate performance data, information on existing uses provi ded by the Los Angeles County Assessor, the City’s own recent land use inventory update, interest from the development community, existing lot coverage/floor area ratio, and among others. See the City’s non-vacant sites analysis earlier in this section. All underutilized commercial sites identified to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower income RHNA meet the following specific criteria (note that while numerous other sites were considered but ultimately excluded from the 465 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 134 | February November 2022 inventory for not meeting these criteria):
Between 0.50 acres and 3.5 acres in size
Built in 1998 or earlier (over 25 years old)
No existing residential uses
An existing floor area ratio of less than 1.0
An existing improvement to land value ratio of less than 2.0 No known leases that would preclude development of residential uses at the site The City has included Program 9B to update the mixed-use and residential development standards in commercial zones to streamline the development of residential uses in commercial areas.
Table 69: Underutilized Commercial Sites
Zoning Designation Number of
Parcels
Acres Assumed
Density
Assumed
Capacity
(Lower
Income)
Percent of
Remaining
Lower
Income
RHNA
C2 I 3 2.35 43 80 1.5%
C2 II 3 3.24 43 112 2.2%
C3 I 7 9.52 43 327 6.4%
C3 III 2 1.96 43 67 1.3%
Total Underutilized Commercial
Site Potential 15 17.07 - 586 11.4%
Source: City of Glendale, October 2022
466 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 135 | February November 2022
67. Downtown Specific Plan Sites
It is the City’s vision that Downtown Glendale will be an exciting, vibrant urban center which provides a wide array of excellent shopping, dining, working, living, entertainment and cultural opportunities, within a short walking distance. Revitalization of this special area is a priority for the City. and the Downtown area is To this end, the City has seen significant development interest and investment in the project area since the Specific Plan’s adoption in 2005, with projects in the Specific Plan area starting to come online in 2015. In just the past six years, over 2,440 units have been construc ted or approved Downtown, with an average overall density of 142 dwelling units per acre, as de scribed earlier in this section. The City continues to promote Downtown as the premier location for new multifamily and affordable development in the City.
There are 459 458 parcels in the Downtown Specific Plan area. Of these 459 458 parcels, the City has identified 33 20 parcels (totaling 35.518.24 acres) as suitable to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower- income RHNA and extremely feasible for redevelopment during the planning period. The 33 20 parcels identified in the inventory to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower-income RHNA represent only 84.4% of the total number of parcels in the Downtown Specific Plan area and only 158% of the total developable project area; these sites are all between. While the Downtown Specific Plan includes smaller parcels which may be candidates for lot consolidation, this inventory only considers parcels 0.50 acres to 3.5 acres in size (there are no feasible parcels suitable for redevelopment in the Downtown Specific Plan area larger than 3.5 acres). These sites have the capacity to accommodate a minimum of 2,590 units at densities determined to be suitable to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower income RHNA.
The City has also identified smaller sites (less than 0.50 acres) in the Downtown Specific Plan which are suitable to accommodate a portion of the City’s moderate and above-moderate income RHNA. The City has identified 122 parcels (totaling 24.96 acres) as being extremely feasible for redevelopment during the planning period. The average lot size is 0.20 acres which can support a development 25-30 units at the average Downtown density of 142 du/ac. These sites have the capacity to accommodate a minimum of 3,462 units affordable to moderate- and above-moderate income households. The City is focused on promoting the development of new projects Downtown affordable to moderate-income households and converting market- rate units to deed-restricted units affordable to moderat e-income households, and thiswhich is a priority for the City for the duration of the planning period.
The City considered numerous factors in identifying sites feasible for development during the planning period and relied on a variety of information, including pres ent development patterns, commercial real estate performance data, information on existing uses provi ded by the Los Angeles County Assessor, the City’s own recent land use inventory update, guidance from the Downtown Specific Plan, interest from the development community, existing lot cove rage/floor area ratio, and among others. All Most sites in the Downtown Specific Plan identified to accommodate a portion of the City’s lower income RHNA meet the following specific criteria (note that while numerous other sites were considered but ultimately excluded from the inventory for not meeting these criteria):
Between 0.50 acres and 3.5 acres in size
Built in 1991 or earlier (over 30 years old)
No existing residential uses
An existing floor area ratio of less than 2.0
No known leases that would preclude development of residential uses at the site Showing signs of physical deterioration
467 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 136 | February November 2022 Through these parcels, the City has identified the capac ity to accommodate at least 5,038 units of its lower income RHNA allocation within the Downtown Specific Plan area. In identifying those parcels feasible for development during the planning period, the City took a conservative approach to the development potential Downtown. There is significant development capacity available at locations beyond those identified in the inventory, and it is possible that growth in this area may exceed these projections. Moreover, changes to State density bonus law will very likely increase the realized density for projects in the Downtown area, all of which have can utilized utilize density bonus provisions.
Table 70: Downtown Specific Plan Sites
Zoning Designation Number of
Parcels
Acres Assumed
Density
Assumed
Capacity
(Lower
Income)
Income
Level
Percent of
Lower
Income
RHNA
Downtown Specific Plan
(>0.50 ac) 3420 38.818.24 142 5,0382,590 Very
Low/Low 89.951%
Downtown Specific Plan
(<0.50 ac) 121 24.96 142 3,462
Moderate/
Above
Moderate
-
Total 141 43.2 142 6,052 All -
Source: City of Glendale, 2021
ADEQUACY OF SITES TOWARD THE RHNA
Including all proposed projects ( 503 7821,141 net new units), ADU projections (1,272 units), vacant residential sites (25 new units), and underutilized residential sites (2,5332,562 net new units), underutilized mixed-use sites ( 1,3031,659 units), underutilized commercial sites (586 units), and sites in the Downtown Specific Plan ( 5,0386,052 units), the sites inventory i dentifies capacity for at least 10,64913,287 units, 7,2296,047 of which have been identified as being able to meet the City’s remaining lower-income RHNA of 4,77845,078 units and remaining moderate-income RHNA of 2,249 . Together with projects under construction, the conversion of existing multifamily units to deed-restricted affordable units, and projects approved/entitled but not yet built, the City has demonstrated the ability to exceed its RHNA by 1,3193021,212 units, a 109% overall surplus (with all of the surplus recorded in the lower income RHNA category). Overall, the City has the ability to adequately ac commodate the remaining RHNA at all income levels (Table 71). These sites and the densities allowed will provide opportunities to achieve the remaining RHNA goals for all income categories and can realis tically be redeveloped with residential units during the planning period. These areas are considered highly likely to experience recycling for several key reasons: 1) the high demand for more affordable housing throughout the Southern California region, 2) the City’s proactive support for affordable housing production through its inclusionary housing ordinance and density bonus provisions, and 3) the success of recent a ffordable and market-rate developments in and around Glendale at densities high enough to stimulate redevelopment of existing uses.
468 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 137 | February November 2022 Table 71: RHNA Site Inventory
Lower Income
(0-80% AMI)
Moderate
Income (81-
120% AMI)
Above Moderate
income (121%+
AMI)
Total
RHNA 5,602 2,249 5,574 13,425
Credits 678524 5640 830848 2,0721,372
Remaining RHNA after
Credits Applied 4,7784,9245,078 6861,6852,249 3,8664,7444,726 9,33011,35312,053 Proposed Projects 20241 610 408701900* 5037821,141*
ADUs 868 26 378 1,272
Vacant Residential Sites 0 0 3721 3721
Underutilized Residential
Sites 0103 0 2,4962,459 2,4962,562
Underutilized Mixed-Use
Sites 1,3031,659 0 0 1,3031,659
Underutilized Commercial
Sites 586 0 0 586
Sites in the Downtown
Specific Plan 5,0382,590 01,731 01,731 5,0386,052
Remaining RHNA after
Sites Applied
+ 2,451969 5
(surplus)
492 2040 (585
prior to
surplus of
lower income
units applied)
+773763
(surplus)0 (547
prior to surplus
of lower
income units
applied)
-+1,3191,302
(overall surplus
available at all
income levels)
Remaining RHNA after
Surplus Applied
+ 477 (surplus
after
accommodating
remaining
moderate
income RHNA)
0 (after
surplus from
lower income
RHNA
applied)
+763 (surplus) + 1,240 (surplus)
Source: City of Glendale, 20212022
*Net increase in units resulting from Proposed Projects
469 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 138 | February November 2022 5D. Financial, Housing, and Administrative Resources
In light of the elimination of redevelopment agencies in the State of California, the City has limited access to funding sources for affordable housing activities.
FINANCIAL RESOURCES
In light of the elimination of redevelopment agencies in the State of California, the City has limited access to funding sources for affordable housing activities. Howe ver, there are several State, federal, and regional funding programs that assist first-time homebuyers, build affordable housing, and help special needs groups, such as seniors and large households. Several programs available to fund affordable housing opportunities are summarized below.
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG)
Federal funding for housing programs is availabl e through the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The City’s use of federal funds is described in the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. As an Entitlement City, Glendale participates in the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program.
HOME Investment Partnership
Funds are granted by a formula basis from HUD to increase the supply of decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing to lower income households. Eligible activities include new construction, acquisition, rental assistance and rehabilitation. The City partici pates in the Los Angeles County-administered HOME Program, which administers HOME funds to projects in participating jurisdictions. County-administered HOME funds for first time homebuyer assistance are m ade available to residents or employees of the local jurisdictions participating in the HOME program. Ne w development projects are typically allocated funding on a competitive basis.
Housing Choice Voucher Program Rental Assistance (Formerly “Section 8”) The City of Glendale works cooperatively with the Los Angeles Housing Authority, which administers the Housing Choice Voucher Program. The program assi sts very low-income, elderly and disabled households by paying the difference between 30% of an eligible household's income and the actual cost of renting a unit.
The City facilitates use of the voucher program within its jurisdiction by encouraging apartment owners to list available rental units with the County Housing Aut hority for potential occupancy by tenants receiving vouchers.
Project Based Housing Voucher program is a component of the form er Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher program funded through HUD. The program's objective is to induce property owners to make standard housing available to low-income families at rents within the program limits. In re turn, the Housing Authority or HUD enters into a contract with the owner that guarantees a certain level of rents.
Section 811/202 Program (Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities/Elderly) – Non- profit and consumer cooperatives can receive no interest capital advances from HUD under the Section 202 program for the construction of very-low income rental housing for seniors and persons with disabilities. These funds can be used in conjunction with Section 811, which can be used to develop group homes, independent living facilities and immediate care facilities. Eligible activities include acquisition, rehabilitation, new construction and rental assistance.
470 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 139 | February November 2022 California Housing Finance Agency (CalHFA) Multifamily Programs Provides permanent financing for the acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation or new construction of rental housing that includes affordable rents for Low and M oderate income families and individuals. One of the programs is the Preservation Acquisition Finance Program that is designed to facilitate the acquisition of at- risk affordable housing developments and provide low-cost funding to preserve affordability.
CalHOME Program
Provides grants to local public agencies and non- profit developers to assist households in becoming homeowners. CalHome funds may be used for predevelopment, development, acquisition, and rehabilitation costs as well as downpayment assistance. While CalHOME funding has been limited to disaster assistance in recent years, this would be an appropriate program for the City to pursue to begin to develop a local portfolio of housing assistance programs and funds.
California Housing Finance Agency (CHFA)
Offers permanent financing for acquisition and rehabilit ation to for-profit, non-profit, and public agency developers seeking to preserve "at-risk" housing units. In addition, CHFA offers low interest predevelopment loans to nonprofit sponsors through its acquisition/rehabilitation program.
Emergency Housing and Assistance Program (EHAP)
Provides funds to local government agencies and non-prof it corporations for capital development activities and facility operation for emergency shelters, transitional housing and safe havens that provide shelter and supportive services for homeless unhoused individuals and families. No current funding is offered for this program.
Federal Home Loan Bank System
Facilitates Affordable Housing Progr ams (AHP), which subsidize the inte rest rates for a ffordable housing.
The San Francisco Federal Home Loan Bank District provides local service within California. Interest rate subsidies under the AHP can be used to finance the purchas e, construction, and/or rehabilitation of rental housing. very low-income households must occupy at least 20% of the units for the useful life of the housing or the mortgage term.
Housing for a Healthy California (HHC)
Provides funding on a competitive basis to deliver supportive housing opportunities to developers using the federal National Housing Trust Funds (NHTF) allocations for operating reserve grants and capital loans. The Department will also utilize from a portion of moneys collected in calendar year 2018 and deposited into the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund to provide funding through grants to counties for capital and operating assistance. Funds will be announced through a Notice of Funding Availability.
Infill Infrastructure Grant Program (IIG)
Funds infrastructure improvements to facilitate new housing development with an affordable component in residential or mixed-use infill projects and infill areas.
Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program
The Low-Income Housing Tax Credit Program was created by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 to provide an alternate method of funding low-and moderate-income housing. Each state receives a tax credit, based upon population, toward funding housing that meets program guidelines. The tax credits are then used to leverage private capital into new construction or acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing. Limitations on 471 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 140 | February November 2022 projects funded under the Tax Credit programs include minimum requirements that a certain percentage of units remain rent-restricted, based upon median income, for a term of 15 years.
Low-income Housing Preservation and Residential Home Ownership Act (LIHPRHA) Requires that all eligible HUD Section 236 and Section 221(d) projects “at-risk” of conversion to market-rate rental housing through the mortgage prepayment option be subject to LIHPRHA Incentives. The incentives to owners include HUD subsidies which guarantee owners an 8% annual return on equity. Owners must file a Plan of Action to obtain incentives or offer the project for sale to a) non-profit organizations, b) tenants, or c) public bodies for a 12 month period followed by an additional three-month sale to other purchasers. Only then are owners eligible to prepay the subsidized mortgages.
National Housing Trust Fund
A permanent federal program with dedicated sources of funding not subject to the annual appropriations.
The funds can be used to increase and preserve the supply of affordable housing, with an emphasis on rental housing for extremely low income households. Californi a is receiving approximately $10.1 Million for the program in 2019. Funds will be made available through a competitive process and will be announced through a Notice of Funding Availability.
SB 2 Planning Grants Program
Provides one-time funding and technical assistance to all eligible local governments in California to adopt and implement plans and process improvements that streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production. Eligible activities include updating a variety of planning documents and processes such as general plans and zoning ordinances, conducting environm ental analyses, and process improvements that expedite local planning and permitting. The planning grants program is funded through the Building Homes and Jobs Act Trust Fund (SB 2, Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017). The City applied for funds through this program and was approved for funding of various programs.
California Community Reinvestment Corporation (CCRC)
A multifamily affordable housing lender whose mission is to increase the availability of affordable housing for Low-income families, seniors and residents with special needs by facilitating private capital flow from its investors for debt and equity to developers of affordable housing. Eligible activities include new construction, rehabilitation and acquisition of properties.
Supplement Security Income (SSI)
A federal welfare program for persons 65 and over and for blind or disabled persons of any age. "Disabled" means that you have a physical or mental disability that is expected to keep you from working for 12 months or longer, or will result in death. Medicare is a federal health insurance program for people who are 65 and over, for some younger people with permanent disab ilities, and for people with end-stage kidney disease.
SSI may provide total monthly income or it may supplement a low income. In addition to cash payments, SSI recipients are automatically covered by Medi-Cal, the state health insurance plan.
472 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 141 | February November 2022
ADMINISTRATIVE RESOURCES
Agencies with administrative capacity to implement programs contained in the Housing Element include the City of Glendale and local and regional non-profit pr ivate developers. The City of Glendale Community Development Department takes the lead in implementing Housing Element programs and policies. The City also works closely with non-profit developers to expand affordable housing opportunities in Glendale.
Community Development Department
The Community Development Department consists of five divisions: Building and Safety, Economic Development, Housing, Neighborhood Services, and Planning. The Department coordinates development activity within the City to ensure planned orderly growth. The Planning Division administers the General Plan and Zoning Code, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and other environmental regulations, and provides primary staff assistance to the Planning Commission. The Housing Division manages the City’s Community Development Block Grant.
Non-Profit Developers
The City collaborates with a number of affordable housing developers and service providers to accommodate the housing needs of Glendale residents. The following are housing developers and service providers active in the region.
• Meta Housing
• Affirmed Housing
• Community Housing Works
• National Community Renaissance (National CORE)
• American Family Housing
• AMCAL
• Habitat for Humanity
5E. Energy Conservation Opportunities
State of California Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings were established in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to r educe California's energy consumption. The standards are codified in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and are updated periodically to allow consideration and possible incorporation of new energy efficiency technologies and methods. California's building efficiency standards (along with those for energy efficient appl iances) have saved nearly $80 billion in electricity and natural gas costs since 1978.5F
Title 24 sets forth mandatory energy standards and requires the adoption of an “energy budget” for all new residential buildings and additions to residential buildings. Separate requirements are adopted for “low-rise” residential construction (i.e. , no more than 3 stories) and non-residential buildings, which includes hotels, motels, and multi-family residential buildings with four or more habitable stories. The standards specify energy saving design for lighting, walls, ceilings a nd floor installations, as well as heating and cooling equipment and systems, gas cooling devices, conservation standards and the use of non-depleting energy sources, such as solar energy or wind power. The home building industry must comply with these standards while localities are responsible for enforcing the energy conservation regulations through the plan check and building inspection processes.
The City of Glendale enforces energy efficiency requirements through the building permit process. As previously described, the City adopted the 2019 California Building Code (Ordinance 5937). All new construction must comply with the standards in effect on the date a building permit application is made. The California Building Code includes green building regulat ions, referred to as CALGreen, to encourage more sustainable and environmentally friendly building practi ces, require low pollution emitting substances that can cause harm to the environment, conserve natural resources, and promote the use of energy efficient 473 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 142 | February November 2022 materials and equipment. CALGreen Requirements for new residential buildings include:
• Water conserving plumbing fixtures and fittings to reduce indoor-water consumption; • Water-efficient landscaping and moisture-sensing irrigation systems for larger landscape projects; • Install low pollutant-emitting materials;
• Installation of solar photovoltaics;
• Domestic hot water solar preheat requirement of 20-30 percent; and • Home Energy Rating System testing for kitchen exhaust hood ventilation, insulation, and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems.
Examples of techniques for reducing residential energy use include the following:
• Glazing – Glazing on south facing exterior walls a llows for winter sunrays to warm the structure.
Reducing glazing and regulating sunlight penetration on the west side of the unit prevents afternoon sunrays from overheating the unit.
• Landscaping – Strategically placed vegetation reduces the amount of direct sunlight on the windows.
The incorporation of deciduous trees in the landscaping plans along the southern exposure of units reduces summer sunrays, while allowing penetration of winter sunrays to warm the units. • Building Design – The implementation of roof over hangs above southerly facing windows shield the structure from solar rays during the summer months.
• Cooling/Heating Systems – The use of attic ventila tion systems reduces attic temperatures during the summer months. Solar heating systems for sw imming pool facilities saves on energy costs.
Natural gas is conserved with the use of flow restrictors on all hot water faucets and showerheads. • Weatherizing Techniques – Weatherization techni ques such as insulation, caulking, and weather stripping can reduce energy use for air-conditioning up to 55% and for heating as much as 40%.
Weatherization measures seal a dwelling unit to guard against heat gain in the summer and prevent heat loss in the winter.
• Efficient Use of Appliances – Appliances can be us ed in ways that increase their energy efficiency.
Unnecessary appliances can be eliminated. Proper maintenance and use of stove, oven, clothes dryer, washer, dishwasher, and refrigerator can also reduce energy consumption. New appliance purchases can be made on the basis of efficiency ratings. • Voluntary Green Building program for residential remodels • Implementation of Citywide design guidelines
• Energy efficient improvements, including window replacement, are eligible for rehabilitation loan program
• The City’s existing network of on- and off-road bi cycle trails link residential areas to employment centers within Glendale and surrounding cities.
As previously discussed, GWP provides electricity services to the City of Glendale. Glendale currently promotes various programs for residential efficiency and income-qualified electric discounts, including the City’s Solar Solutions Program and In-Home Display and Thermostat Program. The City has also introduced the My Connect app so all residents can monitor energy use on their cell phones. Program 2B in the Housing Plan is included to promote energy conservation by fundi ng investments such as: cost-effective services to promote energy-efficiency and energy conservation; new investment in renewable energy resource and technologies; research, development and demonstration programs; and services provided for low-income electricity customers, including but not limited to, targeted energy efficiency service and rate discounts. 474 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 143 | February November 2022 5F. General Plan Consistency
State law requires that the Housing Element be consis tent with other elements of the City of Glendale’s General Plan. Policies and programs were developed subject to the constraints of the policies and programs contained in the other General Plan elements. Of all the other General Plan elements, the Housing Element is most closely related to the City of Glendale’s L and Use Element in the General Plan because the Land Use Element specifies the lands within the city that may be utilized for residential development. Areas available for residential development along with the range of allowable densities and direction on appropriate housing types are designated through the Land Use maps and tables, and the land use definitions in the Land Use Element. The policies contained in other elements of the City’s General Plan affect many aspects of life that residents enjoy, such as the amount and variety of open space; the preservation of natural, historic, and cultural resources; permitted noise levels in residential areas; and the safety of the residents in the event of a natural or humanmade disaster.
The Housing Element has been reviewed for consistenc y with the City’s other General Plan elements, and the policies and programs in this element reflect the po licy direction contained in other parts of the General Plan. As portions of the General Plan are amended in the future, the Housing Element will be reviewed and updated to ensure that internal consistency is maintained.
The City is aware of Government Code Section 65302(h) requirements related to environmental justice and Senate Bill 244 requirements related to disadvantaged unincorporated areas. The City conducted an analysis to determine if any Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) ex ist within the City. Initial analysis revealed that there are areas of the City that are considered disa dvantages communities and the City will be required to prepare and adopt an Environmental Justice Element. As required by State law, the future Environmental Justice Element is required to be consistent with th e goals, policies, and programs of other General Plan Elements, including the Housing Element.
475 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 144 | February November 2022
6. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
All housing elements due on or after January 1, 2021 mu st contain an Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) consistent with the core elements of the analysis requir ed by the federal Affirmatively Further Fair Housing Final Rule of July 16, 2015. Under State law, affirm atively furthering fair housing means “taking meaningful actions, in addition to combatting discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.” These characteristics can include, but are not limited to, race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability.
The AFFH analysis must contain the following:
A: Outreach
B: Assessment of Fair Housing
• Key Data and Background Information
• Fair Housing Enforcement and Outreach Capacity
• Integration and Segregation Patterns and Trends
• Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty
• Disparities in Access to Opportunity
• Disproportionate Housing Needs in the Jurisdiction
• Displacement Risk
C: Sites Inventory
D: Identification of Contributing Factors
E: Goals and Actions
While this section provides a focused analysis of fair housing issues in Glendale, several other sections of the Housing Element address the issue and are included in this section by reference. 6A. Outreach
Appendix B of the Housing Element details the public participation that was undertaken as part of the Housing Element preparation process. It is noted that the City sees this effort as an extension of the Focused General Plan Update, which also included a robust public engagem ent program. The City of Glendale has made an effort to involve the public in the update of its H ousing Element and has solici ted input from the public throughout the planning process. The City provided o ngoing notification to local housing service providers that represent lower income and special needs populations, such as the Armenian Relief Society of Western Region Social Services, Continuum of Care provi ders (Ascencia, Door of Hope, Glendale YMCA, the Salvation Army, Family Promise of the Verdugos), Heritage Housing Partners, Housing Rights Center, Abundant Housing LA, and affordable housing developer s. Appendix B to the Housing Element provides a summary of the key comments received during the Housing Element update process, and how they have been considered and addressed in the Element. The City implemented the following public outreach program. 476 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 145 | February November 2022
PROJECT WEBPAGE
The City’s dedicated project website for the Focused General Plan Update includes a webpage specifically for the Housing Element Update ( https://www.glendaleplan.com/housing-element-update). The webpage serves as the main conduit of information for indi viduals who can access material online. The project webpage launched in December 2020 (associated with the City’s Focused General Plan Update) and is regularly updated to reflect ongoing community input opportunities, advertise draft work products, and answer commonly asked questions.
HOUSING ELEMENT SURVEY
The City hosted an online Housing Element survey which was available from April 5, 2021 through May 2, 2021. The survey asked for input on the community’s housing priorities and strategies to address Glendale’s future housing growth needs. Over 300 individuals responded to the survey, which focused on issues of home maintenance, affordability, home type, living conditi ons, and community priorities related to housing.
The Survey also included a specific section to understanding fair housing issues facing the Glendale community. A summary of the key survey results related to fair housing is provided below, with the complete results included in Appendix B. The City values the input community members provided via the online survey and has included an action as part of Program 7C to conduct a similar survey, by neighborhood, biennially and then target outreach efforts, in coordination with fair housing service providers, to neighborhoods based on identified issues.
When asked, “How important are the following factors in your housing choice?”7 respondents were most likely to identify the following factors as being very important or somewhat important:
Resident responses:
Housing I can afford (95%)
Housing was available in the neighborhood I chose at the time I needed it (89%) Housing large enough for my household (84%)
The amount of money I have/had for deposit (77%)
My credit history and/or credit score (59%)
Worker responses:
Housing I can afford (94%)
Housing was available in the neighborhood I chose at the time I needed it (87%) Housing large enough for my household (78%)
The amount of money I have/had for deposit (77%)
My credit history and/or credit score (46%)
Other responses:
Housing I can afford (100%)
Housing large enough for my household (100%)
Housing was available in the neighborhood I chose at the time I needed it (80%) The amount of money I have/had for deposit (60%)
My credit history and/or credit score (60%)
While still important for some individuals, respondents of all groups were less likely to identify the following
7 Question 14: How important are the following factors in your housing choice? 477 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 146 | February November 2022 factors as being very important or somewhat important:
Concern that I would not be welcome in that neighborhood Housing that accommodates disability of household member When asked, “How important are the following housing priorities to you and your household?”8 respondents were most likely to identify the following factors as being very important or somewhat important:
Resident responses:
Rehabilitate existing housing (88%)
Promote affordable housing for working families (87%) Ensure that children who grow up in Glendale can afford to live in Glendale as adults (86%) Support fair/equitable housing opportunities (82%)
Support programs to help neighborhood s that have suffered foreclosures (76%) Providing more housing for all income levels (76%)
Establish programs to help at-risk homeowners keep their homes, including mortgage loan programs (74%)
Encourage more senior housing (67%)
Build more single-family housing (67%)
Integrate affordable housing throughout the community to create mixed-income neighborhoods (66%)
Provide housing for persons experiencing homelessness (66%) Build more multi-family housing such as apartments and condos (63%) Provide ADA-accessible housing (61%)
While still important for some individuals, resident respondents were less likely to identify the following factor as being very important or somewhat important:
Create mixed-use projects to bring di fferent land uses closer together (56%) Worker responses:
Support fair/equitable housing opportunities (91%)
Support programs to help neighborhood s that have suffered foreclosures (91%) Rehabilitate existing housing (90%)
Promote affordable housing for working families (90%) Providing more housing for all income levels (84%)
Ensure that children who grow up in Glendale can afford to live in Glendale as adults (84%) Establish programs to help at-risk homeowners keep their homes, including mortgage loan programs (81%)
Build more single-family housing (78%)
Provide housing for persons experiencing homelessness (77%) Integrate affordable housing throughout the community to create mixed-income neighborhoods (74%)
8 Question 15: How important are the following housing priorities to you and your household? 478 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 147 | February November 2022 Encourage more senior housing (68%)
Build more multi-family housing such as apartments and condos (67%) Provide ADA-accessible housing (67%)
While still important for some individuals, worker respondents were less likely to identify the following factor as being very important or somewhat important:
Create mixed-use projects to bring di fferent land uses closer together (43%) Other responses:
Rehabilitate existing housing (100%)
Promote affordable housing for working families (100%) Build more single-family housing (100%)
Encourage more senior housing (100%)
Support programs to help neighborhood s that have suffered foreclosures (80%) Ensure that children who grow up in Glendale can afford to live in Glendale as adults (80%) Establish programs to help at-risk homeowners keep their homes, including mortgage loan programs (80%)
Provide housing for persons experiencing homelessness (80%) Provide ADA-accessible housing (80%)
Support fair/equitable housing opportunities (60%)
Provide more housing for all income levels (60%)
Build more multi-family housing such as apartments and condos (60%) Create mixed-use projects to bring di fferent land uses closer together (60%) While still important for some individuals, other respondents were less likely to identify the following factor as being very important or somewhat important:
Integrate affordable housing throughout the community to create mixed-income neighborhoods (40%)
When asked to indicate their level of agreement or disagreement with a series of affirmative statements9 respondents were most likely to strongly agree or somewhat agree with the following statements:
Resident responses:
There are grocery stores close to my neighborhood (92%) There are banks and credit unions near where I live (84%) There is a public library close to my house (84%)
There is a pharmacy close to my house (82%)
The condition of the homes in my neighborhood are acceptable (82%) The streets and sidewalks near my home are well kept (72%) There are plenty of parks, playgr ounds, or green space near me (68%) The streets and sidewalks in my neighborhood have adequate lighting (65%) There is access to public transit close to my neighborhood (63%)
9 Question 16: Please respond to each statement
479 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 148 | February November 2022 I am satisfied with the schools in my area (61%)
Resident respondents were less likely to agree with the following statements:
There are plenty of other public spaces near my home (56%) There is enough parking in my area of town (50%)
There are quality jobs in my neighborhood (47%)
Worker responses:
There are grocery stores close to my neighborhood (87%) There are banks and credit unions near where I live (87%) There is a pharmacy close to my house (87%)
There is a public library close to my house (87%)
The condition of the homes in my neighborhood are acceptable (81%) There are plenty of parks, playgr ounds, or green space near me (68%) There is enough parking in my area of town (65%)
The streets and sidewalks near my home are well kept (61%) The streets and sidewalks in my neighborhood have adequate lighting (61%) Worker respondents were less likely to agree with the following statements:
There are plenty of other public spaces near my home (58%) There is access to public transit close to my neighborhood (57%) There are quality jobs in my neighborhood (55%)
I am satisfied with the schools in my area (52%)
Other responses:
There is a pharmacy close to my house (100%)
The streets and sidewalks near my home are well kept (100%) There are quality jobs in my neighborhood (100%)
There are grocery stores close to my neighborhood (80%) There are banks and credit unions near where I live (80%) There is a public library close to my house (80%)
The condition of the homes in my neighborhood are acceptable (80%) The streets and sidewalks in my neighborhood have adequate lighting (80%) There are plenty of parks, playgr ounds, or green space near me (80%) I am satisfied with the schools in my area (80%)
There are plenty of other public spaces near my home (60%) There is enough parking in my area of town (60%)
There is access to public transit close to my neighborhood (60%) 480 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 149 | February November 2022 When asked to identify what they thought the biggest problem with housing discrimination is in Glendale and the surrounding area,10 the majority of all respondents identified race as the most prevalent factor. The responses broken down by group were:
Resident responses:
Race/Ethnicity (39%)
Other (please specify) (21%)
National Origin (15%)
Familial status (9%)
Color (physical appearance (8%)
Disability (6%)
Sex (2%)
Religion (0%)
Worker responses:
Race/Ethnicity (42%)
National Origin (23%)
Other (please specify) (10%)
Familial status (10%)
Color (physical appearance) (10%)
Disability (6%)
Sex (0%)
Religion (0%)
Other responses:
Race/Ethnicity (60%)
Other (please specify) (20%)
Color (physical appearance) (20%)
Of other responses, nobody indicated housing discrimination was due to national origin, religion, sex, familial status, or disability.
Of all respondents who selected “Other (please specify)” about half specified that no problems with housing discrimination existed or that they are unaware of any problem. Other common responses included discrimination based on financial factors or sexual preference/gender expression.
When asked whether they had experienced or witnessed housing discrimination in Glendale11 the majority of respondents answered “No.” The responses broken down by group were:
Resident responses:
Yes (20% or 39 responses)
No (56% or 110 responses)
10 Question 17: The federal Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, familial stat us, and disability. Of those, which do you think is the most prevalent factor in h ousing discrimination in our region?
11 Question 18: Have you ever experienced or witnessed housing discrimination in the City of Glendale? 481 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 150 | February November 2022 I don’t know (24% or 46 responses)
Of those respondents that answered “yes” to the prior question, the discriminatory factors identified12 (in order of affirmative responses) were:
Race/Ethnicity (43%)
Color (physical appearance) (10%)
Level/source of Income (8%)
Sex/gender/gender identity (5%)
National Origin (5%)
Language spoken (5%)
Not applicable (N/A) (3%)
Age (3%)
Marital status (3%)
Religion (3%)
Familial status (3%)
Disability (3%)
Political Ideas (3%)
Citizenship status (3%)
Use of Housing Choice Vouc her or other assistance (3%) Other (3%)
Worker responses:
Yes (13% or 4 responses)
No (66% or 21 responses)
I don’t know (22% or 7 responses)
Of those respondents that answered “yes” to the prior question, the discriminatory factors identified (in order of affirmative responses) were:
Race/Ethnicity (25%)
National origin (25%)
Marital status (25%)
Religion (25%)
Other responses:
Yes (20% or 1 response)
No (60% or 4 responses)
I don’t know (0% or no responses)
Of other responses for the prior question, the only discriminatory factor identified was race/ethnicity (100%).
12 Question 19: On what grounds do you believe you witnessed housing discrimination? 482 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 151 | February November 2022 When asked whether they knew of anyone in Glendale who experienced unfair real estate or lending practices13 respondents provided the following responses:
Resident responses:
The majority (74%) didn’t know of anyone who had encountered these unfair practices 13% knew of someone who was unfairly refused a rental or sale agreement 10% reported knowing someone who was not shown all housing options 9% reported knowing someone who was falsely denied available housing options 7% knew of someone who was unfairly directed to a certain neighborhood or location 5% (each) indicated they knew of someone who was offered unfair terms when buying or selling, or was not given reasonable accommodation for a disability 4% reported knowing someone who was unfairly denied a mortgage Worker responses:
The majority (62%) didn’t know of anyone who had encountered these unfair practices 10% (each) knew of someone who was unfairly refu sed a rental or sale agreement, was not shown all housing options, was not given reasonable accommodation for a disability, or was unfairly denied a mortgage
7% (each) reported knowing someone who was falsely denied available housing options, or was offered unfair terms when buying or selling
Other responses:
The majority (80%) didn’t know of anyone who had encountered these unfair practices 20% knew of someone who was unfairly refused a rental or sales agreement Many respondents (37% of residents, 23% of workers, and 40% of other) would not know where to refer someone (or themselves) if they felt that their fair housing rights were violated 14. Of those who responded that they might know where to go, most would refer someone to the local, state or federal government or the California Department of Housing and Community Development. Familiarity with Fair Housing Laws varied amongst and between groups. A large proportion (43% of residents, 32% of workers, and 60% of other) were not familiar with Fair Housing Laws 15. Workers were more likely than ot her groups to be somewhat familiar or very familiar with fair housing laws (68%), while just over half (56%) of residents and only 40% of workers felt the same. Additionally, the majority of all groups ( 74% of residents, 81% of workers, and 60% of other) responded “Yes” or “I don’t know” when asked if Federal and/or State Fair Housing Laws are difficult to understand or follow16.
CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS
The City Council received a briefing on August 16, 2021 regarding the Housing Element Update and the project team sought feedback from Council and the community on the City’s strategy to accommodate its unmet RHNA in areas designated for mixed-use deve lopment, areas in the Downtown Specific Plan, accessory dwelling units, and underdeveloped residentia l sites which were also designated as housing opportunity sites in the prior Housing Element. The City Council is scheduled to receive another briefing on November 2, 2021 as part of the public review process for the draft Housing Element.
13 Question 20: Do you know of anyone in Glendale who has faced the following: (select all that apply) 14 Question 21: Where would you refer someone if they felt their fair housing rights had been violated? 15 Question 22: How familiar are you with Fair Housing Laws? 16 Question 23: Do you think Federal and/or State Fair Housing Laws are difficult to understand or follow? 483 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 152 | February November 2022
PLANNING OPEN HOUSE (IN-PERSON)
The City of Glendale hosted one in-person open house fo r planning projects on August 4, 2021. The event highlighted the work the City is currently undertaking as part of its Focused General Plan Update (including the Housing Element), the West Glendale plan, th e Verdugo Wash, and various other ongoing planning projects. The City was especially excited to host this event in-person, given that there have been very limited to meet in person during preparation of the Housing Element due to impacts related to COVID-19. At this event, the City was able to speak directly with re sidents about their housing priorities, and educate the community regarding the City’s approach to planning to meet its fair share of regional housing need.
COMMUNITY HOUSING OPEN HOUSE #1
The City hosted a Virtual Community Open House on October 11, 2021 to provide an update on the preparation of the Draft Housing Element. At this open house, the City highlighted 5th Cycle progress, defined the criteria for the sites inventor y, identified credits towards the 6 th Cycle RHNA, and described the fair housing analysis being undertaken.
COMMUNITY HOUSING OPEN HOUSE #2
The City is scheduled to host a community open house on the Public Draft Housing Element in November 2021. At this open house, the City will present the Public Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element and solicit feedback on the Element that will be considered and reflected in the final document. The City will specifically present information related to fair housing and describe the goals, policies, and programs that the City has added to the Housing Element to address this topic.
ADVERTISEMENTS
The City of Glendale maintains various social media accounts including Facebook, Nextdoor, and Instagram.
Starting in January 2021, and continuing throughout the project, the City posted updates to its social media platforms advertising opportunities to provide input and alerting the public to upcoming meetings and workshops.
EMAILS
The project team complied a database of community members and stakeholders who registered to be notified via email of future public engagement opportunities a nd key deliverables. Direct emails were sent to these individuals to publicize the Virtual Workshop, the Ho using Survey, and the Public Review Draft 2021-2029 Housing Element.
6B. Assessment of Fair Housing
This section presents an overview of available federal, state, and local data to analyze fair housing issues in Glendale. This data is supplemented with local knowledge of existing conditions in the community to present a more accurate depiction of fair housing issues in Glendale and a more informed perspective from which to base goals, policies, and programs to affirmatively further fair housing.
KEY DATA AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION
As recently as September 2021, the City of Glendale prepared an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) to fulfill its HUD requirement and remove bar riers to fair housing choice for all their residents.
The AI examined policies, procedures, and practices within the City that may limit a person’s ability to choose their residence free from discrimination. The AI provided an overview of laws, regulations, conditions, or other possible obstacles that may affect an individual or a household’s access to housing in the City. It also presented local and regional demographic profiles, as sessed the extent of housing needs among specific groups, identified existing barriers or impediments th at may limit housing choice, and proposed actions to overcome those barriers.
The City’s demographic and income profile, household and housing characteristics, housing cost and 484 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 153 | February November 2022 availability, and special needs populations are discus sed in previous sections of this Background Report.
Barriers to fair housing choice specific to the City of Glendale that were identified in the 2020-2025 AI and the commitments of the City to address identified barri ers were incorporated into this AFH. Supplemental data analysis was conducted to further understand potentia l fair housing issues, within the context of AFH topics, at the city-level. Glendale is comprised of 46 census tracts, although several are only partially located in Glendale. Figure 4 shows the tract boundaries.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE'S HISTORICAL CONTRIBUTIONS TO RACISM On July 21, 2020 in response to the nationwide dialogue on race and equity, and as part of a long-term effort to foster diversity, equity, and inclusion, City Council approved the City's membership in the local and regional Government Alliance on Race & Equity (GARE). GARE is a national network of governments working to achieve racial equity and advance opportunities for all. Joining GARE provides staff with access to the organization's resources, network, and staff to develop and present an action plan for consideration and discussion by City Council. Concurrently, the Police Department is reviewing its use of policies based on recommendations that were made by Attorney General Xavier Becerra, and will bring a report back to Council at some point.
Part of the request from Council on this topic included an acknowledgement of Glendale's past with regard to race. As such, staff has been reviewing available historic documents to identify and understand Glendale's history as it pertains to its racist past.
The City of Glendale was incorporated as a charter city in 1906. In 1920, the U.S. Census reported that the African American population of Glendale was 0.16%, and that population was likely comprised of live-in domestic workers. In 2019, the U.S. Census reported that the African American population of Glendale was
1.6%. Comparatively, the African American population for Los Angeles County was 9.0% in 2019, according to the U.S. Census. This disparity in racial makeup warrants an exploration of the history of Glendale.17 James Loewen, sociologist, profes sor, and author of Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism, defines sundown towns as "any organized juri sdiction that for decades kept African Americans or other groups from living in it and was thus 'all-whit e' on purpose," through formal and informal methods.
Loewen identified over 100 sundown towns in California in his research, including Glendale.
Informal methods to exclude Black people and other people of color from Glendale included intimidation and violence. Harassment of Black people who moved into Glendale, or who were visiting Glendale, is well documented with hate crimes reported in newspapers from the 1900s through the 1990s. 18, 19, 20 Contemporaneous accounts and oral histories from Black people who worked in or lived near Glendale consistently note hostility and discrimination.21 22 23 24 25 26 Additionally, individuals who were not white were prohibited from being buried in Glendale's Forest Lawn Memorial Park until the 1960s. 27
17 Loewen, James W. Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism. New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006. 18 "Threat in Glendale: Negro Family is Ordered in Anonymous Communication to Leave Town." Los Angeles Times (1886-1922); Apr 2, 1907; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times. P 1110. 19 Alexander, Pat. "Postscript." Los Angeles Sentinel (1934-2005); Dec 11, 1947; ProQ uest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Sentinel. P 7
20 Man Admits Racist Action Against Black: IHome Edition]. Los Angeles Times (pre-1997 Fulltext); Mar 26, 1987; Global Newsstream.
P 15.
21 Negro Leader Assails Conditions in Glendale." Los Angeles Times (1923-1995); Jul 16, 1963; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times. P 2.
22 Merritt, Bruce G. Faith and Fair Housing: An Episcopal Parish Church in the 1964 Debate over Proposition 14. Southern Californ ia Quarterly (2013) 95 (3): 284--316. https://doi.orql10.15251scq.2013.95.3.284 23 Central Avenue Sounds: Lee Young. Interviewed by Stephen L. lsoar di, 1991. UCLA Library Center for Oral History Research, University of California, Los Angeles.
24 Central Avenue Sounds: Clora Bryant. Interviewed by Stephen L. lsoardi, 1990. UCLA Library Center for Oral History Research, University of California, Los Angeles.
25 Central Avenue Sounds: William Douglass. 1990. UCLA Library Center for Oral History Research, Un iversity of California, Los Angeles.
26 "Local relations group to reform" Richard Swearinger, R. 1986, Sept. 12, Glendale News Press. 27 Integrating the City of the Dead: The Integration of Cemete ries and the Evolution of Property Law, 1900-1969." Vol. 56:4. Alab ama 485 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 154 | February November 2022 Formal methods that kept Glendale all white are most clearly represented by racially restrictive covenants in housing. In the 191O0s and 1920s, racially restri cted housing was noted in advertisements for Glendale homes,28 29 and by the 1940s, Glendale was noted as a model for other communities that wanted to racially restrict housing.30, 31, 32 In 1940, Glendale was cited by the California Real Estate Association (CREA) "as being worthy of singular praise in its utilization of measures to keep it a '100% Caucasian Race Community"' due to the promotion of a pledge by homeowners which read, "I will not sell or rent to any person or groups other than the Caucasian Race." In 1942, the Glendale CREA chapter formed Race Restriction Committee "to establish perpetual race restrictions on all parcels of property in Glendale." 33 As late as 1949, Glendale Realtors proudly declared their city a "100% Caucasian Race Community" in the CREA's annual directory."34 Debate continued on the issue of "open housing" through the 1960s, 35 36 and controversy ensued when Black people did move into Glendale.37
Although no official record of a Glendale sundown law has been found to date, there is ample documentary evidence that Glendale was a "sundown town." For example, in 1938, Los Angeles City Park Commissioners refused to allow the Civilian Conservation Corps to house a company of African American workers at Griffith Park because the bordering cities of Glendale and Burbank had ordinances which prohibited Black people from remaining after sun down.38
Additionally, Glendale has a history as home to white supremacist organizations that alone would have made the city hostile to African Americans. It is well documented that the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) was active in Glendale as early as the 1920s 39, 40 when it was noted to be a "strong" organization including many of the business' men of the suburban city [as] members of the masked brotherhood."41 The KKK was active in Glendale into the 1960s. 42 Other white supremacist organizations established themselves in Glendale, including the American Nazi Party in the 1960s and 1970s,43, 44 the League of Pace Amendment Advocates in the 1980s,45 and various Aryan nationalist groups in the 1980s and 1990s.46, 47 Another method of racial exclusion existed in the form of redlining. The term comes from federal government maps from the New Deal period, in which maps of every metropolitan area in the country were color-coded to indicate where it was considered safe to insure mortgages. Anywhere African Americans lived were colored red to indicate to appraisers that these neighborhoods were too risky to insure mortgages.48
Law Review. P 1153. August 7, 2005.
28 ADVERTISEMENT. Los Angeles Herald, Volume XXXIX, Number 116, 13 February 1913. P 24. 29 Display Ad 220 -- No Title. Los Angeles Times (1886-1922); Apr 3, 1921; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times. P V4 30 "Ask Sign-up on Restrictions of Property Use." La Habra Star, Volume XXIX, Number 51, 27 July 1945. P 1. 31 "Start Plan to Make Race Restrictions," La Habra Star, April 20, 1945, 1. 32 "Would Limit Residents to Caucasian Race," La Habra Star, December 22, 1944, 1 33 Goodman, George. "Bigotry of Fair Housing Act Opponents Root ed in Past." Los Angeles Sentinel (1934-2005); Aug 27, 1964; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Sentinel. pg. A12. 34 Hosang, D. (2010). Racial Propositions: Ballot Initiatives and the Making of Postwar California. University of California Press. 35 Goodman, George. "Bigotry of Fair Housing Act Opponents Rooted in Past." Los Angeles Sentinel (1934-2005); Aug 27, 1964; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Sentinel. P A12 36 Barber, Mary. "Pasadenan Warns Glendale League: Open Housi ng Not Easy.'' Los Angeles Times (1923-1995); May 1, 1969; ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times. P SG5 37 "Mixed Marriage Eviction Halted." Los Angeles Sentinel (1934-2005), May 04 1967, p. 2. ProQuest. Web. 14 Aug. 2020. 38 Cole, Jr., Olen. The African-American Experience in the Civilian Conservation Corps. Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 1999. 39 "Ku Klux Klan Will Be Seen on Glendale Streets." Glendale News-Press, June 30, 1921. P 1. 40 "Klan Handbills Distributed.'' San Pedro News Pilot, Volume 12, Number 250, 23 December 1939. P 11. 41 "LOS ANGELES SEEKS HIGHER-UPS IN INGL EWOOD NIGHT RIDERS OUTRAGES." Hanford Sentinel, Volume 70, Number 41, 29 April 1922. P 1.
42 "Interracial Couple Gets KKK Warni ng," Glendale News Press, April 28, 1967. 43 "Hahn Opposes Nazi Hdqtrs.'' Los Angeles Sentinel (1934-2005); Dec 17, 1964; ProQuest Historic al Newspapers: Los Angeles Sentinel. P. A4
44 "Documentation of Nazi Activity Vowed at Rally,'' Glendale News Press, May 6, 1965. 45 O'Donnell, Santiago. "Glendale Group of White Supremacists May Move.'' Los Angeles Times (1923-1995); Apr 14, 1989. ProQuest Historical Newspapers: Los Angeles Times. P VY10.
46 Romney, Lee. "Police Investigating Source of Leaflets with Racist Messages.'' Los Angeles Times (1923- 1995), Jan 28 1993, p. 2. 47 Brian Lewis, "Racist Groups May Rally at Li brary,'' Glendale News Press, July 30, 1987. 48 Gross, Terry. "A 'Forgotten History" of How the U.S. Government Segregated America.'' Fresh Air. National Public Radio. May 3, 2017.
486 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 155 | February November 2022 Redlining was a means to classify neighborhoods worthy of investment or lending. The Home Owner's Loan Corporation (HOLC) developed redline maps in the 1930 s to determine the level of risk associated with neighborhoods. As part of this initiative, the HOLC created maps using local real estate agents to determine that level of risk. These maps factored in proximity to noxious uses, such as industrial development, but the primary determining factor for classification was raci al composition. The more minorities that lived in a neighborhood the lower the grade it was given, decreasing the likelihood that a finance company would lend to a prospective home buyer or builder. Maps were color coded into four classes: green (best), blue (desirable), yellow (declining), and red (hazardous). Yellow areas were seen as declining based on the what was described as a "subversive racial element" which was labeled as a threat. Redlined communities were seen as rapidly declining due to a high presence of minorities. Both yellow and red communities were deemed as high risk lending areas. Areas deemed as "best" and "desirable" earned this rating based on the presence of racially restrictive deeds and covenants. This essentially created two official barriers to entry for minorities into more wealthy neighborhoods: redlining maps and covenants.49 In combination with the HOLC redlining maps, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) also used subjective criteria based on race. Yellow and red areas were often not eligible for loans, which stifled development and encouraged urban decay. This was particularly damaging to older neighborhoods where even loans for repairs were difficult to obtain. The FHA would not provide insurance backing for mortgages in redlined and some yellow classified neighborhoods. Without FHA backing , most could not afford the alternative of high down payment, high interest rate, short term loans. Ultimately this led to redlined, and some yellow classified communities, unable to acquire loans for new purchases or even home improvements. This was further reinforced by the FHA's own Underwriting Manual, which stated "If a neighborhood is to retain stability it is necessary that properties shall continue to be occ upied by the same social and racial classes." The Underwriting Manual served as a field guide when determining if a loan was FHA eligible.50, 51 Staff has found evidence of original redlined maps of Glendale that indicate risk of lending to particular neighborhoods in south Glendale based on the presence of minorities. The A redlining map included as Exhibit 1 of this report, "Redlining Security Map," was issued by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board in 1939.
It should be noted that the green (best) and blue (desirable) communities were favored for lending based on their ability to restrict access to these neighborhoods. These neighborhoods were most prevalent in north Glendale, where their racially restri ctive deeds were deemed as a positive t ool to restrict opportunities for minorities, based on review by the HOLC. These maps and racially restrictive covenants were legal to use until 1968, cementing over three decades of economic and housing inequality. During this period, favored neighborhoods and ethnicities were able to build and accu mulate wealth through property ownership, while minorities were restricted in access to neighborhoods and the ability to build wealth. Restricted access to neighborhoods made finding employment more difficult, as well as restricted opportunities to higher quality education.
Furthermore, redlined communities based upon race were often located closest to industrial uses and other noxious uses, creating disparity in public health as well as economic disparity.
Today, redlining maps are no longer used, but racial compositions and segregation in cities deeply follow the boundaries of these maps. Research has shown that most neighborhoods that were classified as green (best) and blue (desirable) typically have a racial composition of over 75% white today. Neighborhoods classified as yellow (declining) and red (hazardous) were majo rity-minority communities. While outlawed in the mid- 20th century, redline maps created racial and economic division lines that have lasted through today.
49 Ryan Reft, "Segregation in the City of Angels: A 1939 Map of Housing Inequality in L.A.," KCET, Los LA. https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-l a/segregation-in-the-city-of-angels-a-1939-map-of-housing- inequality-in-la . 50 United States. Federal Housing Administration. Underwriting Ma nual. Underwriting and Valuation Procedure Under Title II of the National Housing Act, 1938.
https://books.google.com/books?id=GOnVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA970&Ipg=PA970&dq#v=onepaqe&q&f=false. 51 William H. Brown, Jr. "Access to Housing: The Role of the Real Estate Industry," Economic Geography, 48, no. 1 (January 1972): 66-78.
487 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 156 | February November 2022 Given the recent national tragedies that have spar ked open, honest, and uncomfortable conversations surrounding race, it is appropriate and timely for the City of Glendale to understand, acknowledge, and confront its racial past in order to have conversation s about race today. In an effort to fully explore and understand Glendale's history, the City Council has directed staff to draft and release a request for proposals (RFP) to complete a historical context statement for the City of Glendale. Many cities utilize historic context statements as an organizing structure for grouping information about historic properties that share a common theme, place, and time. A historic context statement is not intended to be a comprehensive history, but rather, it focuses on describing those historical development patterns within which the significance of resources can be understood. There can be differing themes for historic context statements, incl uding race/ethnicity; the City of Glendale has requested that the historical context statement focus on the theme of race/ethnicity, with the following subsections: African American, Latinx, Eastern Asian, and Western Asian. This is so as to not dilute the history and understanding of each group.
As the City works towards understanding and acknowledging its past, it has also launched a year-long series of educational programming through the Library, Arts & Culture Department. This series seeks to enhance and elevate culturally diverse artistic voices and brin g additional focus on systematic racism by amplifying cultural voices through a lens of diversity, equity, an d inclusion. These programs will occur in conjunction with such commemorations as Hisp anic Heritage Month, Black Hi story Month, Armenian Genocide Remembrance, Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, and the one-year anniversary of the 2020 racial justice protests. The series will feature authors, curators, historians, panelists, and speakers presenting exhibits and programming.
By understanding and acknowledging the past and confronting the present, the City of Glendale will be better equipped to move forward towards a future that is an antiracist Glendale, and work alongside the community to gain a better understanding of what a safe, just, and inclusive community looks like for everyone who does (and does not) live in Glendale.
FAIR HOUSING ENFORCEMENT AND OUTREACH CAPACITY
The City’s Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 2020-2025 (AI) was prepared in September 2021 and is a thorough examination of structural barriers to fair housing choice and access to opportunity for members of historically marginalized groups protected from discrimination by the federal Fair Housing Act (FHA).
To ensure the AI accurately reflected the community’s needs, the community outreach program included two community meetings, one for the general public on October 3, 2019 and one for social service and housing service providers on December 5, 2019. Seventeen re sidents and 15 representatives of service provider agencies attended these meetings. To encourage attendance and participation, the general public meeting was publicized through distributed flyers at various public locations, mailings to 226 service providers, email sent to participating organizations with CDBG, housing, and homeless programs and City department heads, advertisements on the City’s cable channel, and posted flyers on the City’s, community services and parks, and CDBG webpages. The general public workshop featured citizen focus groups who were asked to identify community needs and priorities concerning housi ng, community development, homeless, economic development, transportation and citizen participation. The social service and housing providers meeting provided a general overview of the AI and the outreach process. Copies of the survey were made available to them to fill out and share with their clients in the community.
In addition to the meetings, the City also created a Fair Housing Survey. The Fair Housing Survey sought to gain knowledge about the nature and extent of fair h ousing issues experienced by Glendale residents. The survey consisted of questions designed to gather information on a person’s experience with fair housing issues and perception of fair housing issues in thei r own neighborhood. The survey was made available in English, Spanish, and Armenian and distributed via distribution at va rious community locations and public counters, posted on the City’s webpage, and solicited the participation of service providers to also post the survey link on their websites and to help distribute surv eys to their clients. The survey was also provided to 488 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 157 | February November 2022 the participants at the general public meeting on October 3, 2019 . A total of 752 Glendale residents responded to the Fair Housing Survey.52
A vast majority of survey recipients felt that housing discrimination was not an issue in their neighborhoods.
Of the 752 responses, approximately 73% (548 persons) had not experienced housing discrimination. About 77% of the survey respondents (579 persons) stated that they were renters, with only 23% of the respondents stating that they owned their ho mes. Among the persons indicating t hat they had experienced housing discrimination, 103 of those persons responded to the housing discrimination questions. 80% (83 persons) indicated that a landlord or property manager had di scriminated against them, while 18% (18 persons) of respondents identified a city/county staff person as the source of discrimination. Among the persons indicating that they had experienced housing discri mination, 74% (76 persons) indicated that the discrimination they experienced occurred in an apartment complex. About 11% (11 persons) indicated that the discrimination occurred in a single-family neighbo rhood (most likely renters renting homes), 9% (nine persons) indicated that it took place in a public or subsidized housing project, and 18% (18 persons) indicated it occurred when applying for City and or County housi ng programs. Of the 103 people who felt they were discriminated against, 50% (51 persons) indicated that they believed the discrimination was based on race, 29% (30 persons) believed it was based on source of income, 24% (25 persons) believed it was based on familial status, and 17% (18 persons) believed it was based on age. Other responses included discrimination based on marital status, disability, gender, and national origin. Among the persons indicating that they had experienced housing discrimination, 8% (8 persons) indicated that they had been denied “reasonable accommodation” in rules, policies, or practices for their disability. Typical requests that were denied included modifications for wheelchair use and the addition of a service animal. However, based on the written narratives from the respondents, there is also evidence that many do not fully understand the modifications/flexibility covered under reasonable accommodation. Of the survey respondents who felt they were discriminated against, only 9% reported the discr imination incident. Many of the respondents who did not report the incident indicated that they did not know where to report the incident (20%, or 19 persons), or they did not believe reporting would make a difference (54%, or 50 persons); 4% (four persons) felt it was too much trouble. Another 16% (15 persons) were afraid of retaliation.
The Draft AI was made available for a 30-day public review from September 30, 2021 to October 29, 2021, accessible online on the City’s website.
The AI describes the departments and organizations t hat handle fair housing enforcement and outreach in Glendale. The California Department of Fair Employm ent and Housing (DFEH) investigates complaints of employment and housing discrimination. The Housing Rights Center (HRC) provides services to Glendale to ensure equal access to housing. The HRC’s services include outreach and education, homebuyer education, mortgage default counseling, landlord-tenant mediation, and limited low-cost advocacy. The Fair Housing Council investigates claims of housing discrimination and assists with referrals to DFEH.
The HRC provides free services to Glendale residents for questions and inquiries regarding rights and responsibilities between landlords a nd tenants. Residents can contact HRC to get information on different fair housing services such as just cause protection , right to lease, and relocation assistance to better understand their rights as a tenant. Information and counseling appointments are accessible via phone or online. HRC also provides a monthly rental listing p ublication that provides an updated list of affordable housing developers and companies that provide info rmation on current and future affordable housing opportunities; contact information for properties with available affordable units; contact information for housing that is reserved for seniors and/or veterans, or offers services targeted to seniors and/or veterans; and information about financial assistance, tempor ary shelters, transitional programs, and other housing resources. According to the AI, between Fiscal Year (FY) 2014-15 and FY 2018-19, HRC provided fair housing services to a total of 3,215 clients in Glendal e. Whites represented approximately 53 percent of clients, followed by Other (35 percent); Asians (five percent); Black (four percent); and Pacific Islander (two
52 City of Glendale Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice 2020-2025, Prepared by the City of Glendale, September 29, 2021. 489 of 1381
Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing Element Background Report ‐ 158 | February November 2022 percent). Approximately 23 percent of clients identified themselves as ethnically Hispanic. The racial/ethnic distribution of HRC’s clients is not consistent with the City’s demographics, indicating that non-whites and Hispanics may be disproportionately impacted by housing discrimination. Approximately nine percent of all inquiries/complaints during this period came from persons with disabilities, three percent from female-headed households, almost 10 percent from seniors, and tw o percent from households who received government subsidies for housing. During this same period, 238 complaints of housing discrimination were reported. Most allegations were related to physical disability (52 perc ent), but a significant number of complaints involved mental disability (18 percent), familial status (10 pe rcent), and general discrimination (nine percent). It is important to note that not all allegations of discriminat ion evolve into actual fair housing cases. Of the 238 complaints of discrimination received between 2014 and 2018, 43 (18 percent) were deemed significant enough to turn into fair housing cases, and 72 percent of the cases opened had enough evidence to sustain the allegation of discrimination.
The HCD Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Data Viewer (AFFH Viewer) provides information regarding federal Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO) cases by County for the 2006 to 2020 period and also identifies fair housing inquiries by City based on fede ral HUD data. The AFFH Viewer indicates that there were 291 cases filed in Los Angeles County in the 2006-2010 period, of which 80 had a racial bias, 106 had a disability bias, and 58 had a familial status bias. In the 2020 period (which is indicated to reflect 2006-2020, but does not appear to include the 2010 period cases), there were 130 cases filed in Los Angeles County, including 27 with a racial bias, 86 with a disability bi as, and nine with a familial status bias. While data are not available for cases filed related to Glendale, the AFFH Viewer indicates that 66 FHEO inquiries for Glendale were received from 2013 to 2021, of which five inquiries were based on disability, one was based on race, four were based on familial status, two were based on national origin, one was based on sex, and 53 were based on “none.” In 32 of these inquiries, complainants failed to respond; six were found to have no valid basis; 25 were found to have no valid issue fo r the inquiry; and two resulted in other disposition.
Glendale has similar rates of inquiry as surrounding jurisdictions, in which the number of inquiries per thousand residents is generally below 0.5. For Glendale, the total inquiries per thousand residents was 0.32; for the City of Los Angeles, this number was 0.31; for Pasadena, 0.35; and for Burbank, 0.24. La Cañada Flintridge had a much lower rate of inquiry at 0.10 per thousand residents, as did South Pasadena (0.19) and San Marino (0.0); West Hollywood had a higher rate of inquiry (0.82), as did Culver City (0.65), Santa Monica (0.58) and Irwindale (0.69).
According to the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing 2020 Annual Report, 880 housing complaints were filed in 2020, with the top bases for housing complaints surrounding disability (73.9 percent), race (20.1 percent), requested or used a disability-related accommodation (12.7 percent), sex/gender (12.7 percent), and familial status (12.0 percent) (note that the total number of bases exceeds the total number of cases because a complaint may be filed on more than one basis). 53 Of the total housing complaints filed in 2020, the majority (294) were from Los Angeles County residents.
The Glendale Rental Rights Program is available to City of Glendale residents for questions and inquiries regarding rights and responsibilities between landlords and tenants. Residents can contact City housing staff to get information on different fair housing services such as Just Cause Eviction, Right to Lease, and Relocation Assistance provided under the Rental Rights Program to better understand their rights as a tenant.
These three provisions work to create stability and to mitigate the impacts of displacement for Glendale residents. According to Community Development D epartment records, the City received 2,271 housing- related inquiries between September 1, 2021 and September 20, 2022. Of these, 1,094 (48%) were related to Covid-19 (rent freeze and eviction moratorium); 667 (30%) were rent increase/AB 1482 inquiries; 188 (9%) were related to Lead Renovation, Repair, and Painting (RRP) Rule; 158 were Just Cause Eviction inquiries; and 164 were other inquiries, including questions about security deposits and lease terms, issues within units, rental insurance requirements, and on-site ma nager requirements. For each inquiry, the Community