By Mary O’KEEFE
There are many issues facing Glendale – from budget shortfalls to new bike lanes to strained city services; however, housing is one of the biggest issues voters will be tackling. The corporate purchase of homes in Glendale, and throughout California and the nation, has been reported in various media outlets. It was made even more evident when a recent report released by RedFin found investors who had LLC, Inc. and Corp. in their names had purchased more than 40% of the vacant burned lots in Altadena.
In addition, specifically in Glendale, bonus density is a concern for residents. It is important to note that LLC includes small “mom and pop” owners who rent their property as well; therefore, it is thought that the number of homes purchased by larger corporations reported by RedFin is much lower. However, the topic of corporations buying homes to rent has been discussed at the national level as well as a the local one. In his most recent State of the State address, Gov. Gavin Newsom proposed working with the Legislature to limit the practice of large “private equity firms in Manhattan to become some of the biggest landlords here in our cities in California.”
Question: How would you address housing issues in the City? Note that answers are in alphabetical order.
Alek Bartrosouf: As a city planner with a master’s degree from UCLA, I know this issue all too well.
Glendale leaders must be honest about our state-mandated obligations if we want to build trust, ensure community participation and plan a city together that we can take pride in. Any candidate [who] tells you we can stop development or growth is lying. Failing to adhere to state mandates is disastrous and we can learn from La Cañada and Santa Monica where “builder’s remedy” went into effect after they bucked state mandates, consequently exposing their communities to extreme overdevelopment for not having a state-certified housing plan.
These mandates are shocking to many but most are not even aware of them when they are passed in Sacramento by state legislators. To me, that is Problem #1. I am committed to bringing Glendale communities together to resolve zoning and development in the best possible ways while understanding Glendale’s role in meeting regional housing needs. As a city planner myself, with over a decade of experience working in various cities, I know zoning discussions are inaccessible for many people. Whether you’re working, raising children or taking care of your elderly parents, this is just not something most people have time to dig into or get involved in. I believe we need a Community Engagement Strategy that overcomes these barriers and reaches people we traditionally do not reach. By extension, this will help articulate local housing policy concerns to our state legislators.
The way our city grows and where it grows is largely up to us. I believe we need to build more entry-level housing for sale: townhomes and condos that appeal to younger generations looking to start a family or build equity. The lack of newer for sale housing units is the “missing middle” in Glendale for younger generations that grew up here and want to stay. Entry-level homes should be in areas with easy access to jobs, transit, cultural resources and daily amenities, and not in fire-prone areas, hillsides or canyons. The next generation deserves a chance at homeownership in our city. When we build new housing units, we should make sure it’s the type of housing Glendale residents want to live in.
I encourage you to learn more about my campaign at alekforglendale.com or contact me at alek@alekforglendale.com – thank you for voting!
Alex Balekian: Mom-and-pop landlords almost always place properties within an LLC to shield their personal assets (e.g., primary residence) from lawsuits from any of their tenants. Therefore, LLC purchases are a distraction from the real problem, as demonstrated by this concrete Glendale example from February 2024.
Rick Lemmo, a Thousand Oaks resident and former business partner of Rick Caruso, bought 413-419 Irving Avenue, a property which was zoned for a maximum of seven units at three stories’ height. He demolished the existing one-story structures totaling five units and would have qualified for a 50% density bonus (i.e. 10 allowable units) under state law if he set aside 15% of the units (i.e. two of them) for very low income renters. A three-story building containing 10 units with parking stalls on the first level would have fit with the neighborhood. Instead, Lemmo requested a 350% density bonus to construct 33 units in a four-story tower, justifying it with eight affordable units. Elen Asatryan and the rest of council approved his request. This was a defacto upzoning of the parcel.
Mr. Lemmo is an outside individual (not an evil venture capital fund like Blackrock) speculating a property as a real-estate developer. Most neighbors would have accepted a 50% density bonus allowing a 10-unit, three-story tower on that parcel, especially because there already was a decades-old three-story apartment tower with ground-level parking on the adjacent lot. But Elen Asatryan and city council allowed a 350% density bonus. 350%!! How was that justifiable despite local neighbors voicing opposition? I suspect that Mr. Lemmo may have used his Rick Caruso connections to facilitate passage – but this is only speculation.
But as Glendale readers can clearly see, individuals with real estate LLCs aren’t the problem. Statewide 50% density bonuses also aren’t the main problem. The city council incumbents with their flexible morals and values are the real problem. I would never have allowed a 350% density bonus; that certainly was not in keeping with the character of the Riverside Rancho neighborhood. The Glendale residents are correct to be skeptical and cynical of the incumbent city councilmembers who essentially upzone neighborhoods parcel by parcel so as not to attract attention or to raise suspicion.
No More Incumbents!
Beth Brooks: Politicians and developers want you to believe Glendale has a housing crisis. We don’t – we have an affordability crisis. The median home price is ~$1.1M, condos ~$680K, and median rent ~$2,900/month. Building more density is not the solution – it is a pretext to override our neighborhoods and our voices.
State Laws & The Density Threat. Sacramento is using a manufactured housing crisis to impose draconian laws on Glendale. I have personally fought high-density projects in inappropriate neighborhoods and will continue to do so. SB 79 allows four to nine story buildings near bus stops. AB 100/130 streamlines high-density construction with no traffic, environmental or community review. The Density Bonus Law lets a 50-unit project balloon to 112 units with only 10%–15% affordable. Surplus Property Designations turn business parking lots into high-density housing, decimating local commerce. High fire zones make these proposals a public safety disaster.
Solution: Push back at the city level, loudly and strategically. We are not powerless.
New Development. Nearly all new Glendale construction produces market-rate apartments with only 10%–15% affordable units. High downtown building costs mean only large corporate developers can build – and these buildings aren’t lowering rents. Landlords citywide benchmark against new high-end units and raise their own rents accordingly.
Solution: Incentivize smaller-scale, two-story construction in less expensive areas where mom-and-pop developers can participate, with meaningful breaks on city fees and permitting.
Prospective Home Buyers. Younger buyers are priced out – but the solution isn’t to destroy existing neighborhoods. Many aren’t aware of federal and state programs that help them purchase existing homes.
Solution: Host Housing Summits. Promote affordable options in southern Glendale. Encourage co-ownership and multigenerational households.
Renters. As the only renter running for City Council, I believe rent control is not the answer – it would punish mom-and-pop landlords and risk their selling to corporate investors who create only expensive high-density units.
Solution: Audit Section 8 – this costs nothing and could free up immediate resources. Direct assistance to seniors, the disabled and veterans. Lower electric bills to benefit everyone.
Condo Seekers. Few developers build condos because California’s construction defect liability makes it financially untenable.
Solution: A fixer-upper home in an affordable part of Glendale is the smarter path.
My Core Belief. You don’t punish one group to help another. You don’t destroy the American Dream of those who’ve achieved it because others haven’t yet. Always do the greatest good for the greatest number.
Dan Brotman: Sacramento has imposed strict mandates on all cities to build more housing. Its intent is admirable. But Glendale has been doing its fair share and we should have the right to determine what gets built and where – higher-density apartments downtown, low-to mid-density townhouses, courtyard style and multiplex units along our commercial corridors, and detached homes, perhaps with ADUs, in the single-family neighborhoods.
We want to regain local control but what’s the best strategy? Some will demand we sue to overturn state housing laws; but the courts have spoken and performative suits would just waste taxpayer dollars. The smart approach is to take advantage of coming leadership changes in Sacramento to lobby for more local flexibility and for incentives; i.e., funding for cities that do the right thing rather than mandates which leave the infrastructure burden on cities.
At the same time, we should strengthen design standards to ensure we get the highest quality architecture and materials. And we should work to remove barriers that are preventing the development of “for-sale” housing, so young families have a path to homeownership.
These are long-term solutions. Shorter term, we must strengthen protections to prevent displacement of established communities. While we want owners to keep their properties in good condition we could tighten requirements for renovation-based evictions; tenants [who] must relocate during renovations should be given a first right to return to their units when the work is complete. And we need to make sure both landlords and tenants know their rights and obligations.
Amidst all this, it’s critical we avoid fear mongering. One Council candidate is claiming that the Land Use Element (LUE) of our General Plan, which we are updating for the first time in decades, would double Glendale’s housing stock and population. This is misleading. The LUE simply describes our current zoning. The city is required to calculate the theoretical number if every single parcel were developed to its maximum potential. It’s disingenuous to claim that this is somehow the plan. Likewise, misinformation is circulating that the city wants to build high rises in our parking lots. City Council has expressed interest in the potential to develop some lots to generate revenue. But Council has not, and does not, support high-density housing on those lots.
As we address these challenging issues it is important that we stick to facts and not conjecture. We are all in this together!
Carolyn Kaloostian: Dr. Carolyn Kaloostian is a fourth generation Californian who comes from a family rooted in service. She works as a physician with a flexible schedule so she may work with the Dept. of Public Health and American Heart Association on initiatives to improve the well-being of residents of LA County. She has decided to run for Glendale City Council after speaking with patients, residents, families and small businesses who have been burdened by increasing utility costs and taxes. She will bring a data-driven approach to problem-solving, leveraging assets the city has in excess. She pledges no new taxes and will donate her entire city Council salary to an independent microfund for small business facade improvements.
Question on housing: Housing is one of the most important issues facing Glendale families, seniors and young professionals. Residents are concerned about affordability, neighborhood character, traffic, infrastructure strain and whether future development will truly benefit the people who already live here.
My approach is centered on balance, accountability and putting Glendale residents first.
First, we must protect opportunities for homeownership. Across California and the nation, large investors and corporate entities are increasingly purchasing residential properties, often outbidding local families. Glendale should explore every legal and policy tool available to increase transparency around bulk investor purchases and advocate for protections that prioritize working families and first-time homebuyers.
Second, development must match infrastructure capacity. Residents are understandably concerned about high density housing projects that increase population and traffic impacts without corresponding investments in parking, public safety, water infrastructure, parks and roads. As the safety-first candidate, every major housing proposal will be evaluated through the lens of long-term sustainability and neighborhood compatibility.
Third, Glendale should focus on smart revitalization and adaptive reuse. We should modernize aging commercial corridors, encourage mixed-use development near transit and business centers where appropriate, and improve existing housing stock rather than relying solely on large-scale expansion into established neighborhoods.
Most importantly, residents deserve a real seat at the table. Housing decisions should involve transparent communication, early community engagement and data-driven planning so residents feel heard, respected and informed.
As a physician and public health leader, I approach housing the same way I approach healthcare: by identifying root causes, focusing on prevention and prioritizing quality of life. Housing policy is not just about building units. It is about protecting safety, stability, economic opportunity and the long-term health of our community.
Elen Asatryan: Housing is one of the most important issues facing Glendale because it impacts affordability [and] quality of life and whether families can continue building their future here. In fact, we are in a state of emergency when it comes to housing. Families are working hard, doing everything right, and still struggling to afford rent, buy a home and stay in the community where they grew up. This is not sustainable, and people are frustrated – for good reason. We need actual affordable and workforce housing.
The growing role of large corporate investors purchasing homes across California is also deeply concerning. In some counties, investors own more than 40% of single-family homes and we are increasingly seeing large investment firms outbid working families and first-time buyers with all-cash offers. That drives up prices, reduces opportunities for homeownership and can turn neighborhoods into investment portfolios instead of stable communities. It’s really important that we support first-time homebuyers in meaningful ways and increase transparency around corporate ownership. The only reason I was able to purchase my condo at the fall of the market in 2011 was because of the first-time home buyer’s program. We should also work with state leaders on solutions that protect opportunities for local families to buy homes and remain in Glendale.
We need to do far more to prevent displacement and homelessness. This means investing in tenant assistance, eviction prevention resources [and] mental health support and cutting bureaucratic red tape.
I am concerned about bonus density, which doesn’t take into account infrastructure, power and public safety needs, and doesn’t provide cities with resources. The state mandates have tied our hands.
Housing policy should work for everyday people – not just those with the most money and influence. My focus has always been on making government work for everyday people and small businesses and ensuring that Glendale remains a city where working families, seniors, young people and longtime residents can continue to not just live, but thrive.
Evelina Sarian: Housing has to work for Glendale residents first – not outside investors, Sacramento mandates or developers looking to maximize profits at the expense of our neighborhoods. I am deeply concerned about corporations and investment groups buying up homes an properties in communities across California. When families are competing against LLCs and hedge funds, regular people lose. We need to explore every legal tool available at the local level to protect homeownership opportunities for Glendale residents and prevent speculative corporate purchasing from reshaping our neighborhoods.
I’m also hearing loud and clear from residents about bonus density and overdevelopment.
Glendale should decide what growth looks like in Glendale, not regional agencies or one-size-fits-all mandates coming from Sacramento. I support thoughtful housing that fits our community, infrastructure, parking realities, traffic conditions and quality of life. I do not support forcing projects onto neighborhoods without community input.
The same principle applies to transportation and bike lane decisions. I support safe streets but we cannot ignore the impact some of these projects have had on congestion, parking and small businesses on Brand [Boulevard] and other commercial corridors. When local shops lose parking and customers are stuck in gridlock, it hurts the people who keep our local economy alive. These decisions need to involve the community and local businesses from the beginning not be pushed through in a way that ignores the real-world impact on Glendale families and merchants.
At the same time, we do need more attainable housing for working families, seniors and young people who grew up here and want to stay here. But the answer is balanced, community-driven planning [and] not surrendering local control to outside interests.
My approach is simple: protect Glendale neighborhoods, support local businesses, keep decision making local and make sure residents – not corporations or bureaucrats – have the strongest voice in shaping our city’s future. Bluntly put: Let Glendale residents decide what’s best for Glendale.
Gevorg Grigoryan: Housing is at the center of everything facing Glendale right now. It touches every resident, every family and every neighborhood in our city. People are struggling to afford their rent, hardworking professionals earning well above the median income cannot buy a home and outside investors are swooping in to purchase properties for profit while local families are left behind. This is not just a policy issue. It is a crisis that demands bold, practical leadership.
I would support transparency requirements so residents know exactly who is buying in their neighborhoods and I would advocate for state level protections against predatory corporate purchasing. Glendale belongs to the people who live here, not to outside investors looking to make a profit.
The market alone will not protect vulnerable residents, ensure affordability or prevent corporate interests from pushing local families out. The city has a responsibility to take an active role in guiding where and how housing is built, protecting tenants from displacement and ensuring that the people who live and work in Glendale can continue to afford to do so. At the same time, we need the market working for us, not against us. By streamlining permitting, reducing delays and making it easier to build, we increase supply and create competition that brings prices down naturally. The answer is not just regulation or just market forces. It is both, working together with residents at the center of every decision.
Protecting our residents starts with building more housing. When supply is this limited, prices skyrocket and the people with the most money – often corporate investors – win. The most powerful thing we can do is fill the market with more homes of every type, including condos, townhomes, missing middle housing and multifamily developments so that local families have real options and real pathways to homeownership.
We should also ensure that bonus density is handled thoughtfully and directed to the right areas like downtown and the Civic Center, where infrastructure already supports growth. Residents deserve a voice in how their neighborhoods change and growth should be incremental and well planned in residential areas rather than sudden or overwhelming.
The shortage affects everyone and our solutions must reflect that reality. My goal is to make Glendale a city where hardworking people can afford to live raise their families and build their futures without being forced out by rising costs or corporate interests that care more about profit than community.
https://www.electgrigoryan.com/
Patrick Murphy: Addressing housing in our city will be a high priority for me if elected to City Council. I have said we do not have a housing supply crisis; we have an affordable housing crisis.
We need to focus efforts to provide ownership housing. This will help to bring young families into our city. GUSD enrollment is experiencing a downward trend indicating families are leaving our city. The lack of affordable family housing is a primary reason for this trend.
The approval of a 682-unit apartment project on the former Sears property is an example of supply lacking family housing. Only 20% of this project will accommodate families.
Our municipal code has a “patchwork” of housing development regulations instituted over many years. In addition, our fee structure appears to be out of balance.
I was canvassing recently and noticed a permit on a home where an ADU was being constructed. Total fees were over $16,000. Park fees were over $4,200. Surprisingly, the fire department fee was just over $200. I think we can all agree that more parks are needed in South Glendale; however, a fee that is 20 times the amount for the fire department seems extraordinarily out of balance. It is imperative we conduct a top-to-bottom review of city regulations and development fees.
Another extremely significant issue facing our city are the housing mandates being pushed down from Sacramento. These one size fits all mandates, such as SB 9, 10 and now SB 79, have taken away local control. We need to join with other cities to first work with Sacramento legislators to amend these mandated laws to give back local control. If Sacramento does not work with us, then we, in collaboration with other cities, need to get the courts involved.
Lastly, as many people are aware, the incumbents up for reelection. Dan Brotman and Elen Asatryan, along with candidate Alek Bartrosouf, are in favor of developing the public owned parking lots in Montrose and other areas of our city into housing, taking away vital parking for customers of merchants and others such as college students. Ms. Asatryan and Mr. Brotman refused to remove this plan from the Draft Land Use Element when it came up as a proposed City Council agenda item. This is unacceptable.
People are tired of being told what they need instead of being asked what they want.
Ronnie Gharibian: Housing is one of the most important issues facing Glendale because it impacts working families, seniors, young professionals and longtime residents who want to remain in our community. We need a balanced approach that protects neighborhoods while also creating realistic housing opportunities.
While concerns about large investment groups purchasing homes are valid, the data shows this has been less aggressive in California compared to other states because of already high property values. However, the tragic fires in Altadena created a new challenge. For regular families, purchasing a vacant lot and rebuilding is extremely difficult because financing for land purchases and construction loans is limited and often requires a significant amount of cash upfront.
This is an area where state and federal governments should step in with special financing programs and incentives designed for owner-occupied buyers and first-time homeowners. We should advocate for programs that help local families rebuild and purchase homes instead of leaving those opportunities only to large investors and corporations.
Density bonus projects have also created understandable concerns regarding traffic, parking, infrastructure and neighborhood character. While state laws limit local control in some cases, Glendale still has a responsibility to ensure development is responsible and compatible with the community. I support updating Glendale’s development standards to require better design, infrastructure planning, traffic mitigation, parking solutions and stronger community input before approvals are granted.
At the same time, we cannot ignore the housing shortage. The answer is not simply “build everywhere” or “build nothing.” We need smart growth. That means focusing housing in locations where development will not drastically change the character of established neighborhoods while protecting single-family areas from overdevelopment. We should encourage mixed-use projects and adaptive reuse of underutilized commercial properties so developments can support both residential and commercial needs. This approach allows residents to utilize nearby businesses and services while also generating economic activity and revenue for the city.
We also need to streamline permitting and reduce unnecessary bureaucracy that drives up construction costs because delays ultimately increase costs for renters and buyers.
Glendale deserves thoughtful planning – not extremes. We need policies that preserve the character of our city, improve quality of life and create realistic pathways to homeownership and affordable living for future generations.
Vrej Agajanian: Housing continues to be one of the biggest concerns for Glendale residents and it is an issue that requires practical, balanced solutions. Rising housing costs and limited availability have made it difficult for many working families, young adults and seniors to remain in the city. As a licensed professional engineer, I have already demonstrated leadership on this issue by helping initiate and deliver more than 500 affordable housing units, representing roughly a 40% increase in all affordable housing built in Glendale since 1978. That is a significant accomplishment and reflects a real commitment to increasing housing accessibility for residents who are struggling with rising housing costs. I support housing opportunities in Glendale; however, we must be mindful about how development is implemented to ensure it remains balanced, protects neighborhood quality and keeps residents and community needs as the priority. In addition, we must always be aligned with the small businesses and homeowners in the area.
One of the biggest obstacles to addressing the housing crisis is the amount of unnecessary red tape in the permitting and approval process. Housing projects can spend years going through approvals and delays before construction even begins. These delays increase costs, discourage investment and slow the creation of housing. I support streamlining the permitting process and reducing unnecessary bureaucracy so projects that meet city standards can move forward more efficiently. Cutting red tape does not mean eliminating oversight or ignoring community concerns. It means making the process more transparent and efficient while still maintaining accountability and strong planning standards. When projects are delayed, those added costs are often passed on to residents through higher rents and housing prices.
Glendale also needs to ensure that residents remain the priority when discussing housing policy. Across California, corporate investors have increasingly purchased residential properties, making it harder for families and first-time buyers to compete in the housing market. By continuing to support affordable housing initiatives and cutting unnecessary permitting delays, Glendale can make meaningful progress toward creating a city that remains accessible, stable and livable for future generations.
For those who are trying to contact us, there was a devastating fire in our building and two people have been found deceased. We have been operating under difficult circumstances. For now, our T.V. studio has been damaged, causing our two T.V. stations to go black.
For more information, please contact me at (818) 468-6666.
The Candidates Respond <<< Glendale City Council added by CV Weekly on
View all posts by CV Weekly →