By Mary O’KEEFE

Glendale City Council was presented with a number of maps concerning the proposed district election that were the result of several outreach meetings with residents. At present Glendale elects its five councilmembers in a citywide election. However, there have been several lawsuits concerning the issue of citywide elections and their compliance with the California Voting Rights Act. The majority of the Glendale City Council had voted to explore moving from citywide to district elections as a preemptive act against possible lawsuits.
The Council majority proposed an election of six districts along with a citywide elected mayor. The outreach asked residents to participate in drawing the district maps. Once the maps were drawn, the Council will vote on what map, or maps, will be included in the proposal that will be presented to voters in March 2024.

It is important to note that although the majority of the Council voted to move forward with this proposal, Councilmember Ara Najarian is vehemently against the establishment of district voting. He has voiced his concern that his opposition to the entire proposal is not being presented.

Several maps were presented Tuesday during the Council meeting; however, the Council decided not to make a decision on any one map but to continue the outreach process giving more residents time to submit their ideas for a district map.

Another issue that was voted on, and discussed at length, was the property at 246 N. Jackson St. in Glendale. The proposed development replaces an older three-unit building with an 11 unit building. It was approved by City Planning in 2022, but appealed by Grant Michals who is a representative of the Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council (GHCC).

The proposed development is in an area zoned for high-density residential development. The existing building, which has three low-income units, would be demolished and replaced with the 11-unit building. It would have one low-income unit.

The developer is being granted a density bonus because, according to the City staff, he meets all the qualifications under state law. But GHCC and representatives from Crescenta Highlands Neighborhood Association disagree with staff on several points including the loss of three affordable units and replacing them with one then being allowed to build more “bonus” units at market rate.

Those opposed to the project voiced concern about how the developer arrived at the calculations that allowed him/her to receive the bonus and appeared equally concerned about how the planning staff came to the conclusions they did in approving the density bonus.

Both City staff and the developer defended their actions as being in line with the state and city codes.

In the end it came down to the needs of the City to have more housing. It was also decided this development would improve the look of the neighborhood. The development was approved by the Council three to two with Councilmembers Kassakhian, Najarian and Asatryan voting to approve and Councilmember Devine and Mayor Brotman voted against the project.

Councilmember Kassakhian said he hoped the developer would take into consideration the wants and needs of those who spoke at the meeting about wanting more than one affordable unit available.

There was a long discussion on how staff members conducted themselves in this case. Council talked about looking into the issue of future communication between staff and developers.

There was one interesting discussion when the staff defended some of the email conversations that GHCC received from the state’s Freedom of Information Act in which a staff member used the term “special treatment.” She explained that it was “an unfortunate phrase” and “wasn’t aware of the association and connotations that came with [the term ‘special treatment’].”