Greg Astorian

Let’s visit AB 68: “This law makes several changes to ADU standards including:

1. Increased floor area of an attached ADU must not exceed 50% of the existing living area, up from 30%;

2. No passageways shall be required in conjunction with the construction of an ADU; and

3. Setback requirements are limited”. Therein lies the problem!

“State policies have eased the way for property owners to build such housing by stripping away local government and homeowners’ association requirements. Cities and counties will generally only be able to prohibit the construction of accessory dwellings for health and safety reasons, including on properties at high risk of wildfires.“

Just like the Realtors, Truckers and other groups that have scored a carve-out for their industry from AB 5, once elected, I will advocate for our City and some of the neighboring cities to start a process to carve-out an exception for historical resources in the newly passed housing laws in California. After all, historical resources constitute a very small portion of the properties and, as such, should rigorously be protected.

Dan Brotman*

I support the intent of the Legislature to promote affordable housing around transit but not its heavy handed one-size-fits-all approach. Efforts such as SB 50 or the recently enacted ADU bills that undercut Glendale’s right to define its own approach to development are unacceptable and should be challenged.

Glendale needs a balanced approach that meets the needs of the community and accommodates historic resources.

We have more jobs than available housing which pushes people to outlying cities and forces them to commute into Glendale to work. It is estimated that 60-70,000 people come to Glendale daily for employment, mostly by car. This is problematic for greenhouse gas emissions, air quality, and the rush hour traffic that frustrates so many of us. It also weakens community when so many who work here are unable to make their homes here. So we need more affordable housing, and must improve our transit infrastructure and locate that housing near high-frequency transit so that the density does not bring further gridlock.

But we need to do that thoughtfully while preserving the character of our established single-family neighborhoods. Up-zoning indiscriminately will undeniably create unintended consequences. Instead, we should concentrate on creating housing in our downtown and couple that with efforts to make that area more walkable. And we must insist developers build using quality design and materials. We also need rich retail to accompany residential development so that people can do to their daily chores without having to drive.

Paula Devine*

Unfortunately, state legislation is preempting local control of zoning and housing requirements in many areas.  In this case, I would recommend two things to ensure that community values of historic preservation are respected while allowing for development to be focused at transit-oriented zones.

1. I would ask staff to provide a report to council which provides alternatives, under existing state law, which the city can legally use to protect our historic resources in the areas in question.

2. I would ask staff to provide a report to council which recommends possible legislation that could be brought forth by our state legislators that would address and ensure the protection of our historic resources in the areas in question.

Vartan Gharpetian

We have done everything we can to protect our Historic Districts. Our ordinance mandated that the ADUs not be visible from the public right of way in Historic Districts. But, few months ago that was changed by new ADU and Junior ADU law mandated by State.

Usually, transit-oriented zones are not in Historic Districts and similar ordinances should not have a negative impact on Historic Districts, but unfortunately in order to get away from providing parking for ADUs, State Legislature is trying to consider every bus stop as a major transit line which will be a huge problem.

My suggestion is to pressure our State Legislatures not to vote for issues that are going to affect our quality of life and integrity of our residential neighborhoods.

Ardy Kassakhian

Although stiff penalties must be adopted and enforced for anyone who destroys or negatively affects the historical integrity of a local resource, there should be other approaches to also encourage potential investors or developers to make the best use of our historic structures.  To put it simply, the carrot is sometimes better than the stick when looking to build more dense housing around transit zones such as our local train station - a hub for regional transportation. Giving proposed projects incentives to keep or maintain historic structures can help preserve the character of neighborhoods.  Density and change are going to be inevitable in the long run. If anyone has doubts about this, all they need to do is look at any early photos of Glendale throughout the decades and compare it to today. Just in the last 20 years Glendale has seen a tremendous increase in density. But how we develop our city makes a big difference.  I envision development practices in Glendale similar to that in Old Town Pasadena - an example of a great historic district that has also seen more recent developments while preserving the character and unique history of the city. 

I would simply add that the current state guidelines that allow for denser development next to transit lines should not be allowed if they encroach on single family neighborhoods. 

William Keshishyan

I do not feel that recent state mandates that claim to tackle housing issues provide solutions in the City of Glendale, and do not completely address any prevalent issues that we have.

Instead, they punish cities, like in the case of Glendale which have adequate efforts in place addressing affordable housing and transit opportunities as well. Historic resources should not be threatened in an attempt to address the aforementioned.

As for ADUs, I do not believe that single-family home zones should bear the burden of housing issues that could be addressed in other ways, rather than overdevelopment and increased density in our desirable single-family communities.

Leonard Manoukian

No Response.

Susan Wolfson*

Now we come to something at which I have previously hinted. First, I would recommend that the City vigorously pursue any and all avenues to influence the Legislature to amend its mandates to incorporate protections for historic resources and also to protect single family residential neighborhoods. If the state’s codes need to be revised in order to protect the integrity of local voters’ mandates in electing their Councilmembers, then we need to work to get the state codes revised. Second, it is my conviction that California residents deserve to have single family residential neighborhoods as an option! While it is desirable to encourage use of public transportation, it is also important to set constructive and realistic goals. We need different rules for transit stops that are within a few yards of residential structures and transit stops that are located in well-established commercial areas.