By Julie BUTCHER

Based on discussions last week, Glendale staff presented a detailed and updated housing element report to the Glendale City Council on Tuesday night. The report, which will be submitted to the State of California, reflected comments from the public, experts and advocates.

“Even though we’ve made adjustments … we’re still able to meet our RHNA allocation without any rezoning,” assured deputy director of Community Development Eric Krause.

According to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), “The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is mandated by State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of updating local housing elements of the General Plan. RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods. SCAG is in the process of developing the sixth cycle RHNA allocation plan, which will cover the planning period October 2021 through October 2029.

“Communities use RHNA in land use planning, prioritizing local resource allocation and in deciding how to address identified existing and future housing needs resulting from population, employment and household growth. RHNA does not necessarily encourage or promote growth, but rather allows communities to anticipate growth, so that collectively the region and sub-region can grow in ways that enhance quality of life, improve access to jobs, promotes transportation mobility, and addresses social equity and fair share housing needs.”

As the city noted in extensive reports, “The City of Glendale received an RHNA of 13,425 units for the 2021-2029 RHNA period. After credits for constructed units (252), conversion of market-rate units to deed-restricted moderate-income units (125), and approved but not yet constructed units (1,120) are taken into consideration, the City of Glendale has a remaining 2021-2029 RHNA of 11,928 units, including 3,244 extremely/very low-income, 1,834 low-income, 2,124 moderate-income, and 4,726 above moderate-income units.

“The residential sites’ inventory consists of approximately 51 acres of land designated for mixed-use development, which is expected to yield at least 1,759 new units; 143 acres of land in the Downtown Specific Plan, which is expected to yield at least 6,417 units; 161 acres of underdeveloped residential land, which is expected to yield at least 2,591 units; 1.8 acres of vacant residential land, which is expected to yield 37 units; and the potential to develop 1,272 accessory or junior accessory dwelling units. In addition to the resources described above, the City also has a number of proposed projects under review, expected to yield 711 new units.”

Krause also reported that community members have advocated to include labor standards and potential measures of “community wealth” in the housing plan.

Joshua Christiansen called into the meeting, which was held virtually. He represented the Carpenters’ Union’s Southwest Regional Council.

“We live in the area, recreate in the area, go to church in the area,” Christiansen said. “Labor standards shouldn’t be excluded from the city’s housing plans. Other cities are including requirements that all projects be built by a local skilled workforce. Local hiring rules reduce environmental impacts while benefitting the local economy.”

“I’ve been a union carpenter for 34 years,” Chuck Powell told the council, “and two of my sons went through the apprenticeship program and have journeyed out and have decent, honest paying jobs. We’re not asking to make money to drive a Ferrari or a Porsche. We just want to be able to live in the community that we built.”

Mayor Paula Devine asked if staff could draft a report contemplating prospective labor standards, considering its recommendation to not include them in the housing plan.

“Joshua [Christiansen] makes a lot of good points – and we’ve all heard from a lot of carpenters,” she said.

Councilmember Dan Brotman criticized the city’s timing in releasing a draft of the report.

“I’d be lying if I said I was happy with the process,” he said. “We’re now being asked to adopt a plan that we don’t even know is compliant – and it’s due to be submitted to the state in just a week. This is an uncomfortable position to be in.”

Brotman raised three concerns with the plans.

The first was that the city was “treating a lot of sites as a sure thing – a 6% buffer seems very small.” He noted that the second point was probably more concerning. “It doesn’t look like we’ve complied with requirements to affirmatively further fair housing since virtually all the development we’re showing is in the multi-family zones. I know this is sensitive, but we do need to demonstrate somehow that we’re not perpetuating the exclusionary policies that we know live on from Glendale’s past.”

Finally, Brotman questioned the city’s methodology in counting prospective accessory dwelling units (ADUs).

“It’s frustrating to be looking at this at the 11^th hour. I get that this stuff is not easy,” Councilmember Brotman acknowledged. “I don’t want to say that we’re doing everything wrong – we’ve been developing in Glendale. We’ve been good citizens. Burbank, as we know, is facing the problem of having to run projects with 10% affordability through an administrative review process without public input because they didn’t build in the last RHNA cycle. We exceeded the market rate numbers, which gives us a lot more flexibility for design review. I’m proud of us for that. I just want to make sure we do the right thing going forward.”

Community Development Director Phil Lanzafame replied that the housing element is “a fluid document. If we need to, we will go look for additional sites or rezone – but if we rezone, we need to do it very carefully. Glendale is a built-out city. While we’re 30 square miles, we only have around 17 that are developable – and I think you all know that all 17 are developed.”

“I’m going to support this element,” Councilmember Ara Najarian told his colleagues, “but the residents of Glendale do not speak with uniformity on their desire for more housing and more density. These units, these RHNA numbers imposed by the state, feel like too much housing to people I talk to. There’s an affordability problem and it is incumbent on us to produce affordable units. We have tried to preserve the single-family neighborhoods – not to perpetuate exclusionary zoning and racism but for many the American dream is owning a home in a single-family neighborhood.

“I think that if it were up to the five of us, it would be different than the 13,000 RHNA number that the state has given us. This is what we have been tasked with and we’re trying to do it in a fair and equitable way,” Najarian said.

The council voted to adopt the plan with Councilmember Ardy Kassakhian abstaining.

Read the plan at https://www.glendaleplan.com/housing-element-update.

Earlier in the council meeting, Councilmember Ara Najarian announced that Friday, Feb. 4 is Transit Equity Day, honoring the birthday of Rosa Parks. On that day, all Metrolink train rides are free, he reported. The nearest Metrolink station is the Glendale train station at 400 W. Cerritos Ave.

Mayor Devine asked for a draft ordinance requiring all appliances in new buildings to be electric rather than gas.

“[Gas appliances] can leak small amounts of methane – even when they’re off,” she explained.

Finally, City Clerk Aram Adjemian detailed the schedule for the general municipal election with the primary on Tuesday, June 7. Three council seats are up on the Glendale City Council, along with the positions of city treasurer and clerk. Three seats (Areas B, C, and D) are on the ballot for the Glendale Unified School District and the community college district will vote for representatives in Districts 2, 3, and 4. The ballot order will be local, county then state as it was for the last election in March 2020.

May 23 is the last day to register to vote in the primary (although new voters can register to vote at a vote center; their votes will be counted once their registration is validated). All registered voters will receive an absentee ballot in the mail, beginning May 9.