Agenda packet, first session — Glendale City Council, December 6, 2022 (part 5 of 5)

With the National Park Service, Matt directed service-wide investigations of contaminant sources to prevent degradation of water quality, including the following tasks:
x Applied pertinent laws and regulations including CERCLA, RCRA, NEPA, NRDA, and the Clean Water Act to control military, mining, and landfill contaminants. x Conducted watershed-scale investigations of contaminants at parks, including Yellowstone and Olympic National Park.
x Identified high-levels of perchlorate in soil adjacent to a national park in New Mexico and advised park superintendent on appropriate response actions under CERCLA. x Served as a Park Service representative on the Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee, a national workgroup.
x Developed a program to conduct environmental compliance audits of all National Parks while serving on a national workgroup.
x Co-authored two papers on the potential for water contamination from the operation of personal watercraft and snowmobiles, these papers serving as the basis for the development of nation- wide policy on the use of these vehicles in National Parks. x Contributed to the Federal Multi-Agency Source Water Agreement under the Clean Water Action Plan.

Policy:

Served senior management as the Senior Science Poli cy Advisor with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9. Activities included the following:
x Advised the Regional Administrator and senior management on emerging issues such as the potential for the gasoline additive MTBE and ammonium perchlorate to contaminate drinking water supplies.
x Shaped EPA’s national response to these threats by serving on workgroups and by contributing to guidance, including the Office of Research and Development publication, Oxygenates in Water: Critical Information and Research Needs.
x Improved the technical training of EPA's scientific and engineering staff. x Earned an EPA Bronze Medal for representing the region’s 300 scientists and engineers in negotiations with the Administrator and senior management to better integrate scientific principles into the policy-making process.
x Established national protocol for the peer review of scientific documents. 5 1117 of 1381

Geology:

With the U.S. Forest Service, Matt led investigations to determine hillslope stability of areas proposed for timber harvest in the central Oregon Coast Range. Specific activities were as follows:
x Mapped geology in the field, and used aerial photographic interpretation and mathematical models to determine slope stability.
x Coordinated his research with community members who were concerned with natural resource protection.
x Characterized the geology of an aquifer that serves as the sole source of drinking water for the city of Medford, Oregon.

As a consultant with Dames and Moore, Matt led geologic investigations of two contaminated sites (later listed on the Superfund NPL) in the Portland, Oregon, area and a large hazardous waste site in eastern Oregon. Duties included the following:
x Supervised year-long effort for soil and groundwater sampling. x Conducted aquifer tests.
x Investigated active faults beneath sites proposed for hazardous waste disposal.

Teaching:

From 1990 to 1998, Matt taught at least one course per semester at the community college and university levels:
x At San Francisco State University, held an adjunct faculty position and taught courses in environmental geology, oceanography (lab and lecture), hydrogeology, and groundwater contamination.
x Served as a committee member for graduate and undergraduate students. x Taught courses in environmental geology and oceanography at the College of Marin.

Matt taught physical geology (lecture and lab and introductory geology at Golden West College in Huntington Beach, California from 2010 to 2014.

Invited Testimony, Reports, Papers and Presentations:

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Presentation to the Public Environmental Law Conference, Eugene, Oregon.

Hagemann, M.F., 2008. Disclosure of Hazardous Waste Issues under CEQA. Invited presentation to U.S.

EPA Region 9, San Francisco, California.

Hagemann, M.F., 2005. Use of Electronic Databases in Environmental Regulation, Policy Making and Public Participation. Brownfields 2005, Denver, Coloradao.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Nevada and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Las Vegas, NV (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Invited testimony to a California Senate committee hearing on air toxins at schools in Southern California, Los Angeles.
6 1118 of 1381

Brown, A., Farrow, J., Gray, A. and Hagemann, M., 2004. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells.

Presentation to the Ground Water and Environmental Law Conference, National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2004. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in Arizona and the Southwestern U.S. Presentation to a meeting of the American Groundwater Trust, Phoenix, AZ (served on conference organizing committee).

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River and Impacts to Drinking Water in the Southwestern U.S. Invited presentation to a special committee meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Irvine, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a tribal EPA meeting, Pechanga, CA.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate Contamination of the Colorado River. Invited presentation to a meeting of tribal repesentatives, Parker, AZ.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Impact of Perchlorate on the Colorado River and Associated Drinking Water Supplies. Invited presentation to the Inter-Tribal Meeting, Torres Martinez Tribe.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. The Emergence of Perchlorate as a Widespread Drinking Water Contaminant.

Invited presentation to the U.S. EPA Region 9.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. A Deductive Approach to the Assessment of Perchlorate Contamination. Invited presentation to the California Assembly Natural Resources Committee.

Hagemann, M.F., 2003. Perchlorate: A Cold War Legacy in Drinking Water. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater and an Estimate of Costs to Address Impacts to Groundwater. Presentation to the annual meeting of the Society of Environmental Journalists.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of the Cost to Address MTBE Contamination in Groundwater (and Who Will Pay). Presentation to a meeting of the National Groundwater Association.

Hagemann, M.F., 2002. An Estimate of Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Underground Storage Tanks and the Resulting Impact to Drinking Water Wells. Presentation to a meeting of the U.S. EPA and State Underground Storage Tank Program managers.

Hagemann, M.F ., 2001. From Tank to Tap: A Chronology of MTBE in Groundwater. Unpublished report.
7 1119 of 1381

Hagemann, M.F ., 2001. Estimated Cleanup Cost for MTBE in Groundwater Used as Drinking Water.

Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F., 2001. Estimated Costs to Address MTBE Releases from Leaking Underground Storage Tanks. Unpublished report.

Hagemann, M.F ., and VanMouwerik, M., 1999. Potential W a t e r Quality Concerns Related to Snowmobile Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

VanMouwerik, M. and Hagemann, M.F . 1999, Water Quality Concerns Related to Personal Watercraft Usage. Water Resources Division, National Park Service, Technical Report.

Hagemann, M.F ., 1999, Is Dilution the Solution to Pollution in National Parks? The George Wright Society Biannual Meeting, Asheville, North Carolina.

Hagemann, M.F ., 1997, The Potential for MTBE to Contaminate Groundwater. U.S. EPA Superfund Groundwater Technical Forum Annual Meeting, Las Vegas, Nevada.

Hagemann, M.F ., and Gill, M., 1996, Impediments to Intrinsic Remediation, Moffett Field Naval Air Station, Conference on Intrinsic Remediation of Chlorinated Hydrocarbons, Salt Lake City.

Hagemann, M.F., Fukunaga, G.L., 1996, The Vulnerability of Groundwater to Anthropogenic Contaminants on the Island of Maui, Hawaii. Hawaii Water Works Association Annual Meeting, Maui, October 1996.

Hagemann, M. F., Fukanaga, G. L., 1996, Ranking Groundwater Vulnerability in Central Oahu, Hawaii. Proceedings, Geographic Information Systems in Environmental Resources Management, Air and Waste Management Association Publication VIP-61.

Hagemann, M.F . , 199 4. G r ou n d w a t e r Characterization and Cleanup at C los in g M i l it a r y B a s e s in California. Proceedings, California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting.

Hagemann, M. F. and Sabol, M.A., 1993. Role of the U.S. EPA in the High Plains States Groundwater Recharge Demonstration Program. Proceedings, Sixth Biennial Symposium on the Artificial Recharge of Groundwater.

Hagemann, M.F ., 1993. U.S. EPA Policy on the Technical Impracticability of the Cleanup of DNAPL- contaminated Groundwater. California Groundwater Resources Association Meeting. 8 1120 of 1381

Hagemann, M.F., 1992. Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquid Contamination of Groundwater: An Ounce of Prevention... Proceedings, Association of Engineering Geologists Annual Meeting, v. 35.

Other Experience:

Selected as subject matter expert for the California Professional Geologist licensing examination, 2009- 2011.
9 1121 of 1381

Glendale Housing Element Input.

Glendale Association of Realtors®
Property / Parcel Building
SQFT.

Land
SQFT. Leases
Potential
Units Per
Housing
Element
Report
Type of Units
Per City Report
Not A Good RHNA Candidate.

Here is Why.

APN: 5642-014-952 70,274 229 Low Income The Green Space in Americana containing the Trolly ride, the Fountain, and the public park is perhaps the attraction that is most important to the Americana Draw. Potential covenant in all of Americana Retail leases to be maintained as green space. Also recorded in the condominium
subdivision map for over 152 condos in Americana.
322 Americana Way 43,412 69,670 YES 147 Low Income Movie Theater. Part of Americana at Brand. Potential Long-Term Lease with AMC, the current operator
200 W. Broadway Ave. 140,000 43,560 Yes 75 Low Income Dicks Sporting Goods & Golds Gym. Net Operating Income (NOI) of $2,345Mill per year. Being marketed for sale. If property sold for a CAP rate of 4%, the per square foot price of land will be over $1,333.00! No developer will pay such a sum to develop 75 units.
130 N. Central Ave. 41,936 Yes 125 Low Income Owner, Holland Partners, had a development agreement with the city when they purchased the property in 2013.

We believe the agreement was for market rate housing,
not low-income housing as represented in the city report.

Z
Z
E

WE
Z
Z
1122 of 1381

Glendale Housing Element Input.

Glendale Association of Realtors®
Property / Parcel Building
Size
Land Size Leases
Potential
Units Per
Housing
Element
Report
Type of Units
Per Report
Not A Good RHNA Candidate.

Here is Why.
201 W. Lexington Drive 120,000 Yes 390
*Should be
247 Units a
reduction of
143 Units
Low Income The California Community Housing Agency purchased the property at 275 W. Lexington Drive from Cypress Equity
Investments. Note: 494 units. The credit for low-income housing should be 25% to 50% of the number of the
units, or up to 247 units and not the 390 units
represented in the report
232 N. Orange Ave. 91,000 22,798 Parking
Structure
74 Low Income You will have an uprising amongst mid-Brand merchants such as Porto’s, Panera, etc. if the city decides to
demolish 1000+ space parking structure to build 74 units! 225 W. Broadway Ave. 122,000 76,665 Yes 250 Low Income Occupied by tenants. IRS and Social Security Admin are the two largest tenants. IRS lease ends 4 years in this RHNA cycle. Unless sure that IRS won’t renew and or has no
options to renew, the report’s assumption of 250 low-
income units should be revised.
300 S. Central Ave. 9,921 25,987 Yes 85 Low Income Chase Bank and Shoe City are the tenants. Owned by Caruso Affiliated. Renovated in 2011. Leases started 2011 Z
<
<
<
1123 of 1381

Glendale Housing Element Input.

Glendale Association of Realtors®
Property / Parcel Building
Size
Land Size Leases
Potential
Units Per
Housing
Element
Report
Type of Units
Per Report
Not A Good RHNA Candidate.

Here is Why.

APN: 5642-006-064 43,074 49,268 YMCA 161 Low Income Historic Landmark. Four-story Spanish Colonial Revival building. YMCA Building. Note: Part of the property on the Kenwood Ave. side was already developed (Ace 121).

APN: 5643-001-912 211,286 85,339 Altana
Apt. Bldg.
278
*Reduction of
25 units
Low Income Altana was built in 2016. 507-unit apartment Bldg. The California Community Housing Agency purchased the
property. The credit for low-income housing should be
25% to 50% of the number of the units, or up to 253 units and not the 278 units represented in the report.

APN: 5643-003-047 27,007 88 This parcel number does not exist in Assessor’s data base 6136 San Fernando Rd. 31,363 Water
Treatment
Center
13 Low Income More explanation needed
Adjustment (1,415) Units
ĚĚƌĞƐƐ͗
ϲϯϭϲ^ĂŶ&ĞƌŶĂŶĚŽZĚ͘
Z
Z
Z
<
1124 of 1381

January 4, 2022
Gustavo Velasquez, Director
California Department of Housing & Community Development 2020 West El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
Dear Director Velasquez:

We are writing on behalf of Abundant Housing LA regarding Glendale’s 6th Cycle housing element update. As you know, we have shared several comment letters with HCD describing our concerns about major deficiencies in the City’s housing element update. Among our concerns is the City’s failure to identify enough parcels in its site inventory and proposed rezoning program to achieve its RHNA target of 13,425 homes by 2029.

Assembly Bill 1397 (2017) requires cities to provide an accurate assessment of realistic site capacity, including “the city’s or City’s past experience with converting existing uses to higher density residential development, the current demand for the existing use, and an analysis of existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment.”
When cities allocate over 50% of their lower-income RHNA targets to nonvacant sites, they must demonstrate through substantial evidence that the current use of these sites is likely to be discontinued during the planning period. This is necessary in order to ensure that enough parcels for affordable housing production are identified, and that the lower-income RHNA targets are ultimately achieved. To date, the City has not yet adequately provided this substantial evidence.

Abundant Housing LA has partnered with MapCraft Labs, an economic and policy analysis firm with expertise in housing elements and quantitative real estate analysis, to forecast the true realistic capacity of the City’s site inventory and proposed rezoning program. The analysis considers the likely impact of housing element updates on housing production and proposes alternative rezoning scenarios that are more likely to achieve the RHNA target. In particular, MapCraft analyzed the market feasibility of the unit capacity claims made on parcels included in jurisdictions’ site inventories.

This analysis calls into question the City’s conclusion that its housing element creates the conditions for achieving the RHNA target. Among our core findings:
● While the City’s site inventory and rezoning program claimed capacity for about 14,700 housing units, our analysis suggests that expected housing capacity could fall short by 1,500 to 3,000 housing units.
1125 of 1381

● On 41 sites where the City has claimed 3,465 housing units, our analysis found that these sites are either unlikely to be redeveloped to the density that the City is claiming, or are unlikely to be redeveloped altogether. This represents 41% of the housing units in the City's site inventory.

In light of this information, we respectfully recommend that HCD urge the City to reassess its site capacity claims, and revise its site inventory and proposed rezoning program. The City should add more parcels to its site inventory and expand its proposed rezoning program, particularly for low-density parcels in high-demand neighborhoods like Vineyard, Mariposa, Pacific-Edison, and Grandview. The City should also consider eliminating or reducing on-site parking requirements, which would greatly improve the economic feasibility of denser housing development.

We encourage you to review Abundant Housing LA and MapCraft’s full report describing how these conclusions were reached. We would be happy to discuss our findings with you and your colleagues. Thank you for your team’s continued hard work and dedication to solving California’s housing shortage and affordability crisis.

Sincerely,
Leonora Camner
Executive Director
Abundant Housing LA
Anthony Dedousis
Director of Policy and Research
Abundant Housing LA
1126 of 1381

!%
" "!

)%$$$"/))%
*
)*)
%+$$*
*/%
"$"4))*$,$*%(/1-

"#
&*/
%(%,(=@1C<<*%*"+$*)(%))%,(E@<)*)1%+($"/)))+

)*)*
*"$"4)
.&*
%+)$
&*/%+"
"")
%(*/*-$=1A<<$?1<<<+$*)3
"$"%+"%$)(*

%""%-$
*%$)*%#*

%")2
&

*7)0$
"#&*/%$)*)$*
+(($*)*$,$*%(/1%*
/(+$

.&**%$)%$#$/)*)$/+&0%$$
%*
()*)3
*/%+"(,)**%$"
%&&%(*+$*)*%(0%$#%(&(")$*
$,$*%(/1&(*+"("/$()"!*

$/(1
(&%)1
7)%$1$($,-$

%(
%%)3
& $
#%()*)*%*
)*$,$*%(/$,"+*$
(0%$$
%
*
%))*)3
$,$*%(/
$"+)=@H%
*
*/4)B1C<<&(")1)%*
((#$/&")*
*%+".&"%(

+(*
(*%())*
)&%*$*")
%(*
""3
I +$
%("#$*$
&(!$
('+(#$*)$&(%#%*$
+*%#%""*($*,)*%
(+
%+)
%")4#$
%(&(!$
3

,"%&()%+"#*
%+)
%"#$-*

-(%$7)*&(!$
)*"")1*%+"#!#+"*
#"/,"%&#$*$#$/&(*)%
*
*/
#%(%$%#""/
)"3
&
$*(%+$
$-%$%#$$*,)*%$()*

$$"
)"*/%
(,"%&#$*1
)&""/
%(&(% *)*
*$"+"%-7#(!*7(*+$*)3
& %$)()*")
$
,"%&#$*#$#+#)*%$)+(

+*"0*%$%
)*)-*

)"
%+)$
&*/3

**%
"
%($('+()"%" +()*%$)*%&(%""/+&** (
%+)$
"#$*)*%
())
%+)$
$)1)$*
/*

%$" %+)$

)))))#$*8
93*)$
*
%+*
($"
%($))%*%$%
%,($#$*)89(
%$($*
&(%))%
,"%&$

+&*)*%*
(
%+)$
"#$*)1)&(*%
*
B*
/"%
*

""%*%$"$1-

-""
%,(*
&"$$$
&(%*%(><>=*
(%+

*%(><>E3

$
(
><>=1"
%($4)&(*#$*%
%+)$
$%##+$*/,"%&#$*8 9&&(%,
4)%&*
""%*%$"$1&&%(*%$$
*
(
%$4)
%+)$

(%-*
*(
**%*)
1127 of 1381

+()*%$)3*/
%,($#$*)$(()&%$)"
%(+&*$
*
( %+)$
"#$*)$
)+#**$
*
#*% /*%(><>=3
%+)$
"#$*)#+)*$"+$$,$*%(/%

&("))+*"$,""
%(()$*","%&#$*3
*%*"&*/%
*
)*)#+)*
)+

$**%%##%**
*%*"
%+)$
$1/$%#","1""%**
(%+

%+**

&"$$$
&(%3
+$$* %+)$

8
9)&(%7
%+)$
1$%$&(%
*,%/%(
$0*%$-%(!$
*%
"&
)%",%+*
($"
%($4)
%+)$
())3
)&(%,$

!%$
%+)$
"#$*)*%
+()*%$)+($
*
&+"%##$*&(%1$%##+$*$
*% )*

*)))))#$*%

*

%+)$
"#$*)3
4)(,-%

%+)$
"#$*))$*$*%$)+(*
* +()*%$)
,"%&

7'+"*/
%+)$
"#$*+&*)1$
+""/%#&"/-*
)**
%+)$
"#$*"-3
%*
*$1
&(*$(-*

&(
**%))))*
)*$,$*%())
(/ +()*%$))
&(*%
*
(
%+)$
"#$*+&*)3
$"/))%$)()*
"!"/#&*%
*
(
*
%+)$

"#$*)%$
%+)$
&(%+*%$$)+

)*)"*($*,(0%$$
)$(%)*
*(#%("!"/*%

,*)4

%")3
&(
*-%(!-*
*#*%*(#$*
"!"
%%*
*$-

%+)$
&(%+*%$-%+"&%))"**
)"))+#/(
*
%+)$
"#$*)3
$&(*+"(1

&(
*$"/0*
#(!*
)"*/%
*
+$*&*/"#)#%$)*)$"+$
+()*%$)4)*$,$*%()3
)##%($+#)(,))*
%+#$**%$
%(*
()+"*)%

,(%+)$"/))%#&"*/
&(
*
%())))$
"$"4) %+)$
"#$*3

%$+*#+"*&"*)*)%
*
*/%
"$"4)&(%&%))*$,$*%(/3%(
)*
%(
-

*-),""1-))))*

%""%-$
2
!
%-
)*%(,"%&#$*&**($)%#&(-*
*
+$*&*/"#$*
)*
$,$*%(/
"
%-&
/)"0%$&*/1*!$
$*%%+$*# %(0%$$
%$)*($*)1/%$ +)**

""%-+$*)&((1%#&(-*
*
+$*&*/"#$*
)*$,$*%(/
#
%-*
)"%
&&"$,"%&#$*)$*
$*
)*$,$*%(/%#&(*%*
+$*
&*/"#)#%$)#"()*)$*
)*$,$*%(/
$
%-
$$""/
)")")%
,"%&#$*%#&(*%*
+$*&*/"#$*

)*$,$*%(/
)%$*
*)*)%$
)*1-"))
*

%+)$
&*/"#%$
)*$*
)*
$,$*%(/)%$%
*
(*
%()2()%$"1'+)*%$"1%(+$()%$"3"*
%+

*
*)*)
-($+$1$
$("*
)*
%()#$*2
& &*/)*#*)-(*
%(0)5()%$"6-
$
&(
**)*
%+$*
*
,"&*/%$*
)*-)
(*(*
$-
**
+()*%$"#$*
$,$*%(/
& &*/)*#*)-(*
%(0)5'+)*%$"6-
$
&(
**)*
%+$*
*
,"&*/-)(%+

"/)#"(*%1*
%+

"%-(*
$1*
"#$*
$,$*%(/
1128 of 1381

& &*/)*#*)-(*
%(0)5+$()%$"6-
$
&(
**)*
%+$*
*
,"&*/-)#)+)*$*""/"))*
$-
*-)"#

+"*&"
)"*/*)*)-(&(
%(#
%(
)*3

*
$+#(%
"#+$*)%$)*-)

%+$*%+$()%$"%($
*%#+"*&"*)*)1-(%$
$**
*(,"+*%$%
*

)*)-(($*3
I
%()&
""/1
*
)*4)"#&*/()+"*$5+$()%$"6
%(#%(*
$
%$*
(%
*
&&""*)*)1-%$"+*
)*4)"#-)+$()%$"3
I

$%$%
*
*)*)()+"*$$5+$()%$"6
$$
1$#%(*
$%$*
(%
*

&&""*)*)()+"*$5()%$"61*
$-%$"+*
)*4)"#-)
()%$"3
I
()*%
*
)*)1-

""*-$%+(*
()
%")
%(5()%$"6$
5+$()%$"16-(
$)5'+)*%$"36
$"/0E@?)*)$"$"4))*$,$*%(/1-* *%*""#&*/%
E1?AB+$*)3
)
$"+)=<)*)-*
@E<+$*)$&(% *)*
*("(/&$$
1-

-))+#*%
()%$"&*/"#)$$%*$"/0
+(*
(3
*")%$"+)E??)*)-*
D1DBB+$*)
*
*-($*

%(&%*$*"
+*+(,"%&#$*1-

-$"/0
+(*
(3!
%
! 2/ #
1'243! '
%#%&
#
*!
+
*
! )+

2/9
% #
%&)
.(
!#"!

"
$
"
&"
'"

/// ,')* 0-3 ,03

)+ 0+' *3 ((3

(. ),), )3 *'3

0)0 /+// (''3 (''3

$ + *./

0** //-- (''3 (''3

1129 of 1381

%".(
"!
$
"
&"
'"

*

"

"!
%"/(
"!
$
"
&"
'"

*

"

"!
*%$""/1 -)*#* *
)"%
,"%&#$**
*#

*()%$"/.&*%$&(")
$*
)*$,$*%(/3+($"/)))+

)*)*
*"$"4)$

%!
%
%#
# /'265 ! 0'663 ! '

5'544 ! %$*

$,$*%(/)*)*
*-$"/03
%((,*($
%
+$*))+#&*%$)1-&&"*-%

($*)*)%
))+#&*%$)%+**

,"*/%
+$*)$
,"%&%$)*)#()%$"1'+)*%$"1%(+$()%$"3%( #%(%$)(,*,)*#*1-))+#=<<H,"*/
%(()%$"1A<H,"*/
%(
'+)*%$"1$<H,"*/
%(+$()%$"1-
()
%(#%("$$*)*#*1-))+#
=<<H1CAH1$A<H()&*,"/$)+*(**
%)+$*)
(%#*
*%*"3
1130 of 1381

/(%""&

"

,')* (''3

! (''3

0+' ,'3

+.' .,3

)*,

),), '3

),), ,'3

()-*

+",&* '"--*#(*0

$
&")-,#&,0

$

*/
)#+"*&"&%*$*"&%"/*%$),""*%$()* ,"*/%
(,"%&#$*%$
*
)*$,$*%(/&(")1)+
)2
& #%(#(!*7
)")*)*%*
)*$,$*%(/
I &0%$)*)*%$"#%($*$)#(!*7
)"
%+)$
,"%&#$*%&&%(*+$*)%$
)*)"(/$*
$,$*%(/$$/)*)*%*
$,$*%(/
& %$)($*(%+$
$-$$*,)$%*
(5((%*)6*%$%+(

%+)$
&(%+*%$1
)+
)
-,()%((*)+))1
)*(&(#**$
&(%))1$
(*(
"."*/%$
)*!)0%(#.#+#"%*%,(

& %$)()*")
$
,"%&#$*#$#+#)*%$)+(

+*"0*%$%
)*)-*

)"
%+)$
&*/

%""%-$
*)*)-(%$+*%$)*)$*
"$")*$,$*%(/*%))))-
*
(*

"#,"%&#$*$)*/$*

%+)$
"#$*-)()%$"3
)-))%$
%#&()%$%
*
$,$*%(/"#)*%
)*%(,"%&#$*&**($)1)*)40%$&*/1)#"( &(% *)+$(,"%&#$*1$*
+(($*
$$"
)"*/%
&(% *)%
)#"()"3
'#!

"

!&

&(
*,"+*&(% *)+"*$*
")**$/()1+)$

%)$
")%+$*/*.))))%(*1
*%)*#*-
*
(*
"#,"%&#$*$)*/%
)*$,$*%(/&("-)%#&("
-*
"$"4)($*(%(%

%+)$
&(%+*%$3

/,
"

)
()**)*1-)(

%(&(% *)+"*$/-
($"$"%,(*
")*=</()*
*-(
%$)*)-
%))0-)-*
$><H%
*
)*)0$*
$*
$,$*%(/$-*
,"%&#$*
$)*)8+$*)&((9*
*-(-*
$><H%
*
$)*/"#$*
$,$*%(/8+$*),
/)*)093

($*,"%&#$*)#*
*
"#$)*/%
)*$,$*%(/&("1-*
%(0*

&(")5)%$"36

$%)#"(
)*%(","%&#$*).)*1-))+#*
*0%$$

1131 of 1381

&(%
*)+
,"%&#$*)%(%*
(
*%()&("+)+
,"%&#$*)
(%#$
+"*$
"$"$*
%(0*
&(")5+)*%$"36(
($
(%#*
%(0$
$/)*
$,$*%(/&(")5+$()%$"6)%$*

)*%(,"%&#$*)"*)*3
0(
&!!
!"
$

"

!#"!+!".,

-(3 **3

*03 -.3

/,
"

%()*$,$*%(/&(")-
((0%$$
)$%*&(%&%)$*

%+)$
"#$*1-%$+*
*-%%*
(*)*)%#&($
*

)*%(,"%&#$*&**($)*%*
$+#(%
+$*)"#%$
)*)$*
)*$,$*%(/3
)*=*(#$-
*
(,"%&#$*%+(($*
")*=</()%$&(")-
%)0%$$

#*
)*
0%$$
%
*
)*$*
$,$*%(/3*)-(*
%(0)5()%$"6
*
(-)
,"%&#$*$*
*0%$$
*
%(/$*
")*=</()1%(5+$()%$"6
*
(-)$%*3
1(
&!!
!"
$

!
!#"!+!".,

003 /.3

(3 (*3

/,
"

)*=%#&(*
%)(,$)*/%

)*%(,"%&#$*)$
0%$$
*
%(/*%*

"#$)*/%
)*)$*
$,$*%(/$*
)#0%$$
*
%(/3
)*)**
%(0)*))
5()%$"6
*
"#$)*/
%(*
)*-)"))*
$*
$)*/%
($*&(% *)$*

)#0%$$
*
%(/15'+)*%$"6
*
&("4)&(%&%)$)*/
%((,"%&#$*-)
-*
$=<H%
*
#.#+#
)*%(,"%&#$*$)*/$*
)#0%$$
*
%(/1%(
5+$()%$"6
*
&("4)&(%&%)$)*/
%((,"%&#$*.=<H%
*
#.#+#

)*%(,"%&#$*$)*/$*
)#0%$$
*
%(/3
2(
&!!
!"
$

!
!#"!+!".,

)'3 +'3

.03 *.3

(3 )*3

#

1132 of 1381

%
#%(
& # %(*/8B=H9%
*
)*)$*
$,$*%(/
,"#$)*)*
*#*
($*
,"%&#$*)$"$"1-

%(()&%$)*%()%$""#
%(??H%
*
+$*)3
&
,)*# %(*/8EEH9%
)*)($0%$)*
*
,)$)%#)"%
,"%&#$*$
*
")*=</()1-

%(()&%$)*%DCH%
*
"#+$*)3
& %()*)$0%$)*
*
,.&($,"%&#$*1+$('+(*(8><H9
,"#
$)*)*
*(()%$"833"))*
$*
,(
$)*/%)(,$*
%)0%$)$
*
")*=</()93
)%$"/%+$*)
%(+$(
"
8@<H9%
*
"#+$*)
%(*
))+)*
%
)*)3
& %()*)$0%$)*
*
,)$,"%&#$*1"(
# %(*/8CEH9
,"#
$)*)*
*('+)*%$"$
(*(*
$*
,(
$)*/%)(,$*
%)
0%$)$*
")*=</()3
)%+$*)
%()#""(&(%&%(*%$8?CH9%
*
"#+$*)

%(*
))+)*%
)*)3
(#

!
%()*$,$*%(/&(")-
((0%$$
)$%*&(%&%)1
&(
*%$+**)*))%$*

&
/)"&*/%
*
0%$$
%1!$%-"
$
*
*,(%+)0%$$
&(#*()#

*()+"*$
"%-(

*,&*/*
$*
+$*)&((""%-$0%$3%""*),("0%$$
**(+*)
%(
0%$")*$*
$,$*%(/1$"+$
#.#+#

*"#*)1#.#+#1
#.#+##&(,%+)%,(
1#$#+#"%*(&(+$*1#.#+#-""$
+$*)&("%*1$
#.#+#-""$
+$*)&((3)$
*
0%$$
*
%(/$%*
%(
)*$"$"4))*
$,$*%(/1-)*#*
%-#$/+$*)%+"%##%*%$*
)*+$(*
(",$*
0%$$
"#*)$%#&(*
()+"**%-
*-)"#$*
)*$,$*%(/3

)*)**
%(0)*))5()%$"6
*
"#$)*/
%(*
)*-)"))*
$*

$)*/()+"*$

(%#$/%
*
0%$$
**(+*)15'+)*%$"6
*
"#$)*/-)"))
*
$*
#.#+#$)*/()+"*$

(%#*
# %(*/%
0%$$
**(+*)83
3)%$

*1
)%$1*39+**
"#$)*/-)+&*%=<H
(*(*
$-
*%$%(#%(0%$$

**(+*)-%+"%##%*1%(5+$()%$"6
*
"#$)*/-)
(*(*
$-
*
# %(*/%
0%$$
**(+*)-%+"%##%*3
3($#"

"&
!#"!+!"/,

0/3 0/3

)3 (3

'3 '3

#

%
#%(
& "#%)*""*
)*)$*
$,$*%(/8EDH9
,$)*/"#)*
*(()%$"1-

%(()&%$)*%*
)#&(%&%(*%$%
*
"#+$*)
%(*
))+)*%
)*)3
1133 of 1381

& %+*>H%
*
)*)$*
$,$*%(/
,$)*/"#)*
*('+)*%$"3
)#!

!

%+$()*$*
+(($*%$*%$)
%(
%+)$
,"%&#$*%$)*$,$*%(/&(")-
(
(0%$$
)$%*&(%&%)1
&(
*+)*
&&"$&(% **$"$"4))*$,$*%(/) $%*
(-/%
*(#$$
-
*)")%
,"%&#$*%+".&*%$%*
()*)$*

$,$*%(/3
)"%
*
&&"$&(% *)&"$$%$)*)$
,$0%$&(%,)#&"%

("7-%(","%&#$*$)*)
%(%*
(,"%&#$*)$*
%)"$"0%$)3
)#&")
-(+)*%%#&(*
,"%&#$*$)*/8+$*)&((9%
+&%#$
&(% *)*%*

"#$)*/%$
)*$*
$,$*%(/*
*-)$%*.&**%(0%$3

)*)**
%(0)*))5()%$"6
*
"#$)*/
%(*
)*-)"))*
$*

&&"$&**($)$*
0%$15'+)*%$"6
*-)-*
$=<H%
*
#.#+#&&"$
,"%&#$*$)*/1%(5+$()%$"6
*.=<H%
*
#.#+#&&"$,"%&#$*
$)*/3
4(
&!!

"
$
"
&

!#"!+!"0,

0/3 -*3

'3 '3

)3 *.3

#

%
#%(
&
)*)*-)&&""
%(
%+(

*
)8D>H9%
*
)*)$*
$,$*%(/1#$$
*
*"))
*
$

*
%
*
)*)8=DH9($0%$)*
*+(($*"/%$%*
,$/&$$
%(
&&(%,&(% *)")*#%$
&&"$)*)3
&
%)*)*)8EDH9*
*%+"%#&(*%&&"$&(% *)$*
)#0%$
"#
$)*)*
*(()%$"3 %-,(1*
)%$"/%(()&%$)*%B?H%
*
"#+$*)

%(*
))+)*%
)*)3
*#

!!

%
$

&

&(
*))))*

$$","*/%
*
"#)#$*
)*$,$*%(//,"+*$
*

$$"
)"*/%
,"%&$

%+)$
*)")#"(*%*
$)*)"#%$
)*$
*
$,$*%(/3

&(
*+)(")**&(%
%(#)*%$"/0*

$$"
)"*/%
,(*/%

%+)$

,"%&#$**/&)3%*(#$-
*
(*
+$*&*/"#%$
)*$*
$,$*%(/
#

*
$$""/
)"1
&(
*,"+**

$$"
)"*/%
,"%&#$**/&)*
*

$)*)*
*-(-*
$=<H%
*
"#$)*/%$
)*3
(%
%(#$"/))$
"&$*
/#(!*
)","%&#$**/&)/*(#$$
-
*
(
*
,"+%
&%*$*","%&#$*)
(*(*
$*
&(% *4)%$)*(+*%$%)*)1"$%)*)1
1134 of 1381

$%*
(%)*)3
&(
*)*#**
"$%)*
%(
)*$*
$,$*%(/1+)$
*
#(!*
,"+)&(%,/*

%)$
")%+$*/*.))))%(3
)%#&()%$")%
"&)*%#%$)*(*
*
**
.)*$
+)%
&(")"!"/*%)%$*$+3%)*)")%$"+&(!$ &(%,)%$1
-

-)*)*$*-%-/)2=9)%$+(($*&(!$
&(%,)%$$*
"$")+#(!*$
>9))+#$
$

()),(+*%$$#$*&(!$
(*%)$&(!$
#$3%$)+(*

()+"*)(
"**
#(!*%$*%$)&&""*%
)*$*
$,$*%(/1*
&(%
%(#
%(

,"%&#$**/&-)(+$-*
*
%(()&%$$
$

%(
%%7","#(!*$&+*)3

2, %#

"
%(*

()**)*1-

%$)(&(!$
&(%,*(*)%)(,$.)*$
,"%&#$*$
*
)+#(!*1
&(
**
%(0)*))5()%$"6
*
(-(
)","%&#$*
*/&)*
*#*
*
)"%
,"%&#$*"#%$
)*3*)-(*
%(0)
5'+)*%$"6
*
(-($%*
)"&(%*%*/&)-*
)#"($)*)3$%*$"+*

%&*%$
%($5+$()%$"6()+"*+)*
)*)**

)"*/%
,"%&#$*+)$
+(($*
%)(,&(!$
&(%,)%$1-

#/

(*
$-
*)&%))"$$-,"%&#$**%/3
5(!"&
&!!
!#"!)!"

$!

+!"1,

'3 '3

(''3 (''3

2, %#
!

"

)%$*)*%$)(#%("$$*&(!$
&(%,)%$1-

$%$*(+**%,"%&#$*

)"*//(+$
%)*$),$
)&3
&(
**
%(0)*))5'+)*%$"6
*
(
-(
)","%&#$**/&)*
*#*
*
)"%
,"%&#$*"#%$
)*3*)
-("))
)5+$()%$"6
*
#%)*
$$""/
)"%
*
&(%*%*/&)-*
)#"(
$)*)%+"$%*&/
%("$)%$*
))))%(4))*#*%
*%*","+3$%*$"+
*
%&*%$
%(5()%$"6()+"*
%(*
)*)*1
,$*
#%("$$*&(!$
))+#&*%$)#/
$%*,"$"")+#(!*)3
6(!"&
&!!
!#"!) #

$!

+!"1,

(''3 (''3

'3 '3

#

%
#%(
&
%+$*
**%/4)
%+)$
#(!*%)$%*)+&&%(**
)")%
,"%&#$*"#
%$#$/)*)$*
$,$*%(/3
1135 of 1381

&
%+$*
**%/4)
%+)$
#(!*%+"**()+&&%(**
)")%
,"%&#$*
"#%$#$/)*)$*
$,$*%(/
"))&(!$
-(#$$('+(*
$
-
*
)
)*%(""/$&(%,3
*/%+"(+%("#$*&(!$

('+(#$*)$&(%#%*+*%#%""*($*,)*%(+ %+)
%")4#$
%(
&(!$
1*
(/#!$
*#%(%$%#""/
)"*%,"%&#+"*
#"/
%+)$
$
#$/()1)&""/)%$)*(+*%$%)*)%$*$+*%()3

$"/0E??)*)*%))))-
*
(*
(-)#(!*&%*$*"*%.*
&*/"#
$*
)*$,$*%(/)
%+""$"+&0%$)*$,$*%(/&(")#%(#*%+)"/* $-
*4)
&(%&%)$*

%+)$
"#$*3%(*
)$"/))1-%$)("")*)$*
$,$*%(/1%*
*

)*)*
*"$")"(/&"$$$
*%(0%$$)*)-
(*
.)*$
0%$$
).&**%
&())*3
%$+**-%

($**)*)1+)$

&(
*&(%
%(#
)"*/))))#$*)8
%(#%(
*")1)&&(%
%+*"$$)*@9*%)*#**
#(!*&%*$*"%$*
)*)$*

$,$*%(/3/%#&($

&(
*4)#(!*
)"+$*)*#*)*%*
+$*&*/"#$
*
)*$,$*%(/1--("*%$*
/)*)-
(+&0%$$
#//"#%(&*/*
$
+(($*"/*+"*3

3,$! %
!
&
)
()**)*1-%$)(*
#%)*$*$)
%+)$
%&*%$)*
*%+"
)"/+"*%$

)*3
()*$*
*
((/%

)"
%+)$
,"%&#$*&(%*%*/&)%$
)*1-

#/$"+%*

7$"%-7$)*/
%+)$
%&*%$)3
$*
))1
$$"
)"*/-))
%$,"%&#$*&(% *4)&(%)&*)%
&/$
#%(
%(*
)**
$*
+(($*&(%&(*/,"+3
%#&(*

%+)$
&*/%
*
$))*%
*
%)
)"&(%*%*/&)*%*
&*/
"#$*
)*$,$*%(/*%*(#$

+(*
(+&0%$$
%+"/"#%(&*/3
(%))*
E??)*)*
*-$"/01CE<%+"
$$""/
)"
%((,"%&#$**
&*/*
*.*
&*/&(%&%)
%(*
&("$*
)*$,$*%(/3
*
%))*)1
$%$-()*))"**%(0%$$""-()*)* *-($%*)"**%(0%$3

*"$
(*)"%-)
%-*
()+"*$
)*#*+$*)1)%$*

(*)*$)*/%

,"%&#$**/&)*
*
#(!*&%*$*"*%)&"*
.)*$
+)1$
%-*
*)*#*
%#&()*%*
*%*""#+$*)$*
$,$*%(/3
.-(!"
"
"!

%
!"&

"
"'

!+!"2,

!#0

!
*
#

$

'"'3# '"'#

.0'"/,3# (.,/*"***'#

#

1136 of 1381

%"0(!"
"
"!

%
!"&

"
"'

!+!"2,

3, $! %
!
&
%$+*)%$*)**
*%$)(*
#%)*
$$""/
)"%&*%$)3*
*%+"
+"*%$
)*3)$)*A1-%$)(*
((/%

)"
%+)$
,"%&#$*
&(%*%*/&)%$
)*3%()*A1-%#&(*

%+)$
&*/%
*
#%)*
)"
&(%*%*/&*%*
&*/"#$*
)*$,$*%(/*%*(#$

+(*
(+&0%$$
%+"/"
#%(&*/3+)*
#%)*
)"&(%*%*/&%+""%-($)*/*
$%*
(
)"
&(%*%*/&)1*
)&&(%
&(%+#%(%$)(,*,%+*%#)*
$)*A3
%($
"/1*
(-(CD= )*)*
*

)","%&#$*%&*%$)-*
&*/*
*
.-
*-)"#$*
)*$,$*%(/3
*
%))*)1$%$ -()*))"**%
(0%$$"" -()*)*
*-($%*)"**%(0%$3
*"$
(*)"%-)
%-*

()+"*$
)*#*+$*)1)%$*

(*)*$)*/%
,"%&#$**/&)*
*
#(!*
&%*$*"*%)&"*
.)*$
+)1$
%-*
*)*#*%#&()*%*
*%*""#+$*)$
*
$,$*%(/3
..(
!#"!
!"2

!#0

!
*
#

$

'"'3# '"'#

./("/+3# ((,0*"*()-#

#

1137 of 1381

%"1(!"
"
"!

%!"&

"
"'

!+!"2,
,$*
)()+"*)1-",*
**
())+)*$*"&*/5"
*%$*
*"6
%()*)
+(($*"/$*
)*$,$*%(/7
%(%*
)*)"(/&"$$*%(0%$ )-""))*)$%* .&**%(0%$3+**
((%&&%(*+$*)*%$*
/*%$"&(") -
(#(!*

)"&*/.)*) $*
%))*)*%*
&(%&%))*$,$*%(/3
"+&0%$$
%&&%(*+$*) .)*$#$/&(*)%
*
*/1$ -%)(,%$$*(*%$)%

)*)-*

(*(#(!*
)"
%+)$
&*/$*
$/(1
(&%)1
7)%$1$
($,-$

%(
%%)3
)"%*%$)#/()-
("$" %+"

*,"/
#%(#(!*7
)")*)*%*
$,$*%(//(0%$$
*
))*)*%""%-
%($)(
,"%&#$*3
1138 of 1381

%"2(

" "

"
"'

"#
"!
%
#%(
& *%$"&*/%+"
,%$*
# %(*/%
)*)$*
$,$*%(/-
(
#(!*7
)"%&&%(*+$*)*%+&0%$.)*3"$"%+"%$)(+&0%$$ &(")
"(/$*
$,$*%(/*%(+$/&%*$*"
%+)$
&(%+*%$)
%(*
""3
& %#&($
()+"*)
(%#)*A*%A1*&&()*
**
#%)*
$$""/
)"
,"%&#$*%&*%$)#/"))$*$)*
$%*
(
)","%&#$*%&*%$)$)%#
))3%(.#&"1
%(7)"*%-$
%#)#/#%(&(%
*"*
$)#""($*"
&(*#$*+"$
)-*
#%(
%+)$
+$*)3%(*
*()%$1
*
*/ )*% +)*
*
(0%$$
1*
/#/%$)()*")
$
)*+*"0*%$#$#+#))%*
*)*)
(,"%&*

( $*$)*)3
1139 of 1381

2/3/22, 1:25 PM De Novo Planning Group Mail - Glendale Housing Element "final" draft feedback https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=d2c530bd39&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1722904394489443236&simpl=msg-f%3A1722904394… 1/3 Amanda Tropiano <[email protected]>
Glendale Housing Element "final" draft feedback
Mike Van Gorder <[email protected]> Mon, Jan 24, 2022 at 9:47 PM To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]> Cc: "Lanzafame, Philip" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Housing Elements@HCD" <[email protected]>, Amanda Tropiano <[email protected]> Hello Glendale City Council -
I understand that the council will be voting tomorrow night on the final draft of the Glendale 6th Cycle Housing Element. It is bewildering to me why this housing element - the draft of which was rushed out to HCD without first soliciting public input - is being considered as a "final" draft barely three weeks after the receipt of HCD's response letter. Veteran HCD housing reviewers take weeks to evaluate a single housing element, and yet staff seems to expect council to ingest an 800-page document in their spare time.

Naturally, since there was barely any time between the receipt of the HCD letter, the composition of this final draft, and the pending vote tomorrow night, this draft has not properly addressed the problems that HCD - and the public - has noted. The core problem here is that without any real time to study the document, council will be hopelessly dependent on staff's advice on the housing element that they have prepared. Staff, of course, is certain to stand behind their work. The public and third parties cannot meaningfully contribute to the analysis of this document, as staff didn't give us a chance.

Since the public was cut out of contributing to the draft document before it was submitted, and HCD determined that the draft was noncompliant on those grounds, HCD should and likely will find fault with the final draft for the same reason.

I myself have barely had enough time to analyze this as much as I'd like, but I've already found some pretty significant problems.

This draft no longer overtly claims that the entire RHNA share for low-income households can be accommodated in the downtown area without upzoning anywhere else. However, their version of 'widening the lens' is abandoning some of the bad-faith sites that were selected in the draft element, leaving some of them in, and adding some more sites in industrial areas in south Glendale, almost exclusively in my zip code, 91204. There is, from what i found, no support behind the assumptions made that all low-income sites chosen will be built with 100% affordable housing, again violating state statute. HCD noted that realistic capacity needed consideration in its response letter; this "final" draft has abandoned any attempt at establishing it.

To continue pushing the narrative that development must only occur in south Glendale, there are new bad faith sites that have been selected. The biggest site on the new list is marked as APN 5641-003-900, and it is claimed that 300 affordable units will be built there. You may know it better as the National Guard Armory, next to the site that was proposed as a dog park just this week. In that meeting, where we heard that Councilmember Agajanian supports the idea of the dog park (I do, too!), we also learned that the Armory was leased out at that address for at least the next twenty years, far beyond the eight-year housing cycle being discussed. 1140 of 1381

2/3/22, 1:25 PM De Novo Planning Group Mail - Glendale Housing Element "final" draft feedback https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=d2c530bd39&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1722904394489443236&simpl=msg-f%3A1722904394… 2/3 The sites inventory is so graphically unfriendly (font size 2.5, 30+ columns of data, hundreds of rows per page) that I can't post thumbnail pictures of the inventory and have it look at all meaningful. Suffice to say that housing staff kept sites like the Robbins Brothers engagement ring story, the Church of Niscience, the Social Security Administration commercial complex at 225 W. Broadway, and the municipal parking lots serving the downtown area from the draft element and are claiming hundreds of sites for affordable housing. None of these sites are going to host affordable housing in the next eight years.

I don't have time to review all of them, but i count 2,700 Very Low Income sites, all of which are situated around the downtown cluster and on my side of Tropico & Pacific Edison. If we again consider likelihood of development, we can easily remove over a thousand claimed sites just for the few APNs i mention above. Losing these units makes the housing element noncompliant with state statute.

Considering likelihood of development again, it must be noted that about 6,000 total sites are being claimed in this downtown/91204 cluster, and they are marked with a helpful tag of "not used in prior housing element". That leaves another 6,000 or so sites - all above-moderate and moderate income sites - that have been recycled from the 5th housing element. So let's check in with the 5th cycle numbers:

We don't have an Above Moderate Income Housing Supply Crisis, but if we average 0% (ELI), 50% (VLI), 30%, and 5%, we get 21%. So we can reasonably expect that 21% of the sites chosen will actually be developed. 21% of 1,700 affordable sites in the downtown/91204 area is 361; 21% of the 6,000 units everywhere else is 1,260.

All of this is to say, the city cannot rely on the sites that are in the inventory to satisfy RHNA, because the same approach remains: "Don't touch any single-family neighborhood in any way. Never upzone an area that used to be redlined." North Glendale will never bear its share of the housing crisis. Only suffocated south glendale, and two zip codes at that, are to be developed.

The housing element acknowledges Glendale's racist development history and mentions that council has instructed staff to create a "Historical Context Statement", which is then explained as "describing those historical development patterns within which the significance of resources can be understood." This is progress. It is, however, lacking a practical and programmatic response to the consolidation of housing wealth in older, whiter hands in North Glendale.

The HCD response letter noted a lack of analysis around Racially Concentrated Areas of Poverty and Affluence, among many other things. The "Final" draft analyzes the city's Racially Concentrated Area of Affluence by noting that it is single-family homes and that it is on the border with Burbank. It says, "there are no candidate sites" in the RCAA, because the city refuses to change any governmental constraints on R-1 neighborhoods. It also then makes an argument that 'white wealth in Glendale is lower than white wealth in Los Angeles County'. None of this is analysis.

In discussing the housing discrimination survey, the draft says “a vast majority of survey respondents said that housing discrimination was not an issue in their neighborhoods”, then saying that 73% (548 persons) had not 1141 of 1381

2/3/22, 1:25 PM De Novo Planning Group Mail - Glendale Housing Element "final" draft feedback https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=d2c530bd39&view=pt&search=all&permmsgid=msg-f%3A1722904394489443236&simpl=msg-f%3A1722904394… 3/3 experienced housing discrimination. That leaves 204 residents that did experience housing discrimination! Discrimination is, by definition, going to affect a minority, but 27% is a substantial amount of housing discrimination. Does staff consider this an “acceptable” amount of discrimination? For a housing element whose understanding of Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing is wholly and incorrectly oriented towards addressing discrimination, this is a problematic framing.

If i had more time, i would dissect this further. I wanted to get this information in front of the council before it votes to approve it based on whatever sliver of information that staff would provide in its presentation. I'm certain i haven't found every problem with this element. I urge council to vote down this final draft so that the public and third parties can meaningfully weigh in and so that staff can write something that will make a difference for the community instead of maintaining a broken status quo.
-Mike Van Gorder
1142 of 1381

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
April 22, 2022

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
City of Glendale
613 E. Broadway
Glendale, CA, 91206

Dear Roubik Golanian:

RE: City of Glendale’s 6
th Cycle (2021-2029) Adopted Housing Element

Thank you for submitting the City of Glendale’s (City) housing element adopted February 1, 2022 and received for review on February 22, 2022. Pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (h), the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) is reporting the results of its review. Our review was facilitated by a telephone conversation on April 19, 2022 with Erik Krause, Kristen Asp, and consultant Amanda Tropiano. In addition, HCD considered comments from Californians for Homeownership and Alex Khatchaturian pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (c).

The adopted housing element addresses most statutory requirements described in HCD’s December 31, 2021 letter; however, additional revisions are necessary to fully comply with State Housing Element Law (Article 10.6 of the Gov. Code), see enclosed Appendix.

For your information, pursuant to Assembly Bill 1398 (Chapter 358, Statutes of 2021), if a local government fails to adopt a compliant housing element within 120 days of the statutory deadline (October 15, 2021), then any rezoning to accommodate the regional housing needs allocation (RHNA), including for lower-income households, shall be completed no later than one year from the statutory deadline. Otherwise, the local government’s housing element will no longer comply with State Housing Element Law, and HCD may revoke its finding of substantial compliance pursuant to Government Code section 65585, subdivision (i).

Public participation in the development, adoption and implementation of the housing element is essential to effective housing planning. During the housing element revision process, the City must continue to engage the community, including organizations that represent lower-income and special needs households, by making information regularly available while considering and incorporating comments where appropriate. 1143 of 1381

Roubik Golanian, City Manager

Page 2 ends

Please be aware, any revisions to the element must be posted on the local government’s website and to email a link to all individuals and organizations that have previously requested notices relating to the local government’s housing element at least seven days before submitting to HCD.

For your information, some general plan element updates are triggered by housing element adoption. HCD reminds the City to consider timing provisions and welcomes the opportunity to provide assistance. For information, please see the Technical Advisories issued by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research at:
https://www.opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/guidelines.html .

Several federal, state, and regional funding programs consider housing element compliance as an eligibility or ranking criteria. For example, the CalTrans Senate Bill (SB) 1 Sustainable Communities grant; the Strategic Growth Council and HCD’s Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities programs; and HCD’s Permanent Local Housing Allocation consider housing element compliance and/or annual reporting requirements pursuant to Government Code section 65400. With a compliant housing element, the City meets housing element requirements for these and other funding sources.

HCD appreciates the dedication that the City, provided throughout the course of the housing element review. We are committed to assist the City in addressing all statutory requirements of State Housing Element Law. If you have any questions or need additional technical assistance, please contact Hillary Prasad, of our staff, at [email protected] .

Sincerely,

Melinda Coy
Senior Housing Accountability Manager

Enclosure
1144 of 1381

City of Glendale’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 1 April 22, 2022

APPENDIX

CITY OF GLENDALE

The following changes are necessary to bring the City’s housing element into compliance with Article 10.6 of the Government Code. Accompanying each recommended change, we cite the supporting section of the Government Code.

Housing element technical assistance information is available on HCD’s website at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/housing-element/housing-element-memos.shtml .

Among other resources, the housing element section contains HCD’s latest technical assistance tool, Building Blocks for Effective Housing Elements (Building Blocks), available at http://www.hcd.ca.gov/community-development/building-blocks/index.shtml and includes the Government Code addressing State Housing Element Law and other resources.

A. Housing Needs, Resources, and Constraints

1. Affirmatively further[ing] fair housing in accordance with Chapter 15 (commencing with Section 8899.50) of Division 1 of Title 2…shall include an assessment of fair housing in the jurisdiction (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(10)(A))

Enforcement: While the element was revised to add Table 68 to demonstrate compliance with fair housing laws, the element must still quantify and evaluate the characteristics of recent fair housing complaints.

Access to Opportunity: While the element was revised to add opportunity indicators for Glendale and the MSA as well as opportunity resource levels by census tract, this information must be analyzed to identify any emerging fair housing issues, pattern, and trends, and formulate appropriate actions and strategies to address those trends. The element briefly states that the lowest education score is in an area with largely multifamily developments, but the element must analyze the discrepancy between the identified area and the rest of the City. While the element also states that worse environmental scores are closer to the freeways, the element must analyze the impact on the identified areas and relate it to the rest of the affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) analysis. In addition, the regional analysis for education and environment should be expanded beyond one summary sentence. The element should provide an analysis to the statement that there is “somewhat of a correlation” between economic scores and overall resources. In addition, there are a wide range of economic scores in the City, the element must analyze the data provided. Lastly, the regional analysis on access to transportation should be added. 1145 of 1381

City of Glendale’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 2 April 22, 2022

Disproportionate Housing NeedsIncluding Displacement: While additional information was added for disproportionate housing needs, analysis is needed. The element should describe and analyze the characteristics of the two census tracts with high levels of overcrowding and relate them to the rest of the City. In addition, the element must describe whether there are concentrations of substandard housing in need of rehabilitation in the City and also include a regional analysis. The element must describe available information on protected classes in relation to persons experiencing homelessness. While the element stated there are areas vulnerable to displacement, it must include an analysis of the finding, tie it to other AFFH factors, and provide a regional analysis. The element must address displacement due to fire risk. Lastly, all identified lower income sites are in sensitive communities and many are in areas in early/ongoing gentrification, or low-income susceptible to displacement. The element must analyze the effect of identifying all lower income sites in those areas.

Sites Inventory: While the element provided additional information related to sites being located near high quality transit and away from high fire risk, the element must still demonstrate how the sites inventory is distributed throughout the City in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. For example, the access to opportunity summary states that sites to accommodate the City’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) are distributed between low and moderate resource areas but none are located within the high resource areas within the City. The element must describe how identifying sites in low and moderate resource areas exacerbate conditions and identify programs to mitigate this. The analysis states that there are no patterns of segregation/integration currently within the City, but the maps and analysis show areas of higher and lower diversity as well as having an RCAA where no sites are identified for lower-income. The element must describe how the distribution of sites improves or exacerbates identified conditions and support conclusions with analysis.

Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: While the element added metrics to Program 2A (Multifamily Acquisition/Rehabilitation Loan Program) and 3A (Density Bonus Program), the metrics and actions identified were not transformative, meaningful, or specific enough to make an impact on identified fair housing issues. The element must be revised to add or modify goals and actions beyond the status quo based on the outcomes of the analysis described above. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues. Actions must have metrics and milestones as appropriate and address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. The programs identified in the Contributing Factors table (Background Report page 239) should include metrics and milestones.

1146 of 1381

City of Glendale’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 3 April 22, 2022

2. An inventory of land suitable and available for residential development, including vacant sites and sites having realistic and demonstrated potential for redevelopment during the planning period to meet the locality’s housing need for a designated income level, and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and services to these sites. (Gov.

Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(3).)

Progress in Meeting the RHNA: While the element was revised to state that all units identified as accommodating the lower-income RHNA will be deed restricted, the element must clarify whether projects in Table 62 are being counted as progress toward the RHNA or as part of the sites inventory.

Parcel Listing: The element must reconcile the capacity available to meet the lower and moderate income need as demonstrated in the provided sites inventory with the capacity shown on Table 67 (Background Report page 125) to clearly demonstrate the sufficient capacity to accommodate the RHNA for moderate and lower-income households.

Adequate Sites Alternatives: While the element was revised to remove counting most projects with existing toward meeting the moderate income RHNA were removed.

However, the element still includes 125 units from projects related to the passage of AB 787, Statutes of 2021. Please be aware, pursuant to Government Code section 65400.2, subdivision (c) units must qualify to be reported in the annual progress report (APR) in order credit toward the RHNA. Pursuant to Government Code section 65400.2, subdivision (d) jurisdictions can only report on units converted on or after January 1, 2022.

Therefore, the units identified in the element do not meet the timing requirements.

Additional sites may be required to meet the RHNA for moderate-income units as a result.

Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element included a general statement that various factors were considered for potential intensification on nonvacant sites, the City should support the assumptions with recent project examples that demonstrate redevelopment potential on the identified sites. The description of the Downtown Specific Plan was revised to list factors, but the factors must be related to the sites identified in the sites inventory. The sites identified must provide more detail that allows the trends to be related to the identified sites, reflect the values of each of the factors in the inventory, discuss existing uses and impediments to redevelopment, and other factors.

City of Glendale’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 4 April 22, 2022

period (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).). While the element was revised to provide a generalization of the sites, it does not meet the substantial evidence requirement. The element could also include additional criteria to support likelihood of residential development such as condition of structure, whether the use is operating, marginal or discontinued, the presence of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential development, proximity to transit, and other conditions that would support residential development and any specific incentives to encourage or facilitate development on these sites. Please note, any future re-adoption of the housing element must include the appropriate finding as part of the adoption resolution.

For example, a site with a proposed and approved housing development that contains units affordable to lower-income households would be an appropriate site to accommodate housing for lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(C).). In addition, the housing element must include a description of whether there are any plans to sell the property during the planning period and how the jurisdiction will comply with the Surplus Land Act Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5.

City-Owned Sites: The sites inventory identifies sites that are City-owned. The element must include an analysis to demonstrate their suitability and availability in the planning period. Specifically, the analysis should address general plan designations, zoning, allowable densities, support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses and any known conditions that preclude development in the planning period and the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i).

Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): While program 1F (Accessory Dwelling Units) was revised to monitor ADU production every two years and identify replacement sites if needed, the assumptions of ADU’s were not revised based on the findings in HCD’s December 31, 2021 letter. Please see the prior letter regarding revisions to ADU assumptions.

Sites with Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:

• Emergency Shelters: While the element was revised to state that the City’s zoning code does not identify additional requirements or development standards, the element must clarify whether the sites identified as suitable for an emergency shelter are vacant or not vacant and analyze the availability and appropriateness of those sites. 1148 of 1381

City of Glendale’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 5 April 22, 2022

• Transitional and Supportive Housing: While the element includes revisions to transitional and supportive housing in program 9B, the program must be revised to cite the correct government code (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).). • Manufactured Housing: While the element was revised to state mobile homes are allowed in residential zones, the element removed the sentence that mobile home parks are not permitted in the City. The element must describe where mobile home parks are allowed or add a program as appropriate.
• ADUs: The element was not revised to address compliance with ADU law or whether ADUs are allowed in the Town Center Specific Plan.

3. An analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for all income levels, including the types of housing identified in paragraph (1) of subdivision (c), and for persons with disabilities as identified in the analysis pursuant to paragraph (7), including land use controls, building codes and their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures. The analysis shall also demonstrate local efforts to remove governmental constraints that hinder the locality from meeting its share of the regional housing need in accordance with Government Code section 65584 and from meeting the need for housing for persons with disabilities, supportive housing, transitional housing, and emergency shelters identified pursuant to paragraph (7). (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).)

Land-Use Controls: While the element was revised to clarify that 100 percent residential is allowed by-right in the SFMU zone and with an AUP in the IMU-R zone, it did not clarify whether 100 percent residential or commercial is allowed in the Downtown Specific Plan.

Fees and Exaction: While the element was revised to include additional fees, the element must include fees associated with development agreements. In addition, the revisions removed may residential development impact fees but it is not clear why they were removed. Lastly, the element must describe why the parks and library mitigation fees only apply to multifamily units.

City of Glendale’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 6 April 22, 2022

multifamily developments in the MU-R zones are not a constraint, the element must provide information to support the conclusion or add a program as appropriate. Lastly, the element was revised to state that while the findings for the administrative use permit appear as a constraint for multifamily developments, the findings were intentionally adopted. The administrative use permit for multifamily developments in the IMU-R zone is a constraint and a program should be added or revised accordingly.

On/Off-Site Improvements: While the element was revised to provide a general statement that on/off site improvements are identified in the circulation element, the element must identify subdivision level improvement requirements.

B. Housing Programs

1. Identify actions that will be taken to make sites available during the planning period with appropriate zoning and development standards and with services and facilities to accommodate that portion of the city’s or county’s share of the regional housing need for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified in the inventory completed pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) without rezoning, and to comply with the requirements of Government Code section 65584.09. Sites shall be identified as needed to facilitate and encourage the development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels, including multifamily rental housing, factory-built housing, mobilehomes, housing for agricultural employees, supportive housing, single-room occupancy units, emergency shelters, and transitional housing.
(Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(1).)

As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:

Replacement Housing Requirements: While the element includes a replacement housing program, the program should include a specific implementation date.

2. Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove governmental and nongovernmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and development of housing, including housing for all income levels and housing for persons with disabilities.

The program shall remove constraints to, and provide reasonable accommodations for 1150 of 1381

City of Glendale’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 7 April 22, 2022

housing designed for, intended for occupancy by, or with supportive services for, persons with disabilities. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(3).)

As noted in Finding A3, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

Program 1D (Replacement Housing): The program must be revised to provide a specific implementation date.

Program 3A (Density Bonus Program): While the program description was updated to state the ordinance will be updated, the timeframe of the program still states “ongoing” and must be revised.

Program 8B (Permit Streamlining): The element was revised to review permit approval times but the program did not commit to an action to reduce permit approval times by a specified date.

While Program 9B (Zoning and Code Amendments–Housing Constraints) includes an action to revise the guest parking standards in the PRD zone, it does not address the requirement of more than one parking space for efficiency and 1-bedroom units as described in the previous letter. In addition, the action to revise the reasonable accommodation procedure must be revised to review the procedure for constraints in addition to finding five and revise as needed.

While Program 9C (General Plan Consistency) was added and mentions the general plan update, it must include specific timing of when the General Plan and updated zoning code will be adopted. In addition, the program should be revised to address the misalignment between the General Plan High Density designation which allows for 35-60 dwelling units and acre and the corresponding zone allowing for up to 34 dwelling units an acre.

Design Review: The element was revised to state that the City recognizes the need for higher levels of approval certainty for design review and will prepare new objective design standards. The element must be revised to include a program to implement this commitment.

3. P romote and affirmatively further fair housing opportunities and promote housing throughout the community or communities for all persons regardless of race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, color, familial status, or disability, and other characteristics protected by the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3 of Title 2), Section 65008, and any other state and federal fair housing and planning law. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(5).)

City of Glendale’s 6th Cycle Adopted Housing Element Page 8 April 22, 2022

community conservation and revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing; and protecting existing residents from displacement. The element must be revised to include metrics and milestones in the programs to provide benchmarks and ensure housing outcomes.

4. Develop a plan that incentivizes and promotes the creation of accessory dwelling units that can be offered at affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code, for very low, low-, or moderate-income households. For purposes of this paragraph, “accessory dwelling units” has the same meaning as “accessory dwelling unit” as defined in paragraph (4) of subdivision (i) of Section 65852.2. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (c)(7).)

While Program 1F (Accessory Dwelling Units) was revised, it states the City will conduct one survey in 2023 on affordability levels. Affordability of ADUs produced should be monitored every two years and identify additional sites if ADU projections are not meeting the assumptions.

C. Quantified Objectives

Establish the number of housing units, by income level, that can be constructed, rehabilitated, and conserved over a five-year time frame. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (b)(1 & 2).)

While the quantified objectives were revised to add a note that the quantified objectives for preservation will be based on preserving units at risk based on the current affordability level, the element must be revised to breakout the objective for conservation/preservation for extremely low-, very low-, and low-income households.

D Public Participation

Local governments shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all economic segments of the community in the development of the Housing Element, and the element shall describe this effort. (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd.(c)(9).)

While the element was revised to add a summary of comments were received and incorporated in the element, it still does not demonstrate the efforts to circulate the housing element among low- and moderate-income households and organizations that represent them.

1152 of 1381

HCD Findings on Adopted Glendale Housing Element

Page 1 of 10 ends

Topic Finding Status
AFFH Enforcement: While the element was revised to add Table 68 to demonstrate compliance with fair housing laws, the element must still quantify and evaluate the characteristics of recent fair housing complaints.
• Added Fair Housing statistics under Fair Housing
Enforcement and Outreach Capacity subsection (p. 157-
159). Added City inquiries data and info from the City
Attorney. Quantified and evaluated the characteristics of fair housing complaints and related to the programs in the Housing Plan.

Racial/Ethnic Areas of Concentration of Poverty (R/ECAP) and Affluence (RCAA): While the element was revised to state that there is a census tract with high segregation and poverty as well as a concentrated area of affluence, the element must analyze these areas in relationship to surrounding neighborhoods for patterns and trends to formulate appropriate goals and actions.
• Added to analysis and regional analysis for Racially or Ethnically Concentrated Areas of Poverty (R/ECAP) and
Racially Concentrated Areas of Affluence (RCAA) under
Assessment of Fair Housing subsection (p. 171-172)
Access to Opportunity: While the element was revised to add opportunity indicators for Glendale and the MSA as well as opportunity resource levels by census tract, this information must be analyzed to identify any emerging fair housing issues, pattern, and trends, and formulate appropriate actions and strategies to address those trends. The element briefly states that the lowest education score is in an area with largely multifamily developments, but the element must analyze the discrepancy between the identified area and the rest of the City. While the element also states that worse environmental scores are closer to the freeways, the element must analyze the impact on the identified areas and relate it to the rest of the affirmatively furthering fair housing (AFFH) analysis. In addition, the regional analysis for education and environment should be expanded beyond one summary sentence. The element should provide an analysis to the statement that there is “somewhat of a correlation” between economic scores and overall resources. In addition, there are a wide range of economic scores in the City, the element must analyze the data provided. Lastly, the regional analysis on access to transportation should be added.
• Added to local and regional analysis under Disparities in Access to Opportunity, TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps
subheading (p. 211-213)
• Added to regional analysis on access to transportation under Transportation/Transit Routes subheading (p. 214) • Added to Findings subsection to discuss actions/strategies to address fair housing issues, patterns, and trends (p. 215) • Added to sites analysis on areas closer to freeways with lower environmental scores (6c. Sites Inventory, Access to Opportunity subsection, p. 241)
Disproportionate Housing Needs Including Displacement: While additional information was added for disproportionate housing needs, analysis is needed. The element should describe and analyze the characteristics of the two census tracts with high levels of • Added analysis to Discussion of Disproportionate Housing Needs subsection to address overcrowding, substandard
housing, and homelessness (p.218-220)
1153 of 1381

HCD Findings on Adopted Glendale Housing Element

Page 2 of 10 ends

Topic Finding Status
overcrowding and relate them to the rest of the City. In addition, the element must describe whether there are concentrations of substandard housing in need of rehabilitation in the City and also include a regional analysis. The element must describe available information on protected classes in relation to persons experiencing homelessness. While the element stated there are areas vulnerable to displacement, it must include an analysis of the finding, tie it to other AFFH factors, and provide a regional analysis. The element must address displacement due to fire risk. Lastly, all identified lower income sites are in sensitive communities and many are in areas in early/ongoing gentrification, or low-income susceptible to displacement. The element must analyze the effect of identifying all lower income sites in those areas.

In addition, HCD has received a public comment that the City is not currently enforcing the Just Cause and Retaliatory Evictions ordinance. The City must analyze the fair housing implications related to the enforcement of the adopted ordinance.
• Added to areas vulnerable to displacement in Displacement Risk subsection (p. 233-235)
• Added discussion and analysis of sites in sensitive
communities/areas susceptible to displacement (see 6c.

Sites Inventory, Displacement Risk subsection, p. 242-244) • Added regional analysis of displacement (p. 234)
Sites Inventory: While the element provided additional information related to sites being located near high quality transit and away from high fire risk, the element must still demonstrate how the sites inventory is distributed throughout the City in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing. For example, the access to opportunity summary states that sites to accommodate the City’s regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) are distributed between low and moderate resource areas but none are located within the high resource areas within the City. The element must describe how identifying sites in low and moderate resource areas exacerbate conditions and identify programs to mitigate this. The analysis states that there are no patterns of segregation/integration currently within the City, but the maps and analysis show areas of higher and lower diversity as well as having an RCAA where no sites are identified for lower-income. The element must describe how the distribution of sites improves or exacerbates identified conditions and support conclusions with analysis.
• The sites inventory has been updated based on public
comment and to better distribute sites and provide
meaningful improvement based on the analysis of AFFH
data. Section 6C., Sites Inventory, has been updated to reflect the new sites inventory (p. 236 to 244, and all AFFH- related figures).
• Added Table 79 to provide a breakdown of RHNA capacity by census tract. Incorporated this table into the Sites Inventory discussion (p. 236-244)
1154 of 1381

HCD Findings on Adopted Glendale Housing Element

Page 3 of 10 ends

Topic Finding Status
Goals, Priorities, Metrics, and Milestones: While the element added metrics to Program 2A (Multifamily Acquisition/Rehabilitation Loan Program) and 3A (Density Bonus Program), the metrics and actions identified were not transformative, meaningful, or specific enough to make an impact on identified fair housing issues. The element must be revised to add or modify goals and actions beyond the status quo based on the outcomes of the analysis described above. Goals and actions must specifically respond to the analysis and prioritize contributing factors to fair housing issues. Actions must have metrics and milestones as appropriate and address housing mobility enhancement, new housing choices and affordability in high opportunity areas, place-based strategies for community preservation and revitalization and displacement protection. The programs identified in the Contributing Factors table (Background Report page 239) should include metrics and milestones
• Modified Program 2A (Housing Plan p. 22) and 3A (Housing Plan p. 32-33)
• Modified AFFH Programs. Added metrics and milestones to Programs identified in Table 80 in Background Report (refer to Housing Plan programs; also see p. 261-264 of
Background Report) Site
Inventory
Progress in Meeting the RHNA: While the element was revised to state that all units identified as accommodating the lower-income RHNA will be deed restricted, the element must clarify whether projects in Table 62 are being counted as progress toward the RHNA or as part of the sites inventory
• Re-titled and clarified Table 62 (now Table 65, see p.128); also see Progress Towards the RHNA subsection (beginning on p. 108).

Adequate Sites Alternatives: While the element was revised to remove counting most projects with existing toward meeting the moderate income RHNA were removed. However, the element still includes 125 units from projects related to the passage of AB 787, Statutes of 2021. Please be aware, pursuant to Government Code section 65400.2, subdivision (c) units must qualify to be reported in the annual progress report (APR) in order credit toward the RHNA.

Pursuant to Government Code section 65400.2, subdivision (d) jurisdictions can only report on units converted on or after January 1, • Revised sites inventory – also refer to Progress Towards the RHNA subsection (beginning on p. 108).
1155 of 1381

HCD Findings on Adopted Glendale Housing Element

Page 4 of 10 ends

Topic Finding Status
2022. Therefore, the units identified in the element do not meet the timing requirements. Additional sites may be required to meet the RHNA for moderate-income units as a result.

Realistic Capacity: While the element was revised to state that the listed projects to support realistic capacity assumptions included limited numbers of affordable units, the element should include the affordability of the project examples to support assumptions in the Downtown Specific Plan. While the element was revised to describe adjustment factors for sites with zoning that allows 100 percent nonresidential uses, e.g. commercial and mixed use zones, the element must include project examples with affordability levels to support the development trends that were described
• See revisions to Section 5C., Residential Sites Inventory (p. 111-137)
Suitability of Nonvacant Sites: While the element included a general statement that various factors were considered for potential intensification on nonvacant sites, the City should support the assumptions with recent project examples that demonstrate redevelopment potential on the identified sites. The description of the Downtown Specific Plan was revised to list factors, but the factors must be related to the sites identified in the sites inventory. The sites identified must provide more detail that allows the trends to be related to the identified sites, reflect the values of each of the factors in the inventory, discuss existing uses and impediments to redevelopment, and other factors.

In addition, the housing element relies upon nonvacant sites to accommodate more than 50 percent of the RHNA for lower-income households, the element must demonstrate that the existing use Is not an impediment to additional residential development in the planning period (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (g)(2).). While the element was revised to provide a generalization of the sites, it does not meet the substantial evidence requirement. The element could also include additional criteria to support likelihood of residential development such as condition of structure, whether the use is operating, marginal or discontinued, the presence of any existing leases or other contracts that would perpetuate the existing use or prevent redevelopment of the site for additional residential • See revisions to Section 5C., Residential Sites Inventory (p. 111-137)
1156 of 1381

HCD Findings on Adopted Glendale Housing Element

Page 5 of 10 ends

Topic Finding Status
development, proximity to transit, and other conditions that would support residential development and any specific incentives to encourage or facilitate development on these sites. Please note, any future re-adoption of the housing element must include the appropriate finding as part of the adoption resolution.

Small Sites: The revised element now includes numerous small sites accommodating lower-income housing that are City owned. Sites smaller than a half-acre in size are deemed inadequate to accommodate housing for lower-income housing unless it is demonstrated that sites of equivalent size were successfully developed during the prior planning period for an equivalent 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 (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(A).). For example, a site with a proposed and approved housing development that contains units affordable to lower-income households would be an appropriate site to accommodate housing for lower-income households. (Gov. Code, § 65583.2, subd. (c)(2)(C).). In addition, the housing element must include a description of whether there are any plans to sell the property during the planning period and how the jurisdiction will comply with the Surplus Land Act Article 8 (commencing with Section 54220) of Chapter 5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5. • See revisions to City-Owned Sites/Small Sites subsection and Table 64 (p. 123-124)
City-Owned Sites: The sites inventory identifies sites that are City- owned. The element must include an analysis to demonstrate their suitability and availability in the planning period. Specifically, the analysis should address general plan designations, zoning, allowable densities, support for residential capacity assumptions, existing uses and any known conditions that preclude development in the planning period and the potential schedule for development. If zoning does not currently allow residential uses at appropriate densities, then the element must include programs to rezone sites pursuant to Government Code section 65583.2, subdivisions (h) and (i). • See revisions to City-Owned Sites/Small Sites subsection and Table 64 (p. 123-124)
Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU): While program 1F (Accessory Dwelling Units) was revised to monitor ADU production every two • Revised ADU assumptions (see Accessory Dwelling Unit
subsection, p. 129) and Program 1F (Housing Plan p. 17-18) 1157 of 1381

HCD Findings on Adopted Glendale Housing Element

Page 6 of 10 ends

Topic Finding Status
years and identify replacement sites if needed, the assumptions of ADU’s were not revised based on the findings in HCD’s December 31, 2021 letter. Please see the prior letter regarding revisions to ADU assumptions.

Sites with Zoning for a Variety of Housing Types:
• Emergency Shelters: While the element was revised to state that the City’s zoning code does not identify additional requirements or development standards, the element must clarify whether the sites identified as suitable for an emergency shelter are vacant or not vacant and analyze the availability and appropriateness of those sites.

Transitional and Supportive Housing: While the element includes revisions to transitional and supportive housing in program 9B, the program must be revised to cite the correct government code (Gov.

Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5).).
• Manufactured Housing: While the element was revised to state mobile homes are allowed in residential zones, the element removed the sentence that mobile home parks are not permitted in the City.

The element must describe where mobile home parks are allowed or add a program as appropriate.
• ADUs: The element was not revised to address compliance with ADU law or whether ADUs are allowed in the Town Center Specific Plan.
• Clarified status of sites identified for emergency shelters and analyzed availability of these sites (p. 70)
• Transitional and Supportive Housing: revised to cite
government code (Gov. Code, § 65583, subd. (a)(5)) (p. 71) • Clarified that the City Zoning Code does not provide an alternative definition of mobile or manufactured homes
and defers to State law. City complies with Mobilehome
Parks Act (see Mobile Homes and Manufactured Housing, p. 68)
• Table 45 was modified to show that ADUs are permitted in the Town Center Specific Plan (see p. 66). The Zoning Code subsection, Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) housing type
discusses compliance with ADU law (see p. 67-68)
Constraints Land-Use Controls: While the element was revised to clarify that 100 percent residential is allowed by-right in the SFMU zone and with an AUP in the IMU-R zone, it did not clarify whether 100 percent residential or commercial is allowed in the Downtown Specific Plan.

While the element was revised to state the 50 percent maximum lot coverage requirements for multifamily developments are not a constraint to development, it does not provide support for that conclusion. As part of the analysis the element could describe the feedback from the development community to support this conclusion or add a program as appropriate. In addition, the element states that developers ask for height increases for multifamily developments on lots less than 90 feet in width through density bonus. This demonstrates that the height restriction is a constraint if • Page 60 clarifies that 100% residential uses are permitted in all districts except the Civic Centers District (under heading Glendale Downtown Specific Plan, p. 60). Added Frontage Requirements and commercial use clarification, and
probability of sites developing at 100% commercial (p. 60; also refer to Section 5C, beginning on p. 111)
• Added support for conclusion that 50% maximum lot
coverage and two-story height limit in multifamily zones not a constraint, as developments are able to meet
maximum densities with adequate unit sizes (p .77-78)
• Modified Program 9B to update development standards for mixed-use/multifamily projects and develop objective
1158 of 1381

HCD Findings on Adopted Glendale Housing Element

Page 7 of 10 ends

Topic Finding Status
density bonus is not applied and a program should be added to revise the height restriction.
design standards for all multifamily and mixed-use projects (see Housing Plan)
Fees and Exaction: While the element was revised to include additional fees, the element must include fees associated with development agreements. In addition, the revisions removed may residential development impact fees but it is not clear why they were removed. Lastly, the element must describe why the parks and library mitigation fees only apply to multifamily units.
• Development agreement fee listed in Table 53 (p. 98-99).

Added text below the table to describe development
agreements & associated fees (p. 99)
• To address the second sentence: the development impact fees that were removed (street, parkway, water) were
initially obtained from contractor estimates in LA County, but were ultimately removed as they do not apply to
Glendale.
• Clarified that parks and library mitigation fees apply to both single- and multifamily unit (p. 98 and in footnote of Table 54, p. 100).

Local Processing and Permit Procedures: While the element was revised to state the review timelines for single family and multifamily are the same, it must specify the length of time for review in the Downtown Specific Plan’s three stages of review. In addition, it must also list the typical total review time for single family and multifamily developments. While the City added a general statement that they determined the conditional use findings for multifamily developments in the MU-R zones are not a constraint, the element must provide information to support the conclusion or add a program as appropriate. Lastly, the element was revised to state that while the findings for the administrative use permit appear as a constraint for multifamily developments, the findings were intentionally adopted.

The administrative use permit for multifamily developments in the IMU-R zone is a constraint and a program should be added or revised accordingly
• Specified length of time for review in DSP (p. 82)
• Added typical total review time for SF and MF
developments (p. 81). This is further described within the same section (Permit Processing and Approval Procedures) and in the Timelines section immediately following.
• Added text to explain reason for AUP in IMU-R zone (see Permit Processing and Approval Procedures subheading, p. 83, and Administrative Use Permit subheading, p. 93-94) • Modified Program 9B to update development standards
and permit procedures for mixed-use/multifamily projects and to develop objective design standards for all
multifamily and mixed-use projects (see Housing Plan)
• Added text to support conclusion that CUP findings for multifamily developments in the IMU-R zones are not a
constraint (See Conditional Use Permit (CUP) subheading, p. 92)
• Clarified residential development in commercial zones and CUP/AUP requirement in these zones (See Provisions for a Variety of Housing Types, p. 63)

On/Off-Site Improvements: While the element was revised to provide a general statement that on/off site improvements are identified in • Added subdivision level improvement requirements (p. 78) 1159 of 1381

HCD Findings on Adopted Glendale Housing Element

Page 8 of 10 ends

Topic Finding Status
the circulation element, the element must identify subdivision level improvement requirements.

Constraints on Housing for Persons with Disabilities: Residential care facilities for seven or more residents require a conditional use permit in some residential zones and are not allowed in others. While the element was revised to state that these requirements are not a constraint, the element must be revised to add or modify programs as appropriate to ensure zoning permits group homes objectively with approval certainty for residential care facilities for seven or more residents.
-Added to Program 9B to revise zoning code to ensure zoning permits group homes objectively with approval certainty for residential care facilities for seven or more residents (see Housing Plan)
-Added text re: Program 9B in Background Report (p. 73) Programs As noted in Finding A2, the element does not include a complete site analysis, therefore, the adequacy of sites and zoning were not established. Based on the results of a complete sites inventory and analysis, the City may need to add or revise programs to address a shortfall of sites or zoning available to encourage a variety of housing types. In addition, the element should be revised as follows:

Replacement Housing Requirements: While the element includes a replacement housing program, the program should include a specific implementation date.

Revised Program 1D to include implementation date (see
Housing Plan p.15)
As noted in Finding A3, the element requires a complete analysis of potential governmental constraints. Depending upon the results of that analysis, the City may need to revise or add programs and address and remove or mitigate any identified constraints.

Program 1D (Replacement Housing): The program must be revised to provide a specific implementation date.

Program 3A (Density Bonus Program): While the program description was updated to state the ordinance will be updated, the timeframe of the program still states “ongoing” and must be revised.

Program 8B (Permit Streamlining): The element was revised to review permit approval times but the program did not commit to an action to reduce permit approval times by a specified date.

• Revised Housing Plan Programs:
• 1D
• 3A
• 8B
• 9B
• 9C
• Added to Program 9B to prepare new objective design
standards
1160 of 1381

HCD Findings on Adopted Glendale Housing Element

Page 9 of 10 ends

Topic Finding Status
While Program 9B (Zoning and Code Amendments–Housing
Constraints) includes an action to revise the guest parking standards in the PRD zone, it does not address the requirement of more than one parking space for efficiency and 1-bedroom units as described in the previous letter. In addition, the action to revise the reasonable accommodation procedure must be revised to review the procedure for constraints in addition to finding five and revise as needed.

As mentioned in Finding A1, programs throughout the element should be revised to address enhancing housing mobility strategies; encouraging development of new affordable housing in high resource areas; improving place-based strategies to encourage community conservation and revitalization, including preservation of existing affordable housing; and protecting existing residents from displacement. The element must be revised to include metrics and milestones in the programs to provide benchmarks and ensure housing outcomes
Revised Housing Plan programs; see Housing Plan.

While Program 1F (Accessory Dwelling Units) was revised, it states the City will conduct one survey in 2023 on affordability levels.

Affordability of ADUs produced should be monitored every two years and identify additional sites if ADU projections are not meeting the assumptions.

Revised Program 1F
1161 of 1381

HCD Findings on Adopted Glendale Housing Element

Page 10 of 10 ends

Topic Finding Status
Quantified
objectives
While the quantified objectives were revised to add a note that the quantified objectives for preservation will be based on preserving units at risk based on the current affordability level, the element must be revised to breakout the objective for
conservation/preservation for extremely low-, very low-, and low- income households.

Revised Table HP-2, Quantified Objectives 2021-2029 (Housing Plan p. 79)
Public
Participation
While the element was revised to add a summary of comments were received and incorporated in the element, it still does not demonstrate the efforts to circulate the housing element among low- and moderate-income households and organizations that represent them.
• Added to Appendix B, Public Engagement Summary Report (Appendix B, p. 3-12)

1162 of 1381

From: Alex Khatchaturian
To: Krause, Erik
Cc: Zemaitaitis, Vilia; Prasad, Hillary@HCD; Calvert, Bradley; Asp, Kristen; Golanian, Roubik; Garcia, Michael Subject: Comments on Amended 6th Cycle Housing Element (Glendale) Date: Wednesday, November 16, 2022 5:10:08 PM
Attachments: Correspondence with Daniel Brotman Chapter 9.30 GMC.pdf Amended 6th Cycle Housing Element page 401.pdf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender. Mr. Krause,
My review of the amended housing element was primarily focused on the city's analysis of the fair housing implications related to the enforcement of its Just Cause and Retaliatory Evictions Ordinance, as codified in Chapter 9.30 of the municipal code.

Glendale currently does not and does not plan to enforce the tenant protection provisions of its Just Cause and Retaliatory Evictions Ordinance. I attached to this e-mail my correspondence with Councilmember Dan Brotman from two years ago in which he stated, after conferring with the City Attorney and city staff, that Glendale has elected to not enforce the tenant protection provisions of Chapter 9.30 of the municipal code.

Please note the Enforcement Procedures
section of the ordinance (Chapter 9.30.055) states:
"The city, at its sole discretion, may choose to enforce the provisions of this chapter through administrative fines, administrative citations and any other administrative procedure set forth in Chapters 1.20 and 1.24 of the municipal code, as amended. The city's decision to pursue or not pursue enforcement of any kind shall not affect a tenant's rights to pursue civil remedies." The amended Housing Element does not contain any commitment for the establishment of a tenant protections enforcement program. Nor does it contain any plan to remove discretion out of the enforcement process and place a ministerial duty on city staff to enforce the tenant protection provisions. Instead, in response to HCD's request for analysis on the fair housing implications related to the enforcement of the adopted ordinance, the amended Housing Element states:
"Enforcement is administered by the Community Development Department Housing staff, who try to resolve housing-related issues through informal mediation, informing the sides of their rights, and dispatching City resources where appropriate." I attached page 401 of the amended housing element for reference.

The reality is, as the councilmember communicated unequivocally in his response to my question, the city does not enforce tenant protections. Moreover, as evidenced by the amended housing element, the city does not plan to enforce tenant protections. Instead, as I have personally experienced myself, city staff refer tenants to seek civil remedies when they call to report violations of tenant protection provisions. Informal mediation and educating landlords and tenants about their rights is not an effective enforcement mechanism for safeguarding 1163 of 1381

tenant protections. Violations of tenant protections need to be enforced the way violations of our indigenous tree ordinance are enforced.

It is disheartening to see that city staff made no effort to address this issue, especially considering that two-thirds of Glendale residents are tenants. Unless Glendale implements an enforcement program that commits to safeguarding tenant protections without discretion, I do not think the city will be certified by HCD as compliant with state housing element law.

Thank you,
Alex Khatchaturian
1164 of 1381

Alex Khatchaturian <[email protected]>
Chapter 9.30 JUST CAUSE AND RETALIATORY EVICTIONS
9 messages
Alex Khatchaturian <[email protected]> Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 9:49 AM To: "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>
Mr. Brotman,
The moratorium on evictions expires at the end of this month. Do you know if tenants faced with unlawful termination of their tenancy can rely on the City to enforce the provisions of Glendale Municipal Code Chapter

9.30? Or are tenants limited to pursue costly civil remedies, which puts them at a great disadvantage against landlords?
I understand the City has sole discretion over whether to pursue or not pursue enforcement of any kind. I am curious if there has been any discussion among members of the City Council regarding this matter.

Thank you,
Alex Khatchaturian

Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]> Wed, Sep 16, 2020 at 9:20 PM To: Alex Khatchaturian <[email protected]>
Hi Alex,

The governor recently signed an eviction moratorium bill called AB 3380. It replaces our local ordinance. I’m sure you can find lots of information on the web, but here’s a summary I was given.

· Full protections: Any rent missed between March 1 and August 31 will be converted to civil debt. (This means landlords can take tenants to small claims court for any missed rent – but they can't evict them for not paying it.)

· Protections with a caveat: For rents missed between Sept. 1 and January 31, tenants must pay 25% of rent within that period, or else they'll be open to eviction. The remaining 75% of their rent is treated as a civil debt, just like the provision for missed rent from between March 1 and August 31.

· More time: Also under the new law, the usual three-day-notice to evict that landlords post – mandatory before they go through the court process to evict a tenant – is now a 15-day-notice.

· How the process works for tenants: Once a landlord has posted a 15-day notice, a tenant can file with courts that they have a pandemic-related hardship. A tenant filing with the courts that they have a pandemic-related hardship must swear under penalty of perjury that they are enduring a pandemic- of

related hardship. (This is a much higher bar than the attestation that was required under AB 1436).

Additionally, if a tenant earns 130% of a county's Area Median Income or higher, a landlord can ask for them to produce proof of a pandemic-related financial hardship, like a layoff or wage-reduction notice from an employer.

· No more eviction moratoria at the local level: Eviction moratoria previously passed by cities and counties will be grandfathered in, but they won't be able to pass any extensions.

· Courts: Courts can begin processing evictions for non-payment of rent in non-COVID cases on October 5th.

· Property owners: The mortgage forbearance provisions for property owners that were in AB 1436 are not in the new bill.

It’s pretty good news for tenants. Not great for landlords.

Regards,
Dan

From: Alex Khatchaturian <[email protected]>
Date: Wednesday, September 16, 2020 at 9:50 AM
To: "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>
Subject: Chapter 9.30 JUST CAUSE AND RETALIATORY EVICTIONS

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
[Quoted text hidden]
Alex Khatchaturian <[email protected]> Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 6:41 AM To: "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>
Mr. Brotman,
I am familiar with this new state law (AB 3088), but Glendale has a Just Cause Eviction Ordinance codified in Chapter 9.30 of municipal code. My question was whether the city will enforce the provisions of this ordinance, by assessing fines and penalties to landlords who do not comply. If a landlord attempts to evict a tenant without cause, in violation of city law, can the tenant rely on the city to enforce its laws, or does the tenant have to 1166 of 1381

pursue civil remedies at its own cost?
Glendale's ordinance, which was adopted last year, affords tenants with certain protections. But a lot of tenants cannot afford to retain counsel and initiate civil suits when they are wronged by their landlords. Most attorneys, understandably, won't represent tenants unless the lease provides the prevailing party attorney fees and costs.

I urge you to discuss enforcement of city laws protecting tenants, such as the Just Cause Eviction Ordinance, with the City Council and City staff. Is the city going to enforce Glendale Municipal Code Chapter 9.30? Thank you,
Alex Khatchaturian
[Quoted text hidden]
Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]> Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 7:33 AM To: Alex Khatchaturian <[email protected]>
Hi Alex,
Sorry, I thought you were talking about the eviction moratorium. I will forward your question to our city attorney.

I suspect the answer will be that we don’t have resources to enforce but we’ll see.

By the way, I brought up the idea of funding free or low cost legal support for tenants through a non-profit a couple months ago (when we were allocating Measure S funds). Unfortunately, I didn’t get support from my colleagues. If this is a widespread issue, and if the lawyer who does pro-bono work for the Glendale Tenants Union is fully loaded, perhaps we can re-look at it.

Dan
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 17, 2020, at 6:41 AM, Alex Khatchaturian <[email protected]> wrote:
[Quoted text hidden]
Alex Khatchaturian <[email protected]> Thu, Sep 17, 2020 at 8:10 AM To: "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>
Mr. Brotman,
I anticipate many landlords will seek alternatives to evict non-paying tenants, because the state has passed strong protections for tenants who are not paying rent. Instead of going after them for non-payment, they will seek just cause evictions, knowing that the city will not penalize them for noncompliance with local requirements. For example, a landlord can say he wants to remodel the unit, get an inflated estimate from a contractor showing the cost exceeds 8x the monthly rent (as required by the ordinance), obtain permits for the work, and demand the tenant vacate within 30 or 60 days. Once the tenant vacates, the landlord need not follow through; he can do minor cosmetic improvements and rent the unit at market price. The Glendale ordinance prohibits such bad faith practices, but if the City does not enforce it, the law has no teeth! Of course the evicted tenant can sue for wrongful eviction, but do you see the injustice here? The purpose of the just cause ordinance is to protect tenants, not allow landlords to use it as an alternative for evicting them. Moreover, a lot of tenants are not financially secure to engage in costly lawsuits.

I appreciate you validating my concerns, and I look forward to hearing back from you once you get a response 1167 of 1381

from the city attorney.

Thank you,
Alex Khatchaturian
[Quoted text hidden]
Alex Khatchaturian <[email protected]> Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 9:58 AM To: "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>
Mr. Brotman,
I am following up to check if you received a response from the city attorney regarding the city's enforcement of the provisions of Chapter 9.30 of Glendale Municipal Code. Specifically, is the city going to assess fines and penalties to landlords who do not comply with Glendale's Just Cause Eviction Ordinance? Thank you,
Alex Khatchaturian
[Quoted text hidden]
Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]> Mon, Sep 28, 2020 at 10:28 AM To: Alex Khatchaturian <[email protected]>
I don’t think I did. Will follow up.
[Quoted text hidden]
Alex Khatchaturian <[email protected]> Sun, Oct 11, 2020 at 3:54 PM To: "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>
Mr. Brotman,
I have not heard back from you. Please follow up regarding this matter. I want to know if the city is going to assess fines and penalties to landlords who do not comply with Glendale's Just Cause Eviction Ordinance.

Thank you,
Alex Khatchaturian
[Quoted text hidden]
Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]> Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 2:32 PM To: Alex Khatchaturian <[email protected]>
Hi Alex,

I finally had a conversation with staff about this. The direct answer is that we don’t enforce and don’t plan to. We do have a few people on staff that take calls and try to help informally, either by contacting landlord to explain the requirements or referring tenants to sources of free or low cost legal advice. Staff tells me there have been very few JC eviction related calls. Most calls relate to things like rent increases or relocation payments. I believe there have been a few retaliation related. Some calls to understand COVID protections, etc. This is all anecdotal and not based on hard data.
1168 of 1381

As I mentioned before, I like the idea of using some of our Measure S dollars to fund 3rd party tenant legal assistance, but that hasn’t gotten support yet. I may ask again.

FYI, there’s an item coming to Council/HA tomorrow afternoon regarding a potential Landlord-Tenant Commission. The report refers to Culver City’s Landlord-Tenant Mediation Board; it’s a forum for voluntary mediation but has not been very active as far as I know. I’m doubtful that something like this would bring much value here, but open to ideas.
[Quoted text hidden]
1169 of 1381

Glendale Housing Element Background Report | 2021-2029
Housing/g3Element/g3Background/g3Report/g3/g882/g3234/g3|/g3February/g3November/g32022/g3 /g120 Just Cause Eviction: Addresses the twelve (12) legal reasons for eviction and other issues relating to the termination of a tenancy.
/g120 Relocation Assistance: Tenants are eligible for relocation assistance when a tenant elects to vacate a unit in response to a rent increase that increases the rent by more than 7% of the rent that was in place at any time during the 12 month period preceding the effective date of the rent increase. /g120 Right to Lease: Requires landlords to offer a lease with a minimum term of 1 year to prospective tenants and current tenants who are issued rent increases.

The Rental Rights Program expands tenant protections found in the City’s Just Cause Eviction, which was established in 2002, and works to: minimize displacement of tenants by requiring a landlord to have a “just cause” in order to terminate a tenancy and prohibiting retaliation for the exercise for designated rights; mitigate the impact of tenants who have to vacate their rental unit when they are unable to afford higher rent increases, when the unit requires eviction for major rehabilitation, or similar reasons, by providing relocation assistance; and address instability and substandard living conditions and services. Enforcement is administered by the Community Development Department Housing staff, who try to resolve housing-related issues through informal mediation, informing the sides of their rights, and dispatching City resources where appropriate. Independently, or through Housing staff’s referral, the City Attorney’s office will investigate allegations of retaliation and the City’s prosecutor may file criminal charges where appropriate. As previously stated, this has only happened in a small number of cases since 2013; mediation/education efforts are typically successful in resolving the issue and there have been no prosecutions. The Rental Rights Program works in tandem with the State’s Tenant Protection Act of 2019 to provide a rent cap and evictions protections for renters. These programs support fair housing efforts to reduce the risk of displacement, particularly for lower income renters and protected classes.

Research has shown that low-income renter populations are disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards and that housing tenure is a telling determinant of social vulnerability to disasters. Renters bear the brunt of the existing affordable housing shortage, and their adaptive capacity to cope and recover from the impacts of environmental hazards may be reduced due to systemic inequities and limited resources. As discussed in the Constraints section under Environmental Constraints, 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 accident. More than half of the City lies within Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). VHFHSZs in Glendale are located in the Verdugo Mountains and San Rafael Hills (generally north of Kenneth Road and Glenoaks Boulevard and south of the 210 Freeway) and San Gabriel Mountains (northern tip of the City). Residents living within these VHFHSZ areas are at risk of displacement due to wildfire. 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. The Glendale Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and Glendale Safety Element contain details policies and programs to reduce risk to life and property due to hazards, including environmental hazards, and address on emergency preparedness and aviation disaster response. Liquefaction and other seismic- related issues are further addressed by the State Universal Building Code (UBC).

Regionally, much of Los Angeles County is designated as sensitive to displacement. Nearly every census tract in and around central (downtown) Los Angeles; along the I-110 Freeway; east Los Angeles; and in the Gateway Cities, is designated as a sensitive community. Coastal areas and western Los Angeles County (e.g., Beverly Hills, Malibu, Calabasas) are generally not designated sensitive. Most areas along I-110 between I-10 and I-405, and along I-105 receive a displacement typology of “Low-Income/Susceptible to Displacement”. Downtown Los Angeles and neighborhoods to the north and west of Downtown (including Mid-City, Echo Park, and Highland Park) are undergoing “Advanced Gentrification” or “Early/Ongoing Gentrification”. Generally, the same areas that are not designated sensitive (coastal areas and western Los Angeles County) are “Stable/Advanced Exclusive”. Glendale exhibits similar patterns to the rest of the County, where areas with high real estate values are generally exclusive and areas with lower real estate values are at risk of displacement.
1170 of 1381

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Revisions to Chapter 30.26 Advertising Signage Overlay Zone (“ASOZ”) relating to expanding and further defining the number and types of signs permitted in the ASOZ and other miscellaneous text amendments. Introduction of an Ordinance approving a First Amendment to the 2020 Statutory Development Agreement with the Americana at Brand, LLC, in accordance with Glendale Municipal Code Chapter 30.26.100 for ASOZ Non- Accessory Signs and Sign Structures and Animated Signs and Sign Structures at the Americana at Brand.

1. Introduction of Ordinance amending Title 30.

2. Introduction of Ordinance adopting a First Amendment to the 2020 Development Agreement with the Americana at Brand, LLC

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for December 6, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report discusses proposed amendments to Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code,1995, as well as amendments to the 2020 Development Agreement with the Americana at Brand, LLC for signs in the Advertising Signage Overlay Zone (“ASOZ”).

Specifically, the Americana at Brand has submitted a Zone Code Text Amendment application proposing changes to Chapter 30.26 Advertising Signage Overlay Zone.

These changes include:
•Expanding the types of signs that can be “ASOZ non-accessory signs” to include freestanding signs and marquee signs, in addition to the currently permitted wall signs.
•Expanding the types of signs that can be animated signs to include freestanding signs and marquee signs, in addition to the currently permitted walls signs. •Miscellaneous amendments to facilitate the proposed amendments.

GMC Section 30.26.100 requires approval of a statutory development agreement when an ASOZ or an amendment to an ASOZ increases or permits new, additional or different 1171 of 1381

29b
3 8
3 1
signage. Because the proposed text amendment permits different signage an amended development agreement is required.
1172 of 1381

39b
3 8
3 1

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Mobility/Connectivity/Safety: Standards contained in the proposed amendments to Chapter 30.26 include restrictions on location of signs and their brightness, among other standards. These requirements will ensure that the signs, and the changes proposed, will not adversely impact traffic safety.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council review the proposed amendments to Title 30, Chapter 30.26 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, related to the advertising signage overlay zone and the First Amendment to the 2020 Development Agreement with the Americana at Brand, LLC, as recommended by the Planning Commission.

BACKGROUND
Zoning Text Amendments
In April 2004, the City Council approved the Glendale Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP or Plan) enabling the development of the Americana at Brand. The TCSP contains signage regulations for the Specific Plan area and required a Stage II design review approval for a sign program for this area. The former Redevelopment Agency approved the Stage II design submission, including the sign program, in April 2004. Initially, the TCSP and sign program did not allow large accessory wall signs within the Plan area.

In September 2009, the Americana at Brand and the Glendale Galleria jointly submitted a zone change application to establish an Advertising Signage Overlay Zone (ASOZ) and place the overlay zone over both developments. In March 2010, the City Council created the ASOZ by adding Chapter 30.26 to the City’s Zoning Code and amended the City’s Zoning Map by placing the ASOZ overlay zoning designation on the Galleria and Town Center Districts of the DSP.

In adopting the ASOZ for the Galleria and the Americana, the Council found that the advertising signage permitted within the ASOZ would contribute to the economic vitality of the geographic location in which the ASOZ is located and the downtown core in general while the ASOZ would continue to preserve the City’s interests in its sign regulations by promoting aesthetics and traffic safety through sign regulations of the ASOZ. The Council further found that the permitted signage within the ASOZ permits the cross-promotion of goods and services between these two regional commercial centers leading to enhanced sales tax and property values within the area.

Chapter 30.26 established criteria by which a geographic area could be designated as an ASOZ and contained certain sign regulations allowed by the ASOZ. These regulations included that only “ASOZ Accessory Signs” as defined by Chapter 30.26 be permitted. An “ASOZ accessory sign” can carry advertisement for services and goods sold or produced anywhere on the premises or within the ASOZ. Initial ASOZ regulations prohibited animated 1173 of 1381

49b
3 8
3 1
and changeable copy signs and the use of light emitting diodes (LED). As part of the zone change application, specific locations of certain wall signs (ASOZ accessory signs) within both the Glendale Galleria and the Americana at Brand were identified.

In May 2013, the Americana at Brand and the Glendale Galleria submitted zone text and zone map amendment applications which proposed changes to the ASOZ. These amendments were approved by the City Council in July 2013 and included that ASOZ accessory signs be allowed to advertise services and goods outside the boundaries of the ASOZ (“non-accessory signs” as defined in GMC Chapter 30.33 – Signs) and be allowed as animated ASOZ signs.

Additionally, the Americana received approval to expand the types of ASOZ signs to include banners and ground signs both within the public right-of-way and on private property. A zone map amendment to identify these additional signs on the map was also approved.

The Americana at Brand proposed additional changes to the ASOZ in 2019/2020, including eliminating two signs, adding one sign and modifying one sign within the development. City Council approved these changes, along with the ordinance approving a development agreement in January 2020.

Advertising Signage Overlay Zone Public Benefit Agreement As mentioned above, in March 2010, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5688, which added Chapter 30.26 Advertising Signage Overlay Zone (ASOZ) to the Glendale Municipal Code and revisions to ASOZ sign regulations were adopted in August 2013 and January 2020. As part of the 2013 revisions, GMC Section 30.26.100 was amended to condition the approval of an ASOZ or an amendment to an ASOZ that increased or permitted new, additional or different signage or sign media, to require approval of a statutory development agreement (Government Code Section 65864 et seq.). The development agreement governs the duration and regulations of the signage and requires the applicant to provide certain public benefits, which includes advertising revenue sharing or other public benefit, negotiated by the City and the ASOZ applicant. The GMC requires the development agreement to be approved prior to the issuance of permits for the enhanced signs.

ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing some additional changes to the ASOZ. GMC Section

30.26.070 permits the Community Development Director to approve changes to signs allowed by the ASOZ, as long as such changes are in substantial conformance with the ASOZ. This section further provides that the Director may refer those sign changes which are not in substantial conformance to the City Council for review and approval. Staff believes that the proposed changes require modification to the GMC and an amendment to the existing Development Agreement and, therefore, brought the Applicant’s request to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation to the Council. The Planning 1174 of 1381

59b
3 8
3 1
Commission at their November 16, 2022, meeting recommended that the City Council approve the proposed changes to Chapter 30.26 of the GMC and approve the First Amendment to the 2020 Development Agreement with The Americana at Brand, LLC.

In March 2010, a zoning map amendment placed the ASOZ overlay zone on the Galleria and Town Center Districts of the DSP and identified the locations, sizes and elevations of the signs approved in connection with the associated ASOZ overlay zone change.

Subsequent amendments were completed in July 2013 and January 2020 when requested changes to the number and types of ASOZ signs were approved.

Should the Council approve the applicant’s current requested text amendments, the existing 2020 Development Agreement will need to be amended to reflect the locations, sizes and elevations of the new signs incorporated into the ASOZ and to update the public benefit calculation. A copy of the First Amendment to the Development Agreement reflecting these modifications, as well as the original 2020 Development Agreement, are attached as Exhibits 6 & 7 respectively.

Proposed Revisions to Chapter 30.26 Advertising Signage Overlay Zone (ASOZ) Text Amendment
Specifically, the applicant is proposing the following zone code text amendments:
•Expand the types of signs that can be “ASOZ non-accessory signs” to include freestanding signs and marquee signs in addition to the currently permitted wall signs.
•Expand the types of signs that can be animated signs to include freestanding signs and marquee signs in addition to the currently permitted wall signs.

As a result of the requested text amendments, related amendments to facilitate the proposed amendments include:
•Inclusion of a “Freestanding Sign” definition in the “Definitions” section (GMC section 30.26.030).
•Inclusion of standards for freestanding signs.
•Amendments to standards for animated signs.
•Amendments to standards for marquee signs.
•Changes to the “Description and Purpose” section of Chapter 30.26. •Modification of GMC section 30.26.040 “Application” to reflect current procedure.

The Town Center Specific Plan allows up to 24 indirectly illuminated “freestanding signs” in the Signage section of that Plan that reflect what was approved in the original Americana project design review approval. Freestanding signs are not otherwise defined in the Town Center Specific Plan or in the sign regulations (GMC section 30.33), or the 1175 of 1381

69b
3 8
3 1
ASOZ chapters (GMC section 30.26) within the City’s zoning code. Given the text amendment proposes to permit freestanding signs to be animated signs and to contain non-accessory advertising (described below), it is necessary to define freestanding signs.

The “definitions” section of the ASOZ chapter will be amended to include the following definition:
“Freestanding Sign” means those signs identified in the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) as unstaffed, stand-alone, self-supporting kiosk structures located in a fixed location, the sole purpose of which is to advertise businesses, services, and goods sold or produced.

This definition reflects the existing signage types currently located throughout the Americana at Brand site (and allowed by the Town Center Specific Plan), which signs are elliptical in shape and contain illuminated sign faces on both sides of each sign. As noted above, the applicant is requesting these existing signs be allowed to contain non- accessory advertising and be animated signs. Standards for freestanding signs will be added to the ASOZ and are discussed below. Additionally, should the proposed text amendment be approved, the applicant is proposing to replace the existing “freestanding signs” with new signs, and these signs, if approved, may contain non-accessory content and be animated. These new signs are further discussed below.

Accessory vs. Non-Accessory Signage
The City’s sign ordinance permits only “accessory signs”, with limited exceptions. These signs carry “advertisement incidental and related only to the primary use of the premises or site on which it is located, including signs or sign devices indicating the business transacted at, services rendered, goods sold or produced on the premises by either the owner, occupant or developer of the premises of the site.” A “non-accessory sign” is a sign that carries advertisement other than that of an accessory sign and is currently prohibited by the City’s sign ordinance.

The present ASOZ modifies restrictions on accessory signs within the ASOZ overlay zone. An ASOZ accessory sign allows advertisement related to the primary use, not only on the premises where the sign is located (the building or storefront), but also for other businesses located within the ASOZ. For instance, an ASOZ accessory sign located at the Americana at Brand could advertise JC Penny’s even though this tenant is located at the Glendale Galleria. A subsequent amendment to the initial ASOZ also permits non- accessory advertising on ASOZ wall signs. For instance, a Ford dealership could advertise on an ASOZ wall sign even though no Ford dealership exists within the ASOZ.

The zone code text amendment proposes to expand the types of signs that can contain non-accessory advertising to include freestanding signs and marquee signs along with wall signs.
1176 of 1381

79b
3 8
3 1
Staff supports expanding the types of signs that allow non-accessory advertising to be freestanding and marquee signs, along with the presently permitted wall signs. The requested modification is supported by the fact that the ASOZ is located in a heavily developed commercial area of downtown Glendale that contains mixed use retail, restaurant, office, entertainment and residential uses. If non-accessory advertising is permitted, as requested by the applicant, both sales and property tax values will be enhanced, and the City will enjoy an enhanced community benefit from the revenue share. These outcomes align with the City economic development goal to enhance economic activity by promoting goods and services both on- and off-site provided by these regional commercial shopping centers located within the ASOZ; these centers are significant sales tax economic engines for the City. Additionally, non-accessory advertising in and of itself will not impact the aesthetic of the existing ASOZ signs. The proposed expansion of non-accessory advertising to freestanding and marquee signs would not inherently alter the appearance of these signs. Similarly, the provisions to expand “off-site” advertising would not impact traffic safety any more or less than current signs.

Animated Signs
The City’s sign ordinance prohibits animated signs, with limited exceptions. An animated sign is defined as “a sign, which is designed and constructed to give a message through a sequence of progressive changes of parts by either action or motion, flashing or color changes requiring electrical or manual energy.” In the ASOZ, animated signs are currently only permitted as wall signs. Further, these signs are restricted to only those that do not change images more frequently than each eight seconds, with a one second transition period. The zone code text amendment proposes to expand the types of signs that can be animated signs to include freestanding signs and marquee signs. Further, the amendment requests to allow not only the “static” animation, as described above, but also animation, which is defined above and in the City’s zoning code.

Amendments to the standards for animated signs, marquee signs and the introduction of standards for freestanding signs will restrict the characteristics of animated signs such that they will be no more aesthetically intrusive or adverse in terms of traffic safety than the currently permitted animated wall signs, given their locational restrictions and brightness standards.

With regard to animated signs, standards will be maintained to prohibit sound effects or projecting elements and require maximum brightness levels not to exceed ambient light levels. The presently requested amendment does not propose any changes to animated ASOZ wall signs and these signs will still be limited to “static” images, which cannot change more frequently than every 8 seconds.
1177 of 1381

89b
3 8
3 1
Freestanding Signs
As discussed above, freestanding signs are newly defined in the ASOZ and an amendment to this Chapter will contain standards for this type of sign. These standards include requirements that the materials be approved by the director of community development; that the signs be architecturally compatible with the development and buildings within it; that sound effects and projecting elements be prohibited. These standards are consistent with the standards required currently for ASOZ wall signs. In addition to these standards, freestanding signs are proposed to be no more than five feet in width or depth and 10 feet in height, and must be located on private property, a minimum of 25 feet from the street rights-of-way of Brand Boulevard, Central Avenue, Colorado Avenue, Columbus Street and Broadway.

Marquee Signs
Unlike freestanding signs, marquee signs are already defined and contain standards in the ASOZ chapter. In addition to size standards, it is suggested that marquee signs not be visible from a public street should the sign include animation, which is not “static”.

While marquee signs are already permitted within the public right-of-way (with certain provisions), a suggested amendment clarifies that animation will also be restricted to “static”.

Currently, the Description and Purpose section of GMC Chapter 30.26 acknowledges that one of the purposes of the ASOZ is to promote appropriate and economically viable signage which uses clear, attractive graphics and coordinates with the architectural elements of the building on which the signs are located. This section is proposed to be changed to address that the proposed zone code text amendment will permit signs that are freestanding and are not necessarily located on a building.

The City recently changed the manner in which various applications, including zone code text amendment, are submitted. Applications are now required to be submitted on-line.

GMC section 30.26.040 “Application” details the requirements to submit an application for an ASOZ and is no longer needed as a result of the City’s on-line submittal requirement.

Proposed Sign Changes
Should the proposed zone code text amendment be approved, the applicant is proposing to make changes to the existing freestanding and marquee signs currently located at the Americana at Brand to enable these signs to be animated signs and contain non- accessory advertising.
1178 of 1381

99b
3 8
3 1
The original approvals for the Town Center Specific Plan allowed for a marquee sign above the entrance to the theater located at the Americana at Brand. This sign faces northeast toward the interior of the project (the Green) and is approximately 330 square feet (4.35 ft. x 77.3 ft.) in area. The existing marquee sign will be replaced with a new digital marquee sign of the same dimensions and placement.

The original approvals for the Town Center Specific Plan also allowed for the installation of up to 24 freestanding signs located throughout the Americana at Brand. The applicant is proposing to replace all 24 existing freestanding signs with new signs in the same location. The new freestanding signs will be slightly smaller than the existing signs and will be approximately 10 feet in height, 4.25 feet in width and 2.3 feet in depth. Like the existing signs, the new freestanding signs will be elliptical and include sign panels on each side. The sign panels will be approximately 17.5 square feet (slightly smaller than the panels on the existing freestanding signs) and will contain digital display.

Development Agreement
Development Agreements (DAs) are regulated by State statute (Government Code sections 65864 through 65869.5). The proposed amendment to the existing DA implements only those conditions related to the provision of the public benefits to the City as required by GMC Section 30.26.100 and does not “freeze” and or otherwise vest the ASOZ signage approvals, zoning, or other applicable rules and regulations. The original term of the DA was 20 years with two additional five-year options to extend the DA; the DA also provides for an annual “Public Benefit Agreement Fee” payment calculated at 12% of gross revenue during the defined Amortization Period and 15% of the gross revenue thereafter. The Amortization Period is five-years for static wall signs and 10- years for animated signs. The amended DA will also be effective for 20 years following the Effective Date. DA section 3.2 requires the owner to comply with GMC Chapters

30.26 and 30.33 and all applicable laws, codes and ordinances. In the event the GMC Chapters 30.26 and 30.33 and any applicable laws, codes and ordinances are amended to prohibit a sign(s) subject to the DA, the applicant is permitted to maintain the sign for the applicable Amortization Period after which time the sign(s) are required to be removed.

The DA contains default provisions, indemnification, force majeure and City audit rights of the ownership, maintenance and operation of the signs, and audit of the payments and calculations of the gross revenue.

Planning Commission Review
The proposed amendments were reviewed by the Planning Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting and hearing on November 16, 2022. The Planning Commission voted 1179 of 1381

109b
3 8
3 1
unanimously (4 – 0, Fuentes not in attendance) to recommend adoption of the proposed ordinance regarding amendments to Chapter 30.26 ASOZ.

Also at this meeting, the Planning Commission reviewed the DA for consistency with the General Plan, the Town Center Specific Plan and the DSP and recommended the City Council find the DA is consistent with the General Plan, the Town Center Specific Plan and the DSP.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is potential for additional revenue to the City as part of the Development Agreement in the form of an annual “Public Benefit Agreement Fee” payment calculated at 12% of gross revenue during the defined Amortization Period and 15% of the gross revenue.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
In March 2010, the City Council adopted a Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that analyzed the environmental impacts of the modifications to the signage reflected in Ordinance No. 5688, which added the ASOZ Chapter 30.26 to the GMC. In August 2013, an Addendum to that MND was prepared for the amendments to Chapter 30.26 (ASOZ) and Chapter 30.33 (Signs) that were approved with the adoption of Ordinance No. 5804.

In January 2020, revisions to the sizes and locations of certain ASOZ signs and the addition of a new ASOZ sign were categorically exempted from CEQA review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15311 “Accessory Structures” because the modifications to the permitted signage consisted of construction of a minor structure accessory to existing commercial signage and would be in compliance with GMC regulations related to animated signs, maximum brightness levels and framing.

An Addendum to the March 2010 Final MND and the 2013 Addendum has been prepared for the present amendments to Chapter 20.26 ASOZ that were approved with the adoption of Ordinance No. 5804. The MND and Addendum are included with this staff report for consideration as required by CEQA Guidelines section 15164.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report are attached in Exhibit 5, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Introduce proposed amendments to Title 30 of the GMC, 1995 relating 1180 of 1381

119b
3 8
3 1
generally to expanding the types of signs that can be “ASOZ non-accessory signs” and animated signs to include freestanding and marquee signs and approving the statutory development agreement for the proposed amendments to Chapter 30.26.

Alternative 2: Do not introduce proposed amendments to Title 30 of the GMC, 1995.

Alternative 3: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff or the Planning Commission.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Roger Kiesel, Senior Planner
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 Planning Commission motion
Exhibit 2 2010 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Exhibit 3 2013 Addendum to mitigated negative declaration Exhibit 4 2022 Addendum
Exhibit 5 Campaign Finance Disclosure
Exhibit 6 First Amendment to Development Agreement
Exhibit 7 2010 Development Agreement
1181 of 1381

1 ORDINANCE NO. ________________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTIONS 30.26.010, 30.26.030, 30.26.040, 30.26.050, 30.26.060, 30.26.070, 30.26.080,

30.26.090, 30.26.100, 30.26.110, AND 30.26.120 OF TITLE 30 OF THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL CODE, 1995
RELATING TO AMENDMENTS TO THE ADVERTISING SIGNAGE OVERLAY ZONE. (Case No. PZTA 2110228)
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1. Section 30.26.010 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:

30.26.010 Description and purpose.

The ASOZ is intended to allow advertising signage in a manner consistent with this chapter. The purpose of an ASOZ is as follows:

A. To promote economic development and ensure an attractive business climate for the downtown area of the city.

B. To highlight and cross-promote the uses, goods and services available in the city’s retail commercial core, particularly uses located within large-scale multi- tenant commercial/retail buildings.

C. To create a lively, visually exciting environment for the commercial heart of the city.

D. To promote appropriate and economically viable signage which uses clear, attractive graphics and coordinates with the architectural design within the development and on elements of the buildings on which the signs are located.

E. To protect street views and vistas of pedestrian-oriented streets.

F. To minimize the obstruction of architectural elements.

G. To limit visual clutter by regulating the number, size and location of signs.

H. To protect pedestrians and motorists from traffic safety hazards.

I. To protect residents from glare and excessive illumination.

J. To provide clear development standards under which signs enabled by this overlay zone can be designed and installed.
1182 of 1381

2 K. To promote and protect the public health, safety, welfare and convenience by regulating signs enabled by this overlay zone.

SECTION 2. Section 30.26.030 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:

30.26.030 Definitions.

Whenever the following terms are used in this chapter, they shall be construed as defined in this section. Words and phrases not defined here shall be construed as defined in chapters 30.33 and 30.70 of the Code.

A. Architectural elements and details” means the unique components that together form the architectural style of a building, including, but not limited to cornices, moldings, projections, window and door openings and railings.

B. “ASOZ accessory sign” means a sign allowed by an ASOZ which carries advertisement incidental and related only to the primary use of the premises or within the ASOZ, including signs or sign devices indicating the business transacted at, services rendered, goods sold or produced on the premises or within the ASOZ by either the owner, occupant or developer of the property or within the ASOZ area.

C. “ASOZ non-accessory sign” means a sign allowed by an ASOZ which carries advertisement incidental and related to the primary use of the premises or within the ASOZ, including signs or sign devices indicating the business transacted at, services rendered, goods sold or produced on the premises or within the ASOZ by either the owner, occupant or developer of the property or within the ASOZ area or which carries advertisement incidental and not related to the primary use of the premises or within the ASOZ.

D. “Compatible or compatibility” means consistent and harmonious as to form, proportion, scales, color, materials, surface treatment, overall sign size, and the size and style of lettering.

E. “Frame” means a decorative border for enclosing a sign.

F. “Freestanding Sign” means those signs identified in the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP) as unstaffed, stand-alone, self-supporting kiosk structures located in a fixed location, the sole purpose of which is to advertise businesses, services, and goods sold or produced.
1183 of 1381

3 FG. “Primarily visible” or “primarily visible from” means that the sign is more readily visible from a city designated primary pedestrian street than from streets which are not so designated.

GH. “Thick gauge vinyl” means vinyl material a minimum of fifteen (15) mill in size.

SECTION 3. Section 30.26.040 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:

30.26.040 Application.

The following materials shall be provided for an ASOZ application at the time of filing:

A. Zone change application (twenty (20) copies).

B. Site map—Minimum dimension of not less than eighteen (18) inches by twenty- six (26) inches. The scale of the map shall be large enough to show clearly all details thereof, but in no case is to be smaller than one (1) inch equals fifty (50) feet. (Twenty (20) copies).

Site map shall show the following information:

1. The boundary dimensions of the area for which the ASOZ has been filed.

2. Names and addresses of record owner or owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the project area’s periphery.

3. Name and address of the applicant(s).

4. Name and address of the person preparing the site map.

5. The locations, names, right-of-way widths and roadway widths of all existing streets in or adjacent to the ASOZ.

6. Existing use(s) within the area.

7. Location and species of all trees or stands of trees over six (6) inches in diameter in or adjacent to the area proposed for the ASOZ.

8. Date, north arrow, and scale.

C. A vicinity map showing all adjacent and abutting property and streets within 500- foot radius together with a symbol delineating the use of the area. 1184 of 1381

4 D. Location map (8½” x 11”) at a scale of one (1) inch = two hundred (200) feet with the proposed ASOZ site hatched and a 500-foot radius drawn from the perimeter of the proposed area.

E. Photographs of the area of the proposed ASOZ and the surrounding area.

F. Scaled site plan and interior floor plans of each of the floors of the building(s) proposed to be contained within the ASOZ.

G. Elevation drawings of the building(s) proposed to be contained within the ASOZ, labeling the heights of various parts of the building(s), including the lowest and highest points.

H. Information on the proposed signs, including the location(s) of the signs within the ASOZ, materials used to compose the signs, framing materials and details, lighting and attachment details, method of sign attachment/projection from face of wall and other miscellaneous sign characteristics.

I. Within the areas where signs are proposed, elevations of the buildings showing the existing and proposed signage including showing sign dimensions and height above ground and horizontal and vertical placement of the sign(s) on the building.

J. Title report. (Ord. 5804, § 3, 2013; Ord. 5688, § 1, 2010) SECTION 4. Section 30.26.050 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:

30.26.050040 Criteria to approve an ASOZ.

A.Application. An application for adoption or amendment of an ASOZ shall be submitted to the Community Development Department in a form consistent with the current submittal requirements and shall be processed and considered pursuant to Chapter 30.63 of this title.

B. The city council may, by ordinance, designate a geographic area as an ASOZ if the council finds that the area is:

1. Designated downtown specific plan (DSP) in the city’s land use element of the general plan.

2. Located within the boundaries of the Central Glendale Redevelopment Project Area as of the date of adopting this chapter.

3. A minimum of twenty (20) contiguous acres in size, not including streets and alleys, excluding the areas of streets and alleys from acreage calculations. 1185 of 1381

5 4. Devoted to intense retail, restaurant and/or theater uses, and contains a minimum of one million (1,000,000) square feet of gross area of those uses, where each applicant has operational controls of properties with a minimum of four hundred thousand (400,000) square feet of gross retail, restaurant and/or theatre use.

5. Occupied by buildings no more than one hundred ten (110) feet in height.

C. In addition to the findings required by subsection B. above, the council may only designate a geographic area as an ASOZ if it finds that:

1. The advertising signage in the ASOZ will contribute to the economic vitality of the geographic location in which the ASOZ is located and the downtown core in general;

2. The ASOZ will advance the purposes of the city’s sign regulations, as set forth in sections 30.26.010 and 30.33.030 of this code, including but not limited to advancing the city’s interests in traffic safety and enhancing and protecting the physical appearance of the community; and

3. With the approval of the ASOZ, the city’s sign regulations contained in this chapter and in Chapter 30.33 of this code continue to advance the purposes thereof, including but not limited to advancing the city’s interests in traffic safety and enhancing and protecting the physical appearance of the community.

30.26.060 – Regulations for Signs Allowed by the ASOZ
SECTION 5. Section 30.26.060 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:

30.26.060050 Regulations for signs allowed by the ASOZ.

The following regulations shall apply to all signs allowed by an ASOZ:

A. For ASOZ accessory signs, signs shall only be wall signs, animated signs, banners, freestanding signs, marquee signs or ground signs as defined by this Chapter and Chapter 30.33 of the zoning code.

B. ASOZ non-accessory signs shall be permitted only as wall signs, animated signs, freestanding signs or marquee signs, which are permitted under this chapter and allowed by the overlay zone map as ASOZ non-accessory wall signs, freestanding signs or marquee signs.

C. Wall signs permitted under this chapter shall:
1186 of 1381

6 1. Be composed of a material to be approved by the director of community development;

2. Be framed in a material compatible with the architectural style of the building(s) on which sign(s) are proposed. Compatibility shall be determined with regard to the form, proportion, scale, materials, surface treatment, overall sign size and size and style of the lettering as it related to the building wall upon which the sign(s) are proposed;

3. Not cover windows, doors or other openings or details of the building(s) on which they are proposed;

4. Not contain sound effects or projecting elements;

5. Be installed parallel to the face of the building on which they are attached;

6. Only “ASOZ accessory signs” and “ASOZ non-accessory signs” as defined by this chapter shall be permitted;.

7. Not be viewed from primary pedestrian streets, as identified in the DSP, unless the impacts from the sign may be eliminated or otherwise minimized if the sign is incorporated as an architectural element in such a way that it will contribute to the pedestrian character of the pedestrian street and to the area in general, subject to the approval of the director of community development. The director of community development is authorized to submit such a proposal to the city council for their consideration if the director of community development deems such a review necessary; and

8. Not have an access platform, ladder or other service equipment installed or attached to any sign or framing.

D. Animated signs permitted under this chapter shall:

1. Only be wall signs, freestanding signs or marquee signs which are permitted under this Chapter and allowed by the overlay zone map as ASOZ non- accessory wall signs, freestanding signs or marquee signs;

2. Wall signs shall nNot change images more frequently than each eight (8) seconds, with a transition period of one (1) second or less;

3. Freestanding signs and marquee signs shall not change images more frequently than each eight (8) seconds, with a transition period of one (1) second or less when static images are used. Freestanding signs and marquee signs, if not visible from a public street, may contain a message through a sequence of progressive changes of parts by either action or motion, flashing or color changes, advertising content in animated or motion picture form or having 1187 of 1381

7 changing display/message formed by the selective illumination of an array of individual light bulbs or light emitting diodes (LEDs) displaying text and/or graphic images;

34. Not have sound effects or projecting elements; and

4. Be installed parallel to the face of the buildings on which they are attached; and

5. The maximum brightness levels shall not exceed ambient light levels. The director may require a lighting study, field measurements or other satisfactory method to verify compliance with this requirement.

E. Banner signs permitted under this chapter shall:

1. Be composed of high quality vinyl or other material acceptable to the director; and

2. Be a maximum of sixteen (16) feet high and three (3) feet wide.

F. Ground signs permitted under this chapter:

1. Shall be a maximum of sixteen (16) feet high and three (3) feet wide, including any pole or other support structure; and

2. Shall not impede the flow of pedestrians to the satisfaction of the building official, city engineer or fire chief.

3. May be located in the public right-of-way to the satisfaction of the city engineer and approval of an encroachment permit.

4. Downtown business identification signs:
i. Applicant must submit sign design and receive approval of the design from the director of community development within three (3) months from the effective date of the ordinance;
ii. Must be installed within eight (8) months from the effective date of the ordinance, unless an extension is granted by the director of community development; iii. At least one sign shall be located in the public right-of-way adjacent to the Glendale Galleria Central Avenue plaza at location(s) to be approved by the directors of community development and public works;
iv. At least one sign shall be located on the Brand Boulevard frontage of the Americana at Brand at location(s) to be approved by the directors of community development and public works;
1188 of 1381

8 v. Shall comply with subsections 30.26.060.F.2. and 3., and the maximum size shall be determined by the director of community development; vi. Shall be directories used to guide or direct pedestrian traffic but shall contain no advertising for specific businesses;
vii. Shall provide directions to businesses and other points of interest within the downtown business district to the satisfaction of the director of community development;
viii. Shall not exceed ambient light levels at the location installed. The director may require a lighting study, field measurements or other satisfactory method to verify compliance with this requirement; and
ix. Shall be oriented towards pedestrians and shall not visually interfere with vehicular traffic to the satisfaction of the director of public works.

G. Marquee signs permitted under this chapter:

1. May be located on top of the canopy and may extend up to thirteen (13) feet above the top of the canopy to which it is attached;.

2. Shall be no more than two (2) feet in width or depth;.

3. Shall face within the development in which it is proposed and not be visible from a public street, if the marquee sign is an animated sign that contains a message through a sequence of progressive changes of parts by either action or motion, flashing or color changes, advertising in animation or motion picture form or having changing display/messages formed by the selective illumination of an array of individual light bulbs or light emitting diodes (LED) display text and/or graphic images; and

34. May be located in the public right-of-way to the satisfaction of the city engineer and approval of an encroachment permit, if the marquee sign is an animated sign that contains images that do not change more frequently than each eight (8) seconds, with a transition period of one (1) second or more. .

H. Freestanding Signs permitted under this chapter:

1. Shall be composed of a material to be approved by the director of community development;

2. Shall be of an architectural style compatible with the surrounding buildings and overall development. Compatibility shall be determined with regard to the form, proportion, scale, materials, surface treatment and overall size as it relates to the surrounding buildings and overall development;
1189 of 1381

9 3. Shall not exceed 5 feet in width or depth and 10 feet in height;

4. Shall only be located on private property;

5. Shall not be closer than 25 feet from the public rights-of-way of Brand Boulevard, Central Avenue, Columbus Street, Colorado Street and Broadway; and

6. Shall not contain sound effects or projecting elements.

HI. In addition to other regulations, the following shall apply to all signs permitted under this chapter:

1. Signs shall not be located on residential buildings or portions of buildings containing residential units.

2. Signs shall be maintained in good repair. Damaged signs or signs in poorly maintained conditions, shall be promptly repaired or removed.

3. Signs shall be compatible with the architectural integrity of the building on which the signs are placed and shall be proportional with the massing and scale of the building taking into consideration windows, doors and architectural features.

Signs shall not cover windows, doors or other openings or details of the building(s) on which they are proposed.

4. Signs may be directly or indirectly illuminated. Lighting shall be compatible with the sign framing and architectural style of the building(s).

5. Signs shall not negatively impact the flow of traffic or cause confusion for motorists, to the satisfaction of the director of public works.

6. Signs shall not contribute to visual overcrowding, or be incompatible with the architecture and siting of adjacent buildings and other public or private improvements, to the satisfaction of the community development director.

7. Signs shall be at locations and of dimensions as specified in the ASOZ map and its attachments and may be modified pursuant to Section 30.26.070.

8. The provisions of Chapter 30.33 shall apply to all signs located within an ASOZ, except for existing signs installed pursuant to a sign program or other pre- existing entitlement. Where the provisions of Chapter 30.33 conflict with the provisions of Chapter 30.26 or the town center specific plan (TCSP), the provisions of Chapter 30.26 or the TCSP shall control.

9. The city may revoke the right to maintain any sign approved under an ASOZ upon a finding that the sign is maintained in a manner that is detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or so as to constitute a nuisance. The right to 1190 of 1381

10 maintain a sign approved by an ASOZ may only be revoked after a noticed public hearing by a hearing officer in accordance with the procedure for revocation of variances, conditional use permits and administrative exceptions set forth in Section 30.64.020.A. The decision of the hearing officer shall be subject to appeals to the planning commission under Chapter 30.62 and to the city council under chapter 2.88 of this code.

10. The building and ground area around signs shall be properly maintained at all times. All unused frames and mounting devices, hardware and wall perforations shall be removed and building surfaces shall be restored to their original condition.

30.26.070 – Changes to signs allowed by the ASOZ
SECTION 6. Section 30.26.070 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:

30.26.070060 Changes to signs allowed by the ASOZ.

Except as set forth in Section 30.26.060050, changes to signs allowed by an ASOZ, including the sign location, size, framing, material and lighting may be approved by the director of community development, so long as such changes are in substantial conformance with the ASOZ. The director of community development may refer those sign changes which are not in substantial conformance to the city council for review and approval. Changing out the signs for replacement with new signs of the same material, shape, size and illumination method and consistent with all other aspects of the approved ASOZ does not require approval from the director of community development.

30.26.080 – Tree Trimming
SECTION 7. Section 30.26.080 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:

30.26.080070 Tree trimming.

Trees within the public rights-of-way and private property shall not be removed if required as part of any discretionary approval, and shall not be unnecessarily pruned or over pruned to allow better visibility of the signs allowed by the ASOZ.

30.26.090 – Sunset clause for the ASOZ.

SECTION 8. Section 30.26.090 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:

30.26.090080 Sunset clause for the ASOZ.
1191 of 1381

11 A. In any ordinance approving an ASOZ, the council may impose a requirement that the ASOZ expires within a time set by the city council in its reasonable discretion, unless, prior to the expiration of the ASOZ, the city council extends the time in which the ASOZ is valid. In the event an ordinance approving an ASOZ incorporates such a sunset provision, the planning commission and council shall hold hearings to determine whether to extend the time period for the validity of the ASOZ. Notice of said hearings shall be given in the manner required for zone changes as set forth in this code and shall be held with sufficient time for the council to hear, consider, and adopt an ordinance extending the ASOZ and for said ASOZ extension ordinance to become effective prior to the cessation or expiration of the ASOZ. The council may only extend the effectiveness of the ASOZ if it finds that the ASOZ continues to meet the criteria set forth in Section

30.26.050040.

B. If the council extends an ASOZ as set forth above, the council may impose requirements reasonably related to implementing the provisions of this chapter and to achieving the city’s purpose and intent in enacting this chapter and Chapter 30.33. Such requirements may include a requirement that, prior to the continued use of the signs, the property owners in the ASOZ area shall execute development agreements with the city. Any such development agreements shall be adopted pursuant to, and in compliance with, the provisions of Government Code Section 65864 et seq. (as it exists or may hereafter be amended) and shall comply with the provisions of this chapter and Chapter 30.33 (where not in conflict with this chapter). Any development agreement allowing the use or continued use of the signs authorized by this chapter shall not permit or be construed to permit the signs authorized by an ASOZ in contravention with any of the requirements of this chapter. As part of any development agreement(s) approved by the council pursuant to this section, the city may impose additional requirements pertaining to the city’s safety and aesthetic goals and payments or fees to the city in exchange for the benefits granted to the property owners by said development agreements. In the event an ASOZ is not extended, all signs, and other related fixtures, including lighting and framing allowed by the overlay zone shall be removed and the areas of the buildings where the signs are located shall be repaired to the condition prior to enactment of the ASOZ.

30.26.100 – Development agreement required.

SECTION 9. Section 30.26.100 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:

30.26.100090 Development agreement required.

Approval of an ASOZ, or an amendment to an ASOZ that increases or permits new, additional or different signage or sign media, shall be subject to the council’s approval of a statutory development agreement (Government Code Section 65864 et seq.). Said development agreement shall govern the duration and regulation of the signage in accordance with the terms of this chapter and shall provide public benefits to the city 1192 of 1381

12 which include, but are not limited to, signage, revenue sharing or other public benefits negotiated by the city and the ASOZ applicant. Said development agreement shall be approved prior to the issuance of permits or installation, whichever comes first, for ASOZ non-accessory signs and sign structures and animated signs and sign structures.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section does not in any way invalidate or modify any existing disposition and development agreement between the applicant and the city or the former Glendale Redevelopment Agency. Any development agreement executed pursuant to this section shall not permit or be construed to permit any sign inconsistent with the provisions of this chapter.

30.26.110 – Permits required.

SECTION 10. Section 30.26.110 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:

30.26.110100 Permits required.

It is unlawful for any person to construct, place, erect, maintain, alter or relocate within an ASOZ any sign, lighting fixture, framing or other structure associated with the sign permitted by an ASOZ without first obtaining a permit therefore from the building official.

Nothing in this chapter shall be interpreted to mean that any permit or fee shall be required for maintaining and repairing existing signs which comply with the provisions of this chapter.

Prior to the issuance of an ASOZ sign permit applicants shall submit a complete final lighting and materials package to the director of community development for review and approval for conformance with this chapter. Such review and approval shall be completed within the time frames established by the Permits Streamlining Act and shall be based upon the criteria set forth in this chapter.

30.26.120 – Violation-Penalty.

SECTION 11. Section 30.26.120 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:

30.26.120110 Violation—Penalty.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 1.20 of this code, whenever in this chapter any act is prohibited or declared unlawful or the doing of any act is required, or the failure to do any act is declared to be unlawful, it shall be a misdemeanor, and any person convicted of such misdemeanor shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000.00).
1193 of 1381

13 Passed by the Council of the City of Glendale on the _______ day of ________, 2022. ______________________________
Mayor
Attest
___________________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS.

CITY OF GLENDALE)
I, , City Clerk of the City of Glendale, California, certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. ______________ was passed by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, by a vote of four-fifths (4/5ths) of the members thereof, at a regular meeting held on the ______ day of _______________, 2022 by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
____________________________
City Clerk
1194 of 1381

14 1195 of 1381

ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF GLENDALE AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A

FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE

CITY OF GLENDALE AND THE AMERICANA AT BRAND, LLC,
PERTAINING TO SIGNAGE IN THE ADVERTISING OVERLAY ZONE (“ASOZ”) WHEREAS, on November 16, 2022, the Planning Commission of the City of Glendale held a public hearing to consider and recommend the Glendale City Council approve a First Amendment to Development Agreement by and between the City of Glendale ("City") and The Americana At Brand, LLC ("Applicant"), in connection with the permitting and installation of non- accessory signs and sign structures and animated signs in the Advertising Signage Overlay Zone (“ASOZ”) and the contribution to the City of revenue derived from the ASOZ signs as authorized by Glendale Municipal Code Chapter 30.26; and WHEREAS, in 2020, the City and Applicant entered into that certain Development Agreement (Advertising Signage Overlay Zone) recorded as of March 6, 2020 as Instrument No. 20200268991 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County (the “Original Development Agreement”) in accordance with GMC Chapter 30.26.100, which requires each property owner/applicant enter into a statutory development agreement with the City prior to the issuance of permits or installation, whichever comes first, for ASOZ non-accessory signs and sign structures and animated signs and sign structures in compliance with the ASOZ regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has a legal and or equitable interest in the property subject to the Original Development Agreement and also the First Amendment to the Development Agreement in that the property on which the ASOZ signs will be permitted and installed pursuant to the First Amendment to the Development Agreement is either owned by the Applicant or leased by Applicant from the City; and
WHEREAS, Applicant seeks to amend the Original Development Agreement in order to install New Permitted Sign(s) in existing sign locations which sign types were not previously 1196 of 1381

addressed therein, and has agreed that the fee generated from such New Permitted Signs, as defined in the First Amendment to the Development Agreement, shall be based on a percentage of the Gross Revenue generated from such signs less the amount of Annual Baseline Revenue, which amount shall be adjusted on an annual basis for inflation as more specifically described in the First Amendment to the Development Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the New Permitted signs will generate significant public benefits to the entire community by promoting the purposes of the ASOZ which include, among other purposes, promoting economic development, ensuring an attractive business environment, highlighting the City’s retail and entertainment core in large-scape multi-tenant developments, creating a lively and visually exciting environment, protecting street views and vistas, protecting residents from glare and excessive illumination, and providing clear development standards; and
WHEREAS, the construction, installation and maintenance of the New Permitted Sign(s), will be consistent with and will further these purposes and will generate revenues for the City and thereby further promote the health, safety and general welfare of the City and its residents; and
WHEREAS, the City and Applicant desire to amend the Original Development Agreement to incorporate all relevant terms and provisions applicable to the New Permitted Sign(s); and
WHEREAS, in exchange for these and other benefits to the City, Applicant will receive the assurance that Applicant may erect and operate the New Permitted Sign(s) during the applicable Term of the First Amendment to the Development Agreement; and WHEREAS, this First Amendment to Development Agreement does not supersede, nullify or amend any condition imposed in the New Permitted Sign Approvals, and the terms and conditions of this First Amendment to the Development Agreement have been found by the City to be fair, just and reasonable, and prompted by the unique planning considerations presented 1197 of 1381

by adding interior-facing animated signage to Owner’s Property and the extraordinary benefits which will accrue to the City thereby; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 65864 et seq., the City Planning Commission has transmitted its findings, comments and recommendations on the First Amendment to the Development Agreement to the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the First Amendment to the Development Agreement and the findings and recommendations of the City Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, in March 2010 the City certified a Mitigated Negative Declaration (“MND”) that analyzed the impact from adopting Ordinance No. 5688 which added Chapter 30.36 pertaining to signage permitted within the ASOZ, and also prepared an Addendum to the MND to review amendments to Chapter 30.36 and Chapter 30.33 pertaining to ASOZ signs and requirement that ASOZ applicants enter into DAs with the City; the MND and Addendum for signage in the ASOZ were prepared, adopted and considered by the City pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"); and
WHEREAS, the City has duly considered all terms and conditions of the First Amendment to the Development Agreement and believes that implementation of the First Amendment to the Development Agreement is consistent with the City's General Plan, the Town Center Specific Plan and Downtown Specific Plan, and is necessary to implement, and incompliance with the ASOZ overlay zone requirement for development agreements, to document ASOZ signage and public benefits consisting of a share in the percentage of gross revenues generated by the permitted ASOZ signage over the First Amendment to the Development Agreement term; and WHEREAS, after considering the First Amendment to the Development Agreement, the City finds and determines that the First Amendment to the Development Agreement benefits are in the vital and best interests of the City and the health, safety, and welfare of its residents, and in accord with the public purposes and provisions of applicable state and local law. 1198 of 1381

c:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\cc_12062022_ordinance_9b2.pdf 4 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA:

1. The City has complied with the applicable requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.

2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the First Amendment to the Development Agreement:
(b) Is consistent with the City's General Plan, the Town Center Specific Plan with the Downtown Specific Plan.
(c) Fully complies with all currently applicable provisions of the Glendale Municipal Code including the ASOZ requirements.
(d) Will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare because it encourages the installation of improvements which are desirable and beneficial to the public. (e) Is compatible with the orderly development of property in the surrounding area, and will provide enhancements to the surrounding area and public benefit derived from sharing in revenue generated by permitted ASOZ signage.
(f) Constitutes a lawful present exercise of the City's police power and complies with all applicable City and State regulations governing Development Agreements. (g) Is necessary to strengthen the public planning process and to reduce the public and private costs of development uncertainty.
(h) Is consistent with the ASOZ and permitting of signage in the zone.

3. The City Council hereby approves the First Amendment to the Development Agreement and authorizes and directs the City Manager to execute it on behalf of the City of Glendale, and further directs the City Clerk to record the First Amendment to the Development Agreement and this Ordinance with the County Recorder within ten (10) days of its execution. 1199 of 1381

c:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\cc_12062022_ordinance_9b2.pdf 5 4. The City Clerk shall certify as to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same to be published in a newspaper of general circulation, consistent with requirements of applicable State and local law.

5. This Ordinance shall be effective 30 days after the date of adoption.

Adopted this ______ day of ______________________, 2022. ________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
1200 of 1381

c:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\cc_12062022_ordinance_9b2.pdf 6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, DR. SUZIE ABAJIAN, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. ________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the __________ day of ________________, 2022, and that same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
__________________________________
City Clerk
1201 of 1381

MOTION

Moved by Planning Commissioner Chraghchian, seconded by Commissioner Shahbazian, that upon consideration of the proposed amendments to the 2020 Development Agreement between the City of Glendale and the Americana at Brand, LLC (“DA”), and the proposed text amendment to Glendale Municipal Code Chapter 30.26 – Advertising Signage Overlay Zone (ASOZ), and after reviewing the records, files, reports, and all documentary evidence submitted with regard to said proposed amendments to the DA and proposed text amendment, and having also considered the proposed Addendum to the Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and prior 2013 Addendum to that MND, the Planning Commission hereby finds the proposed text amendments to the ASOZ are consistent with the City’s General Plan, Town Center Specific Plan and Downtown Specific Plan, recommends that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to the 2020 development agreement, consider the addendum to the MND and 2013 Addendum, and adopt the proposed amendments to Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code pertaining to the ASOZ.

Adopted this 16th day of November, 2022.

VOTE
Ayes: Chraghchian, Minassian, Shahbazian, Lee
Noes: None

Absent: Fuentes
Abstain: None

1202 of 1381

1203 of 1381

1204 of 1381

1205 of 1381

1206 of 1381

1207 of 1381

1208 of 1381

1209 of 1381

1210 of 1381

1211 of 1381

1212 of 1381

1213 of 1381

1214 of 1381

1215 of 1381

1216 of 1381

1217 of 1381

1218 of 1381

1219 of 1381

1220 of 1381

1221 of 1381

1222 of 1381

1223 of 1381

1224 of 1381

1225 of 1381

1226 of 1381

1227 of 1381

1228 of 1381

1229 of 1381

1230 of 1381

1231 of 1381

1232 of 1381

1233 of 1381

1234 of 1381

1235 of 1381

1236 of 1381

1237 of 1381

1238 of 1381

1239 of 1381

1240 of 1381

1241 of 1381

1242 of 1381

1243 of 1381

1244 of 1381

1245 of 1381

1246 of 1381

1247 of 1381

1248 of 1381

1249 of 1381

1250 of 1381

1251 of 1381

1252 of 1381

1253 of 1381

1254 of 1381

1255 of 1381

1256 of 1381

1257 of 1381

1258 of 1381

1259 of 1381

1260 of 1381

1261 of 1381

1262 of 1381

1263 of 1381

1264 of 1381

1265 of 1381

1266 of 1381

1267 of 1381

1268 of 1381

1269 of 1381

1270 of 1381

1271 of 1381

1272 of 1381

Page 1 of 8 ends

ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION REVISIONS TO

THE ADVERTISING SIGNAGE OVERLAY ZONE (ASOZ)
The Advertising Signage Overlay Zone (ASOZ) is located in areas of the City designated Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) and within the boundaries of the Central Glendale Redevelopment Project Area, and specifically covering those commercial areas commonly known as The Americana at Brand and Galleria I and Galleria Il shopping malls.

The existing ASOZ area is bounded by West Broadway to the north, South Brand Boulevard to the east, Colorado Street to the south and South Columbus Street to the west.

INTRODUCTION
On March 23, 2010, the City Council approved the ASOZ and adopted a Final Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for t he project. Council's approval included both zone text and map amendments. Specifically, Glendale Municipal Code Chapter 30.26 Advertising Signage Overlay Zone (ASOZ) was added and which established criteria by which a geographic area could be designated as an ASOZ as well as certain regulations for signs allowed by the ASOZ. The City's zone map was also amended to place the overlay zone on the Galleria and Town Center districts of the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) and identified areas where ASOZ signs could be installed.

In 2013, the City Council approved minor amendments to the text of the ASOZ as well as the City's zone map to allow certain additional permitted sign types and locations. In connection with these amendments, the City prepared an addendum to the MND that determined that no new or different environmental effects would occur as a result of the adoption of the amendments, and that the 2013 minor amendments consisted of minor technical changes to the MND (2013 Addendum).

The current proposal is to further amend the text of the ASOZ to allow animated signs to be ground signs and marquee signs and to allow them to be ASOZ non-accessory signs. The purpose of this addendum (2022 Addendum) is to evaluate the proposed revisions.

DISCUSSION OF PROJECT CHANGES
Previously approved project
The ASOZ establishes criteria by which a geographic area could be designated as an ASOZ and contains certain regulations for signs allowed by the ASOZ. These regulations initially included that only "ASOZ accessory signs" b e permitted. ASOZ regulations required these signs to be wall signs and prohibited animated signs and the use of light emitting diodes (LED)
The ASOZ was revised in 2013 to permit both "ASOZ accessory signs" and "ASOZ nonaccessory signs" of a variety of s ignage types, including wall signs, animated signs, banner signs, ground signs, and marquee signs — all of which were located at existing approved sign locations. These regulations also included applicable size, material, and location criteria for each sign type.
1273 of 1381

Page 2 of 8 ends

Proposed project
The requested amendments to the ASOZ sign regulations include.

Expand the types of signs that can be animated signs to include freestanding signs and marquee signs, in addition to the currently allowed wall signs — all of which are at existing sign approved locations within The Americana at Brand.

Expand the types of signs that can be "ASOZ non -accessory signs" to include freestanding signs and marquee signs, in addition to the currently allowed wall signs.

Add a definition of freestanding sign.

Amend regulations for animated signs to allow the for moving images.

Amend and clarify maximum size standards for freestanding signs.

Amend and clarify maximum size standards for marquee signs.

State CEQA Guidelines
Pursuant to Title 14 of th e California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15162, Subsequent Negative Declarations, subsection (a), when a negative declaration has been adopted for a project, no subsequent negative declaration shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects,
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous negative declaration; or
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous negative declaration;
Section 15164 of Title 14 CCR allows for the preparation of an addendum to the previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration i f some changes are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent negative declaration have occurred.
1274 of 1381

Page 3 of 8 ends

This Addendum concludes that the proposed zone text amendment will not result in any of the c ircumstances requiring a subsequent or supplemental MND to be prepared because.
(1) No substantial changes are proposed, or have occurred, in the approved project, which will require major revisions to the previously adopted MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects. (2) No substantial changes are proposed or have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previously adopted MND or 2013 Addendum due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and (3) No new information as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 related to the approved project results in any new or more severe significant effects not discussed or shown in the previously adopted MND or 2013 Addendum.

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aesthetics
As analyzed in Section A of the MND and the 2013 Addendum, significant impacts to aesthetics are identified and mitigation measures were incorporated into the project to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Currently proposed amendments to the ASOZ would allow the existing freestanding signs and marquee signs to be animated signs and allow those existing signs to be non-accessory signs — meaning they will be permitted to advertise goods and services not accessory to the site where the signs are located.

Scenic vistas in the City are limited to long distance views along the major north/south streets toward the Verdugo Mountains, San Gabriel mountains and San Rafael Hills and the ridgelines of those mountains. The proposed text amendment provides standards for the existing free standing signs that restricts their size to no more than 40 square feet and restricts the locations of such signs to be at least 50 feet from such street right- of-ways. It will also restrict the locations of marquee signs to be not visible from a street right-of-way (which is already the existing condition) if the marquee is animated such that it contains a sequence of progressive changes of parts by either action or motion.

The freestanding signs and marquee signs are not (and will not) be readily visible from such streets, and north/south street corridor vistas would not be adversely impacted because these signs are internal to the existing Americana at Brand site.

The ASOZ overlay can only be located in the Downtown Specific Plan area, within the boundaries of the Central Glendale Redevelopment Area and must be devoted to intense retail, restaurant and theater uses containing a minimum of 1 square feet of gross area of those uses. Given the development parameters prerequisite to application of an ASOZ, the project will not damage scenic resources, including trees or rock outcroppings as there are none within or in the vicinity of the Project. Further, the City does not contain a state scenic highway and, therefore, the project will not damage historic buildings within a scenic highway.
1275 of 1381

Page 4 of 8 ends

Additionally, there are currently no historic buildings located within the ASOZ. The City has no zoning or other regulations which govern scenic quality. Accordingly, the text changes proposed would not degrade the visual character or quality of the site, particularly given constraints on the sizes and locations of the signs and the existing ASOZ standard for animated signs that requires maximum brightness levels not exceed ambient light levels. The proposed text amendment enabling freestanding and marquee signs to be animated would require compliance with these standards. As a result, no new source of light or glare would adversely affect day or nighttime views. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review documents.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources
As analyzed in Section B of the MND and the 2013 Addendum, no impacts to agricultural resources are identified and no mitigation measures are required.

Furthermore, the ASOZ regulations are intended to apply to certain densely developed commercial areas within the City, where no forest land or timberland exists. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review documents.

Air Quality
As analyzed in Section C of the MND and the 2013 Addendum, no significant impacts to air quality are identified and no mitigation measures are required. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review documents. Here, the proposed modifications to the ASOZ standards to not expand the number or location of signs and therefor do not involve construction activities that might impact air quality.

Biological Resources
As analyzed in Section D of the MND and the 2013 Addendum, no impacts to biological resources are identified and no mitigation measures are required. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review documents because there are no biological resources within the project area.

Cultural Resources
As analyzed in Section E of the MND and the 2013 Addendum, no impacts to cultural resources are identified and no mitigation measures are required. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review documents because there are still no cultural resources identified within the project area.

Energy
Pursuant to Appendix D of the State CEQA Guidelines, a project could have a potentially significant impact due to the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, or due to a conflict with a state or local plan for 1276 of 1381

Page 5 of 8 ends

renewable energy or energy efficiency. The project proposes amendments to existing ASOZ signage regulations that involve the installation and operation of signs at existing sign locations within the Americana at Brand that would require consumption of energy resources, including electricity. If nonrenewable energy resources are used to install and operate the signs, it is expected such energy would be used efficiently during any such construction and operation activities given the financial implications of inefficient use of such resources. Furthermore, replacement signs would be designed to comply with existing Title 24 building code, energy code, and green building code standards regarding energy-efficient lighting controls and other sustainability features. The Project would permit the replacement of existing externally or internally illuminated signs with signs that may be animated. The electrical energy used to power such replacement animated signs would not be significantly greater than, and may be less than existing conditions.

Accordingly, neither the construction nor operation of signs allowed under the ASOZ regulations would represent unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of energy resources. Based on compliance with the ASOZ regulations themselves — which regulate allowable light levels and image refresh rates — and compliance with the Title 24 regulations regarding energy conservation measures, the project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and no impacts would occur.

Geology and Soils
As analyzed in Section F of the MND and the 2013 Addendum, no significant impacts to geology and soils are identified and no mitigation measures are required. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review documents as there are no cha nges to soils or geology associated with the proposed project.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
As analyzed in the 2013 Addendum, the State of California as well as regional governmental bodies and the City have adopted laws and policies intended to reduce greenhouse gas (CHG) emissions. These efforts include Senate Bill 375, which establishes statewide GHG reduction targets; the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which e stablishes regional GHG reduction targets; and the City's Greener Glendale Plan, which identifies strategies to provide direction for individual development projects to reduce GHG emissions and help the City meet its GHG emission reduction targets. The current project is not an individual development project and instead consists of the proposed revision to signage regulations within the ASOZ that will impact existing signs and sign locations. The 2013 Addendum concluded that project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHGs, and no significant impacts to GHG emissions have been identified.

With respect to the proposed project, no new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed changes when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review documents.
1277 of 1381

Page 6 of 8 ends

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As analyzed in Section G of the MND and the 2013 Addendum, no significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials are identified and no mitigation measures are required.

The proposed project will not involve any new or substantially greater impacts with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review documents.

Hydrology and Water Quality
As analyzed in Section H of the MND and the 2013 Addendum, no significant impacts to hydrology and water quality are identified and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed project will not involve any new or substantially greater impacts with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review documents.

Land Use
As analyzed in Section I of the MND and the 2013 Addendum, no significant impacts to land use are identified and no mitigation measures are required. Proposed revisions to the ASOZ will allow animated displays for freestanding signs and marquee signs along with those types of signs to contain non-accessory messages at existing sign locations — there is no expansion of use. Should the requested revisions to the ASOZ be approved, any signs approved in conformance with the ASOZ will be consistent with the city's zoning code, General Plan and applicable specific plans, including the Town Center Specific Plan (TCSP), and the Downtown Specific Plan of which the TCSP is a part. Existing ASOZ regulations regarding location, number, and illumination will continue to be applicable to such signs and will ensure the quality of the signs will be maintained and no new impacts will be created. The proposed project will not involve any new or substantially greater impacts with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review documents.

Mineral Resources
As analyzed in Section J of the MND and the 2013 Addendum, no impacts to mineral resources are identified and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed project will not involve any new or substantially greater impacts with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review documents.

Noise
As analyzed in Section K of the MND and the 2013 Addendum, no impacts to noise are identified and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed project would not involve any new or substantially greater impacts with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environment al review documents.

Population and Housing
As analyzed in Section L of the MND and the 2013 Addendum, no impacts to population and housing are identified and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed project 1278 of 1381

Page 7 of 8 ends

would not involve any new or substantia lly greater impacts with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review documents.

Public Services
As analyzed in Section M of the MND and the 2013 Addendum, no significant impacts to public services are identified and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed project would not involve any new or substantially greater impacts with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review documents.

Recreation
As analyzed in Section N of the MND and the 2013 Addendum, no significant impacts to recreation are identified and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed project would not involve any new or substantially greater impacts with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review documents.

Transportation
As analyzed in Section O of the MND and the 2013 Addendum, no significant impacts to traffic and transportation are identified and no mitigation measures are required.

Proposed amendments to the ASOZ would allow animated displays to be located on freestanding signs and marquee signs and allow non-accessory messages to be contained on both at existing sign locations. Given that the proposed text amendment would restrict the size and locations of such freestanding and marquee signs such that these signs would not be readily visible from nearby streets there would not be an impact associated vehicular traffic or traffic safety. In addition, existing ASOZ standards regarding restrictions on increases to existing ambient light levels would continue to apply to existing and new signs, further ensuring that any animated sign would not increase traffic hazards. The proposed project would not involve any new or substantially greater impacts with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review documents.

Tribal Cultural Resources
The ASOZ regulations regulate signage in certain densely developed commercial districts of the City that contain at least 20 acres as well as a minimum of one million square feet of intense retail, restaurant, and theater uses. S uch districts would not be expected to contain tribal resources, nor would the installation of replacement signage within existing sign locations within such districts be expected to result in any effects upon any potentially existing tribal resource. Accordingly, no impacts to tribal cultural resources would occur with implementation of the proposed project.

Utilities and Service Systems
As analyzed in Section P of the MND and the 2013 Addendum, no significant impacts to utilities and service systems are identified and no mitigation measures are required. The proposed project would not involve any new or substantially greater impacts with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those 1279 of 1381

Page 8 of 8 ends

identified in the previous environmental review documents. As indicated above, the existing signs already use either external and or internal illumination that uses electricity. Conversion of some existing signs to animation will involve substitution of an existing use of electricity for another therefore resulting in a diminimis change or even a reduction in energy use which will be ensured by more stringent energy use regulation in current Title 24, Green Building Code and Energy Code standards.

Wildfire
The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) maps areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors, pursuant to Public Resources Code SS 4201-4204 and Government Code SS 51 175- 51189. These areas are referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) and are identified for areas where the state has financial responsibility for wildland fire protection (i.e., state responsibility areas, or SRAs), and areas where local governments have financial responsibility for wildland fire protection (i.e., local responsibility areas, or LRAs). The ASOZ regulations regulate signage in an existing densely developed commercial district of the City that contain at least 20 acres as well as a minimum of one million square feet of intense retail, restaurant, and theater uses. The urban commercial district uses in the existing ASOZ are not subject to wildfire risks, and are therefore not mapped by the State as FHSZs. Accordingly, no impacts regarding wildfire would occur with implementation of the proposed project. 1280 of 1381

Revision to ASOZ 2 July 2013

CEQA GUIDELINES
Pursuant to Title 14 CCR Section 15162, Subsequent Negative Declarations, subsection (a), when a negative declaration has been adopted for a project, no subsequent negative declaration shall be prepared for that project unless the lead agency determines, on the basis of substantial evidence in the light of the whole record, one or more of the following:
(1) Substantial changes are proposed which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new significan t environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects;
(2) Substantial changes occur with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken which will require major revisions of the previous negative declaration due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; or (3) New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time the previous negative declaration was adopted, shows any of the following:
(A) The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the previous negative declaration;
(B) Significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous negative declaration,
Section 15164 of Title 14 CCR allows for the preparation of an addendum if some changes to a previously adopted negative declaration are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 calling for the preparation of a subsequent negative declaration have occurred.

This Addendum concludes that the proposed zone text and zone map amendments will not result any of the circumst ances requiring a subsequent or supplemental MND. The information and analysis in this Addendum shows that:
(1) No substantial changes are proposed, or have occurred, in the approved Project, which will require major revisions to the previously adopted MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; (2) No substantial changes are proposed or have occurred with respect to the circumstances under which the proj ect is undertaken that will require major revisions of the previously adopted MND due to the involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified significant effects; and
(3) No new information as defined by Public Resources Code Section 21166 and State CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 related to the approved Project results in any new or more severe significant effects not discussed or shown in the previously adopted MND.
1281 of 1381

Revision to ASOZ 3 July 2013

ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Aesthetics
As analyzed in Section A of the MND, significant impacts to aesthetics are identified and mitigation measures were incorporated into the project to reduce these impacts to less than significant levels. Proposed amendments to the ASOZ would allow banners and ground signs. Scenic vistas in Glendale are limited to long distance views along the major streets. Given the limited number of these signs and regulations restricting their size and location, street corridor vistas would not be adversely impa cted. A mitigation measure required in the adopted mitigated negative declaration prevented signs from being viewed primarily from a pedestrian street, with limited exceptions. Certain proposed ground signs will be viewed from Brand Boulevard, a pedestrian street. The new sign types would not degrade the visual character or quality of the site given constraints on their size and location. Additionally, the purpose of many of the proposed signs is to provide directions to pedestrians. Only direct illumination of signs is permitted by the ASOZ and a technical lighting report determined that slight increases (up to I footcandle) would occur in indirect illumination resulting in a less than significant impact related to light and glare. Proposed standards for animated signs require that maximum brightness levels not exceed ambient light levels. As such, no new source of light or glare would adversely affect day or nighttime views. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review document.

Agricultural Resources
As analyzed in Section B of the MND, no impacts to agricultural resources are identified and no mitigation measures are required. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review document.

Air Quality
As analyzed in Section C of the MND, no signif icant impacts to air quality are identified and no mitigation measures are required. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review document.

Biological Resources
As analyzed in Section D of the MND, no impacts to biological resources ere identified and no mitigation measures are required. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the propose d changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review document.

Cultural Resources
As analyzed in Section E of the MND, no impacts to cultural resources are identified and no mitigation measures are required. No ne w or substantiatly greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review document. 1282 of 1381

Revision to ASOZ 4 July 2013
Geology and Soils
As analyzed in Section F of the MND, no significant impacts to geology and soils are identified and no mitigation measures are required. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with
implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review document.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Greenhouse Gas (CHG) Emissions are said to result in an increase in the earth's average surface temperature commonly referred to as global warming. This rise in global temperature is associated with long-term changes in precipitation, temperature, wind patterns, and other elements of the earth's climate system, known as climate change. These changes are now broadly attributed to GHG emissions, particularly those emissions that result from the human production and use of fossil fuels.

Climate changes resulting from GHG emissions could produce an array of adverse environmental impacts including water supply shortages, severe drought, increased flooding, sea level rise, air pollution from increased formation of ground level ozone and particulate matter, ecosystem changes, increased wildfire risk, agricultural impacts, ocean and terrestrial species impacts, among other adverse effects.

In 2006, the State passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly referred to as AB 32, which set the greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal for the State of California into law. The law requires that by 2020, State emissions must be reduced to 1990 levels by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from significant source s via regulation, market mechanisms, and other actions.

Senate Bill 375 (SB 375), passed in 2008, links transportation and land use planning with global warming. It requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to set regional targets for the purpose of reducing greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles.

Under this law, if regions develop integrated land use, housing and transportation plans that meet SB 375 targets, new projects in these regions can be relieved of certain review requirements und er CEQA. The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) has prepared the region's Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS), which is part of the Regional Transportation Plan (RTF)). Glendale has an adopted Greener Glendale Plan, which meets region al greenhouse gas reduction targets, as established by SCAG and adopted by the ARB. The Greener Glendale Plan uses land use development patterns, transportation infrastructure investments, transportation measures and other policies that are determined to be feasible to reduce GHG It should be noted that an individual project's CHG emissions will generally not result in direct impacts under CEQA, as the climate change issue is global in nature, however an individual project could be found to contribute to a potentially significant cumulative impact. The prqect would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts associated with GHG emissions since the project only proposes revisions to sign regulations in the ASOZ

In an effort to implement State mandates under AB32 and SB375 that address climate change in local land use planning, local land use jurisdictions are generally preparing 1283 of 1381

Revision to ASOZ 5 July 2013
GHG emission inventories and reduction plans and incorporating climate change policies into local General Plans to ensure development is guided by a land use plan that reduces GHG emissions. The City of Glendale adopted the Greener Glendale Plan with strategies to reduce GHGs These strategies will provide direction for individual development projects to reduce GHG emissions and help the City meet its GHG emission reduction targets.

For the reasons discussed above, the project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
As analyzed in Section G of the MND, no significant impacts to hazards and hazardous materials are identified and no mitigation measures are required. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review document.

Hydrology and Water Quality
As analyzed in Section H of the MND, no significant impacts to hydrology and water quality are identified and no mitigation measures are required. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review document.

Land Use
As analyzed in Section I of the MM), no significant impacts to land use are identified and no mitigation measures are required. Proposed revisions to the ASOZ will allow non - accessory and animated signs and signs in the public right-of-way. These types of signs, with limited exception, a re not permitted in the city's sign regulations. Should revisions to the ASOZ be approved, signs approved in conformance with the ASOZ will be consistent with the city's zoning code. Regulations regarding location, number, illumination and image changes will ensure quality of the signs will be maintained and no new impacts will be created. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review document.

Mineral Resources
As analyzed in Section J of the MND, no impacts to mineral resources are identified and no mitigation measures are required. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed cha nges to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review document.

Noise
As analyzed in Section K of the MND, no impacts to noise are identified and no mitigation measures are required. No new or substantially greater impa cts would occur with 1284 of 1381

Revision to ASOZ 6 July 2013
implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review document.

Population and Housing
As analyzed in Section L of the MND, no impacts to population and housing are identified and no mitigation measures are required. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review document.

Public Services
As analyzed in Section M of the MND, no significant impacts to public services are identified and no mitigation measures are required. No new or substantially greater impacts Would occur with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review document.

Recreation
As analyzed in Section N of the MND, no significant impacts to recreation are identified and no mitigation measures are required. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review document.

Traffic and Transportation
As analyzed in Section O of the MND, no significant impacts to traffic and transportation are identified and no mitigation measures are required. Proposed amendments to the ASOZ would allow animated signs. Proposed standards for animated signs include that images cannot change more than every eight seconds and "transition" periods occur between images not less than one second in duration. Additionally, the maximum illumination levels for animated signs will not be able to exceed ambient light levels.

These restrictions will ensure that any animated sign will not increase traffic hazards. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review document.

Utilities and Service Systems
As analyzed in Section P of the MND, no significant impacts to utilities and service systems are identified and no mitigation measures are required. No new or substantially greater impacts would occur with implementation of the proposed changes to the project when compared to those identified in the previous environmental review document. 1285 of 1381

1286 of 1381

1287 of 1381

1288 of 1381

1 7
5 3
9 EXEMPT FROM RECORDER’S FEES
Pursuant to Government Code §§ 6103 and
27383
Recording requested by and when recorded
return to:

City Clerk
City of Glendale
613 E. Broadway, Room 110
Glendale, CA 91206
(SPACE ABOVE FOR RECORDER’S USE)

FIRST AMENDMENT TO

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT

BY AND BETWEEN

CITY OF GLENDALE
AND

THE AMERICANA AT BRAND, LLC
(ADVERTISING SIGNAGE OVERLAY ZONE)

THIS AMENDMENT SHALL BE RECORDED WITHIN TEN DAYS

OF EXECUTION BY ALL PARTIES HERETO PURSUANT TO
THE REQUIREMENTS OF GOVERNMENT CODE §65868.5
1289 of 1381

2 7
5 3
9 FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
This First Amendment to the Advertising Signage Overlay Zone Development Agreement (this “Amendment”) is made and entered into as of the ____ day of _____________, 2022, by and between the City of Glendale, a municipal corporation (the “City”) and The Americana at Brand, LLC, a California limited liability company (the “Owner”). City and Owner are herein collectively called the “Parties” or each individually a “Party.”

1. Recitals.

A. Owner is the owner of that certain real property in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, and State of California more fully described in Exhibit “A” hereto (“Owner’s Property”) improved with buildings commonly known as The Americana at Brand (the “Buildings”). The Buildings are located within the City’s Advertising Signage Overlay Zone set forth on Glendale’s zoning map and established pursuant to the ASOZ (as defined in the Original Development Agreement).

B. City is the owner of that certain real property in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, and State of California more fully described in Exhibit “B” hereto (“City Property”) improved with various open space improvements.

C. Owner and the City entered into that certain Development Agreement (Advertising Signage Overlay Zone) recorded as of March 6, 2020 as Instrument No. 20200268991 in the Official Records of Los Angeles County (the “Original Development Agreement”) in accordance with GMC Chapter 30.26.100, which requires each property owner/applicant enter into a statutory development agreement with the City prior to the issuance of permits or installation, whichever comes first, for ASOZ non-accessory signs and sign structures and animated signs and sign structures in compliance with the ASOZ regulations. All capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to such terms in the Original Development Agreement.

D. Owner desires to install New Permitted Sign(s) (as defined in Section 1 herein below) which were not previously addressed in the Original Development Agreement. Owner is currently generating, on average, annual gross revenue in the amount of [$_________] (the “Annual Baseline Revenue”) from signs currently located where New Permitted Signs will be located. As a result, the Parties have agreed that the fee generated from such New Permitted Signs shall be based on a percentage of the Gross Revenue generated from such signs less the amount of Annual Baseline Revenue, which amount shall be adjusted on an annual basis for inflation as more specifically described in this Amendment. In connection therewith, Owner has requested the City enter into this Amendment to the Original Development Agreement in accordance with GMC Chapter

30.26.100.

E. Significant public benefits will be provided by Owner to the entire community by promoting the purposes of the ASOZ which include, among other purposes, promoting economic development, ensuring an attractive business environment, highlighting the City’s retail and entertainment core in large-scape multi-tenant developments, creating a lively and visually exciting environment, protecting street views and vistas, protecting residents from glare and excessive illumination, and providing clear development standards. The construction, installation and maintenance of the New Permitted Sign(s), will be consistent with and will further these purposes and will generate revenues for the City and thereby further promote the health, safety and general welfare of the City and its residents. 1290 of 1381

3 7
5 3
9 F. As a result, the City and Owner desire to amend the Original Development Agreement to incorporate all relevant terms and provisions applicable to the New Permitted Sign(s) as set forth herein. For purposes herein and in the Original Development Agreement, the term “Agreement” shall hereinafter refer to the Original Development Agreement as amended by this Amendment.

In exchange for these and other benefits to the City, Owner will receive the assurance that Owner may erect and operate the New Permitted Sign(s) during the applicable Term of the Agreement, subject to the terms and conditions herein contained. City has undertaken the necessary proceedings, has found and determined that this Amendment is consistent with the City’s General Plan, Downtown Specific Plan, Town Center Specific Plan (“TCSP”), ASOZ, Zoning Code and the Permitted Sign Approvals, and has adopted Ordinance No. __________, approving this Amendment. This Amendment does not supersede, nullify or amend any condition imposed in the New Permitted Sign Approvals. The terms and conditions of this Amendment have been found by the City to be fair, just and reasonable, and prompted by the unique planning considerations presented by adding interior-facing animated signage to Owner’s Property and the extraordinary benefits which will accrue to the City thereby.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties hereby agree as follows:

2.New Definitions.

A. “2022 Application” means the application submitted by Owner to the City for the New Permitted Sign Approvals.

B.“2022 Approval Ordinance” means Ordinance No. [_________], adopted by the City Council of the City of Glendale on [____________, 2022], approving this Agreement.

C. “Amendment Effective Date” means the date upon which this Amendment is recorded in the Official Records of Los Angeles County.

D. “Current Baseline Revenue” means the amount calculated by multiplying the Annual Baseline Revenue by a fraction, the numerator of which is the Index last published prior to the most recent anniversary of the Amendment Effective Date, and the denominator of which is the Index last published prior to the Amendment Effective Date.

E. “Incremental Revenue” means, for any PBA Year, the amount which is (i) the Gross Revenue generated from the New Permitted Sign(s) for such PBA Year, minus (ii) the Current Baseline Revenue (which amount shall be prorated on a day for day basis for any PBA Year that is less than 365 days).

F. “Index” means the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers for the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Glendale Region, published by the United States Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. If the base year of the Index is changed, then the calculation hereunder shall be made utilizing the appropriate conversion factor published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics (or successor agency) to reflect the base year of the Index herein specified. If no such conversion factor is published, then the Parties shall, if possible, make the necessary calculation to achieve such conversion.

If such calculation is not possible, or if publication of the Index is discontinued, or if the basis of calculating the Index is materially changed, the term “Index” shall mean 1291 of 1381

4 7
5 3
9 comparable statistics on the cost of living as computed by an agency of the United States government performing a function similar to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or, if none, by a substantial and responsible periodical or publication of recognized authority most closely approximating the result which would have been obtained using the Index.

G. “New Permitted Sign Approvals” means the discretionary actions and approvals granted by the City with respect to the 2022 Application for the New Permitted Sign(s) granted on [_________, 2022] and any modifications thereof.

H.“New Permitted Sign(s)” means “Sign” or “Signs” (as defined herein) constructed and/or operated, pursuant to the New Permitted Sign Approvals, as non-accessory Signs and Sign Structures and animated Signs and Sign Structures, within the ASOZ which pursuant to GMC section 30.26.100 are subject to the Agreement, as amended by this Amendment. The location of the New Permitted Sign(s) as of the Amendment Effective Date are depicted on Exhibit “C” attached hereto.

I. “Original Permitted Sign Approvals” means the discretionary actions and approvals granted by the City with respect to the Application for the Original Permitted Sign(s) granted on July 30, 2013 and any modifications thereof.

J.“Original Permitted Sign(s)” means “Sign” or “Signs” (as defined herein) constructed and/or operated, pursuant to the Original Permitted Sign Approvals, as non-accessory Signs and Sign Structures and animated Signs and Sign Structures, within the ASOZ which pursuant to GMC section 30.26.100 are subject to this Agreement and were the only Sign(s) addressed by the Original Development Agreement. The location of the Original Permitted Sign(s) as of the Effective Date are depicted on Exhibit “D” attached to the Original Development Agreement.

3. Amendments to the Original Development Agreement.

3.1Amended Definitions. The following definitions set forth in Section 1 of the Original Development Agreement are hereby deleted in their entirety and are amended and restated as follows:

3.1.1“Percentage Rate” means (a) with respect to the Original Permitted Sign(s), the twelve percent (12%) of the Gross Revenue applicable to the Original Permitted Sign(s) payable annually to the City during the Amortization Period, and the fifteen percent (15%) of Gross Revenue, thereafter payable annually by Owner to the City through the end of the Term, and (b) with respect to the New Permitted Sign(s), the twelve percent (12%) of the Incremental Revenue, payable annually to the City during the Amortization Period, and the fifteen percent (15%) of the Incremental Revenue, thereafter payable annually to the City through the end of the Term.

3.1.2“Permitted Sign(s)” means, collectively, the Original Permitted Sign(s) and the New Permitted Sign(s). Permitted Sign(s) shall not include any other signage approved by City for installation on the Property that is not constructed and/or operated as a Permitted Sign by the Agreement such as existing signage on the Owner’s Property that has not been converted to non- accessory Signs and/or animated Signs pursuant to Permitted Sign Approvals). Before any existing signage on the Owner’s Property is converted to a Permitted Sign, Owner must provide written notice of such 1292 of 1381

5 7
5 3
9 conversion to City, regardless of whether such conversion requires a sign, building or other permit from City.

3.1.3 “Permitted Sign Approvals” means, collectively, the Original Permitted Sign Approvals and the New Permitted Sign Approvals

3.1.4 “Term” means twenty (20) years from the Amendment Effective Date. The Term may be terminated early or extended as further provided in this Agreement.

3.2Public Benefit Agreement (PBA) Fee.

3.2.1 The first sentence of Section 6.1 of the Original Development Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and is amended and restated as follows:
“Within thirty (30) days after the end of each PBA Year, Owner shall deliver to City (i) an itemized report of all Gross Revenue and Incremental Revenue received by Owner during the applicable PBA Year for the Permitted Sign(s) (the “Revenue Report”), which Revenue Report shall specify the Gross Revenue generated from the Original Permitted Sign(s) and the Gross Revenue generated from the New Permitted Sign(s), and (ii) Owner’s computation of the PBA Fee for the applicable PBA Year.”

3.2.2 Section 6.2 of the Original Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and is amended and restated as follows:
“6.2 Calculation. The PBA Fee for each PBA Year shall be calculated by adding (a) the amount derived by multiplying (i) the applicable Percentage Rate for the Original Permitted Sign(s) for the PBA Year by (ii) the total Gross Revenue derived from the Original Permitted Sign(s) for the same PBA Year, to (b) the amount derived by multiplying (x) the applicable Percentage Rate for the New Permitted Sign(s) for the PBA Year by (ii) the total Incremental Revenue derived from the New Permitted Sign(s) for the same PBA Year.”

3.3Term of Agreement. The first sentence of Section 21 of the Original Development Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and is amended and restated as follows:
“The Agreement shall become operative on the Effective Date and be effective for 20 years following the Amendment Effective Date.”

4. Statement of Benefits and Consideration. The parties hereto have determined that this Amendment to the Original Development Agreement is appropriate for the construction and operation of the Newly Permitted Sign(s) due to the substantial benefits to be derived therefrom. The purpose of the ASOZ includes, among other purposes, promoting economic development, ensuring an attractive business environment, highlighting the City’s retail and entertainment core in large-scale multi-tenant developments, creating a lively and visually exciting environment, protecting street views and vistas, protecting residents from glare and excessive illumination, and providing clear development standards. The construction, installation and maintenance of the New Permitted Sign(s) 1293 of 1381

6 7
5 3
9 will be consistent with and will further these purposes and will generate revenues for the City and thereby further promote the health, safety and general welfare of the City and its residents. In exchange for these and other benefits to the City, Owner will receive the assurance that Owner may erect and operate the Permitted Sign(s) (including the New Permitted Sign(s)) during the applicable Term of the Agreement, subject to the terms and conditions herein contained. City has undertaken the necessary proceedings to consider and approve this Amendment, and has found and determined that this Amendment is consistent with the City’s General Plan, the Downtown Specific Plan, the TCSP, Zoning Code and the Permitted Sign Approvals, and has adopted the 2022 Approval Ordinance.

This Amendment does not supersede, nullify or amend any condition imposed in the Permitted Sign Approvals.

5. Effect of this Amendment. Except as expressly modified in this Amendment, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect according to its terms, and the Parties hereby ratify and affirm the respective rights and obligations under the Original Development Agreement. In the event of any conflict between this Amendment on the one hand, and the Original Development Agreement on the other hand, the provisions of this Amendment shall govern.

6. Entire Agreement. The Agreement (as modified by this Amendment) and the Exhibits attached hereto represent the complete understanding and agreement between the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof. The Agreement may not be changed orally, and may be changed only by a written amendment signed by the Parties. The Agreement will be binding upon and inure to the successors and permitted assigns of the Parties.

7. Exhibits. All Exhibits attached hereto are a part of, and incorporated in, the Agreement.

8. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in counterparts each of which shall be deemed to be an original and all of which taken together shall be deemed to constitute one and the same instrument. To evidence its execution of an original counterpart of this Agreement, a Party may send a copy of its original signature on the execution page hereof to the other Party by facsimile transmission or other electronic means and that delivery will constitute delivery of an executed copy of this Agreement to the other Party. The Parties consent to the use of electronic signatures for this Agreement under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act, if applicable and U.S. E-SIGN Act, whichever applies.

9. Binding Effect. This Amendment and all of the terms and conditions of this Amendment shall, to the extent permitted by law, constitute covenants which shall run with the land comprising the Project Site for the benefit thereof, and the benefits and burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties and their respective assigns, heirs, or other successors in interest.
[SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE]
1294 of 1381

7 7
5 3
9 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Owner have signed this Amendment as of the dates set forth opposite their signatures below.
“CITY”

CITY OF GLENDALE
_____________________________ Date: _______________________ Roubik Golanian,
City Manager
Approved as to Form and Content:

MICHAEL J. GARCIA, CITY ATTORNEY
By:___________________________ Date:_______________________ Gillian van Muyden,
Chief Assistant City Attorney
“OWNER”
The Americana at Brand, LLC
By: ________________________
Name: ________________________
Title: ________________________
Date: ________________________
1295 of 1381

8 7
5 3
9 EXHIBIT “A”

OWNER PROPERTY
Parcel A
Parcel 1:

Lots 11, 15 and 19 of Tract No. 68602, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 1350, Pages 45 to 63, inclusive, of Maps and Certificate of Correction thereof recorded June 23, 2010 as Instrument No. 20100862065, of Official Records and by Certificate of Correction recorded September 19, 2011 as Instrument No. 20111268333 of Official Records, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.

Excepting all oil, gas and mineral substances, together with the right to explore for and extract such substances, provided that the surface opening of any well, hole, shaft, or other means of exploring for, reaching or extracting such substances shall not be located within the Town Center Redevelopment Project and shall not penetrate any part or portion of said project area within 500 feet of the surface thereof by various Instruments of Record.

Parcel 2:

Parcel B as shown and designated on that certain Certificate of Compliance Case No. PLLA 2011-07, recorded February 2, 2012 as Instrument No. 20120192750 of Official Records, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California and as more particularly described as follows:

That portion of Lot 17 of Tract No. 68602, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map filed in Book 1350, Pages 45 through 63, inclusive, of Maps and Certificate of Correction thereof recorded June 23, 2010 as Instrument No. 20100862065, of Official Records and by Certificate of Correction recorded September 19, 2011 as Instrument No. 20111268333 of Official Records, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County lying Northerly of the following described line:

Beginning at a point on the West line of said Lot 17, said point distant North 00□ 00' 00" East

1.85 feet from the Southwest corner of said Lot; thence Easterly, North 89□ 28' 05" East 146.33 feet to the East line of said Lot 17.

Parcel 3:

Lot 12 of Tract No. 68602, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 1350, Pages 45 to 63 inclusive, of Map and Certificate of Correction thereof recorded June 23, 201 O as Instrument No. 20100862065, of Official Records and by Certificate of Correction recorded September 19, 2011 as Instrument No. 20111268333 of Official Records, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.

Except therefrom that portion of said Lot 12 lying within Parcel A-1; Parcel B-1; Parcel A-2; Parcel B-2; Parcel A-3; Parcel B-3; Parcel A-4; and Parcel B-4, all as shown and designated on 1296 of 1381

9 7
5 3
9 that certain Lot Line Adjustment Case No. PLLA 1310462, recorded June 24, 2013 as Instrument No. 20130930653 of Official Records, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

Also except all oil, gas and mineral substances, together with the right to explore for and extract such substances, provided that the surface opening of any well, hole, shaft, or other means of exploring for, reaching or extracting such substances shall not be located within the Town Center Redevelopment Project and shall not penetrate any part or portion of said project area within 500 feet of the surface thereof by various Instruments of Record.

Parcel 4:

Parcel A-1 as shown and designated on that certain Lot Line Adjustment Case No. PLLA 1310462, recorded June 24, 2013 as Instrument No. 20130930653 of Official Records, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and as more particularly described as follows:

That portion of Lots 12 and 13 of Tract No. 68602 having an upper elevation of 541.00 feet and a lower elevation of 519.00 feet at Ground Level, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 1350, Pages 45 through 63, inclusive, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County and the Certificate of Correction thereof recorded June 23, 2010 as Instrument No. 20100862065 of Official Records of said County and the Certificate of Correction recorded September 19, 2011 as Instrument No. 20111268333 of said Official Records.

Except therefrom that portion lying within the following described horizontal limits:

Beginning at a point on the Northerly line of said Lot 12 distant thereon South 89° 27' 36" West

78.69 feet from the Easterly terminus of the North line shown on said Tract as having a bearing and distance of South 89° 27' 36" West 260.52 feet; thence South 0° 32' 24" East 87.30 feet; thence South 89° 27' 36" West 10.64 feet; thence South 0° 32' 24" East 3.68 feet; thence South 89° 27' 36" West 16.29 feet; thence North 0° 32' 24" West 40.06 feet; thence North 89° 27' 36" East 18.43 feet; thence North 0° 32' 24" West 50.91 feet to the North line of said Lot 12; thence Easterly along said line, North 89° 27' 36" East 8.50 feet to the point of beginning.

Parcel 5:

Parcel A-2 as shown and designated on that certain Lot Line Adjustment Case No. PLLA 1310462, recorded June 24, 2013 as Instrument No. 20130930653 of Official Records, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California and as more particularly described as follows:

That portion of Lots 12 and 13 of Tract No. 68602 having an upper elevation of 554.00 feet and a lower elevation of 541.00 feet at Second Level, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 1350, Pages 45 through 63, inclusive, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County and the Certificate of Correction thereof recorded June 23, 201 O as Instrument No. 20100862065 of Official Records of said 1297 of 1381

10 7
5 3
9 County and the Certificate of Correction recorded September 19, 2011 as Instrument No. 20111268333 of said Official Records.

Except therefrom that portion lying within the following described horizontal limits:

Beginning at a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 13 being the Northerly terminus of a line shown on said Tract as having a bearing and distance of North 0° 32' 24" West 21.83 feet; thence along the Westerly, Northerly and Easterly lines of said Lot 13 the following eleven courses:

North 89° 27' 36" East 13.08 feet; thence
North 0° 32' 24" West 5.67 feet; thence
North 89° 27' 36" East 38.33 feet; thence
North 0° 32' 24" West 5.00 feet; thence
North 89° 27' 35" East 18.50 feet; thence
North 0° 32' 24" West 67.50 feet; thence
North 89° 27' 36" East 167.71 feet; thence
North 44° 27' 36" East 4.24 feet; thence
North 89° 27' 36" East 14.08 feet; thence
South 45° 32' 24" East 22.17 feet; thence
South 0° 05' 19" West 168.67 feet to the Southerly line of said Lot 13; thence along said Southerly line and its Westerly prolongation, South 89° 27' 36" West 314.57 feet; thence South 0° 32' 24" East 10.83 feet; thence South 89° 27' 59" West 37.16 feet; thence North 22° 36' 44" West 54.05 feet; thence North 67° 24' 26" East 5.64 feet; thence North 22° 32' 35" West 24.66 feet; thence North 67° 40' 30" East 52.51 feet; thence South 22° 03 '03" East 3.68 feet; thence North 89° 58' 08" East 12.84 feet; thence North 0° 27' 02" West 5.24 feet; thence North 89° 42' 07" East 16.98 feet; thence South 0° 20' 54" East 7.84 feet; thence South 89° 40' 28" West 11.58 feet; thence South 0° 13' 47" East 17.32 feet; thence South 22° 31' 10" East 7.47 feet; thence North 67° 19' 04" East 2.83 feet; thence South 22° 13' 08" East 18.56 feet; thence North 89° 45' 00" East 10.78 feet; thence North 0° 16' 31" West 1.87 feet; thence North 89° 22' 31" East 11.19 feet; thence North 0° 15' 19" West 5.61 feet; thence North 89° 37' 48" East 9.35 feet; thence North 0° 12' 47" West 4.69 feet; thence North 89° 47' 13" East 19.51 feet; thence North 0° 21' 35" West 10.06 feet; thence South 89° 29' 30" West 29.44 feet; thence North 0° 30' 30" West 20.50 feet; thence North 89° 29' 30" East 5.52 feet to a line which bears North 0° 32' 24" West and passes through the Point of Beginning; thence Northerly along said line, North 0° 32' 24" West

23.46 feet to the Point of Beginning.

11 7
5 3
9 Parcel 6:

Parcel A-3 as shown and designated on that certain Lot Line Adjustment Case No. PLLA 1310462, recorded June 24, 2013 as Instrument No. 20130930653 of Official Records, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and as more particularly described as follows:

That portion of Lot 12 of Tract No. 68602 having an upper elevation of 578.25 feet and a lower elevation of 554.00 feet at Third and Fourth Levels, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 1350, Pages 45 through 63, inclusive, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County and the Certificate of Correction thereof recorded June 23, 2010 as Instrument No. 20100862065, of Official Records of said County and the Certificate of Correction recorded September 19, 2011 as Instrument No, 20111268333 of said Official Records.

Except therefrom that portion lying within the following described horizontal limits:

Beginning at a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 13 being the Southerly terminus of a line shown on said Tract as having a bearing and distance of South 22° 32' 35" West 101.84 feet; thence along the Southwesterly lines of said Lot 13 the following twelve courses:

North 67° 27' 26" East 17 .17 feet; thence
South 22° 32' 39" East 6.55 feet; thence
North 67° 27' 15" East 35.42 feet; thence
South 22° 32' 34" East 10.83 feet; thence
North 67° 27' 24" East 50.96 feet; thence
North 89° 27' 36" East 18.91 feet; thence
North 0° 32' 24" West 17.50 feet; thence
North 89° 27' 36" East 24.16 feet; thence
South 0° 39' 41" East 42.03 feet to a curve, concave Northwesterly and having a radius of 15.17 feet; thence Southerly and Westerly along said curve, 23.82 feet through a central angle of 90° 00' 00"; thence South 89° 22' 28" West 9.59 feet; thence South 0° 32' 24" East 22.46 feet to the Southerly line of said Lot 13; thence leaving said Southerly line, South 89° 27' 36" West 69.44 feet; thence South 0° 32' 24" East 10.83 feet; thence South 89° 27' 36" West 37.22 feet; thence North 22° 32' 35" West 54.02 feet; thence North 67° 27' 25" East 5.64 feet to the Westerly line of said Lot 13; thence Southeasterly along said line, South 22° 32' 35" East 2.03 feet to the Point of Beginning.

Parcel 7:

Parcel A-4 as shown and designated on that certain Lot Line Adjustment Case No. PLLA 1310462, recorded June 24, 2013 as Instrument No. 20130930653 of Official Records, in the 1299 of 1381

12 7
5 3
9 City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and as more particularly described as follows:

That portion of Lot 12 of Tract No. 68602 having an upper elevation of 620.00 feet and a lower elevation of 578.25 feet at Fifth Level in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 1350, Pages 45 through 63, inclusive, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County and the Certificate of Correction thereof recorded June 23, 2010 as Instrument No. 20100862065, of Official Records of said County and the Certificate of Correction recorded September 19, 2011 as Instrument No. 20111268333 of said Official Records.

Except therefrom that portion lying within the following described horizontal limits:

Beginning at a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 13 being the Southerly terminus of a line shown on said Tract as having a bearing and distance of South 22° 32' 35" West 101 .84 feet; thence along the Southwesterly lines of said Lot 13 the following twelve courses:

North 67° 27' 26" East 17 .17 feet; thence
South 22° 32' 39" East 6.55 feet; thence
North 67° 27' 15" East 35.42 feet; thence
South 22° 32' 34" East 10.83 feet; thence
North 67° 27' 24" East 50.96 feet; thence
North 89° 27' 36" East 18.91 feet; thence
North 0° 32' 24" West 17.50 feet; thence
North 89° 27' 36" East 24.16 feet; thence
South 0° 39' 41" East 42.03 feet to a curve, concave Northwesterly and having a radius of 15.17 feet; thence Southerly and Westerly along said curve, 23.82 feet through a central angle of 90° 00' 00"; thence South 89° 22' 28" West 9.59 feet; thence South 0° 32' 24" East 22.46 feet to the Southerly line of said Lot 13; thence leaving said Southerly line, South 89° 27' 36" West 69.44 feet; thence South 0° 32' 24" East 10.83 feet; thence South 89° 27' 36" West 37.22 feet; thence North 22° 32' 35" West 54.02 feet; thence North 67° 27' 25" East 5.64 feet to the Westerly line of said Lot 13; thence Southeasterly along said Line, South 22° 32' 35" East 2.03 feet to the point of beginning.

Parcel 8:

Lot 16 of Tract No. 68602, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 1350, Pages 45 to 63, inclusive, of Maps and Certificate of Correction thereof recorded June 23, 201 O as Instrument No. 20100862065, of Official Records and by Certificate of Correction recorded September 19, 2011 as Instrument No. 20111268333 of Official Records, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.

Except therefrom that portion of said Lot 16 lying within Parcel A and Parcel B, both as shown and designated on that certain Lot Line Adjustment Case No. PLLA 1310372, recorded June 24, 1300 of 1381

13 7
5 3
9 2013 as Instrument No. 20130930654 of Official Records, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

Also except all oil, gas and mineral substances, together with the right to explore for and extract such substances, provided that the surface opening of any well, hole, shaft, or other means of exploring for, reaching or extracting such substances shall not be located within the Town Center Redevelopment Project and shall not penetrate any part or portion of said Project Area within 500 feet of the surface thereof by various Instruments of Record.

Parcel 9:

Parcel A as shown and designated on that certain Lot Line Adjustment Case No. PLLA 1310372, recorded June 24, 2013 as Instrument No. 20130930654 of Official Records, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and as more particularly described as follows:

That portion of Lot 16 of Tract No. 68602 having an upper elevation of 541.00 feet and a lower elevation of 519.00 feet at Ground Level, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 1350, Pages 45 through 63, inclusive, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County and the Certificate of Correction thereof recorded June 23, 2010 as Instrument No. 20100862065, of Official Records of said County and the Certificate of Correction recorded September 19, 2011 as Instrument No. 20111268333 of said Official Records.

Except therefrom that portion of said Lot 16 lying within the following described horizontal limits:

Beginning at the Northwest corner of Lot 18 of said Tract 68602; thence along the Northerly line of said Lot 18, North 89° 27' 36" East 19.39 feet to the Easterly line of said Lot 18; thence Southerly, Easterly and Southerly along said Easterly line the following three courses:

South 0° 32' 24" East 11.13 feet; thence
North 89° 27' 36" East 8.31 feet; thence
South 0' 32' 24" East 35.32 feet along said Line and Southerly prolongation; thence South 89' 35' 04" West 41. 70 feet to the West line of said Lot 16; thence Northerly along said line, North O' 05' 06" East 22.92 feet; thence North 89' 27' 36" East 13. 75 feet to a line which bears North 0' 32' 24" West and passes through the Point of Beginning; thence Northerly along said line, North 0' 32' 24" West 23.43 feet to the Point of Beginning.

Also except all oil, gas and mineral substances, together with the right to explore for and extract such substances, provided that the surface opening of any well, hole, shaft, or other means of exploring for, reaching or extracting such substances shall not be located within the Town Center Redevelopment Project and shall not penetrate any part or portion of said Project Area within 500 feet of the surface thereof by various Instruments of Record.

Parcel B
Parcel 1:

Lot 1 of Tract No. 68602, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California as per Map filed in Book 1350, Pages 45 through 63, inclusive, of Maps and Certificate of Correction thereof recorded June 23, 2010 as Instrument No. 20100862065, of Official Records and by Certificate of Correction recorded September 19, 2011 as Instrument No. 20111268333, of Official Records, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. 1301 of 1381

14 7
5 3
9 Except therefrom that portion of said Lot 1 lying within Parcel A and Parcel D, both as shown and designated on that certain Lot Line Adjustment Case No. PLLA 1310377, recorded June 24, 2013 as Instrument No. 20130930651 of Official Records, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

Parcel 2:

Parcel A as shown and designated on that certain Lot Line Adjustment Case No. PLLA 1310377, recorded June 24, 2013 as Instrument No. 20130930651 of Official Records, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California and as more particularly described as follows:

That portion of Lot 1 of Tract No. 68602 having an upper elevation of 541.00 feet and a lower elevation of 519.00 feet at Ground Level, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 1350, Pages 45 through 63, inclusive, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County and Certificate of Correction thereof recorded June 23, 2010 as Instrument No. 20100862065, of Official Records of said County and the Certificate of Correction recorded September 19, 2011 as Instrument No. 20111268333 of said Official Records.

Except therefrom that portion of said Lot 1 lying within the following described horizontal limits:

Beginning at a point on the Westerly line of said Lot 1 distant thereon South 0° 32' 24" East 9.55 feet from the Northerly terminus of a line shown on said Tract as having a bearing and distance of South 0° 32' 24" East 38.61 feet; thence South 0° 32' 24" East 29.07 feet; thence South 89° 27' 36' West 1.53 feet; thence South 0° 32' 24" East 23.83 feet; thence South 89° 27' 36" West

2.40 feet; thence South 0° 32' 24" East 1.15 feet; thence South 89° 27' 36" West 3. 71 feet:
thence North 0° 32' 24" West 4.81 feet; thence South 89° 27' 36" West 3.41 feet; thence North 0° 32' 24" West 20.17 feet; thence North 89° 27' 36" East 0.97 feet; thence North 0° 32' 24" West

29.07 feet to a line which bears South 89° 27' 36" West and passes through the Point of Beginning; thence Easterly along said line, North 89° 27' 36" East 10.09 feet to the Point of Beginning.

Parcel 3:

Parcel B as shown and designated on that certain Lot Line Adjustment Case No. PLLA 1310377, recorded June 24, 2013 as Instrument No. 20130930651 of Official Records, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California and a more particularly described as follows:

Lot 2 of Tract No. 68602 having an upper elevation of 541.00 feet and a lower elevation of 519.00 feet at Ground Level, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 1350, Pages 45 through 63, inclusive, of Maps, in the Office of the 1302 of 1381

15 7
5 3
9 County Recorder of said County and Certificate of Correction thereof recorded June 23, 201 O as Instrument No. 20100862065, of Official Records of said County and the Certificate of Correction recorded September 19, 2011 as Instrument No. 20111268333 of said Official Records.

Except therefrom that portion of said Lot 2 lying within the following described horizontal limits:

Beginning at the Northeast corner of said Lot 2; thence Southerly along the East line of said Lot 2,
South 0' 05' 19" West 8.84 feet; thence South 89' 26' 21" West 28.85 feet; thence South 0° 33' 39" East 7.72 feet; thence South 89' 26' 21" West 17.77 feet; thence South 0' 33' 39" East 2.27 feet; thence South 89' 26' 21" West 5.42 feet; thence North 0' 33' 39" West 9.99 feet; thence North 89' 26' 21" East 13.63 feet; thence North 0' 33' 39" West 8.83 feet to the North line of said Lot 2; thence Easterly along said North line,
North 89' 26' 21" East 38.50 feet to the Point of Beginning.

Parcel 4:

Lot 4 of Tract No. 68602, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California as per Map filed in Book 1350, Pages 45 through 63, inclusive, of Maps and Certificate of Correction thereof recorded June 23, 201 O as Instrument No. 20100862065, of Official Records and by Certificate of Correction recorded September 19, 2011 as Instrument No. 20111268333, of Official Records, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.

Except therefrom that portion of said Lot 4 lying within Parcel C and Parcel D, both as shown and designated on that certain Lot Line Adjustment Case No. PLLA 1310377 recorded June 24, 2013 as Instrument No. 20130930651 of Official Records, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

Parcel 5:

Parcel A as shown and designated on that certain Lot Line Adjustment Case No. PLLA 1310374, recorded June 24, 2013 as Instrument No. 20130930652 of Official Records, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California and as more particularly described as follows:

That portion of Lot 4 of Tract No. 68602 having an upper elevation of 541. 00 feet and a lower elevation of 519.00 feet at Ground Level, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per Map filed in Book 1350, Pages 45 through 63, inclusive, of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County and the Certificate of Correction thereof recorded June 23, 2010 as Instrument No. 20100862065, of Official Records of said County and the 1303 of 1381

16 7
5 3
9 Certificate of Correction recorded September 19, 2011 as Instrument No. 20111268333 of said Official Records.

Except therefrom those portions of said Lot 4 having an upper elevation of 541.00 feet and a lower elevation of 519.00 feet at Ground Level lying within the following described horizontal limits:

29.07 feet to a line which bears South 89° 27' 36" West and passes through the Point of Beginning; thence Easterly along said line, North 89° 27' 36" East 10.09 feet to the Point of Beginning.

Also except therefrom that portion of said Lot 4 having an upper elevation of 541.00 and a lower elevation of 519.00 feet at Ground Level lying within the following described horizontal limits:

Beginning at the Northeast corner of Lot 5 of said Tract 68602; thence along the Easterly line of said Lot 5, South 0° 32' 24" East 10.15 feet; thence North 89° 27' 36" East 1.19 feet; thence South 0° 32' 24" East 29.18 feet; thence South 89° 27' 36" West 7.85 feet; thence South O' 32' 24" East 31.68 feet to a point on the Southerly line of said Lot 4, said point lying on a curve, concave Southerly, having a radius of 66.00 feet and through which point a radial line bears North 5° 47' 31" East; thence Westerly along said curve, 11.78 feet through a central angle of 10° 13' 31"; thence North 0° 32' 24" West 72.54 feet; thence North 89° 27' 36" East 8.75 feet; thence South 0° 32' 24" East 1. 78 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 5; thence along the North line of said Lot 5, North 89° 27' 36" East 9.67 feet to the point of beginning.

17 7
5 3
9 EXHIBIT “B”

CITY PROPERTY
Lot 14 of Tract No. 68602 in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map filed in Book 1350, Pages 45 to 63, inclusive, of Maps in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. APNs 5642-014-951 and 5642-014-952. 1305 of 1381

18 7
5 3
9 EXHIBIT “C”

NEW PERMITTED SIGN(S) SITE PLAN
Marquee Sign Here
1306 of 1381

19 7
5 3
9 1307 of 1381

20 7
5 3
9 1308 of 1381

1309 of 1381

1310 of 1381

1311 of 1381

1312 of 1381

1313 of 1381

1314 of 1381

1315 of 1381

1316 of 1381

1317 of 1381

1318 of 1381

1319 of 1381

1320 of 1381

1321 of 1381

1322 of 1381

1323 of 1381

1324 of 1381

1325 of 1381

1326 of 1381

1327 of 1381

1328 of 1381

1329 of 1381

1330 of 1381

1331 of 1381

1332 of 1381

1333 of 1381

1334 of 1381

1335 of 1381

1336 of 1381

1337 of 1381

1338 of 1381

1339 of 1381

1340 of 1381

1341 of 1381

1342 of 1381

1343 of 1381

1344 of 1381

1345 of 1381

1346 of 1381

1347 of 1381

1348 of 1381

1349 of 1381

1350 of 1381

1351 of 1381

1352 of 1381

1353 of 1381

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Resolution Ordering the Vacation of a portion of the First Alley Easterly of Cedar Street, Southerly of Broadway (Alley 502) for the Citrus Crossing affordable housing project, Vacation Case No. 187V

1. Resolution Ordering the Vacation

2. Resolution Adopting Plan No. 12-241

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for December 6, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Glendale Housing Authority is developing 126 units of affordable rental housing for seniors as part of the Citrus Crossing Affordable Housing Project at 900 E. Broadway.

Vacation of the adjacent alley will allow development of a public pedestrian paseo adjacent to the project for use by the project and neighborhood residents 1354 of 1381

29c
3 8
3 9

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Housing: The vacation of the alley will allow for the development of 126 affordable housing units.

Mobility/Connectivity/Safety: The vacation of the alley adjacent to the Citrus Crossing Affordable Housing Project will allow the creation of a public pedestrian paseo to be used by the project and neighborhood residents.

RECOMMENDATION
Public Works recommends that the City Council approve the following resolutions involving Vacation Case No 187V, the Vacation a portion of the First Alley Easterly of Cedar Street, Southerly of Broadway (Alley 502), as identified on the attached Exhibit “A” location map and Plan No. 12-241, to facilitate the construction of the Citrus Crossing affordable housing project and the public pedestrian paseo.

1. Adopt a resolution ordering the vacation of said public alley; and

2. Adopt Plan No. 12-241 (Alley Vacation Map) showing the location of said public alley.

BACKGROUND
In October 2019, the Glendale Housing Authority acquired 900 E. Broadway and 912, 920 E. Broadway and 117 S Belmont Street (“920 E. Broadway”, or “Harrower Village”) for a future 100% affordable housing development. The properties acquired are split evenly in half by the north-south (Alley 502) connecting Broadway and Harvard Street. In July 2020, the Housing Authority issued two Request for Qualifications (RFQs) for the development of 100% affordable rental housing at 900 E. Broadway, and another at 920 E. Broadway. In January 2021, the Housing Authority of the City of Glendale approved an Affordable Housing Agreement with 900 E Broadway, L.P. a California Limited Partnership created by Meta Housing Corporation for the development of the Citrus Crossing Affordable Housing Project (“Project”) at 900 E Broadway to create 126 units of 100% affordable rental housing for seniors. The Project site is 34,500 square feet in area and improved with a one-story building and a surface parking lot.

Upon vacation, the subject alley will be incorporated into the proposed Project site, providing for the creation of a public pedestrian paseo. This open space will serve as a shared open space between the proposed Citrus Crossing Project, Harrower Village, and the neighboring community. It will be improved with a decorative paved path at both ends leading to a large patio/gathering area at its center, landscaping, benches, bike racks and decorative lighting. As part of the site improvements, a new 20-foot wide east-west alley will be dedicated along the southerly property line of the Project site connecting the remaining north-south alley to Cedar Street. This east-west alley will also provide access to the proposed 92-space subterranean parking garage.

The subject north-south alley between Broadway and Harvard is currently 20 feet wide and approximately 210 feet in length. The subject alley is improved with concrete pavement and contains over-head and underground power and telecommunications lines 1355 of 1381

39c
3 8
3 9
together with a natural gas main. The applicant is working with Glendale Water & Power and the various telecommunications companies to relocate the overhead facilities underground during construction of the Project. Easements will be reserved for all utilities within the subject alley. Upon vacation, the subject alley will be incorporated into the proposed Project.

Planning Commission Finding
On November 2, 2022, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed alley vacation, and recommended approval by adopting a motion finding consistency with the applicable Goals and Objectives of the Comprehensive General Plan of the City. Accordingly, the vacation of the Subject Alley is consistent with General Plan goals of providing for realistic future infrastructure as required by State Government Code Section 65402, and Chapters

2.68 and 12.24 of the Glendale Municipal Code. The Planning Department’s Staff Report and the Planning Commission's motion are attached hereto as Exhibit "B".

Public Notices
As required by the California Streets & Highways Code Sections 8300 et seq., notice of the public hearing for the subject vacation was published in the Glendale Independent, and notices were posted at locations along the subject Alley.

Conditions of Proposed Vacation
All City Departments, and various agencies and public utility companies were notified of the proposed vacation. Easements were requested and are included in the resolutions as follows:

1. An easement to Glendale Water and Power for electrical purposes.

2. An easement to the Charter Communications for telecommunications purposes.

3. An easement to the Pacific Bell Telephone Company, dba AT&T California for telecommunications purposes.

4. An easement to the Southern California Gas Company for gas piping facilities.

ANALYSIS
Upon vacation, the public pedestrian paseo created for the Citrus Crossing Affordable Housing Project will serve as public open space accessible to project residents, the adjoining Harrower Village Project, and the surrounding community.

The construction of this project has commenced and is scheduled for completion by Spring 2024.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Citrus Crossing Affordable Housing Project will provide 100% affordable housing for seniors, and the public pedestrian paseo will provide needed public open space to the project residents and the surrounding community.

Public notification was provided by physical posting at the vacation site, publication in the local newspaper, and thru mailings to property owners within 300 feet of the proposed 1356 of 1381

49c
3 8
3 9
alley vacation.

FISCAL IMPACT
The action proposed in this report has no fiscal impact to the City.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project is exempt from CEQA review as a Class 32 “Infill Development Project” as it meets all threshold criteria set forth in section 15332(a) through (e).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not applicable.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Approve the attached resolutions. Previously, the proposed development received approval by the City Council and Planning Commission with the project incorporating the vacated alley into their site design.

Alternative 2: Do not approve the attached resolutions. This option will prevent the creation of a public pedestrian paseo which serve as a shared open space between the proposed Citrus Crossing Project, Harrower Village, and the neighboring community.

Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

William A’Hearn, GIS Analyst
Reviewed by:

Yazdan T. Emrani, P.E., Director of Public Works
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Plan No. 12-241 and Location Map (2 pages)
Exhibit B: Planning Commission Motion Dated November 2, 2022 and Community Planning Staff Report
1357 of 1381

7 4
8 3
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,

CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE FIRST ALLEY EASTERLY OF CEDAR STREET, SOUTHERLY OF BROADWAY (ALLEY 502), IN GLENDALE, VACATION CASE 187V.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1:The Council having heard the evidence in relation to the proposed vacation of a portion of the First Alley Easterly of Cedar Street, Southerly of Broadway (Alley 502), Glendale Alley Vacation Case No. 187V, finds from all the evidence submitted that the public alley referred to above is unnecessary for present or prospective alley purposes, and said Council orders the vacation of said public Right-of-Way, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, more particularly described in “Exhibit 1” which Exhibit is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.

SECTION 2:The project is exempt from any further CEQA review pursuant to Section 15332 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines), as a Class 32 "In-Fill Development Project", as the project meets all the threshold criteria set forth in section 15332(a) through (e).

SECTION 3: By a Motion dated November 2, 2022, the Planning Commission approved the subject conditional alley vacation and found that it is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive General Plan of the City of Glendale, as amended, as required by State Government Code Section 65402 and Chapters 2.68 and

12.24 of the Glendale Municipal Code.

SECTION 4: Reference is made to Plan No. 12-241 adopted concurrently herewith by said Council and to be placed on file in the office of the City Clerk for further particulars of the proposed alley vacation.

SECTION 5: The Council has determined that the public convenience and necessity require that the vacation of said Alley be subject to the following easements:

A. A non-exclusive easement be reserved to the City of Glendale for public utility purposes for the overhead and underground installation, improvement, alteration, repair and maintenance of poles, cross arms, anchors, vents and wires for the distribution of - electrical energy and for the transmission of sound or signals by electricity (including ingress thereto and egress therefrom) in, on, over and under the Subject Alley Vacation Area.

B. A non-exclusive easement be reserved for Pacific Bell Telephone Company, dba AT&T California, to from time to time construct, maintain, operate, replace, remove, and renew such aerial and underground communication facilities (including ingress thereto and egress therefrom) consisting of poles, anchors, guys, cables, wires, crossarms, conduit, manholes, handholes, markers, 1358 of 1381

7 4
8 3
pedestals, terminal equipment cabinets, electrical conductors and necessary fixtures and appurtenances.

C. A non-exclusive easement to the Southern California Gas Company to, from time to time, construct, maintain, operate, remove, and improve or enlarge one or more pipelines and conduits, together with devices for metering, measuring, regulating, cathodic protection, communications and other appurtenances for the transportation and distribution of natural gas and communications, including ingress and egress, within, on, over, and under the Subject Street Vacation Area.

D. A non-exclusive easement be reserved to Charter Communications for, from time to time, the installation, maintenance, operation, improvement, removal and repair of cable television system and other communications facilities, including, without limitation, lines, cables, amplifiers, nodes, utility cabinets, and other electronic equipment, towers and poles and associated facilities including ingress and egress, within, on, over and under the Subject Street Vacation Area.

SECTION 6: The Council has determined that the public convenience and necessity require that the vacation of said Alley be subject to the following conditions:

A. Said Alley Vacation will reserve easements for all existing public utilities.

SECTION 7: The City Clerk is directed to cause a certified copy of this Resolution to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, California.

Adopted this 6th day of December, 2022.
__________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, SUZIE ABAJIAN, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. __________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the 6 th day of December, 2022, and that same was adopted by the following vote:
1359 of 1381

7 4
8 3
AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

______________________________
City Clerk
1360 of 1381

Exhibit 1
Alley Vacation Case 187V
THAT CERT Al N ALLEY LYING ADJACENT TO LOTS 2, 4, 6, 8 AND 10, AS SHOWN ON REP LAT OF

TOWN OF GLENDALE, IN THE CITY OF GLENDALE, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 52, PAGE 8 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING SOUTHERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL AND 20.00 FEET NORTHERLY OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 10.

ALSO EXCEPT THAT PORTION LYING NORTHERLY OF A LINE PARALLEL AND 20.00 FEET SOUTHERLY OF THE NORTHERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 2.

THE AREA OF SAID VACATION IS 4,191 SQUARE FEET MORE OR LESS.

SEE EXHIBIT B ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF.
�(V'. \�BRANDON M. HAHN, PLS 7582
HAHN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
1361 of 1381

0::
<(
0 UJ
u
,w
l[)
N N
b z
_ N88' 52' J0"W 189.96' -
30'
N (0
0, N N
N
N
b z

30.00' _,

BROADWAY
� r - N88' 52' 30"W ' � .
r- - - - -- -� - - ___ O _ �
9 2_
5 "1
N
�
1 _ N88' 52' 30"W � I
i
""
--------+------------_J_ _ __:1:_:'4'.:;'.9..:..:.9:.::5'....' :::..-lh-·1 .,.,../-"ff"" w- LOT 2
BLOCK 17 OF REPLAT OF l

TOWN OF GLENDALE
M.R. 52, PG 8
--------- ------
LOT 4

NO SCALE
BLOCK 17 OF REPLAT OF

TOWN OF GLENDALE
M.R. 52. PG 8 LEGEND:
-------- -- - - -·- - ---
LOT 6
BLOCK 17 OF REPLAT OF

TOWN OF GLENDALE
M.R. 52, PG 8
0 0 0, I 0
0 I
v ,..._(0
l[)
z a. 4:
------------------
LOT 8
BLOCK 17 OF REPLA T OF

TOWN OF GLENDALE
M.R. 52, PG 8
-----1-----------
LOT 10
BLOCK 17 OF REPLAT OF
N88' 54' 07"W

TOWN OF GLENDALE
M.R. 52, PG 8
-, ----------------
\_SOUTHERLY 20' OF LOT 10 !
Cf_ = CENTERLINE
RW = RIGHT OF WAY
'"TA = ALLEY VACATION
1-'..L'...i AREA
(4,191 SO. FT.)
-------"'<:::-�N�8�8.:--;-5�4.;----;;-0�7'�'W:;------'---1-------l---,-4-9-.9-2-.--�,, -
Prepared By:

Hohn and Associates, Inc.
28368 Constellation Rood, Suite 300
Sonia Clarita. CA 91355
(661) 775-9500
HAHN

ANO ASSOCIATES INC
I
I
i 10·
I
I
I
I
I
>w
...J
...J
<(
HAHN JOB NO.'. 8078-21-73
1362 of 1381

7 4
8 2
RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ADOPTING PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT PLAN NO. 12-241 FOR VACATION CASE NO. 187V; THE PROPOSED VACATION OF A PORTION OF THE FIRST ALLEY EASTERLY OF CEDAR STREET, SOUTHERLY OF BROADWAY (ALLEY 502), IN GLENDALE, AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO FILE SAID PLAN.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1: The attached Plan for the proposed vacation of a portion of the First Alley Easterly of Cedar Street, Southerly of Broadway (Alley 502), in the City of Glendale, is hereby approved, adopted, and designated, and shall hereafter be known as Plan No. 12-241.

SECTION 2: The City Clerk is hereby directed to file said Plan in the office of the City Clerk as adopted by this Resolution.

Adopted this 6th day of December, 2022.
___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
The City Clerk of the City of Glendale

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES SS
I, SUZIE ABAJIAN, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. __________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the 6th day of December, 2022, and that same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
1363 of 1381

5050 123 505014 7122 121 50150 BLK. 14BLK. 14M.R . 14~9 5-96 159.89122149.97 50 155050 16 5015 50 8TR AC T N O. 113 5050 119
118 M.R.M.R. 116 159.91382 42
501750 501850 171 950 115 5050150 21 ~ 89 - 96 11421 ~ 89 - 96 159.92 159.92
1950 205019 50 5050 105050 111109150.02 110 150 110150 TRACT NO. 110159.95 75 75 50 100112 38
22 2150 5022 5050 21 50 50 1 150 5075 75 150 105100 104 M.B. 13 - 122POR . O F LO T 79 50 50POR . O F LO T805 159.982391171150.2424 82123 24 1240.422039.50 55.47 923 505050 919 1001150.24 47.23 112100 20 55.3838 55.2050 50 16050 80 80

50.08 50.08 50.08 50.0820 50.08 50.08810 150900 50 50814 35.18 60POR TION S O F LOTS 2 50 50818 822 30 2030POR. OF LOTPOR TION S O F LOTS 920 1002 10081006 MAX MUIR TRACT15 15
MAX MUIR TRACT91.23

23.3889.96 4 90.695 3 90.96 POR. OF LOTS2 4187.69 2 PORTIONS OF LOTS4 35140.42 3592.96 1 8137.23 2 350.05 130 9 10130142.69 139.50 15 15 115.18 5050 M.B. 10 - 102M.B. 10 - 1025555
642 354250 35REPLAT OF A50 50 50 50 109 50 50 6050 50 50 150 150
150 160
8 50 78750 50 50 5050 504 50
PORTION OF THE113 110
10 50 50 50 109 550 5050 5050 6117150 TOWN OF 150 114 160 150
111 5050 50 5050 12 1 12150 1450121McIN TYR E'S 120 120KATE C. PALMERGLENDALE KATE C. PALMER 150
5014 50 5013 50 14 250 5050 1350125 122MIN ER TR AC T
124BLK. 17 125TRACT TRACT
505016 15 1650 50 50 3
50 50126 1250129BLK . 18 BLK . 18 127M.R. 52 - 8 126
18 50 17 5050 50 18 50 50 4 5050 1 1130 130133 131M.B . 9 ~ 12 3 M.B. 11 - 124 M.B. 11 - 124 505020 5019 50 20 50 5 5050 1050137 132150 135 134
100 50
75 3045
50 50 2122 2250 50 5050 506 950138141150 139150 142
50 1002 115 35

56.84 56.6924 23 24 7815 147809805 856.12905 55.8054.84

56.15 100956.64 56.20 144100 14560 55.59100 5020 55.6711550 1502035 Por . of First Alley E'ly of Cedar St, S'ly of Broadway (Alley 502) - Glendale, CA 5050 123 505014 7122 121 50150 BLK. 14BLK. 14M.R . 14~9 5-96 159.89122149.97 50 155050 16 5015 50 8TR AC T N O. 113 5050 119
118 M.R.M.R. 116 159.91382 42
501750 501850 171 950 115 5050150 21 ~ 89 - 96 11421 ~ 89 - 96 159.92 159.92
1950 205019 50 5050 105050 111109150.02 110 150 110150 TRACT NO. 110159.95 75 75 50 100112 38
22 2150 5022 5050 21 50 50 1 150 5075 75 150 105100 104 M.B. 13 - 122POR . O F LO T 79 50 50POR . O F LO T805 159.982391171150.2424 82123 24 1240.422039.50 55.47 923 505050 919 1001150.24 47.23 112100 20 55.3838 55.2050 50 16050 80 80

50.08 50.08 50.08 50.0820 50.08 50.08810 150900 50 50814 35.18 60POR TION S O F LOTS 2 50 50818 822 30 2030POR. OF LOTPOR TION S O F LOTS 920 1002 10081006 MAX MUIR TRACT15 15
MAX MUIR TRACT91.23

56.84 56.6924 23 24 7815 147809805 856.12905 55.8054.84

56.15 100956.64 56.20 144100 14560 55.59100 5020 55.6711550 1502035 Scale
Location Map - Alley Vacation Case 187V
Map Prepared By:

Mapping & Real Property
22 March 2022
100 0 10050
Feet
AG Proj: Vac 187V Util Notif Map.mxd
g
Proposed
Alley

BROADWAY
300 FOOT RADIUS
300 FOOT RADIUSBELMONT STREET

CEDAR STREET
ALLEY 502 ALLEY

ALLEY ALLEY
20'
Area Proposed
to be Vacated
2 of 2EXHIBIT A
1364 of 1381

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!O
O O O
O
!
!
O !
O
O
"/
112100
20 55.38
38 55.20
50 50 16050
80 80

50.08 50.08 50.08 150900 50 50814 35.18 60PORTIONS OF LOTS 2 50818 822 30 2030 POR. OF LOTPORTIONS OF LOTS 920 1002 1006
MAX MUIR TRACT15 15
MAX MUIR TRACT91.23

23.38 90.69
3 90.96
POR. OF LOTS2 412 PORTIONS OF LOTS4 35
3592.96
1 8137.23
2 350.05 130
9130
139.50
15 15 115.18
5050 M.B. 10 - 102M.B. 10 - 102642
3542
35REPLAT OF A50 50 50 109
50 50 6050 50
150 150
50 787 50 50 5050 50
4 50
PORTION OF THE113
110
50 50
109 550 5050 5050 6117
TOWN OF 150 114
160
150
11 50 50 5050 12 1 121
50 1450
121
McINTYRE'S 120
120
KATE C. PALMERGLENDALE KATE C. PALMER
50 5013 50 14 250 5050 1350
125
122

MINER TRACT
124
BLK. 17 125

TRACT TRACT
50 15 1650
50 50 3
50 50126
1250
129
127
126
Map Prepared by:

Mapping & Real Property
W.F. A'Hearn, GIS Analyst
19 October 2022
Legend
Basemap
ROW & Tract Lines
Lot Lines
City Lot Split Lines
! !
Other
! !
County Lot Split Lines
City Boundary
Alleys
Street Pavement
Sidewalks
Street Centerline
Utilities
Memorial Hospital Conduit
CATV
! ! AT&T
Undrg Electrical
Nat'l Gas
Undrg Telephone
! Power Poles
O Street Lights
"/ GWP- Electric Vault
5 Pedestrian Flashing Beacon
Potable Water System
DistributionMain
SupplyLine
TransmissionMain
Sanitary Sewers
Sewer Mainlines
! Sewer Manholes
Storm Drain System
GM
" Catch Basins
! Manholes
MAP OF PROPOSED VACATION OF ALLEY 502

IN THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
12-241
Plan No.

MH
8" Sanitary Sewer
5'
6" Gas Main
Undgr Telephone

EXHIBIT A
Case No. 187V
1 of 2

CEDAR STREET

BROADWAY
MH
Undrg Electical
ALLEY 502
8" Sanitary Sewer
8" CIP Water
Power
Pole
Street Lite
Electical
Vault

AREA TO BE

VACATED
K

BELMONT STREET
Proposed Alley
Power
Pole
Power
Pole
Street Lite
MH
60 0 6030
Feet
Scale
1365 of 1381

MOTION
Moved by Planning Commissioner Chraghchian, seconded by Planning Commissioner Minassian, that upon consideration of Vacation Case No. 187V, and after reviewing the records, files, reports, and all documentary evidence submitted with regard to said alley vacation, subject to compliance with State Government Code Section 65402 and Chapters 2.68 and 12.24 of the Glendale Municipal Code, the Planning Commission finds and recommends to the City Council that the requested conditional vacation of a portion of the First Alley Easterly of Cedar Street, Southerly of Broadway (Alley 502) is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive General Plan of the City of Glendale.

Adopted this 2nd day of November, 2022.

Vote As Follows
Ayes: Chraghchian, Fuentes, Minassian, Shahbazian Lee
Noes: None
Abstain: None

Absent: None
1366 of 1381

1 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Request to vacate a portion of the First Alley Easterly of Cedar Street, Southerly of Broadway (Alley 502).

File No./Case:Alley Vacation Case No. 187V
Location: 900-920 East Broadway
Applicant: 900 E Broadway LP
Owners: City of Glendale/Glendale Housing Authority
Approved for November 2, 2022

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Roger Kiesel, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:

Kristen Asp, Principal Planner
GENERAL BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

General Information
General Plan: Commercial – Community Services
Residential – Medium Density
1367 of 1381

2 3
7 6
3 Zone: R-2250 (Medium Density Residential) and C3 I (Commercial Services, Height District I) zones
Surrounding
Zoning/Use:North: C3-I (Commercial Service-Height District I) zone / Office and general retail.

South: R-2250 (Medium Density Residential) / Multi-family residential.

East: C3-I (Commercial Service-Height District I) zone / former Tobin World.

West: C3-I (Commercial Service-Height District I) and R-2250 (Medium Density Residential) zones / senior density bonus project under construction.

Existing
Conditions:See attached vacation map.

Background
History:In January 2021, the Housing Authority approved an Affordable Housing Agreement with 900 E Broadway, L.P. a California Limited Partnership to develop the Citrus Crossing Affordable Housing Project (“Project”) at 900 E Broadway to create 126 units of 100% affordable rental housing for seniors. Upon vacation, the alley will be integrated into the Project and converted into a public pedestrian paseo that is shared between the Project and neighboring Harrower Village affordable housing project (both currently under development) and accessible to the public.

Future Actions:The alley vacation will be presented to the City Council on a November 29, 2022, upon review and recommendation by the Planning Commission.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
The 900 East Broadway Project was reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has been determined to be exempt from any further CEQA review pursuant to Section 15332 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines), as a Class 32 “In-Fill Development Project”, as the project meets all the threshold criteria set forth in Section 15332(a) through (e).

RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission find that the proposed vacation of a portion of the First Alley Easterly of Cedar Street, Southerly of Broadway (Alley 502), is consistent with the City’s General Plan. 1368 of 1381

3 3
7 6
3 ANALYSIS
The Planning Commission’s role is to make findings as to whether the proposed alley vacation will be consistent with the goals and objectives of the City of Glendale Comprehensive General Plan, pursuant to Chapters 2.68 and 12.24 of the City of Glendale Municipal Code, and State Government Code Section 65402.

Upon vacation, the former alley will be improved as a publicly-accessible pedestrian paseo, with a decorative paved path leading to a large patio/gathering area, landscaping, benches, bike racks and decorative lighting. A new 20-foot wide east-west alley is proposed along the southerly property line of the Project site connecting the remaining (unvacated) portion of the north-south alley to Cedar Street. This east-west alley will also provide access to the Project’s 92-space subterranean parking garage.

The subject portion of the alley proposed to be vacated is currently 20 feet in width and approximately 210 feet in length. The subject alley is improved with concrete pavement and contains over-head power and telecommunications lines. The applicant is working with Glendale Water & Power and the various telecommunications companies to relocate the facilities. Easements will be reserved for all utilities within the subject alley.

The vacation of the alley will be consistent with the applicable goals and objectives of the elements of City of Glendale Comprehensive General Plan.

The General Plan Land Use Element designations for the project site are Commercial – Community Services and Residential – Medium Density. The Commercial – Community Services designation is designed to offer a full range of functional services and facilities, such as offices (medical, real estate, etc.), personal services, shopping and restricted industries. The Residential – Medium Density use designation generally allows relatively dense residential development. The alley vacation will enable the conversion of the alley into publicly-accessible pedestrian paseo that links the two adjacent senior affordable projects. Surrounding the Project site are commercial businesses (retail, restaurants, auto repair, etc.) to the north (across Broadway), office and residential on the west, multi-family residential on the south, and a future senior affordable housing project and multi-family residential on the west. The Project is consistent with both designations underlying General Plan Land Use Element as it will enhance the site with landscaping and open space allowed in both land use designations.

The Housing Element Goal 1 encourages a city with a wide range of housing types to meet the needs of current and future residents. The alley vacation, by facilitating the adjacent affordable housing project aids the City in achieving this goal. Policy 1.3 of the Housing Element encourages affordable housing to be dispersed throughout the City; and Policy 1.4 seeks to provide higher density residential development in close proximity to public transportation, jobs, services and activity centers. The vacation meets Housing Element Goal 1 because it assists in adding a high density residential development along a public transportation corridor and a commercial corridor in close proximity to services. It also further disperses affordable housing in the City by developing it in a neighborhood that currently does not have many affordable units. 1369 of 1381

4 3
7 6
3 Housing Element Goal 2 seeks a City with high quality residential neighborhoods that are attractive and well designed. Policy 2.7 encourages the preservation of historic resources in a manner sensitive to historic design. The alley vacation will be used as a pedestrian paseo for the two adjacent senior affordable housing projects and the public at-large; the adjacent 920 East Broadway project will adaptively reuse and renovate the three historic Harrower Lab buildings in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and, thus, preserve historic resources.

Housing Element Goal 3 calls for increase opportunities for affordable housing. Policy

3.1 encourages both the public and private sectors to produce or assist in the production of affordable housing. As noted, the vacation is being requested in connection with two affordable housing projects that have leveraged Federal Tax Credits and other affordable housing funds and, thus, the vacation meets Housing Element Goal 3.

Housing Element Goal 4 states that Glendale is a city with housing services that address groups with special housing needs. Specifically, Policy 4.1: to continue to offer housing and supportive services to special needs groups, including the elderly to enable independent living. The alley vacation facilitates the construction of two affordable senior projects that by utilizing density bonuses are creating a total of 167 new units and, thus, the vacation is consistent with Housing Element Goal 4.

The Land Use Element Residential Goal 3 supports the creation of higher density residential development and alternative forms of medium and high density housing in those areas best suited from the standpoint of accessibility, current development, community organization, transportation and circulation facilities and economic feasibility.

Land Use Element Community Facilities Goal 1 promotes the development of parks and other recreation facilities in accordance with the adopted plan. By introducing higher density residential development along a major transportation and commercial corridor with new open space (created by the alley vacation) that will be available to project residents and the public at-large, the vacation is consistent with these Land Use Element goals.

Circulation Element Objective 3.2 encourages housing around and in commercial centers. The project is consistent with this objective since it adds housing opportunities in a commercial corridor and in close proximity to downtown.

The Open Space and Conservation Element Policy 2 and Objective 1 states that the City shall provide a variety of outdoor recreation opportunities to all residents. Vacation of the proposed alley is consistent with this as once vacated, the area will be converted to a pedestrian paseo with various amenities and accessible not only to the future adjacent affordable housing developments but also to the public at-large. Goal 8 of this Element emphasizes continuing efforts to identify, preserve and maintain structures or sites with historic or cultural value. Specifically, Objective 3 encourages utilization of historic and cultural structures and sites for public use and Objective 4 encourages adaptive reuse of historic and cultural structures. While the sites located at 900 and 920 East Broadway are separate projects, they were approved concurrently and seen, with the alley (to be vacated) between them, as an integrated project. The 920 East 1370 of 1381

5 3
7 6
3 Broadway project will rehabilitate the Harrower’s Lab complex, a historic site within the City, into affordable housing for seniors, like the project on the subject site. The proposed alley vacation is consistent with these objectives.

Goals of the Recreation Element include having a variety of recreational opportunities and programs for all residents, and new parks and recreational facilities be responsive to particular neighborhoods. Objective 1 of this Element is to incrementally expand the quantity and quality of recreational experiences for residents. The alley proposed to be vacated along with the two senior affordable housing projects is located in Recreation Planning Area 9. This area is the most densely populated area of the City and while there are three evenly distributed parks in Area 9, because of the area’s density and size, they do not adequately serve the residents. The alley, once vacated, will be developed as a publicly accessible pedestrian paseo and improved with a walking path, benches, landscaping and other amenities. This passive park will be appropriate for the senior population that will eventually live adjacent to it, an amenity for the surrounding community and bolster the amount of parks in an area of the City that is lacking in open space and, therefore, is consistent with the Recreation Element.

EXHIBITS

1. Proposed Street Vacation Map and Location Map

2. Site Plan

3. Glendale Senior Apartments-900 E. Broadway Class 32 Categorical Exemption Findings

4. Glendale Senior Apartments-920 E. Broadway Class 32 Categorical Exemption Findings
1371 of 1381

MOTION

Moved by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , that upon consideration of Vacation Case No. 187V, and after reviewing the records, files, reports, and all documentary evidence submitted with regard to said alley vacation, subject to compliance with State Government Code Section 65402 and Chapters 2.68 and 12.24 of the Glendale Municipal Code, the Planning Commission finds and recommends to the City Council that the requested conditional vacation of a portion of the First Alley Easterly of Cedar Street, Southerly of Broadway (Alley 502) is consistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive General Plan of the City of Glendale.

Adopted this day of November, 2022.

VOTE:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
1372 of 1381

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!
!!
! !
!
!
!O
O O O
O
!
!
O !
O
O
"/
112100
20 55.38
38 55.20
50 50 16050
80 80

50.08 50.08 50.08 150900 50 50814 35.18 60PORTIONS OF LOTS 2 50818 822 30 2030 POR. OF LOTPORTIONS OF LOTS 920 1002 1006
MAX MUIR TRACT15 15
MAX MUIR TRACT91.23

MINER TRACT
124
BLK. 17 125

TRACT TRACT
50 15 1650
50 50 3
50 50126
1250
129
127
126
Map Prepared by:

IN THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
12-241
Plan No.

MH
8" Sanitary Sewer
5'
6" Gas Main
Undgr Telephone

EXHIBIT A
Case No. 187V
1 of 2

CEDAR STREET

BROADWAY
MH
Undrg Electical
ALLEY 502
8" Sanitary Sewer
8" CIP Water
Power
Pole
Street Lite
Electical
Vault

AREA TO BE

VACATED
K

BELMONT STREET
Proposed Alley
Power
Pole
Power
Pole
Street Lite
MH
60 0 6030
Feet
Scale
1373 of 1381

CEDAR ST

PROPOSED EASEMENT

EXISTING ALLEY VACATED ALLEY

PEDESTRIAN ENTRANCE

SUB PARKING

ENTRANCE
PROPOSED 5 STORY

RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
+ 1.5 BELOW GRADE PARKING
C3/R -1250 ZONE
R-2250 ZONE
920 E. BROADWAY
(E) 2 -STORY BUILDING
C3/R -1250 ZONE
(E) 3 STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
R-2250 ZONE

E BROADWAY

EXISTING TREE, TYP
912 E.

BROADWAY
(E) 1 -STORY

BUILDING WITH

BASEMENT AND

MEZZANINE
117 S.

BELMONT
(E) 2 -STORY

BUILDING W/

BASEMENT
S. BELMONT ST
20' - 0" 210' - 0"
230' - 0"
160' - 0"
8' - 0"
142' - 0" 10' - 0" 10' - 0"
20' -0" FIRE
LANE 40' - 0"
25' - 0"
PROPOSED 2 -STORY RESIDENTIAL

BUILDING WITH BASEMENT LEVEL
(E) 3 STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING
R-2250 ZONE

TRANSFORMER VAULT
29' - 6"
31' - 0"
21' - 0" PROJECT BUILDING

ADJACENT BUILDINGS,

NOT A PART OF PROJECT
LEGEND
GLENDALE SENIOR APARTMENTS - 100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING
900 E BROADWAY GLENDALE, CA 91205
A.001 SITE PLAN
04/26/21 ENTITLEMENT SET
N
0' 16' 32' 64' 128'
1374 of 1381

NOTICE OF EXEMPT ION
TO: D Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento , CA 95814
FROM: City of Glendale, Planning Department
633 E. Broadway, Room 103
Glendale , CA 91206-4386
rgi Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk
Business Filings and Registration Section, Room 2001
12400 Imperial Highway
Norwalk, CA 90650
Project Tile: New 127-Unit Residential Density Bonus Affordable Housing Project Project Location - Specific: 900 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91205 Project Applicant: City of Glendale Housing Authority
Project Location - City: Glendale -------- ----- - Project Location - County: Los Angeles Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project:

The proposed project involves the demolition of the existing, approximately 11,000 SF on-site building (built in 1976) and a surface parking lot in conjunction with the construction of a new five-story , 127-unit density bonus residential housing project with 100% affordable units (aside from the manager's unit). The multi-family residential building will be constructed over a 92-space, subterranean parking garage located on a 36,800 SF site in the C3 (Commercial Service) and the R-2250 (Medium Density Residential) zones.

On May 27, 2021, the Design Review Board approved with conditions a Design Review Application (Case No. PDR 2107 450) with 100% of the units (aside from the manager's unit) reserved for low, very low and extremely low senior households.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Glendale Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of Glendale, Meta Housing Corporation Exempt Status: (check one)
D Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1 ); 15268);
D Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3) ; 15269(a));
D Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4) ; 15269(b)(c));
rgJ
□
Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: Class-32 , Section15332 Statutory Exemptions. State code number:

Reasons why project is exempt:
1375 of 1381

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
The project is exempt from CEQA review as a Class 32-"ln-fill Development Projects" exemption pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 because the project meets all the conditions for an in-fill development project as follows:
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban areas;
c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and
e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

Lead Agency Contact Person: Roger Kiesel Area Code/Telephone/Extension: (818) 937-8152 If filed by applicant:

1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.

2. Has a Notice of Ex/7tion b~ n filed by the public agency approving the project? D Yes D No Signature: L '(i_g ':J, \L Date~CJ 2.,J :zo c.( Title Senior Planner ~ Signed by Lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR:

D Signed by Applicant
1376 of 1381

NOTICE OF EXEMPTION
TO: D Office of Planning and Research
1400 Tenth Street, Room 121
Sacramento, CA 95814
FROM: City of Glendale , Planning Department
633 E. Broadway , Room 103
Glendale, CA 91206-4386
[gl Los Angeles Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk
Business Filings and Registration Section , Room 2001
12400 Imperial Highway
Norwalk, CA 90650
Project Tile: New 40-Unit Residential Density Bonus Affordable Housing Project Project Location - Specific: 920 East Broadway , Glendale, CA 91205 Project Applicant: City of Glendale Housing Authority
Project Location - City: Glendale -------------- Project Location - County: Los Angeles Description of Nature, Purpose and Beneficiaries of Project:

The proposed project involves the adaptive reuse of the existing on-site buildings and construction of a new two-story building with a basement to provide a 40-unit density bonus residential housing project with 100% affordable units (aside from the manager's unit). The project is located on a 33,450 SF site in the C3 (Commercial Service) zone.

On May 20, 2021, the Historic Preservation Commission approved with conditions a Design Review Application (Case No. PDR 2107 484) with 100% of the units (aside from the manager's unit) reserved for low, very low and extremely low senior households.

Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Glendale Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: _C_ity~of_G_ le_n_d_a_le _______ _____ _____ _ Exempt Status: (check one)
D Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1 ); 15268);
D Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)) ;
D Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4) ; 15269(b)(c)) ;
[gl Categorical Exemption. State type and section number : Class-31 , Section 15331 and Class-32 , Sect ion15332 D Statutory Exemptions. State code number:

Reasons why project is exempt:
1377 of 1381

NOTICE OF EXEMPT ION
The project is exempt from CEQA review as a Class 31 "Historic Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation" exemption as the project seeks a federal rehabilitation tax credit and has been determined to conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation by a consultant meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards and as a Class 32-"ln-fill Development Projects" exemption pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 because the project meets all the conditions for an in-fill development project as follows:
a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations; b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substant ially surrounded by urban areas;
c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and
e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

Lead Agency Contact Person: Roger Kiesel Area Code/Telephone/Extension: (818) 937-8152 If filed by applicant:

1. Attach certified document of exemption finding.

2. Has a Noti~e of Exe ption brr filed by the public agency approving the project? 0 Yes O No Signature: , ••,.S.fJ Date: ~S; \ ~~ ,ZDlJ Title: Senior Planner [8J Signed by Lead Agency Date received for filing at OPR:

D Signed by Applicant
1378 of 1381

10a

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Sanitary Sewer CCTV Assessment Project

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for December 6, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1379 of 1381

210a

COUNCIL PRIORITIES

RECOMMENDATION

BACKGROUND

ANALYSIS

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Please consult with your department's attorney to fill out this section.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:
1380 of 1381

310a
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
1381 of 1381

Glendale City CouncilDecember 6, 2022

Glendale City Council
December 6, 2022