A G E N D A
SPECIAL MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
Meetings
are
broadcast
live
on
Glendale
TV,
viewable
on
Spectrum
Cable,
channel
6,
and
AT&T
U-
verse,
channel
99. Meetings
are
also
streamed
live
in
high
definition
(HD)
on
the
City
webpage,
glendaleca.gov/live
,
on
YouTube.com/myglendale
,
and
on
Apple
TV,
Roku,
Amazon
Fire,
iOS
and
Android
devices
using
a
free
app
called
Cablecast
and
choosing
"Glendale
TV"
from
the
menu.
Meetings
are
also
archived
on
the
City
Website
for
viewing
anytime
at
glendaleca.gov/agendas
.
Call
(818)
548-4013
for
program
schedules.
For
public
comments
and
questions
during
the
meeting,
call
(818)
937-8100.
Public
comments
on
a
specific
agenda
item
will
be
taken
when
that
agenda
item
is
discussed.
If
you
have
any
question
about
matters
on
the
agenda,
or
requests
for
assistance, please contact the City Clerk at (818) 548-2090 during regular business hours.
PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION In
compliance
with
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act
(ADA)
of
1990,
auxiliary
hearing
aids,
sign
language
translation,
and
Braille
transcripts
are
available
upon
request.
Assisted
listening
devices
are
available
same-day
upon
request.
The
City
Clerk’
office
should
be
notified
72 hours
(three
business
days)
or
as
soon
as
practicable
for
requests
regarding
sign
language
translation
and
Braille
transcription
services.
All
documents
related
to
open
session
items
on
this
agenda
that
are
received
less
than
72 hours
prior
to
this
meeting,
and
are
public
records,
will
be
available
for
review
in the Office of the City Clerk, 613 E. Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.
Translation
services
are
provided
for
meetings
through
the
use
of
bilingual
staff
for
speakers
who
wish
to
utilize
the
service
as
available.
Speakers
should
state
their
request
by
contacting
the
City
Clerk’s
office
at
(818)
548-2090,
at
least
72 hours
prior
to
the
scheduled
meeting
or
as
soon
as
practicable.
Please
specify
the
language
for
which
you
require
translation.
The
exclusive
use
of
City
provided
interpreters
is
not
required
and
persons
are
welcome
to
use
their
own
interpreter
or
speak
in their native language.
APRIL 2, 2024
ROLL CALL
-
3:00 PM
-
Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, April 2, 2024 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on March 29, 2024, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.
1 TYPED 4/2/2024 1:39:16 PM
04 02 24
SP CC
A
SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING
of the City Council is hereby called to meet at
3:00
PM
on
Tuesday, April 2, 2024
, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2
Floor,
Glendale,
CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;
1. Community Development, re:
Review of Council’s Priorities for Certain Proposed
Amendments to GMC Chapter 30.11 Residential Districts and GMC Chapter 30.12 Commercial Districts Regarding Multi-Family Development Standards and Objective Design Standards for Multi-Family Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Projects a. Motion to provide subsequent direction on certain proposed multi-family residential and residential mixed-use zoning amendments and objective design standards in multi-family residential and commercial zones and to proceed with finalizing the standards for presentation to the Planning Commission prior to returning to City Council for Introduction
2. Community Development, re:
Consideration of Processes to Lease City Owned
Property
a. Motion to provide direction to staff regarding the preparation of resolutions with findings to support Surplus Land Act exemptions for certain City-owned property, and direction to commence preparation of requests for proposals for the possible future disposition and or development of property the State Department of Housing and Community Development has found exempt from the Surplus Land Act
ADJOURNMENT
nd
2 TYPED 4/2/2024 1:39:16 PM
04 02 24
SP CC
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Review of Council’s Priorities for Certain Proposed Amendments to GMC Chapter 30.11 Residential Districts and GMC Chapter 30.12 Commercial Districts Regarding Multi-Family Development Standards and Objective Design Standards for Multi-Family Residential and Residential Mixed-Use Projects
1. Motion to provide subsequent direction on certain proposed multi-family residential and residential mixed-use zoning amendments and objective design standards in multi-family residential and commercial zones and to proceed with finalizing the standards for presentation to the Planning Commission prior to returning to City Council for Introduction.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Report
Approved for April 2, 2024 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report presents results of outreach meetings regarding a variety of new site planning, massing & scale, and architectural element concepts for multi-family development standards in multi-family residential zones (R-3050, R-2250, R-1650, and R-1250) and multi-family and residential mixed-use development standards in commercial zones (C1 Neighborhood Commercial, C2 Community Commercial, C3 Commercial Services, and CH Commercial Hillside) for Council’s review and comment.
Because certain comments and recommendations from the outreach meetings deviate from Council’s previous direction on several key topics, staff is requesting further feedback from Council. Based on Council’s direction, staff will continue preparation of the code amendments to be brought before the applicable Boards and Commissions prior to returning to City Council for introduction.
3 of 21
21 5
0 3
2 RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a motion providing comments on certain proposed concepts and objective design standards for multi-family residential development in multi-family zones, and multi-family residential and residential mixed-use development in commercial zones, and direct staff regarding continued preparation of final draft amendments to Chapters 30.11 Residential Districts and 30.12 Commercial Districts, respectively.
ANALYSIS
The City is in the process of preparing development standard amendments and objective design standards for multi-family residential and mixed-use projects in multi-family residential zones and commercial zones citywide. Based on comments received by the Design Review Board (DRB) and a stakeholder meeting of local architects, staff is requesting additional feedback and direction from City Council.
BACKGROUND
As part of the SB2 Grant Program and Community Development’s efforts to create an improved entitlement and more efficient review process, staff has been working with Crandall Arambula (consultant) on two projects that aim to streamline development of housing units, increase certainty in the review process, and ensure livability and design compatibility throughout the City.
The first project involves an to update the existing multi-family residential zoning standards and adoption of new Objective Design Standards (ODS) for multi-family development (MF Project). The purpose of the proposed amendments and ODS is to allow new residential projects to achieve development of the maximum number of housing units allowable based on current residential densities, and to ensure that new projects are not only compatible with existing neighborhood development in terms of scale but also include sufficient architectural design.
The second project provides updates to the existing commercial zoning standards to support residential and mixed-use development in commercial corridors and centers and introduces new ODS (Mixed Use/MU Project) to ensure quality architectural design and a consistent streetscape. The current commercial standards only allow for residential development in commercial zones based on the R-1250 standards, which are intended for application in typical high density multi-family neighborhoods. These residential standards are not always appropriate in commercial areas, as they require residential setbacks and limit lot coverage, massing, and FAR. Such limiting standards have had the effect of discouraging residential and mixed-use projects along commercial corridors. The projects that have come forward have often requested multiple deviations from the current code, thus extending processing time and creating uncertainty in the outcome of the development process. The proposed code amendments and ODS will introduce standards that are appropriate and achievable for residential and mixed-use development in commercial zones.
4 of 21
31 5
0 3
2 While these two projects are being considered separately, there are significant similarities in the proposed ODS. Similar massing and scale concepts are proposed, and both the MF Project and the MU Project would also create a menu of options of architectural elements for developers to choose from to incorporate into their building designs. The ODS for both projects will also draw upon the Tropico Transit Oriented Development Standards (adopted in autumn 2023) in terms of formatting and organization.
ODS are also required to achieve compliance with the Housing Accountability Act (HAA).
With certain limited exceptions, the HAA prohibits local agencies from denying or reducing the density of housing developments “that comply with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria, including design review standards, in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete.” Gov’t Code §65589.5(j)(1). With respect to development and design review standards, “objective” standards mean those standards “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to external and uniform benchmark criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official.” Gov’t Code §65589.5(h)(9). The proposed ODS are intended to satisfy the HAA’s requirement for “objective” standards.
Staff presented the site planning, and massing and scale concepts for MF Project to the City Council at their meeting on November 14, 2023, and the proposed zoning code amendments and ODS for the MU Project to the City Council on February 27, 2024. At both meetings, Council expressed support for the proposed concepts, provided comments, and directed staff to continue public outreach efforts, finalize the standards for presentation to DRB and Planning Commission, and return to City Council for Introduction.
At the DRB meeting on February 8, 2024, staff presented the proposed amendments to the development standards for multi-family projects in multi-family zones and new ODS, including site planning, building massing and scale, and architectural design concepts.
Following that meeting, on February 29, 2024, staff convened a group of local architects to solicit their feedback on the MF Project. Both meetings generated significant conversation regarding the ODS; DRB and the local architects provided insight into the process of designing attractive, livable, and viable multi-family projects and commented on how the proposed standards may affect that process.
Though the two meetings were focused on the MF Project, some of the comments received from DRB and the local architects also inform the MU Project. Because some of the recommendations deviate from the direction City Council previously provided, staff is now seeking additional direction for both projects prior to finalizing the code amendments and ODS.
5 of 21
41 5
0 3
2 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AMENDMENTS
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DRB and the local architects were supportive of several of the proposed development standards and zoning code amendments for multi-family properties. These include elimination of the “wedding cake” tiered setback standards that require increasingly greater interior minimum and average setbacks for each floor of a multi-family building and instead allow either a 5’ minimum/8’ average interior setback or a 6’ interior setback on all floors uniformly. The DRB members and architects were also supportive of allowing three-story building height on lots less than 90’ in width and increasing the lot coverage from 50% to 70% for higher density zones (R-1650 and R-1250). The local architects pointed out that the minimum landscape requirements will also have to be adjusted downward to allow for greater building lot coverage. At both meetings, the majority of comments and recommendations focused on the proposed site planning concepts, and the ODS roof form options, exterior material and color requirements, and fenestration elements, as detailed below.
SITE PLANNING COMMENTS
Perhaps the most significant change in the proposed residential standards and one that garnered the most discussion is the new Common Open Space Amenity (COSA) concept. As presented to Council in November of last year, this new concept focuses on locating the COSA on the ground floor within the front 80% of the lot to break down building massing and encourage all residents to use the shared open space. This new COSA concept also modifies the way the common open space requirement is calculated by shifting away from a fixed number of square feet (SF) required per unit to a fixed percentage of the lot area. Under current code standards, the required 200 SF per unit of common open space is often placed at the rear of the property; the new requirement for the COSA to be placed within the front 80% of the lot addresses feedback that common open space located in the rear is often only utilized by residents who live at the back of the building, adjacent to the open space area. As currently written, the proposed COSA standards would essentially compel the development of courtyard-style multi-family buildings, as depicted in the graphics on the next page.
The proposed standards presented to Council, DRB and the architects’ group also define minimum COSA sizes and dimensions. On lots 90’ or less in width, the COSA would be required to have a minimum dimension of 15’, and be located outside of any front, street facing, or interior setback areas, and on lots greater than 90’ in width, the minimum COSA dimension would be 30’ outside of required setbacks. Projects utilizing the 5’ minimum / 8’ average interior setback would be required to provide a COSA equivalent to 10% of the lot area, while projects utilizing the 6’ minimum interior setback would provide a COSA equivalent to 15% of the lot area. Examples of the COSA areas, as 6 of 21
51 5
0 3
2 previously presented for lots 90’ or less and lots greater than 90’ in width, are shown on below (same as previously presented to Council and the two groups).
DRB and the local architects were supportive of using a percentage of lot area rather than a set number of square feet per unit to calculate common open space requirements.
However, both DRB and the local architects did not support the COSA locational Lots 90’ Wide or Less
Lots Greater than 90’ Wide
7 of 21
61 5
0 3
2 requirements, as proposed, or the resulting center courtyard building typology. Both groups also felt the standards would lead to concession and waivers for the COSA in density bonus projects with affordable units. Instead, they advocated for the COSA not be restricted to the ground floor, nor within the front 80% of the lot depth, nor outside of the required interior setbacks. The groups recommended that ground floor COSAs be allowed to utilize required setback areas toward the minimum size and dimension requirements and to be allowed to be placed in the rear of the lot. They also suggested that roof tops and other areas above the first floor could be suitable COSA areas, or COSA areas could be split up into two or more smaller open spaces, rather than one large open space. Finally, all concurred that the use of raised landscape planters should not be restricted in COSA areas (the proposed standards would require 50% of plantings at-grade), as COSAs will be built above subterranean parking areas, which would make at-grade plantings difficult to achieve.
The recommendations received regarding the COSA would fundamentally alter the multi- family standards that were presented to the City Council last November. Staff is seeking direction from the City Council whether to modify the ground floor COSA standards and, if so, which standards to modify, prior to finalizing the code amendments and ODS regarding COSA placement and landscaping requirements.
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS COMMENTS
The massing & scale ODS for both the MF Project and the MU Project aim to ensure that new projects are compatible with existing neighborhood development in terms of scale and are sufficiently modulated so as not to be boxy building forms. These include horizontal and vertical modulation standards that require recesses and projections in the building walls, and variations in height over three stories, as were presented to City Council in November 2023 and February 2024, respectively. Staff has since worked with the consultant to refine a variety of architectural elements in the MF Project ODS to ensure quality building design, including requirements pertaining to façade articulation options, roof forms options, cladding and accent materials, colors, and fenestration; these updates were presented to the DRB and the architects group. The proposed standards provide several options in certain required architectural element categories:
roofline design and fenestration. Project developers would choose from the options in each category to create an overall building design. Various options were specifically drafted to allow for design flexibility and a variety of architectural styles, while also ensuring articulated rooflines and facades. DRB and the local architects were presented the modulation and articulation requirements, and architectural elements standards, as they would apply in multi-family residential zone designations; the presentations included photos and visual examples of the options, in keeping with Council’s direction.
Overall, DRB and the local architects were comfortable with the proposed horizontal and vertical modulation requirements, with minor edits and clarifications. Comments related 8 of 21
71 5
0 3
2 to horizontal modulation requirements were to confirm that COSA areas would count toward horizontal modulation requirements. DRB also suggested that projects utilizing the 5’ minimum/8’ average interior setback requirement would inevitably provide sufficient modulation so that the horizontal modulation standards should apply only to projects utilizing the uniform 6’ interior setback option. Comments related to vertical modulation requirements mainly focused on allowing for density bonus projects to build additional stories (above the third floor) across the entire building with appropriate step backs, rather than placing additional stories only at the rear of a multi-family building.
Additionally, neither group was opposed to the various façade articulation options.
However, DRB noted that the options outlined in the ODS may not allow for future design trends and the local architects noted that not every façade segment necessarily requires a façade articulation element; occasionally, as suggested by one architect during the meeting, a blank wall is included as part of a well-designed façade.
The recommendations regarding roof forms, materials and colors, and fenestration, however, warrant further discussion and direction from City Council. Though DRB and the architects have not yet been presented the proposed standards for the MU Project, certain ODS standards for the two projects are so similar that much of the feedback received for roof forms, colors and materials, and fenestration could apply to both the MF and MU projects moving forward.
ROOF FORMS
Both DRB and the local architects felt that the proposed roof form options did not allow for enough creativity and did not capture roof styles such as barrel roofs, wavy roofs, and domes. Rather than choosing from a menu of options, DRB and the architects suggest allowing any kind of roof form with the potential requirement, suggested by staff, that a change in height or additional vertical modulation be required for flat roofs over a certain length. The roof forms presented to DRB and the local architects as part of the ODS are shown on the following page.
9 of 21
81 5
0 3
2 MATERIALS AND COLORS
The proposed ODS include a list of acceptable cladding materials and limit the maximum number of primary and accent materials that could be used on the exterior of multi-family and mixed-use buildings. Additionally, the ODS do not allow for neon colors to be used as the primary façade color and limit the number of accent colors that can be applied to building exteriors. DRB and the local architects were again concerned about constraining creativity when it comes to exterior building materials and colors. DRB suggested that 10 of 21
91 5
0 3
2 new innovative building materials may be developed in the future, but there was a concern that such new materials would not be eligible for use if the ODS were to restrict allowable materials to a specific set list. Therefore, DRB recommended only listing prohibited building materials, rather than allowable building materials. After discussing several approaches, the local architects ultimately advocated for no restrictions on exterior materials, as long as they meet structural and durability requirements.
Additionally, both DRB and the local architects did not see the need to restrict colors at all. However, at their meeting on February 27, 2024, the City Council commented on the potential need to regulate colors. Therefore, the proposed elimination of color and material standards warrants further discussion and staff is seeking additional direction from Council.
FENESTRATION
The fenestration options also generated considerable conversation. The fenestration menu options for the MF Project are shown in the image below and are very similar to the MU Project fenestration options presented to the City Council in February. 11 of 21
101
5 0
3 2
DRB did not object to the different fenestration options presented, though they did ask that additional shapes of windows be considered. The ODS currently showcase only square and rectangular windows, while the DRB would like for arched windows, round windows, and other window shapes to be reflected in the menu options.
On the other hand, the local architects felt that fenestration elements should not be regulated at all. They believe that the modulation and articulation requirements will provide enough design interest to make fenestration requirements overly burdensome.
Additionally, they pointed out that the design of the floor plan will determine the appropriate size and location of windows and that Building Code requirements, which include minimum size requirements for egress windows, provide sufficient regulation. As one local architect stated, “windows are determined by the use behind them.” While staff appreciates the point the architects are making, additional consideration is needed before all fenestration requirements are removed from the ODS. Multi-family and mixed-use buildings with blank street facing elevations or windows with no placement pattern or rhythm could be the end result of such an elimination. Staff is seeking direction from the City Council as to whether it is acceptable to eliminate fenestration design options so as to allow absolute flexibility and creativity for architects and designers.
CONCLUSION
Overall, both groups felt that development projects should be designed holistically in terms of site specific conditions and neighborhood context and advocated for flexibility in the proposed ODS to allow for creativity in the conceptualization of a cohesive architectural design.
Staff is currently seeking City Council’s direction regarding the proposed development standards updates and ODS for the MF Project and the MU Project regarding the proposed roof form options, materials and colors regulations, and the fenestration options. Additionally, staff is requesting direction regarding the proposed site planning standards for the MF Project, particularly for the location of the COSA courtyard on the ground floor. During the City Council presentation, staff will provide a breakdown of the concerns voiced by DRB and the local architects regarding the development standards and ODS, and will present options for Council’s consideration.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Based on Council’s comments and direction, staff will update the presentations and draft standards and ODS for the MF Project and the MU Project for public outreach to Design Review Board and Planning Commission.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
12 of 21
111
5 0
3 2
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This action is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15262 entitled “Feasibility and Planning Studies” because the current work involves just that - feasibility or planning studies - for possible future actions which the City has not approved or adopted.
Once staff receives direction on preparation of the new standards, further consideration of environmental factors will be undertaken.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Proceed with the MF concepts as previously presented to Council, including the COSA and modulation requirements, and the MU options presented to Council for façade articulation, rooflines, fenestration, and the proposed standards for materials and colors, which would also apply to the MF Project.
Alternative 2: Modify the draft standards for the MF Project by amending the COSA requirements, as directed, and modifying the façade articulation options, roofline options and fenestration options, as well as the material and color standards, for both the MF and MU Projects, as directed.
Alternative 3: City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Bradley Calvert, AICP, Director of Community Development Prepared by:
Vilia Zemaitaitis, AICP, Deputy Director of Long Range Planning Teresa Santilena, AICP, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
None.
13 of 21
1 1
1 1
1 MOTION
Moved by ______________, seconded by _____________, that the City Council provides the following direction to staff on the proposed code amendments and new objective design standards multi-family residential developments in Residential zones (MF Project, Case No. PZC-0007-2023), and on the proposed code amendments and new objective design standards for multi-family and mixed use developments in Commercial zones (MU Project, Case No. PZC-0009-2023), described in the April 2, 2024 staff report from the Director of Community Development, and based on that direction further directs staff to proceed with finalizing the standards for presentation to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to returning to City Council for introduction of an ordinance:
MF Comments and Direction:
1. MU Comments and Direction:
1. Vote as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
14 of 21
2 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Consideration of Processes to Lease City Owned Property
1. Motion: Provide direction to staff regarding the preparation of resolutions with findings to support Surplus Land Act exemptions for certain City-owned property, and direction to commence preparation of requests for proposals for the possible future disposition and or development of property the State Department of Housing and Community Development has found exempt from the Surplus Land Act.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for April 2, 2024 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
As part of a City budget balancing presentation to the City Council in late 2023, Council expressed interest in exploring opportunities to lease City owned parking lots. Council gave staff direction to begin the process of potentially rezoning parcels that did not have a zoning designation that would encourage redevelopment, and identify the process and opportunities of other sites. The purpose of this report is to identify the various paths forward, and to seek direction from the Council regarding submitting findings to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for sites that are potentially exempt from the State Surplus Land Act (SLA), and to draft Requests for Proposals (RFP) for sites that could be leased and developed.
15 of 21
22 5
0 6
0 RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to prepare and submit resolution(s) with written findings supporting determinations of exemption from the Surplus Land Act for four City-owned parcels for review and approval by the Council, and authorize staff to submit those Council-approved resolution(s) to HCD for review and final approval. Authorize staff to commence drafting RFPs to identify leasing and development opportunities for the four City-owned parking lots for which HCD has granted exempt surplus status. To the extend City-owned land is not exempt surplus, staff will return to Council for direction on whether staff should commence the SLA process of sending out Notices of Availability pursuant to Gov’t Code section 54222 which is a pre-requisite to any disposition of City-owned non-exempt surplus land.
ANALYSIS
In 2023 the City Council directed staff to consider ground leasing and redeveloping City- owned parking lots as a means to generate revenue towards future budget balancing strategies, as well as assisting in meeting the City’s affordable housing goals. At the same meeting, Council also directed staff to begin studying potential zoning changes that would be required for some parcels with zoning that does not support development. As part of this process, staff identified approximately a dozen sites (Exhibit 1) that have development potential and could generate revenue for the City.
Before any disposition of City-owned property can occur, the City must consider the SLA; it is a “right of first refusal” law that requires all local agencies to offer non-exempt surplus land for sale or lease to affordable home developers and certain other entities before selling or leasing the land to any other individual or entity. Sites can either be categorized as “exempt surplus” or “surplus” based on site acreage (e.g., less than a half-acre), or whether the site qualifies for a specified exemption (e.g., public use or unsuitable parcel exemptions), among and other requirements. The SLA applies to leases that are more than five (5) years or where demolition or redevelopment will occur. Prior to finalizing any property disposition, the surplus land must be approved by HCD.
For non-exempt surplus properties, the SLA requires an open solicitation process whereby HCD, local governmental entities, and State listed housing sponsors are provided a Notice of Availability, and procedures are provided for negotiations and documentation; and prioritization of negotiations based on the number and level of affordability in cases with multiple interested parties.
The SLA defines several categories of “exempt surplus” properties, the two most relevant for the City sites are:
1)Small Surplus Land Parcel: Property that is less than one-half acre (21,780 SF).
This exemption requires the City Council to adopt a resolution with findings that the property qualifies as exempt surplus. The adopted resolution is then sent to HCD for review, and if approved, the City can proceed with this disposition. Except for minor noticing requirements and continued HCD monitoring and enforcement obligations, no other SLA requirements apply to small parcels. 16 of 21
32 5
0 6
0 2) Exempt Surplus Land for Affordable Housing: To qualify for this exemption a site must be between one to ten acres and developed with a mixed-use project with a minimum 300 residential units of which at least 25% are restricted to lower- income households. This exemption also requires the City Council adopt a resolution with findings supporting the exemption, and to send the resolution to HCD for review and approval. In addition, the City must follow its open competitive solicitation process or put the property out to open bid with a Notice of Availability sent to the HCD, local governmental entities, and State listed affordable housing sponsors. A covenant with the affordable requirements must also be recorded. The minor noticing requirements and continued HCD monitoring and enforcement obligations would apply. Other SLA requirements pertaining to negotiations, documentation, and prioritizing developer selection based the number of affordable units and level of affordability would not apply.
As noted, for a property that is one to ten acres, the City must send a Notice of Availability or follow its own open competitive bid process. Staff recommends the City develop a program for potential development of sites exceeding one-acre similar to the Housing Authority’s approach for the Pioneer affordable housing project where the scale and other key design criteria for the site were pre-determined, and then follow the City’s open competitive bid process. This would allow the City to select a developer that best meets the City’s objectives while also meeting the affordable housing requirements set by HCD.
The above requirements can apply to non-adjacent sites less than one-acre that are combined and developed jointly and together exceed one-acre.
For Small Surplus Land Parcels, after the resolutions with findings are submitted to the HCD and are approved, the City may move forward with its own competitive bidding process. A site could be developed with housing or non-housing development consistent with the City’s land use regulations.
Next Steps:
In order to move forward with the potential disposition and development of certain City- owned sites, staff is requesting Council direction to prepare a resolution with findings supporting a Exempt Surplus Land for Affordable Housing determination for following properties that exceed one-acre:
•Glendale Community College Lot 30
•Montrose Lot 3
It should be noted that while the City owns additional sites exceeding one acre, unless otherwise directed by Council, staff believes a phased approach is appropriate to maintain a balanced workload, and to begin working through a select number of sites to ensure potential development does not occur at the same time.
Further, staff is also requesting direction to prepare a resolution with findings supporting a Small Surplus Land Parcel exemption determination for the following properties that are 17 of 21
42 5
0 6
0 less than one-half acre:
•Downtown Lot 4
•Downtown Lot 2
Staff is also requesting direction to develop RFPs for these smaller sites. Upon completion of the draft RFPs, staff would return to Council for review to ensure that the Council priorities have been appropriately defined, which may include affordable housing, community benefits, or other goals and priorities of the Council. If Council provides direction to move forward with developing the findings and RFPs, staff will return to hold a public meeting where Council may choose to declare that the properties are exempt surplus land and release the RFPs.
The next steps would be to select a preferred developer, execute an exclusive negotiating agreement, and develop terms that are acceptable to the Council. These would all be addressed at future Council meetings.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. The next steps of ground leasing City owned properties have no direct cost to the City, but if the properties are leased, there are opportunities for the City to generate revenue into the General Fund.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
CEQA does not apply to projects where the lead agency determines "with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment." CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.) § 15061(b)(3). Here, the action involves obtaining direction from Council on preparation of resolutions as a prerequisite to an SLA exemption determination. There is no possibility that the action requested in this report may have a significant effect on the environment.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Provide direction regarding preparation of a Council resolution with findings supporting an SLA exemption for certain City-owned properties, and development of RFPs. This would allow the City to begin the process of potentially developing City-owned parcels to generate revenue for the General Fund.
2. Decline to provide direction regarding preparation of a Council resolution with findings supporting an SLA exemption findings for City-owned properties, and development of RFPs. This would postpone considerations of developing the City- owned properties for additional revenue.
18 of 21
52 5
0 6
0 3.Any other alternative not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
19 of 21
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _____________________________, seconded by Council Member _________________________, that the City Council hereby directs staff to prepare resolutions with findings to support Surplus Land Act exemptions for certain City-owned property, specifically Glendale Community College Lot 30, Montrose Lot 3, Downtown Lots 2 and 4, as outlined in the April 2, 2024 staff report from the Director of Community Development, and further directs staff to commence preparation of requests for proposals for the possible future disposition and or development of said City-owned property based upon the State Department of Housing and Community Development finding that the properties are exempt from the Surplus Land Act.
Vote as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
20 of 21
21 of 21