GLENDALE : Housing Authority Hears Suggestions

Neighborhoods that lack adequate parks, retail and supermarket services because of rapid growth in the 1980s must be transformed into pedestrian-friendly places to live, John McKenna, Glendale planning director, told a meeting of the city Housing Authority on Tuesday.

“We have to put back a sense of neighborhood into areas where no neighborhoods are identifiable,” McKenna said. “The way to do so is to build parks and supermarkets that residents can walk to, giving them the feeling they live in a community.”

The authority is searching for ways to cope not only with a 29% jump in population between 1980 and 1990, but also with projections that growth will eventually exceed General Plan provisions.

Authority members will develop a citywide housing strategy after hearing presentations from the Chamber of Commerce, parks, school and police officials, the board of realtors and neighborhood associations.

This strategy will attempt to improve existing housing and to provide more affordable rental and homeownership opportunities, said Madalyn Blake, community development and housing director, in a report to City Manager David Ramsay.

With 187,000 residents, Glendale is the third largest city in Los Angeles County, falling below Los Angeles and Long Beach.

“We added 41,000 people, or approximately the size of Azusa or West Covina, to the city between 1980 and 1990. We continue to have significant growth in the 1990s,” said Jim Glaser, city planning services administrator.

This growth has caused a 52% increase in elementary school enrollment and a 10% increase in students attending the city’s high schools. Growth also spurred a dramatic increase in household size, leading to 18% of the city’s households being defined as overcrowded, according to a city report.

The city’s General Plan places a cap on population at 225,000. Although it is difficult to say when and by how much this cap will be exceeded, Glaser said it is likely that Glendale’s population could grow to as much as 250,000 because of past development practices that allowed multifamily construction to exceed density limits now in place.