B. Applicability. This section shall apply to all zones that allow single-family or multi-family residential use(s).
C. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to the requirements of this section any term not defined herein shall have the same meaning as defined in Chapter 30.70:
“Accessory dwelling unit” means an attached or a detached residential dwelling unit that provides complete independent liv ing facilities for one or more persons and is located on a lot with a proposed or existing primary residence. It shall include permanent provisions for living, sleeping eating, cooking, and sanitation on the same parcel as the single-family or multi-family dwelling is or will be situated. An accessory dwelling unit also includes the following:
a. An efficiency unit as def ined in Section 17958.1 of the Health and Safety Code. b. A manufactured home, as defined in Section 18007 of the Health and Safety Code.
“Junior accessory dwelling unit” means a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-fa mily residence, and shall in no event be contained within a detached accessory building or structure. For purposes of this definition, “contained entirely within a single-family residence” means enclosed uses within the residence, such as attached garages. A junior accessory dwelling unit may include separate sanitation facilities, or may share sanitation facilities with the existing structure.
“Living area” means the interior habitable area of a dwelling unit, including basements and attics, but does not include a garage or any accessory structure. “Livable space” means a space in a dwelling intended for human habitation, including living, sleeping, eating, cooking, or sanitation.
“Nonconforming zoning condition” means a physical improvement on a property that does not conform with current zoning standards.
“Objective standards” means standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal.
“Passageway” means a pathway that is unobstructed clear to the sky and extends from a street to one entrance of the accessory dwelling unit. “Proposed dwelling” means a dwelling that is the subject of a permit application and that meets the requirements for permitting.
476 of 559
34 “Public transit” means a location, including, but not limited to, a bus stop or train station, where the public may access buses, trains, subways, and other forms of transportation that charge set fares, run on fixed routes, and are available to the public. “Tandem parking” means a parking configuration where two or more automobiles are parked on a driveway or in any other location on a lot, lined up behind one another.
D. General Provisions.
1. Accessory dwelling units shall be permitted in any zone that allows residential uses and is developed with residential uses or, in the case of single-family zones only, is proposed to be developed with a residential dwelling unituse. Where two or more contiguous lots in the same ownership are developed as one building site with residential dwellings and where an accessory dwelling unit is proposed, a lot line adjustment or parcel map, as applicable, shall be required to create one lot by relocating or eliminating existing lot lines.
2. Junior accessory dwelling units shall only be permitted on lots developed with one residential dwelling or proposed to be developed with one residential dwelling.
Where two or more contiguous lots in the same ownership are developed as one building site with residential dwellings and where a junior accessory dwelling unit is proposed, a lot line adjustment or parcel map shall, as applicable, be required to create one lot by relocating or eliminating existing lot lines.
3. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are subject to the underlying zoning development standards for setback, floor area ratio, lot coverage, height, parking, open space and landscaping that are applicable to the primary residential dwelling, or dwellings, except as otherwise set forth in this section.
These prohibitions do not apply when compliance with this section precludes development of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that qualifies under subsection (E)(4) or (F)(2) below. The underlying zoning development standards for floor area ratio, lot coverage, open space and landscaping shall not include up to 800 square feet of any accessory dwelling unit area constructed under the provisions of this section.
4. No additional setback sha ll be required for an existing living area or accessory building or a building constructed in the same location and to the same dimensions as an existing building that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit, and a setback of no more than four feet from an interior lot line shall be required for an accessory dwelling unit that is not converted from an existing building constructed in the same locations and to the same dimensions as an existing building.
5. An accessory dwelling unit shall include:
a. A bathroom.
b. A kitchen.
c. Independent access.
d. Comply with building codes, including sufficient setbacks for fire. e. May not be smaller than identified in Section 17958.1 of the California Health 477 of 559
35 and Safety Code.
f. Must be served by utilities, including sewer, water and electric.
6. All new construction attached or detac hed accessory dwelling units shall have a maximum square footage as follows.
a. Eight hundred fifty square feet; or
b. One thousand square feet for an accessory dwelling unit that provides more than one bedroom.
7. All new construction accessory dwel ling units attached to the existing or proposed primary dwelling shall not exceed 50% of the existing or proposed floor area of the primary dwelling, but in no event shall an accessory dwelling unit exceed the maximum square feet stated in subsection (D)(6) above. This prohibition does not apply when compliance with this section precludes development of an accessory dwelling unit that qualifies under (E)(4) below.
8. A junior accessory dwelling unit shall include:
a. An efficiency kitchen, which shall in clude a sink and a cooking facility with appliances and a food preparation counter and storage cabinets that are of reasonable size in relation to the size of the junior accessory dwelling unit. b. Independent access.
c. Comply with building codes, incl uding sufficient setbacks for fire. d. May not be smaller than identified in Section 17958.1 of the California Health and Safety Code.
e. Must be served by utilities, including sewer, water and electric. f. If the junior accessory dwelling unit does not include a separate bathroom, the junior accessory dwelling unit shall include a separate entrance from the main entrance to the structure, with an interior entry to the main living area.
9. A lot where only one residential dw elling unit exists may have either an accessory dwelling unit or an accessory living quarters, but not both. For the purposes of this section, other accessory buildings which are defined as “R” Occupancy per Chapter 3 of the California Building Code such as, a cabana, pool house, recreation room, workshop, studio, rumpus room and similar shall be considered accessory living quarters. An accessory living quarter may be converted to an accessory dwelling unit. Nothing herein shall prohibit the creation of a junior accessory dwelling unit on such a lot that contains an accessory living quarters.
10.9. In no case shall new construction of an accessory dwelling unit be located between the primary residential dwelling(s) and the street front and street side setback. Notwithstanding such prohibition, in cases where a lot has more than one street front (through lot), a new construction attached or detached accessory dwelling unit may be located between the street front setback and the side or rear façade of the primary residential dw elling(s). Further, no additional driveway 478 of 559
36 shall be allowed from any street front age. These prohibitions do not apply when compliance with this section precludes development of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that qualifies under subsection (E)(4) or (F)(2)(b) below.
11.10. Any rental of an accessory dwelling unit and/or junior accessory dwelling unit created pursuant to this section shall be for a term longer than 30 days.
12.11. Except as provided in Government Code Section 65852.2666341 or otherwise allowed by state or local law, an the accessory dwelling unit and/or the junior accessory dwelling unit cannot be sold separately from the residential dwelling(s). A junior accessory dwelling unit cannot be sold separately from the sale of the single- family residence under any circumstance.
13.12. Fire sprinklers shall be required for the accessory dwelling unit and/or junior accessory dwelling unit if fire sprinklers are or were required for the residential dwelling. The construction of an accessory dwelling unit shall not trigger a requirement for fire sprinklers to be installed in the existing single- or multi-family dwelling.
14.13. No passageway shall be required between an entrance of the accessory dwelling unit and the street right-of-way as defined in state law.
15.14. The property owner shall pay all sewer, water, school district, and other applicable fees.
16.15. Notwithstanding Chapter 4.10 and any development impact fee resolutions adopted thereunder:
a. Any accessory dwelling unit under 750 square feet shall be exempt from any development impact fee, including, but not limited to, the parks and libraries development impact fee; and
b. Any accessory dwelling unit of 750 s quare feet or greater shall be charged a parks and library development impact fee in an amount proportionally related to the square footage of the primary dwelling unit or the average square footage of the existing or proposed multi-family dwelling units, as applicable, not to exceed that amount set forth in the development impact fee resolution adopted pursuant to Chapter 4.10 of this code.
17.16. The property owner may install new or separate utility connections between the accessory dwelling unit(s) or junior accessory dwelling unit and the utility, and pay all applicable connection fees or capacity charges.
18.17. An accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory unit shall not be considered a new residential use for purposes of calculating connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer, unless the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit is constructed with a new single-family dwelling.
19.18. When an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit qualifies under subsection (E)(4) or (F)(2), installation of new or separate utility connections, including related connection fees or capacity charges, directly between the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be required unless 479 of 559
37 the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling un it was constructed with a new single-fa mily dwelling.
19. When an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit does not qualify under subsection (E)(4) or (F)(2), installation of a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory dwelling unit and the utility may be required.
Consistent with California Government Code Section 66013, the connection may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit, based upon either it’s square footage or the number of its drainage fixture unit (DFU) values, as defined in the Uniform Plumbing Code adopted and published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials, upon the water or sewer system. This fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.
20. In addition to the above, the City shall comply with all accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit permitting and permit processing requirements, mandates, timelines, deadlines, restrictions, prohibitions and limitations contained in California Government Code Sections 66314, et seq., including, but not limited to, Sections 66316 through 66317 and 66331 through 66332.
E. Additional Standards Specific Only to an Accessory Dwelling Unit and/or Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit Where Only One Residential Dwelling Unit Exists or is Proposed on a Lot. The following standards and criteria apply to accessory dwelling units and/or junior accessory dwelling units where only one residential dwelling unit exists or is proposed on a lot.
1. Except as otherwise set forth in this section, accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are subject to all zoning development standards that apply in the underlying zone to the primary residential dwelling, including, but not limited to, setbacks, floor area ratio, lot coverage, height, parking, landscaping, open space, and ungraded open space, except that no more than a minimum of four foot interior setbacks shall be required.
2. Notwithstanding the devel opment standards for floor area ratio, lot coverage, and open space (when not required for minimum landscaping requirements) for the underlying zone, a new construction attached or detached accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted that is 800 square feet or less in size, provides four foot minimum interior setbacks and does not exceed the following height limitations:
a. A height limit of 16 feet for a detac hed accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling unit.
b. A height limit of 18 feet for a detac hed accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed single-family dwelling unit that is within one-half (0.5) mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. An additional two feet in height shall be permitted to accommodate a roof pitch on the accessory dwelling unit that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. In no case shall the accessory dwelling unit exceed two stories. c. A height of 25 feet or the height limitation of the underlying zoning district, 480 of 559
38 whichever is lower, for an accessory dwelling unit that is attached to the primary dwelling, including above a detached garage or carport. In no case shall the accessory dwelling unit exceed two stories.
3. For properties listed on the California Register of Historic Places, the Glendale Register of Historic Properties, any property in an adopted or nominated historic district overlay zone, or any property identified as significant or potentially significant on a historic survey meeting the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(g), any exterior changes to an existing property to create an accessory dwelling unit and/or a junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be visible from the public street or sidewalk right-of-way immediately adjacent to the property and shall not alter any defining historical characteristic unl ess compliance with this section precludes dev elopment of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that qualifies under subsection (E)(4) below.
4. Notwithstanding subsection (E)(1) above:
a. One accessory dwelling unit and one ju nior accessory dwelling unit shall be allowed when all of the following apply:
i. The accessory dwelling unit or juni or accessory dwelling unit shall be located within the proposed space of a single-family dwelling or existing space of a single-family dwelling, or the accessory dwelling unit shall be located within the existing space of an accessory building and may include an expansion of an accessory building not to exceed 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing accessory building.
An expansion of an accessory dwelling unit beyond the physical dimensions of the existing accessory building shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress;
ii. The space has exterior access from the proposed or existing single-family dwelling;
iii. For fire safety purposes, at least one of the existing interior setbacks has minimum of three feet; and
iv. The junior accessory dwelling unit complies with all other junior accessory dwelling unit requirements outlined in this Ordinance.
b. One detached new construction accesso ry dwelling unit shall be allowed subject to the following:
i. A minimum four foot interior setback;
ii. A maximum square foot age of 800 square feet; and
iii. A height limit as set fort h in subsection (E)(2) above.
An accessory dwelling unit constructed under subsection (E)(4)(b) above may be combined to also allow a junior accessory dwelling unit in the manner described in subsection (E)(4)(a) above, but only where one residential dwelling unit exists, or is proposed to be constructed.
5. Alterations and/or additions to any exis ting primary residential dwelling which do 481 of 559
39 not propose an additional story and/or change to a façade, including addition of a door, directly facing a street may be permitted to accommodate an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit. In cases where a lot has more than one street front (through lot), a new construction attached or detached accessory dwelling unit may be located between the street front setback and the side or rear façade of the primary residential dwelling(s) and may add a door directly facing a street. These prohibitions do not apply when compliance with this section precludes development of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that qualifies under subsection (E)(4) above.
6.5. Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units that are new construction, or propose exterior modifications to an existing primary residence or to a permitted accessory building shall be architecturally compatible with the existing primary residence comply with the objective design standards set forth in subsection (G) below. These standards shall not apply to and must use matching or complementary building materials unless compliance with this section precludes development of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that qualifies under subsection (E)(4) above.
7.6. New construction attached or detached accessory dwelling units shall be limited to a single-story, except when constructed under the height limits enumerated in subsection (E)(2)(b) through (E)(2)(c). New construction accessory dwelling units shall not be permitted above a detached garage or carport.
8. When an accessory dwelling unit and/or junior accessory dwelling unit is proposed with an attached balcony, porch or patio cover structure, the attached balcony, porch or patio cover structure shall be limited to no more than 5% of the square footage of the accessory dwelling unit and/or junior accessory dwelling unit or 60 square feet, whichever is less.
9. Rooftop deck located above any new construction (attached or detached) or converted accessory and/or junior accessory dwelling unit are prohibited. Further, when a parapet is used for the accessory dwelling, the parapet height shall not exceed 18 inches.
F. Additional Standards Specific Only to Accessory Dwelling Units on Lots Developed with Existing or Proposed Multiple Residential Dwelling Units. The following standards and criteria apply to accessory dwelling units on lots developed with existing or proposed multiple residential dwelling units.
1. Except as otherwise set forth in this sect ion, accessory dwelling units are subject to all zoning development standards that apply in the underlying zone, including, but not limited to, setbacks, floor area ratio, lot coverage, height, parking, landscaping, open space, and ungraded open space, except that no more than a minimum of four foot interior setbacks shall be required. In such cases, no more than three new construction accessory dwelling units with a maximum square footage set forth in subsection (D)(6) above shall be allowed.
2. Notwithstanding subsection (F)(1) above, th e applicant is entitled to build accessory dwelling units under either subsection (F)(2)(a) or (F)(2)(b) below, but not both:
a. At least one accessory dwelling unit and up to 25% of the existing multi- family 482 of 559
40 dwelling units shall be allowed within portions of existing multi family dwelling structures (excluding existing dwelling units) that are not used as livable space, including, but not limited to, storage rooms, boiler rooms, passageways, attics, basements, or garages, if each unit complies with state building standards for dwellings; or
b. Not more than two detached Multiple accessory dwelling units with minimum four foot interior setbacks shall be allowed. These accessory dwelling units may be attached or detached from each other and shall not exceed the number specified in subsection (F)(2)(b)(i) or (F)(2)(b)(ii), as applicable:
i. On a lot with an existing multi-fa mily dwelling, not more than eight detached accessory dwelling units shall be allowed. The number of accessory dwelling units allowable pursuant to this sub-section shall not exceed the number of existing units on the lot.
ii. On a lot with a proposed multi-family dwelling, not more than two detached accessory dwelling units shall be allowed.
b.c. and shall be located where existing garage or carports are located and are proposed to be demolished and where this demolition is necessary to physically accommodate the accessory dwelling unit(s). In addition, tThe following height limitations shall apply for accessory dwelling units that qualify under subsection (F)(2)(b)(i) or (F)(2)(b)(ii) above:
i. A height of 16 feet fo r a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing multi-family dwelling unit.
ii. A height of 18 feet fo r a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed multi family dwelling unit that is within one-half (0.5) of one mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high-quality transit corridor, as those terms are defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code. An additional two feet in height shall be permitted to accommodate a roof pitch on the accessory dwelling unit(s) that is aligned with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. In no case shall the accessory dwelling unit exceed two stories.
iii. A height of 18 feet for a detached accessory dwelling unit on a lot with an existing or proposed multi-family, multi-story dwelling. In no case shall the accessory dwelling unit exceed two stories.
3. Junior accessory dwelling units are prohibited on lots developed with existing multiple residential dwelling units.
4. For properties listed on the California Register of Historic Places, the Glendale Register of Historic Properties, any property in an adopted or nominated historic district overlay zone, or any property identified as significant or potentially significant on a historic survey meeting the requirements of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(g), any exterior changes to an existing property to create accessory dwelling units shall not be visible from the public street or sidewalk right-of-way immediately adjacent to the property and shall not alter any defining historical characteristic unless compliance with this section precludes development of an 483 of 559
41 accessory dwelling unit(s) that qualifies under subsection (F)(2) above.
5. Accessory dwelling units that are new construction, or that propose exterior modifications to an existing multi-family building or to a permitted accessory building shall be architecturally compatible with the existing multi-family buildingcomply with the objective design standards in subsection (G) below. and must use matching or complementary building materials unless compliance with this section precludes development of These standards shall not apply to an accessory dwelling unit(s) that qualifies under subsection (F)(2) above.
6. Accessory dwelling units s hall be limited to a single-story, except when constructed under the height limits enumerated in subsections (F)(2)(b)(i) through (F)(2)(b)(ii).
New construction accessory dwelling units shall not be permitted above detached garages or carports.
7. When an accessory dwelling unit(s) is pr oposed with an attached balcony, porch or patio cover structure, the attached balcony, porch or patio cover structure shall be limited to no more than 5% of the square footage of the accessory dwelling unit and/or junior accessory dwelling unit or 60 square feet, whichever is less.
G. Rooftop decks located above any new construc tion (attached are detached) or converted accessory dwelling unit are prohibited. Further, when a parapet is used for the accessory dwelling unit, the parapet height shall not exceed 18 inches.
G. Objective Design Standards for Accessory Dwelling Units. The following standards and criteria shall apply to accessory dwelling units, or portions thereof, that directly face the public realm, which for the purposes of this subsection shall include improved public streets, sidewalks, alleys, parks, and accessory dwelling units that include a second story. Accessory dwelling units that do not include a second story and/or are hidden from view from the public realm by primary or accessory buildings shall be exempt from these criteria. In accordance with Government Code Section 66323(b), these standards do not apply to the development of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that qualifies under subsection (E)(4) or (F)(2) above. This section is not applicable to designated historic resources and potential historic resources, as defined in GMC 15.20.20, and/or contributors in designated or pending historic districts, as defined in GMC 30.25.015.
1. Massing.
a. Roof Form and Pitch.
i. The roof form of the accessory dwelli ng unit shall match the roof form of the existing primary residence or multi-family building.
ii. For an existing primary residence or mu lti-family building with multiple roof forms, the roof of the accessory dwelling unit shall match at least one of the roof forms of the existing development. The accessory dwelling unit may have more than one roof form, so long as the selected roof forms match those of the existing primary residence or multi-family building. 484 of 559
42 iii. When the roof pitch of the existing pr imary residence or multi-family building has a pitch greater than 4:12, the roof pitch of the accessory dwelling unit is not required to match, so long as the accessory dwelling unit complies with the height requirements set forth in subsections (E)(2) and (F)(2)(b) above. iv. Rooftop decks are prohibited on a ll attached or detached accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, including both new construction and conversions.
v. When a parapet is incorporated into the design of the accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit, the parapet height shall not exceed 18 inches above the lowest point of the roof.
b. Breaks in Building Volume.
i. Each façade that directly faces th e public realm shall have at least one change in plane with a minimum depth of 18 inches.
ii. Second-floor overhangs for the accessory dwelling unit shall be oriented towards the rear and side yard areas and shall not directly face the public realm.
2. Design and Detailing.
a. Exterior Wall Cladding.
i. Except as indicated in subsections (G)(2)(a)(vi) and (G)(2)(a)(vii) below, the accessory dwelling unit shall have a minimum of two wall cladding materials at any façade or portion thereof which directly faces the public realm. ii. The use of stucco shall be limited to a maximum of 60% of the total exterior wall surface of any façade or portion thereof which directly faces the public realm.
iii. All cladding materials shall wrap ex terior corners and either wrap the entire building or terminate at inside corners.
iv. Any of the following cladding material s may be used: wood or cementitious siding (e.g., lap siding, tongue-and-groove/interlocking boards, board-and- batten, shingle), stucco, brick, veneer brick, natural stone, and pre-cast stone.
v. If siding is applied solely at the base of the building (wainscoting), it shall extend from the lowest edge of the wall up to, at a minimum, the height of the lowest windowsill on that façade. If a façade is windowless, the siding at its base shall either match the height of any siding proposed at adjoining façades or, if none exists, shall not be greater than four-feet above the level of the adjoining grade.
vi. If the roof of the exis ting primary residence or multi-family building is clad with Spanish-tiles (one- or two- piece clay or concrete tiles with a curved profile), 100% of the exterior wall surfaces of the accessory dwelling unit shall be clad with stucco.
485 of 559
43 vii. If the existing primary residence or multi-family building is clad entirely with horizontal and/or shingle siding, 100% of exterior wall surfaces of the accessory dwelling unit directly facing the public realms shall be clad with horizontal and/or shingle siding.
b. Roof Cladding.
i. Pitched roofs on the accessory dwelli ng unit shall be clad with a material that matches the roof of the existing primary residence or multi-family building in terms of material, color, texture, dimensions, shape, and profiles. ii. Flat roofs may be clad with any mate rial permitted by the building code. iii. If the flat-roofed portion of the existing primary residence or multi-family building has Spanish-tile (one- or two-piece clay or concrete tile with a curved profile) parapet caps, any flat-roof portion of the accessory dwelling unit shall have parapet caps that match the existing parapet caps of the existing primary residence or multi-family building in terms of material, color, texture, dimensions, shape, and profiles.
iv. If the flat-roofed portion of the existing primary residence or multi-family building does not have Spanish-tile parapet caps, any flat-roofed portion of the accessory dwelling unit shall have parapets with an upper surface designed to shed water or with a sheet-metal parapet cap that is finished at its outward-facing surface to match the color of the adjacent wall cladding. c. Entryways, Windows and Doors.
i. Windows shall be recessed a minimum of one inch from the face of the window frame to the face of the exterior wall material finish with the exception of those windows permitted in Section (G)(2)(c)(vi). ii. Windows shall have a sill projecting a minimum of one inch from the exterior material finish, except for flush-mounted windows permitted in Section (G)(2)(c)(vi).
iii. Second-floor windows that are facing abutting properties and not oriented towards the interior of the lot shall have a minimum floor to sill height of 60 inches. Any windows that are necessary by the building code for emergency ingress and egress shall be exempt from this requirement only if there are no other alternative options for placement
iv. Windows may be of any material permitted by the building code. v. No internal grids (“grid-bet ween-glass”) shall be permitted. vi. Windows that are a slider operati on and/or flush-mounted windows shall only be permitted when the existing primary residence or multi-family building was constructed on or after January 1, 1960.
vii. Any roof and/or wall elements that shelter entryways shall not exceed the height of the accessory dwelling unit at the location of the entryway. viii. Double doors shall not be permitted.
486 of 559
44 d. Balconies, Stairs and Landings.
i. Balconies for an accessory dwelling uni t or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be oriented towards the interior of the lot and shall not be located where they directly overlook adjacent properties.
ii. All stairs and landings for an accesso ry dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit shall be located towards the interior of the lot and not directly face the public realm.
e. Equipment and Lighting.
i. Mechanical equipment, including at a minimum, water heaters, HVAC units, and electrical panels, shall not directly face the public realm. ii. Exterior light fixtures shall only be located adjacent to entries, stairs, balconies, and outdoor patio areas. All lighting shall be shielded to minimize spillover and directed downwards and away from adjacent properties.
H. Parking Standards for an Accessory Dwelling Unit.
1. Off-street parking for an accessory dw elling unit shall comply with the following standards:
a. A maximum of one off-street parking s pace shall be provided per accessory dwelling unit or per bedroom, whichever is less, except as otherwise provided in this section.
b. Any uncovered parking space shall have a minimum width of eight feet and a length of 18 feet.
c. Parking may be located in any configur ation on the same lot as the accessory dwelling unit, including covered spaces, uncovered spaces, or tandem spaces, or by the use of mechanical automobile parking lifts.
d. If a mechanical automobile parking lift is used, it shall be enclosed and may not be located within any setback area.
e. An uncovered parking space may be located within setback areas on an existing driveway and shall not encroach on the public right-of-way. f. A covered or enclosed parking space shall comply with zoning standards.
2. An accessory dwelling unit shall shar e the driveway with the existing primary residential dwelling or multiple residential dwelling units. The driveway to the primary residential dwelling or multiple residential dwelling units may be modified to accommodate onsite parking and shall comply with Section 30.32.130. A separate driveway for the accessory dwelling unit shall not be provided, except where the lot is adjacent to an alley, in which case a driveway from the alley may be added to serve the accessory dwelling unit.
3. On shared driveways that provide access fo r multiple lots, such as flag lots, parking shall not be permitted on portions of the driveway that are used to provide access to more than one lot.
487 of 559
45 4. No on-site parking is required for an a ccessory dwelling unit when one or more of the following is applicable:
a. The property is located within one-half (0.5) mile wa lking distance of a public transit stop.
b. The property is listed on the Californi a Register of Historic Places, Glendale Register of Historic Properties, or any property in an adopted historic district overlay zone with a building identified as a contributing building or structure in an adopted historic resources survey.
c. When the accessory dwelling unit is located within the existing primary residence or accessory living quarters.
d. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of an accessory dwelling unit.
e. When there is a car share vehicle lot, such as ZIP car, lo cated within one block of the accessory dwelling unit.
f. When it is a junior accessory dwelling unit.
g. When an accessory dwelling unit(s) qualifies for approval under subsection (E)(4) or (F)(2) of this section.
g.h. When a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling or a new multi-family dwelling on the same lot, provided that the accessory dwelling unit or the parcel satisfies any other criteria listed in this section.
5. Parking spaces shall not be required to be replaced when a garage, carport, or covered parking structure, or uncovered parking space is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit or converted to an accessory dwelling unit. For purposes of this section, “in conjunction with” means construction of an accessory dwelling unit(s) or conversion that falls within the footprint of the original garage, carport, or covered parking structure that is proposed to be demolished/converted for an accessory dwelling unit.
I. Covenant and Agreement.
1. A covenant and agreement shall be executed by the property owner and recorded for an accessory dwelling unit and/or junior accessory dwelling unit prior to final approval of the building permit. The covenant and agreement shall include the following:
a. The accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from the primary residential dwelling, except as provided in Government Code Section 65852.26.
b. All required on-site parking for the lo t identified in the accessory dwelling unit permit shall remain available for the primary residential dwelling and accessory dwelling unit and shall not be rented separately to non-residents. c.b. For properties with junior accessory dwelling units, aAt all times, the property 488 of 559
46 owner shall comply with one of the following requirements: (i) the property owner must be an owner-occupant and reside in either the residential dwelling or in the junior accessory dwelling unit; or (ii) if the property owner does not reside in either the residential dwelling or the junior accessory dwelling unit, then the property owner shall only rent or lease the property as a single rental property and shall not rent or lease the residential dwelling and junior accessory dwelling unit separately from each other.
d. Short-term rentals less than 30 days ar e prohibited for the primary residential dwelling, accessory dwelling unit, and junior accessory dwelling unit. e.c. The accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit permit shall run with the land and the accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit permit is binding and enforceable on future property owners. f.d. The accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit shall be removed at the expense of the property owner if the accessory dwelling unit permit or junior accessory dwelling unit permit is invalidated or terminated, upon violation of this section, or upon cessation of the primary land use as a single-family residential dwelling and/or multi-family residential dwellings, as applicable.
SECTION 10. Section 30.70.050 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:
30.70.050 Definitions, “D”
The following definitions are in alphabetical order:
Day care center. “Day care center” means a facility operated by a person, corporation, or association in which less than 24-hour per day non-medical care and supervision is provided outside the home for minor children or elderly persons, provided such facility is licensed by the State of California as a day care center, and provided further that a copy or evidence of the license issued by the State of California is on file with the city clerk prior to occupancy as such a facility. This definition does not include facilities for the care of up to 14 persons in small and large family day care as defined by the California Health and Safety Code.
Director. “Director” means the director of community development or his/her designee.
Detached. “Detached” means any building or structure separated by at least five feet in horizontal distance (measured from eave to eave).
Disability. “Disability” means a disability or handicap as defined by the Federal Fair Housing Act (FFHA). Federal laws define any person with a disability as “Any person who has a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; has a record of such impairment; or is regarded as having such impairment.
Dish antenna. “Dish antenna” means any device incorporating a reflective surface that is solid, open mesh, or bar configured and is in the shape of a shallow dish, cone, horn, cornucopia or flat plate, and has a diameter in excess of three feet; which device is used to receive or transmit radio or electromagnetic waves between terrestrially and/or orbitally based units. This definition shall include, but not be limited to, what is commonly referred to as satellite earth stations, satellite receivers, satellite discs, direct broadcast systems (DBS’s), television reception only systems (TVROs) and satellite microwave antennas. 489 of 559
47 Down slope wall. “Down slope wall” means the walled side(s) of any building or structure facing down hill.
Domestic violence shelter. “Domestic violence shelter” means a residential facility which provides temporary accommodations to persons or families who have been the victims of domestic violence. Such a facility may also provide meals, counseling, and other services, as well as common areas for the residents of the facility.
Dwelling. “Dwelling” means a building or any portion thereof designed exclusively for residential purposes, including single and multiple residential dwellings but not including hotels, motels and other places without individual kitchen facilities.
Dwelling unit. “Dwelling unit” means a single unit providing complete, independent living facilities for one person or household, including permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking and sanitation. This definition does not include accessory dwelling units or junior accessory dwelling units, which are defined separately in this Chapter.
Dwelling, multiple residential. “Dwelling, multiple residential” means a building or portion thereof designed for occupancy by two or more persons or households living independently of each other in separate units. Includes apartments, townhouses or similar buildings. On-site support services personnel and equipment to maintain independent living is limited to residents of the dwelling.
Dwelling, one residential. “Dwelling, one residential” means a detached building designed exclusively for occupancy by one household. On-site support services personnel and equipment to maintain independent living is limited to residents of the dwelling.
SECTION 11. Pipeline Projects. Accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit permit applications which have been submitted to plan check prior to the adoption of this Ordinance shall be reviewed under the zoning rules and regulations which were in effect on the day prior to adoption of this Ordinance. The foregoing notwithstanding, any applicant may make a request in writing to the Director of Community Development that his or her application be reviewed under the zoning rules and regulations as amended by this Ordinance.
SECTION 12. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15282(h) because this Ordinance implements the provisions of former Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 (now codified in Article 2 [commencing with Section 66314] and Article 3 [commencing with Section 66333] of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code), second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone. Moreover, this Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to Title14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15060(c)(1), as it implements provisions of former Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 (now codified in Article 2 [commencing with Section 66314] and Article 3 [commencing with Section 66333] of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code), which require ministerial review and approval of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units and therefore, does not involve the exercise of discretionary powers by the City.
490 of 559
48 SECTION 13. Severability. This Ordinance’s provisions are severable. If any portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, that decision does not affect the validity of the Ordinance’s remaining portions and the Ordinance’s application to other persons and circumstances. The City Council declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance without the invalid or unconstitutional provision.
SECTION 14. Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective on the thirtieth (30th) day after its adoption.
Passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the _______ day of ________, 2024.
_________ _____________________
M a y o r
Attest
___________________________________
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS.
CITY OF GLENDALE)
I, DR. SUZIE ABAJIAN, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, California, certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. ______________ was passed and adopted 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 _______________, 2024 by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
______ ______________________
C i t y C l e r k
491 of 559
1 ORDINANCE NO. ________________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (DSP)
RELATING TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND JUNIOR ACCESSSORY DWELLING UNITS (CASE NO. PGPA-003908-2024)
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:
WHEREAS, the City of Glendale (“City”) regulates accessory dwelling units pursuant to Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 (“GMC”), including Chapter 30.34, as well pursuant to the Glendale Building and Safety Code; and WHEREAS, California Government Code (“CA Gov’t Code”) Sections 66314 et seq., allow local agencies to enact ordinances providing for the creation of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, and establish standards for ministerial review of such units; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted Housing Element 2021-2029 of the General Plan on February 1, 2022 and this Element was certified by the State Department of Housing and Community De velopment (“HCD”) on February 27, 2023; and
WHEREAS, CA Gov’t Code Section 66319 declares that accessory dwelling units in areas zoned to allow single-fa mily or multi-family dwelling residential uses do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the accessory dwelling unit is located, and that accessory dwelling units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot; and WHEREAS, the development of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units will further local, regional and state goal s for meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation set forth in the City’s Housing Element 2021-2029; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Housing Element 2021-2029, contains Policy 1.9 “Encourage flexibility in the Zoning Ordinance to promote a wide range of housing types”; Policy 1.3 “Promote the dispersion of affordable housing throughout the City while recognizing the potential for the integr ation of market-rate and affordable units within individual projects”; Policy 2.9 “Respect scale, historic continuity, and a sense of community in new residential development” ; and, Policy 6.10 “encourage the use of sustainable building practi ces in residential developm ents” and permitted accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units implements these policies; and WHEREAS, the Greener Glendale Plan for Community Activities was adopted by the City Council of the City of Glendale on March 12, 2012, for the purposes of promoting sustainable practices and establishing greenhouse gas reduction strategies in accordance with AB 32 (2006) and SB 375 (2008); WHEREAS, the Greener Glendale Plan fo r Community Activities Objective UD4 directs Glendale to continue to promote infill dev elopment to increase 492 of 559
2 sustainability and livable env ironment and permitting acce ssory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units is consistent with that objective; and WHEREAS, CA Gov’t Code Section 66314 r equires cities to permit accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for single family and multifamily residential uses, but allows cities to designate areas where accessory dwelling units and junior accesso ry dwelling units may be permitted based on the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units on tr affic flow and public safety, as well as, allows cities to impose objective standards on accessory dwelling units that include, but are not limited to, parking, height, setback, landscape, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent ad verse impacts on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources; and WHEREAS, on December 8, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 5957 and 5958 amending permanent standards and processes for the review and approval of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, which Ordinance was codified in Section 30.34.080 of the GMC; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5997 incorporating state law am endments and minor modifications and clarifications related to accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units; WHEREAS, following HCD’s review of Ordinance No. 5997, HCD sent the City a series of letters, commencing with a letter dated December 7, 2023, and including a June 19, 2024 “Notice of Violation” letter with written findings alleging portions of Ordinance No. 5997 does not comply with CA Gov’t Code Sections 66314, et seq. (“State ADU Law”) to which the City responded; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CA Gov’t Code Section 66326(b), the City must consider the findings made by HCD pursuant to its review of Ordinance No. 5997 and must either amend the Ordinance to comply with State ADU Law, and/or re-adopt the Ordinance without changes, but with findings in a resolution adopting the Ordinances that explains the reasons the City believes that the Ordinance complies with State ADU Law, despite HCD’s findings; and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2024, at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting, and in response to the above-referenced written findings, the City Council considered said findings and initiated amendments to Title 30 of the GMC related to development standards for accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units as to portions of said findings, and directed staff to re-adopt Ordinance No. 5997 without changes (with findings in a resolution adopting the Ordinance explaining the reasons the City believes the Ordinance complies with State ADU Law despite HCD’s findings) as to certain other portions of Ordinance No. 5997; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Planning Commission considered and recommended approval of these amendments to Title 30 of the GMC, as well as readoption of portions of Ordinance No. 5997 with findings, at its meeting of October 16, 2024.
493 of 559
3 NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Findings.
The City Council finds, determines, and declares that:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
2. All of the findings contained in Resolu tion No. _______ (A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, Making Findings That Certain Portions of Ordinance No. 5997 Complies with California Government Code Sections 66314, et seq., and 66333, et seq. Despite The Findings of the California Department of Housing and Community Development, Which Findings Are Required Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66326 Prior to Re-Adopting Those Portions of Ordinance No. 5997 Without Changes Within Ordinance No. _______) are hereby incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
SECTION 2. Downtown Specific Plan. Chapter 3 Land Use. Section 3.3 Land Uses & Permit Requirements. Table 3-A-1: Land Uses and Permit Requirements and Table 3-B-1 are amended to read as follows:
494 of 559
4 495 of 559
5 SECTION 3. Pipeline Projects. Accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit permit applications which have been submitted to plan check prior to the adoption of this Ordinance shall be reviewed under the zoning rules and regulations which were in effect on the day prior to adoption of this Ordinance. The foregoing notwithstanding, any applicant may make a request in writing to the Director of Community Development that his or her application be reviewed under the zoning rules and regulations as amended by this Ordinance.
SECTION 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15282(h) because this Ordinance implements the provisions of former Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 (now codified in Article 2 [commencing with Section 66314] and Article 3 [commencing with Section 66333] of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code), second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone. Moreover, this Ordinance is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to Title14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15060(c)(1), as it implements provisions of former Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 (now codified in Article 2 [commencing with Section 66314] and Article 3 [commencing with Section 66333] of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code), which require ministerial review and approval of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units and therefore, does not involve the exercise of discretionary powers by the City.
SECTION 5. Severability. This Ordinance’s provisions are severable. If any portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, that decision does not affect the validity of the Ordinance’s remaining portions and the Ordinance’s application to other persons and circumstances. The City Council declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance without the invalid or unconstitutional provision.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. This ordinance becomes effective on the thirtieth (30th) day after its adoption.
Passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the _______ day of ________, 2024.
_________ _____________________
M a y o r
Attest
___________________________________
City Clerk
496 of 559
6 STATE OF CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS.
CITY OF GLENDALE)
I, DR. SUZIE ABAJIAN, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, California, certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. ______________ was passed and adopted 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 _______________, 2024 by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
______ ______________________
C i t y C l e r k
497 of 559
1 RESOLUTION NO. ______________
A RESOLUTION OF T
HE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,
CALIFORNIA, MAKING FINDINGS THAT CERTAIN PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 5997 COMPLIES WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 66314, ET SEQ., AND 66333, ET SEQ. DESPITE THE FINDINGS OF THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH
FINDINGS ARE REQUIRED PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66326 PRIOR TO RE-ADOPTING THOSE PORTIONS OF ORDINANCE NO. 5997 WITHOUT CHANGES WITHIN ORDINANCE NO. _______
WHEREAS, the City of Glendale (“City”) regulates accessory dwelling units pursuant to Title 30 of the Glendale Mu nicipal Code, 1995 (“GMC”), including Chapter 30.34, as well as pursuant to the Glendale Building and Safety Code; and WHEREAS, California Government Code (“CA Gov’t Code”) Sections 66314, et seq ., allow local agencies to enact ordinanc es providing for the creation of accessory dwelling units and junior acce ssory dwelling units, and establish standards for ministerial review of such units; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted Housing Elem ent 2021-2029 of the General Plan on February 1, 2022 and this Element was certified by the State Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) on February 27, 2023; and WHEREAS, CA Gov’t Code Section 66319 declares that accessory dwelling units in areas zoned to allow single-family or multi-family dwelling residential uses do not exceed the allowable density for the lot upon which the accessory dwelling unit is located, and that accessory dwe lling units are a residential use that is consistent with the existing general plan and zoning designation for the lot; and WHEREAS, the development of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units will further local, regional and state goals for meeting the Regional Housing Needs Allocation set fo rth in the City’s Housing Element 2021- 2029; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Housing Element 2021-2029, contains Policy 1.9 “Encourage flexibility in the Zoning Ordinance to promote a wide range of housing types”; Policy 1.3 “Promote the dispersion of affordable housing throughout the City while recognizing the potential for the integration of market-rate and affordable units within individual projects”; Policy 2.9 “Respect scale, historic continuity, and a sense of community in new residential development”; and, Policy 6.10 “encourage the use of sustainable building practices in residential developments” and permitted accessory dwelling units and junior acce ssory dwelling units implements these policies; and
498 of 559
2 WHEREAS, the Greener Glendale Plan fo r Community Activities was adopted by the City Council on March 12, 2012, for the purposes of promoting sustainable practices and establishing greenhouse gas reduction strategies in accordance with AB 32 (2006) and SB 375 (2008); and
WHEREAS, the Greener Glendale Plan for Comm unity Activities Objective UD4 directs Glendale to continue to promote infill development to increase sustainability and livable environment and permitting accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units is consistent with that objective; and WHEREAS, CA Gov’t Code Section 66314 requires cities to permit accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units in areas zoned for single family and multifamily residential uses , but allows cities to designate areas where accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units may be permitted based on the adequacy of water and sewer services and the impact of accessory dwelling units and junior accesso ry dwelling units on traffic flow and public safety, as well as, allows cities to impose objective standards on accessory dwelling units that include, but are not limited to, par king, height, setback, landscape, architectural review, maximum size of a unit, and standards that prevent adverse impacts on any real pr operty that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources; and
WHEREAS, on December 8, 2020, the City Council adopted Ordinance Nos. 5957 and 5958 amending perman ent standards and processes for the review and approval of accessory dwelling units and j unior accessory dwel ling units, which Ordinance was codified in Section 30.34.080 of the GMC; and WHEREAS, on November 15, 2022, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5997 incorporating state law amendments and minor modifications and clarifications related to accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units; and WHEREAS, following HCD’s review of Ordinance No. 5997, HCD sent the City a series of letters, commencing wit h a letter dated December 7, 2023, and including a June 19, 2024 “Notice of Violati on” letter, with written findings alleging portions of Ordinance No. 5997 does not co mply with CA Gov’t Code Sections 66314, et seq. (“State ADU Law”) and 66333, et seq. (“State JADU Law”), to which the City responded; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to CA Gov’t Code Se ction 66326(b), the City must consider the findings made by HCD pursuan t to its review of Ordinance No. 5997 and must either amend Ordinance No. 5997 to comply with State ADU Law, and/or re-adopt the Ordinance without changes, but with findings in a resolution that explains the reasons the City believes that the Ordinance complies with State ADU Law, despite HCD’s findings; and
WHEREAS, on August 20, 2024, at a r egularly scheduled City Council meeting, the City Council considered HCD’s findings with respect to Ordinance No. 5997 and initiated amendments to certain portions of Title 30 of the GMC related to 499 of 559
3 development standards for accessory dwelli ng units and junior accessory dwelling units as to certain of said findings, and directed staff to re-adopt Ordinance No. 5997 without changes (with findings in a resolu tion explaining the reasons the City believes the Ordinance complies with State ADU Law despite HCD’s findings) as to certain other portions of Ordinance No. 5997; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Planning Commission considered and recommended approval of these amendments to Title 30 of the GMC, as well as readoption of portions of Ordinance No. 5997 with findings, at its meeting of October 16, 2024.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COU NCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND AS FOLLOWS:
The City Council finds, determines, and declares that:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.
2. The City Council hereby makes the following findings pursuant to CA Gov’t Code Section 66326(b) immediately prio r to adoption of Ordinance No. _______ (amending portions of Ordinance No. 5997 and re-adopting portions of Ordinance No. 5997), which findings shall be incorporated by reference in Ordinance No. _______, after considering the findings made by HCD pursuant to its review of Ordinance No. 5997, in order to set forth reasons Ordinance No. 5997 complies with State ADU and JADU Law, despite HCD’s findings contained in its December 7, 2023 letter to the City.
3. As to HCD’s finding contained in it s December 7, 2023 letter to the City regarding JADUs and Zoning, alleging that the City’s allowance of JADUs in zones other than single family residential zones contained in Ordinance No. 5997 constitutes a violation of CA Gov’t Code Section 66333 (formerly CA Gov’t Section 65852.22(a)), the City Council finds as follows:
a. State JADU Law states “. . . a local agency may, by ordinance, provide for the creation of junior accessory dwelling units in single-family residential zones” (CA Gov’t Code Section 66333 (emphasis added)), and nowhere in the text of State JADU Law does the law prohibit a local agency from allowing construction of a JADU in a zone other than single family residential zones. Moreover, State JADU Law does not prohibit a local agency from being more permi ssive in its local ordinance to permit and promote greater affordable housing opportunities.
b. The purpose and intent of the JADU Law is to increase the supply of low-impact affordable housing within an existing single-family home (single-family use), as evidenced by the analysis of AB 2406 contained in the report of the Senate Commi ttee On Transportation and Housing (Senator Jim Beall, Chair 2015-2016), authored by T. Thurmond (finding 500 of 559
4 that “[b]y passing AB 2406, we will remove barriers to development of JADUs that offer an abundant and viable source of low-cost, low-impact and high-benefit rental housing particularly in urban, costal zones, while making owning a home in the state more affordable, without the need for government subsidies” and finding JADUs offer “flexibility to have a second unit, while still allowing for single-family use.”)
c. In Ordinance No. 5997, GMC Secti on 30.34.080(C) defines a JADU as "a unit that is no more than 500 square feet in size and contained entirely within a single-family residence." (emphasis added). Indeed, GMC Section 30.34.080(F)(3) states that "[j]unior accessory dwelling units are prohibited on lots devel oped with existing multiple residential dwelling units." Similarly, GMC Se ction 30.34.080(D)(2) states that JADUs are permitted only on lots developed, or proposed to be developed, with one residential dwellin g. Thus, Ordinance No. 5997 does not allow a multifamily dwelling unit (use as a multifamily) to construct a JADU. However, there are existing single family residences in all of the City's multifamily zones . Accordingly, the City's intent in allowing a JADU to be constructed on lots in non-single family zones that contain an existing single fam ily residence was to be fair and equitable to those existing single-family homes, and to allow these single family residences the same opportunities to construct a JADU as those that exist in single family zones, thereby increasing the supply of housing units, and, in particular, affordable housing units.
d. Accordingly, Ordinance No. 5997’s allowance of construction of JADUs in zones other than single family re sidential zones, limited to existing single family uses, violates neither the plain language nor the intent of State JADU Law, and re-adoption of these provisions would thus not violate State JADU Law.
4. As to HCD’s finding contained in it s December 7, 2023 letter to the City regarding Accessory Living Quarters alleging that the City’s requirement contained in Ordinance No. 5997, contained in GMC Secti on 30.34.080(D)(9), that a lot with one residential unit may have either an accessory dwelling unit or an accessory living quarter, but not both, constitutes a violation of CA Gov’t Code Section 66314(d)(3) (formerly CA Gov’t Code Section 65852.2(a)(1)), the City Council finds as follows:
a. Accessory living quarters are def ined in GMC Section 30.070.020 as "living quarters within an accessory building for the sole use of persons employed on the premises or members of the ho usehold living in the main building. Such quarters have no cooking facilities and are not rented or otherwise used as a separate dwelling.” Accessory living quarters are not the same as ADUs, which are defined as residential dwelling units that provide complete independent living facilities for one or more persons and include permanent provisions for living, sleeping eating, cooking, and sanitation. CA Gov’t Code Section 66313(a). 501 of 559
5 b. State ADU Law provides that a lo cal agency’s ordinance must require an ADU to be “either attached to, or located within, the proposed or existing primary dwelling, including attached garages, storage areas or similar uses, or an accessory struct ure or detached from the proposed or existing primary dwelling and located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary dwelling, incl uding detached garages.” CA Gov’t Code Section 66314(d)(3).
c. This section neither requires a local agency to allow both an ADU and an accessory structure such as an accessory living quarters, nor does it prohibit a local agency from requiring a lot with a single family dwelling to make a choice to either have one or more ADUs or a guest house.
Applicants are not forced to demolis h their accessory living quarters (detached accessory structure limited to 500 s quare feet (see GMC §
30.11.020, Table A)) - they may make an election to convert it into a detached ADU. Ordinance No. 5997 does not require that all existing areas of the dwelling/accessory structure be converted to an ADU other than existing guest house, which is not prohibited by State ADU Law.
Moreover, this provision of Or dinance No. 5997 does not preclude an ADU or JADU that complies with CA Gov’t Code Section 66323(a).
d. The City's purpose in enacting this provision of Ordinance No. 5997 was to minimize the proliferation of det ached accessory structures on lots, which further take away from land scaping, contribute to additional lot coverage and floor area ratio, and generally reduce open space, unless the accessory structure is used as an ADU. Rather than limiting ADU opportunities, this provision will encourage applicants to convert their accessory living quarters to an ADU, which will contribute to the creation of independent living facilities that c an support renters (as opposed to accessory living quarters, which cannot be separately rented).
e. Accordingly, Ordinance No. 5997’s requirement that a lot with one residential unit may have either an accessory dwelling unit or an accessory living quarter, but not both, violates neither the plain language nor the intent of State ADU Law, and re-adoption of these provisions would thus not violate State ADU Law.
5. As to HCD’s finding contained in its December 7, 2023 letter to the City regarding Unit Mixture alleging that the City’s limitation of construction of either (for single family use): 1. one converted ADU and a JADU, or, 2. one detached new construction ADU and a JADU; and, either (for multifamily use): 1. at least one and up to 25% of the existing multifamily dwelling units within portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures not used as livable space, or, 2. not more than 2 (or 8 under SB 1211) detached ADUs, contained in Ordinance No. 5997, contained in GMC Section 502 of 559
6 30.34.080(E)(4) & (F)(2), constitutes a violation of CA Gov’t Code Section 66323(a) (formerly CA Gov’t Section 65852.2(e)(1)) the City Council finds as follows:
a. HCD’s finding that the City must allow a lot with a single family use to construct one detached new construction ADU, one converted ADU and a JADU, and must allow a lot with a multifamily use to construct detached ADUs and convert portions of
its non-livable space (up to
25% of its existing units) is contrary to the plain language and legislative intent of State ADU Law.
b. State ADU Law states that a local agency must “ministerially approve an application for a building permit within a residential or mixed-use zone to create any of the following”, after which it sets forth two distinct ADU/JADU combination options for single family use lots and ADU types for multifamily use lots. CA Gov’t Code Section 66323(a). The word “any” contained in CA Gov’t Code Section 66323(a) does not mean “any and all” (a phrase that is missing from State Law) of what follows.
c. The above-referenced interpretation of the word “any” in CA Gov’t Code Section 66323(a) is a strained and illogical reading of this section that contradicts the overall AD
U/JADU statutory scheme. Section
66323(a)'s language requires a local
agency to ministerially approve an
application "to create any of the following" and then delineates what is clearly two different and distinct alternate scenarios: 1) a "converted" ADU and a JADU meeting certain specifications; or 2) a detached new construction ADU and a JADU. CA Gov’t Code Section 66323(a)(1-2).
The legislature was clear that each type of ADU (converted or new construction) could also combine with a JADU (and only one JADU with each type of ADU). Under HCDs reading of the statute, requiring the allowance of any and all of t
he listed types of ADUs/JADUs on one lot,
an applicant could create each of
the two kinds of ADUs and a JADU
for each ADU (resulting in 2 ADUs and 2 JADUs). However, a lot cannot have more than one JADU pursuant to Government Code s
ection 66333(a). Accordingly, HCDs construction of the statutory language is
not in harmony with section 66333(a), and thus violates the rules of statutory construction. See Skidgel v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 12 Cal. 5th 1, 14 (20 21) (holding
court must
"construe the words in question in context, keeping in mind the statutes' nature and
obvious purposes. . .. [and] harmonize the various parts of the enactments by co
nsidering them in the context of
503 of 559
7 the statutory [framework] as a whole"). The same statutory construction also applies to Section 66323(a)(3-4) in that an applicant must choose either detached ADUs or conversion of non-livable existing space up to 25% of the existing units.
d. The legislative history of the enactment of Section 66323(a) also contradicts HCD’s interpretation, as described above. Both AB 68 and AB 881, which amended State ADU law in 2019 to include the current language of Section 66323(a), were enacted with multiple legislative reports evidencing that the legislature intended to allow a maximum of one ADU (either converted attached or new construction detached) and one JADU in single-family lots. For example, with respect to AB 68, the April 3, 2019 report titled “Assembly Committee on Housing and Community Development”, on page 4 under the heading “Relaxing ADU Standards”, states: “[t]his bill makes major changes to the ADU statute to facilitate the development of more ADUs ... , including the following: Increases the number of ADUs allowed to be constructed per lot by potentially allowing two ADUs on lots with single-family homes, and multiple ADUs on lots with multi-family dwellings.” Moreover, the April 24, 20219 report titled “Assembly Committee on Appropriations (Lorena Gonzalez, Chair AB 68 (Ting) – As Amended April 3, 2019)” on page 1 states that the bill amends the law by allowing “an ADU and a JADU on one lot, under specified conditions”. Similar language is contained in the September 9, 2019 report titled “Concurrence in Senate Amendments”, at page 2 (“This bill ... [i]ncreases the number of ADUs allowed to be constructed per lot by potentially allowing two ADUs on lots with single-family homes, and multiple ADUs on lots with multi-family dwellings.”) Furthermore, the April 3, 2019 titled “Assembly Third Reading” on page 1 references two scenarios for a single family property: 1. a converted ADU and a JADU, or 2. a detached ADU and JADU. (Emphasis added). Additionally, under “comments” on page 5 of the July 10, 2019 report of the Senate Committee on Governance and Finance the following statement appears, describing the law: “AB 68 significantly expands the types of ADUs that cities and counties must permit regardless of local rules to include up to three units on a single-family lot: the primary dwelling, an ADU, and a JADU.” (Emphasis added). Moreover, with respect to AB 881, the Senate Floor Analysis dated September 1, 2019 contains a table on page 5 that delineates that each single family lot may only have one JADU and one ADU.
504 of 559
8 e. Accordingly, Ordinance No. 5997’s requirement regarding unit mixture, violates neither the plain language nor the intent of State ADU Law, and re-adoption of these provisions would thus not violate State ADU Law.
6. As to HCD’s finding contained in its December 7, 2023 letter to the City regarding Stories alleging that the City’s prohibition of new construction ADUs from being located directly above a detached garage contained in Ordinance No. 5997, contained in GMC Section 30.34.080(E)(7) & (F)(6), constitutes a violation of CA Gov’t Code Section 66314(d)(3) (formerly CA Gov’t Code Section 65852.2(a)(1)), the City Council finds as follows:
a. State ADU Law provides that a local agency’s ordinance must require an ADU to be “either attached to, or located within, the proposed or existing primary dwelling, including attached garages, storage areas or similar uses, or an accessory structure or detached from the proposed or existing primary dwelling and located on the same lot as the proposed or existing primary dwelling, including detached garages.” CA Gov’t Code Section 66314(d)(3).
b. The plain language of Section 66314(d)(3) mandates that the City allow an ADU to be either attached to or located within the space of the primary dwelling (including attached garages and other areas that are attached), or mandates that the City allow an ADU to be converted from an accessory structure, or mandates that the City allow an ADU to be detached from the primary dwelling, including detached garages.
The City allows all of these scenarios in Ordinance No. 5997. Nothing in the language of Section 66314(d)(3) mandates that the City specifically allow an ADU to be newly constructed on top of a detached garage, and thus, the referenced section is in compliance with State Law.
c. Accordingly, Ordinance No. 5997’s prohibition of new construction ADUs from being located directly above a detached garage, violates neither the plain language nor the intent of State ADU Law, and re- adoption of these provisions would thus not violate State ADU Law.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:
SECTION 1. The above recitals and findings are true and correct and are hereby incorporated as if fully set forth.
505 of 559
9 SECTION 2. The above recitals and findings, setting forth the reasons that Ordinance No. 5997 complies with State ADU Law despite HCD’s findings, are hereby adopted pursuant to CA Gov’t Code Section 66326(b), allowing the City Council to re- adopt portions of Ordinance No. 5997 related to said findings without changes.
SECTION 3. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City Council hereby finds that this Resolution is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.17 and California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, Section 15282(h) because this Resolution makes findings to readopt an ordinance to implement the provisions of former Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 (now codified in Article 2 [commencing with Section 66314] and Article 3 [commencing with Section 66333] of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code), second units in a single-family or multifamily residential zone. Moreover, this Resolution is exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to Title14 of the California Code of Regulations Section 15060(c)(1), as it makes findings to readopt an ordinance to implement provisions of former Government Code Sections 65852.2 and 65852.22 (now codified in Article 2 [commencing with Section 66314] and Article 3 [commencing with Section 66333] of Chapter 13 of Division 1 of Title 7 of, the Government Code), which require ministerial review and approval of accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units and therefore, does not involve the exercise of discretionary powers by the City.
Adopted this __________day of _______ 2024,
_______________ ____________________
M a y o r
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
506 of 559
10 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, DR. SUZIE ABAJIAN, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the______ day of___________________________, 2024, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
____________________________
C i t y C l e r k
507 of 559
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _____ G_h_ a_r�p_e_t1._· a_n _____ , seconded by Council Member ____ N_a...._j_ar_1._· a_n ______ , that the Council hereby initiates preparation of amendments to Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code ("Code") related to development standards for accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units, to delete the existing Code requirements related to "architectural compatibility" contained in Sections
30.34.080(E)(6) & (F)(5) and replace these requirements with comprehensive objective design guidelines for accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units that are new construction or those that propose exterior modifications to an existing primary residence or to a permitted accessory building, as set forth in the July 30, 2024 staff report from the Director of Community Development, and per additional or further direction regarding this amendment provided by Council at the meeting on August 20, 2024. Staff is further directed to submit the Ordinance to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation and then to the Council for its consideration.
Vote as Follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Br otman, Gh arpetian, Ka ssakhian, Najarian, Asatryan
None
None
None
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF: Tuesday, August 20, 2024.
FORM
Pri ipal Assistant City Attorney
Date: g/.z& /4 '( 8 tJ /
Exhibit 1
508 of 559
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ---------=G =ha=r,,_..,p=e=t=ia=n~_, seconded by Council Member ___ _.,N,...ay.j...._ar..__1.._._· a....,n..___ _____ _ that the Council hereby directs staff, in compliance with California Government Code Section 66326, to prepare a Resolution containing findings to readopt the existing provisions of Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code ("Code") related to "unit mix" development standards for accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units contained in Sections 30.34.080(E)(4) & (F)(2) of the Code explaining the reasons the City believes that these provisions comply with state law despite the findings of the California Department of Housing and Community Development contained in its letter of December 7, 2023 to the City, as set forth in the July 30, 2024 staff report from the Director of Community Development, and per additional or further direction regarding preparation of this Resolution containing findings and Ordinance provided by Council at the meeting on August 20, 2024. Staff is further directed to submit the Resolution containing findings and Ordinance to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation and then to the Council for its consideration.
Vote as Follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Brotman, Gharpetian, Kassakhian, Najarian, Asatryan
None
None
None
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF: Tuesday, August 20, 2024. pal Assistant City Attorney
Date: fj.24:/21/
8 B
509 of 559
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ________ G_h_a_rp.._e_t_i _an __ , seconded by Council Member ---�N�a'--'i�a=r1.=· a=nc_.._ ______ , that the Council hereby directs staff, in compliance with California Government Code Section 66326, to prepare a Resolution containing findings to readopt the existing provision of Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code ("Code") related to "accessory living quarters" development standards for accessory dwelling units contained in Section 30.34.080(0)(9) of the Code explaining the reasons the City believes that this provision complies with state law despite the findings of the California Department of Housing and Community Development contained in its letter of December 7, 2023 to the City, as set forth in the July 30, 2024 staff report from the Director of Community Development, and per additional or further direction regarding preparation of this Resolution containing findings and Ordinance provided by Council at the meeting on August 20, 2024. Staff is further directed to submit the Resolution containing findings and Ordinance to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation and then to the Council for its consideration.
Vote as Follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Gharpetian, Kassakhian, Najarian
Brotman, Asatryan
None
None
Abstain:
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED AT THE REG ULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF: Tuesday, August 20, 2024.
APPROVED AS TO ORM
Pri ·pal Assistant City Attorney
Date: f:JJ.¥21/
8 B I
510 of 559
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _ _ __ B_r_o_t_m_an _ ______ , seconded by Council Member ___ -----"-K=a=s=sa=k=h=i=an=-------• that the Council hereby initiates preparation of amendments to Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code ("Code") related to development standards for accessory dwelling units, to delete the existing Code's prohibition of new construction accessory dwelling units above detached garages or carports contained in Sections 30.34.080(E)(7) & (F)(6) of the Code, and instead allow new construction accessory dwelling units to be built above detached garages and carports, subject to strict objective design and/or development standards to minimize privacy and/or other negative impacts, as set forth in the July 30, 2024 staff report from the Director of Community Development, and per additional or further direction regarding this amendment provided by Council at the meeting on August 20, 2024. Staff is further directed to submit the Ordinance to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation and then to the Council for its consideration.
Vote as Follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Brotman, Kassakhian, Asatryan
Gharpetian, Najarian
None
None
THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF: Tuesday, August 20, 2024.
RM
al Assistant City Attorney
Date: o/2~,/2</ 8 8 /
511 of 559
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Minassian , seconded by Commissioner Lee , that upon review and consideration of the proposed ordinance to amend Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code (GMC), 1995, relating generally to standards and processes for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) and other miscellaneous Title 30 clean-up amendments (“Ordinance”), and the proposed resolution adopting findings in accordance with California Government Code Section 66326 that certain portions of Ordinance No. 5997 complies with state law (“Resolution”), and after reviewing and considering Planning Division staff’s determination that the Ordinance and Resolution are exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) exemption outlined in the Planning Commission staff report dated October 16, 2024, as well as the records, files, reports, testimony and all other oral and documentary evidence submitted with regard to said Case No. PZC-0013-2024 regarding the Ordinance and Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby approves the CEQA exemption and recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution and Ordinance with the following recommendations.
1. As to JA
DUs and Zoning, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Ordinance re-adopting that portion of Ordinance No. 5997 allowing JADUs in zones other than in single family residential zones and adopt the Resolution, adopting findings in accordance with California Government Code Section 66326 outlining the reasons why the City’s allowance of JADUs in zones other than single family residential zones contained in Ordinance No. 5997 is not in violation of California Government Code Section 66333.
2. As to Unit
Mixture, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Ordinance re-adopting that portion of Ordinance No. 5997 containing the City’s limitation of construction of either (for single family use): 1. one converted ADU and a JADU, or, 2. one detached new construction ADU and a JADU; and, either (for multifamily use): 1. at least one and up to 25% of the existing multifamily dwelling units within portions of existing multifamily dwelling structures not used as livable space, or, 2. not more than 2 (or 8 under SB 1211) detached ADUs, contained in GMC Sections 30.34.080(E)(4) and (F)(2), and adopt the Resolution, adopting findings in accordance with California Government Code Section 66326 outlining the reasons why such limitation of unit mixture is not in violation of California Government Code Section 66323(a).
Exhibit 2
512 of 559
3. As to Subjective Standards, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 5997 with respect to the requirement of architectural compatibility, contained in GMC Sections
30.34.080(E)(6) and (F)(5), such that the Ordinance instead sets forth objective design standards for ADUs and JADUs, as presented and recommended by Planning Division staff.
4. As to Accessory Living Quarters, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 5997 with respect to the City’s requirement that a lot with one residential unit may have either an accessory dwelling unit or an accessory living quarter, but not both, contained in GMC Section 30.34.080(D)(9), such that the Ordinance omit this requirement.
5. As to Stories and the City’s prohibition of new construction ADUs from being located directly above a detached garage contained in Ordinance No. 5997, contained in GMC Section 30.34.080(E)(7) & (F)(6):
a. Commissioners Shahbazian and Minassian recommend that the City Council adopt the Ordinance re-adopting that portion of Ordinance No. 5997 prohibiting new construction ADUs from being located directly above a detached garage and adopt the Resolution, adopting findings in accordance with California Government Code Section 66326 outlining the reasons why such prohibition contained in Ordinance No. 5997 is not in violation of California Government Code Section 66314(d)(3).
b. Commissioner Lee recommends that the City Council adopt the Ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 5997 to allow new construction ADUs to be located directly above a detached garage, but only if an applicant demonstrates there are no other site alternatives and that new construction of an ADU directly above a detached garage is necessary to construct an ADU that qualifies under GMC Sections 30.34.080(E)(4) or (F)(2).
c. Commissioner Chraghchian recommends that the City Council adopt the Ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 5997 to allow new construction ADUs to be located directly above a detached garage, but to additionally consider other ways in which the City can disincentivize the construction of ADUs directly above a detached garage and encourage property owners to propose alternative solutions.
513 of 559
d. Commissioner Fuentes recommends that the City Council adopt the Ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 5997 to allow new construction ADUs to be located directly above a detached garage as presented and recommended by Planning Division staff.
6. As to all other amendments contained in the Ordinance to amend Ordinance No. 5997, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Ordinance as presented and recommended by Planning Division staff.
Adopted this 16th day of October 2024.
Vote as follows: Ayes: Chraghchian, Fuentes, Lee, Minassian, Shahbazian Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
514 of 559
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Chraghchian , seconded by Commissioner Lee , that upon review and consideration of the proposed ordinance to amend the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP), relating generally to standards and processes for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) and junior accessory dwelling units (JADUs) (“Ordinance”), and the proposed resolution adopting findings in accordance with California Government Code Section 66326 that certain portions of Ordinance No. 5997 complies with state law (“Resolution”), and after reviewing and considering Planning staff’s determination that the Ordinance and Resolution are exempt from further environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) exemption outlined in the Planning Commission staff report dated October 16, 2024, as well as the records, files, reports, testimony and all other oral and documentary evidence submitted with regard to said Case No. PGPA-003908-2024 regarding the Ordinance and Resolution, the Planning Commission hereby approves the CEQA exemption and recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution and Ordinance with the following recommendation:
1. As to JADUs and Zoning, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the Ordinance re-adopting that portion of Ordinance No. 5997 allowing JADUs in zones other than in single family residential zones and adopt a resolution adopting findings in accordance with California Government Code Section 66326 outlining the reasons why the City’s allowance of JADUs in zones other than single family residential zones contained in Ordinance No. 5997 is not in violation of California Government Code Section 66333.
Adopted this 16
th day of October 2024.
Vote as follows: Ayes: Chraghchian, Fuentes, Lee, Minassian, Shahbazian Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
515 of 559
October 13, 2024
Re: Agenda Item 7b - Proposed General Plan Amendments and Zoning Code Amendment regarding ADUs and JADUs
Dear Planning Commissioners Chraghchian, Fuentes, Lee, Minassian, and Shahbazian:
On behalf of the Adams Hill Neighborhood Association, we agree with Staff’s recommendations to push back on California Department of Housing and Community Development’s faulty interpretations of the State’s codes surrounding development of ADUs, JADUs, and accessory living quarters (guest houses).
We appreciate the proposed reassertion of the City’s right to apply objective design standards to ADUs/JADUs and to consider their impact on traffic flow, public safety, and adequacy of water/sewer services.
Though we acknowledge that it is not Planning Commission’s responsibility to enforce regulations surrounding the use of ADUs, we are concerned about the proliferation of ADUs and primary residences illegally being used as vacation rentals in violation of Chapter 5.56 of the Municipal Code. Airbnb alone has many listings on any given day.
Given that the purpose of ADU legislation is to encourage permanent housing, we respectfully request that the Commission ask staff to research and report on the enforcement of the City’s home sharing and vacation rental restrictions.
Sincerely,
Rondi Werner, CSI, CCS, CCCA, CDT, LEED GA, AIA Allied Commissioner, City of Glendale Sustainability Commission Vice President, Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council Vice President, Adams Hill Neighborhood Association
Exhibit 3
516 of 559
Exhibit 4
Gov't Code Section
CitedZoning Code
SectionNo. Topic HCD Claim City Response Proposed/Suggested Amendments New Section
30.11.050 Sub-Section A
GMC standard for dwelling unit size
minimums are more restrictive than State's not apply to an ADU, which has a separate definition and standards.
ADU regulations and definition.
Those standards are for standard dwelling units in a multi-family zone and does Development Standards for Dwelling Unit Size in Multi-Family Zones Amend language to clarify that the dwelling unit sizes in this section do not include Accessory Dwelling Units or Junior Accessory Dwelling Units, which are defined and governed separately in GMC Section 30.34.080.
Dwelling Unit
Size
65852.2 (j)(1)
66313 (a) and (d)1 30.11.050
Clarifying language proposed
The definition of a JADU as well as the standards specified in GMC Section Table 30.11-A, Section 30.11.020 (Residential Districts) Table 30.11-A
30.11.020
30.34.080 are clear that they are only allowed on single-family properties, meaning Table 30.12-A, Section 30.12.020 (Commercial Districts) there is only 1 dwelling unit existing on-site. The GMC allows JADUs on properties Table 30.14-A, Section 30.14.020 (Mixed Use Districts) with a single-family use, regardless of zone and this was done intentionally in order Table 30.15-A, Section 30.15.020 (Special Purpose Districts) to be fair and equitable as there are many single-family use properties located in multi-family and non-residential zones. While the City acknowledges that State Law specifies single-family residential zones, the City does not interpret this section as a prohibition on the allowance of JADU construction in multi-family zones that contain a single-family residence. Nevertheless, the City will bring an amendment forward for Council consideration.
Where Under State law JADUs can only be created
in single-family zones, where the GMC also
allows them in multi-family zones.
The State only
identifies this
section, however,
the change would
impact many code
65852.22 (a)
66333
Table 30.16.020-A, Section 30.16.020 (TOD Districts)
Table 3-A-I, Section 3.3 of the DSP
Omit references to JADUs in the various land use charts so that they are only permitted in single- family zones.
2 JADUs are
Permitted
sections .
Amend Referenced Section -
Accessory dwelling units shall be permitted in any zone that allows residential uses and is developed with residential uses or, in the case of single-family zones only, is proposed to be developed with a residential use. a residential dwelling unit.ADUs in proposed
multi-family
development
The intent of this section is not to limit ADUs with proposed dwelling units in single- 65852.2 (a)(1)(D)(ii) GMC prohibits ADUs within proposed multi- family zones. The City has always and will continue to allow a proposed multi-3 30.34.080 (D) (1) 66314 (d)(2) and (3) family developments. family development to construct one or more ADUs in conformance with the multi- family ADU standards. Also Amend GMC 30.34.080.F
Additional Standards Specific Only to Accessory Dwelling Units on Lots Developed with Existing Multiple Residential Dwelling Units. The following standards and criteria apply to accessory dwelling units on lots developed with existing or proposed multiple residential dwelling units.
Amend 30.34.080 (D)(7)
All new construction accessory dwelling units attached to the existing primary dwelling shall not exceed 50% of the existing floor area of the primary dwelling, but in no event shall an accessory dwelling unit exceed the maximum square feet stated in subsection (D)(6) above. This prohibition does not apply when compliance with this section precludes development of an accessory dwelling unit that qualifies under (E)(4) below.
GMC restricts new construction ADUs30.34.080 (D)
(3), (D)(7), (E)(1) 65852.2 (c)(2)(C)
66321(b)(3)
The City currently abides by the requirement in State Law to allow an exception to any development standard when those would preclude the construction of at least an 800 square foot ADU with 4-foot side and rear yard setbacks to be constructed in compliance with all other local development standards.
Size Limits
on Attached
ADUs
attached to the primary residence to 50% of
the existing house SF, but the City has to
allow ADUs up to 800 SF even if it exceeds
50% of the existing house SF.
4 Note: HCD's letter also cites 30.34.080(F)(1) with this claim, but that section refers to multi-family properties and based on state law new construction ADUs are not allowed to be attached to primary dwellings
Ordinance is in compliance with State Law. GMC states that ADUs and JADUs are Amend Referenced Section - The proper exception for JADUs is not in the subject to the underlying zoning development standards (setback, floor area, Accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are subject to the underlying zoning height, parking, etc.) that are applicable to the primary residential dwelling, except development standards for setback, floor area ratio, lot coverage, height, parking, open space and JADUs and 65852.2(e)
5 Development 30.34.080 (D)(3) 66323(a)(1)(A) ?? City's Ordinance as it relates to the Standards underlying zoning development standards. as otherwise set forth in this section. The exception in the section are the mandatory ADUs and JADUs allowed in GMC 30.34.080(E)(4)(a). landscaping that are applicable to the primary residential dwelling, or dwellings, except as otherwise set forth in this section, including subsection (E)(4) below.
Staff Recommendation
Ordinance is in compliance with State Law because it does not prohibit a City from No amendments required, but findings must be drafted and adopted in a resolution that "explain the requiring that a property with an existing guest house either convert their guest house into a detached ADU or demolish it it to build an ADU. Applicants are not forced - they make a choice to convert their guest house into an ADU. reasons the local agency believes that the ordinance complies with [State Law] despite [HCD's findings]." Gov't Code §66326GMC prohibits accessory living quarters and ADUs on a site which is more stringent than
State ADU Law which provides a choice of
the type of ADU created and does not require
an existing area such as an accessory living
quarters to be converted to an ADU.
Accessory
Living
Quarters
State law allows conversions to add no more than 150 SF to accommodate ingress and egress65852.2(a)(1) 66314(d)(3)6 30.34.080(D)(9) The purpose is to minimize a proliferation of detached accessory buildings on lots only. Consider allowing an owner to expand more than that to build up to a 1000 SF ADU. which reduce landscaping and open space, and contribute to additional lot coverage and FAR and to encourage applicants to convert guest houses to ADUs Option:
which contributes to independent living facilities that can support renters. Amend the ADU ordinance to allow owners to maintain their accessory living quarters and build an ADU.
517 of 559
Gov't Code Section
Cited
New Section
Zoning Code
SectionNo. Topic HCD Claim City Response Proposed/Suggested Amendments In no case shall new construction of an accessory dwelling unit be located between the primary residential dwelling(s) and the street front and street side setback. Notwithstanding such prohibition, in cases where a lot has more than one street front (through lot), a new construction attached or detached accessory dwelling unit may be located between the street front setback and the side or rear façade of the primary residential dwelling(s). Further, no additional driveway shall be allowed from any street frontage. These prohibitions do not apply when compliance with this section precludes development of an accessory dwelling unit or junior accessory dwelling unit that qualifies under subsection (E)(4) and (F)(2)(b) below.
Regardless of a local agency's street front
and street side setback requirements, the city Current language allows this for single-family properties. Staff oversight in drafting must allow for an 800 SF attached or the ordinance originally excluded the multi-family ADUs, but that is how it is detached ADU in the street front and street practiced. Language will be amended to clarify/add a reference to multi-family side setback areas so long as a 4-0" side
and rear yard setbacks is provided.
Street-Front
and Street-
Side Setback
30.34.080
(D)(10)
65852.2 (c)(2)(C)
66321(b)(3)7
ADUs.
Advisory note: There is no street-front or street-side setback requirement established in the state law - they only identify side and rear.
State law does not establish a minimum
rental term for JADUs, where the CityJADUs and 30.34.080 Just because the State law does not have a provision for short-term rentals of65852.2 (e)(5) 66323(d)8 Short Term
Rentals
(D)(11) and
(H)(1)(d)
esablishes a term for 30 days or more. Only JADUs does not mean that the City cannot impose one. Nevertheless, the City will Amend the referenced code sections to omit JADUs ADUs are required to have a rental term of at request that Council consider removing this restriction on JADU rentals. least 30 days.
Amendthe referenced sections to clarify that the separate sale of JADUs is prohibited.
GMC 30.34.080(D)(12)
Except as provided in Government Code Section 65852.26, the accessory dwelling unit and/or the junior accessory dwelling unit cannot be sold separately from the residential dwelling(s). In no event may a junior accessory dwelling unit be sold separately.Starting January 1, 2024, cities have the option to allow the separate sale of ADUs
from the primary dwelling. The separate sale
of JADUs is prohibited. The City's ordinance
should clarify that prohibition for JADUs.
Clarification in the City's ordinance is not required based on how it's written and refernces the government code sections as well. Nevertheless, if HCD believes an amendment to clairfy that JADUs cannot be sold separately is needed, the City will consider presenting this to the council.
JADUs and 30.34.080 65852.22(a)(3)(A)
65852.26
66333(c)(1)
9 separate
sales
(D)(12) and
(H)(1)(a)
GMC 30.34.080 (H)(1)(a)
1. A covenant and agreement shall be executed by the property owner and recorded for an accessory dwelling unit and/or junior accessory dwelling unit prior to final approval of the building permit. The covenant and agreement shall include the following:
a. The accessory dwelling unit and junior accessory dwelling unit shall not be sold separately from the primary residential dwelling, except as provided in Government Code Section 65852.26 .In no event may a junior accessory dwelling unit be sold separately.
The City does not agree that the intent of State Law is to allow single-family developments to construct up to three types of ADUs on a lot, nor to allow mult- family developments to construct multiple ADUs by combining construction of two new ADUs and conversion of existing nonlivable space. This is based on legislative history - AB68 and AB881 that amended the ADU law in 2019 have reports that the legislatures intents is to allow a maximum of one ADU and one On single-family properties, up to three
ADUs are permitted under State law - one
converted ADU, one detached new
construction ADU, and one JADU.
Staff Recommendation:
No amendments are required, but findings must be drafted and adopted in a resolution that "explain the reasons the local agency believes that the ordinance complies with [State Law] despite [HCD's findings]." Gov't Code §66326
Unit Mix -
Number of
ADUs
30.34.080
(E)(4)(b) and
(F)(2)
65852.2 (e)(1)(C)
and (e)(1)(D)
66323(a)(1) thru (4)
10 On multi-family properties, State law allows JADU in single-family developments. HCD argues that the word "any" in the State allowed owners to combine the right to build two
detached ADUs and multiple ADUs by
converting existing non-livable space.
law means a property owner could construct "any and all" types of ADUs, but this specific phrase is missing from State law and goes against the intent of the legistlature when these rules were adopted. The same applies for multi-family properties, where an applicant must choose either two detached ADUs or conversion of non-livable existing spaces up to 25% of the existing units.
Option:
At CC direction we can amend the ADU ordinance to reflect HCD's interpretation of this section Staff Recommendation:
Omit references in code to the subjective requirement of "architectural compatibility".
Amend ADU ordinance to implement objective standards similar to what was created for SB9 units, with a focus on the facades directly facing the street. Staff is currently working on a draft.
The City's ADU ordinance has subjective
standards because it says the ADU/JADU
shall be architecturally compatible with the
primary dwelling which is in conflict with
State law which requires objective design
standards to be implemented.
Current language in the GMC requires that the ADU/JADU be architecturally compatible with the existing primary residence and must use matching or complementary building materials unless compliance with this section precludes development of a mandatory ADU. The City acknowledges the language of the State Law requiring objective standards during architectural review and will propose amendments to council.
65852.2(a)(1)(B)(i)
Architectural 30.34.080(E)(6) and (a)(7)
Compatibility and (F)(5) 66314(b)(1) and
66313(h)
11 Option:
At CC direction we can amend the ADU ordinance to have no architectural compatibility or objective standards for all ADUs. The only exception is related to historic properties where we would keep existing language prohibiting changes visible from the public realm.
Staff Recommendation:
No amendments required , but findings must be drafted and adopted in a resolution that "explain The State is suggesting that the term "attached" includes an ADU built on top of an the reasons the local agency believes that the ordinance complies with [State Law] despite [HCD's existing detached garage. The City maintains that neither the language or intent of findings]." Gov't Code §66326 State Law supports this claim. The language mandates that the City allow an ADUADUs above 12 a detached
garage
ADUs above a garage could not be
prohibited because State law allows them to
be attached to detached garages.
30.34.080 (E)(7) 65852.2(a)(1)(D)(iii)
and (F)(6) 66314(d)(3)
to be attached to or located within the space of the primary dwelling (including attached garages and other areas that are attached), or mandates that the City allow an ADU to be converted from an accessory structure, or that the ADU be detached from the primary dwelling, including detached garages. The City allows these scenarios and is therefore in compliance.
Option:
At CC direction we can amend the ADU requirements to allow an ADU above a detached garage or carport.
Advisory Note: In 2020 the council amended the ADU ordinance to prohibit ADUs above detached garages and carports. This change was in response to an increase in the number of complaints from residents.
518 of 559
Gov't Code Section
Cited
New Section
Zoning Code
SectionNo. Topic
ADUs in
HCD Claim City Response Proposed/Suggested Amendments
65852.2(a)(1)(D)(ii)
and (e)(1)(D)
66314(d)(2) and
66323(4)
proposed
multi-family
development
GMC prohibts ADUs in proposed multi-family
developments13 30.34.080(F)(4)
30.34.080(G)
See No. 3 above for response. See No. 3 above for response.
GMC does not include one of the required Amend section referenced to include:
65852.2(d)(1)(F)
66322(a)(6)
parking exceptions specified in State Law for It was an oversight by the City to not include this exception in the ADU regulations g. When a permit application for an accessory dwelling unit is submitted with a permit application ADUs in conjunction with proposed/new
residential development.
14 Parking and will bring forward an amendment to the Council. to create a new single-family dwelling or a new multi-family dwelling on the same lot, provided that the acessory dwelling unit or the parcel satisfies any other criteria listed in this subdivision.
State law does not require deed restrictions
for ADUs and it is only required for JADUs
and is limited to prohibit separate sale and
regulate the size and attributes as required
by law. The City does not have the authority
to require deed restrictions for ADUs.
Covenant
15 and
The City disagrees that simply because State ADU Law does not require a deed restriction for ADUs, that it prohibits the City to require one. Nevertheless, the City will bring an amendment forward for Council consideration. 65852.22(a)(3)
66333(c)
Amend the referenced code section to omit language related to ADUs. Revise JADU references to reflect the limitations specified in State law.30.34.080(H) Agreement
The GMC doesn't require owner-occupancy
for JADUs because it says if it is not owner-
occupied, the entire property can only be
rented as a single rental property. This
conflicts with State law which mandates
owner-occupancy when a JADU is permitted -
the owner must live in either the JADU or the
remaining portion of the residence.
For properties with junior accessory dwelling units, at all times, the property owner shall comply with one of the following requirements: (i) the property owner must be an owner-occupant and reside in either the residential dwelling or in the junior accessory dwelling unit; or (ii) if the property owner does not reside in either the residential dwelling or the junior accessory dwelling unit, then the property owner shall only rent or lease the property as a single rental property and shall not rent or lease the residential dwelling and junior accessory dwelling unit separately from each other.
JADUs and
16 Owner 30.34.080(H)(1)( 65852.22(a)(2)
c) 66333(b) The City concedes this point and will amend the ordinance to comply.
Occupancy
519 of 559
9b
24-86970
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Public Hearing on Appeal of Transportation and Parking Commission Decision Regarding Installation of All-way Stop Controls at the Adams Street and Scofield Drive Intersection
1. Motion reversing the decision of the Transportation and Parking Commission, and approving the installation of all-way stop controls; or, in the alternative,
2. Motion affirming the decision of the Transportation and Parking Commission, and denying the installation of all-way stop controls; or, in the alternative,
3. Motion referring the matter back to the Transportation and Parking Commission, with directions, for further consideration; or, in the alternative,
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for November 19, 2024 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 22, 2024, the Public Works Engineering Division presented a report to the Transportation and Parking Commission, recommending installation of all-way stop controls at the South Adams Street and Scofield Drive intersection as requested by residents near the 1200 block of Adams Street. Two commissioners voted “yes”; two commissioners voted “no”; and one commissioner abstained. Having failed to garner three affirmative votes, the motion did not pass.
The Adams Street and Scofield Drive intersection satisfies all requisite criteria for installation of all-way stop controls set forth in the 2023 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program. On August 6, 2024, the Director of Public Works filed a written notice of appeal of the Transportation and Parking Commission’s decision. On November 5, 2024, the City Council unanimously passed a motion finding that the facts stated in the Director’s notice of appeal constitute a matter of sufficient substantiality to warrant a hearing in the public interest and set the hearing for November 19, 2024.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council reverse the decision of the Transportation and Parking Commission and approve the installation of all-way stop controls at the intersection of South Adams Street and Scofield Drive.
520 of 559
9b2
24-86970
5 6
8 0
ANALYSIS
As prescribed in the City’s 2023 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, staff conducted a screening evaluation to determine if the Adams Street and Scofield Drive intersection qualifies for traffic calming measures. Adams Street is a community collector street, within a residential district, and qualifies for traffic calming measures; thus, an engineering study was first conducted to evaluate the use of speed humps or speed lumps.
This segment of Adams Street did not satisfy the traffic calming implementation criteria for speed humps because the block lengths are less than 500 feet in length and the street is identified as a Primary Emergency Response Route. Staff consulted with the Glendale Fire Department (GFD) regarding potential installation of speed lumps (in the alternative to speed humps), designed to accommodate emergency vehicles; however, GFD recommended against the installation of speed lumps due to impacts on emergency vehicle response and the limited availability of alternate routes. A summary of the speed hump criteria and findings are shown in Table 1.
Criteria Guideline Prevailing
Condition Satisfied (Yes)
Travel Lane
One travel lane per
direction or One-way,
Two lanes
One/lane/dir Yes
Residential District Street must be located
in Residence District Residential Yes
Street Classification
Local Street,
Neighborhood
Collector, Community
Collector
Community
Collector Yes
Posted Speed Limit 25 MPH 25 MPH Yes
Block Length
Minimum 500 ft
between intersection
blocks
Below 500 ft No
85th Percentile 30 MPH or greater 34 MPH Yes
Daily Volume 1,000-10,000 ADT 6,242 Yes
Truck or Transit
Route Cannot be installed Not a Truck
Route Yes
521 of 559
9b3
24-86970
5 6
8 0
Primary Emergency
Response Route Cannot be installed
Primary
Emergency
Response Route
No
In the alternative to speed humps or speed lumps, the 2023 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program includes consideration of all-way stop controls as a potential traffic calming measure. Staff conducted an engineering study using the criteria outlined in the Program to evaluate the intersection for all-way stop controls and found that this street segment satisfies the criteria.
Furthermore, the neighborhood has shown support for the implementation of all-way stop controls, as determined by the petition process. A petition circulated by a community member received support from 76.7 percent (33 of 43) of the residences on the affected segment of Adams Street. The installation of all-way stop controls are expected to result in the loss of three parking spaces to accommodate standard red curb zones in advance of the stop signs, as illustrated in Exhibit C.
Table 2 provides a summary of the all-way stop criteria that was met.
TABLE 2: All-Way Stop Criteria
Criteria Guideline Prevailing
Condition Satisfied (Yes)
Stop Sign Pattern
Distance between
controls meet or
exceed Distance
Threshold (1500ft)
Exceeds
Distance
Threshold (1910
ft)
Yes
Collision History
3 collisions in a single
12-month period within
most recent 2 years
3 collisions
recorded in 12-
month period
Yes
Excessive Speeds
85th percentile speed
meets or exceeds
Speed Threshold (30
MPH)
34 MPH Yes
Support via Petition 75% 76.7% Yes
Having satisfied all implementation criteria, the Department recommended that the Transportation and Parking Commission pass a motion approving the all-way stop controls at its public meeting on July 22, 2024. The action was moved, and the motion seconded; however, the motion narrowly failed to pass with two commissioners voting “yes,” two commissioners voting “no,” and one commissioner abstaining. 522 of 559
9b4
24-86970
5 6
8 0
On August 6, 2024, the Director of Public Works filed a written notice of appeal (Exhibit B) of the Transportation and Parking Commission’s decision. On September 30, 2024, the Department transmitted a written report from the Director submitting the appeal to the City Manager to review and bring before the City Council.
On October 22, 2024, the City Manager brought the Director’s written notice of appeal before the City Council for its determination whether to set the matter for a public hearing, order the Transportation and Parking Commission to rehear the matter, or dismiss the appeal. The City Council carried over its determination to its regular meeting of November 5, 2024.
On November 5, 2024, the City Council unanimously passed a motion finding that the facts stated in the Director’s notice of appeal constitute a matter of sufficient substantiality to warrant a hearing in the public interest, and set the hearing for November 1, 2024.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
To advance the proposed traffic calming measures, Department policy requires that a community-led petition be circulated among dwelling units on the affected street within 500 feet of the proposed stop controls; if mid-block, the 500-foot threshold is extended to the next cross street. On South Adams Street, 43 dwelling units are affected by the proposed all-way stop. Under the Traffic Calming Program, an adult residing at 75% or more of the affected dwelling units must sign the petition. The petition received support from 76.7% of the affected dwelling units.
Additionally, the president of the Adams Hill Neighborhood Association (AHNA), which has a membership of 126, testified before the Transportation and Parking Commission that AHNA circulated emails among its membership and posted on its Facebook page regarding the proposed all-way stop. Another AHNA member testified, telephonically, that she canvassed the east side of South Adams Street, Yale Drive, Green Street, Princeton Drive, Oberlin Drive, East Palmer Avenue, Tyler Street, and Scofield Drive, and delivered to AHNA a petition bearing the signatures of people who support traffic calming measures on South Adams Street.
FISCAL IMPACT
The all-way stop controls at Adams Street and Scofield Drive will cost approximately $5,000. The Public Works Engineering budget can absorb this cost; therefore, the Department would not request a new appropriation. The funding is outlined below:
Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$5,000 43110-1010-PWD-7515-P0000 General Fund
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
523 of 559
9b5
24-86970
5 6
8 0
The proposed all-way stop controls are improvements that are categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA guidelines, Title 15, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulations, Section 15301 (Class 1-Minor Alterations of Existing Public Facilities).
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Pass a motion affirming the decision of the Transportation and Parking Commission, and denying the installation of all-way stop controls.
Alternative 2: Pass a motion referring the matter back to the Transportation and Parking Commission, with directions, for further consideration.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Daniel Hernandez, Director of Public Works
Prepared by:
Carlos Cortez, Civil Engineering Assistant
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A – Written Report of Director
Exhibit B – Notice of Appeal of Transportation and Parking Commission Decision Exhibit C – Record on Appeal (TPC Agenda, Minutes, Staff Report, PowerPoint Presentation, and Public Comments)
524 of 559
9b
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ,
seconded by Council Member __, that, with
respect to the appeal filed August 6, 2024, by Daniel Hernandez, director of the Department of Public Works (“Appellant”), the Council of the City of Glendale hereby finds substantial evidence to reverse the decision of the Transportation and Parking Commission not to approve the installation of all-way stop controls at the intersection of South Adams Street and Scofield Drive.
Thus, the decision of the Transportation and Parking Commission of July 22, 2024, regarding the above-referenced matter is hereby reversed, and the installation of all-way stop controls at the intersection of South Adams Street and Scofield Drive is hereby approved.
Votes as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
525 of 559
9b
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ,
seconded by Council Member __, that, with
respect to the appeal filed August 6, 2024, by Daniel Hernandez, director of the Department of Public Works (“Appellant”), the Council of the City of Glendale hereby finds substantial evidence to affirm the decision of the Transportation and Parking Commission not to approve the installation of all-way stop controls at the intersection of South Adams Street and Scofield Drive.
Thus, the decision of the Transportation and Parking Commission of July 22, 2024, regarding the above-referenced matter is hereby affirmed, and the installation of all-way stop controls at the intersection of South Adams Street and Scofield Drive is hereby denied.
Votes as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
526 of 559
9b
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ,
seconded by Council Member __, that, with
respect to the appeal filed August 6, 2024, by Daniel Hernandez, director of the Department of Public Works (“Appellant”), regarding the decision of the Transportation and Parking Commission not to approve the installation of all-way stop controls at the intersection of South Adams Street and Scofield Drive, the Council of the City of Glendale hereby finds that substantial evidence warrants referring the matter back to the Transportation and Parking Commission for further consideration consistent with the following directions:
______________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________.
Votes as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
527 of 559
Date: August 22, 2024
To: Roubik Golanian, City Manager
From: Daniel Hernandez, Director of Public Works
Subject: Appeal of Recommendation by the Traffic and Parking Commission regarding the Installation of All-Way Stop Controls at Adams Street and Scofield Drive This memorandum is a formal communication and submittal of an appeal to the city council relating to the Transportation and Parking Commission ruling to not approve staff’s recommendation for the proposed installation of all-way stop sign traffic controls at the Adams Street and Scofield Drive intersection.
Staff followed all steps and requirements included in the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program for consideration of all-way stop controls, including the requisite engineering studies, coordination with emergency services and confirming community support via petition. The Transportation and Parking Commission meeting is available for viewing at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIxk4rcwCIw.
Staff respectfully recommends that City Council consider the approval of the recommended all-way stop controls at Adams Street and Scofield Drive.
Thank you,
Daniel Hernandez
Director of Public Works
Exhibit A
528 of 559
Exhibit B
August 6, 2024
Daniel Hernandez [email protected]
633 E. Broadway Glendale CA 91206 (818) 548-3900
Transportation and Parking Commission
X
July 22, 2024 7:30 p.m. City Council Chambers
Approval of installation of traffic calming measures recommended pursuant to the Traffic Calming Program.
Approval of installation of all-way stop sign controls on Adams Street and Scofield Drive, as set forth in the report of the Interim Director of Public Works to the Transportation and Parking Commission, dated July 22, 2024.
X
The foregoing relief was originally sought by residents of Adams Hill. However, the Public Works Department recommended that the Transportation and Parking Commission approve the relief sought.
X
This matter involves public rights-of-way at South Adams Street and Scofield Drive. 529 of 559
X
Does not apply.
X
Does not apply.
X
Does not apply.
X
Please see attached five pages submitted pursuant to Part 1.E.
X
Does not apply.
X
Does not apply.
530 of 559
On July 22, 2024, the Engineering Division of the Public Works Department (“Department”) presented to the Transportaꢀon and Parking Commission (“Commission”) a report recommending installaꢀon of all-way stop controls at the South Adams Street and Scofield Drive intersecꢀon (“Acꢀon”). The Acꢀon was moved, and the moꢀon seconded. Two commissioners voted “yes”; two commissioners voted “no”; and one commissioner abstained.
Having failed to garner three affirmaꢀve votes, the moꢀon did not pass.
The City Council should reverse the Commission’s determinaꢀon and pass a moꢀon approving the Acꢀon because it saꢀsfies all implementaꢀon criteria under the Traffic Calming Program (“Program”). Undisputed and indisputable facts, and the record of the Commission, belie raꢀonales underlying the two “no” votes. While substanꢀvely unanswered quesꢀons assertedly prompted the abstenꢀon, responsive informaꢀon does not adversely affect the Department’s recommendaꢀon.
I. BACKGROUND: EXCESS SPEED FOUND, AND OTHER TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES ATTEMPTED, ON SOUTH ADAMS STREET.
Adams Hill is the southeasternmost neighborhood in the City of Glendale. A busy thoroughfare, South Adams Street, runs from East Broadway in Citrus Grove through Adams Hill to the city limits, where it becomes York Boulevard in the Glassell Park neighborhood of the City of Los Angeles. Approximately one-half mile of South Adams Street is located in Adams Hill.
As a street that carries traffic between the ciꢀes of Glendale and Los Angeles, South Adams has long seen complaints of excess speed and traffic calming measures intended to reduce them, including (1) four-inch-wide, marked, white edge lines—which give the effect of narrower lanes—adjacent to street parking, and (2) speed radar feedback signs, which encourage compliance with the posted speed limit.
In 2022, upon request of the Adams Hill community for addiꢀonal traffic calming measures, the Department first proposed installing thermoplasꢀc rumble strips and raised pavements markings. The first proposal was met with broad support from the Adams Hill community; thus, the rumble strips and pavement markings were installed in December 2022.
However, noise precipitated from the rumble strips farther than the Department anꢀcipated, prompꢀng a reversal of community support. Consequently, the Department removed the addiꢀonal traffic calming measures the same month in which they were installed.
With thermoplasꢀc rumble strips and raised pavement markings unacceptable to the Adams Hill community, the Department next proposed installing a traffic circle at the South Adams Street and Scofield Drive intersecꢀon. The proposal consꢀtuted a pilot program, making features of the traffic circle temporary and removable. Nevertheless, the Adams Hill community largely opposed the proposal, so it did not advance beyond the conceptual phase.
Finally, the Department evaluated South Adams Street for potenꢀal installaꢀon of speed humps or speed lumps, which ulꢀmately did not saꢀsfy two implementaꢀon criteria. First, the 531 of 559
block length between intersecꢀng streets is not at least 500 feet, as required under the Program.
Second, South Adams Street is designated as a primary emergency response route, which, under the Program, excludes consideraꢀon of speed humps. The Fire Department recommended against the alternaꢀve speed lumps due to their adverse impact on emergency vehicle responses and the limited availability of other routes.
II. RECOMMENDED ACTION: AN ALL-WAY STOP AT SOUTH ADAMS STREET AND SCOFIELD DRIVE SATISFIES ALL IMPLEMENTATION CRITERIA.
Having considered and ruled out both a traffic circle and speed humps or speed lumps— and having installed and removed rumble strips and pavement markings—the Department determined that all-way stop controls meet all implementaꢀon criteria under the Program for installaꢀon at South Adams Street and Scofield Drive.
First, the distance between exisꢀng traffic controls must meet or exceed a distance threshold of 1,500 feet. Here, the distance between exisꢀng traffic controls is 1,910 feet. Second, three collisions must have occurred along the traffic corridor within a single 12-month period over the past two years. Here, three mulꢀ-vehicle collisions occurred between East Palmer Avenue to the north and Stanford Drive to the south—the traffic corridor at issue—within a single 12-month period. Third, the 85th percenꢀle speed must meet or exceed a speed threshold of 30 miles per hour (“MPH”). Here, the 85th percenꢀle speed was measured at 35 MPH southbound, and 34 MPH northbound, averaged to 34 MPH.
The Department evaluated three intersecꢀons along South Adams Street for all-way stop controls that would reduce the unimpeded distance between the two stop-sign-controlled intersecꢀons at Palmer Avenue to the north and Stanford Drive to the south. The three intersecꢀng streets are Yale Drive, Cornell Drive, and Scofield Drive.
Yale Drive is 18 feet wide, curb to curb; allows for parking on one side of the street; and does not have sidewalks on either side of the street. Physical features of the intersecꢀon, including limited public rights-of-way and a stairwell on adjacent private property, would not allow for ADA-accessible curb ramps to be installed in the future. The Department did not select the South Adams Street and Yale Drive intersecꢀon for all-way stop controls due to the lack of sidewalks and physical limitaꢀons.
Cornell Drive is 18 feet wide, curb to curb; does not allow for parking on either side of the street; and does not have sidewalks on either side of the street. The Department did not select the South Adams Street and Cornell Drive intersecꢀon for all-way stop controls due to the lack of sidewalks.
By contrast, Scofield Drive is 26 feet wide, curb to curb; allows for parking on both sides of the street; and includes five-foot-wide sidewalks on both sides of the street. Exisꢀng pedestrian curb ramps serve both the South Adams Street and Scofield Drive sidewalks. The Department selected the South Adams Street and Scofield Drive interacꢀon for all-way stop controls due to 532 of 559
the wider pavement area, presence of sidewalks, and parking on both sides of the street, potenꢀally prompꢀng more pedestrian demand.
Notably, under Department policy, a community-led peꢀꢀon must be signed by one adult from at least 75% of dwelling units on the affected street within 500 feet of the proposed stop controls; if mid-block, the 500-foot threshold is extended to the next cross street. Here, the peꢀꢀon required support from 75% of dwelling units on South Adams Street between Crescent Drive to the north and Princeton Drive to the south. Importantly, one adult from 34 of the 44 affected dwelling units signed the peꢀꢀon—reflecꢀng 76.7% support.
Having saꢀsfied all implementaꢀon criteria, the Department presented the proposed all- way stop to the Commission, as required under the Program, at a public meeꢀng held July 22, 2024. The Department recommended that the Commission pass a moꢀon approving the Acꢀon.
The Acꢀon was moved, and the moꢀon seconded; however, the moꢀon did not pass.
III. UNDISPUTED AND INDISPUTABLE FACTS, AND THE RECORD OF THE COMMISSION, BELIE RATIONALES UNDERLYING THE TWO “NO” VOTES; THE DEPARTMENT PRESENTED ALL INFORMATION PERTINENT TO ITS RECOMMENDATION.
Following a Department report, public comment, and discussion totaling more than one hour and twenty minutes, the Acꢀon was moved, and the moꢀon seconded. With two commissioners voꢀng “yes,” two commissioners voꢀng “no,” and one commissioner abstaining, the moꢀon to approve the Acꢀon did not pass. Disꢀnct raꢀonales underlie each of the “no” votes and the abstenꢀon.
A. Perceived Harm to One South Adams Street Resident.
During public comment, a resident of 1255 South Adams Street tesꢀfied that the Acꢀon would (1) result in the loss of street parking for two vehicles adjacent to his residence, and (2) purportedly impede access to his driveway. Despite expressing strong support for traffic calming measures on South Adams Street, one commissioner opposed the Acꢀon expressly due to perceived harm that it might cause this resident.
As explained during the meeꢀng, Department policy requires a clear, 30-foot line of sight in advance of all stop signs; any street parking must be replaced by a red zone. Notably, residences line both the northbound and southbound sides of South Adams Street between Crescent Drive to the north and the city limits to the south. The installaꢀon of an all-way stop at another intersecꢀon on South Adams Street will invariably result in the loss of street parking, and could impede driveway access, simply adjacent to a different residence.
While the Department evaluated the interacꢀons of South Adams Street and Cornell Drive, and South Adams Street and Yale Drive, for potenꢀal installaꢀon of an all-way stop, the Department ulꢀmately recommended the South Adams Street and Scofield Drive intersecꢀon because (1) Scofield Drive is a wider street more visible to cross traffic on South Adams Street, 533 of 559
and, (2) unlike Cornell and Yale Drives, sidewalks line the north and south sides of Scofield Drive, enabling the future installaꢀon of a pedestrian crossing on South Adams Street at Scofield Drive.
B. Perceived Deficiency in Public Outreach.
A second commissioner opposed the Acꢀon—not because it lacks merit—but rather, due to perceived deficiency in public outreach regarding the Department’s recommendaꢀon. Short of outreach to every resident, the commissioner would not support the Acꢀon.
To advance proposed traffic calming measures to the Commission, current Department policy requires that a community-led peꢀꢀon be circulated among dwelling units on the affected street within 500 feet of the proposed stop controls; if mid-block, the 500-foot threshold is extended to the next cross street. On South Adams Street, 44 dwelling units are affected by the proposed all-way stop. Under the Program, an adult residing at 75% or more of the affected dwelling units must sign the peꢀꢀon. Here, the peꢀꢀon received support from 76.7% of the affected dwelling units.
Addiꢀonally, the president of the Adams Hill Neighborhood Associaꢀon (“AHNA”) tesꢀfied during public comment that AHNA has a membership of 126 people, and that AHNA circulated emails among its membership, and posted on its Facebook page, regarding the proposed all-way stop. Another AHNA member tesꢀfied, telephonically, that she canvassed the east side of South Adams Street, Yale Drive, Green Street, Princeton Drive, Oberlin Drive, East Palmer Avenue, Tyler Street, and Scofield Drive, and delivered to AHNA a peꢀꢀon bearing the signatures of people who support traffic calming measures on South Adams Street.
To require outreach regarding the proposed all-way stop to every Glendale resident, or all those who may be affected, generally, by the proposed all-way stop on South Adams Street— especially given that it carries traffic between the ciꢀes of Glendale and Los Angeles—is neither required nor pracꢀcable.
C. Informaꢀon Responsive to Three Quesꢀons Was Not Readily Available.
A third commissioner—who did not opine on the merits of the Acꢀon—abstained from voꢀng on the moꢀon due to unavailable informaꢀon assertedly necessary either to support or oppose the Acꢀon.
During the meeꢀng, the Department did not readily have answers to three quesꢀons: (1) whether the 85th percenꢀle speed would have been any different at the intersecꢀons of South Adams Street and Cornell Drive, or South Adams Street and Yale Drive; (2) what were the details of the three collisions that occurred on South Adams Street, including the type of each collision and where it occurred; and (3) what collision data at other intersecꢀons on South Adams Street would have reflected.
534 of 559
In fact, neither the 85th percenꢀle speed nor collision data is specific to the South Adams Street and Scofield Drive intersecꢀon. Rather, the 85th percenꢀle speed applies to, and collision data derived from, the traffic corridor as a whole—South Adams Street between East Palmer Avenue to the north and Stanford Drive to the south. The Department recommended the South Adams Street and Scofield Drive intersecꢀon for an all-way stop—rather than the intersecꢀons of South Adams Street and Cornell Drive, or South Adams Street and Yale Drive—because (1) Scofield Drive is a wider street more visible to cross traffic on South Adams Street, and (2) unlike Cornell and Yale Drives, sidewalks line the north and south sides of Scofield Drive, enabling the future installaꢀon of a pedestrian crossing on South Adams Street at Scofield Drive. Put simply, informaꢀon not readily available at the public meeꢀng on July 22, 2024, does not adversely affect the recommended acꢀon.
IV. CONCLUSION.
The City Council should reverse the Commission’s determinaꢀon and pass a moꢀon approving the Acꢀon because the proposed all-way stop at South Adams Street and Scofield Drive saꢀsfies all implementaꢀon criteria under the Traffic Calming Program. Undisputed and indisputable facts, and the record of the Commission, belie raꢀonales underlying the two “no” votes. Moreover, the Department presented the Commission all informaꢀon perꢀnent to its recommendaꢀon; addiꢀonal informaꢀon that the abstaining commissioner sought does not adversely affect the recommendaꢀon.
535 of 559
Exhibit C
A G E N D A
GLENDALE TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING COMMISSION
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.
JULY 22, 2024 AT 6:00 PM
1. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA
a. Roll Call
b. Flag Salute –
2. POSTING OF THE AGENDA
The agenda for the July 22, 2024 special meeting of the Glendale Special Transportation and Parking Commission was posted by Thursday, July 18, 2024, before 5:00 p.m. on the bulletin board outside of City Hall.
536 of 559
3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
a. Minutes of the Transportation and Parking Commission meeting on April 22, 2024
4. PRESENTATION
5. CONSENT ITEM
6. ACTION ITEM
a.Traffic Calming at Adams Street and Scofield Drive
1. Motion Approving the Installation of All-Way Stop Controls at the Adams Street and Scofield Drive Intersection.
b.Traffic Calming at Salem Street between Chester Street and Kenilworth Avenue
1. Motion Approving Installation of Two Speed Humps on Salem Street between Chester Street and Kenilworth Avenue.
c.Selection of Ex Officio Non-Voting Student Members of the Transportation and Parking Commission
1. Motion approving the appointment of Eric Eubank as ex officio student commissioner of the Transportation and Parking Commission for the term commencing November 21, 2023, through November 20, 2024, or until the Commission has appointed two ex officio student commissioners to one-year terms beginning in 2024, whichever occurs sooner.
2. Resolution Adopting Procedures, Standards, and Rules for the Appointment of ex officio non-voting student members to the Transportation and Parking Commission.
3. Motion selecting two voting members of the Transportation and Parking Commission to serve as an ad hoc Student Member Selection Committee (Selection Committee) to screen applicants, select and interview qualified candidates, and recommend to the Commission appointment of two ex officio non-voting student members.
7. INFORMATIONAL REPORT
8. ORAL COMMUNICATION
Discussion is limited to items NOT a part of this agenda. Each speaker is allowed five minutes.
The Commission may question the speaker but there will be no debate or decision.
9. COMMISSIONS/STAFF COMMENTS/UPDATES
10. ADJOURNMENT
537 of 559
Minutes
Transportation & Parking Commission
July 22, 2024
Date:
Time:
Monday, July 22, 2024
6:00 p.m.
Location: Council Chambers
613 East Broadway, Glendale, CA 91206
The meeting of the Glendale Transportation and Parking Commission (TPC) of Monday, July 22, 2024, was called to order at 6:04 p.m.
1. Regular Business Agenda
a. Roll Call-All commissioners present except student commissioner Eubank b. Flag Salute-led by Chairperson Bonstin
2. Posting of the Agenda
The agenda for the July 22, 2024, meeting of the Glendale Transportation and Parking Commission was posted by Thursday July 18, 2024, before 5:00 p.m. on the bulletin board outside of City Hall.
3. Approval of Minutes
a. Minutes of the Special Transportation and Parking Commission meeting on April 22, 2024
Motion to approve the meeting minutes of April 22, 2024.
Moved: Avagyan Seconded: Bonstin
Vote as follows
Ayes: Bonstin, Lester, Ordubegian, Avagyan, Amirian
Noes: None
Absent: None
Abstain: None
4. Presentations
a. There were no presentations for this meeting.
538 of 559
5. Consent Items
a. There were no consent items for this meeting.
6. Action Items
a. Traffic Calming at Adams Street and Scofield Drive
Motion Approving the installation of All-Way Stop Controls at the Adams Street and Scofield Drive intersection.
Moved: Lester Seconded: Bonstin
Vote as follows
Ayes: Bonstin, Lester
Noes: Orduebegian, Avagyan
Absent: None
Abstain: Amirian
Motion did not pass.
Public Comment:
Stephen Meek
Rafik Babakhanyan
Garry Ackerman
Michael Sheehal
Mary Baldwin
Steven Perkins - email
Lusine Babakhanyan – email
b. Traffic Calming at Salem Street between Chester Street and Kenilworth Avenue
Motion Approving Installation of Two Speed Humps on Salem Street between Chester Street and Kenilworth Avenue.
Moved: Ordubegian Seconded: Avagyan
539 of 559
Vote as follows:
Ayes: Bonstin, Lester, Avagyan, Ordubegian, Amirian
Absent: None
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Public Comment:
Avi Ghazaryan
c. Selection of Ex Officio Non-Voting Student Members of the Transportation and Parking Commission
Motion approving the appointment of Eric Eubank as ex officio student commissioner of the Transportation and Parking Commission for the term commencing November 21, 2023, through November 20, 2024, or until the Commission has appointed two ex officio student commissioners to one-year terms beginning in 2024, whichever occurs sooner.
Moved: Amirian Seconded: Bonstin
Vote as follows:
Ayes: Bonstin, Lester, Avagyan, Orduebegian, Amirian
Absent: None
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Resolution Adopting Procedures, Standards, and Rules for the Appointment of ex officio non-voting student members to the Transportation and Parking Commission.
Moved: Amirian Seconded: Avagyan
540 of 559
Vote as follows:
Ayes: Bonstin, Lester, Avagyan, Orduebegian, Amirian
Absent: None
Noes: None
Abstain: None
Motion selecting two non-voting members of the Transportation and Parking Commission to serve as an ad hoc Student Member Selection Committee (Selection Committee) to screen applicants, select and interview qualified candidates, and recommend to the Commission appointment of two ex officio non-voting student members.
Commissioner Amirian volunteered to be on Student Member Selection Committee for interviewing qualified candidates.
Commissioner Avagyan made motion selecting two voting members Commissioner Amirian and Chairperson Bonstin to be on Student Member Selection Committee.
Moved: Avagyan Seconded: Lester
Vote as follows:
Ayes: Bonstin, Lester, Avagyan, Orduebegian, Amirian
Absent: None
Noes: None
Abstain: None
7. Informational Report
a. There was no informational report for this meeting.
8. Oral Communications
Discussion is limited to items NOT a part of this agenda. Each speaker is allowed five minutes. The Commission may question the speaker but there will be no debate or decision.
541 of 559
9. Commission’s/Staff Comments/Updates
Commissioner Avagyan mentioned that she attended the American Armenian Museum Community Member Briefing where the construction company provided update on the construction schedule and progress. She thanked the board members and director for their work. In addition, she went to the annual Glendale Cruize Night on Brand blvd and thanked the organizers, volunteers, and participants.
Commissioner Amirian inquired information about process, procedures and decision making of changing the posted “No Parking Sign”, especially on Brand blvd. In addition, he voiced concerns about properly notifying the public about the sign change before citation is issued to the residents. He requested an update on the N. Brand Quick Build Demonstration project for the bike lane.
Chairperson Bonstin suggested the outreach for the Student Member Selection Committee to be done in the library, social media, and other commission.
Daniel Hernandez announced the selection or reappointment of a chairperson will be agendized on the next month’s meeting.
10. Adjournment – 8:17PM
Moved: Amirian Seconded: Bonstin
542 of 559
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE TRANSPORTATION AND PARKING COMMISSION
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Report regarding installation of all-way stop controls at the Adams Street and Scofield Drive intersection.
1. Motion Approving the Installation of All-Way Stop Controls at the Adams Street and Scofield Drive Intersection.
COMMISSION/COMMITTEE ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for July 22, 2024 calendar
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Daniel Hernandez, Interim Director of Public Works
Prepared by:
Carlos Cortez, Civil Engineering Assistant
Reviewed by:
Pastor Casanova, T.E., Principal Traffic Engineer
Sarkis Oganesyan, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Aaron Israel, Sr. Assistant City Attorney
6a
543 of 559
RECOMMENDATION
Pass the attached motion approving the installation of all-way stop controls at the Adams Street and Scofield Drive intersection, as conceptually illustrated on Exhibit A. Adams Street and Scofield Drive satisfies the requisite criteria for the installation of all-way stop controls, set forth in the 2023 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
Background
Staff received requests from residents on Adams Street to implement traffic calming measures on the 1200 block of Adams Street to address concerns of excessive travel speeds in the residential area.
Analysis
As prescribed in the City’s adopted 2023 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, staff conducted a screening evaluation to determine if the requested street qualifies for traffic calming. Adams Street is a community collector street, within a residential district, and qualifies for traffic calming measures; thus, an engineering study was conducted to evaluate the use of speed humps or speed lumps as a traffic calming measure.
This segment of Adams Street did not satisfy the traffic calming implementation criteria for speed humps because the block lengths are less than 500 feet in length and the street is identified as a Primary Emergency Response Route. Staff reached out to Glendale Fire Department (GFD) regarding potential installation of speed lumps, designed to accommodate emergency vehicles; however, the GFD recommended against the installation of speed lumps due to impacts on emergency vehicle response and the limited availability of alternate routes. A summary of the speed hump criteria and findings are shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1: Speed Hump Criteria
Prevailing
ConditionCriteria Guideline Satisfied (Yes)
One travel lane per
direction or One-way,
Two lanes
Travel Lane One/lane/dir Yes
YesStreet must be located
in Residence DistrictResidential District Residential
2 a 6
544 of 559
Local Street,
Neighborhood
Collector, Community
Collector
Street Classification Local Street Yes
Posted Speed Limit
Block Length
25 MPH 25 MPH Yes
No
Minimum 500 ft
between intersection
blocks
Below 500 ft
85th Percentile
Daily Volume
30 MPH or greater
1,000-10,000 ADT
30 MPH
1,025
Yes
Yes
Truck or Transit
Route
Not a Truck
RouteCannot be installed
Cannot be installed
Yes
No
Primary
Emergency
Response Route
Primary Emergency
Response Route
The 2023 Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program includes consideration of all-way stop controls as an additional traffic calming measure. Staff conducted an engineering study using the criteria outlined in the Program guidelines to evaluate the intersection for all- way stop controls and found that this street segment satisfies the criteria.
Furthermore, sufficient neighborhood support for the implementation of all-way stop controls has been demonstrated via the petition process. A petition that was circulated by a community member indicates that 76.7 percent (33 of 43) of the residences on the affected segment of Adams Street are in favor of the installation of all-way stop controls.
Staff has notified the residents of this TPC meeting and has invited them to attend the meeting to provide input directly. Table 2 provides a summary of the all-way stop criteria that was met. As a result, staff recommends that the all-way stop controls be installed.
The installation of all-way stop controls is expected to result in the loss of three (3) parking spaces to accommodate standard red curb zones in advance of the stop signs, as illustrated in Exhibit A.
3 a 6
545 of 559
Should the TPC pass the attached motion, any resident(s) not in agreement with the decision of the TPC may appeal to the City Council by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk no later than fifteen (15) days after the said decision, and follow the appeal procedure set forth in Chapter 2.88 of the Glendale Municipal Code.
TABLE 2: All-Way Stop Criteria
Prevailing
ConditionCriteria Guideline Satisfied (Yes)
Distance between
controls meet or
exceed Distance
Threshold (1500ft)
Exceeds
Distance
Threshold (1910
ft)
Stop Sign Pattern Yes
3 collisions in a single
12-month period within
most recent 2 years
3 collisions
recorded in 12-
month period
Collision History Yes
85th percentile speed
meets or exceeds
Speed Threshold (30
MPH)
Excessive Speeds
Support via Petition
34 MPH
76.7%
Yes
Yes75%
To balance mobility, emergency response, and traffic calming, staff typically recommends installation of traffic calming measures only when the appropriate criteria are satisfied. In this case, speed humps did not qualify, however, all-way stop controls will provide traffic calming features while balancing mobility and emergency response. Should the TPC recommend against their installation, other situation-appropriate tools at staff’s disposal are limited to the following:
1. Provide selective speed enforcement by the Police Department.
FISCAL IMPACT
Based on previous all-way stop construction projects, the engineer’s cost estimate for constructing the all-way stop on Adams Street is approximately $5,000. The funding for 4 a 6
546 of 559
multi-way stop installation is budgeted under the General Fund, Account Number 43110- 1010-PWD-7515 (Traffic Engineering Contractual Services).
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Approve any other alternative(s) outlined in the report.
Alternative 2: Do not approve any traffic-calming measures at the Adams Street and Scofield Drive intersection at this time.
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A – Site Plan of the Proposed All-Way Stop Sign Controls on Adams Street and Scofield Drive
5 a 6
547 of 559
MOTION
Moved by Commissioner ______________________________________, seconded by Commissioner ______________________________________, that the Transportation & Parking Commission hereby approves the installation of all-way stop sign controls on Adams Street and Scofield Drive, as set forth in the report of the Interim Director of Public Works dated July 22, 2024.
Votes as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
_____________________________________
Chairperson
548 of 559
Existing
Proposed
Proposed
THIS SEGMENT OF ADAMS ST ANDLegend: Stop Sign -
SCOFIELD DR, WILL HAVE A LOSS OF
3 PARKING SPACESDriveway -
Red Curb -
DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE
THIS DRAWING IS NEITHER A LEGALLY RECORDED MAP NOR A SURVEY, AND IS NOT INTENDED TO BE USED AS SUCH, THE
INFORMATION DISPLAYED IS A COMPILATION OF RECORDS, INFORMATION AND DATA OBTAINED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES, INCLUDING THE CITY OF GLENDALE WHICH IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ITS ACCURACY OR TIMELINESS.
ExhibitLocation: Adams Street and Scofield Drive
Request: To install - All-Way Stop Sign
N
A Scale: N.T.S.
549 of 559
11/12/2024
All‐Way Stop Controls at Adams St and
Scofield Dr
Transportation & Parking Commission Meeting
July 22, 2024
Prepared by: Department of Public Works, Engineering
1 1
Request for Traffic Calming
Measures on:
Adams Street
Concern about high‐speed traffic and speeding
beyond posted speed limit
2 2
1 550 of 559
11/12/2024
Vicinity Map
Adams St – Palmer Ave to Stanford Dr
3 3
Street View: Adams St ‐ Northbound
4 4
2 551 of 559
11/12/2024
Street View: Adams St ‐ Southbound
5 5
Traffic Calming Guidelines
Screening Evaluation
Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program procedures:
Screening Evaluation
o Street Classification
Local Street, Neighborhood/Community Collector?
o Residential Zone? - YES
YES
6 6
3 552 of 559
11/12/2024
Engineering Analysis
As prescribed in the City’s adopted 2023 Neighborhood
Traffic Calming Program, staff conducted the following
studies:
Conducted 24-Hour Traffic Speed Counts &
Volume Counts
Field Investigation
Applied Traffic Calming criteria/guidelines
for Speed Humps & All-Way Stop Controls
7 7
Traffic Calming Guidelines – Adams Street between
Palmer Avenue and Stanford Drive
Speed Hump Evaluation
Prevailing
ConditionCriteria Guideline Satisfied
Travel Lane One Travel Lane per Direction One/lane/dir
Residential
YES
YESResidential District Street must be located in Residence District Local Street or Neighborhood / Community
CollectorStreet Classification
Posted Speed Limit
Block Length
Community Collector
25 MPH
YES
YES
NO
25 MPH
500ft between intersections
30 MPH or greater
Below 500ft
Exceeds 30 MPH
1,025
85th Percentile Speed
Daily Volume
YES
YES1,000 – 10,000 ADT
Truck or Transit Route
Primary Fire Response Route
Street Width
Cannot be installed
Cannot install
No Transit Stops
Emerg. Resp. Route
36 feet
YES
NO
40 feet maximum for speed humps YES
8 8
4 553 of 559
11/12/2024
Traffic Calming Guidelines - Adams St and Scofield
Dr
All Way Stop Evaluation
Prevailing
ConditionCriteria Guideline Satisfied
Distance between traffic controls meet or exceed
distance threshold (1500 ft)
Exceeds distance
threshold (1910 Ft)
Meets 3 collisions
recorded in 12-month
period
Stop Sign Pattern
Collision History
Excessive Speeds
YES
YES
YES
Meets or exceeds 3 collisions in a single 12-month
period within most recent 2 years
85th percentile speed meets or exceeds speed
threshold (30 mph)
Exceeds 30 mph – (34
mph)
Community Support
•
•
Petition Package sent to Adams Hill Neighborhood Association representative 33 (out of 43) resident signed petition
Support via Petition Meets/Exceeds 75% Exceeds 75% Yes
9 9
Recommendation
Adams Street qualified for traffic calming measures
Did not qualify for speed humps
Met criteria for all-way stop controls at the
intersection of Adams St and Scofield Dr
Community supports installation of all-way stop at
Adams St and Scofield Dr (76.7% Support)
Recommendation is to install all-way stop controls on Adams St and Scofield Drive.
10 10
5 554 of 559
11/12/2024
Vicinity Map
Adams St and Scofield Dr
11 11
Street View: Scofield Dr – Existing Stop
Sign
12 12
6 555 of 559
11/12/2024
13 13
14 14
7 556 of 559
11/12/2024
Vicinity Map
Adams St and Scofield Dr
15 15
8 557 of 559
From:
To:
Steven Perkins
Casanova, Pastor; Cortez, Carlos
Subject:
Date:
Proposed Installation of All-Way Stop Controls at Adams St and Scofield Drive Thursday, July 18, 2024 2:47:22 PM
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
Hello,
I am a resident on Adams St, and also a safety professional. I can't attend the TPC meeting on Monday 7/22 but wanted to share my comments on the proposed measure referenced in the subject header above.
The severity and frequency with which vehicles speed up and down this portion of Adams St (often going well in excess of 50 mph and passing other vehicles on the wrong side) poses a significant public safety concern, which could result in a serious injury or fatality to pedestrians or other drivers. So I am strongly in favor of the installation of any traffic calming measures, with preference to engineering controls (traffic roundabouts or speed humps) but also welcoming of administrative controls such as stop signs.
In the recent past, attempts to install any traffic calming devices have been met with opposition by a small minority of residents, with the chief complaint seeming to be loss of on- street parking spaces. Hopefully the proposed loss of only 3 such spaces will appeal to the reasonableness of these residents. But it must be said: all of the affected residences around the intersection of S Adams St. and Scofield Dr. have driveways where their vehicles can be parked. And even if that option did not exist (which it does), my experience with on-street parking along this stretch of S Adams St is that it is almost always available.
The bottom line is: any minor inconvenience in the loss of a few on-street spaces is far outweighed by the significant public safety issue caused by reckless speeding.
Thank you for your time and for consideration of my comments.
Steven Perkins
1323 S Adams St.
558 of 559
559 of 559