Level of service is typically measured from A to F, where A indicates the free, unrestricted flow of traffic and F indicates queuing and severe delays. A level of service of A or B implies that there is residual capacity in the network, suggesting opportunities to redistribute traffic within the network, widen sidewalks or increase the availability of pedestrian facilities on segments adjacent to access points.
Relative to other metrics, level of service is de-prioritized as it will require longer-term input and doesn’t directly affect access to the Wash in the early phases of the project.
Access points with limited capacity for road-level
interventions are concentrated along larger arteries in the Downtown area. Access points in residential areas have more potential for road diets, but this is subject to further study.
Figure 1-6: Vehicular level of service on adjacent street ©BuroHappold 268 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE C or lower
A or B
POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT
LEVELS OF SERVICE
1092 of 1517
Traffic: Parking
Access points with nearby parking facilities provide
additional modes of access for visitors who travel to the Wash by car.
The number of visitors to the Wash by car is expected
to be low, as it is within walking distance for a significant proportion of Glendale’s residents. Park and ride facilities create additional opportunities for commuters and
recreational users to access the Wash.
Since the primary users of the Wash are Glendale residents, most visitors are expected to be within walking distance of the Wash. Since the Wash is already well-serviced by existing parking in Downtown Glendale as well as public park-and-ride facilities, parking is de-prioritized in the evaluation of access points. It is found that access points in Downtown Glendale are better suited for visitor use, as there is higher surface and multi-story parking availability.
Figure 1-7: Parking accessibility ©BuroHappold
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX B: MOBILITY 269
PARKING ACCESSIBILITY
LOW
MULTI-STOREY
SURFACE
PARK & RIDE
MODERATE
HIGH
POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT
VERDUGO WASH ALIGNMENT
PARKING
1093 of 1517
Employment
The number of jobs within the study area of each access point will determine the number of people who may use
the Wash for their daily commute to work. Areas with a
lower number of jobs within a ½ mile radius are more likely to be origins for commuters who will use that Wash to
reach employment areas. There is a higher concentration of employment in the Downtown and confluence portion
of the wash, while the northern portion of the wash sees moderate to low employment. This creates opportunities for commuters to travel to areas with high employment from the low employment areas.
Figure 1-8: Employment ©BuroHappold
270 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE
EMPLOYMENT
LOW
MODERATE
HIGH
POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT
VERDUGO WASH ALIGNMENT
1094 of 1517
Proximity to Community Facilities: Parks
The Verdugo Wash has the potential to provide green
infrastructure to residents across the city. It presents an opportunity to integrate existing parks like Fremont Park, Verdugo Park and Glorietta Park into the Verdugo Wash
project. Access points in areas where there is a lack of green space can provide valuable access for residents who may not have existing green infrastructure near their homes.
Access points near Verdugo Park, Fremont Park and
Crescenta Valley Community Regional Park create
opportunities to integrate the Wash into a recreational corridor. Access points in Rossmoyne and Montrose
Verdugo City have limited or no park access and would
benefit from additional greening interventions.
Figure 1-9: Proximity to park ©BuroHappold
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX B: MOBILITY 271
PROXIMITY TO PUBLIC PARK
LOW
MODERATE
HIGH
POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT
VERDUGO WASH ALIGNMENT
1095 of 1517
Proximity to Community Facilities: Schools & Institutions Since the Verdugo Wash provides an alternative for pedestrians away from streets with high levels of traffic, it can help to create safe routes to school for families with young children. Access points near schools can be used to commute to school, as well as for recreation and after-school activities.
There are several schools across the study area that may be able to take advantage of the Wash as a commuting route. Access points near Glendale Community College are well-suited for potential commuters from other parts of the city.
Figure 1-10: Proximity to schools ©BuroHappold
272 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE
PROXIMITY TO SCHOOLS
LOW
MODERATE
HIGH
POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT
VERDUGO WASH ALIGNMENT
SCHOOL
1096 of 1517
Proximity to Community Facilities: Trails
Access points near a trailhead can encourage enthusiasts, hikers, and recreational visitors to use the Wash as part of their visit to a hiking trail. Access points 3 through 7 can be used to access Whiting Woods Trailhead and Verdugo
Mountains Open Space Preserve.
Figure 1-11: Trail access ©BuroHappold
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX B: MOBILITY 273
PROXIMITY TO TRAILS
LOW
HIGH
POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT
VERDUGO WASH ALIGNMENT
TRAILS
1097 of 1517
Environmental Justice
Environmental justice seeks to address the exposure
of community environmental health burdens on people.
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 is used as a metric for the exposure to environmental hazards for vulnerable populations within the Verdugo Wash study area.
This metric identifies access points which have higher levels of community environmental health burden and will benefit the most from the provision of additional green space.
Access points closest to the Ventura Freeway see the
highest CalEnviroScreen scores, and would benefit the most from greening interventions
Figure 1-12: CalEnviroScreen scores ©BuroHappold
274 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE
ENVIROSCREEN SCORE
LOW
MODERATE
HIGH
POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT
VERDUGO WASH ALIGNMENT
1 2
3 4
5 1098 of 1517
Cumulative Evaluation
Based on the previous ten metrics presented herein, a
unified ranking was developed to understand the areas
which would benefit the most from having access to the
Wash. This evaluation is used to inform an initial notion of phasing and design opportunities for the project, which are presented on the following pages.
Access points closer to Downtown Glendale, Confluence
Park and Glendale Community College rank highly for
improving accessibility and are expected to see the
highest use. These access points are also well-suited to be integrated into Glendale’s public transportation and bicycle network.
Figure 1-13: Cumulative access point evaluation ©BuroHappold !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX B: MOBILITY 275
LOW
MODERATE
HIGH
POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT
VERDUGO WASH ALIGNMENT
1099 of 1517
Access Point Evaluation:
Opportunities & Constraints
Existing access points have the potential to serve as “quick wins” and can also be used for pilot projects. Among the existing access points, “P15” and “P19” are well suited to being prioritized in the first phase of opening the wash as they provide access to jobs and Glendale Community
College. Access points “P4” and “P6” have moderate
accessibility but will require improvements to the cycling network to be able to provide multi-modal access to the Wash. Access points “P1”, “P2” and “P3” are expected to see lower use, and are better suited to later stages of the project, as they have the potential to connect to schools and parks.
Existing access points may also have design constraints due to issues of ownership of adjacent parcels, which may constrain sizing and transitions onto streets and sidewalks.
Future access points present opportunities for more
ambitious design interventions and can support a wide
variety of users and activities. The access to confluence park, “P23” is an important strategic access point, and create potential to connect to the LA River Bike Path in addition to a welcoming public realm for Glendale residents. “P20” and “P21” are well suited to visitor needs due to their proximity to the park and ride. In the more residential northern portion of the Wash, “P5” is well suited to serving Montrose Verdugo City, has trail access and provides opportunities for families with young children access the nearby kindergarten through safer routes than on vehicular streets.
Several access points have limited pedestrian and cycling infrastructure on adjacent streets, which are an important component to ensuring the success of the Verdugo Wash.
Incorporating sidewalks, streets and intersections that support multi-modal transportation will be instrumental in realizing the mobility benefits of the Verdugo Wash project.
Connections To Existing
Transportation Infrastructure
Integration with existing public transit stops, pedestrian routes and the existing bicycle network in Glendale is key to ensuring that the Verdugo Wash can function as an
artery in the City’s transportation network. Connections to existing facilities also help to induce future demand for the Wash and encourage visitation. BuroHappold has provided recommendations for connecting the Wash to Glendale’s
bicycle and transit networks.
Connections to Transit Infrastructure
Glendale’s Beeline and Metro Bus routes present an
opportunity to provide access to the Wash from across the city and wider region for visitors, and create alternative modes for commuters. For example, a resident living in the Mariposa, Adams Hill or Somerset neighborhoods can take a bus to the nearest Verdugo Wash access point and use a shared or personal bicycle to visit the Verdugo Mountains.
Making connections along N Brand Blvd to commercial areas in Downtown Glendale will also bring economic benefits to businesses in Glendale.
Connections to Bike Network
Integrating the Wash with Glendale’s bicycle network will require improvements on segments and intersections
outside of the Wash. A significant amount of Glendale’s existing bicycle infrastructure utilizes shared lane markings, which do not provide adequate separation between cyclists and vehicular traffic. Converting shared lane markings into dedicated bicycle facilities, particularly those connecting to the Wash, will ensure a safer environment for cyclists by minimizing conflicts between modes. Intersections adjacent to the Wash also play a role in ensuring a safe environment for pedestrians and cyclists to connect to it. The City of Glendale is in the process of updating its citywide bike plan, which will focus on improving connections to the Wash.
Improvements at Confluence Park and a bridge connection to the LA River Bike path will expand opportunities for the Wash to be connected to the greater region’s active transportation network. On the northern portion of the
Wash, access to the trail heads at Whiting Woods and
Oakmont can be integrated into the Wash so that a
contiguous path connects the regional network to Glendale’s trail system. A full list of recommended improvements
relating to adjacent bike lane segments and intersections is detailed in Table 1-2.
Benefits Of Added Bicycle Paths
The addition of a bicycle path to the Verdugo Wash will have many benefits, among which are increased safety,
access, air quality, and an increase in property values. The separation between bicyclists and automobiles through
a bike trail improves safety. Separated bicycle routes are highly effective because they redirect cyclists away from vehicular traffic, reducing conflicts between modes. Having a dedicated route also discourages pedestrians from
jaywalking. In transitions between dedicated and on-street facilities, lowering vehicular speeds has also been shown to improve safety as collisions are less likely to be fatal.
Bicycle paths offer a parking-free alternative to getting around.
This is especially attractive for the denser neighborhoods in Glendale, where additional cycling infrastructure can alleviate parking demand. By reducing the number of car trips taken in the neighborhood, bicycle paths will not only benefit cyclists but also the neighborhood. Reducing the number of car trips means less congestion and improvements to
air quality in neighborhoods with improvements to bicycle infrastructure.
Furthermore, the addition of bicycle paths has been shown to increase neighborhood desirability and thus property values across the United States. Several studies have shown that identical homes will sell for more with a bicycle path adjacent or in proximity to them than without one. Residents also cite safety and efficiency as additional benefits to their streets in areas with a more robust cycling network.
A study to determine the impact of the bicycle and
pedestrian “Bush Creek trail” on property values in Bush Creek, Santa Rosa, California showed overwhelming opinion that the trail added positive value to the neighborhood. In fact, 61% of real estate agents said they used proximity to the trail as a selling point. 33% of residents indicated the trail would make their homes easier to sell, and 23% of residents said the addition of the bicycle and pedestrian path would allow their home to sell for more. It was also found that the addition of a bike trail did not lead to an increase in crime in the area.
276 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1100 of 1517
Shared Or Separated Pedestrian & Cycling Paths
Since the Verdugo Wash is 9.5 miles long, its character, layout and scale will vary based on its surrounding context. A part of this variation will inform whether a dedicated bicycle lane or a shared right of way for all users.
Where possible, a dedicated bicycle lane will allow for unimpeded flows for bicyclists that allow for higher
speeds and increased efficiency. This separation between pedestrians and cyclists ensures safety and minimizes the risk of collisions between pedestrians and cyclists. However, there are areas where space within the Wash may be limited due to available freeboard. A shared right-of-way may be used for pedestrians and active transportation users, and should incorporate calming mechanisms for cyclists as well as appropriate paving. There are also portions of the Wash where visitation is expected to be lower, such as the Whiting Woods and Montrose Verdugo City. In locations where
these constraints occur, it may be appropriate to utilize a shared right of way, as conflicts between users are less likely in areas with low footfall. Transitions between shared and dedicated bike paths should incorporate buffer zones and appropriate signage to ensure that riders are aware of the change and to reduce their speed.
Figure 1-14: Bike network integration overview ©BuroHappold !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX B: MOBILITY 277
BIKE NETWORK INTEGRATION
BIKE PATHS
BIKE LANE
SHARROW
CONNECTION TO BIKE NETWORK
POTENTIAL ACCESS POINT
1101 of 1517
Table 1-2: Recommended Bike Network Improvements
278 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1102 of 1517
Micro-Mobility Integration
Micro-mobility offers a convenient, affordable, and safe mode of transportation, and includes motorized or human powered devices that can be operated in the same facilities as bicycles. The City of Glendale is currently in the process of implementing a Shared Mobility Pilot program, which will involve electric bicycles, electric scooters, and standard bicycles. Micro-mobility is a suitable option for dense urban areas as well as suburban contexts, as it makes it easier for riders to traverse longer distances.
Since the Verdugo Wash is designed to be bike-friendly, it will also support micro-mobility systems in Glendale.
Access points close to transit stops along the Verdugo
Wash, particularly in Downtown Glendale, College Hills, and Montrose Verdugo City, can make use of micro-mobility
hubs, which are docking stations for storing and charging devices. Access points near micro-mobility hubs can also include ramps or elevators for riders to enter the Wash with their device.
Parking Adjustments
Since the Verdugo Wash is expected to provide
improvements to Glendale’s pedestrian and bicycle networks, it is not expected to require additional parking. It is expected to replace car trips, reducing parking demand across the city. This is particularly beneficial to commercial areas in Glendale’s Downtown, which currently have limited active transportation options and a significant amount of parking capacity.
For visitors from outside Glendale, the four existing park and ride facilities – Fairmont, Harvey, Lowell, and Verdugo will be key nodes that connect to the Verdugo Wash. Visitors may also park in the surface and structured parking facilities in Glendale’s Downtown. A detailed parking study for the Verdugo Wash can be carried out during the pilot phase
of the project to understand visitation demands to better inform the parking adjustment strategy along the Wash.
Figure 1-15: Shared bicycle docking facility in Los Angeles Safety, Maintenance, & Operation Considerations
The successful management of the Verdugo Wash will
ensure smooth operations, effective maintenance and
servicing of facilities, and safety for all visitors.
Once completed, the Verdugo Wash linear park will
operate under the same rules and procedures as Glendale Community Services & Parks facilities.
The park will likely follow the same hours of operation as Glendale’s other parks, which is 6:00am – 10:00pm,
Monday through Sunday.
Vehicular access to streets along access points to the
park will ensure that emergency vehicles like fire trucks or ambulances will be able to service the Wash throughout its hours of operation.
The Verdugo Wash will be maintaining its hydrological
functions and will require additional operational
considerations compared to other park facilities in the City of Glendale. These additional considerations include removal of debris along the waterways and ensuring that the park can be evacuated and access-restricted before major flood events. Based on hydrological models, the velocity of water during a 1-in-100-year flood present a risk to users within the Wash. A robust flood warning plan will be required to ensure that people are able to evacuate, and the channel is closed off to public prior to significant precipitation events.
This may be done in coordination with park management,
and the Wash can be closed to the public on days where
high levels of precipitation are expected. Park cleaning and operations will ensure that there is no debris blocking the waterways following an event where water flows through the channel.
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX B: MOBILITY 279
1103 of 1517
Phasing Recommendations - Mobility Lens
A phased approach to the Verdugo Wash will be able
to create segments that contribute to Glendale’s active transportation network even at early stages of the project.
At each phase, improvements to the public realm and
connections to existing transportation systems will ensure that the project is integrated with its surroundings and is welcoming for users throughout project implementation.
Pilot Stage – Phase 0
BuroHappold recommends making use of a “Phase 0”, or
pilot stage of the project before major design changes are implemented, which identifies the minimum intervention
for cyclists and visitors to be able to use the Wash. A pilot project helps to create demand for the project and encourages early adoption to make visitors comfortable
with entering and using the Wash for recreational purposes.
Users who may be interested in the Wash include local
residents and cycling enthusiasts, who will be able to
generate feedback about the experience of interacting with the Wash and their mobility patterns.
Having users enter the Verdugo Wash also helps to include it in online platforms like Google Maps, Waze and Strava.
This also creates the opportunity for placemaking and
programming within the Wash, such as bike repair stalls, popups, and other retail activation facilities.
Potential interventions for a pilot project to open the Wash may include the following:
• Existing access points are opened & made accessible;
• Safety measures in place to avoid sliding/falls
resurfacing along some areas;
• Ensuring that grade is ADA compliant along Wash and
existing access points;
• Wayfinding and temporary interventions;
• Safety measures at adjacent intersections near existing access points;
• Parking locations are communicated to visitors;
Phase 1
In this early phase of the Wash, connecting the park to the LA River bike paths will facilitate circulation and mobility from a wider catchment area, and is expected to encourage access from Glendale residents and visitors alike. This phase is expected to see the highest visitation, as it will connect to N Brand Blvd, which provides easy access to Downtown Glendale. This phase is also well connected to the Metro Bus and Beeline system, which will make it easier to access from other parts of Glendale.
Phase 2
By connecting to several schools as well as Glendale
Community College, phase 2 will begin to demonstrate
the commuting potential of the Wash. Further, the existing access point near the college will be easier to incorporate into the design than a new access point. This entrance will also be able to service visitors from Rossmoyne who want to use the Wash to reach Downtown Glendale and the LA River bike path.
Phase 3
This phase will include connections to the Verdugo
Woodlands neighborhood, which is suburban but dense.
This portion of the Wash can be integrated with Glendale’s Safe Routes to School program, as it will provide alternative routes to schools that are protected from vehicular traffic.
This phase of opening will also include public realm
improvements at key intersections to ensure ease of access and safety for commuters and families with young children.
Phase 4
There is potential to integrate access points to the Wash with public realm improvements and sidewalk provisions
within this study area. Access to the Whiting Woods trailhead and passage through the rolling green spaces through
the Oakmont Country Club will be an attractor for cycling enthusiasts and trail visitors alike. Access points at this segment of the Wash will also support visitors to Montrose Shopping Park.
Phase 5
The final portion of the Wash is a longer-term priority and will be pursued based on design feedback from residents.
This segment of the Wash provides opportunities to visit the Verdugo Mountains trails and connect to the Crescenta Valley Park.
opposite page, Figure 1-16: A potential phasing scenario ©!MELK 280 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1104 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX B: MOBILITY 281
1105 of 1517
1106 of 1517
appendix C.
interconnected
ecologies
1107 of 1517
284 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1108 of 1517
Site Context
While the Verdugo Wash is located within an urban
environment, the wider landscape includes a variety of
natural and semi-natural habitats, including the three
distinct hillside/mountain ranges within the city boundary:
the Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills, and San Gabriel Mountains - in addition to the numerous open spaces and parks within the city!
Important to note is the precious nature of the Verdugo Mountains, which are designated by the Los Angeles
County as a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) as they are considered to support irreplaceable biological resources.
The ¼ mile buffer applied to the Verdugo Wash Visioning project overlaps with the SEA at the northern extent of the Wash, as illustrated in Figure 2-6.
The City of Glendale champions habitat restoration through its “Tree Reforestation” programs, which aims to increase tree canopy coverage. As of 2009, Glendale fosters 48,760 street trees with a variety of 246 species, providing multiple Unique precipitation patterns and the rich topography
surrounding Glendale bore - through natural processes - the original Verdugo Wash (Creek), which was the credible water source that attracted the Tongva to the Wiqanga village just north of 210 on the Verdugo Creek. The Verdugo Wash is
a central feature of how Glendale was eventually founded specifically here.
While the Wash’s channelization facilitated Glendale’s
growth as a young American city, there were
consequences on the local and regional ecologies. While this trade-off is not unique to Glendale, today’s habitat areas are fragmented, often degraded, and subject to climate
change - leading the scientific community to conclude that many local flora and fauna populations are at serious risk.
Ecological enhancement along the Verdugo Wash
is a bona fide opportunity to position Glendale as a
regional leader and support the vegetative and wildlife populations that collectively contribute to the City’s
identity.
Figure 2-6 The Verdugo Mountain SEA. ©BuroHappold
appendix C
interconnected ecologies
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 285
1109 of 1517
benefits to both people and wildlife. Furthermore, under the City’s Municipal Code, the following habitat characteristics are also protected: Oak, Bay, and Sycamore trees; blue
line streams (riparian habitats), and ridgelines. Glendale’s Hillside Development Standards for new subdivisions also call for protection of natural hillsides, stream channels, habitat, and vegetation areas.
The landscape within Glendale includes several distinct vegetation and habitat types. Data relating to these different vegetation systems was obtained from the US Forest
Service Region 5 using the Classification and Assessment with Landsat of Visible Ecological Groupings (CALVEG)
classification system which aims to classify existing
vegetation, rather than indicating ‘potential vegetation’ as with other natural vegetation classification systems used in the US. CALVEG maps “dominance types,” indicating
the main habitat type within an assigned area. (Other
vegetation types may be present as an understory or mosaic component, but the system does not capture that level of detail.)
The City of Glendale CALVEG data is illustrated in Figure 2-7. While CALVEG includes ‘urban’ as a classification type, this has been removed from the figure to better illustrate the semi-natural habitats within the City of Glendale and those in proximity to the Verdugo Wash. Broad vegetation types have been grouped into similar colors to illustrate their distribution across the city. Scrub and shrub habitat (also known as chaparral) is the most prevalent, associated with the Verdugo Mountains and San Rafael Hills. Some of these vegetation types include those associated with trees, including oak and mahogany species which are growing at smaller heights due to environmental stresses. The scrub/ shrub typology is interspersed with defined forest areas of taller, more mature trees which typically have a dominant species type such as oak, sycamore, eucalyptus, and bigcone Douglas fir. In the northern extent of the Verdugo Wash, these habitats almost directly border the Wash at the edge of the SEA.
Small, isolated pockets of annual meadow grassland typically occur around the foot of the mountains and hills; however, a small area is identified where the basin within the Verdugo Wash is located, indicating potential greater biodiversity value of the Wash in this area. The golf course which
straddles either side of the Verdugo Wash at the basin is indicated to be an area of non-native/ornamental planting, alongside several other open spaces and parks within the City of Glendale. This can be typical of urban open green and recreational spaces which have been designed for amenity interest, rather than habitat value It may be the case that some non-native ornamental planting types support local native biodiversity species, such as invertebrates and birds, Figure 2-7 City of Glendale CALVEG habitat typologies. ©BuroHappold 286 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE
BARE GROUND / SOIL
SCRUB VEGETATION
CONIFER FOREST
HARDWOOD FOREST TYPOLOGY
NATIVE ANNUAL GRASSLAND
NON-NATIVE / ORNAMENTAL VEGETATION
VERDUGO WASH
1/4 MILE BUFFER
CITY OF GLENDALE
1110 of 1517
that feed on pollen and nectar . Habitat value can be easily re-incorporated into these areas to promote connectivity.
This is explored further in the Biology Opportunities section.
Habitats
Within the Verdugo Wash itself, much of its length is
dominated by concrete with limited habitat value due to the largely hard engineered treatment of the channel for flood protection. Generally low water flow within the channel provides few opportunities for riparian habitat to establish and the hard concrete treatment of the channel prevents colonizing species from being able to establish which would aid successional plant growth. It was noted that the area in the channel that remains wet supports, at most, algal growth as illustrated in Figure 2-8, but no notable emergent or wetland plant species were noted within the water channel.
However, from a review of site photos from the walkover of the Verdugo Wash, it is apparent that there are pockets of habitat that exist sporadically along the length of the Wash.
These are incidental in nature and have occurred either through natural colonization of small areas, the Verdugo Wash basin and where vegetation from neighboring property encroaches into the Wash. Additionally, built features of the Wash, such as bridges can provide artificial roosting and nesting habitats for urban adapted species such as some birds.
The most significant area of semi-natural vegetation occurs within and bordering the Verdugo Wash Debris Basin Dam.
The more natural substrate in this area, potentially gathered through the settling of debris out of the Wash flow, provides a relatively large area of open habitat which appears to support natural grassland species. The boundaries to the Verdugo Wash Debris Basin Dam, further support scrub and shrub habitats (Figure 2-9) as well as sparse ephemeral type habitats in rockier substrates (Figure 2-10). Together these mosaics of habitat types may support an abundance of local flora and fauna including invertebrates, reptiles, birds, and mammals.
Detailed surveys of the Verdugo Wash Debris Basin Dam
could be undertaken by a wildlife specialist to identify the habitat types and extents that exist within the basin and the Figure 2-8 The Verdugo Wash, illustrating algal growth in the water channel. species that these habitats support. This information can then be used to support the design of habitat enhancements and restoration within this area while also seeking to support community interest, open space, and providing a community nature resource.
Figure 2-10 Rockier habitat within the Verdugo Wash basin, supporting a variety of plant species
Figure 2-9 The approach to the Verdugo Wash basin, illustrating the scrub habitat on the boundaries either side and wider grassland within the basin itself Species
Except for the Verdugo Wash basin area, it is considered that the Wash itself currently has limited ecological value for wildlife species to utilize the Wash as habitat for connectivity, foraging or sheltering/ nesting due to its largely open and unvegetated nature. The tall, hard edges in certain parts of the Wash, as illustrated in Figure 2-8, also likely create barriers for numerous species to access the Wash, further limiting its existing value for wildlife.
The Verdugo Wash basin has the greatest potential within the study area to support wildlife species. Scrub and trees around the periphery of the basin may support nesting bird species and provide connectivity for small mammals, birds, and invertebrates. The wider basin, with a combination of !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 287
1111 of 1517
Table 2-1 Example list of species recorded in areas of ecological interest connected to the Verdugo Wash
SPECIES - BIRD VERDUGO
MOUNTAINS SAN RAFAELMOUNTAINS GRIFFITHPARK
SPECIES - REPTILE / AMPHIBIAN
SPECIES - MAMMAL
SPECIES - BUTTERFLY
VERDUGO
MOUNTAINS
VERDUGO
MOUNTAINS
VERDUGO
MOUNTAINS
SAN RAFAEL
MOUNTAINS
SAN RAFAEL
MOUNTAINS
SAN RAFAEL
MOUNTAINS
GRIFFITH
PARK
GRIFFITH
PARK
GRIFFITH
PARK
GRIFFITH
PARK
GRIFFITH
PARK
288 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1112 of 1517
bare substrate, scrubby species and emergent vegetation may provide an important nectar and sheltering resource for invertebrate species which, in turn can support bird and mammal populations as a food source.
Any proposed interventions within the basin should
be supported by further investigation of the current
ecological properties of the area to identify if there are future management opportunities to support wildlife
populations that already exist within the basin, or if there are opportunities to encourage further species into the area.
Table 2-1 provides a snapshot of species that have been recorded within the surrounding areas of ecological interest such as the Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills, and Griffith Park. Due to the location of the Verdugo Wash between
these three areas, it provides an opportunity to connect the areas together to support species movement and population mixing where they may otherwise be isolated from each
other.
The data presented in the table is not an exhaustive list and is comprised from publicly available records submitted to iNaturalist for the Verdugo Mountains and Griffith Park areas.
The San Rafael Hills are not included as a listed site on iNaturalist, and a general search for wildlife species records for this area provided few results. Therefore, the lack of species listed against the San Rafael Hills is more a reflection on less available data, rather than a true lack of species supported by the habitats.
Species recorded between the Verdugo Mountains and
Griffith Park areas are similar due to the similarities in habitats that exist in both areas, consisting of chaparral and woodland habitat types.
Whilst some species are mobile and known to move between the areas, or considered likely to do so, such as ravens, coyotes and even mountain lions, smaller bird species,
reptiles and butterflies will require more continuous habitat than the current urban development between the areas
provided. Targeted species or habitat planting types through the Wash could help increase the permeability of the urban area of the City of Glendale to species identified within the Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills, and Griffith Park. !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 289
1113 of 1517
Biodiversity Opportunities
Habitat Connectivity: Los Angeles incorporates a diverse and large expanse of natural mountainous and shrubland
habitat intersected by the Los Angeles River. According to the California Coastal Conservancy, due to urbanization and channelization of the rivers, nearly 100% of original wetlands and approximately 90-95% of in-stream riparian habitat .
This loss of natural habitat has led to fragmentation of the natural landscape, creating isolated patches of optimal habitat for the native wildlife. However, The City of Los Angeles has envisioned and established goals to revitalize the river and enhance its potential for the public and for biodiversity by using the river system to create habitat corridors and ecological enhancement (8).
The most significant opportunity that the Verdugo Wash
Visioning represents for biodiversity is the potential to create a vegetated corridor that provides new habitat connectivity between the Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills, Griffith Park, the San Gabriel Mountains, and the Los Angeles River.
The Verdugo Mountains and Griffith Park are both classified as Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) which are in proximity to the Verdugo Wash (Figure 2-14). Due to the highly
urbanized environment of the City of Glendale, particularly towards the southern extent of the city, there is a physical barrier to dispersal for many species associated with the Verdugo Mountain and San Rafael Hills in the north of the city and the Los Angeles River and Griffith Park in the south.
The Verdugo Wash crosses through the city in a continuous north-south length creating the potential to provide both upland and riparian connectivity, which is largely absent elsewhere in the region (x). This means that vegetating strategic parts of the channel could help join up these SEAs and support restoration of habitat links across the city (See Table 0-1 in the mitigation section for a full list of habitat connectivity and enhancement techniques).
The Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan (LARRMP) highlights habitats and linkages that could be established to improve habitat connectivity (Figure 2-15). The LARRMP incorporates two individual plans, The Upper Los Angeles River and Tributaries Revitalization Plan (ULART) and the Lower Los Angeles River Revitalization Plan (LLARRP).
The ULART Plan proposes potential ecological connectors throughout the Verdugo Wash section.
Figure 2-14: Areas where improved habitat connectivity is desired (source: LARRMP) Figure 2-15: Ecological Corridor Opportunities relevant to Verdugo Wash area source: LARRMP
The ecological corridor opportunities relevant to the
Verdugo Wash area are:
• The San Rafael Ecological Connection
• The Urban Trail Access
• The Confluence
The San Rafael Ecological Connection: The San Rafael
Ecological Connection is proposed to create a link between the Verdugo Mountains and the San Rafael Hills, east to west. To show a more in-depth pathway and description of this corridor the Verdugo – San Rafael Connection has been split into three mapped sections:
1. The Oakmont Country Club to the Verdugo Mountains;
2. The Oakmont Country Club; &
3. The San Rafael Hills to The Oakmont Country Club
Figure 2-16 shows the suggested routes for a habitat corridor linking the Oakmont Country Club section to the Verdugo Mountains SEA. The corridor appears to be a feasible option due to retained undeveloped areas (indicated by red arrows).
This proposed corridor runs through the Oakmont Country Club which has potential to increase biodiversity and form better habitat connectivity through changes to management of areas within the golf course (Figure 2-17). Management methods to promote biodiversity could include reducing
vegetation gaps across the golf club by providing native tree and shrub species enabling a link to long roughs and limiting light spill on these nominated routes. This will help strengthen vegetated routes through the club grounds to serve as wildlife corridors. Reducing management intensity and frequency, in areas where feasible, will create a higher diversity and density of habitat cover, structure, and variety.
Where there is opportunity to plant additional vegetation, native species would be recommended to promote a greater biodiversity. Other management practices to enhance
biodiversity include avoiding, or reducing, the use toxic chemicals such as fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides and as well as linking habitats within the golf course and 290 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1114 of 1517
Figure 2-16: Zoomed in map of proposed Verdugo - San Rafael habitat connection, zoned in on potential habitat corridor routes linking the Oakmont Country Club with the Verdugo Mountains SEA ©BuroHappold
ensuring wildlife corridors are established to adjacent seminatural habitat outside the golf course to provide routes to and from the golf course area.
There are multiple resources available to aid identifying best practice for enhancing biodiversity on a golf course.
Audubon International has developed a set of environmental management guidelines and have a certification scheme
in place called The Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary
Program (ACSP) for Golf which provides information and
guidance on six key environmental components including
site assessment/ environmental planning, wildlife & habitat management, chemical use reduction & safety, water
conservation, water quality management, and outreach
& education (11) scheme in place called The Audubon
Cooperative Sanctuary Program (ACSP) (14) for Golf which provides information and guidance on six key environmental components including site assessment/ environmental
planning, wildlife & habitat management, chemical use
reduction & safety, water conservation, water quality
management, and outreach & education (11).
“Golf Sustainable” is another resource available providing an online resource of information on sustainability and golfing.
The website (15) contains articles on best practice as well as research and precedent biodiversity success stories from golf courses across Europe and North America. For example, a German golf club called St. Leon-Rot have built a biotope habitat for endangered reptiles, made from existing materials they had on site (16). The Memmingen Gut Westerhart golf course has dedicated time and effort to promote biodiversity on their golf course. Their efforts have made a significant difference with a study indicating over 60 species of bees found throughout the golf course, three of which are Red List species (17).
The Oakmont Country Club then has potential to connect to the San Rafael Hills. Figure 0-9 shows the proposed habitat corridor leading from the golf course to the San Rafael Hills.
Further greening and vegetation planting will strengthen the routes purpose as a connection opportunity, particularly in the areas marked with a black square in Figure 2-19.
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 291
VERDUGO WASH
VERDUGO MOUNTAIN SEA IN GLENDALE
PROPOSED ECOLOGICAL CORRIDOR
HABITAT CORRIDOR ROUTE
1115 of 1517
Figure 2-18: Example of biotope habitat creation for endangered lizards at The St. Leon-Rot golf course. Image taken from Golf Sustainable website (Golf Sustainable 2022)
These areas include a freeway crossing which typically
conflicts with species movement due to the risk of collisions with traffic. While wildlife can cross using the existing underpass, to prevent wildlife from attempting to cross the freeway itself, fencing a section of the freeway on either side may be needed to channel wildlife towards the underpass.
An example of where wildlife fencing has been used to divert migrating wildlife over a highway rather than crossing it can be seen in Figure 2-20. The green circle in Figure 0-9 represents an additional area of connectivity that could be explored.
Figure 2-17: Zoomed in map of proposed Verdugo - San Rafael habitat connection, zoned in on potential habitat corridor routes linking The Oakmont Country Club with the San Rafael Hills ©BuroHappold
292 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE
VERDUGO WASH
VERDUGO MOUNTAIN SEA IN GLENDALE
PROPOSED ECOLOGICAL CORRIDOR
HABITAT CORRIDOR ROUTE
1116 of 1517
Figure 2-19: Zoomed in map of proposed Verdugo - San Rafael habitat connection, zoned in on potential habitat corridor routes linking The Oakmont Country Club with the San Rafael Hills ©BuroHappold
Figure 2-20: Example of use of fencing to channel migrating wildlife in Wyoming over bridge rather than crossing freeway.
Photo credit: Joe Riis/National Geographic Creative
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 293
VERDUGO WASH
VERDUGO MOUNTAIN SEA IN GLENDALE
PROPOSED ECOLOGICAL CORRIDOR
HABITAT CORRIDOR ROUTE
1117 of 1517
The Urban Access Trail
The habitat corridor connecting the San Rafael Hills to the Verdugo Mountains through the Glendale Community
College, Verdugo Park, and Bachman open space appears
to be feasible in principle. However, there are several roads, and the Community College itself, which may cause limitations to the connectivity of this corridor and will need further consideration and potentially implementation of mitigation measures to avoid or reduce adverse impacts to wildlife. There is a need to consider how and where wildlife is likely to cross roads, especially major routes such as the Cañada Boulevard, North Verdugo Road, and the CA-2
freeway, and how to enable them to safely cross or bypass these features.
Currently there is a major project being carried out in the Los Angeles Region with the construction of the Liberty Canyon Figure 2-22: Zoomed in map of proposed Urban Access Trail habitat connection linking the San Rafael hills with the Verdugo Mountains. The black squares represent areas that would need vegetation to support function as a habitat corridor ©BuroHappold Figure 2-21: Liberty Canyon Wildlife Crossing Project in Los Angeles. image source: Resource Conservation District of the Santa Monica Mountains 294 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE
VERDUGO WASH
VERDUGO MOUNTAIN SEA IN GLENDALE
PROPOSED ECOLOGICAL CORRIDOR
1118 of 1517
Wildlife Crossing over the Ventura Freeway to provide a safe crossing for mountain lions and other wildlife (Figure 2-21).
Providing vegetation throughout the corridor and particularly in areas marked with a black square in Figure 2-22, as well as fencing sections of the freeway as proposed earlier, may increase wildlife and driver safety by leading them to a designated wildlife crossing. A designated wildlife route with improved habitats and vegetation structure may also be
necessary to channel wildlife through Glendale Community College.
A vegetated, direct route through the City of Glendale with safe crossing points established is advised for this habitat corridor to provide its best opportunity for connecting wildlife to either side of the Wash.
The Confluence
The proposed ecological connection at the confluence
may prove quite challenging for wildlife due to the heavily urbanized industrial area, two major roads, and the LA River itself. The wash is likely the best potential route for terrestrial species to travel to and from Griffith Park and the Verdugo Mountains or San Rafael Hills.
A separate project is currently proposing a pedestrian and equestrian bridge nearby and this can potentially be used to facilitate the crossing of wildlife. If this was to be used for pedestrians and wildlife, greening of the bridge on one side at least would be advised to enhance permeability and cover for crossing animals.
Floating islands, wildlife bridges or accessible ledges could benefit animals trying to cross the river and could help mitigate the chances of animal entrapment and/or drowning.
Figure 2-23: Zoomed in map of proposed Confluence habitat connection linking the Wash and LA River with Griffith Park SEA ©BuroHappold !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 295
VERDUGO WASH
VERDUGO MOUNTAIN SEA IN GLENDALE
PROPOSED ECOLOGICAL CORRIDOR
1119 of 1517
Due to hydrological limitations throughout the Wash as
discussed in the hydrology section. the feasibility to vegetate the entirety of the Wash allowing for a continuous habitat corridor is restricted. Out of the three suggested ULART habitat corridors, the urban access trail will have the most potential due to the available freeboard of the Wash being greatest at this point, and so greater interventions within the channel can be accommodated here compared to the rest of the length of the Wash before compromising flood capacity.
The San Rafael Ecological Connection also provides
potential as a habitat corridor due to incorporating the debris basin and opportunity for the golf course area
through changing the trapezoidal sections of the channel to be rectangular, and thereby lowering the baseline water level.
The confluence area is found to be close to capacity for the 1 in 100-year event, excluding a climate change allowance. As it is considered currently unfeasible to alter the cross section to increase the conveyance capacity, the opportunities
for interventions within the channel are deemed very
limited in this section. Therefore, the habitat corridor at the confluence is looking like a more challenging opportunity for connectivity.
Native Planting
Areas of the Wash where there is opportunity to plant
vegetation should seek to incorporate maximum
native species to support ecological restoration and
connectivity. This can include a variety of planting types and species to provide a variety of habitats throughout the Wash for both people and wildlife to enjoy. A diverse mix of native grass and wildflower species planting should be incorporated to maximize the benefit across the invertebrate community. Additionally, a wider diversity of species will likely provide a longer flowering time, providing a food resource for more months than a limited species diversity could provide.
In addition to targeting native wildflower planting to provide a pollinator food resource along the Wash, native tree and shrub species should also be promoted, particularly those typical of the native chaparral scrub and oak woodland
habitat types that are found in the surrounding area.
Including these will provide a variety in habitat structure alongside the wildflower planting and build on the inherent benefits of providing species of local wildlife interest on the site. Where there are species of particular interest for Glendale and LA County, plants that can support these
species could be incorporated into the Wash where possible to support this local biodiversity. For example, provision of native milkweed for the monarch butterfly or coastal sage scrub would benefit the California gnatcatcher.
A species list (21) was created by LA County based
on factors such as whether the plants were native or
appropriate to the LA River system, grow-able in nursery conditions, have success probability, will provide potential for wildlife habitat, require minimal maintenance and water, have aesthetic appeal, and propagules of the plants are available within the LA River watershed. The use of these plants was aimed to provide continuity along the LA River landscape.
Some of the species communities shortlisted include coastal sage scrub, dry meadow, desert scrub, and climate-adapted trees, which may be appropriate for the Verdugo Wash
Encouraging establishment of a pool, or pools, of water, even if only temporary, at the basin could be a good opportunity to create some water-associated habitat that has been lost from the Wash. It could allow for the potential restoration of a riparian-type habitat benefiting native plants and wildlife and increasing the potential to entice species that are no longer present along the Wash such as amphibious species.
Species Opportunities
Where areas of opportunity along the Wash present
themselves for greening and habitat enhancement, the
addition of vegetation, or features that provide support for specific species, can help entice them to the Wash and its surrounding area. This would be ideal for species of interest or concern in California.
Monarch Butterflies: during their annual migration, Monarch butterflies winter along the Californian coast (Figure 2-14) utilizing the LA River during their migration. They are an important pollinator species with a wealth of cross-cultural significance. Due to population declines and increasing threats to their survival such as habitat loss, use of
pesticides, and climate change affecting habitat suitability in their overwintering grounds, the Monarch Action, Recovery, and Conservation of Habitat (MONARCH) Act 2020 was
introduced which led to the establishment of the Western Monarch Butterfly Rescue Fund. Planting native milkweed along areas of the Wash will support their survival. It will provide breeding resources for monarch larva and the
nectar plants which feed the adults. Protecting existing monarch habitat and avoiding herbicides and pesticides is also advised to influence this species presence along the Verdugo Wash and help expand their distribution and habitat opportunities.
Figure 2-24: Map of Monarch Migration Patterns. image source: unknown 296 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1120 of 1517
Mountain Lions
Los Angeles is proudly one of two mega-cities in the world that homes a large cat population (22). Currently there is a quasi-stable population of breeding mountain lions inhabiting the Santa Monica Mountains and few individuals in the Verdugo Mountains.
However, concerns are rising for the long-term survival of this species in the County due to habitat fragmentation and encroaching urbanization. Threats facing this mountain lion population include weak genetic diversity, road collision fatalities, rodenticide poisoning, and intra-specific strife.
Los Angeles stakeholders are planning and implementing
measures to increase mountain lion recovery such as the construction of a wildlife crossing over the 101 freeway in the Agoura Hills, targeted for completion in 2023.
The Verdugo Wash has the potential to deliver a suitable route for mountain lions to use as a corridor between
the San Rafael Hills, the Verdugo Mountains and Griffith Park (as shown in the previous habitat connectivity section) - especially if the Wash is closed at night to the public with controlled, wildlife-friendly lighting where external lighting is required. Viable access points for the cats to enter/exit the Wash and suitable vegetation cover along the routes are two important features that would increase the likelihood that these corridors would be used by them.
Importantly, consideration must be given to the safety
perceptions of encouraging mountain lion access along and across the Wash, given the route’s proximity to residents’ gardens. Interestingly, Arroyos and Foothills Conservancy (AFC) tracks mountain lions in the area and has documented their significant movements in the area already - albeit not always successful - including between the San Gabriel Mountains and Verdugo Mountains.
By providing designated routes within and across the
Verdugo Wash that caters to mountain lions, conflict should be reduced as mountain lions have been well documented in their human avoidance behavior.
Mountain Lions reside in the natural areas surrounding and near the Verdugo Wash including this female in the Verdugo Mountains. image source: J. Turner via LAist
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 297
1121 of 1517
California Gnatcatcher & Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat
California gnatcatchers are an important “umbrella” species for the threatened Coastal Sage Scrub habitat. This means that efforts to support the gnatcatcher necessarily integrate the sage scrub chaparral habitat, and along with that a whole host of plants and animals from that habitat.
While the California gnatcatcher is not likely present along the Verdugo Wash, there is potential for the species to expand their range due to them being in proximity of the Wash with bird conservation areas providing their preferred chaparral habitat close by (Figure 2-25) (23). Incorporating semi-open sage scrub species may attract the California gnatcatcher to areas along the Wash.
Figure 2-25: Map displaying California Gnatcatcher’s current range, optimal habitat, and bird conservation regions in relation the Verdugo Wash. image source (24)
California Gnatcacher (Polioptila californica). image source California Audubon Coastal sage scrub can exist just above the coastal bluffs as pictured above.
Plants include: California Sage Brush, Black Sage, some Poison Oak, Coast Live oaks and some Monkey flowers. image source Las Pilitas Nursery Coastal sage scrub can be amazing in its texture and color. Plants include:
California Sage Brush, Black Sage, some Poison Oak, Coast Live Oaks and Monkey Flowers. image source Las Pilitas Nursery
298 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1122 of 1517
Amphibians & Aqueous Habitats
Frogs and toads have previously inhabited tributaries of the LA River and nearby neighborhoods were allegedly named
Frogtown due to the vast number of frogs that used to
emerge from the river’s banks.
The potential to create suitable habitat for frogs or any amphibian species is unlikely due the Wash being mostly dry with little to no water present. However, if the debris basin was managed in a way that could provide a permanent or
seasonal pond, frog and toad species may colonize. If pool/ pools were established at the debris basin and there were features at these pools such as shelter, shade, and food, then it may have potential to become a habitat for amphibians and other species.
Threatened frog species such as the foothill yellow-legged frogs are unlikely to occur at pools along the Wash as they are sensitive to anthropogenic activities and development and require rocky streams that flow year-round. California red-legged frogs (A) breed in ponds (both permanent
and seasonal) and have been found to breed in artificial impoundments such as stock ponds.
Arroyo toads (B) also breed in seasonal shallow ponds and have been documented at other LA River basins such as
Upper Big Tujunga Creek, Alder Creek, and Arroyo Seco.
Other native amphibian species whose distributions show potential of inhabiting the Wash’s basin include the California Toad (Anaxyrus borea halophilus) (C), Baja California Tree Frog (Pseudacris hypochondriaca) (D), California Tree
Frog (Pseadacris cadaverina), Western Spadefoot (Spea
hammondii), Monterey Ensatina (Ensatina eschscholtzii)
(E), Arboreal Salamander (Aneides lugubris) (F), and BlackBellied Slender Salamander (Batrachoseps nigriventris) (Figure 0-15) (26).
However even if the Wash’s debris basin is transformed
into a permanent or temporary pool, amphibian species
are still less likely than avian species (e.g. birds and many invertebrates) to occur due to limited habitat connectivity outside of the Wash; therefore further conservation
management strategies would need to be considered to
create connectivity for amphibians.
Some of the amphibian candidates for Verdugo Wash debris basin restoration efforts (see letter call outs in text for identification). image sources: wikipedia Figure 2-26: Maps of amphibian species’ distributions in relation to the Verdugo Wash (approximate location of Verdugo Wash represented by black circle.
Map sources: adapted from California ERPs website ©Gary Nafis (A) (B) (C) (D)
(E)
(F)
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 299
1123 of 1517
Habitat Features
Formal Features: throughout the Wash and in adjacent
spaces like the debris basin and golf course, there are opportunities to provide new habitat features to further support local biodiversity and increase connectivity success.
Commonly, these are formal, built features that provide roosting, nesting, and sheltering spaces for bats, birds, and invertebrates. Such features can be mounted on large specimen trees within or in proximity to the Wash, or even on free-standing posts amongst appropriate native planting.
Examples of habitat features which could be incorporated into the Wash’s design are provided in Table 0-1. A fantastic way to involve the community and also reduce costs would be to organize community projects for people, schools,
and organizations to build and erect these features. While providing real, evidence-based ecological value, these
features only support species that are able to adapt to a “found” space, provided they find its characteristics like location, materiality, and dimensions suitable.
Informal Features: There are many other species, however, including a plethora of fungi, invertebrates, and primary cavity nesting bird species that are unable to utilize
“found” spaces. Many of these creature are involved in the decomposition processes vital to functioning ecologies, or are compelled to build their homes, like woodpeckers.
Two great examples of “informal” features for these species would be allowing dead, coarse woody debris and even erect, dead trees (“snags”) to just be in wide open areas like the Debris Basin potentially, provided their location is considered with respect to public safety and wildfire risk. Similarly, deadwood stumps can be accelerated into invertebrate
habitat by drilling holes into deadwood stumps. Many native bees create their nests in unvegetated soil; key locations to allow for this type of natural diversity should be considered in future phases.
A beautiful story that featured an informal approach to habitat feature integration was the artful reuse of a legacy hardwood tree at UC-Davis in the Native American Contemplative Garden. In 2021, a hefty 80-yo California Buckeye (Aesculus californica) succumbed to old age and broke apart. Instead of removing the tree, the Garden team elected to leave the trunk in place as “stumpery.” The unique, gnarled tree had inspired the original siting of the garden. By leaving it in place, not only does this dead tree now serve as captivating public art, but it enriches the garden’s ecology serving as shelter/ nesting sites for birds and small mammals and substrate for decomposing invertebrates. image source: UC Davis Arboretum and Public Garden
INVERTEBRATES MAMMALS BIRDS
Bee Bricks & Towers
Invertebrate/Pollinator Walls or Individual Hotels/Features Mounted Bat Boxes
Integrated Bat Boxes
Generalist Bird Boxes
Freestanding bee tower and bee bricks/wood for solitary bees. Install near pollinator friendly planting. Should be positioned in a warm sunny spot, south facing, with no vegetation in front of the holes. Bee towers designed to be set into a concrete base approx 30mm into the ground.
Can be purchased or constructed.
Can be custom designed bought or built to fit available space and local requirements using local materials including recycled/reused wood and rubble substrate.
Designed to accommodate crevice dwelling bats which can be associated with urban environments, such as the Eastern Pipistrelle, Little Brown Bat, and Big Brown Bat. Can be attached to the external walls of buildings or larger trees. Should be sited at least 3m high, away from direct artificial light and facing south/ southwest.
Bat tubes, integrated bat boxes or bat bricks can be incorporated into building elevations. The tubes and integrated bat boxes can often be placed behind cladding, with only a gap for the entrance visible. Other integrated boxes come with a customizable front for adding development-specific bricks or render for seamless inclusion into the building.
A variety of bird boxes can be provided across the project site, which can add to the visual amenity of open spaces as well as providing a valuable nesting site for urban bird species and educational opportunities. Boxes should include a range of open-fronted to smaller enclosed entrances to suit a variety of bird species and nesting preferences. Boxes can be placed on buildings, trees, or posts amongst vegetation. Boxes can be designed with dimensions to match target species via resource Nestwatch Table 0-1: habitat feature examples that can be integrated throughout the project site to enhance biodiversity for invertebrate, mammal, and bird species 300 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1124 of 1517
Climate Change & Hydrological Conditions
The main constraint for biological enhancement and
increasing habitat connectivity along the Wash would
be the consideration of the existing design allowance for one in one-hundred-year flood events as well as future
climate change impacts that will affect extreme rainfall events, increasing perceived flood capacity requirements by 20%. Due to the capacity of water that the Wash needs to currently accommodate and the prediction of increased water volume during storm events, the feasibility of greening the Wash and establishing the proposed habitat corridors is reduced considerably.
The extent to which habitats can be created within the
channel itself will largely be dictated by how much channel occurs above the one-hundred-year flood level plus
20% climate change. Interventions within the Wash to
accommodate planting will reduce the available capacity due to the requirement for planters to hold enough soil to support the plants in the long-term.
As identified in the hydrology study, there are currently only a few areas within the Wash that can accommodate
any intervention without compromising the flood capacity, and these areas represent the parts of the Wash that can reasonably be considered for biodiversity enhancements. In this instance, where possible, proposed vegetation should seek to join up with areas of existing greenspace and habitat identified within the City of Glendale that border the Wash, to create stepping-stones across the city where a continuous link is not feasible.
Other climate change constraints that need to be considered are predicted rainfall and temperature. Projected results show average rainfall will remain constant but will suffer more prolonged drought and more severe precipitation
events. Temperatures will likely rise meaning vegetation will be vulnerable to thermal stress and drought conditions.
Therefore, restricting suitable planting species to those that are likely to persist in drought conditions will help avoid the need for irrigation beyond establishment. Where planting can be incorporated within the Wash, consideration will need to be given to the type of habitats that the environment of the Wash can reasonably support.
While targeting the restoration of riparian and wet woodland habitats would support the recovery of a diminishing
ecosystem within California, consideration of the water demand of these habitats will need to be given alongside the predicted flows and water levels for the Wash. If for most of the year, flows will be low and water availability for planting within the Wash scarce, it will not be reasonably feasible to support a riparian ecosystem without significant irrigation intervention which would be unsustainable.
Plants that have a higher resilience to drought may need to be incorporated to reduce the rate of planting failure in the future. Utilizing native and adapted species such as arid specialists that can cope with environmental stresses such as extremes of heat and limited water will help create biodiversity improvements along the Wash that are resilient and can adapt to the predicted effects of climate change in Los Angeles County.
Existing Knowledge
Existing detailed ecological survey information for the Verdugo Wash is currently limited in extent. The identified habitats presented in Figure 0-7 are broad habitat categories assigned based on remote habitat classification techniques with some field survey. Whether any of the habitats in
proximity to the Verdugo Wash have been ground-truthed is currently unknown.
The habitat types and faunal species supported by the
semi-natural vegetation identified within the Verdugo Wash basin is also currently unknown. Further investigation into any existing biodiversity data on this area will be required to better understand the existing value of the basin for biodiversity and how interventions as a part of the project can aim to support and enhance the area while also
providing a key community resource. Where data does not exist, surveys by a wildlife specialist should be sought to support the project.
Current Conditions of the Wash
The existing construction of the channel limits how
vegetation can be established. It is likely that in areas where habitat enhancement can be implemented, built planting
beds would be required to support a suitable soil substrate to support plant-life in an otherwise barren environment.
These containers would require maintenance and higher
levels of irrigation than plants that are in natural ground due to the limitation of root growth and increased rates of desiccation experienced within planting containers.
The walls of the Wash may cause animal entrapment and
providing escape routes in the form of vegetation, steps, ladders, holes, and bridges would need to be considered.
Should measures be explored to increase the flood capacity of the Wash by extending wall heights, this could reduce the suitability of the Wash as a habitat corridor for wildlife.
Additionally, a review of satellite imagery on Google
Earth™ of the Verdugo Wash basin indicates that the
basin is actively managed, with imagery across several
years appearing to show that the ground gets cleared
of vegetation at least every other year, if not annually. It would be useful to obtain information as to why the area is cleared, whether it is for channel or habitat maintenance purposes, and by what mechanism. Scope for adjusting the management regime to promote biodiversity can then be
explored.
Human Disturbance
Disturbance to wildlife caused by the presence of humans in the Wash is another constraint to consider. The
proposed opening of the Wash is being designed with the consideration to accommodate people as well as creating habitat for native wildlife. However this does present conflict as wildlife may be deterred by human activity in or nearby the Wash. Wildlife may also be hesitant to use the Wash if routes are overly or poorly lit.
Methods can be put in place to mitigate the effects of
human activity and lighting on wildlife by closing the Wash !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 301
1125 of 1517
at night allowing nocturnal species a less disturbed corridor to pursue or restricting specific trails and/or access points to humans so that only wildlife can use them. Additionally, the use of wildlife friendly lighting, following the International Dark Skies Principles of Responsible Outdoor Lighting and keeping access and exit routes unlit for wildlife will increase permeability for species.
Additionally, allowing the Wash to be used as a habitat corridor for wildlife may present human-wildlife conflict constraints. A percentage of the public may not agree with having wildlife routes so close to their homes, arguing that their safety is at risk from species such as the mountain lion and coyotes that may use the Wash as a route to connecting habitats.
The table below shows multiple mitigation strategies that could be implemented to improve the Wash for wildlife and to provide increased permeability and success of the Wash to function as a habitat corridor
302 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE Ensure human access points of Wash are usable
for wildlife
Increase wash wildlife connectivity and permeability by providing maximum possible wildlife access points & utilizing wildlife enhancing strategies
Provision of water Direct and/or collect water to create of small pools (e.g., spring/seep management). Even temporary collections of water are valuable for wildlife.
Continuous vegetation and habitat provided at
access points and leading to them
Helps direct wildlife to access/exit points
Provide alternative routes so animals can
bypass entering the Wash
Examples of this include creating wildlife bridges, gantries, or underpasses.
Alternatively, green already existing bridges
Provide escape routes specifically designed for
wildlife
Steps, ladders, ramps, ledges, floating islands, gaps in walls or fences etc. can be used to provide safe passage of species and mitigate the risk of animal entrapment
Use of wildlife friendly fencing If fencing is to be used, wildlife friendly fencing ensures mobile or migrating species can pass through without harm or stress
STRATEGY DESCRIPTION
Close Wash off to public at night Less disturbance at night may help permeability for nocturnal wildlife Artificial lighting at key access points should be
limited or designed to be wildlife sensitive
To ensure that nocturnal species such as bats have dark vegetation features to fly along. The International Dark Skies Association’s Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting constitute a robust benchmark
Connect tree canopies Will help provide continuity of vegetated cover - must balance this strategy with wildfire mitigation measures
Install habitat features for wildlife Will provide shelter and other resources for wildlife. E.G. Bird boxes, bat boxes, insect hotels, cavities in walls, deadwood stumps. Habitat features would have to be placed above the 1:100 water level in the DFE.
Species-specific plant choices Choosing plant species that have a particular benefit to specific protected, threatened, or important faunal species on a regional, national, or local or identified benefit to pollinators.
Greening the Wash with native vegetation Terraced planters, gabions for vertical planting on Wash walls, hanging and overhanging planters etc., native species, droughttolerant species, these would need to be installed above the 1:100 water level in the DFE unless velocity mitigation measures were employed. Avoid use of non-native invasive species
1126 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 303
1127 of 1517
Summary Of Area Legislation & Policy/Schemes
The County of Los Angeles, the City of Glendale, and
other regional jurisdictions have numerous existing plans and strategies that wholly or partly relate to the natural environment and conserving or enhancing it. The Verdugo Wash project should ensure that it aligns with the aims of these plans and utilize information relating to habitats and species considered to be of value or conservation
need to ensure that the Verdugo Wash contributes to the preservation of these resources.
Greener Glendale Plan (2011)
The Plan assesses what actions the City and community
have already taken to be more sustainable and recommends how to build on these efforts. Nine Sustainability Focus Areas are developed, the most relevant ones for Verdugo Wash are listed below:
URBAN NATURE
UN3 – Implement programs to increase biodiversity in
Glendale: Verdugo Wash Visioning can contribute to
increasing biodiversity in Glendale. The channel’s inherent linear nature could provide an opportunity for additional connectivity for biodiversity through otherwise highly urban areas.
UN4 – Ensure there is accessible park and recreational
open space to serve residents: Verdugo Wash Visioning can provide opportunities for accessible public space where water and its changing nature provides a key role.
WATER
WT5- Implement stormwater management practices to
protect water quality and replenish local groundwater
sources: Verdugo Wash Visioning has the potential to
implement solutions that can contribute to improved runoff water quality; however, the concrete lined channel limits the benefits associated with replenishment of local groundwater sources and without further intervention this is likely to be limited to the Verdugo Wash Debris Basin Dam area.
WT5-E: Explore design of recreation areas that can hold runoff: Opportunities to capture runoff will be considered for new recreation areas, as well as opportunities for new recreation in areas that currently hold runoff such as the Verdugo Wash Debris Basin Dam.
OurCounty: Los Angeles Countywide Sustainability Plan
(2019)
OurCounty is a regional sustainability plan for Los Angeles which outlines what local governments and stakeholders
can do to enhance well-being and reducing damage to
the natural environment while adapting to climate change.
Twelve goals are set out to achieve this. Those providing the most opportunity for the Verdugo Wash Visioning are listed below:
Goal 5: Thriving ecosystems, habitats, and biodiversity Verdugo Wash Visioning can create and enhance
ecosystems along the channel by establishing habitats of relevance for local, native biodiversity.
Goal 6: Accessible parks, beaches, recreational waters, public lands, and public spaces that create opportunities for respite, recreation, ecological discovery, and cultural activities Verdugo Wash Visioning can provide opportunities for
accessible public space where water and its changing nature provides a key role.
LA River Master Plan (2020)
The master plan provides an introduction and context of the Los Angeles River, before addressing the future of the Los Angeles River as an inclusive and connected open space, which also includes implementation and how to integrate design and performance objectives in a multi-jurisdictional context. Nine goals are supported by actions and methods to set the strategic directions for the Los Angeles River. The most relevant for Verdugo Wash Visioning are listed below:
1. Reduce flood risk and improve resilience: A key
component of the Verdugo Wash Visioning is to ensure that the channel still maintains it flood protection purposes and provides the necessary resilience to future climate change.
2. Provide equitable, inclusive, and safe parks, open
space, and trails: Verdugo Wash Visioning can create an inviting space that naturally connects different areas due to channel’s length.
3. Support healthy, connected ecosystems: Verdugo Wash
Visioning can connect ecosystems, using the way the Wash crosses Glendale to connect the Verdugo Mountains, San
Rafael Hills, and Los Angeles River by establishing new habitat linkages through the city.
304 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1128 of 1517
Upper Los Angeles River and Tributaries Revitalization
Plan (2020)
The ULART plan focuses on multi-benefit projects that
prioritize the restoration of natural habitats, increase green areas, and open space, and engage underserved
communities. The ULART planning area consists of the
entire Los Angeles River watershed feeding into the point where it meets the Lower Los Angeles River Revitalization Plan in the City of Vernon.
California Assembly Bill 466 (AB 466), signed into law
on September 28, 2017, is relevant for the Verdugo Wash Visioning as this legislation established the ULART Working Group and required them “to develop, through watershedbased planning methods and community engagement, a revitalization plan for the Upper Los Angeles River, the tributaries of the (…) Verdugo Wash, and any additional tributary waterway that the working group determines to be necessary.”
The goals and the objectives of Water and Environment
Committee (identified by the Working Group) are as follows:
• Create equitable opportunities to enhance watershed
health, ecosystem functions, habitat, and biodiversity; increase local water supplies; and improve water quality • Reduce flood risk to communities by prioritizing natural systems
• Balance the utilization of available space and resources for both the environment and the community
• Assess all opportunities for resiliency to climate change Reader’s Guide for the LA River Ecosystem Restoration
Project (2016)
This report provides a local environmental review of the proposed LA River Ecosystem Restoration Project which
proposes to restore aquatic riparian ecosystems native to the Los Angeles River along an approximate 11-mile length.
The project aims to restore ecosystems in accordance with flood risk management while also providing consideration for recreation opportunities. The report highlights how historic treatment of the Los Angeles River to channel flood waters to the coast as efficiently as possible, along with urban sprawl, disconnected the river from its flood plain and significant ecological zones. This would have contributed to the 90% loss of Southern California’s riparian habitat.
The report indicates the importance of contributing
resources outside of the LA River Project boundary
to supporting and enhancing the Los Angeles River
ecologically. The Verdugo Wash is highlighted specifically as a tributary with the potential to provide connectivity between the Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills, and the Los Angeles River.
The LA SEA Program
“Significant Ecological Areas (SEAs) are officially designated areas within LA County with irreplaceable biological
resources.” The Verdugo Mountains are one area within LA County with this designation and partially lies within the ¼ mile project buffer of the Verdugo Wash at its most northerly extent. The SEA Program aims to conserve biodiversity
within Los Angeles County by designating and supporting important biological resource areas in such a way that they can sustain themselves in the long-term. While the SEA
Program aims to guide development within SEAs, some of
the guiding principles of the SEA Program are relevant to measures that the Verdugo Wash Visioning project could
provide and support, including:
Create new places where biodiversity can be woven through urban fabric;
Ensure that individual SEAs can thrive by reducing
fragmentation, creating, or preserving connectivity and habitat functionality;
Ensure the continuation of natural ecosystem, services that improves quality of life for all who live in Los Angeles County.
Verdugo Wash Visioning Study - Community Outreach
Based on community outreach workshops for Verdugo Wash, feedback items with a close link to hydrology and biology can be summarized as follows:
Ensure design and features that create safe access: the project will consider the relationship between people and the Verdugo Wash at the channel edges, and access to the Wash will be reviewed as the design progresses. Consideration will need to be given to the constraints that varying water levels within the channel will pose to access.
Create areas that provide small gathering spaces: the
hydrological constraints for the Verdugo Wash are likely to mean that there will be more flexibility in creating small gathering spaces adjacent to the channel. In some areas, where the cross section and capacity of the channel
provides greater flexibility, small spaces cantilevering over or extending into the Verdugo Wash footprint could be
considered.
Incorporate trails and pathways: creation of trails and pathways associated with the Verdugo Wash Visioning can help support access to nature of residents who live within proximity to the Wash but potentially do not have access to natural spaces, such as where the Wash is in a more
urban part of Glendale. Incorporation of habitat features around trails and pathways in these areas will create new opportunities for residents to connect with nature.
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 305
1129 of 1517
306 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1130 of 1517
Verdugo Wash Revisioning Report – Wildlife Corridors
Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy, June 22, 2022
Bobcat kittens above Whiting Woods in Glendale, view to Mount Lukens in background – photo by Johanna Turner 1 Special thanks to the Arroyos and Foothills Conservancy for contributing this “Wildlife Corridors” section.
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 307
1131 of 1517
The Challenge
From river to channel. Once a flowing river from the foothills of the San Gabriel Mountains around the toe of the Verdugo Mountains, the Verdugo Wash served as a vital tributary of the Los Angeles River. The County of Los Angeles concretized the wash in the 1930s to mitigate extreme flooding in the Crescenta Valley. An unintentional consequence was fragmentation of the urban fabric and loss of habitat and biodiversity.
Large remnants of mountainous islands remain, largely isolated from each other and the San Gabriel Mountains by development.
Fragmentation. The San Gabriels are relatively rich in biodiversity. Conversely, the ecological health and biodiversity of natural habitat islands within the Glendale region, namely the Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills and Griffith Park, are in decline [https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/211133#page/1/mode/1up]. Reestablishing and maintaining healthy, fully-functioning ecosystems requires reconnecting them with other large masses of natural habitat. For the Verdugos and the San Rafaels that means the San Gabriels; for Griffith Park it means the San Gabriels or the Santa Monica Mountains or both.
Wildlife corridors. Maintaining and enhancing
connectivity for wildlife is essential to support
ecosystem functions. Wildlife corridors connect
isolated areas of habitat for animal movement.
They allow for mating between populations to
prevent inbreeding, and for mountain lions, bears,
deer, coyotes, foxes and other animals to have
healthy populations with good genetic diversity. They allow seasonal migration to complete life cycles and enable individuals to find food and shelter. This all results in better predator-prey relationships, and predators keep mice, rat, squirrel and other populations, like deer, balanced and under control. In addition, wildlife eat native seeds and berries then disseminate them in their scat;
they also carry them in their fur and shed them as they move about. These seeds help maintain native plant diversity and codependent relationships with reliant insects, which in turn provide food for birds. Habitat connectivity is demonstrably essential for avian species [Soule, Michael E., et al. 1988. “Reconstructed Dynamics of Rapid Extinctions of Chaparral-Requiring Bird in Urban Habitat Islands.” Conservation Biology V.2 No. 1].
It all adds up to biodiversity. [Richard Attenborough, A Life on Our Planet, Netflix] Climate change. In addition, enhancing connectivity by linking natural landscapes has been identified as the single most important adaptation strategy to conserve biodiversity during climate change [Heller, N.E. and Zavaleta, E.S. (2009) Biodiversity Management in the Face of Climate Change: A Review of 22 Years of Recommendations]. 2 308 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1132 of 1517
Regional Habitat Connectivity
Connecting habitat islands. The Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy is working to secure passageways for wildlife between the Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills, Griffith Park and San Gabriel Mountains. The goal is to create, secure and enhance wildlife corridors …
(i) between the San Rafaels and the Verdugos, where passage is extremely challenging but successfully navigated by P-41 mountain lion and Red Tag Bear #2
[https://arroyosfoothills.org/land/wildlife-corridors/hahamongna-tujunga-wildlife-co rridor/validating-the-corridor];
(ii) to cross East Chevy Chase Drive in the San Rafaels, through gaps in this residential corridor;
(iii) between the San Rafaels and, to their east, the Arroyo Seco > Hahamongna Watershed Park, and then into the lower San Gabriel Mountains; (iv)from the Verdugos on their northeast, first down to the Verdugo Wash, then up tributaries leading from check dams along the base of the San Gabriel Mountains;
(v) between the westerly Verdugos and Big and Little Tujunga Canyons, and then into the lower San Gabriels;
(vi)linking Griffith Park to the above-described corridor matrix --- giving P-22, at least theoretically, a means to find a mate and/or leave Griffith Park, his home range for more than 10 years, and bring along a host of other wildlife. 3 !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 309
1133 of 1517
Figure 2 Regional Connectivity
If successful, wildlife will readily and safely move between these three large habitat islands and the bio-rich San Gabriels.
The Verdugo Wash. The Verdugo Wash (“Wash”) divides and distances the natural habitat found in the San Rafaels from that in the Verdugos. It does the same for the Verdugos and the San Gabriels. The Wash as river facilitated connectivity; the Wash as channel interrupts and generally precludes it.
Wildlife using the Verdugo Wash. We don’t know the extent of wildlife movement in the Wash. We know there is activity from eyewitness reports, but it is not documented or well understood, Wildlife cameras, strategically placed, could give us that knowledge, but permission sought from the County of Los Angeles has yet to be granted. What we do know is that wildlife access is limited and potential use of the Wash could be substantially enhanced by removing barriers and facilitating access, if only where there is no alternative route than via the Wash [see Recommendations at Locations, below]. Steep and deep channel sides, high fences and locked gates are some of the physical prohibitors.
Right of ways. Some of the Wash is bordered by public right-of-ways (“Right-of-Ways”), more in the upper reaches than the lower. We similarly know wildlife use these Right-of-Ways but need to document it to understand the extent. Barriers also exist, primarily fencing and steep sides to the Wash.
4 310 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1134 of 1517
Crossing the Verdugo Wash. The Wash acts as a barrier to passage laterally, from one side to the other. Addressing barriers and creating passage is of primary importance if corridors are to exist and function between the Verdugos and the San Rafaels and between the Verdugos and the San Gabriel Mountains.
● Of the bridges that cross the Wash, one pedestrian bridge connecting Verdugo Park with Lot #32, in particular, shows real promise (see Location-Specific Recommendations, Glendale Community College, below); a few others may receive some wildlife use.
● There are a number of ramps that lead into the Wash that could be used if gates were removed or modified for wildlife access.
● Channels leading into the Wash are promising candidates for ingress and egress.
Accommodations and modifications to the Wash and Right of Ways would be an essential step toward successfully creating corridors (particulars discussed below).
More study is required.
Urban-tolerant wildlife. Many wild animal species that occur within our cities are urban-adapted and tolerate a degree of proximity to humans and anthropogenic disturbances. While these populations will use human-made structures like bridges to move within the urban environment, measures such as integrating habitat and increasing permeability of such spaces help make movement practical.
All wildlife. The words “wildlife corridor” bring medium and large mammals to mind. But movement is every bit as important for the entire spectrum of animal life that is wild, such as migratory and resident birds; butterflies, bees, and other insects and arthropods; amphibians and reptiles; and small mammals.
Wildlife species requirements. Different species have distinct requirements and preferences, including when it comes to movement and passage. Universally though, all wildlife need habitat for cover, safety, relief from heat, rest, food, rearing young and sustenance. Native habitat is paramount for a myriad of reasons. Except for the Oakmont Debris Basin, the Wash is devoid of habitat, and generally the Right-of-Ways suffer the same deficiency. More natural habitat within and next to the Wash would encourage use. A highly desirable goal is to restore some of the essential functions of a natural stream or river to the Wash and Right of Way for amphibians, insects and birds.
Climate change and plants. Likewise, corridors are the most effective measure for the natural movement of plant species in response to climate change for the facilitation of pollination, movement of seeds, and the natural recruitment of native plants [https://wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Plants/Climate].
5 !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 311
1135 of 1517
Biological Survey. A biological survey of organisms and habitat is needed to assess the condition of the ecological resources under consideration. One conducted by Cheryl Swift in 1990 might be helpful.
Enhancements
Figure 3 San Gabriel Mountains - Verdugo Mountains - San Rafael Hills Connectivity This treatment -- Revisioning the Verdugo Wash – Wildlife Corridors -- addresses two questions:
1. What is required of the Verdugo Wash for wildlife passage between (i) the Verdugo Mountains and the San Rafael Hills, (ii) the Verdugo Mountains and the San Gabriel Mountains, and (iii) Griffith Park and the San Gabriel Mountains (Figures 2 and 3)?
2. What can be done, in the context of revisioning the Verdugo Wash, to enhance biodiversity through connectivity of the Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills and Griffith Park?
As of submission of this Verdugo Wash Revisioning Report – Wildlife Corridors treatment the draft revisioning report is not yet available to review. However, it is 6 312 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1136 of 1517
understood that the report will include a conceptual design, but that it may or may not be determinative of any final design that is adopted and implemented.
To answer the above two questions we must try to understand what wildlife will require for passage, and what all native life will require for biodiversity. ● What is minimally required of the Wash to realize the objectives? ● What is required of the Wash if a multi-benefit design anticipates minimal use of the Wash by wildlife (favoring Right-of-Ways, for instance) to realize the objectives?
● What is required of the Wash if a multi-benefit design readily accommodates wildlife in the Wash?
Enhancement considerations are influenced by the design perspective.
Two routes. For a number of reasons, when connecting large areas of natural habitat, two safe and inviting corridors between each pair should be the baseline target. ● Animals move when motivated. The north-south distances of the east end of the Verdugos and the west side of the San Rafaels are considerable. The east-west length of the Verdugos is several times longer. Multiple routes can be expected to increase overall passage.
● Different species have different requirements. Designing different routes creates the potential to address broader needs of all species.
● Effective dissemination of plant material and movement of less mobile creatures dictate multiple pathways.
● A second corridor can provide insurance if the first is not as well traveled as anticipated.
● The Liberty Canyon overpass of the 101 Fwy (Figure 4) will be 175’ wide, naturally landscaped, devoted exclusively to wildlife, with a direct unimpeded travel from natural open space on one side to natural open space on the other.
The routes suggested below are often narrow and circuitous, rely on hop scotching between small habitat islands, and are sometimes shared with humans.
7 !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 313
1137 of 1517
Figure 4 Liberty Canyon wildlife overpass
Of the six Debris Basin Channels to be investigated for connecting the Verdugos with the San Gabriels, aim to utilize the two most favorable. See Location-Specific Recommendations for Verdugos – San Gabriels Passage, below.
For Verdugos - San Rafaels connectivity, one route should include Oakmont Country Club and a second Verdugo Park. See Location-Specific Recommendations for Verdugos – San Rafaels Passage, below.
There are at least two opportunities for ingress-egress for Griffith Park (see Location-Specific Recommendations for Griffith Park - San Gabriel Mountains Passage, below).
The two routes connecting Griffith Park with the San Gabriels are the Verdugo Wash and the Los Angeles River to the Arroyo Seco.
Bridges and ramps. In addition to the elimination of barriers to access the Right of Ways and the Wash, the modification of existing structures or construction of new ones will be called for. Existing bridges may be made to function well for wildlife with modifications, like widening or addition of parallel landscaped catwalks. In certain locations new bridges may be the better solution. Existing ramps may need to be modified and new ramps constructed. Fencing to direct and funnel wildlife will sometimes be advisable.
Design features. Design features for wildlife movement through human-built environments include:
● Native vegetation, including trees and pollinators, preferably locally sourced and grown from seed collected from extant populations that still exist in adjacent areas, with plans calling out local vs generic material; native vegetation creates and encourages biodiversity much more consequentially than non-natives. ● Continuous natural habitat, which is best for passage along a wildlife corridor. ● Where continuous habitat is not practical, wildlife will often move from one area of natural habitat to another in steppingstone fashion for relative safety, provided the next area is in a line of sight within reasonable reach. 8 314 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1138 of 1517
● Existing green space like parks, gardens, and public realm areas along corridors can be used as sites for introducing native habitat.
● Quiet areas.
● Strategically subduing lighting and downlighting.
● Unlit, ‘dark’ routes for nocturnal species.
● Access points at ground level in long stretches of fence. ● Vegetation to help wildlife over tall fences.
● Properly designed, people will appreciate and benefit greatly from new landscaping.
These and other suitable design criteria can be identified and incorporated into public and private development guidelines and requirements. The goal is to invite wildlife to move safely and readily from one large area of natural habitat to another to access food, water, and potential mates; for refuges and escape from heat, wildfires, noise and other natural and man-made stressors; and to avoid potentially harmful interactions with people.
Designs must account for the entire spectrum of animal life that is wild, such as migratory and resident birds; butterflies, bees, and other arthropods; amphibians and reptiles; and small mammals, as well as large. They must also account for the facilitation of pollination, movement of seeds, and propagation of natives.
Wildlife-human interactions. Another major objective for wildlife corridors in the urban or suburban setting is to reduce wildlife-human interactions. Cars hitting wildlife is all too familiar. Bridges and culverts can provide a safe alternative. If not possible or practical for city streets, traffic calming may reduce incidents. Yellowstone National Park utilizes motion sensors to trigger warning lights when bison or other wildlife are on park roads.
Successfully designed corridors are inviting to wildlife and should naturally move them along, whether through continuous habitat or in stepping-stone fashion. Animals should not have to travel through yards or public areas of human activity in route to natural areas when more suitable passage can be created.
Future Verdugo Wash designs. As the community considers designs or redesigns of the Wash now and into the future, the challenges and opportunities for wildlife discussed herein need to be evaluated and addressed -- reevaluated and readdressed, including interactions with people.
9 !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 315
1139 of 1517
10 316 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1140 of 1517
Location-Specific Recommendations for Verdugos – San Gabriels Passage Figure 5 Verdugo Mountains - San Gabriel Mountains Connectivity San Gabriel Mountains debris basin channels
Six channels lead from debris check dams in the lower
San Gabriels to the Verdugo Wash (“debris channels”)
(Figure 5). While the Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy
has some camera data from debris channel mouths,
permitted access for cameras down each channel can
inform us of current wildlife use and conditions.
11 !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 317
1141 of 1517
Moving down the nine-mile length of the Verdugo Wash, the following routes have been verified by physical examination:
Verdugo Hills Golf Course to Boston Avenue
Figure 7 Verdugo Hills Golf Course - Blanchard, Cooks Canyon Debris Channels Connectivity The abandoned Verdugo Hills Golf Course is
near the headwaters of the Verdugo Wash
(Figure 7). The golf course site is currently
unmaintained. While some of it has reverted to
natural habitat, there is much to restore and
enhance with native vegetation. In addition to
providing open space and habitat for wildlife,
the Verdugo Hills Golf Course holds fine
potential for wildlife connectivity between the
San Gabriel Mountains and the Verdugo
Mountains.
By moving west from the Verdugo Hills Golf
Course and the headwaters of the Wash
along the north side of the 210 Freeway,
wildlife can cross under the 210 at the La
Tuna underpass and then into the Verdugos.
12 318 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1142 of 1517
To the north are the San Gabriels. The Blanchard Canyon debris channel (Figures 7 and 8) is the furthest west of the six debris channels. Bounded by access roads on either side, it cuts the shortest distance through the Verdugo Hills Golf Course and the Crescenta Valley to the San Gabriels and may be the most promising. Access for the Blanchard Canyon debris channel is needed from the golf course. Felhaber-Houk Park, a separate area of open space located to the north has an existing ramp (Figure 7-yellow dot along Blanchard Canyon debris channel) that could serve as an additional access point into that debris channel.
Just to the east of Blanchard Canyon lies the Cooks Canyon debris channel (Figure 7).
Also bounded by dirt access roads on both sides, it may be a candidate for some type of semi-permanent or removable decking over the debris channel to aid wildlife passage through the Crescenta Valley’s urban plain.
The Verdugo Wash, just south of the Verdugo Hills Golf Course, runs through a long tunnel beginning at La Tuna Canyon Road under the 210 Freeway and lets out just east of the extreme southern end of Lowell Avenue. The Blanchard Canyon debris channel starts just southeast of the golf course and intersects the Wash tunnel. The Cooks Canyon debris channel starts just north of the 210 Fwy and likewise intersects the Wash tunnel. Both debris channels and the tunnel should be studied for potential wildlife passage, including reducing the length of the tunnel to make it more appealing to wildlife.
Other candidates for passage from the Verdugo Hills Golf Course, headwaters of the Verdugo Wash, Blanchard Canyon debris channel and Cooks Canyon debris channel are nearby culverts under the 210 Freeway and the strip of habitat leading easterly along the 210 Freeway to the Lowell Avenue underpass.
13 !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 319
1143 of 1517
Boston Avenue to Crescenta Valley Community Regional Park Figure 9 Boston Avenue - New York Avenue, Dunsmore Canyon Debris Channel Connectivity The ramps in and out of the Verdugo Wash on both
sides of Boston Ave could be used as access points
by wildlife (Figure 10). The southern bank along the
Verdugo Wash, southeast of Boston Avenue, is
narrower, steeper, and adjacent to residences, but
can still accommodate wildlife movement.
The trail alongside the Crescenta Valley Dog Park can
be enhanced for wildlife passage with native trees
and shrubs, leading from Boston Avenue to the
Crescenta Valley Community Regional Park.
The southern end of
Dunsmore Avenue
leads to a ramp which
could be used for
access into the Verdugo Wash. Directly across from the
outlet of this ramp into the Verdugo Wash lies a tunnel (Figure 11), which runs a short distance and connects
directly into the Verdugo Mountains. This tunnel could
14 320 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1144 of 1517
accommodate wildlife passage in and out of the Verdugo Wash.
The Dunsmore Canyon debris channel is another narrow, steep channel which feeds into the Verdugo Wash. Its potential for decking over or other modifications for wildlife passage should be studied and considered.
Crescenta Valley Community Regional Park to Oakmont Debris Basin 15 !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 321
1145 of 1517
Figure 12 Eagle, Pickens, Halls Canyon Debris Channels Connectivity To the west of where Pennsylvania Avenue becomes Honolulu Avenue lies the confluence of Eagle Canyon debris channel and the Verdugo Wash (Figure 12). Eagle Canyon runs from the San Gabriel Mountains above Two Strike Park in La Crescenta, through the Crescenta Valley and into the Verdugo Wash south of Mountain Oaks.
Any future planning efforts should consider wildlife passage as part of any proposed improvements. An existing ramp where the Eagle Canyon debris channel emits into the Verdugo Wash could be used for wildlife passage.
Across the way from Eagle Canyon debris channel along the west bank of the Verdugo Wash lies another potential wildlife corridor. The bank alongside lengthy El Lado Drive leading down to the Verdugo Wash provides a connection from Mountain Oaks to Camp Bob Waldorf. This bank should be a dedicated wildlife passage and could be enhanced with plantings and strategic access points to accommodate wildlife.
Along this route lies Whiting Woods Road. This quiet, wooded road is used by wildlife to connect from El Lado Dr and the Verdugo Wash to the Whiting Woods trailhead and the Verdugo Mountains. Residents have reported sighting bear and other wildlife along this road. Access for wildlife from the Wash and El Lado Drive paralleling Whiting Woods Road (Figure 12-Whiting Woods route) seems like a likely route. 16 322 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1146 of 1517
The southern cul-de-sac of El Lado Drive offers unobstructed access for wildlife into the hillside and canyon habitat of the Camp Bob Waldorf campus, and west into the Verdugo Mountains.
Coming from the other direction, wildlife can move from the Oakmont Debris Basin westerly along the west rim of the Verdugo Wash (Figure 12-Wash Oakmont Wetland route), then under Shirlyjean St. bridge to an ideal ramp (Figure 12-yellow dot) leading into the northeast corner of Camp Bob Waldorf (Figure 12-Waldorf route) or via a channel leading into the Wash at about the same location.
Location-Specific Recommendations for Verdugos – San Rafaels Passage The following routes have been verified by physical examination:
17 !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 323
1147 of 1517
Oakmont Debris Basin and Country Club
Figure 13 Oakmont Debris Basin, Country Club Connectivity The Upper Los Angeles River and Tributaries Plan (“ULART”) recognized the area surrounding the Oakmont Debris Basin and Oakmont Country Club as the “San Rafael Ecological Connection” (Figure 13). Ecological connections within the ULART Plan are “areas that connect the community with wildlife and nature… (T)hese are places… where neighborhoods and open space, nature preserves, or mountains meet.” Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy has, through independent analysis and ground-truthing, identified the “San Rafael Ecological Connection” area as the most promising candidate for an ecological connection between the San Rafael Hills and the Verdugo Mountains. Opportunities exist to enhance the Oakmont Debris Basin for wildlife by creating and enhancing wetland and native habitat and opening up or enhancing existing wildlife passage into the Oakmont Country Club and Verdugo Mountains.
The ULART report identified the land beneath the Southern California Edison power lines from the Oakmont Country Club into the Verdugo Mountains as the “Northern Wildlife Crossing” (Figure 13-Oakmont SCE ROW). The plan proposes an elevated parkway connecting the Country Club with the Verdugo
Mountains. Some type of connection here for wildlife is crucial.
18 Oakmont Debris Basin and Country Club
Figure 13 Oakmont Debris Basin, Country Club Connectivity The Upper Los Angeles River and Tributaries Plan (“ULART”) recognized the area surrounding the Oakmont Debris Basin and Oakmont Country Club as the “San Rafael Ecological Connection” (Figure 13). Ecological connections within the ULART Plan are “areas that connect the community with wildlife and nature… (T)hese are places… where neighborhoods and open space, nature preserves, or mountains meet.” Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy has, through independent analysis and ground-truthing, identified the “San Rafael Ecological Connection” area as the most promising candidate for an ecological connection between the San Rafael Hills and the Verdugo Mountains. Opportunities exist to enhance the Oakmont Debris Basin for wildlife by creating and enhancing wetland and native habitat and opening up or enhancing existing wildlife passage into the Oakmont Country Club and Verdugo Mountains.
The ULART report identified the land beneath the Southern California Edison power lines from the Oakmont Country Club into the Verdugo Mountains as the “Northern Wildlife Crossing” (Figure 13-Oakmont SCE ROW). The plan proposes an elevated parkway connecting the Country Club with the Verdugo
Mountains. Some type of connection here for wildlife is crucial.
18 324 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1148 of 1517
AFC recognizes the Oakmont Country Club golf course as an active wildlife corridor, confirmed by remote wildlife camera. Opportunity exists to enhance the ecological value of the golf course by expanding native habitat areas, reducing irrigation areas, and securing wildlife corridors, such as the Edison power lines route. As stated by the Tongva Tribal Council letter providing sustainability recommendations for this project:
“Oakmont Golf Course: The golf course was once a riparian environment and flood plain as evidenced by the number of riparian trees still within the property. Recently, the course has reduced their greens to reduce their water consumption. It is highly recommended the golf course goes further and adopts the Audubon International Golf Course design for sustainability and utilizes daylighting and tributary side streams to support native non-exotic plant species for both wildlife habitation and creates swales and depressions for water sequestration.”
From the southern end of Oakmont Country Club, wildlife could follow an existing ramp into the Verdugo Wash (Figure 13-yellow dot). A chainlink gate/fence (Figure 14) would have to be opened or retrofitted with wildlife fencing for access. 19 !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 325
1149 of 1517
Sparr Tunnel
Figure 15 Oakmont Country Club - Glorietta Park Connectivity Once down the golf course ramp and into the Wash, wildlife can travel south a short distance under Cañada Boulevard to an existing tunnel leading northeast from the Wash on a diagonal under Verdugo Rd. and City property at the southeast corner of Verdugo Rd. and Sparr Blvd. (“Sparr Tunnel”). The Sparr Tunnel carries water from a distant location, but does not daylight, so it would have to be opened for wildlife on the City property. They could then move a short distance up Sparr Boulevard to Bayberry Drive for easy access into the greater San Rafael Hills (Figure 15-Sparr route). The viability of the Sparr Tunnel should be analyzed.
From the low elevation San Rafael Hills, wildlife would proceed easterly through open space south of Bayberry Dr. toward the 2 Freeway (still Sparr route), then north or south (Figure 15-West Shoulder route) to pass under the 2 Freeway at Stancrest Drive, near Descanso Gardens to the east, (Figure 15-Stancrest route) or Fern Lane, north of the Glendale Sports Complex, (Figure 15-Fern route) for immediate access to expansive natural open space in the interior of the San Rafaels.
Drainage culverts and tunnels under the 2 Freeway can provide additional passage for all manner of creatures and seeds and need investigation.
Glorietta Park
20 326 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1150 of 1517
Glorietta Park straddles the Wash. Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy has identified the east side of Glorietta Park as a high priority site for passage between the Verdugos and San Rafaels. A new ramp would be required into the Wash, and if the design preference is to use the Wash for wildlife passage only to the extent necessary, it could be located at the north end of the park, just south of the Sparr Tunnel. When designing for a ramp, consideration could also be given to infrastructure improvements to better connect both sides of Glorietta Park.
Dedicating a wildlife corridor south through Glorietta Park along its east side, planted with native shrubs for cover, will lead to Glorietta Avenue. Installing native plants along the north side of Glorietta Avenue could give passage to Verdugo Rd.
The greatest impediment to wildlife between Glorietta Park and the San Rafaels is North Verdugo Road. The intersection of North Verdugo Road and Glorietta Avenue has been identified by local residents and Glendale City staff as prone to car accidents and a candidate for traffic-calming infrastructure. Traffic-calming could be multi-benefit — enhancing safe passage across Verdugo Rd. for pedestrians during daylight hours and for wildlife during low-traffic hours. The following should be included with traffic calming measures:
● Enhancing native landscaping on both sides of North Verdugo Road. ● Opening up chain-link fencing at Edison property to the east of North Verdugo Road.
● Installing a “wildlife crossing” signal or signage.
After crossing Verdugo Rd., wildlife
would follow an Edison Right of
Way to and across a quiet Mira
Vista Drive into a large peninsula
of natural habitat south of Los
Encinos Avenue, then to Fern
Lane at the 2 Freeway (Figure 16)
and east under the freeway to
expansive open space of the San
Rafaels (Figure 15-Glorietta and
Fern routes).
Edison route
An alternate route is the Southern California Edison right of way, commencing to the southeast of Mira Vista Drive and leading southeast to natural habitat along the 2 Freeway south of Fern Lane (Figure 15-Fern SCE ROW route). Then they can head 21 !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 327
1151 of 1517
north to the Fern Lane underpass or south to the Sherer Lane underpass of the 2 Freeway (Figure 15-SR2 South Shoulder route).
Oak Knoll Road route
Figure 17 Oak Knoll Road Connectivity
As already described, the Fern Lane underpass of the 2 Freeway serves as a critical wildlife passage post.
Following the San Rafael Hills south from Fern Lane along the western side of the 2 Freeway (Figure 17-SR2 West
Shoulder route) can lead to a potential corridor through private properties along Verdugo Knolls Drive (Figure
17-Oak Knoll N route). A wooded, riparian canyon runs
through these private properties -- some with homes on
them and a couple vacant parcels (Figure 18). There are signs of wildlife movement. Conservation easements and
potential acquisition of vacant parcels may be desired. 22 328 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1152 of 1517
The wooded canyon at
Verdugo Knolls Dr empties
out to Oak Knoll Road
(Figure 19) — a quiet and
peaceful street that wildlife
may walk down as a corridor
(Figure 17-Oak Knoll route),
especially at night, early
morning, and other times of
low human activity and
traffic. Working with
neighbors to enhance native
landscaping would be desirable. Wildlife can be imagined crossing Verdugo Rd. at Oak Knoll Road if there were inviting habitat on the west side of Verdugo Rd., in turn leading to the Wash, where access would need to be created. Wildlife would then use the Wash to travel south, exiting at a new ramp into Verdugo Park just south of the Cañada Boulevard overpass and north of the Skate Park (Figure 17-Wash Oak Knoll route).
Sherer Lane Underpass
The swath of hillside habitat
running south from along the west
side of the 2 Freeway from Fern
Lane to Verdugo Knolls Dr
continues south to an underpass
at Sherer Lane (Figure 17-SR2
West Shoulder route and Figure
20) — another critical passage
point that is relatively quiet and
reportedly used by wildlife for
passage under the 2 Freeway.
The east side of the 2 Freeway running south from Sherer Lane (Figure 17-Sherer and Mountain routes) could lead to a potential wildlife crossing of the freeway at East Mountain Street (“Mountain St.”) if suitably retrofitted for wildlife, as by adding a landscaped catwalk off the side, but if not practical over a new bridge north of Mountain St. Once on the west side of the 2 Freeway they could then proceed west through the lower San Rafael Hills to Glendale Community College in the manner described below.
As an alternative, installing a bridge south of Mountain St. can be considered if, as a practical matter, wildlife will cross the relatively quiet portion of Mountain St. immediately east of the 2 Fwy interchange.
23 !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 329
1153 of 1517
24 330 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1154 of 1517
Verdugo Park
Figure 21 Verdugo Park Connectivity
Big picture, given the breadth of the Verdugo Mountains two ingress/egress routes toward the San Rafael Hills would be highly desirable. The first is described above, utilizing the Oakmont Debris Basin and the Oakmont Country Club golf course. The second utilizes Verdugo Park. The route to Verdugo Park (Figure 21) should be readily apparent on Figure 22.
25 !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 331
1155 of 1517
Figure 22 Verdugo Mountains - Verdugo Park Terrain
It moves from the Las Flores Motorway along the north
side of Sunshine Road through property owned by the
Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy (Figures 21 and
22-AFC’s Sunshine Preserve), crossing Sunshine Road
and continuing through uninterrupted natural open space to the upper sloping reaches of Verdugo Park (Figure 23).
Wildlife then move south along this sloping half of
Verdugo Park. They can move to the bottom of the slope
then directly east along the north side of Stengel Field to the Wash, or they can circumnavigate Stengel Field to
avoid humans. What follows is a discussion of possible
routes to move between the Verdugo Wash and the San
Rafael Hills.
26 332 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1156 of 1517
Glendale Community College
Figure 24 Verdugo Park - Glendale Community College Connectivity From the San Rafael Hills above the Glendale
Community College campus, we have identified
northern and southern “perimeter routes” for wildlife
passage around the campus, with potential
connections to Verdugo Park (Figure 24).
The northern perimeter route utilizes Campus Way
(Figure 24-GCC N) and connects with the footbridge
that spans across the Verdugo Rd. and Cañada Blvd
junction (Figure 24-GCC Bridge). The campus
perimeter leading to the footbridge onramp along
Verdugo Rd. (Figure 24-GCC N on) would need to be
landscaped with native plants to provide cover for
wildlife.
The southern perimeter route follows the perimeter of
the campus along Mountain St., and then along the Verdugo Rd. perimeter of the campus to the same footbridge across Verdugo Rd. and Cañada Blvd. (Figure 24-GCC S,).
27 !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 333
1157 of 1517
A large lawn on the east approach to the footbridge creates a landscaping opportunity for the college. Once on the footbridge (Figure 25), potential exists to "naturalize" the interior sides with native plants to provide cover and safety for wildlife passage. This could be achieved by installing planter boxes or
widening the bridge to accommodate plant life. The
footbridge blocks out much of the noise from the busy
Verdugo Rd., below.
This Glendale Community College footbridge leads to
Lot 32, a City of Glendale owned parking lot. We
anticipate wildlife using the sloping ramp leading down from the Glendale Community College footbridge to
Lot 32 (Figure 26) rather than the opposing ramp with
steps. Some non-parking
sections of this parking lot
could be softened and
“greened” with native
landscaping. With the
removal of 2 to 4 parking
spaces, a naturalized trail crossing for wildlife could be created from the Glendale Community College footbridge ramp to the bank of the Verdugo Wash.
The bank along the edge of the Verdugo Wash (Figure 27) could be naturalized and
improved with a trail, connecting
the north end of Lot 32 with an
existing pedestrian bridge to
Verdugo Park (Figure 28). The bridge, which spans the
Verdugo Wash, appears readily usable by wildlife.
Other opportunities for
connection between Glendale
Community College and
Verdugo Park include
(i) constructing an overpass
to connect the Glendale
Community College southern
perimeter route (Figure
24-GCCS) with a tree-lined,
quiet drive alongside the
south side of Glendale Civic Auditorium (Figure 24-GCC
route, Figure 29), to a
naturalized new trail heading
28 334 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1158 of 1517
north along the east side of the Wash to the pedestrian bridge (Figure 28) from the northwest corner of Lot 32 into
Verdugo Park (Figure 24-GCC route)
(ii) recommissioning a mothballed tunnel once used for people from the campus periphery to the southeast corner of the Glendale Civic Auditorium (Figure 24-Tunnel Gate location for the new overpass and the existing tunnel), then following the same route as above
Lot 30
From the hillside south of Mountain
St. and west of the 2 Fwy. wildlife
can follow natural habitat down to
Verdugo Rd. across from Lot 30
(Figure
24-Mountain and Lot 30 routes) - another City of Glendale owned parking lot. This site has potential for construction of an overpass or underpass across Verdugo Rd. from
south of CII Vaquero to Lot 30 (Figure 24-see Build
Overpass). Wildlife then go to an existing ramp at the
southwest corner of Lot 30 (Figure 30) for easy access
into the Wash (Figure 24-yellow dot). Then they move up the Wash to a partial ramp (Figure 31) below Stengel
Field that would need to be lowered.
This route, with the newly constructed bridge over the Wash, may be the most likely candidate for southern passage between the San Rafaels and Verdugos. (Southern passage utilizes Verdugo Park; northern passage utilizes the Oakmont Country Club golf course.)
29 !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 335
1159 of 1517
Chevy Chase and Glenoaks
Figure 32 Glendale Community College to Chevy Chase Drive, Glenoaks Boulevard Connectivity Both East Chevy Chase Drive (“Chevy Chase”) and East Glenoaks Boulevard (“Glenoaks”) pass under the 2 Freeway. There is a substantial undeveloped range of hills below Chevy Chase and another below Glenoaks, as seen in the image below. It can be assumed that wildlife of all manner inhabit these ranges. 30 336 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1160 of 1517
Figure 33 Ranges south of Chevy Chase Drive and Glenoaks Boulevard Passage potential exists from the western end of both ranges to open space along both sides of the 2 Freeway (Figure 32-Glenoaks and Chevy Chase routes) leading north.
On the west side of the 2 Freeway wildlife can move to the Verdugo Park complex (Figure 32-Glenoaks route). On the east side of the 2 Fwy. wildlife move either to potential new wildlife bridge crossing the 2 Freeway on one side or the other of Mountain St. (Figure 32-Chevy Chase-Glenoaks route), or on to the Sherer Underpass (Figure 32-Mountain route).
Drainage culverts and tunnels under the 2 Freeway can provide additional passage for all manner of creatures and seeds and need investigation.
Verdugo Park to Confluence Park
The confluence of the Verdugo Wash with the Los Angeles River has been recognized as an “Opportunity Area” for recreational development in the City of Los Angeles’ Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan. Restoration of this confluence area also features, as part of the Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Integrated Feasibility Report, Alternative 20.
The construction of a pedestrian and bikeway trail along the Wash could open up access for wildlife passage from Verdugo Park to Confluence Park and the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk. Planting native trees and shrubs along the trail can serve to provide cover for wildlife moving during non-peak hours of human activity. Trail connectivity to Fremont Park should be considered, which can serve as an “island” of habitat and open space for humans and wildlife on the journey through the urban plain between Verdugo Park and the Los Angeles River.
31 !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 337
1161 of 1517
Location-Specific Recommendations for Griffith Park - San Gabriel Mountains Passage
P-22, the world-famous mountain lion, somehow crossed two freeways to end up at Griffith Park and has been isolated there for more than 10 years. This highlights that Griffith Park is a biological island, cut off from the greater Santa Monica Mountains, of which they are a part. Is this apex predator the only species suffering such isolation? No, certainly not. All manner of wildlife are similarly constrained. Do we care about the ecological health of the world’s largest urban park? If the answer is yes, we must allow it to reconnect with habitat in the greater Santa Monica Mountains, the bio-rich San Gabriel Mountains, or both for a more hopeful outcome. (Mountain lions have been documented to travel up to 10 miles in one night [mountainlion.org]. It is ‘possible’ for a mountain lion to get from Griffith Park to the Verdugos without having to encounter any humans in nighttime or dusk/dawn when normally expected to move.) There are two, and only two, potential corridors to connect Griffith Park with the San Gabriel Mountains:
1. The Los Angeles River to the Arroyo Seco to the San Gabriel Mountains
2. The Los Angeles River (briefly) to the Verdugo Wash to the San Gabriel Mountains
The shorter route of the two, by far, is Verdugo Wash. Any reimagining of the Wash from its confluence with the Los Angeles River to Verdugo Park should include wildlife passage.
There are multiple locations along the Los Angeles River for movement in and out of Griffith Park. Starting upriver …
● The Los Angeles River abuts Griffith Park where it goes under the 134 Fwy at Forest Lawn and continuing westerly along the northern boundary of Griffith Park. Forest Lawn Drive would need to be passed. A channel that leads from the River under Forest Lawn Drive to a natural waterway with heavy natural habitat on the east side of 6250 Forest Lawn Drive (currently the Junior Achievement Building) needs investigation.
● In addition, the channel’s walls are sloped and accessible for entry/exit; it remains sloped up to a location just downriver from 1533 Rancho Avenue, Glendale, where it narrows and the walls become vertical. Once out of the channel at this point wildlife have direct access to Griffith Park by using an equestrian tunnel under the 134 Freeway. Once out of the tunnel they cross the Main Trail then Zoo Drive to natural open space.
32 338 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1162 of 1517
● Once out of the channel as above-described, wildlife could have an alternative to traveling up the channel by moving parallel along a strip of land between the River and the 134 Freeway westerly to other undercrossings. Habitat would need to be enhancemed.
● Both wildlife access and passage should be addressed and suitably included in projects relating to Confluence Park and the southern reaches of the Verdugo Wash.
● Four inlets for drainage tunnels from Warren Harding Golf Course under the 5 Freeway into the Wash can be investigated for passage.
● Physical inspection suggests that three large inlets just west of the North Atwater Bridge for tunnels leading from the Park and under the 5 Freeway would provide ready dedicated passage for all manner of wildlife, if one or more hinged ‘cat’s head’ covers were left open.
● A horse trail moves under the 5 Freeway just south of the three inlets for easy Griffith Park access.
● Other culverts and tunnels under the 5 Freeway can provide additional passage for all manner of creatures and seeds and can be investigated.
Acknowledgements
Submitted by Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy on 6/22/2022, with contributions from:
George Ballteria, Board of Directors, Glendale Parks and Open Space Foundation; Director of Design and Construction, North East Trees; retired Director of Facilities and Senior Project Manager, City of Glendale Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency
Shana Bonstin, Deputy Director of City Planning, Chief Sustainability Officer, City of Los Angeles, Glendale resident
Mark Duttweiler, GIS specialist
Paul Edelman, Chief of Natural Resources and Planning for the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority and Deputy Director of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.
33 !melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 339
1163 of 1517
Dave Gallagher, Landscape Architect with Los Angeles County Public Works, Glendale resident
Mike Lawler, President, Historical Society of the Crescenta Valley.
Michael C. Long, field biologist, retired Natural Areas Administrator, Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation.
Travis Longcore, Ph.D. GISP, Associate Adjunct Professor, Institute of the Environment and Sustainability, University of California, Los Angeles.
Seth P. D. Riley, Ph.D., Wildlife Ecologist and Branch Chief for Wildlife, National Park Service, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area; and Adjunct Associate Professor, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Ana Tabuena-Ruddy, Landscape Architect,; Project Development & Interagency Coordination Manager, Department of Public Works Bureau of Street Services, City of Los Angeles, Glendale resident
Jeff Sikich: Biologist, National Park Service, Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.
Nancy Steele, Executive Manager, Friends of the Verde River; past Executive Director, Council for Watershed Health in Los Angeles; co-founder and President of Arroyos & Foothills Conservancy 2000-2011
Laura Stotler, retired Principal Planner, City of Glendale Tongva Tribal Council, liaison Richard Toyon
Johanna Turner, wildlife tracker and photographer.
Amanda Zellmer, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Biology, Occidental College.
With a special thanks to Lew Phelps
34 340 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1164 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX C: ECOLOGY 341
1165 of 1517
342 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1166 of 1517
appendix D.
sustainability & planning
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX D: SUSTAINABILITY 343
1167 of 1517
344 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1168 of 1517
The Verdugo Wash Sustainability Framework articulates
the goals, strategies, and key performance indicators for environmental sustainability and climate resiliency as they relate to the Verdugo Wash.
It considers and integrates collected data, existing efforts, and historical context including the site’s environmental history (and pre-development condition), as well as current barriers and consequences resulting from the channelization of the Wash. The framework identifies opportunities to
enhance the natural environment, address climate change, and encourage habitat restoration.
This will help to identify locations for design interventions and provide an initial high-level understanding of how the Verdugo Wash can contribute to citywide sustainability
efforts such as reducing the urban heat island effect, treating stormwater, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and
greening the city.
Lastly, the sustainability framework outlines opportunities to address social factors such as equitable design and
equitable access to benefit the entire community.
The Verdugo Wash Sustainability Framework is principally organized around six key elements - or project focus areas.
These are articulated as succinct goal statements as follows:
Within each key element, there is a vision that serves as a statement of long-term aspirations and objectives which break down the vision into implementable components.
Key performance indicators that serve as a barometer of long-term sustainability and are aligned where possible with the measuring and monitoring efforts of city and regional programs and policies.
Finally, design strategies are listed that align with each of the key elements; this is not an exhaustive list of strategies, but an illustrative set that may be built upon and expanded in future design phases.
Enhance the natural environment
Mitigate climate change
Encourage habitat restoration
Incorporate innovative urban design
Foster an inclusive economy
Prioritize equitable design & access
appendix D
sustainability & planning long-term
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX D: SUSTAINABILITY 345
1169 of 1517
Vision
Improve water quality, reduce the impacts of
the urban heat island effect, and advance the city’s
sustainability goals through conceptual design for the
natural environment.
Objectives
Increase Glendale’s tree canopy coverage;
Ensure there is accessible park and recreational open
space to serve residents;
Implement stormwater management practices to
protect water quality & replenish local aquifers;
Improve water quality;
Combat the urban heat island effect.
Key Performance Indicators
Percent tree canopy cover (number of trees);
Percent of trees planted in sidewalk planting sites
Number of residents using local parks and recreational
open spaces.
Champions
Community Services & Parks
Public Works
Design Strategies
Implement best management practices (BMPs) within
and adjacent to the Wash, including stormwater planters, tree well filters, vegetated swales, and vegetated filter strips;
Incorporate bio infiltration into the design of adjacent parks and public properties.
Vision
Address climate change through conceptual design
strategies for urban design, hydrology, and mobility
Objectives
Combat the urban heat island effect;
Promote/encourage alternative transportation forms;
Increase Glendale’s tree canopy coverage.
Key Performance Indicators
SOV trip reductions;
Citywide transportation emissions;
Tree plantings;
Cool and vegetated surface areas.
Champions
Public Works
Sustainability Office
Design Strategies
Implement urban cooling strategies that mitigate
extreme heat, such as cool and vegetated surfaces,
shade structures, shade trees and vines;
Provide a convenient, safe, and affordable alternative to car travel in the form of multi-use paths.
natural environment climate change
Vision
Foster an inclusive and prosperous economy through
conceptual strategies for urban design, equity, and
mobility.
Objectives
Promote economic growth and prosperity without
displacement, with a focus on local businesses and
disinvested neighborhoods;
Create more opportunities for new sustainable MWBE
businesses to open in Glendale;
Support green jobs training in Glendale;
Encourage sustainable business practices.
Key Performance Indicators
Cost of living proportional to household incomes;
Number of MWBE businesses;
Number of green jobs/workers in Glendale.
Champions
Community Development
Sustainability Office
Design Strategies
Develop anti-displacement protections for neighboring
renters and small businesses
inclusive economy
Sustainability Framework Plan
346 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1170 of 1517
Vision
Restore the natural and historic habitat through
conceptual design strategies for urban design and
mobility
Objectives
Increase Glendale’s tree canopy coverage;
Increase biodiversity in Glendale.
Key Performance Indicators
Number of native plant species represented in the
Verdugo Wash;
Wildlife corridors improved/added.
Champions
Public Works (Forestry Section)
Design Strategies
Use signage and platforms to educate residents and
visitors about native, invasive, and climate-adapted
species;
Establish wetland habitat within the soft-bottomed
debris basin;
Establish habitat corridors in conjunction with efforts on adjacent properties.
habitat restoration
Vision
Deploy human-centered urban design strategies that
address equity, the natural and built environment, and
habitat restoration
Objectives
Incorporate Greener Glendale sustainability concepts
into the Community Plans and other General Plan
documents;
Incorporate green building practices into community
sustainability outreach and education;
Implement SCAG Sustainable Communities Program
strategies in Glendale to increase livable environments; Promote and encourage the use of alternative forms of
transportation.
Key Performance Indicators
Mode share in Glendale
Linear feet of multi-modal transport paths
Champions
Community Development
Public Works
Sustainability Office
Design Strategies
Provide access for active modes (walking, biking, and
rolling) into the Verdugo Wash;
Incorporate shading and vegetation into the public
space design.
urban design
Vision
Address social equity through conceptual design
strategies for urban design and mobility.
Objectives
Ensure there is accessible park and recreational open
space to serve current and future residents;
Encourage the use of locally grown organic foods.
Key Performance Indicators
Percent of residents living within walking distance (1/3 mile) of a park and recreational open space
Champions
Community Development
Community Services & Parks
Design Strategies
Apply universal design principles to the access points
from surrounding streets, including wide paths and
ramps, accessible bathrooms, shade, and lighting;
Prioritize implementation in areas of Glendale that have less existing access to parks and open space, namely
the downstream portion nearest downtown.
equitable access
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX D: SUSTAINABILITY 347
1171 of 1517
The Verdugo Wash will be the beacon for urban
sustainability and social equity in Glendale, enhancing the City’s natural environment and addressing the climate
change and biodiversity crises, and incorporating equitable design and access.
The Verdugo Wash Visioning process requires many
considerations, including those related to culture, mobility, environment, health and wellbeing, and economic vitality.
As an amenity space that has the potential to connect
multiple neighborhoods, there is an additional opportunity to establish ecological and transit corridors. The sustainability framework that will be developed during this visioning
process will articulate the goals and strategies for
environmental sustainability and climate resiliency as they relate to the Verdugo Wash.
The framework will consider and integrate collected data, existing efforts, and historical context. This includes the site’s environmental history (and pre-development condition),
as well as current barriers and consequences resulting
from the channelization of the Wash. The framework will identify opportunities to enhance the natural environment, address climate change, and encourage habitat restoration.
This will help to identify locations for design interventions and provide an initial high level understanding of how the Verdugo Wash can contribute to citywide sustainability
efforts such as reducing the urban heat island effect, treating stormwater, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and
greening the City. Lastly, the sustainability framework will also seek to identify opportunities to address social factors such as equitable design and equitable access to benefit the entire community.
Key elements of the sustainability plan will guide the vision to address environmental and social factors in the area.
These elements will both align with existing goals and
targets and incorporate newly identified opportunities
and needs within the community. These key elements are
expressed through the following sustainability goals:
Existing Efforts
The City of Glendale executed the “Greener Glendale Plan” in 2011, addressing sustainability and climate change in local government operations.
The plan outlines seven focus areas of improvement: energy, water, waste, transportation, urban design, urban nature, and environmental health.
At the regional level, the Los Angeles County Board
of Supervisors adopted “OurCounty”: the Los Angeles
County-wide Sustainability Plan in 2019, which provides a regional framework for local governments and stakeholders to enhance community sustainability, adapt to climate
change, and reduce damage to the natural environment.
OurCounty specifically focuses on communities that are
disproportionately affected by environmental pollution.
These plans are foundational to future Glendale sustainability frameworks, and relevant initiatives and goals will be brought into the Verdugo Wash Visioning process.
One example of a relevant strategy or action is Glendale’s Citywide Pedestrian Plan spotlight on adding pedestrian head starts and high visibility crosswalks in high collisions intersections. Additional examples can be found in the
Sustainability Plan which sets objectives to increase the City’s tree canopy coverage by 20,000 trees by 2035 as well as ensure that there is accessible park and recreational open space to serve residents.
The County also recently completed the LA River Master
Plan, which outlines development and management goals
for the 51-mile section of the LA River running through Los Angeles County. At large, the plan identifies strategies and goals to reduce flood risk, improve resiliency, provide open space, support ecosystems, enhance arts and culture, address potential adverse impacts, and promote healthy, safe water. The plan also identifies how it will work within existing and future planning documents.
At the State level, the Verdugo Wash is assessed within the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority
(MRCA)’s Upper Los Angeles River and Tributaries (ULART) Revitalization Plan, addressing future opportunities and projects to revitalize waterfronts throughout north LA
County. The plan, completed in 2020, has an emphasis
on disadvantaged communities along the Verdugo Wash,
Aliso Canyon Wash, Pacoima Wash, Tujunga Wash, Burbank
Western Channel, Arroyo Seco, and Upper LA River. The
plan’s outreach process helped highlight specific community needs and desires for the Verdugo Wash. These included
safe access design features, inclusion of small gathering spaces, and incorporation of trails and pathways. The plan also identifies and scores various revitalization opportunities for the tributary. These include but aren’t limited to adding an educational facility, creating multi-use and mountain biking trails, and locations for enhancing wildlife corridors.
Enhance the natural environment
Encourage habitat restoration
Mitigate climate change
Benefit the entire community by incorporating equitable design and access
•
•
•
•
348 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1172 of 1517
Sustainability Opportunities & Constraints
Parks & Open Space
Parks and open space are an integral part of the Glendale identity. Not only was the city initially sited within the natural beauty of three distinct hillside/mountain ranges (Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills, and San Gabriel Mountains), but nearly one-third of the city’s land area is either parkland or open space (including private lands). From an equity perspective, approximately 90% of Glendale residents
reside within 1/3-mile of a public park or recreational open Space
and
rses
ace
y
Parks
Space
oints
Space
and
rses
ace
y
Parks
Space
oints
f
s, Los
tment
Angeles
on.
space; a notable exception being South Glendale, which
lacks adequate open space. The city boasts 43 public parks as well as public school yards open to the public afterhours, and many open space trails. The City also takes on reforestation and implements habitat protection measures.
These initiatives and their impacts are further discussed in the Biology section of this report.
!melk+BuroHappold INTRODUCTION: THE PROJECT & THE PROCESS 349 Parks and open space
data source(s): City of Glendale Public Works, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Los Angeles Department of Sanitation.
SURFACE WATERS / WETLAND
PRIVATE GOLF COURSES
PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
CRESCENT VALLEY PARK
CITY OF GLENDALE PARKS
PARKS & OPEN SPACE
VERDUGO WASH
1/4 MILE BUFFER
CITY OF GLENDALE
1 /
2 1
/
4 1 mile
1173 of 1517
e
oints
e
oints
e
f
s, Los
rtment
Angeles
on.
Sustainability Opportunities & Constraints
Water Quality & Management
Especially in southern California, water quality and water management are important tenets of sustainability. About seventy percent of Glendale’s water supply is provided from the Metropolitan Water District (MWD), which is conveyed over long distances from 1) northern California (via the State Water Project) and 2) the Colorado River (via the Colorado River Aqueduct.)
The Verdugo Wash is a central asset in Glendale’s
stormwater infrastructure. For these reasons, existing
conditions and future precipitation levels will influence the final design vision. Water is also connected to other key sustainability themes like urban ecology, extreme heat, and climate change mitigation efforts.
350 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE Stormwater infrastructure
data source(s): City of Glendale Public Works, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, Los Angeles Department of Sanitation.
OPEN CHANNEL
LATERAL LINE
PUBLIC CULVERT
GRAVITY MAIN
NATURAL DRAINAGE
CATCH BASIN
EXISTING ENTRY POINTS
1/4 MILE BUFFER
VERDUGO WASH
CITY OF GLENDALE
1 /
2 1
/
4 1 mile
1174 of 1517
The City of Glendale experiences a Mediterranean climate with dry hot summers and mild wet winters, though winterdrought has been common in recent years. On average, the city receives approximately 19 inches of rain per year.
The rainiest months of the year, January and February,
each experience approximately 3-4 inches of rain. The city contains both year-round and seasonal streams as well as extensive stormwater infrastructure.
As the Wash was channelized and the surrounding area was developed, the soil’s ability to absorb rainwater decreased and runoff increased. Green infrastructure, including
vegetative surfaces, can help to increase infiltration and reduce runoff from certain rain events, but stormwater
infrastructure is essential in managing runoff from heavy rain events and storms, particularly for downstream and low-lying areas.
Minimal changes are expected for the annual precipitation in Glendale under both low and high emission scenarios. The average observed historical 1-day maximum is 2.8-inches, with a projected mid-century increase of 0.1-0.2 inches.
There is a projected increase of about one week in maximum lengths of dry spells compared to the historic average of 128 days. While averages aren’t expected to change much in the Glendale area, California is projected to have more severe variation in wet and dry years. This can lead to “whiplash events” which are particularly important in that they
contribute to and intensify various other climate hazards.
When dry years are followed by very wet years, mudslides and landslides are more likely to occur. This is due to declines in vegetation during the dry years which otherwise offer soil stabilization. When wet years are followed by dry years, wildfires are much more likely. This is because the wet years allow a lot of new vegetation to grow, but it eventually dries out in the drought period – leading to increases in fuel sources for fire.
The Los Angeles Climate-Smart Cities analysis, performed by The Trust for Public Land, has identified areas where the potential for groundwater infiltration projects is highest.
Their model, which accounts for riparian areas, flood-prone areas, permeable soils, wetland areas, groundwater basins, historic channels, and slope identifies much of the Verdugo Wash project area as having high potential for infiltration projects.
Year
Number of Extreme Heat Days
Number of Extreme Heat Days in Glendale, CA
Number of extreme heat days in Glendale under both emission scenarios with observed historical values.
The threshold (98th percentile) for an extreme heat day in this community is 97.61 degrees Fahrenheit.
Historic RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5
1950
1954
19581962
1966
197019741978
19821986
1990
19941998
2002
2006
2010
2014
2018
2022
2026
2030
2034
2038
2042
2046
2050
2054
2058
2062
2066
2070
2074
2078
2082
2086
2090
2094
2098
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Data Source: Cal-Adapt
Year
Temperature (F)
Annual Average Temperatures in Glendale, CA
Annual average maximum and minimum temperature projections in Glendale under low and high emissions scenarios Historic Maximum Temperature RCP 4.5 Maximum Temperature RCP 8.5 Maximum Temperature Historic Minimum Temperature RCP 4.5 Minimum Temperature RCP 8.5 Minimum Temperature 19501954195819621966
197019741978
19821986
199019941998
2002
2006
201020142018
2022
2026
2030
2034
2038
2042
2046
2050
2054
2058
2062
2066
20702074
2078
2082
2086
2090
2094
2098
50 60
70 80
90 40
Data Source: Cal-Adapt
Data from the City’s latest Urban Water Management Plan shows that over 81% of water usage is from residential
homes (both single family and multi-family), around 12% is from commercial use, and the remaining is split between industrial, municipal, and landscape irrigation. In 2020, the annual water usage was just over 21,000 acre-feet in total, or an average of 95.3 gallons per person per day.
Not many modifications have occurred to the Wash itself since the 1930s, but additional flood control support
structures and projects have been added in the area. These projects were predominately led by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works and United States Army Corps of Engineers. They include additional debris basins in the Verdugo and San Gabriel Mountains, as well as additional concrete lining of other major channels in the region.
There are also 5 dams and reservoirs within the City of Glendale, which were all constructed between 1930 and
1950. These include Brand Park, East Glorietta, Chevy Chase 1290 Reservoir, Glenoaks Reservoir, and Diedrich Reservoir.
Early stormwater management infrastructure was largely set in the 100-year base flood standard, grounded in frequencybased design that has proven challenging for modern day standards. The ”new normal” of climate change has deemed prior storm-predictions less reliable, and has presented areas of opportunity for more sustainable, resilient, and equitable approaches. Reducing flood vulnerability in one !melk+BuroHappold INTRODUCTION: THE PROJECT & THE PROCESS 351 Year
Precipitation (inches/year)
Precipitation in Glendale, CA
Precipitation in inches per year in Glendale under low and high emission scenarios with observed historical values.
Historic RCP 4.5 RCP 8.5
1950
1956
1962
1968
1974
1980
1986
1992
1998
2004
2010
2016
2022
2028
2034
2040
2046
2052
2058
2064
2070
2076
2082
2088
2094
2100
0 20
40 60
Data Source: Cal-Adapt
Precipitation in inches, per year in Glendale under low and high emission scenarios with observed historical values (source: Cal-Adapt) Number of extreme heat days in Glendale under both emission scenarios with observed historical values. The threshold (98th percentile) for an extreme heat day in this community is 97.61 degrees Fahrenheit. (source Cal-Adapt) Annual average (maximum & minimum) temperature projections in HISTORIC Glendale, under low & high emissions scenarios (source Cal-Adapt)
HISTORIC
RCP 4.5
RCP 4.5
RCP 8.5
RCP 8.5
HISTORIC MAX/MIN
RCP 4.5 MAX TEMP RCP 4.5 MIN TEMP
RCP 8.5 MAX TEMP RCP 8.5 MIN TEMP
1175 of 1517
region may increase vulnerability in another. Therefore, sustainable urban drainage systems have introduced a more interdisciplinary and inclusive approach to current urban infrastructure design criteria.
Re-envisioning the stormwater management systems
around the Verdugo Wash as a holistic network, rather than solely concrete channels, will provide a more equitable and sustainable future.
Sustainability Opportunities & Constraints
Extreme Heat
Globally, temperatures have steadily increased since the 1950s, with five of the hottest years on record occurring in the last six years.
Changes in air temperature will increase the occurrence of extreme heat, heat waves, warm nights, drought, and
wildfires. When populations are exposed to extreme
temperatures, heat stress can lead to broader welfare
d
re
)
oints
d
re
)
oints
een
e
s
f
s, Los
tment
Trust
te
352 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE Urban heat island priority areas
data source(s): City of Glendale Public Works, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, The Trust for Public Land (Climate-Smart Cities).
LOW
PRIORITY FOR COOL & GREEN
INFRASTRUCTURE (URBAN HEAT ISLAND)
MODERATE
HIGH
VERY HIGH
1/4 MILE BUFFER
VERDUGO WASH
CITY OF GLENDALE
1 /
2 1
/
4 1 mile
EXISTING ENTRY POINTS
1176 of 1517
and economic impacts. This includes heat illnesses such as heat stroke, heat exhaustion, heat fatigue, and heat cramps. Heat waves have also been shown to contribute to increased mortality rates. Extreme heat is the leading cause of weather-related deaths within the US, accounting for over a quarter of weather-related fatalities since 1990. During a 2006 California heat wave, mortality rates increased by 5% across the state, with a 12% increase in at-home deaths. In that same heat wave, the south coast region experienced a 5.6% increase in hospitalizations during peak heat-wave days. These impacts are magnified in cities due to the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect.
Both annual average temperatures and the frequency of
extreme heat days are projected to increase in the City of Glendale. The current historic average number of extreme heat days, where temperatures reach over 97.6°F, is around
4.3 days per year. By mid-century, the number of extreme heat days are projected to increase by 9.3 to 15.9 days.
The annual average maximum temperature in Glendale is
expected to increase by 4.4°F to 5.8°F by mid-century, and
5.7°F to 8.6°F by late century. The annual average minimum temperatures are also expected to increase by 4.5°F to 5.9°F by mid-century and 5.7°F to 9.0°F by late century.
There is opportunity within the Verdugo Wash for additional cool and green infrastructure, to mitigate UHI effects and provide respite for residents during extreme heat days.
Efforts can be focused on moderate to very high need areas, such as near the West Glenoaks entry point. These design interventions may include, but are not limited to increased tree canopies, shade structures, drinking fountains, and splash pads.
Glendale is an urban heat island, experiencing higher
temperatures than outlying areas.
The Los Angeles Climate-Smart Cities analysis has identified areas where the potential for cool and green infrastructure is greatest. Extreme heat conditions occur when summer
temperatures are hotter or more humid than average,
reaching 10 degrees or more above average and lasting two to three days. UHIs are a direct result of a warming planet, causing infrastructure to absorb and re-emit heat at higher levels than natural landscapes. Greening of the Verdugo Wash and surrounding areas may assist in the reduction of UHI effects.
Environmental Opportunities
Environmental justice is defined within State law to mean “the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption,
implementation and enforcement of environmental
laws, regulations, and policies.” It is critically important in the Greater Los Angeles region, where the burden of
environmental pollution is unequally distributed. Air pollution, proximity to industrial pollutants, and water and soil pollution are examples of the types of hazards that impact health that environmental justice communities tend to bear. It is also Opportunities for Sustainability
The Verdugo Wash sustainability framework can help
enhance the natural environment and encourage habitat
restoration while mitigating climate change.
It will ensure that equitable design and access to recreate and commute are incorporated from the beginning of the
process. In doing so, it will look to include goals and policymaking recommendations outlined in UC Berkeley’s targeted universalism framework. Targeted universalism aims to
create universal goals, identify gaps, and address barriers in access. There are additional opportunities to reduce runoff and improve water infiltration and lessen the impacts of the Urban Heat Island in the area.
important to note that race is a more powerful predictor of pollution exposure than social class; racial minorities are more likely to be exposed to environmental pollution than whites of the same social class. Los Angeles County is
also characterized by a particularly high level of residential segregation by race and ethnicity, and especially evident in Glendale due to its history as a sundown town.
CalEnviroScreen (CES 3.0) is a state-wide screening
methodology that uses environmental, health, and
socioeconomic information to identify California
communities that are disproportionately burdened by
multiple sources of pollution and sensitive to the effects of such pollution. CES 3.0 is a composite score of 20 indicators across 4 main components, exhibited in the following matrix, and is used as a tool to reduce pollution and prioritize State infrastructure investments.
!melk+BuroHappold INTRODUCTION: THE PROJECT & THE PROCESS 353 Pollution & population factors
pollution burden
(exposures)
environmental
effects
population
characteristics
(sensitive populations)
socioeconomic
factors
- OZONE
- DIESEL PM
- PESTICIDE USE
SOLID WASTE
SITES & FACILITIES
-
CLEANUP
SITES
-
IMPAIRED WATER
BODIES
-
GROUNDWATER
THREATS
-
HAZARDOUS WASTE
GENERATORS & FACILITIES
-
- PM2.5
- ASTHMA
- POVERTY
EDUCATIONAL
ATTAINMENT
-
LINGUISTIC
ISOLATION
-
- UNEMPLOYMENT
HOUSING BURDENED
LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
-
- CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE
LOW-BIRTH WEIGHT
INFANTS
- - TRAFFIC
TOXIC RELEASES
FROM FACILITIES
-
DRINKING WATER
CONTAMINANTS
-
1177 of 1517
The Verdugo Wash also has an opportunity to align with and build upon strategies identified in the Greener Glendale Plan and other existing reports. These strategies may include, but are not limited to encouraging natural, low water use landscaping in yards and parkways, exploring the design of recreation areas that can hold runoff, and enhancing wildlife corridors and the native habitat. There will also be efforts to identify significant ecological areas, wildlife corridors, and habitats for preservation, including oak woodlands.
Additionally, it will be important to identify areas that are not within walking distance of recreational open space, to develop strategies for providing more equitable and
universal access to the added amenities. The Verdugo Wash site has the potential to incorporate aspects of the Grayson Repowering Project. The City of Glendale Department of
Water and Power has proposed to repower the Grayson
Power Plant as a more reliable and efficient clean-air facility.
The plant will be turned into a 260-megawatt net modern power generator with estimated commercial operation in
summer of 2022.
Glendale’s Tree Power Program for free shade trees is a successful project that helps eligible residential customers en
)
y Points
sh
nel)
er
ale
en
)
y Points
sh
nel)
er
ale
Burden
ation
stics
ty of
orks, Los
epartment
California
ental
essment.
save energy by offering them up to three free shade trees to plant on their property. Properly planted shade trees can help residents save 10%-50% in air conditioning costs.
Challenges & Gaps for Sustainability
There are a range of upcoming challenges and study
gaps that would benefit from citywide planning processes (independent of the Verdugo Wash Visioning process).
A primary task of the Visioning sustainability framework is to identify areas that are not within 1/3-mile distance of an existing public park or open space and developing strategies to provide park space for them. It will also be beneficial to produce a citywide canopy coverage inventory and analysis and adopt a canopy coverage plan.
The project will also require the development of a
sustainable urban watershed planning process that
addresses the ecological integrity of all Glendale water sources.
354 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE Pollution & population map: this figure outlines the CES 3.0 scores for census tracts within Glendale. The highest pollution burden is concentrated around Downtown and the western border of Glendale, intersecting the Verdugo Wash. CES 3.0 emphasizes that these census tracts experience pollution from more than one source, where populations facing socioeconomic vulnerability can be further susceptible to negative health effects. data source(s): City of Glendale Public Works, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 10-20
CAL ENVIROSCREEN SCORE
(CES 3.0)
20-30
30-40
40-50
50-60
60-70
70-80
80-90
90-99
1/4 MILE BUFFER
VERDUGO WASH
CITY OF GLENDALE
EXISTING ENTRY POINTS
1178 of 1517
ENVIRONMENTAL OPPORTUNITIES
Environmental justice is defined within State law to mean “the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption,
implementation and enforcement of environmental
laws, regulations, and policies.” It is critically important in the Greater Los Angeles region, where the burden of
environmental pollution is unequally distributed. Air pollution, proximity to industrial pollutants, and water and soil pollution are examples of the types of hazards that impact health that environmental justice communities tend to bear. It is also important to note that race is a more powerful predictor of pollution exposure than social class; racial minorities are more likely to be exposed to environmental pollution than whites of the same social class. Los Angeles County is
also characterized by a particularly high level of residential segregation by race and ethnicity, and especially evident in the Glendale due to its history as a sundown town.
CalEnviroScreen (CES) is a state-wide screening
methodology that uses environmental, health, and
socioeconomic information to identify California
communities that are disproportionately burdened by
multiple sources of pollution and sensitive to the effects of such pollution. CES 3.0 is a composite score of 20
indicators across 4 main components, exhibited in Figure 46, and is used as a tool to reduce pollution and prioritize State infrastructure investments. Note that the draft CES
4.0 was in the public comment period when this analysis was conducted and the finalized version is recommended
to be utilized in future phases, as it includes methodology improvements and data updates.
Figure 47 below outlines the CES 3.0 scores for census
tracts within Glendale. The highest pollution burden is concentrated around Downtown and the western border
of Glendale, intersecting the Verdugo Wash. CES 3.0
emphasizes that these census tracts experience pollution from more than one source, where populations facing
socioeconomic vulnerability can be further susceptible
to negative health effects. From an environmental justice standpoint, the downstream portion of the Verdugo
Wash has the greatest potential to improve social and
environmental outcomes and should thus be prioritized for the implementation of design measures.
Figure 46: Pollution and Population Factors
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX D: SUSTAINABILITY 355
1179 of 1517
Figure 47: Pollution and Population Map ©BuroHappold
CalEnviroScreen
Score (CES 3.0)
10 - 20
20 - 30
30 - 40
40 - 50
50 - 60
60 - 70
70 - 80
80 - 90
90 - 99
Existing Entry Points
Verdugo Wash
(Open Channel)
1/4 Mile Buffer
City of Glendale
CalEnviroScreen
Score (CES 3.0)
10 - 20
20 - 30
30 - 40
40 - 50
50 - 60
60 - 70
70 - 80
80 - 90
90 - 99
Existing Entry Points
Verdugo Wash
(Open Channel)
1/4 Mile Buffer
City of Glendale
Pollution Burden
and Population
Characteristics
Data Source(s): City of
Glendale Public Works, Los
Angeles County Department
of Public Works, California
Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment.
356 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1180 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX D: SUSTAINABILITY 357
1181 of 1517
358 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1182 of 1517
appendix E.
community
outreach online
survey results
raw data
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX D: SUSTAINABILITY 359
1183 of 1517
ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
“Initial Visioning Concepts: Narrow Segments”
360 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1184 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 361 1185 of 1517
362 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1186 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 363 1187 of 1517
364 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1188 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 365 1189 of 1517
366 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1190 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 367 1191 of 1517
368 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1192 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 369 1193 of 1517
370 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1194 of 1517
Email results have been omitted to maintain
participants’ privacy
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 371 1195 of 1517
ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
“Initial Visioning Concepts: Wide Segments”
372 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1196 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 373 1197 of 1517
374 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1198 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 375 1199 of 1517
376 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1200 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 377 1201 of 1517
378 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1202 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 379 1203 of 1517
380 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1204 of 1517
Email results have been omitted to maintain
participants’ privacy
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 381 1205 of 1517
ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS
“Verdugo Wash Visioning Survey”
382 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1206 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 383 1207 of 1517
384 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1208 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 385 1209 of 1517
386 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1210 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 387 1211 of 1517
388 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1212 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 389 1213 of 1517
390 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1214 of 1517
ONLINE SURVEY
“My Vision of the Verdugo Wash”
Results from Glendale Residents around the Wash
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 391 1215 of 1517
392 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1216 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 393 1217 of 1517
394 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1218 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 395 1219 of 1517
396 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1220 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 397 1221 of 1517
398 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1222 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 399 1223 of 1517
400 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1224 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 401 1225 of 1517
402 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1226 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 403 1227 of 1517
404 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1228 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 405 1229 of 1517
406 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1230 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 407 1231 of 1517
408 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1232 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 409 1233 of 1517
410 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1234 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 411 1235 of 1517
412 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1236 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 413 1237 of 1517
414 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1238 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 415 1239 of 1517
416 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1240 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 417 1241 of 1517
418 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1242 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 419 1243 of 1517
420 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1244 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 421 1245 of 1517
422 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1246 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 423 1247 of 1517
ONLINE SURVEY
“My Vision of the Verdugo Wash”
Results from Glendale Residents not around the Wash
424 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1248 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 425 1249 of 1517
426 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1250 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 427 1251 of 1517
428 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1252 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 429 1253 of 1517
430 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1254 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 431 1255 of 1517
432 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1256 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 433 1257 of 1517
434 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1258 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 435 1259 of 1517
436 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1260 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 437 1261 of 1517
438 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1262 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 439 1263 of 1517
440 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1264 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 441 1265 of 1517
442 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1266 of 1517
ONLINE SURVEY
“My Vision of the Verdugo Wash”
Results from non-Glendale Residents
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 443 1267 of 1517
444 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1268 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 445 1269 of 1517
446 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1270 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 447 1271 of 1517
448 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1272 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 449 1273 of 1517
450 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1274 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 451 1275 of 1517
452 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1276 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 453 1277 of 1517
454 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1278 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 455 1279 of 1517
456 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1280 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 457 1281 of 1517
458 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1282 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 459 1283 of 1517
460 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1284 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 461 1285 of 1517
462 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1286 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 463 1287 of 1517
464 THE VERDUGO WASH VISIONING STUDY • FINAL REPORT CITY OF GLENDALE 1288 of 1517
!melk+BuroHappold APPENDIX E: COMMUNITY OUTREACH SURVEY RESULTS RAW DATA 465 1289 of 1517
!melk
+BuroHappold
1290 of 1517
8c
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Request for Proposal for Development of a Plan for Clean Energy Studies per Council Resolution No. 22-125.
1) Resolution directing staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for development of a Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources (DER), Consistent with Council Resolution No. 22-125.
2) Motion to Note and File Report.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action
Approved for November 15, 2022 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On August 16, 2022, City Council adopted Resolution No. 22-125, which among other things, declared the City of Glendale’s intent to adopt policies and practices designed to reach a goal of having at least ten percent of GWP customers adopt solar and energy storage systems by 2027, and develop additional demand management measures, with a minimum total peak dispatchable and peak-load-reducing capacity of 100 MW. In support of said goals, City Council directed staff to submit a proposed Request for Proposals (RFP) to engage the services of a consultant, or consultants to develop the plan and to complete the studies and analysis specified in Resolution No. 22-125, along with proposed timelines for the work, to City Council for its consideration on or before November 15, 2022.
COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Environmental Stewardship: The development of a plan will assist as a roadmap to achieving the goal of having at least ten percent of GWP customers adopt solar and energy storage systems, and to develop additional demand management measures.
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to issue the RFP attached hereto as Exhibit 1, and to note and file this report.
1291 of 1517
2 c 8
BACKGROUND
The City of Glendale is fully supportive of ensuring a clean energy future for its citizens.
On August 16, 2022, the City Council resolved the following through Resolution No. 22- 125:
• The City of Glendale intends to maximize the use of clean and renewable energy to serve Glendale’s energy needs.
• It is the policy of the City of Glendale that future investments in equipment and infrastructure to produce electricity to serve the needs of the City and utility customers will, to the maximum extent possible, be in clean, renewable, or noncarbon-emitting resources excluding renewable biofuels not already permitted or approved.
• The City of Glendale intends to achieve 100% clean, renewable, or non-carbonemitting energy excluding renewable biofuels not already permitted or approved, by no later than 2035.
• The City of Glendale intends to adopt policies and practices designed to reach a goal of having at least ten percent of GWP customers adopt solar and energy storage systems by 2027, and develop additional demand management measures, with a minimum total peak dispatchable and peak-load-reducing capacity of 100 MW.
In realization of these goals, City Council directed staff to prepare a proposed Request for Proposals to engage the services of a consultant, or consultants, to develop a plan and to complete the studies and analysis consistent with Resolution No. 22-125, along with proposed timelines for the work, to be submitted to City Council for its consideration on or before November 15, 2022.
ANALYSIS
Exhibit 1, attached, is the proposed Request for Proposals (RFP) directed by City Council on August 16, 2022. Much of the RFP contains standard language and legal requirements. The relevant sections for review, discussion, and comment are as follows:
1. Introduction.
A. Services Requested
Under this RFP, the City of Glendale, through its utility department, Glendale Water & Power (“GWP” or “City”) is soliciting proposals from suitably qualified proposers (“Contractor”) for the three categories of services listed under the Scope of Services section. The City may award each category of services separately, or as one contract.
B. Mandatory Qualifications
To be eligible to perform the services, a Proposer must meet the minimum qualification requirements, which the City will determine from the Proposer’s Qualification Statement. The Proposer’s Qualification Statement is contained in the City’s Proposal Forms contained in the RFP (Appendix D). As part of the Proposer’s Qualifications Statement, the proposal must provide 1292 of 1517
3 c 8
satisfactory evidence that:
• The Proposer has successfully completed at least two similar projects; each comparable in scope and scale to that proposed in the proposal, within five years before the proposal deadline, and with a dollar value equal to or in excess of the proposal submitted for this project.
2. Scope of Services.
Category 1: Solar and DER Development Plan
Develop a plan to achieve the goal of having at least ten percent of GWP customers adopt solar and energy storage systems by 2027, and to develop additional demand management measures, with a minimum total peak dispatchable and peak-load-reducing capacity of 100 MW.
The plan must include policies and incentives designed to be sufficient to ensure customers will adopt solar and energy storage at a rate that achieves the adoption and capacity goals stated above.
The plan must include an alternative approach with a mix of storage at customer sites and at GWP-controlled sites, rather than all storage being located at customer sites.
The plan must include, at a minimum, the following specific policies and incentives:
• Maintenance of a robust Net Metering policy.
• Upfront incentives or rebates on solar installations designed to achieve a payback period that will prompt consumers to adopt solar and storage in numbers sufficient to reach the goals. • Development of a competitive Feed-in Tariff program.
• Upfront rebates combined with ongoing performance-based incentives for battery storage systems.
• Policies specifically aimed to lower-income customers, customers in heavily pollution-burdened areas of the City, multifamily properties, and rental properties.
• The plan should also include additional incentives and outreach programs for energy efficiency, demand reduction, and shifting energy use to off-peak time periods.
• The plan shall consider electric system reliability.
Category 2: Estimate of Dispatchable Capacity Analysis
Calculate the estimated dispatchable capacity and demand reduction that can be achieved through the plan developed in Category 1.
1293 of 1517
4 c 8
Category 3: Cost & Benefit Analysis
Complete an analysis of the benefits and cost of the plan developed in Category 1. The analysis must include: direct and indirect economic benefits and costs, as well as environmental, societal, and other noneconomic benefits and costs, and direct and indirect impacts to lowand moderate-income households. If the analysis concludes any negative impact, the consultant shall include program options to mitigate the impact.
3. Method of Selection.
Proposals will first be reviewed to ensure compliance with the terms of the RFP.
Non-compliant or non-responsive proposals may be rejected. The City will then evaluate the proposals in accordance with the criteria listed below.
A. Basis for Award and Evaluation Criteria.
The City will conduct an initial review of all proposals for responsiveness and compliance with minimum and mandatory requirements on a pass/ fail basis.
Proposals that satisfy the initial review will be evaluated and scored on the criteria listed below. Each criterion has a maximum allowable percentage.
B. Selecting a Proposer.
Proposals will be reviewed and evaluated by a panel comprised of City staff familiar with the subject matter of the Project. In addition, the evaluation panel may include such outside public sector or academic community expertise as deemed desirable by the General Manager, the City Manager and/or the City Council.
All short-listed Proposers shall attend a mandatory oral interview. Failure to attend the mandatory interview will result in rejection of the proposal as nonresponsive.
If the City Council approves a proposal or proposals for further consideration, GWP will begin work with the selected Proposer(s) to implement the proposed project.
WEIGHT
25%
20%
20%
20%
15%
Reasonableness and quality of the proposal
Proposal cost
Ability to meet proposed schedule and budget estimates
CRITERIA COMPONENT
Proposer’s qualifications and experience
Proposed methodolgy/approach to be used in the development of the benefit-cost analysis
1294 of 1517
5 c 8
4. Anticipated Schedule of Events. The following is the anticipated schedule of events for this RFP. GWP reserves the right to modify the schedule of events as needed, in its discretion:
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). It is not a project as defined by CEQA and there is no reasonable likelihood that compliance with AB 361 will result in any significant impacts to the environment.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to issue the RFP as drafted and note and file this report.
Alternative 2: Direct the City Manager, or his designee, to incorporate changes and recommendations of City Council and issue the modified RFP.
Alternative 3: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.
DATE EVENT RESPONSIBILITY
December 1, 2022 RFP Distribution City
January 1, 2023 Submit Notice of Intent to Submit Proposal (optional) Proposer TBD Optional Proposer Conference City
January 27, 2023 Last Day to Submit interim Questions Proposer February 3, 2023 Proposal Deadline, No Later Than 5:00 PM Proposer February 2023 City Reviews Proposals for Completeness City February 2023 Panel Reviews Proposals City
March 2023 Short-listed Candidate Interviews City
March 2023 Final Candidate(s) Announced City
March 2023 Last Day to Object to RFP or Evaluation Process Proposer May 2023 Contract Award (City Council approval) City
1295 of 1517
6 c 8
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:
Craig Kuennen, Assistant General Manager - Business Services Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Request for Proposals for Developing a Plan to Increase Solar Penetration, and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources (DER). 1296 of 1517
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,
CALIFORNIA, DIRECTING STAFF TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A PLAN TO INCREASE SOLAR PENETRATION AND
DEVELOP ADDITOINAL DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES (DER),
CONSISTENT WITH COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 22-125
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:
WHEREAS, on August 16, 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution 22-125, declaring, among other things, the City’s intent to adopt policies and practices designed to reach a goal of having at least ten percent of Glendale Water & Power (GWP) customers adopt solar and energy storage systems by 2027, and develop additional demand management measures, with a minimum total peak dispatchable and peakload-reducing capacity of 100 MW; and WHEREAS, in support of the above goals, City Council directed staff to submit a proposed Request For Proposals (RFP) to engage the services of a consultant, or consultants to develop the plan and to complete the studies and analysis specified in Resolution No. 22-125; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the Report dated November 15, 2022 by the General Manager of GWP relating to the proposed RFP to develop the plan and complete the studies and analysis as specified herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA:
Section 1. That, the City Council determines that the RFP as described in the Report dated November 15, 2022 by the General Manager of GWP is consistent with Council Resolution No. 22-125.
Section 2. That, the City Council hereby directs staff to issue the RFP for development of a Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources (DER).
Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on this ___ day of _________, 2022. ________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
City Clerk
1297 of 1517
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Suzie Abajian PhD, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _______________ was adopted by a majority vote of the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the ______ day of ______________________, 2022, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
________________________
City Clerk
1298 of 1517
M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________________________, that the City Council hereby notes and files the Report dated November 15, 2022, by the General Manager of Glendale Water & Power Department regarding the Request for Proposal for development of a plan to increase solar penetration, and develop additional Distributed Energy Resources (DER) per Council Resolution No. 22-125.
Vote as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
1299 of 1517
City of Glendale
GLENDALE WATER & POWER
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR
DEVELOPING A PLAN TO INCREASE
SOLAR PENETRATION AND DEVELOP
ADDITIONAL DISTRIBUTED ENERGY
RESOURCES (DER)
December 1, 2022
EXHIBIT 1
1300 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
2 Contents
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................ 3 A. SERVICES REQUESTED............................................................................................................................................3 B. DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS.................................................................................................................................3 C. TERM OF SERVICES AND CONTRACT .........................................................................................................................5 D. MANDATORY QUALIFICATIONS................................................................................................................................5 E. CALIFORNIA CONTRACTOR LICENSE ..........................................................................................................................5 F. PROPOSAL SECURITY .............................................................................................................................................6 G. PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE ...................................................................................................................................6 H. INSURANCE .........................................................................................................................................................6 I. PROPOSER’S INDEMNIFICATION OF THE CITY ..............................................................................................................6 J. ABOUT THE CITY OF GLENDALE ...............................................................................................................................7 II. RFP PROCESS ................................................................................................................................................ 9 A. ANTICIPATED SCHEDULE OF EVENTS .........................................................................................................................9 B. RFP DISTRIBUTION; INTERESTED PROPOSER REGISTRATION........................................................................................10 C. OPTIONAL PROPOSER CONFERENCE .......................................................................................................................10 D. PROPOSAL DEADLINE AND PROPOSAL SUBMISSION...................................................................................................10 E. INTERIM INQUIRIES AND RESPONSES; INTERPRETATION OR CORRECTION OF RFP ............................................................11 F. ADDENDA .........................................................................................................................................................12 III. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND INSTRUCTIONS.......................................................................................... 12 A. EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS.............................................................................................................................12 B. PROPOSER’S REPRESENTATIONS IN THE RESPONSE ....................................................................................................12 C. WITHDRAWAL, CANCELLATION, OR MODIFICATION OF A PROPOSAL.............................................................................13 D. PROPOSAL PREPARATION EXPENSES.......................................................................................................................14 IV. PROPOSAL CONTENT AND FORMAT ........................................................................................................... 14 A. USING THE ATTACHED PROPOSAL FORMS ...............................................................................................................14 B. IDENTIFYING PROPRIETARY INFORMATION; PUBLIC RECORDS ACT................................................................................14 C. SIGNATURE(S) ...................................................................................................................................................15 D. PROPOSAL RETENTION ........................................................................................................................................15 V. METHOD OF SELECTION.............................................................................................................................. 15 A. BASIS FOR AWARD AND EVALUATION CRITERIA ........................................................................................................16 B. SELECTING A PROPOSER.......................................................................................................................................16 C. CITY’S RESERVATION OF RIGHTS ............................................................................................................................16 VI. AWARD OF CONTRACT ............................................................................................................................... 17 VII. LETTER OF OBJECTION; PROCEDURES..................................................................................................... 18 APPENDIX A – SCOPE OF SERVICES ...................................................................................................................... 20 A. OBJECTIVES.......................................................................................................................................................21 B. STATEMENT OF WORK ........................................................................................................................................21 C. REPORTING .......................................................................................................................................................21 APPENDIX B – INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS......................................................................................................... 22 APPENDIX C – FORM OF CONTRACT..................................................................................................................... 29 APPENDIX D – PROPOSAL FORMS AND DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS ....................................................................... 72 1301 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
3 I. Introduction
A. Services Requested
Under this Request for Proposals (“RFP”), the City of Glendale, through its utility department, Glendale Water & Power (“GWP” or “City”) is soliciting Proposals from suitably qualified proposers (“Contractor”) for the following three categories of services.
The City may award each category of services separately, or as one contract. Consultant shall specify in the proposal which category(ies) the consultant is proposing on:
Category 1: Develop a plan to achieve the goal of having at least 10% of GWP customers adopt solar and energy storage systems by 2027, and to develop additional demand management measures, with a minimum total peak dispatchable and peak-load-reducing capacity of 100 MW.
Category 2: Calculate the estimated dispatchable capacity and demand reduction that can be achieved through the plan developed in Category 1.
Category 3: Complete an analysis of the benefits and cost of the plan developed in Category 1. The analysis must include: direct and indirect economic benefits and costs, as well as environmental, societal, and other noneconomic benefits and costs; and direct and indirect impacts to low- and moderate-income households. If the analysis concludes any negative impact, the consultant shall include program options to mitigate the impact.
A potential Proposer should read this document in its entirety before preparing and submitting a Proposal.
B. Definitions and Acronyms
In this RFP, the following words and phrases have the meaning ascribed to them below:
• Agreement / Contract The entire and integrated written agreement between the City and the Contractor that takes the place of prior
negotiations, representations, or agreements, either
written or oral.
• Best and Final Offer
(BAFO)
The City may request a BAFO from finalists at any time
in its sole discretion. If implemented, the BAFO process will allow Proposals to make final adjustments or clarify their Proposal and/or submit revised pricing. The City will provide further instructions if and when a BAFO process is implemented. Proposers are cautioned that the BAFO
process is optional and may not be implemented, and
Proposers should therefore not assume they will have an opportunity to amend Proposals or pricing after
submittal.
1302 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
4 • Capacity Unless otherwise specified in the RFP, capacity refers to the maximum electrical output a DER generates into the
GWP distribution grid during Critical Load Hours. For
DERs that are load-shifting or load-shedding, capacity
refers to the maximum electrical demand reduction that
is achieved in the GWP distribution grid during Critical Load Hours.
• City The City of Glendale. Depending on the context in which it is used, the term City also may refer to:
The geographic area known as the City of Glendale; or A person whom the City of Glendale employs or uses
and who is authorized to represent the City of Glendale in matters concerning the Project.
City of Glendale, through its utility department, Glendale Water and Power (“GWP”).
• City Project Manager The City’s designated representative for all issues related to the Project.
• Contractor The selected Proposer(s) to whom the City has awarded a Contract for the Project.
• Critical Load Hours Typically between 3:00 PM and 9:00 PM on Weekdays and Weekends
• DER Distributed Energy Resources refer to the categories of resources solicited by this RFP.
• Dispatchable This means the aggregated resource can be programmed to adjust the power output supplied to the
GWP electrical grid on demand.
• Interested Proposer A Proposer who has submitted a Notice of Intent to Submit Proposal with the City by the deadline specified in the Anticipated Schedule of Events set forth in Section II(A) of this RFP.
• Project The entire Services described in this RFP. Services may constitute the whole or a part of the Project.
• Proposal The documents and other items that a Proposer submits in response to this RFP.
• Proposal Deadline The date and time by which the hard copy Proposal must be received by the City, as specified in the Anticipated Schedule of Events set forth in Section II(A) of this RFP. • Proposer The person, entity, or organization that submits a Proposal in response to this RFP.
1303 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
5 • RFP This Request for Proposals and all of its attachments, including documents and other items from the City and
relevant third parties.
• Services The work, labor, tasks, operations, activities, materials, supplies, equipment, deliverables, duties, and obligations described in this RFP; and required by, and reasonably
inferable from, the Contract— whether completed or
partially completed.
• Subcontractor A contractor, supplier, vendor, person, entity, or organization whom Contractor hires, employs, or uses
on Contractor’s behalf to provide, perform, or fulfill a portion of the Services.
• Total Price Proposal
Amount
Aggregate sum of the proposal from Section E of Form
1 – Fee Schedule. In case of a discrepancy between unit prices and Total Price Proposal Amount, the Total Price Proposal Amount controls.
C. Term of Services and Contract
The plan must meet the goal of having at least 10% of GWP customers adopt solar and energy storage systems by December 31, 2027, and provide for development of additional demand management measures, with a minimum total peak dispatchable and peak-load-reducing capacity of 100 MW by December 31, 2027.
D. Mandatory Qualifications
To be eligible to perform the Services, a Proposer must meet the minimum qualification requirements, which the City will determine from the Proposer’s Qualification Statement.
The Proper’s Qualification Statement is contained in the City’s Proposal Forms which accompany this RFP (APPENDIX D). As part of the Proposer’s Qualifications Statement, the Proposal must provide satisfactory evidence that:
1. The Proposer has successfully completed at least two similar projects; each comparable in scope and scale to that proposed in the Proposal, within five (5) years before the Proposal Deadline and with a dollar value equal to or in excess of the Proposal submitted for this Project.
For Proposals submitted by a joint venture or consortium, the proposing entity must submit the qualifications of each member of the joint venture. The City will consider the combined experience of the members of the joint venture or consortium for purposes of evaluating the Proposer’s qualifications.
Proposers who do not meet the minimum requirements indicated will be deemed nonresponsive and excluded from further evaluation.
E. California Contractor License 1304 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
6 N/A.
F. Proposal Security
N/A.
G. Performance Assurance
N/A.
H. Insurance
At its expense, the successful Proposer must obtain and maintain insurance, while the Contract is in effect, that fully meets the requirements of, and contains provisions entirely consistent with, all of the City’s “Insurance Requirements,” which are noted in APPENDIX B (“Insurance Requirements”). Evidence of the insurance coverages will need to be in place before a Contractor starts performing the Services. A Proposer must be prepared to meet all City Insurance Requirements (at no cost to the City), if the Proposer is awarded a Contract. The City will require certificates of insurance and additional insured endorsements when the successful Proposer submits a signed Contract to the City.
For proposals that will utilize property not owned by the Proposer, the proposal shall also describe what insurance coverage or warranties that the Proposer will afford the property owner.
Before a Proposer submits a Proposal:
• A Proposer must give to its insurance company, or insurance agent, the “Insurance Requirements” in this RFP and the proposed Contract; • The insurance company’s underwriter or agent then must complete the “Insurance Requirements Affidavit” (contained in APPENDIX D) which states that the insurer’s underwriter or agent will furnish the City with the required insurance documents within fourteen (14) calendar days after the Proposer’s having been notified of the Contract’s award; and
• The Proposer must submit the “Insurance Requirements Affidavit” with its Proposal. The City may reject any Proposal made without this affidavit, or made with an incomplete affidavit form.
I. Proposer’s Indemnification of the City
At its expense, a Proposer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives from and against any and all liability, suits, actions, proceedings, judgments, claims, demands, liens, losses, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees, litigation, arbitration, mediation, appeal expenses) if a dispute, lawsuit, or other proceeding arises out of any one or more of the following (i) Proposer’s submitting the Proposal; (ii) the City’s accepting a Proposer’s Proposal; or (iii) the City’s awarding a Contract to one or more Proposers pursuant to this RFP, or state, federal, or local laws. 1305 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
7 J. About the City of Glendale
Glendale is the fourth largest city in Los Angeles County, has a current population of approximately 203,000 residents, and spans approximately 30.6 square miles.
The City incorporated on February 16, 1906, and as a Charter city, Glendale voters determine how the city government is organized and governed. A Council-Manager form of government manages Glendale. Five council members are elected at large to serve 4-year terms. Each year Council selects one member to serve as Mayor. The City Manager serves as the Chief Executive Officer.
The City’s Mission Statement is:
The City of Glendale delivers exceptional customer service through precision execution and innovative leadership.
As a premier City anchored in pride of civic ownership, Glendale’s success is realized through a community that is safe, prosperous, and rich in cultural offerings. The City accomplishes its mission and realizes its vision by providing emphasis on: fiscal responsibility; exceptional customer service; economic vibrancy; informed & engaged community; safe & healthy community; balanced, quality housing; community services & facilities; infrastructure & mobility; arts & culture; sustainability.
Glendale prides itself on the quality of services it provides to the community. As a fullservice City, each of the 14 departments strives to provide the highest quality of service to Glendale residents, businesses, and visitors. These departments include:
Administrative Services; City Attorney; City Clerk; Community Development; City Treasurer; Community Services & Parks; Fire; Glendale Water & Power; Human Resources; Information Services; Library, Arts & Culture; Management Services; Police; and Public Works.
Glendale is fully supportive of ensuring a clean energy future for its citizens. On August 16, 2022, resolved the following through Resolution No. 22-125:
• The City Glendale intends to maximize the use of clean and renewable energy to serve Glendale’s energy needs.
• It is the policy of the City of Glendale that future investments in equipment and infrastructure to produce electricity to serve the needs of the City and utility customers will to the maximum extent possible be in clean, renewable, or noncarbon-emitting resources excluding renewable biofuels not already permitted or approved.
• The City of Glendale intends to achieve 100% clean, renewable, or non-carbonemitting energy excluding renewable biofuels not already permitted or approved, by no later than 2035.
1306 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
8 • The City of Glendale intends to adopt policies and practices designed to reach a goal of having at least 10% of GWP customers adopt solar and energy storage systems by 2027, and develop additional demand management measures, with a minimum total peak dispatchable and peak-load-reducing capacity of 100 MW.
Glendale Water & Power
Glendale Water & Power is the City of Glendale’s water and electric utility, serving over 34,000 water and 88,000 electrical customers. GWP’s annual retail electrical load obligation is approximately 1 million MWHs. GWP’s peak load of 346 MW occurred in September 2017. The peak load is expected to grow with electrification of buildings and increased electric vehicles.
GWP is facing the retirement and planned demolition of its largest generation asset, the Grayson Power Plant located within the City of Glendale. The retirement of Grayson’s aging units provides GWP with a unique opportunity to shift to cleaner alternatives to power the City. GWP seeks to supply reliable and affordable energy in a sustainable manner. On February 15, 2022, the City Council adopted an Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Grayson Repowering Project. The City Council approved a plan to replace all but one (1) of the power plant’s generating units with a large-scale battery energy storage system (“BESS”) (with a 50 MW/200 MWh BESS to be installed in the near term, and an additional 25 MW/100 MWh BESS to be added in future years).
Additionally, the City is planning for the addition of up to five (5) reciprocating internal combustion engines (“RICE”), with a total capacity of 93 MW. The final decision on whether and how many RICE engines will be installed will be made by the end of calendar year 2022.
GWP is fully supportive of the City’s clean energy future, and is fully committed to developing policies and programs to realize such.
On May 22, 2022, GWP released an RFP seeking local clean energy resources to supplement and potentially replace the need for some or all the RICE engines at the Grayson Power Plant. That RFP seeks up to 50 MW in reliable, affordable, and achievable clean energy solutions to help meet the City’s energy and capacity needs. Because the City’s transmission lines are very constrained, that RFP seeks local clean energy resources that can deliver energy, energy savings, storage, and/or capacity to Glendale without utilizing GWP’s limited transmission resources. GWP expects to complete this RFP process and select one or more projects by December 2022.
GWP has provided a variety of low-income, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and research, demonstration since 1999. These programs have been funded through a non-bi-passable public benefits charge on electric bills. Please refer to https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/glendale-water-and-power for a list of GWP’s current programs. Additionally, reports containing annual results for GWP and other municipal utilities can be found at:
1 Unit 9, the newest power plant Unit, will be retained 1307 of 1517.
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
9 https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/glendale-water-andpower/reports-plans/gwp-annual-energy-efficiency-program-results.
On July 18, 2022, GWP hired a consultant to review its current low-income, energy efficiency, renewable energy, and research, development and demonstration program portfolio with the purpose of analyzing the potential for increased energy efficiency (EE), load management (LM), and distribute energy resources (DERs) to augment the GWP power system, with special emphasis in the following areas:
a. GWP in Focus: Review of GWP’s current programs in the “Big Three:” Energy Efficiency, Load Management, and Distributed Energy Resources.
What’s the current portfolio look like? What analyses, if any, have been done? What incentives does GWP offer? Are there any pertinent or special rates for the “big three?” Is GWP meeting its targets in each customer segment? What are those targets? Can they be increased? This project will also look back. What’s been tried in the past? What lessons can we learn? What can be revisited? What innovative ideas does staff have for enhanced programs moving forward?
b. California Munis in Focus: Examine the programs and services being offered by other California municipal utilities. Are there opportunities to “piggyback” on contacts with select vendors, streamlining the timeline for deployment. Also included the work plan is an investigation of Community Choice Aggregators’ programs and services.
c. California IOUs: Less relevant, but still certainly worthy of examination, are the utility programs. What incentives are being offered? Rates? What technologies are in focus? What can be imported from Edison, from PG&E, from SDG&E to support GWP’s programs?
d. National / International: Look at European program designs. What’s going on in leading European cities that Glendale can effectively emulate? Are there building standards from Asia that might inform Glendale’s standards? What are the barriers to implementing such building standards in Glendale and how such barriers can be overcome?
e. Special V2G Investigation: Is there an opportunity to develop a vehicle-togrid programs(V2G) pilot program? How far off is this technology? Can GWP attract a vendor and become the West Coast site for a pilot program? Can GWP provide incentives to become the leading V2G municipal utility? This report is expected to be completed in December 2022.
II. RFP Process
A. Anticipated Schedule of Events
The following is the anticipated schedule of events for this RFP. GWP reserves the right to modify the schedule of events as needed, in its discretion:
1308 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
10 B. RFP Distribution; Interested Proposer Registration A prospective Proposer may receive this RFP by mail, e-mail, in person or online at www.GlendaleWaterAndPower.com. Distribution of the RFP in no way represents the City’s acceptance of a Proposer’s qualifications, reputation, or ability to perform the Services.
Interested Proposers are requested to submit an email to [email protected] by the date and time specified in the Anticipated Schedule of Events set forth in the Section II(A) of this RFP, to be added to the list of Interested Proposers.
C. Optional Proposer Conference
An Optional Proposer Conference will be held on the date and time specified in the Schedule Events (Section II(A) of this RFP) via an online platform (Webex or MS Teams; details to be announced). The Optional Proposer Conference is open to Proposers and their representatives (including subcontractors) only.
The purpose of this conference is to ensure that Proposers have adequate information to respond fully and comprehensively to the City’s requirements. During the conference, City staff will discuss with prospective Proposers the objectives of the RFP and will answer questions arising from Proposers’ initial review of this RFP. Before the conference takes place, Proposers should review the RFP thoroughly and should be familiar with its content, as well as the City’s functional and technical requirements.
D. Proposal Deadline and Proposal Submission
The City must receive the Proposal on or before the date and time of the Proposal Deadline specified in the Anticipated Schedule of Events set forth in Section II(A) of this RFP. A Proposal received after the Proposal Deadline will be considered nonresponsive and the City will return the Proposal, unopened.
DATE EVENT RESPONSIBILITY
December 1, 2022 RFP Distribution City
January 1, 2023 Submit Notice of Intent to Submit Proposal (optional) Proposer TBD Optional Proposer Conference City
January 27, 2023 Last Day to Submit interim Questions Proposer February 3, 2023 Proposal Deadline, No Later Than 5:00 PM Proposer February 2023 City Reviews Proposals for Completeness City February 2023 Panel Reviews Proposals City
March 2023 Short-listed Candidate Interviews City
March 2023 Final Candidate(s) Announced City
March 2023 Last Day to Object to RFP or Evaluation Process Proposer May 2023 Contract Award (City Council approval) City
1309 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
11 A Proposal must be submitted on the attached Proposal Form package. Oral, telephonic, facsimile, or electronically transmitted (email) Proposals are invalid and the City will not accept or consider them.
A Proposer must submit two (2) printed Proposal documents (consisting of 1 original and 1 copy), plus one electronic copy on a USB flash drive, in a sealed, clearly labeled envelope (or box). A Proposal may be delivered by mail or in person.
The Proposal must be clearly marked “DEVELOPING A PLAN TO INCREASE SOLAR
PENETRATION AND DEVELOP ADDITIONAL DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES (DER)” and addressed to:
Glendale Water & Power
Attention: Mark Young, General Manager, GWP
141 N. Glendale Ave., 4th Floor, Room 450
Glendale, CA 91206
E. Interim Inquiries and Responses; Interpretation or Correction of RFP
If a Proposer has any question about this RFP, the proposed Contract, or the Scope of Services― or if a Proposer finds any error, inconsistency, or ambiguity in the RFP, or the proposed Contract, or both― the Proposer must make a “Request for Clarification” before submitting its Proposal.
The Proposer must submit any Request for Clarification in writing to:
[email protected]
The City must receive the Request for Clarification on or before the date and time of the “Last Day to Submit Interim Questions” specified in the Anticipated Schedule of Events set forth in Section II(A) of this RFP.
If necessary, the City will make clarifications, interpretations, corrections, or changes to the RFP, or the proposed Contract, or both, in writing by issuing Addenda, as described in Section II(F) (below). A Proposer must not rely upon, and the City is not bound by, purported clarifications, interpretations, corrections, or changes to the RFP and the proposed Contract, that are made verbally or in a manner other than a written advisory from the City.
Contact with City Commissioners and City Councilmembers, City Council Candidates is strictly prohibited. Proposers (actual or potential) and their team are prohibited from contacting any members of a City of Glendale Commission, Glendale City Council, or a City Council candidate regarding this procurement from the date of RFP advertisement through the date of execution of the contract. Any violation of the requirements set forth in this Section may constitute grounds for immediate disqualification of the offending firm from participation in this procurement. 1310 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
12 F. Addenda
The City will issue Addenda in writing only. The City will make reasonable efforts to deliver Addenda to all entities who have timely registered as Interested Proposers.
Addenda will also be posted on the GWP website, www.GlendaleWaterAndPower.com.
At any time before the Proposal Deadline, (specified in Section II(A) of this RFP), the City may issue Addenda withdrawing the RFP or postponing the Proposal Deadline. However, if any Addenda results in a material change to this RFP, or the proposed Contract, or both, the City will extend the Proposal Deadline by not less than seventy-two (72) hours.
The City will treat transmittal of Addenda to Interested Proposers by e-mail and posting of the Addenda at www.GlendaleWaterAndPower.com as sufficient notice of the changes made by the City.
III. General Requirements and Instructions
A. Examination of Documents
Before submitting an RFP Response, a Proposer must:
• Thoroughly examine the RFP. A thorough review of this RFP is critical to obtaining an in-depth understanding of the requirements of this RFP. • Make all necessary investigations, examine documents, and understand the Scope of Services (APPENDIX A), and the requirements specified in this RFP, and the requirements of laws and regulations applicable to the Proposer and Proposal.
• Be able to furnish the City with valid insurance forms (including insurance certificates and additional insured endorsements) in compliance with the Insurance Requirements described in APPENDIX B.
B. Proposer’s Representations in the Response
By submitting a Proposal, a Proposer represents that:
• The RFP is sufficient in scope and detail to indicate and convey reasonable understanding of all requirements, terms, and conditions for performance of the Services required in this Project;
• The Proposer has exercised all necessary due diligence in making investigations and inquiries, examining documents, and inspecting sites, facilities, and requirements for this Project;
1311 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
13 • The Proposer is fully familiar with— and has fully considered— all facts, conditions, circumstances, and matters that may affect, in any way, the Proposer’s proposal or costs;
• The Proposal is an irrevocable offer for a period of at least one hundred eighty (180) calendar days following the Proposal Deadline; and • The Proposer is, and will be, in compliance with the RFP’s requirements, terms, and conditions.
C. Withdrawal, Cancellation, or Modification of a Proposal Before the Proposal Deadline:
A Proposer may withdraw and then modify a Proposal, by giving written notice, signed by the Proposer. A withdrawal request must be addressed as follows and delivered to:
Glendale Water & Power Administration
Attention: Mark Young, General Manager GWP
141 N. Glendale Ave., 4th Floor, Room 450
Glendale, CA 91206
For a withdrawal to become effective, the City must receive the Proposer’s written request for withdrawal before the Proposal Deadline. The City will not accept or consider a Proposer’s verbal, telephonic, facsimile, or email request for modification or withdrawal of a Proposal.
If a Proposer withdraws its Proposal, the withdrawal will not prejudice the Proposer’s right to submit a new Proposal, if the new Proposal is submitted: (a) in accordance with the RFP’s requirements, and (b) before the Proposal Deadline.
After the Proposal Deadline:
A Proposer must not withdraw, cancel, or modify its Proposal for a period of at least one hundred eighty (180) calendar days following the Proposal Deadline specified in Anticipated Schedule of Events set forth in the Section II(A) of this RFP, subject to the exception described in the next paragraph below. The City may extend the 180-day period upon the City’s written request and upon the affected Proposers’ written approval.
The City may allow a Proposer to withdraw or cancel a Proposal no later than five (5) days after the Proposal Deadline, if the Proposer establishes, to the City’s satisfaction, that all of the following circumstances exist:
1. The Proposer made a mistake in its Proposal;
2. Within five (5) days after the Proposal Deadline, the City receives from the Proposer written notice of the mistake and the notice specifies in detail how the mistake occurred;
3. The mistake made the Proposal materially different from what the Proposer had intended it to be; and
1312 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
14 4. The mistake was made in filling out the Proposal and was not due to error in judgment, or carelessness in reading the RFP or the proposed Contract.
D. Proposal Preparation Expenses
Expenses for developing the RFP response are entirely the responsibility of the Proposer and are not chargeable to the City in any manner. The City is not liable for any precontractual expenses, which are defined as expenses incurred by the Proposer in:
• Preparing its Proposal in response to this RFP.
• Negotiating with the City any matter related to the Proposal. • Any other expense incurred by the Proposer before the date of award of the Contract for this RFP.
IV. Proposal Content and Format
A. Using the Attached Proposal Forms
The “Proposal Forms” and additional instructions on the proposal content are set forth in this RFP in APPENDIX D. A Proposer must submit its Proposal only on those forms and by providing such supplemental information as required by the RFP. With its Proposal, the Proposer must submit various attachments and additional information as described in the Proposal Forms. For electronically submitted documents, all Excel spreadsheets must be submitted in native format.
The Proposer must fill in the blanks on the Proposal Forms, using a software forms filler or printing legibly in ink. When answering the Proposal Forms’ questions, the Proposer must furnish pertinent and relevant information rather than merely provide promotional facts or materials. The Proposer must respond to the Proposal Forms’ questions with all applicable information, in order for the City to consider the Proposal as “responsive.” If a Proposer fails to provide the information that the forms require, fails to return all the forms, or fails to submit the required attachments, the City may treat the Proposal as “non-responsive.”
The Proposer must place initials next to all interlineations, alterations, and erasures on the Proposal Forms.
The Proposer must not modify or qualify the Proposal Forms in any manner.
Unauthorized conditions, exemptions, limitations, or provisions attached to a Proposal will render it informal and may cause its rejection.
A consultant may submit a proposal for one, two or all three categories outlined in Appendix A – Scope of Services.
B. Identifying Proprietary Information; Public Records Act 1313 of 1517 City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
15 A Proposer must identify, and list all copyrighted material, trade secrets, or other proprietary information (“protectable documents”) that the Proposer included in its Proposal which the Proposer believes should be exempt from disclosure under California’s Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6250, et seq.
By listing the documents, the Proposer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives from and against any action, claim, lawsuit, or proceeding, including costs and expenses, arising out of or connected with the City’s refusal to disclose the protectable documents to any party making a request for those items.
The City will treat any Proposer, who fails to identify documents that the Proposer believes should be exempt from disclosure, as having waived its right to an exemption from disclosure, as the Public Records Act provides.
C. Signature(s)
The person or persons legally authorized to bind the Proposer to the RFP must sign the Proposal in ink. The individuals signing the Proposal must represent that they are authorized to bind the Proposer’s legal entity.
• A corporation must execute the Proposal by its duly authorized officer(s) in accordance with its corporate bylaws.
• A partnership must execute the Proposal by all its partners. After each signature, each partner must list a residential address or the firm’s address, either of which must include the state, zip code, and telephone number. • If the Proposer is a joint venture consisting of a combination of any of the above entities, each entity in the joint venture must sign the Proposal. • An individual signing a Proposal as an agent of another, or others must attach to the Proposal evidence of that person’s legal authority to sign on behalf of another or others.
D. Proposal Retention
All Proposals and other material submitted become the property of the City and may be returned only at the City’s option. Selection or rejection of the Proposal does not affect this right.
V. Method of Selection
All Proposals received on time will be opened, in a non-public setting, on the date specified in the Anticipated Schedule of Events set forth in Section II(A) of this RFP.
Proposals will first be reviewed to ensure compliance with the terms of this RFP. Noncompliant or non-responsive Proposals may be rejected. The City will then evaluate the Proposals in accordance with the criteria listed below. 1314 of 1517 City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
16 A. Basis for Award and Evaluation Criteria
The City will conduct an initial review of all proposals for responsiveness and compliance with minimum and mandatory requirements on a pass/ fail basis. Proposals that satisfy the initial review will be evaluated and scored on the criteria listed below. Each criterion has a maximum allowable percentage.
The City may investigate the qualifications of a Proposer under consideration, require confirmation of information furnished by the Proposer, and call upon the Proposer to provide additional information or evidence of the Proposer’s qualifications for the Services described in this RFP.
B. Selecting a Proposer
Proposals with be reviewed and evaluated by a panel comprised of City staff familiar with the subject matter of the Project. In addition, the evaluation panel may include such outside public sector or academic community expertise as deemed desirable by the General Manager or City Manager. The panel will make a recommendation to the General Manager, the City Manager and/or the City Council.
All short-listed proposers shall attend a mandatory oral interview. Short-listed Proposers will be contacted via email to schedule the interview. Failure to attend the mandatory interview will result in rejection of the Proposal as non-responsive.
If the City Council approves a Proposal or Proposals for further consideration, GWP will begin work with the selected Proposer(s) to implement the proposed project.
The City Council must approve any award(s) of Contract to successful Proposer(s) and no rights or obligations begin under an award until the approval is secured and all parties have duly signed a Contract.
C. City’s Reservation of Rights
WEIGHT
25%
20%
20%
20%
15%
Reasonableness and quality of the proposal
Proposal cost
Ability to meet proposed schedule and budget estimates
CRITERIA COMPONENT
Proposer’s qualifications and experience
Proposed methodolgy/approach to be used in the development of the benefit-cost analysis
1315 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
17 This RFP and the proposal evaluation process do not:
• Obligate the City to accept or select any Proposal; or • Constitute an agreement by the City that it will actually enter into a Contract with any Proposer.
When it best serves the City’s interests, the City may do any one or more of the following:
• Reject any Proposal or all Proposals at its sole discretion. • Extend the deadline for accepting Proposals.
• Accelerate the pace of the RFP process if only one or a limited number of Proposals are received.
• Waive any or all information, defects, irregularities, or informalities in a Proposal. • Accept amendments to Proposals after the Proposal Deadline. • Revise, change, or amend the RFP’s evaluation or selection criteria before the Proposal Deadline.
• Cancel, withdraw, revise, change, amend, or negotiate the terms of this RFP, the proposed Contract, or both.
• Reissue a Request for Proposals.
• Conduct one or more oral interviews.
• Visit a Proposer’s business or facilities.
• Examine financial records of a Proposer to the extent necessary to ensure financial stability.
• Make a partial award.
• Negotiate with one or more Proposers.
• Award a Contract to one or more Proposers.
• Require a best and final offer from one or more Proposers.
VI. Award of Contract
If the City Council selects one or more Proposals, the City will give the selected Proposer(s) a “Notice of Intent to Award Contract” that will specify the “start date” for performing the Services.
Once selected, the successful Proposer must enter into a written Agreement with the City within fourteen (14) calendar days following the Proposer’s receiving the City’s “Notice of Award of Contract.”. The RFP, or any part of it, and the Proposer’s responses, will be incorporated into and made a part of the Contract. Contract templates are provided as APPENDIX C. 1316 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
18 Before any services can commence, the selected Proposer must execute the Contract. To facilitate the Project’s smooth and timely implementation, a Proposer responding to this RFP must review all terms and conditions of the Contract, including, but not limited to, provisions relating to insurance, indemnity, credit support, guarantees, and termination.
By submitting a Proposal to the City in response to this RFP, a Proposer is deemed to have provided its approval to the Contract. If a Proposer seeks limited modification of the Contract, then in the Proposal a Proposer must identify the proposed changes.
However, changes or qualifications to the Contract will be weighed in the evaluation of the Proposal and may cause rejection of the Proposal as non-responsive, in the City’s determination.
The City reserves the right to negotiate further the Contract’s service-related terms and conditions. The Proposer whom the City Council selects must cooperate with the City in good faith to negotiate, sign, and deliver the final Contract. The City will draft the Contract and may require the selected Proposer to attend one or more Contract negotiation conferences. At any time and for any reason, if Contract negotiations with the selected Proposer fail to progress, to the City’s reasonable satisfaction, the City reserves the right to not only end negotiations with the selected Proposer, but also cancel the award and reject the Proposal. At its discretion, the City may then: reopen the proposal process; choose from among the remaining, if any, qualified proposers; reissue the RFP; negotiate directly with any firm for the Services; or choose not to contract for the Services. For the avoidance of doubt, the City may in its discretion negotiate with and/or award a contract to more than one Proposer.
The selected Proposer must submit to the City all of the following items:
• The Contract, properly signed by the Proposer.
• Insurance certificates and additional insured endorsements that fully conform to the Contract’s requirements.
• Credit support that fully conforms to the Contract’s requirements.
After the City receives the signed Contracts and insurance documents, the City Attorney’s office will review the Contract. Additionally, the City Attorney’s office or the City’s Risk and Insurance Services Manager will review the required insurance. If the selected Proposer has not changed any terms of the Contract, and if the insurance and the bond(s) conform to the Contract’s requirements, the City will sign the Contract and return an original of the Contract to the Proposer.
VII. Letter of Objection; Procedures
A Proposer, who believes that any part of this RFP is discriminatory against the Proposer or precludes the Proposer from being given reasonable consideration in the procurement process, must submit an objection in writing— by letter only— to the City. The City will not consider any verbal objection. The Letter of Objection must clearly state:
• The specific objections;
• The areas of concern; 1317 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
19 • The facts supporting the objections; and
• A proposed method for resolving the objections.
The Proposer, or the person who is duly authorized to represent the Proposer, must sign the correspondence.
The Proposer must deliver or mail the Letter of Objection to:
Glendale City Attorney’s Office
Attention: GWP Counsel
613 E. Broadway, Suite 220
Glendale, CA 91206
The City must receive the Letter of Objection on or before the date and time specified in Section II(A) of this RFP, “Anticipated Schedule of Events.” Upon the City’s timely receipt of the objection letter, the City will review the Proposer’s contention(s). If the City decides that the RFP― whether in whole or in part― needs revision, the City will prepare Addenda, as described in this RFP. 1318 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
20 APPENDIX A – Scope of Services
Consultant(s) shall submit a proposal for one or more of the following three categories of services. Consultant shall specify in the proposal which category of services the consultant is proposing on.
Category 1: Develop a plan to achieve the goal of having at least 10% of GWP customers adopt solar and energy storage systems by 2027, and to develop additional demand management measures, with a minimum total peak dispatchable and peak-load-reducing capacity of 100 MW.
The plan must include policies and incentives designed to be sufficient to ensure customers will adopt solar and energy storage at a rate that achieves the adoption and capacity goals stated above.
The plan must include an alternative approach with a mix of storage at customer sites and at GWP-controlled sites, rather than all storage being located at customer sites.
The plan must include, at a minimum, the following specific policies and incentives:
• Maintenance of a robust Net Metering policy.
• Upfront incentives or rebates on solar installations, designed to achieve a payback period that will prompt consumers to adopt solar and storage in numbers sufficient to reach the goals.
• Development of a competitive Feed-in Tariff program.
• Upfront rebates combined with ongoing performance-based incentives for battery storage systems.
• Policies specifically aimed to lower-income customers, customers in heavily pollution-burdened areas of the City, multifamily properties, and rental properties.
• The plan should also include additional incentives and outreach programs for energy efficiency, demand reduction, and shifting energy use to off-peak time periods.
• The plan shall consider electric system reliability.
Category 2: Calculate the estimated dispatchable capacity and demand reduction that can be achieved through the plan developed in Category 1.
Category 3: Complete an analysis of the benefits and cost of the plan developed in Category 1. The analysis must include: direct and indirect economic benefits and costs, as well as environmental, societal, and other noneconomic benefits and costs; and direct and indirect impacts to low- and 1319 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
21 moderate-income households. If the analysis concludes any negative impact, the consultant shall include program options to mitigate the impact.
A. Objectives
Glendale’s overall objectives are the following:
• Maximize the installation local solar and energy storage with a minimum target penetration rate of 10% of GWP’s customer base by December 2027 • Maximize the use of DER with a minimum total peak dispatchable and peakload-reducing capacity of 100 MW • Minimize the impact on rates in general, and low-income customer bills specifically
• Maintain overall system reliability
B. Statement of Work
For all Proposal Categories, Contractor shall provide a detailed outline of plan, with specific deliverables and completion milestones sufficient to meet City Council objectives by December 2027.
For Proposal Category 2, Contractor to specify the methodology to be used to calculate the estimated dispatchable capacity and demand reduction that can be achieved through the plan.
For Proposal Category 3, Contractor to specify the methodology to be used to conduct the benefit-cost analysis consistent with City Council direction.
C. Reporting
Progress Report
• Contractor shall prepare a progress report and send it via email five (5) business days prior to any scheduled project meetings (determined by GWP’s Project Management). The details and content of the progress report will be determined by the project managers and shall contain the following, at a minimum:
o An updated detailed project milestone schedule, with explanations for any changes
o A detailed list of activities not accomplished since the previous reports and the reasons and contingency plans to recover
o Identification of any item that might impact Contractor’s ability to meet the project schedule
o Updated list of Action Items identifying owner along with required resolution dates 1320 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
22 APPENDIX B – Insurance Requirements
Insurance Coverage limits and types of coverage for the Contract shall be established based upon the City’s risk assessment of the Proposal. The final insurance terms may differ from those contained herein. “PROFESSIONAL LIABILITY” INSURANCE
1.1 Without limiting CONSULTANT’s liability and at its sole expense, CONSULTANT shall obtain, pay for, and maintain a Professional Liability insurance policy.
1.2 The Professional Liability policy must
(A) Include “errors and omissions” coverage or “malpractice” coverage; (B) Afford “practice specific” or “project specific” coverage; (C) Provide limits of liability in an amount not less than:
(1) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per claim; and
(2) TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) in the aggregate;
(D) Cover a claim or claims arising out of the performance of professional services by:
(1) CONSULTANT;
(2) CONSULTANT’s Subcontractor(s);
(3) Anyone whom CONSULTANT or its Subcontractor(s) directly or indirectly employs or uses; or
(4) Anyone whose acts CONSULTANT or its Subcontractor(s) may be liable; and (E) Provide coverage for:
(1) The duration of this Agreement; and
(2) At least three (3) years after the Project’s completion:
(a) CONSULTANT shall obtain, pay for, and maintain an endorsement that adds an “extended reporting period” (“ERP”) or a “discovery” feature— to allow CITY to report a claim— for a period of not less than three (3) years following the initial policy’s expiration, or following CITY’s recordation of its “notice of completion” for the Project, whichever date is later. The endorsement for the ERP or discovery feature must provide identical policy limits, and meet the conditions, described in subparagraphs 1.2 (A) through (D) above; or (b) CONSULTANT shall obtain, pay for, and maintain successive renewal or replacement policies (with “prior acts” coverage), for a period of three (3) years following the initial policy’s expiration, or following CITY’s recordation of its “notice of completion” for the Project, whichever date is later. Each policy must have a “retroactive date” that coincides with, or is earlier than, this Agreement’s Effective Date. Additionally, each policy must provide identical policy limits, and meet the conditions, described in subparagraphs 1.2 (A) through (D) above.
1.3 All ERP or discovery endorsements, renewal policies, and replacement coverage policies are subject to CITY’s review and approval, in its sole discretion.
1321 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
23 1.4 CONSULTANT shall pay the full amount of all deductibles and any self-insured retention per claim for coverage under the Professional Liability insurance policy. “CYBER LIABILITY INSURANCE”
2.1 Without limiting CONTRACTOR’s liability and at its sole expense, CONTRACTOR shall obtain, pay for, and maintain a Cyber Liability insurance policy
2.2 Without limiting CONTRACTOR’s liability and at its sole expense, CONTRACTOR shall obtain, pay for, and maintain a Cyber Liability insurance policy.
2.3 The Cyber Liability policy must:
(A) Provide limits of liability in an amount not less than:
(1) FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000) for each occurrence or event and (2) FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000) in the annual aggregate; (B) cover claims including but not limited to: invasion of privacy violations, breach of data, disruption of networks, information theft, damage to or destruction of electronic information, release of private information, alternation of electronic information, introduction or intrusion of a virus, malware, notification, credit monitoring, breach response costs, regulatory fines and penalties, extortion and network security, and infringement of intellectual property, including but not limited to infringement of copyright, trademark, trade dress, up to the policy limits.
(C) contain first party and third party protections:
(1) The 1st Party coverage shall include notification of CITY’s clients, credit monitoring, public relations, loss of business income or interruption, amounts to pay a cyber extortionist; and (2) The 3rd Party coverage shall include coverage for failure to anticipate or prevent the transfer of a virus to a 3rd party, 3rd party notification, misuse, disclosure or theft of confidential information, and failure to secure confidential information;
(D) Cover a claim or claims arising out of the performance of professional services by: (1) CONTRACTOR; (2) CONTRACTOR’s subcontractor(s); and
If the coverage is written on a claims made and reported form, such coverage shall Provide coverage for the duration of this Agreement; and at least three (3) years after the Project’s completion. CONTRACTOR shall obtain, pay for, and maintain an endorsement that adds an “extended reporting period” (“ERP”) or a “discovery” feature— to allow CITY to report a claim— for a period of not less than three (3) years following the initial policy’s expiration, or following CITY’s recordation of its “notice of completion” for the Project, whichever date is later. The endorsement for the ERP or discovery feature must provide identical policy limits, and meet the conditions, described hereinabove; or CONTRACTOR shall obtain, pay for, and maintain successive renewal or replacement policies (with “prior acts” coverage), for a period of three (3) years following the initial policy’s expiration, or following CITY’s recordation of its “notice of completion” for the Project, whichever date is later. Each policy must have a “retroactive date” that coincides with, or is earlier than, this Agreement’s Effective Date. Additionally, each policy must provide identical policy limits, and meet the conditions, described in subparagraphs 2.2 (A) through (C) above. 1322 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
24 “WORKERS’ COMPENSATION” INSURANCE
3.1 At its own expense, CONSULTANT shall obtain, pay for, and maintain— and shall require each of its Subcontractors to obtain and maintain— for the duration of this Agreement:
(A) Complete Workers’ Compensation insurance, meeting or exceeding the coverages and amounts that California law requires; and
(B) Employer’s Liability insurance in an amount not less than:
(1) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per accident for bodily injury or disease; (2) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per employee for bodily injury or disease; and (3) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) policy limit.
3.2 CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with a “certificate of insurance”— on forms satisfactory to the City Attorney or City’s Risk Manager, and signed by the insurance carrier or its authorized representative— which fully meet the requirements of, and contain provisions entirely consistent with, this Agreement’s workers’ compensation insurance requirements.
3.3 CITY shall not be liable to CONSULTANT’s personnel, or anyone CONSULTANT directly or indirectly employs or uses, for a claim at law or in equity arising out of CONSULTANT’s failure to comply with this Agreement’s workers’ compensation insurance requirements.
“COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY” OR “BUSINESSOWNERS LIABILITY” INSURANCE
4.1 At its own expense, CONSULTANT shall obtain, pay for, and maintain— and shall require each of its Subcontractors to obtain and maintain— a “Commercial General Liability” or a “Businessowners Liability” insurance policy on an occurrence basis to fully protect CONSULTANT and CITY from claims and suits for bodily injury, personal and advertising injury, property damage, and medical payments. The policy must add the City of Glendale and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives (collectively, “CITY AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES”) as additional insureds.
4.2 Coverage afforded to CITY AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES must be at least as broad as that afforded to CONSULTANT. If CONSULTANT has higher limits than the limits specified in these insurance requirements, or has additional broader coverage, or has both, the insurer shall make available the higher limits and broader coverage to CITY AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES. The insurance must be written for the limits of liability specified below:
(A) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence, or the full per occurrence limits of the policy― whichever limit is greater― for bodily injury (including accidental death) to any one person; (B) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence, or the full per occurrence limits of the policy― whichever limit is greater― for personal and advertising injury to any one person; (C) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence, or the full per occurrence limits of the policy― whichever limit is greater― for property damage; and (D) TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) general aggregate limit, or the full aggregate limits of the policy― whichever limit is greater.
4.3 The liability insurance must include all major divisions of coverage and must cover:
(A) Premises Operations (including Explosion, Collapse, and Underground [“X,C,U”] coverages as applicable);
1323 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
25 (B) Independent Contractors’ Protective Liability;
(C) Products and Completed Operations (maintain same limits as above until five (5) years after recordation of Notice of Completion);
(D) Personal and Advertising Injury (with Employer’s Liability Exclusion deleted); (E) Contractual Liability; and
(F) Broad Form Property Damage.
4.4 CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with a “certificate of insurance,” an “additional insured endorsement,” and a subrogation endorsement, “Waiver of Transfer to Rights of Recovery Against Others”— on forms satisfactory to the City Attorney or City’s Risk Manager, and signed by the insurance carrier or its authorized representative— which fully meet the requirements of, and contain provisions entirely consistent with, all of the Insurance Requirements.
4.5 The “certificate of insurance” and an “additional insured endorsement” must state:
“The City of Glendale, and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives are included as additional insureds under the policy(s). This insurance is primary to all other insurance of the City. The City’s insurance, or self-insurance, or both, will apply in excess of— and will not contribute with— this insurance. This insurance applies separately to each insured or additional insured who is seeking coverage, or against whom a claim is made or a suit is brought. The issuing company shall mail thirty (30) days advance notice to the City for any policy cancellation, termination, non-renewal, or reduction in coverage.” “BUSINESS AUTOMOBILE” LIABILITY INSURANCE
5.1 At its own expense, CONSULTANT shall obtain, pay for, and maintain— and shall require each of its Subcontractors to obtain and maintain— a “Business Automobile” insurance policy on an occurrence basis to fully protect CONSULTANT and CITY from claims and suits for bodily injury, property damage, and medical payments. The policy must add the City of Glendale and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives as additional insureds.
5.2 The insurance must not be written for less than the limits of liability specified below or required by law, whichever coverage amount is greater:
(A) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury (including accidental death) to any one person; and
(B) ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) per occurrence for property damage; or (C) TWO MILLION DOLLARS ($2,000,000) combined single limit (“CSL”).
5.3 The liability insurance must include all major divisions of coverage and must cover all vehicles, whether rented, leased, hired, scheduled, owned or non-owned.
5.4 CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with a “certificate of insurance” and an “additional insured endorsement”— on forms satisfactory to the City Attorney or City’s Risk Manager, and signed by the insurance carrier or its authorized representative— which fully meet the requirements of, and contain provisions entirely consistent with, all of the Insurance Requirements.
5.5 The “certificate of insurance” and an “additional insured endorsement” must state:
1324 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
26 “The City of Glendale, and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives are included as additional insureds under the policy(s). This insurance is primary to all other insurance of the City. The City’s insurance, or self-insurance, or both, will apply in excess of— and will not contribute with— this insurance. This insurance applies separately to each insured or additional insured who is seeking coverage, or against whom a claim is made or a suit is brought. The issuing company shall mail thirty (30) days advance notice to the City for any policy cancellation, termination, non-renewal, or reduction in coverage.”
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
6.1 At all times, the insurance company issuing the policy must meet all three of these requirements:
(A) It must be “admitted” insurer by the State of California Department of Insurance or must be listed on the California Department of Insurance’s “List of Approved Surplus Line Insurers” (“LASLI”); (B) It must be domiciled within, and organized under the laws of, a State of the United States; and (C) It must carry a minimum A.M. Best Company Financial Strength Rating of “A:VII,” or better.
6.2 If the Agreement requires any of the foregoing insurance coverages to remain in force after the Final Payment, and if they are reasonably available, CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY— with the final Application for Payment— all certificates and additional insured endorsements evidencing the coverages’ continuation.
6.3 A deductible or self-insured retention is subject to CITY’s review and approval, in its sole discretion. The insurance company or its authorized representative must state either on the insurance certificate or in a separate correspondence:
(A) The amount of the deductible, or self-insured retention, or both; (B) Whether a limit of insurance has been lowered by any pending or paid claim; and (C) The current limit amount, as lowered by the pending or paid claim.
6.4 Despite any conflicting or contrary provision in CONSULTANT’s insurance policy:
(A) If CONSULTANT’s insurance company adds CITY, and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives (collectively, “its representatives”) as additional insureds, then for all acts, errors, or omissions of CITY, or its representatives, or both, that insurer shall:
(1) Pay those sums that CITY, or its representatives, or both, become legally obligated to pay as damages; and
(2) Defend— and pay the costs of defending— CITY, or its representatives, or both; (B) CONSULTANT’s insurance is primary;
(C) Other insurance (whether primary, excess, contingent or self-insurance, or any other basis) available to CITY, or its representatives, or both, is excess over CONSULTANT’s insurance; (D) CITY’s insurance, or self-insurance, or both, will not contribute with CONSULTANT’s insurance policy;
(E) CONSULTANT and CONSULTANT’s insurance company waive— and shall not exercise— any right of recovery or subrogation that CONSULTANT or the insurer may have against CITY, or its representatives, or both;
1325 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
27 (F) CONSULTANT’s insurance policy applies separately to each insured or additional insured who is seeking coverage, or against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except that the naming of multiple insureds will not increase an insurance company’s limits of liability; (G) CONSULTANT’s insurance policy applies to a claim or suit brought by an additional insured against a Named Insured or other insured, arising out of bodily injury, personal injury, advertising injury, or property damage; and
(H) CITY is not liable for a premium payment or another expense under CONSULTANT’s policy.
6.5 At any time during the duration of this Agreement, CITY may do any one or more of the following:
(A) Review this Agreement’s insurance coverage requirements; or (B) Require that CONSULTANT:
(1) Obtain, pay for, and maintain more or less insurance depending on CITY’s assessment of any one or more of the following factors:
(a) CITY’s risk of liability or exposure arising out of, or in any way connected with, the services of CONSULTANT under this Agreement;
(b) The nature or number of accidents, claims, or lawsuits arising out of, or in any way connected with, the services of CONSULTANT under this Agreement; or
(c) The availability, or affordability, or both, of increased liability insurance coverage;
(2) Reduce or eliminate a deductible or self-insured retention as it applies to CITY; or (3) Obtain, pay for, and maintain a bond (as a replacement for an insurance coverage) from a California corporate surety, guaranteeing payment to CITY for liability, or costs, or both, that CITY incurs during CITY’s investigation, administration, or defense of a claim or a suit arising out of this Agreement.
6.6 CONSULTANT shall maintain the insurance policy without interruption, from the Project’s commencement date to the Final Payment date, or until a date that CITY specifies for any coverage that CONSULTANT must maintain after the Final Payment.
6.7 CONSULTANT’s insurance company or self-insurance administrator shall mail CITY written notice at least thirty (30) days in advance of the policy’s or the self-insurance program’s cancellation, termination, nonrenewal, or reduction in coverage.
6.8 CONSULTANT shall not allow any insurance to expire, cancel, terminate, lapse, or non-renew. Twenty-one (21) days before its insurance policy’s expiration, cancellation, termination, or non-renewal, CONSULTANT shall deliver to CITY evidence of the required coverage as proof that CONSULTANT’s insurance policy has been renewed or replaced with another insurance policy which, during the duration of this Agreement, meets all of this Agreement’s insurance requirements.
6.9 At any time, upon CITY’s request, CONSULTANT shall furnish satisfactory proof of each type of insurance coverage required— including a certified copy of the insurance policy or policies; certificates, endorsements, renewals, or replacements; and documents comprising CONSULTANT’s self-insurance program— all in a form and content acceptable to the City Attorney or City’s Risk Manager.
6.10 If CONSULTANT hires, employs, or uses a Subcontractor to perform work, services, operations, or activities on CONSULTANT’s behalf, CONSULTANT shall ensure that the Subcontractor:
(A) Meets, and fully complies with, this Agreement’s insurance requirements; 1326 of 1517 City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
28 (B) Delivers to CITY— for its review, or approval, or both— all insurance policies, certificates, and endorsements that this Agreement requires; and
(C) Furnishes CITY, at any time upon its request, with a complete copy of the Subcontractor’s insurance policy or policies for CITY’s review, or approval, or both.
6.11 CONSULTANT’s failure to comply with an insurance provision in this Agreement constitutes a breach upon which CITY may immediately terminate or suspend CONSULTANT’s performance of this Agreement, or invoke another remedy that this Agreement or the law allows. At its discretion, CITY may obtain or renew the insurance, and CITY may pay all or part of the premiums. Upon demand, CONSULTANT shall repay CITY for all sums or monies that CITY paid to obtain, renew, or reinstate the insurance, or CITY may offset the cost of the premium against any sums or monies that CITY may owe CONSULTANT.
CONSULTANT’S SUBMITTAL OF CERTIFICATES AND ENDORSEMENTS
7.1 CONSULTANT shall have its insurance carrier(s) or self-insurance administrator(s) complete and execute the following insurance documents, unless an exception below applies. When CONSULTANT signs and delivers the Agreement to CITY, CONSULTANT also shall deliver:
(A) A “certificate of insurance” for each required liability insurance coverage; (B) Additional Insured Endorsement for “General Liability/Automobile Liability”, unless this Agreement does not require CONSULTANT to obtain and maintain Commercial General Liability coverage, Businessowners Liability coverage, or Automobile Liability coverage; (C) A subrogation endorsement, “Waiver of Transfer to Rights of Recovery Against Others,” for Commercial General Liability coverage or Businessowners Liability coverage; (D) A “certificate of insurance” for Workers’ Compensation insurance; or If CONSULTANT is self-insured for workers’ compensation, a copy of the “Certificate of Consent to Self-insure” from the State of California; or If CONSULTANT is lawfully exempt from workers’ compensation laws, an “Affirmation of Exemption from Labor Code §3700” form;
(E) A complete copy of CONSULTANT’s Professional Liability insurance policy, including all forms and endorsements attached to it.
7.2 CITY will neither sign this Agreement nor issue a “Notice to Proceed” until the City Attorney or City’s Risk Manager has reviewed and approved the insurance documents. CITY's decision as to the acceptability of all insurance documents is final. Unless CONSULTANT obtains CITY’s written approval, CITY will not permit or allow a substitution of an insurance policy, or a change in a certificate’s or an endorsement’s form and content, or both.
INSURANCE OBLIGATION IS SEPARATE FROM INDEMNITY OBLIGATION
8.1 This Agreement’s insurance provisions are separate and independent from the indemnification and defense provisions in the Agreement; and do not limit, in any way, the applicability, scope, or obligations of the indemnification and defense provisions in the Agreement 1327 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
29 APPENDIX C – Form of Contract
• Template for Professional Services Agreement for Architect, Landscape Architect, Professional Engineer, or Professional Land Surveyor • Template for Professional Services Agreement for all others 1328 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
30 CONTRACT No. _________
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
(For Architect, Landscape Architect, Professional Engineer, or Professional Land Surveyor)
BETWEEN THE CITY OF GLENDALE
AND
____________________
THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”), effective ________________, 20___ (“Effective Date”), is between the City of Glendale ("CITY"), a municipal corporation, and ____________________ ("CONSULTANT”), a [(Name of State) corporation/ partnership/ limited partnership/ limited liability company/ a sole proprietor/ an individual] (collectively, “PARTIES” or individually, “PARTY”).
RECITALS
A. CITY is a public entity organized and existing under its Charter and the State of California’s Constitution.
B. CONSULTANT, a [SELECT ONE: licensed architect/ licensed architectural firm/ licensed landscape architect/ licensed architectural firm/ registered professional engineer/ registered professional engineering firm/ licensed professional land surveyor/ licensed professional land surveying firm], represents that CONSULTANT is, and will continue to be for this Agreement’s duration, a [(Name of State) corporation in good standing/ partnership/ limited partnership/ limited liability company/ a sole proprietorship/ an individual.] [NOTE: staff must verify corporate status/ partnership/ LLC and Consultant’s license, if any, and obtain proof.] [ADD, IF APPLICABLE: (which) (who) employs persons who are duly registered or licensed to practice in the State of California.] C. CONSULTANT possesses the competence, experience, expertise, skill, facilities, equipment, personnel, financial wherewithal, and other resources necessary to perform this Agreement’s tasks in a professional and competent manner.
D. CONSULTANT desires to furnish and perform professional services for CITY, on the terms and conditions described in this Agreement. CONSULTANT has the legal authority to provide, engage in, and carry out the professional services set forth in this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
THEREFORE, CITY engages CONSULTANT’s services, and in consideration of the PARTIES’ mutual promises, the PARTIES agree as follows:
1.0 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS
1.1. The Recitals constitute the factual basis upon which CITY and CONSULTANT have entered into this Agreement. CITY and CONSULTANT acknowledge the Recitals’ accuracy and, therefore, incorporate them into this Agreement. 1329 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
31 2.0 TERM
[Select one of the following alternatives:]
2.1. [OPTION 1] This Agreement begins on the Effective Date, and continues in effect until completion of the work described in Article 3, unless this Agreement ends sooner according to the terms elsewhere in this document.
2.1. [OPTION 2] This Agreement’s Term is [ # ] [months/ years], beginning on [DATE ] and ending on [DATE ] , unless this Agreement ends sooner according to the terms elsewhere in this document.
3.0 SERVICES
3.1. Scope of Work. CONSULTANT shall [specify services to be provided] (“the Services”) in accordance with the Scope of Work, which is attached as “Exhibit A” to this Agreement and is incorporated into it by this reference. [NOTE: “Exhibit A” must set forth in detail the nature and extent of services that professional person or firm will render. Scope of Work should identify specific tasks, list and describe any deliverables, and specify procedures/ criteria for acceptance.]
3.2. Written Authorization.
(A) CONSULTANT shall not make changes in the Scope of Work, perform any additional work, or provide any additional material, without first obtaining written authorization from CITY. If CONSULTANT provides additional services or materials without written authorization, or if CONSULTANT exceeds the Maximum Cost in Paragraph 7.4 of this Agreement, CONSULTANT proceeds at CONSULTANT's own risk and without payment.
(B) CITY will authorize CONSULTANT to proceed with discrete tasks by issuing written Task Orders. Receipt of a written Task Order, signed by CITY’s Project Manager, is a prerequisite for CONSULTANT to proceed with each task. [ADD, IF APPLICABLE: Each Task Order will specify a not-to-exceed price and a schedule for completion of the task. CONSULTANT shall not exceed the not-to-exceed price in each Task Order.] In performing each phase or task, CONSULTANT shall not exceed the Maximum Cost in Paragraph 7.4 of this Agreement. Issuance of a Task Order neither authorizes CONSULTANT to incur expenditures in excess of the Maximum Cost, nor relieves CONSULTANT from its responsibility for completing all of the Services within the Maximum Cost.
3.3. Professional Standard of Care. During this Agreement’s Term:
(A) CONSULTANT and its Subconsultants, subcontractors, employees, and agents (collectively, “CONSULTANT PARTIES”) shall perform all of the Services in this Agreement in an expeditious and professional manner, using professionals properly licensed and duly qualified to perform the Services.
(B) CONSULTANT PARTIES shall perform the work described in this Agreement in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles, 1330 of 1517 City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
32 and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by members of CONSULTANT PARTIES’ profession currently practicing in California. By delivering the completed work, CONSULTANT PARTIES represent and certify that their work conforms to: the requirements of this Agreement; all applicable (federal, state, county, local, CITY) laws, rules, regulations, orders, and procedures; and the professional standard of care in California. (C) CONSULTANT PARTIES are responsible for making an
independent evaluation and judgment of all conditions affecting performance of the work, including without limitation: site conditions; existing facilities; seismic, geologic, soils, hydrologic, geographic, climatic conditions; applicable (federal, state, county, local, CITY) laws, rules, regulations, orders, and procedures; and all other contingencies or design considerations. Data, calculations, opinions, reports, investigations, or any other information or documents that CITY provides relating to site, local, or other conditions are not warranted or guaranteed, either expressly or implied, by CITY. (D) When the Scope of Work requires or permits CITY’s review, approval, conditional approval, or disapproval, CONSULTANT acknowledges that CITY’s review, approval, conditional approval, or disapproval:
(1) Is solely for the purposes of administering this Agreement and determining whether CONSULTANT is entitled to payment for its Services;
(2) Is not to be construed as a waiver of any breach, or acceptance by CITY, of any responsibility— professional or otherwise— for the Services or CONSULTANT’s work
product;
(3) Does not relieve CONSULTANT of the responsibility for complying with the standard of performance or professional care; or laws, regulations, or industry standards; and
(4) Does not relieve CONSULTANT from liability for damages arising out of CONSULTANT’s: negligent acts, errors, or omissions; recklessness; willful misconduct; or
noncompliance with industry standards.
(E) Without additional compensation to CONSULTANT and at no cost to CITY, CONSULTANT shall correct or revise all errors, mistakes, or deficiencies in its work product, studies, reports, designs, drawings, specifications, or other services.
4.0 TIME FOR PERFORMANCE
[Select one of the following alternatives:]
1331 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
33 4.1. [OPTION 1] CONSULTANT shall complete all of the Services by [DATE ] .
4.1. [OPTION 2] CONSULTANT shall perform the Services according to the Project Time Schedule, which is attached as “Exhibit B” to this Agreement and is incorporated into it by this reference. CONSULTANT shall complete all of the Services by [DATE ] .
4.2. If the Project Time Schedule calls for performance of the Services in phases or discrete increments, CONSULTANT shall not proceed from one phase or increment to the next without written authorization from CITY’s Project Manager.
4.3. Force Majeure. If an event or condition constituting a “force majeure”— including, but not limited to, an act of God, labor dispute, civil unrest, epidemic, or natural disaster— prevents or delays a PARTY from performing or fulfilling an obligation under this Agreement, the PARTY is not in Default, under Paragraph 13.1 of this Agreement, of the obligation. A delay beyond a PARTY’s control automatically extends the time, in an amount equal to the period of the delay, for the PARTY to perform the obligation under this Agreement. The PARTIES shall prepare and sign an appropriate document acknowledging any extension of time under this Paragraph.
5.0 PERSONNEL
5.1. Project Management. Each PARTY shall appoint a Project Manager. The Project Managers shall meet [ SET FORTH SPECIFIC TIMES: hourly/ daily/ weekly/ as needed ] to coordinate, review, and ensure CONSULTANT’s performance under this Agreement. CITY’s Project Manager will oversee the administration of CONSULTANT’s tasks under this Agreement.
5.2. Key Personnel. CONSULTANT’s project team shall work under the direction of the following key personnel [IDENTIFY CONSULTANT’s KEY PERSONNEL AND TITLE] . [OR STATE: CONSULTANT shall employ the key personnel identified in “Exhibit A.”] CONSULTANT shall minimize changes to its key personnel. CITY may request key personnel changes, and CITY may review and approve key personnel changes proposed by CONSULTANT. CITY will not unreasonably withhold approval of key personnel assignments and changes.
5.3. Use of Agents or Assistants. With CITY’s prior written approval, CONSULTANT may employ, engage, or retain the services of persons or entities (“Subconsultants”) that CONSULTANT may deem proper to aid or assist in the proper performance of CONSULTANT’s duties. CITY is an intended beneficiary of all work that the Subconsultants perform for purposes of establishing a duty of care between the Subconsultants and CITY. CONSULTANT is as responsible for the performance of its Subconsultants as it would be if it had rendered the Services itself. All costs of the tasks performed or the expenses incurred by the Subconsultants are chargeable directly to CONSULTANT. Nothing in this Agreement constitutes or creates a contractual relationship between CITY and anyone other than CONSULTANT. 1332 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
34 5.4. Independent Contractor.
(A) CONSULTANT understands and acknowledges that CONSULTANT is an independent contractor, not an employee, partner, agent, or principal of CITY. This Agreement does not create a partnership, joint venture, association, or employeremployee relationship between the PARTIES. At its own expense, CONSULTANT is responsible for providing compensation; employment benefits; disability, unemployment, and other insurance; workers’ compensation; training; permits and licenses; and office space for CONSULTANT and for CONSULTANT’s employees and Subconsultants.
CONSULTANT has, and shall retain, the right to exercise full control over the employment, direction, compensation, and discharge of all persons whom CONSULTANT uses in performing the Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide the Services in CONSULTANT’s own manner and method, except as this Agreement specifies. CONSULTANT shall treat a provision in this Agreement that may appear either to give CITY the right to direct CONSULTANT as to the details of doing the work, or to exercise a measure of control over the work, as giving CONSULTANT direction only as to the work’s end result.
(B) CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend (including CONSULTANT’s providing and paying for legal counsel for CITY), and hold harmless CITY for any obligation; claim; suit; demand for tax or retirement contribution, including any contribution or payment to the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS); social security; salary or wages; overtime, penalty, or interest payment; or workers' compensation payment that CITY may be required to make on behalf of CONSULTANT, an employee of CONSULTANT, or any employee of CONSULTANT construed to be an employee of CITY, for the work done under this Agreement.
5.5. Non-Discrimination in Employment. CONSULTANT shall not discriminate against any employee or person who is subject to this Agreement because of race, color, religion, religious belief, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, medical condition, or physical or mental disability.
5.6. Disability Access Laws. CONSULTANT represents and certifies that the work product, studies, reports, designs, drawings, and specifications that CONSULTANT prepares under this Agreement fully conform to all applicable disability access and design laws, regulations, and standards— including, but not limited to, the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 12101 et seq.) and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations— when the Scope of Work requires or calls for compliance with those laws, regulations, or standards.
5.7. Prevailing Wage Laws. Services by persons deemed to be employees of CONSULTANT possibly may be subject to prevailing wages under California Labor Code Sections 1770-1781. CONSULTANT’s sole responsibility is to comply with those requirements, should they apply. If a dispute based upon the prevailing wage laws occurs, CONSULTANT, at its expense, shall indemnify, defend (including CONSULTANT’s providing and paying for legal counsel for CITY), and hold harmless CITY, its officers, 1333 of 1517 City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
35 agents, employees, and representatives from and against all liability, claims, suits, demands, damages, fines, penalties, wages, costs, or expenses pertaining to the prevailing wage laws.
5.8. Workers’ Compensation. CONSULTANT understands and
acknowledges that all persons furnishing services to CITY under this Agreement are, for the purpose of workers’ compensation liability, employees solely of CONSULTANT and not of CITY. In performing the Services or the work under this Agreement, CONSULTANT is liable for providing workers’ compensation benefits to CONSULTANT’s employees, or anyone whom CONSULTANT directly or indirectly hires, employs, or uses. CITY is not responsible for any claims at law or in equity caused by CONSULTANT’s failure to comply with this Paragraph.
6.0 FACILITIES
6.1. CONSULTANT shall provide all facilities necessary to fully perform and complete the Services. If CONSULTANT needs to use a CITY facility, CONSULTANT shall meet and confer with CITY before CONSULTANT begins the work that this Agreement requires, the PARTIES shall agree to any costs chargeable to CONSULTANT, and in an amendment to this Agreement, the PARTIES shall describe the facility’s terms of use and its charges.
6.2. CONSULTANT shall pay for any damage to CITY property, facilities, structures, or streets arising out of CONSULTANT’s use, occupation, operation, or activities in, upon, under, or over any portion of them.
7.0 PAYMENT
7.1. CITY’s payment to CONSULTANT will be based upon CONSULTANT’s Fee Schedule, which is attached as “Exhibit C” to this Agreement and is incorporated into it by this reference. [NOTE: “Exhibit C” must include a breakdown of the not-to-exceed amount, including hourly rates for project staff, any overtime rates, a list and the rate for any reimbursable expenses, or a statement that costs are included in the hourly rate, and an explanation of any markups.] Except as itemized in the Fee Schedule, CONSULTANT shall pay for all expenses, including reimbursable or out-of-pocket expenses, that CONSULTANT incurs in performing the Services. The Fee Schedule will remain in effect for the Agreement’s Term.
[Select one of the following provisions:]
7.2. Fee. [OPTION 1] CITY shall pay for the Services in a lump sum, which is not to exceed _______ dollars ($_________), upon CONSULTANT’s satisfactory completion of the Services and CONSULTANT’s delivery of the work product.
7.2. Fee. [OPTION 2] CITY shall pay for the Services that CONSULTANT performs in accordance with this Agreement at the hourly rate(s) specified in “Exhibit C,” the TOTAL amount of which is not to exceed _______ dollars ($_________). 1334 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
36 7.2. Fee. [OPTION 3] CITY shall pay for the Services in [IF PAYMENTS ARE IN INTERVALS, SPECIFY A PERIOD (e.g., monthly/ quarterly) OR SPECIFY A QUANTITY (e.g., two, three, five) installments, the TOTAL amount of which is not to exceed _______ dollars ($_________). Each installment will be payable upon satisfactory completion, in CITY’s determination, of the work in each phase identified below, and in an amount proportionate to the work CONSULTANT performed or completed within each phase:
Phase: Description: Amount:
I – [Example: Construction Documents] $_________
II – [Example: Bid Documents] $_________
III – [Example: Construction Support] _ $_________
IV – [Example: Project ‘s Closeout] $_________
TOTAL $_________
7.3. If CITY requires additional work not included in this Agreement, CONSULTANT and CITY shall negotiate the additional work, mutually agree on the amount of additional compensation, and memorialize the terms in either a separate written contract or an amendment to this Agreement.
7.4. Maximum Cost. CONSULTANT expressly acknowledges that the total cost to complete all tasks set forth in “Exhibit A” must not exceed ___________________________________ dollars ($__________) (“Maximum Cost”).
When CONSULTANT has billed 75% of the Maximum Cost, CONSULTANT shall provide written notice to CITY’s Project Manager that CONSULTANT has expended 75% of the Maximum Cost.
7.5. Taxes. CONSULTANT shall pay all applicable (federal, state, county, local, CITY) excise, sales, consumer use, possessory interest, or other similar taxes required by law that are levied upon this Agreement or upon CONSULTANT’s services under this Agreement.
7.6. Invoices. CONSULTANT shall submit an original, itemized invoice to CITY for approval, before receiving compensation. CONSULTANT shall submit the invoice at no more than monthly intervals. All invoices must include a summary of total costs, description of the Services performed, a brief itemization of costs associated with each task or phase, and the total phase or project costs to date.
8.0 AUDIT BY CITY
8.1. During this Agreement’s Term and for a period of four (4) years after the expiration, cancellation, or termination of this Agreement, or any extension of it, CONSULTANT shall:
(A) Keep and maintain, in their original form, all records, books, papers, or documents related to CONSULTANT’s performance of this Agreement; and 1335 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
37 (B) Permit CITY or its authorized representatives, at all reasonable times, to have access to, examine, audit, excerpt, copy, photocopy, photograph, or transcribe all records, books, papers, or documents related to CONSULTANT’s performance of this Agreement including, but not limited to: direct and indirect charges, and detailed documentation, for work CONSULTANT has performed or will perform under this Agreement.
9.0 DATA, RECORDS, PROPRIETARY RIGHTS
9.1. Copies of Data. CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with copies or originals of all data that CONSULTANT generates, uses, collects, or stores in relation to all work associated with this Agreement. Data that CONSULTANT generates, uses, collects, stores, or provides must be in a form acceptable to, and agreed upon by, CITY.
9.2. Ownership and Use.
(A) Unless CITY states otherwise in writing, each document— including, but not limited to, each report, draft, record, drawing, or specification (collectively, “work product”)— that CONSULTANT prepares, reproduces, or causes its preparation or reproduction for this Agreement is CITY’s exclusive property. (B) CONSULTANT acknowledges that its use of the work product is limited to the purposes contemplated by the Scope of Work. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the work product’s application to, or suitability for use in, circumstances not contemplated by the Scope of Work.
9.3. Intellectual Property.
(A) If CONSULTANT uses or incorporates patented, trademarked, or copyrighted work, ideas, or products— in whole or in part— into CONSULTANT’s work product, CONSULTANT represents that:
(1) CONSULTANT holds the patent, trademark, or copyright to the work, idea, or product; or
(2) CONSULTANT is licensed to use the patented, trademarked, or copyrighted work, idea, or product.
(B) Unless CITY states otherwise in writing, all proprietary rights or intellectual property rights, including copyrights, that arise from creation of the work under this Agreement vest in CITY. CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to proprietary rights and intellectual property rights, including copyrights, in favor of CITY. (C) CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend (including CONSULTANT’s providing and paying for legal counsel for CITY), and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees, and representatives from and against all liability, claims, suits, 1336 of 1517 City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
38 demands, damages, royalties, fines, penalties, costs, or expenses arising out of or alleging any infringement or misappropriation of a patent, copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, or other intellectual property right or proprietary right.
9.4. Confidentiality. CONSULTANT shall not use any information that it obtains from performing the Services for any purpose other than for fulfillment of CONSULTANT’s Scope of Work. Without CITY’s prior written authorization, CONSULTANT shall not disclose or publish— or authorize, permit, or allow others to disclose or publish— data, drawings, designs, specifications, reports, or other information relating to the Services or the work that CITY assigns to CONSULTANT or to which CONSULTANT has access.
9.5. Public Records Act.
(A) CONSULTANT acknowledges that this Agreement is a public record.
This Agreement, its Exhibits, and all documents produced under this Agreement are subject to the California Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250 et seq.), including its exemptions. CONSULTANT acknowledges that CITY has no obligation to notify CONSULTANT when a request for records is received. (B) CONSULTANT shall identify in advance all records, or portions of them, that CONSULTANT believes are exempt from production under the Public Records Act.
(C) If CONSULTANT claims a privilege against public disclosure or otherwise objects to the records’ disclosure, then:
(1) CONSULTANT may, when notified by CITY of the request, seek protection from disclosure by timely applying for relief in a court of competent jurisdiction; or
(2) CITY may either decline to produce the requested
information, or redact portions of the documents and produce the redacted records.
(D) If CONSULTANT fails to identify one or more protectable documents, in CITY’s sole discretion, and without its being in breach of this Agreement or its incurring liability to CONSULTANT, CITY may produce the records— in whole, in part, or redacted— or may decline to produce them.
(E) CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend (including CONSULTANT’s providing and paying for legal counsel for CITY), and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees, and representatives from and against all liability, claims, suits, demands, damages, fines, penalties, costs, or expenses arising out of or alleging CITY’s refusal to publicly disclose one or more records that CONSULTANT identifies as protectable, or asserts is protectable.
10.0 CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
1337 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
39 10.1. Conflict of Interest. CONSULTANT represents and certifies that:
(A) CONSULTANT’s personnel are not currently officers, agents, employees, representatives, or elected officials of CITY; (B) CONSULTANT will not employ or hire a CITY officer, agent, employee, representative, or elected official during this Agreement’s Term; (C) CITY’s officers, agents, employees, representatives, and elected officials do not, and will not, have any direct or indirect financial interest in this Agreement; and
(D) During this Agreement’s Term, CONSULTANT will inform CITY about any possible conflict of interest that may arise as a result of any change in circumstances.
10.2. Campaign Contributions.
(A) CONSULTANT and its Subconsultants shall fully comply with Glendale Municipal Code Section 1.10.060, which places limitations on CONSULTANT’s and its Subconsultants’ ability to make campaign contributions to certain elected City officials or candidates for elected City office. Specifically, Section 1.10.060 prohibits:
(1) A consultant (including a subconsultant)― who has a contract with the City of Glendale, Glendale Successor Agency, or the Housing Authority of the City of Glendale and that contract is subject to approval by the City Council, Successor Agency, or Housing Authority― from making a contribution to a City Council member, City Clerk, or City Treasurer, when the contract has a total anticipated or actual value of $50,000 or more, or a combination or series of contracts having a value of $50,000 or more; and
(2) A City Council member, Successor Agency member, or Housing Authority member from voting on a contract in which a
consultant (or a subconsultant) has provided a campaign contribution.
(B) CONSULTANT acknowledges that even if the Maximum Cost in Paragraph 7.4 of this Agreement is less than $50,000, CONSULTANT still may be subject to the campaign contribution limitations in Municipal Code Section 1.10.060, when:
(1) CONSULTANT and CITY amend the Scope of Services in
this Agreement which increases the Maximum Cost to
equal or exceed $50,000; or
(2) CITY, Glendale Successor Agency, or the Housing Authority awards CONSULTANT another contract which has a total
anticipated or actual value of $50,000 or more, or awards 1338 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
40 CONSULTANT a combination or series of contracts which have a value of $50,000 or more.
(C) CONSULTANT represents and certifies that:
(1) CONSULTANT has read and fully understands the provisions of Municipal Code Section 1.10.060;
(2) CONSULTANT will not: (a) make a prohibited campaign contribution to an individual holding CITY elective office; or (b) otherwise violate Municipal Code Section 1.10.060; and
(3) CONSULTANT shall timely complete, return, and update one or more disclosure or reporting forms that CITY provides.
11.0 INSURANCE
11.1. When CONSULTANT signs and delivers this Agreement to CITY, and during this Agreement’s Term, CONSULTANT shall furnish CITY with insurance forms that fully meet the requirements of— and contain provisions entirely consistent with— all of the “Insurance Requirements,” which are attached as “Exhibit D” (D-1 to D-___) to this Agreement and are incorporated into it by this reference.
11.2. This Agreement’s insurance provisions:
(A) Are separate and independent from the indemnification and defense provisions in Article 12 of the Agreement; and
(B) Do not limit, in any way, the applicability, scope, or obligations of the indemnification and defense provisions in Article 12 of the Agreement.
12.0 INDEMNITY
12.1. To the maximum extent permitted by law— including, but not limited to, California Civil Code Sections 2778 and 2782.8— CONSULTANT, its employees, agents, Subconsultants, and persons whom CONSULTANT employs or hires (individually and collectively, “CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR”) shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees, and representatives (individually and collectively, “CITY INDEMNITEE”) from and against a “liability” [as defined in Subparagraph (A) below], or an “expense” [as defined in Subparagraph (B) below], or both, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of a CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR:
(A) “Liability” means claims, suits, actions, causes of action, proceedings, judgments, decrees, awards, settlements, liens, losses, damages, injuries, or liability of any kind, whether the liability is:
1339 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
41 (1) Actual or alleged;
(2) In contract or in tort; or
(3) For bodily injury (including accidental death), personal injury, advertising injury, or property damage.
(B) “Expense” means fees, costs, sums, penalties, fines, charges, or expenses of any kind, including, but not limited to:
(1) Attorney’s fees;
(2) Costs of an investigation, litigation, arbitration, mediation, administrative or regulatory proceeding, or appeal;
(3) Fees of an accountant, expert witness, consultant, or other professional; or
(4) Pre or post: judgment interest or settlement interest.
12.2. Under this Article, CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR’s defense and indemnification obligations:
(A) Apply to a liability, or an expense, or both, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the actual or alleged passive negligence of a CITY INDEMNITEE; but (B) Do not apply to a liability, or an expense, or both, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of a CITY INDEMNITEE.
12.3.To the extent that CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR’s insurance policy provides an upfront defense to CITY, CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR’s obligation to defend a CITY INDEMNITEE under this Article:
(A) Means that CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR shall provide and pay for legal counsel, acceptable to CITY, for the CITY INDEMNITEE; (B) Occurs when a claim, suit, complaint, pleading, or action against a CITY INDEMNITEE arises out of, pertains to, relates to, or asserts the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR; and (C) Arises regardless of whether a claim, suit, complaint, pleading, or action specifically names or identifies CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR.
12.4. Paragraph 12.3 does not limit or extinguish CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR’s obligation to reimburse a CITY INDEMNITEE for the costs of defending the CITY INDEMNITEE against a liability, or an expense, or both. A CITY 1340 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
42 INDEMNITEE’s right to recover defense costs and attorney’s fees under this Article does not require, and is not contingent upon, the CITY INDEMNITEE’s first:
(A) Requesting that CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR provide a defense to the CITY INDEMNITEE; or
(B) Obtaining CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR’s consent to the CITY INDEMNITEE’s tender of defense.
12.5.If CONSULTANT subcontracts all or any portion of the Services under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with a written agreement from each Subconsultant, who must indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY INDEMNITEE under the terms in this Article.
12.6. CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR’s obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY will remain in effect and will be binding upon CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR whether the liability, or the expense, or both, accrues— or is discovered— before or after this Agreement’s expiration, cancellation, or termination.
12.7. Except for Paragraph 12.3, this Article’s indemnification and defense provisions are separate and independent from the insurance provisions in Article 11. In addition, the indemnification and defense provisions in this Article:
(A) Are neither limited to nor capped at the coverage amounts specified under the insurance provisions in Article 11; and
(B) Do not limit, in any way, the applicability, scope, or obligations of the insurance provisions in Article 11.
13.0 DEFAULT, REMEDIES, AND TERMINATION
13.1. Default. Default under this Agreement occurs upon any one or more of the following events:
(A) CONSULTANT refuses or fails— whether partially, fully, temporarily, or otherwise— to:
(1) Provide or maintain enough properly trained personnel, or licensed personnel, or both, to perform the Services that this Agreement requires;
(2) Pay for, obtain, maintain, or renew the insurance policies or coverages that this Agreement requires;
(3) Comply with indemnification, defense, or hold harmless provisions that this Agreement requires; or
1341 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
43 (B) CONSULTANT, or its personnel, or both— whether partially, fully, temporarily, or otherwise:
(1) Disregards or violates a law, ordinance, rule, procedure, regulation, directive, or order;
(2) Refuses or fails to pay for, obtain, maintain, or renew requisite licenses;
(3) Refuses or fails to observe, perform, or fulfill a covenant, condition, obligation, term, or provision of this Agreement; (4) Commits an unlawful, false, fraudulent, dishonest, deceptive, or dangerous act while performing the Services under this Agreement; or
(C) CONSULTANT:
(1) Or another party for or on behalf of CONSULTANT: institutes proceedings under any bankruptcy, reorganization, receivership or other insolvency; or assigns or transfers assets to its creditors; (2) Delegates— whether in whole, in part, temporarily, or otherwise— its duties or obligations under this Agreement, without notifying CITY, or without CITY’s written authorization; (3) Assigns, transfers, pledges, hypothecates, grants, or encumbers— whether in whole, in part, temporarily, or
otherwise— this Agreement or any interest in it, without notifying CITY, or without CITY’s written authorization; (4) Or one of its partners, directors, officers, or general managers, or a person who exercises managerial authority on
CONSULTANT’s behalf, is convicted under state or federal law, during this Agreement’s Term, of embezzlement, theft, fraud, forgery, bribery, deceptive or unlawful business practices, perjury, falsifying or destroying records or evidence, receiving stolen property, or other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty; or
(D) Any other justifiable cause or reason, as reasonably determined by the City Manager, or a designee.
13.2. Notice of Default. If CITY deems that CONSULTANT is in Default, or that CONSULTANT has failed in any other respect to satisfactorily perform the Services specified in this Agreement, CITY may give written notice to CONSULTANT specifying the Default(s) that CONSULTANT shall remedy within [SELECT: 5/ 10/ 14/ 1342 of 1517 City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
44 30 ] days after receiving the notice. The Notice of Default will set forth one or more bases for any dissatisfaction and may suggest corrective measures.
13.3. Remedies upon Default. Within [SELECT THE SAME NUMBER IN PARAGRAPH 13.2 ABOVE: 5/ 10/ 14/ 30 ] days after receiving CITY’s Notice of Default, if CONSULTANT refuses or fails to remedy the Default(s), or if CONSULTANT does not commence steps to remedy the Default(s) to CITY’s reasonable satisfaction, CITY may exercise any one or more of the following remedies:
(A) CITY may, in whole or in part and for any length of time, immediately suspend this Agreement until such time as CONSULTANT has corrected the Default; (B) CITY may provide for the Services either through its own forces or from another consultant, and may withhold any money due (or may become owing to) CONSULTANT for a task related to the claimed Default;
(C) CITY may withhold all moneys, or a sum of money, due CONSULTANT under this Agreement, which in CITY’s sole determination, are sufficient to secure CONSULTANT’s performance of its duties and obligations under this Agreement;
(D) CITY may immediately terminate the Agreement;
(E) CITY may exercise any legal remedy, or equitable remedy, or both, including, but not limited to, filing and action in court:
(1) Seeking CONSULTANT’s specific performance of all or any part of this Agreement; or
(2) Recovering damages for CONSULTANT’s Default, breach, or violation of this Agreement; or
(F) CITY may pursue any other available, lawful right, remedy, or action.
13.4. Termination for Convenience. Independent of the remedies provided in Paragraph 13.3, CITY may elect to terminate this Agreement at any time upon [ SELECT: 10/ 14/ 30 ] days’ prior written notice. Upon termination, CONSULTANT shall receive compensation only for that work which CONSULTANT had satisfactorily completed to the termination date. CITY shall not pay CONSULTANT for de-mobilization, takedown, disengagement, wind-down, or other costs incurred arising out of this Agreement’s termination.
14.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS
14.1. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the PARTIES. This Agreement supersedes all prior and contemporaneous communications, negotiations, understandings, promises and agreements, either oral or written. Neither CONSULTANT nor CITY has made any 1343 of 1517 City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
45 promises or representations, other than those contained in this Agreement or those implied by law. The PARTIES may modify this Agreement, or any part of it, by a written amendment with CITY’s and CONSULTANT’s signature.
14.2. Interpretation. This Agreement is the product of negotiation and compromise by both PARTIES. Every provision in this Agreement must be interpreted as though the PARTIES equally participated in its drafting. Therefore, despite the provisions in California Civil Code Section 1654, if this Agreement’s language is uncertain, the Agreement must not be construed against the PARTY causing the uncertainty to exist. In interpreting this Agreement and resolving any ambiguities, this Agreement will take precedence over any cover page or attachments. If a conflict occurs between a provision in this Agreement and a provision in an attachment, the following order of precedence applies, with the terms and conditions in the document higher on the list governing over those lower on the list:
(1) The Agreement.
(2) Exhibit D.
(3) Exhibit B.
(4) Exhibit A.
(5) Exhibit C.
14.3. Headings. All headings or captions in this Agreement are for convenience and reference only. They are not intended to define or limit the scope of any term, condition, or provision.
14.4. Governing Law. California’s laws govern this Agreement’s construction and interpretation. Unless this Agreement provides otherwise, any reference to laws, ordinances, rules, or regulations include their later amendments, modifications, and successor legislation.
14.5. Waiver of Breach. If a PARTY waives the other PARTY’s breach of a term in this Agreement, that waiver is not treated as waiving a later breach of the term and does not prevent the PARTY from later enforcing that term, or any other term. A waiver of a term is valid only if it is in writing and signed by the PARTY waiving it. This Agreement’s duties and obligations:
(A) Are cumulative (rather than alternative) and are in addition to (rather than a limitation on) any option, right, power, remedy, or privilege; and (B) Are not exhausted by a PARTY’s exercise of any one of them.
14.6. Attorney’s Fees. If CITY or CONSULTANT brings an action at law or in equity to enforce or interpret one or more provisions of this Agreement, the “prevailing party” is entitled to “reasonable attorney's fees” in addition to any other relief to which the prevailing party may be entitled. A “prevailing party” has the same meaning as that term is defined in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1032(a)(4). “Reasonable attorney’s 1344 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
46 fees” of the City Attorney’s office means the fees regularly charged by private attorneys who:
(A) Practice in a law firm located in Los Angeles County; and (B) Have an equivalent number of years of professional experience in the subject matter area of the law for which the City Attorney’s services were rendered.
14.7. Further Assurances. Upon CITY’s request at any time, CONSULTANT shall promptly:
(A) Take further necessary action; and
(B) Sign, acknowledge, and deliver all additional documents as may be reasonable, necessary, or appropriate to carry out this Agreement’s intent, purpose, and terms.
14.8. Assignment.
(A) This Agreement does not give any rights or benefits to anyone, other than to CITY and CONSULTANT. All duties, obligations, and responsibilities under this Agreement are for the sole and exclusive benefit of CITY and CONSULTANT, and are not for the benefit of another person, entity, or organization. Without CITY’s prior written authorization, CONSULTANT shall not do any one or more of the following:
(1) Assign or transfer a right or interest— whether in whole, in part, temporarily, or otherwise— in this Agreement; or
(2) Delegate a duty or obligation owed— whether in whole, in part, temporarily, or otherwise— under this Agreement.
(B) Any actual or attempted assignment of rights or delegation of duties by CONSULTANT, without CITY’s prior written authorization, is wholly void and totally ineffective for all purposes; and does not postpone, delay, alter, extinguish, or terminate CONSULTANT’s duties, obligations, or responsibilities under this Agreement. (C) If CITY consents to an assignment of rights, or a delegation of duties, or both, CONSULTANT’s assignee or legal representative shall agree in writing to personally assume, perform, and to be bound unconditionally by the covenants, obligations, terms, and conditions in this Agreement.
14.9. Successors and Assigns. Subject to the provisions in Paragraph
14.8, this Agreement is binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the respective PARTIES.
14.10. Time is of the Essence.
1345 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
47 (A) Except when this Agreement states otherwise, time is of the essence in this Agreement. CONSULTANT acknowledges that this Agreement’s time limits and deadlines are reasonable for CONSULTANT’s performing the Services under this Agreement.
(B) Unless this Agreement specifies otherwise, any reference to “day” or “days” means calendar and not business days. If the last day for giving notice or performing an act under this Agreement falls on a weekend, a legal holiday listed in either Glendale Municipal Code Section 3.08.010 or California’s Government Code, or a day when City Hall is closed, the period is extended to and including the next day that CITY is open for business. A reference to the time of day refers to local time for Glendale, California.
14.11. Recycled Paper. CONSULTANT shall endeavor to submit all reports, correspondence, and documents related to this Agreement on recycled paper.
14.12. Notices.
(A) The PARTIES shall submit in writing all notices and correspondence that this Agreement requires or permits, and shall deliver the notices and correspondence to the places set forth below. The PARTIES may give notice by:
(1) Personal delivery;
(2) U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid;
(3) “Certified” U.S. mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested; or
(4) Facsimile.
(B) All written notices or correspondence sent in the described manner will be presumed “given” to a PARTY on whichever date occurs earliest:
(1) The date of personal delivery;
(2) The third (3rd) business day following deposit in the U.S. mail, when sent by “first class” mail;
(3) The date on which the PARTY or its agent either signed the return receipt or refused to accept delivery, as noted on the return receipt or other U.S. Postal Service form, when sent by “certified” mail; or
(4) The date of transmission, when sent by facsimile.
1346 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
48 (C) At any time, by providing written notice to the other PARTY, CITY or CONSULTANT may change the place, or facsimile number, for giving notice.
CITY: City of Glendale
Dept.: _____________________
__________________________
Glendale, CA 9120__
Attn: ______________________
Tel. No. ____________________
Fax. No. ___________________
CONSULTANT:
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
Attn: _____________________
Tel. No. ____________________
Fax. No. ___________________
14.13. Survival. This Paragraph and the obligations set forth in Paragraphs
5.4, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 7.5, 8.1, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 11.1, 11.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5,
12.6, 12.7, 13.3, 14.5, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, and 14.12 survive this Agreement’s expiration, cancellation, or termination.
14.14. Severability. The invalidity, in whole or in part, of any term of this Agreement will not affect this Agreement’s remaining terms.
14.15. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which is an original, but all of which constitutes one and the same document. The PARTIES shall sign a sufficient number of counterparts, so that each PARTY will receive a fully executed original of this Agreement.
14.16. Representations – Authority. The PARTIES represent that:
(A) They have read this Agreement, fully understand its contents, and have received a copy of it;
(B) Through their duly authorized representative, they are authorized to sign this Agreement, and they are bound by its terms; and (C) They have executed this Agreement on the date opposite their signature.
1347 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
49 Executed at Glendale, California.
CITY OF GLENDALE:
By Date: , 20
(Name)
(Title)
CONSULTANT:
By Date: , 20
(Name)
(Title)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Date
1348 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
50 EXHIBIT LIST
“Exhibit A”: Scope of Work
(__ pages)
“Exhibit B”: Project Time Schedule
(__ pages)
“Exhibit C”: Fee Schedule
(__ pages)
“Exhibit D”: Insurance Requirements
(__ pages)
1349 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
51 CONTRACT No. _________
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF GLENDALE
AND
____________________
THIS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”), effective ________________, 20___ (“Effective Date”), is between the City of Glendale ("CITY"), a municipal corporation, and ____________________ ("CONSULTANT”), a [(Name of State) corporation/ partnership/ limited partnership/ limited liability company/ a sole proprietor/ an individual] (collectively, “PARTIES” or individually, “PARTY”).
RECITALS
A. CITY is a public entity organized and existing under its Charter and the State of California’s Constitution.
B. CONSULTANT represents that CONSULTANT is, and will continue to be for this Agreement’s duration, a [(Name of State) corporation in good standing/ partnership/ limited partnership/ limited liability company/ a sole proprietorship/ an individual.] [NOTE: staff must verify corporate status/ partnership/ LLC and Consultant’s license, if any, and obtain proof.] [ADD, IF APPLICABLE: (which) (who) employs persons who are duly registered or licensed to practice in the State of California.]
C. CONSULTANT possesses the competence, experience, expertise, skill, facilities, equipment, personnel, financial wherewithal, and other resources necessary to perform this Agreement’s tasks in a professional and competent manner.
D. CONSULTANT desires to furnish and perform professional services for CITY, on the terms and conditions described in this Agreement. CONSULTANT has the legal authority to provide, engage in, and carry out the professional services set forth in this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
THEREFORE, CITY engages CONSULTANT’s services, and in consideration of the PARTIES’ mutual promises, the PARTIES agree as follows:
1.0 INCORPORATION OF RECITALS
1.1. The Recitals constitute the factual basis upon which CITY and CONSULTANT have entered into this Agreement. CITY and
CONSULTANT acknowledge the Recitals’ accuracy and, therefore, incorporate them into this Agreement.
1350 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
52 2.0 TERM
[Select one of the following alternatives:]
2.1. [OPTION 1] This Agreement begins on the Effective Date, and continues in effect until completion of the work described in Article 3, unless this Agreement ends sooner according to the terms elsewhere in this document.
2.1. [OPTION 2] This Agreement’s Term is [ # ] [months/ years], beginning on [DATE ] and ending on [DATE ] , unless this Agreement ends sooner according to the terms elsewhere in this document.
3.0 SERVICES
3.1. Scope of Work. CONSULTANT shall [specify services to be provided] (“the Services”) in accordance with the Scope of Work, which is attached as “Exhibit A” to this Agreement and is incorporated into it by this reference. [NOTE: “Exhibit A” must set forth in detail the nature and extent of services that professional person or firm will render. Scope of Work should identify specific tasks, list and describe any deliverables, and specify procedures/ criteria for acceptance.]
3.2. Written Authorization.
(A) CONSULTANT shall not make changes in the Scope of Work, perform any additional work, or provide any additional material, without first obtaining written authorization from CITY. If CONSULTANT provides additional services or materials without written authorization, or if CONSULTANT exceeds the Maximum Cost in Paragraph 7.4 of this Agreement, CONSULTANT proceeds at CONSULTANT's own risk and without payment.
(B) CITY will authorize CONSULTANT to proceed with discrete tasks by issuing written Task Orders. Receipt of a written Task Order, signed by CITY’s Project Manager, is a prerequisite for CONSULTANT to proceed with each task. [ADD, IF APPLICABLE: Each Task Order will specify a not-to-exceed price and a schedule for completion of the task. CONSULTANT shall not exceed the not-to-exceed price in each Task Order.] In performing each phase or task, CONSULTANT shall not exceed the Maximum Cost in Paragraph 7.4 of this Agreement. Issuance of a Task Order neither authorizes CONSULTANT to incur expenditures in excess of the Maximum Cost, nor relieves CONSULTANT from its responsibility for completing all of the Services within the Maximum Cost.
3.3. Professional Standard of Care. During this Agreement’s Term:
(A) CONSULTANT and its Subconsultants, subcontractors, employees, and agents (collectively, “CONSULTANT PARTIES”) shall perform all of the Services in this Agreement in an expeditious and professional manner, using professionals properly licensed and duly qualified to perform the Services.
1351 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
53 (B) CONSULTANT PARTIES shall perform the work described in this Agreement in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles, and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised under similar conditions by members of CONSULTANT PARTIES’ profession currently practicing in California. By delivering the completed work, CONSULTANT PARTIES represent and certify that their work conforms to: the requirements of this Agreement; all applicable (federal, state, county, local, CITY) laws, rules, regulations, orders, and procedures; and the professional standard of care in California. (C) CONSULTANT PARTIES are responsible for making an
independent evaluation and judgment of all conditions affecting performance of the work, including without limitation: site conditions; existing facilities; seismic, geologic, soils, hydrologic, geographic, climatic conditions; applicable (federal, state, county, local, CITY) laws, rules, regulations, orders, and procedures; and all other contingencies or design considerations. Data, calculations, opinions, reports, investigations, or any other information or documents that CITY provides relating to site, local, or other conditions are not warranted or guaranteed, either expressly or implied, by CITY. (D) When the Scope of Work requires or permits CITY’s review, approval, conditional approval, or disapproval, CONSULTANT acknowledges that CITY’s review, approval, conditional approval, or disapproval:
(1) Is solely for the purposes of administering this Agreement and determining whether CONSULTANT is entitled to payment for its Services;
(2) Is not to be construed as a waiver of any breach, or acceptance by CITY, of any responsibility— professional or otherwise— for the Services or CONSULTANT’s work
product;
(3) Does not relieve CONSULTANT of the responsibility for complying with the standard of performance or professional care; or laws, regulations, or industry standards; and
(4) Does not relieve CONSULTANT from liability for damages arising out of CONSULTANT’s: negligent acts, errors, or omissions; recklessness; willful misconduct; or
noncompliance with industry standards.
(E) Without additional compensation to CONSULTANT and at no cost to CITY, CONSULTANT shall correct or revise all errors, mistakes, or deficiencies in its work product, studies, reports, designs, drawings, specifications, or other services.
4.0 TIME FOR PERFORMANCE
[Select one of the following alternatives:]
1352 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
54 4.1. [OPTION 1] CONSULTANT shall complete all of the Services by [DATE ] .
4.1. [OPTION 2] CONSULTANT shall perform the Services according to the Project Time Schedule, which is attached as “Exhibit B” to this Agreement and is incorporated into it by this reference. CONSULTANT shall complete all of the Services by [DATE ] .
4.2. If the Project Time Schedule calls for performance of the Services in phases or discrete increments, CONSULTANT shall not proceed from one phase or increment to the next without written authorization from CITY’s Project Manager.
4.3. Force Majeure. If an event or condition constituting a “force majeure”— including, but not limited to, an act of God, labor dispute, civil unrest, epidemic, or natural disaster— prevents or delays a PARTY from performing or fulfilling an obligation under this Agreement, the PARTY is not in Default, under Paragraph 13.1 of this Agreement, of the obligation. A delay beyond a PARTY’s control automatically extends the time, in an amount equal to the period of the delay, for the PARTY to perform the obligation under this Agreement. The PARTIES shall prepare and sign an appropriate document acknowledging any extension of time under this Paragraph.
5.0 PERSONNEL
5.1. Project Management. Each PARTY shall appoint a Project Manager. The Project Managers shall meet [ SET FORTH SPECIFIC TIMES: hourly/ daily/ weekly/ as needed ] to coordinate, review, and ensure CONSULTANT’s performance under this Agreement. CITY’s Project Manager will oversee the administration of CONSULTANT’s tasks under this Agreement.
5.2. Key Personnel. CONSULTANT’s project team shall work under the direction of the following key personnel [IDENTIFY CONSULTANT’s KEY PERSONNEL AND TITLE] . [OR STATE: CONSULTANT shall employ the key personnel identified in “Exhibit A.”] CONSULTANT shall minimize changes to its key personnel. CITY may request key personnel changes, and CITY may review and approve key personnel changes proposed by CONSULTANT. CITY will not unreasonably withhold approval of key personnel assignments and changes.
5.3. Use of Agents or Assistants. With CITY’s prior written approval, CONSULTANT may employ, engage, or retain the services of persons or entities (“Subconsultants”) that CONSULTANT may deem proper to aid or assist in the proper performance of CONSULTANT’s duties. CITY is an intended beneficiary of all work that the Subconsultants perform for purposes of establishing a duty of care between the Subconsultants and CITY. CONSULTANT is as responsible for the performance of its Subconsultants as it would be if it had rendered the Services itself. All costs of the tasks performed or the expenses incurred by the Subconsultants are chargeable directly to CONSULTANT. Nothing in this Agreement constitutes or creates a contractual relationship between CITY and anyone other than CONSULTANT. 1353 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
55 5.4. Independent Contractor.
(A) CONSULTANT understands and acknowledges that CONSULTANT is an independent contractor, not an employee, partner, agent, or principal of CITY. This Agreement does not create a partnership, joint venture, association, or employeremployee relationship between the PARTIES. At its own expense, CONSULTANT is responsible for providing compensation; employment benefits; disability, unemployment, and other insurance; workers’ compensation; training; permits and licenses; and office space for CONSULTANT and for CONSULTANT’s employees and Subconsultants.
CONSULTANT has, and shall retain, the right to exercise full control over the employment, direction, compensation, and discharge of all persons whom CONSULTANT uses in performing the Services under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall provide the Services in CONSULTANT’s own manner and method, except as this Agreement specifies. CONSULTANT shall treat a provision in this Agreement that may appear either to give CITY the right to direct CONSULTANT as to the details of doing the work, or to exercise a measure of control over the work, as giving CONSULTANT direction only as to the work’s end result.
(B) CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend (including CONSULTANT’s providing and paying for legal counsel for CITY), and hold harmless CITY for any obligation; claim; suit; demand for tax or retirement contribution, including any contribution or payment to the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS); social security; salary or wages; overtime, penalty, or interest payment; or workers' compensation payment that CITY may be required to make on behalf of CONSULTANT, an employee of CONSULTANT, or any employee of CONSULTANT construed to be an employee of CITY, for the work done under this Agreement.
5.5. Non-Discrimination in Employment. CONSULTANT shall not discriminate against any employee or person who is subject to this Agreement because of race, color, religion, religious belief, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, pregnancy, parenthood, medical condition, or physical or mental disability.
5.6. Disability Access Laws. CONSULTANT represents and certifies that the work product, studies, reports, designs, drawings, and specifications that CONSULTANT prepares under this Agreement fully conform to all applicable disability access and design laws, regulations, and standards— including, but not limited to, the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Sections 12101 et seq.) and Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations— when the Scope of Work requires or calls for compliance with those laws, regulations, or standards.
5.7. Prevailing Wage Laws. Services by persons deemed to be employees of CONSULTANT possibly may be subject to prevailing wages under California Labor Code Sections 1770-1781. CONSULTANT’s sole responsibility is to comply with those requirements, should they apply. If a dispute based upon the prevailing wage laws occurs, CONSULTANT, at its expense, shall indemnify, defend (including CONSULTANT’s providing and paying for legal counsel for CITY), and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees, and representatives from and against all liability, 1354 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
56 claims, suits, demands, damages, fines, penalties, wages, costs, or expenses pertaining to the prevailing wage laws.
5.8. Workers’ Compensation. CONSULTANT understands and
acknowledges that all persons furnishing services to CITY under this Agreement are, for the purpose of workers’ compensation liability, employees solely of CONSULTANT and not of CITY. In performing the Services or the work under this Agreement, CONSULTANT is liable for providing workers’ compensation benefits to CONSULTANT’s employees, or anyone whom CONSULTANT directly or indirectly hires, employs, or uses. CITY is not responsible for any claims at law or in equity caused by CONSULTANT’s failure to comply with this Paragraph.
6.0 FACILITIES
6.1. CONSULTANT shall provide all facilities necessary to fully perform and complete the Services. If CONSULTANT needs to use a CITY facility, CONSULTANT shall meet and confer with CITY before CONSULTANT begins the work that this Agreement requires, the PARTIES shall agree to any costs chargeable to CONSULTANT, and in an amendment to this Agreement, the PARTIES shall describe the facility’s terms of use and its charges.
6.2. CONSULTANT shall pay for any damage to CITY property, facilities, structures, or streets arising out of CONSULTANT’s use, occupation, operation, or activities in, upon, under, or over any portion of them.
7.0 PAYMENT
7.1. CITY’s payment to CONSULTANT will be based upon CONSULTANT’s Fee Schedule, which is attached as “Exhibit C” to this Agreement and is incorporated into it by this reference. [NOTE: “Exhibit C” must include a breakdown of the not-to-exceed amount, including hourly rates for project staff, any overtime rates, a list and the rate for any reimbursable expenses, or a statement that costs are included in the hourly rate, and an explanation of any markups.] Except as itemized in the Fee Schedule, CONSULTANT shall pay for all expenses, including reimbursable or out-of-pocket expenses, that CONSULTANT incurs in performing the Services. The Fee Schedule will remain in effect for the Agreement’s Term.
[Select one of the following provisions:]
7.2. Fee. [OPTION 1] CITY shall pay for the Services in a lump sum, which is not to exceed _______ dollars ($_________), upon CONSULTANT’s satisfactory completion of the Services and CONSULTANT’s delivery of the work product.
7.2. Fee. [OPTION 2] CITY shall pay for the Services that CONSULTANT performs in accordance with this Agreement at the hourly rate(s) specified in “Exhibit C,” the TOTAL amount of which is not to exceed _______ dollars ($_________).
1355 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
57 7.2. Fee. [OPTION 3] CITY shall pay for the Services in [IF PAYMENTS ARE IN INTERVALS, SPECIFY A PERIOD (e.g., monthly/ quarterly) OR SPECIFY A QUANTITY (e.g., two, three, five) installments, the TOTAL amount of which is not to exceed _______ dollars ($_________). Each installment will be payable upon satisfactory completion, in CITY’s determination, of the work in each phase identified below, and in an amount proportionate to the work CONSULTANT performed or completed within each phase:
Phase: Description: Amount:
I – [Example: Construction Documents] $_________
II – [Example: Bid Documents] $_________
III – [Example: Construction Support] _ $_________
IV – [Example: Project ‘s Closeout] $_________
TOTAL $_________
7.3. If CITY requires additional work not included in this Agreement, CONSULTANT and CITY shall negotiate the additional work, mutually agree on the amount of additional compensation, and memorialize the terms in either a separate written contract or an amendment to this Agreement.
7.4. Maximum Cost. CONSULTANT expressly acknowledges that the total cost to complete all tasks set forth in “Exhibit A” must not exceed ___________________________________ dollars ($__________) (“Maximum Cost”).
When CONSULTANT has billed 75% of the Maximum Cost, CONSULTANT shall provide written notice to CITY’s Project Manager that CONSULTANT has expended 75% of the Maximum Cost.
7.5. Taxes. CONSULTANT shall pay all applicable (federal, state, county, local, CITY) excise, sales, consumer use, possessory interest, or other similar taxes required by law that are levied upon this Agreement or upon CONSULTANT’s services under this Agreement.
7.6. Invoices. CONSULTANT shall submit an original, itemized invoice to CITY for approval, before receiving compensation. CONSULTANT shall submit the invoice at no more than monthly intervals. All invoices must include a summary of total costs, description of the Services performed, a brief itemization of costs associated with each task or phase, and the total phase or project costs to date.
8.0 AUDIT BY CITY
8.1. During this Agreement’s Term and for a period of four (4) years after the expiration, cancellation, or termination of this Agreement, or any extension of it, CONSULTANT shall:
(A) Keep and maintain, in their original form, all records, books, papers, or documents related to CONSULTANT’s performance of this Agreement; and
1356 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
58 (B) Permit CITY or its authorized representatives, at all reasonable times, to have access to, examine, audit, excerpt, copy, photocopy, photograph, or transcribe all records, books, papers, or documents related to CONSULTANT’s performance of this Agreement including, but not limited to: direct and indirect charges, and detailed documentation, for work CONSULTANT has performed or will perform under this Agreement.
9.0 DATA, RECORDS, PROPRIETARY RIGHTS
9.1. Copies of Data. CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with copies or originals of all data that CONSULTANT generates, uses, collects, or stores in relation to all work associated with this Agreement. Data that CONSULTANT generates, uses, collects, stores, or provides must be in a form acceptable to, and agreed upon by, CITY.
9.2. Ownership and Use.
(A) Unless CITY states otherwise in writing, each document— including, but not limited to, each report, draft, record, drawing, or specification (collectively, “work product”)— that CONSULTANT prepares, reproduces, or causes its preparation or reproduction for this Agreement is CITY’s exclusive property. (B) CONSULTANT acknowledges that its use of the work product is limited to the purposes contemplated by the Scope of Work. CONSULTANT makes no representation of the work product’s application to, or suitability for use in, circumstances not contemplated by the Scope of Work.
9.3. Intellectual Property.
(A) If CONSULTANT uses or incorporates patented, trademarked, or copyrighted work, ideas, or products— in whole or in part— into CONSULTANT’s work product, CONSULTANT represents that:
(1) CONSULTANT holds the patent, trademark, or copyright to the work, idea, or product; or
(2) CONSULTANT is licensed to use the patented, trademarked, or copyrighted work, idea, or product.
(B) Unless CITY states otherwise in writing, all proprietary rights or intellectual property rights, including copyrights, that arise from creation of the work under this Agreement vest in CITY. CONSULTANT waives and relinquishes all claims to proprietary rights and intellectual property rights, including copyrights, in favor of CITY. (C) CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend (including CONSULTANT’s providing and paying for legal counsel for CITY), and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees, and representatives from and against all liability, claims, suits, demands, damages, royalties, fines, penalties, costs, or expenses arising out of or 1357 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
59 alleging any infringement or misappropriation of a patent, copyright, trade secret, trade name, trademark, or other intellectual property right or proprietary right.
9.4. Confidentiality. CONSULTANT shall not use any information that it obtains from performing the Services for any purpose other than for fulfillment of CONSULTANT’s Scope of Work. Without CITY’s prior written authorization, CONSULTANT shall not disclose or publish— or authorize, permit, or allow others to disclose or publish— data, drawings, designs, specifications, reports, or other information relating to the Services or the work that CITY assigns to CONSULTANT or to which CONSULTANT has access.
9.5. Public Records Act.
(A) CONSULTANT acknowledges that this Agreement is a public record.
This Agreement, its Exhibits, and all documents produced under this Agreement are subject to the California Public Records Act (Government Code Sections 6250 et seq.), including its exemptions. CONSULTANT acknowledges that CITY has no obligation to notify CONSULTANT when a request for records is received. (B) CONSULTANT shall identify in advance all records, or portions of them, that CONSULTANT believes are exempt from production under the Public Records Act.
(C) If CONSULTANT claims a privilege against public disclosure or otherwise objects to the records’ disclosure, then:
(1) CONSULTANT may, when notified by CITY of the request, seek protection from disclosure by timely applying for relief in a court of competent jurisdiction; or
(2) CITY may either decline to produce the requested
information, or redact portions of the documents and produce the redacted records.
(D) If CONSULTANT fails to identify one or more protectable documents, in CITY’s sole discretion, and without its being in breach of this Agreement or its incurring liability to CONSULTANT, CITY may produce the records— in whole, in part, or redacted— or may decline to produce them.
(E) CONSULTANT shall indemnify, defend (including CONSULTANT’s providing and paying for legal counsel for CITY), and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees, and representatives from and against all liability, claims, suits, demands, damages, fines, penalties, costs, or expenses arising out of or alleging CITY’s refusal to publicly disclose one or more records that CONSULTANT identifies as protectable, or asserts is protectable.
1358 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
60 10.0 CONFLICT OF INTEREST; CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS
10.1. Conflict of Interest. CONSULTANT represents and certifies that:
(A) CONSULTANT’s personnel are not currently officers, agents, employees, representatives, or elected officials of CITY; (B) CONSULTANT will not employ or hire a CITY officer, agent, employee, representative, or elected official during this Agreement’s Term; (C) CITY’s officers, agents, employees, representatives, and elected officials do not, and will not, have any direct or indirect financial interest in this Agreement; and
(D) During this Agreement’s Term, CONSULTANT will inform CITY about any possible conflict of interest that may arise as a result of any change in circumstances.
10.2. Campaign Contributions.
(A) CONSULTANT and its Subconsultants shall fully comply with Glendale Municipal Code Section 1.10.060, which places limitations on CONSULTANT’s and its Subconsultants’ ability to make campaign contributions to certain elected City officials or candidates for elected City office. Specifically, Section 1.10.060 prohibits:
(1) A consultant (including a subconsultant)― who has a contract with the City of Glendale, Glendale Successor Agency, or the Housing Authority of the City of Glendale and that contract is subject to approval by the City Council, Successor Agency, or Housing Authority― from making a contribution to a City Council member, City Clerk, or City Treasurer, when the contract has a total anticipated or actual value of $50,000 or more, or a combination or series of contracts having a value of $50,000 or more; and
(2) A City Council member, Successor Agency member, or Housing Authority member from voting on a contract in which a
consultant (or a subconsultant) has provided a campaign contribution.
(B) CONSULTANT acknowledges that even if the Maximum Cost in Paragraph 7.4 of this Agreement is less than $50,000, CONSULTANT still may be subject to the campaign contribution limitations in Municipal Code Section 1.10.060, when:
(1) CONSULTANT and CITY amend the Scope of Services in
this Agreement which increases the Maximum Cost to
equal or exceed $50,000; or
1359 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
61 (2) CITY, Glendale Successor Agency, or the Housing Authority awards CONSULTANT another contract which has a total
anticipated or actual value of $50,000 or more, or awards CONSULTANT a combination or series of contracts which have a value of $50,000 or more.
(C) CONSULTANT represents and certifies that:
(1) CONSULTANT has read and fully understands the provisions of Municipal Code Section 1.10.060;
(2) CONSULTANT will not: (a) make a prohibited campaign contribution to an individual holding CITY elective office; or (b) otherwise violate Municipal Code Section 1.10.060; and
(3) CONSULTANT shall timely complete, return, and update one or more disclosure or reporting forms that CITY provides.
11.0 INSURANCE
11.1. When CONSULTANT signs and delivers this Agreement to CITY, and during this Agreement’s Term, CONSULTANT shall furnish CITY with insurance forms that fully meet the requirements of— and contain provisions entirely consistent with— all of the “Insurance Requirements,” which are attached as “Exhibit D” (D-1 to D-___) to this Agreement and are incorporated into it by this reference.
11.2. This Agreement’s insurance provisions:
(A) Are separate and independent from the indemnification and defense provisions in Article 12 of the Agreement; and
(B) Do not limit, in any way, the applicability, scope, or obligations of the indemnification and defense provisions in Article 12 of the Agreement.
12.0 INDEMNITY
12.1. To the maximum extent permitted by law— including, but not limited to, California Civil Code Section 2778— CONSULTANT, its employees, agents, Subconsultants, and persons whom CONSULTANT employs or hires (individually and collectively, “CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR”) shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY, its officers, agents, employees, and representatives (individually and collectively, “CITY INDEMNITEE”) from and against a “liability” [as defined in Subparagraph (A) below], or an “expense” [as defined in Subparagraph (B) below], or both, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to an act, error, or omission of a CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR:
1360 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
62 (A) “Liability” means claims, suits, actions, causes of action, proceedings, judgments, decrees, awards, settlements, liens, losses, damages, injuries, or liability of any kind, whether the liability is:
(1) Actual or alleged;
(2) In contract or in tort; or
(3) For bodily injury (including accidental death), personal injury, advertising injury, or property damage.
(B) “Expense” means fees, costs, sums, penalties, fines, charges, or expenses of any kind, including, but not limited to:
(1) Attorney’s fees;
(2) Costs of an investigation, litigation, arbitration, mediation, administrative or regulatory proceeding, or appeal;
(3) Fees of an accountant, expert witness, consultant, or other professional; or
(4) Pre or post: judgment interest or settlement interest.
12.2.Under this Article, CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR’s defense and indemnification obligations:
(A) Apply to a liability, or an expense, or both, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the actual or alleged passive negligence of a CITY INDEMNITEE; but (B) Do not apply to a liability, or an expense, or both, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of a CITY INDEMNITEE.
12.3.To the extent that CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR’s insurance policy provides an upfront defense to CITY, CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR’s obligation to defend a CITY INDEMNITEE under this Article:
(A) Means that CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR shall provide and pay for legal counsel, acceptable to CITY, for the CITY INDEMNITEE; (B) Occurs when a claim, suit, complaint, pleading, or action against a CITY INDEMNITEE arises out of, pertains to, relates to, or asserts an act, error, or omission of CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR; and
(C) Arises regardless of whether a claim, suit, complaint, pleading, or action specifically names or identifies CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR. 1361 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
63 12.4. Paragraph 12.3 does not limit or extinguish CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR’s obligation to reimburse a CITY INDEMNITEE for the costs of defending the CITY INDEMNITEE against a liability, or an expense, or both. A CITY INDEMNITEE’s right to recover defense costs and attorney’s fees under this Article does not require, and is not contingent upon, the CITY INDEMNITEE’s first:
(A) Requesting that CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR provide a defense to the CITY INDEMNITEE; or
(B) Obtaining CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR’s consent to the CITY INDEMNITEE’s tender of defense.
12.5.If CONSULTANT subcontracts all or any portion of the Services under this Agreement, CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with a written agreement from each Subconsultant, who must indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY INDEMNITEE under the terms in this Article.
12.6. CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR’s obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY will remain in effect and will be binding upon CONSULTANT INDEMNITOR whether the liability, or the expense, or both, accrues— or is discovered— before or after this Agreement’s expiration, cancellation, or termination.
12.7. Except for Paragraph 12.3, this Article’s indemnification and defense provisions are separate and independent from the insurance provisions in Article 11. In addition, the indemnification and defense provisions in this Article:
(A) Are neither limited to nor capped at the coverage amounts specified under the insurance provisions in Article 11; and
(B) Do not limit, in any way, the applicability, scope, or obligations of the insurance provisions in Article 11.
13.0 DEFAULT, REMEDIES, AND TERMINATION
13.1. Default. Default under this Agreement occurs upon any one or more of the following events:
(A) CONSULTANT refuses or fails— whether partially, fully, temporarily, or otherwise— to:
(1) Provide or maintain enough properly trained personnel, or licensed personnel, or both, to perform the Services that this Agreement requires;
(2) Pay for, obtain, maintain, or renew the insurance policies or coverages that this Agreement requires;
1362 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
64 (3) Comply with indemnification, defense, or hold harmless provisions that this Agreement requires; or
(B) CONSULTANT, or its personnel, or both— whether partially, fully, temporarily, or otherwise:
(1) Disregards or violates a law, ordinance, rule, procedure, regulation, directive, or order;
(2) Refuses or fails to pay for, obtain, maintain, or renew requisite licenses;
(3) Refuses or fails to observe, perform, or fulfill a covenant, condition, obligation, term, or provision of this Agreement; (4) Commits an unlawful, false, fraudulent, dishonest, deceptive, or dangerous act while performing the Services under this Agreement; or
(C) CONSULTANT:
(1) Or another party for or on behalf of CONSULTANT: institutes proceedings under any bankruptcy, reorganization, receivership or other insolvency; or assigns or transfers assets to its creditors; (2) Delegates— whether in whole, in part, temporarily, or otherwise— its duties or obligations under this Agreement, without notifying CITY, or without CITY’s written authorization; (3) Assigns, transfers, pledges, hypothecates, grants, or encumbers— whether in whole, in part, temporarily, or
otherwise— this Agreement or any interest in it, without notifying CITY, or without CITY’s written authorization; (4) Or one of its partners, directors, officers, or general managers, or a person who exercises managerial authority on
CONSULTANT’s behalf, is convicted under state or federal law, during this Agreement’s Term, of embezzlement, theft, fraud, forgery, bribery, deceptive or unlawful business practices, perjury, falsifying or destroying records or evidence, receiving stolen property, or other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty; or
(D) Any other justifiable cause or reason, as reasonably determined by the City Manager, or a designee.
1363 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
65 13.2. Notice of Default. If CITY deems that CONSULTANT is in Default, or that CONSULTANT has failed in any other respect to satisfactorily perform the Services specified in this Agreement, CITY may give written notice to CONSULTANT specifying the Default(s) that CONSULTANT shall remedy within [SELECT: 5/ 10/ 14/ 30 ] days after receiving the notice. The Notice of Default will set forth one or more bases for any dissatisfaction and may suggest corrective measures.
13.3. Remedies upon Default. Within [SELECT THE SAME NUMBER IN PARAGRAPH 13.2 ABOVE: 5/ 10/ 14/ 30 ] days after receiving CITY’s Notice of Default, if CONSULTANT refuses or fails to remedy the Default(s), or if CONSULTANT does not commence steps to remedy the Default(s) to CITY’s reasonable satisfaction, CITY may exercise any one or more of the following remedies:
(A) CITY may, in whole or in part and for any length of time, immediately suspend this Agreement until such time as CONSULTANT has corrected the Default; (B) CITY may provide for the Services either through its own forces or from another consultant, and may withhold any money due (or may become owing to) CONSULTANT for a task related to the claimed Default;
(C) CITY may withhold all moneys, or a sum of money, due CONSULTANT under this Agreement, which in CITY’s sole determination, are sufficient to secure CONSULTANT’s performance of its duties and obligations under this Agreement;
(D) CITY may immediately terminate the Agreement;
(E) CITY may exercise any legal remedy, or equitable remedy, or both, including, but not limited to, filing and action in court:
(1) Seeking CONSULTANT’s specific performance of all or any part of this Agreement; or
(2) Recovering damages for CONSULTANT’s Default, breach, or violation of this Agreement; or
(F) CITY may pursue any other available, lawful right, remedy, or action.
13.4. Termination for Convenience. Independent of the remedies provided in Paragraph 13.3, CITY may elect to terminate this Agreement at any time upon [ SELECT: 10/ 14/ 30 ] days’ prior written notice. Upon termination, CONSULTANT shall receive compensation only for that work which CONSULTANT had satisfactorily completed to the termination date. CITY shall not pay CONSULTANT for de-mobilization, takedown, disengagement, wind-down, or other costs incurred arising out of this Agreement’s termination.
1364 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
66 14.0 GENERAL PROVISIONS
14.1. Entire Agreement. This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the PARTIES. This Agreement supersedes all prior and contemporaneous communications, negotiations, understandings, promises and agreements, either oral or written. Neither CONSULTANT nor CITY has made any promises or representations, other than those contained in this Agreement or those implied by law. The PARTIES may modify this Agreement, or any part of it, by a written amendment with CITY’s and CONSULTANT’s signature.
14.2. Interpretation. This Agreement is the product of negotiation and compromise by both PARTIES. Every provision in this Agreement must be interpreted as though the PARTIES equally participated in its drafting. Therefore, despite the provisions in California Civil Code Section 1654, if this Agreement’s language is uncertain, the Agreement must not be construed against the PARTY causing the uncertainty to exist. In interpreting this Agreement and resolving any ambiguities, this Agreement will take precedence over any cover page or attachments. If a conflict occurs between a provision in this Agreement and a provision in an attachment, the following order of precedence applies, with the terms and conditions in the document higher on the list governing over those lower on the list:
(1) The Agreement.
(2) Exhibit D.
(3) Exhibit B.
(4) Exhibit A.
(5) Exhibit C.
14.3. Headings. All headings or captions in this Agreement are for convenience and reference only. They are not intended to define or limit the scope of any term, condition, or provision.
14.4. Governing Law. California’s laws govern this Agreement’s construction and interpretation. Unless this Agreement provides otherwise, any reference to laws, ordinances, rules, or regulations include their later amendments, modifications, and successor legislation.
14.5. Waiver of Breach. If a PARTY waives the other PARTY’s breach of a term in this Agreement, that waiver is not treated as waiving a later breach of the term and does not prevent the PARTY from later enforcing that term, or any other term. A waiver of a term is valid only if it is in writing and signed by the PARTY waiving it. This Agreement’s duties and obligations:
(A) Are cumulative (rather than alternative) and are in addition to (rather than a limitation on) any option, right, power, remedy, or privilege; and 1365 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
67 (B) Are not exhausted by a PARTY’s exercise of any one of them.
14.6. Attorney’s Fees. If CITY or CONSULTANT brings an action at law or in equity to enforce or interpret one or more provisions of this Agreement, the “prevailing party” is entitled to “reasonable attorney's fees” in addition to any other relief to which the prevailing party may be entitled. A “prevailing party” has the same meaning as that term is defined in California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1032(a)(4). “Reasonable attorney’s fees” of the City Attorney’s office means the fees regularly charged by private attorneys who:
(A) Practice in a law firm located in Los Angeles County; and (B) Have an equivalent number of years of professional experience in the subject matter area of the law for which the City Attorney’s services were rendered.
14.7. Further Assurances. Upon CITY’s request at any time, CONSULTANT shall promptly:
(A) Take further necessary action; and
(B) Sign, acknowledge, and deliver all additional documents as may be reasonable, necessary, or appropriate to carry out this Agreement’s intent, purpose, and terms.
14.8. Assignment.
(A) This Agreement does not give any rights or benefits to anyone, other than to CITY and CONSULTANT. All duties, obligations, and responsibilities under this Agreement are for the sole and exclusive benefit of CITY and CONSULTANT, and are not for the benefit of another person, entity, or organization. Without CITY’s prior written authorization, CONSULTANT shall not do any one or more of the following:
(1) Assign or transfer a right or interest— whether in whole, in part, temporarily, or otherwise— in this Agreement; or
(2) Delegate a duty or obligation owed— whether in whole, in part, temporarily, or otherwise— under this Agreement.
(B) Any actual or attempted assignment of rights or delegation of duties by CONSULTANT, without CITY’s prior written authorization, is wholly void and totally ineffective for all purposes; and does not postpone, delay, alter, extinguish, or terminate CONSULTANT’s duties, obligations, or responsibilities under this Agreement. (C) If CITY consents to an assignment of rights, or a delegation of duties, or both, CONSULTANT’s assignee or legal representative shall agree in writing to personally assume, perform, and to be bound unconditionally by the covenants, obligations, terms, and conditions in this Agreement.
1366 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
68 14.9. Successors and Assigns. Subject to the provisions in Paragraph
14.8, this Agreement is binding on the heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns of the respective PARTIES.
14.10. Time is of the Essence.
(A) Except when this Agreement states otherwise, time is of the essence in this Agreement. CONSULTANT acknowledges that this Agreement’s time limits and deadlines are reasonable for CONSULTANT’s performing the Services under this Agreement.
(B) Unless this Agreement specifies otherwise, any reference to “day” or “days” means calendar and not business days. If the last day for giving notice or performing an act under this Agreement falls on a weekend, a legal holiday listed in either Glendale Municipal Code Section 3.08.010 or California’s Government Code, or a day when City Hall is closed, the period is extended to and including the next day that CITY is open for business. A reference to the time of day refers to local time for Glendale, California.
14.11. Recycled Paper. CONSULTANT shall endeavor to submit all reports, correspondence, and documents related to this Agreement on recycled paper.
14.12. Notices.
(A) The PARTIES shall submit in writing all notices and correspondence that this Agreement requires or permits, and shall deliver the notices and correspondence to the places set forth below. The PARTIES may give notice by:
(1) Personal delivery;
(2) U.S. mail, first class postage prepaid;
(3) “Certified” U.S. mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested; or
(4) Facsimile.
(B) All written notices or correspondence sent in the described manner will be presumed “given” to a PARTY on whichever date occurs earliest:
(1) The date of personal delivery;
(2) The third (3rd) business day following deposit in the U.S. mail, when sent by “first class” mail;
(3) The date on which the PARTY or its agent either signed the return receipt or refused to accept delivery, as noted on the return receipt or other U.S. Postal Service form, when sent by “certified” mail; or 1367 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
69 (4) The date of transmission, when sent by facsimile. (C) At any time, by providing written notice to the other PARTY, CITY or CONSULTANT may change the place, or facsimile number, for giving notice.
CITY: City of Glendale
Dept.: _____________________
__________________________
Glendale, CA 9120__
Attn: ______________________
Tel. No. ____________________
Fax. No. ___________________
CONSULTANT:
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
Attn: ______________________
Tel. No. ____________________
Fax. No. ___________________
14.13. Survival. This Paragraph and the obligations set forth in Paragraphs
5.4, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 7.5, 8.1, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 11.1, 11.2, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5,
12.6, 12.7, 13.3, 14.5, 14.6, 14.7, 14.8, 14.9, and 14.12 survive this Agreement’s expiration, cancellation, or termination.
14.14. Severability. The invalidity, in whole or in part, of any term of this Agreement will not affect this Agreement’s remaining terms.
14.15. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which is an original, but all of which constitutes one and the same document. The PARTIES shall sign a sufficient number of counterparts, so that each PARTY will receive a fully executed original of this Agreement.
14.16. Representations – Authority. The PARTIES represent that:
(A) They have read this Agreement, fully understand its contents, and have received a copy of it;
(B) Through their duly authorized representative, they are authorized to sign this Agreement, and they are bound by its terms; and 1368 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
70 (C) They have executed this Agreement on the date opposite their signature.
Executed at Glendale, California.
CITY OF GLENDALE:
By Date: , 20
(Name)
(Title)
CONSULTANT:
By Date: , 20
(Name)
(Title)
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Date
1369 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
71 EXHIBIT LIST
“Exhibit A”: Scope of Work
(__ pages)
“Exhibit B”: Project Time Schedule
(__ pages)
“Exhibit C”: Fee Schedule
(__ pages)
“Exhibit D”: Insurance Requirements
(__ pages)
1370 of 1517
City of Glendale Plan to Increase Solar and DER
72 APPENDIX D – Proposal Forms and Detailed
Instructions
1371 of 1517
PF:1
APPENDIX D –
PROPOSAL FORMS AND DETAILED INSTRUCTIONS
PROPOSAL CHECKLIST
The City has developed this optional checklist to assist Proposers in complying with the proposal submittal requirements.
Volume I – PROPOSAL FORMS
___ Proposal Form and Signature Page
___ Experience Form and Attached Brief description of each Project ___ Proposer’s Qualifications Statement
___ Insurance Requirements Affidavit
___ Disclosure – Campaign Finance Ordinance Form
___ Public Records Exempt Information
Volume II – MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL
___ Organization/ Management Approach to the Work
___ Qualifications of Key Personnel
___ Key Personnel References
Volume III – TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
___ Project Summary
___ Budget
___ Project Development Process
___ Project Implementation Timeline
1372 of 1517
PF:2
VOLUME I – Proposal Forms
Please include in Volume I of your Proposal the forms and information found on the following pages.
1373 of 1517
PF:3
PROPOSAL
FOR
CITY OF GLENDALE
DEVELOPING A PLAN TO INCREASE SOLAR PENETRATION AND DEVELOP ADDITIONAL
DISTRIBUTED ENERGY RESOURCES (DER)
Date: , 20____
Proposer: Name of Business
Tax Identification No.: Contact Person:
Address:
City: State: Zip Code:
Telephone: Email:
1374 of 1517
PF:4
TO THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA:
In response to the Request for Proposals (“RFP”) by the City of Glendale (“City”), the undersigned person or entity (“Proposer”) now submits this Proposal (“Proposal”), with the accompanying forms and attachments.
1. In submitting this Proposal, Proposer certifies that:
A. Proposer has read, examined, and is fully familiar with all three of the items below (collectively, “the Documents”):
(1) The RFP’s provisions;
(2) The Contract’s terms, conditions, requirements, specifications, and minimum performance standards; and
(3) Any Addenda issued during the proposal period;
B. Proposer has carefully checked all words, figures, and statements made in the Documents;
C. Proposer is satisfied that the Documents are accurate; D. Proposer understands and accepts all of the Documents’ provisions; E. Proposer has examined the location or facility for which this Proposal is submitted, and Proposer is fully familiar with all facts, conditions, circumstances, and matters that may affect, in any way, Proposer’s services or costs; F. Proposer has fully considered all other matters that may affect, in any way, Proposer’s services or costs;
G. If Proposer is awarded a Contract, Proposer will not make a claim against City based upon ignorance of local conditions or misunderstanding of any of the Contract’s provisions. If the conditions turn out otherwise than what Proposer anticipated, Proposer agrees to assume all risks incident to it; H. Proposer offers to fully perform all of the duties and obligations specified in the Documents in exchange for the consideration described in the Documents; I. This Proposal is an irrevocable offer for a period of at least one-hundred eighty (180) calendar days following Proposal Deadline;
J. Except as the Contract or California law allows, City is not liable or responsible for any costs, fees, or expenses that Proposer incurs for any one or more of the following:
(1) Responding to this RFP;
(2) Anticipating or preparing for an award of a Contract; (3) Obtaining any equipment, personnel, facilities, or other items to comply with the Documents’ provisions; or
(4) Performing the services under the Contract;
K. Within fourteen (14) calendar days after City issues a Notice of Award of Contract, or within any extension that City may allow, Proposer agrees to:
(1) Sign and deliver the Contract, of which the RFP, its attached Exhibits, and the Notice calling for Proposals are a part; and
(2) Furnish the proof of insurance and performance security required by the Contract; and
L. At its expense, Proposer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives— from and against any and all liability, suits, actions, proceedings, judgments, claims, demands, liens, losses, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees, litigation, arbitration, mediation, appeal expenses), if a dispute, lawsuit, or other proceeding arises out of any one or more of the following:
(1) Proposer’s submitting the Proposal;
(2) City’s accepting Proposer’s Proposal; or
(3) City’s awarding a Contract to Proposer in compliance with this RFP, or 1375 of 1517
PF:5
state, federal, or local laws.
2. Under the penalty of perjury, Proposer certifies that:
A. This Proposal is genuine, is not a sham or collusive, and is not made in the interest of, or on behalf of, any person, partnership, corporation, firm, organization, or another entity not named or disclosed in the Proposal; B. Proposer did not, directly or indirectly, induce, agree, or solicit anyone else to submit a false or sham Proposal, to refrain from proposing, to withdraw a Proposal, or to attempt to induce an action prejudicial to City’s interests; C. Proposer has not sought by collusion, in any manner, to secure for Proposer any advantage over other proposers; and
D. All facts and statements in the Proposal are completely true, accurate, and correct.
E. By signing this Proposal, each individual below represents and warrants that the individual:
(1) Has the right, power, legal capacity, and authority not only to sign this Proposal on the Proposer’s behalf, but also to bind the Proposer to this Proposal; and
(2) Binds the Proposer to this Proposal.
PROPOSER:
SIGNATURE MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED
BEFORE A NOTARY
By Signature
Name Printed
Its Title
Address
Telephone
IF PROPOSER IS A CORPORATION, IF PROPOSER IS A PARTNERSHIP,
PLACE IMPRINT OF CORPORATE SEAL JOINT VENTURE, OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY, BELOW: THEN EACH PARTNER, PRINCIPAL, OR
INDIVIDUAL MUST SIGN THIS PROPOSAL IN
FRONT OF A NOTARY
SEAL
1376 of 1517
PF:6
ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE PAGE
FOR PROPOSAL
PROPOSER:
SIGNATURES MUST BE ACKNOWLEDGED
BEFORE A NOTARY
By Signature
Name Printed
Its Title
Address
Telephone
By Signature
Name Printed
Its Title
Address
Telephone
By Signature
Name Printed
Its Title
Address
Telephone
By Signature
Name Printed
Its Title
Address
Telephone
1377 of 1517
PF:7
CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
State of California } County of
On before me, Date Name and Title of the Officer
personally appeared Name(s) of Signer(s)
Place Notary Seal Above
who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature Signature of Notary Public
OPTIONAL
Although the data below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent reattachment of this form to another document.
Description of Attached Document
Title or Type of Document:
Document Date: Number of Pages:
Signer(s) Other Than Named Above:
Capacity(ies) Claimed by Signer(s)
Signer’s Name:
Individual
Corporate Officer — Title:
Partner: Limited General
Attorney-In-Fact
Trustee
Guardian Conservator
Other:
Signer is representing:
RIGHT THUMBPRINT
OF SIGNER
Top of Thumb Here
Signer’s Name:
Individual
Corporate Officer — Title:
Partner: Limited General
Attorney-In-Fact
Trustee
Guardian Conservator
Other:
Signer is representing:
RIGHT THUMBPRINT
OF SIGNER
Top of Thumb Here
1378 of 1517
PF:8
EXPERIENCE FORM – MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS
Below list at least: Two (2) projects successfully completed by the Proposer; each comparable in scope and scale to this Project, within five (5) years before the Proposal Deadline and with a dollar value equal to or in excess of the Proposal submitted for this Project.
CONTRACT
START DATE
CONTRACT
END DATE
CONTRACT
$ AMOUNT
PROJECT NAME
AND ADDRESS PROPOSER’S ROLE
CONTACT
NAME/TITLE
CONTACT
PHONE
NUMBER
PROJECT SIZE
(MW)
1 2
3 4
1379 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:9
PROPOSER’S QUALIFICATIONS STATEMENT
All responses must be typewritten or printed legibly in ink. When additional space is needed to explain an answer, attach sheets as necessary. Failure to (1) complete this form, (2) return it, or (3) attach a required document may render the Proposal non-responsive.
1. BUSINESS ORGANIZATION / STRUCTURE
1.1 Your firm is a:
Corporation Sole Proprietorship Partnership
Limited Liability Company Other:
1.2 If your firm is a corporation, answer the following:
1.2.1 Date of incorporation:
1.2.2 State of incorporation:
1.2.3 Corporate ID number:
1.2.4 President’s name:
1.2.5 Is your firm a publicly traded corporation?
□YES □ NO
1.2.6 For any person, firm or entity who owns 25% or more of the corporation’s stock, identify the individual, firm or entity and the corresponding percentage of ownership:
Name: Percent:
Name: Percent:
Name: Percent:
Name: Percent:
1.3 If your firm is a limited liability company, answer the following:
1.3.1 Date of formation:
1.3.2 State of formation:
1.3.3 Secretary of State’s File or ID number:
1380 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:10
1.3.4 Chief Executive Officer’s name:
1.3.5 Name of Manager(s):
1.3.6 For any person, firm or entity whose ownership or membership interest in the company exceeds 25%, identify the individual, firm or entity and the corresponding percentage of ownership or membership:
Name: Percent:
Name: Percent:
Name: Percent:
Name: Percent:
1.4 If your firm is a partnership, answer the following:
1.4.1 Date of formation:
1.4.2 Type of partnership (General, Limited, LLP):
1.4.3 Secretary of State’s Registration or ID number:
1.4.4 List the name of the General Partner(s) and any individual who has any equity interest in the partnership:
1.4.5. List jurisdictions in which your firm’s fictitious name (dba) is filed:
1.5 If your firm is individually owned (a sole proprietorship), answer the following:
1.5.1 Date your firm started:
1.5.2 Name of owner:
1.5.3 List jurisdictions in which your firm’s fictitious name (dba) is filed:
1.6 If your firm is other than the type listed above, such as a joint venture, consortium, trust, association or other combination, describe the business organization or structure, identify the principals, and list their corresponding percentage of ownership or control:
1381 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:11
1.6.1 Description of business organization or structure:
1.6.2 Principals and their corresponding percentage of ownership or control:
Name: Percent:
Name: Percent:
Name: Percent:
Name: Percent:
2. OWNERSHIP AND NAME CHANGES
2.1 How many years has your firm been in business under its present name?
2.2 In the past five years, has your firm changed names? □YES □ NO
If Yes, list all prior names, addresses, and the dates they were used. Explain the reason for each name change:
2.2.1 Prior name:
2.2.2 Address:
2.2.3 Reason name changed:
2.2.4 Starting / ending dates of prior name: /
2.3 Is your firm a subsidiary, parent, holding company, or affiliate of another firm? □YES □ NO
If Yes, explain the relationship between your firm and the associated firms. Include information about an affiliated firm only if one firm owns 50% or more of another firm, or if an owner, partner or officer of your firm holds a similar position in another firm:
2.3.1 Associated firm’s name:
2.3.2 Address:
2.3.3 Relationship between your firm and the associated firm:
2.3.4 Principals and their corresponding percentage of ownership or control:
1382 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:12
Name: Percent:
Name: Percent:
Name: Percent:
Name: Percent:
3. LICENSING
3.1 Do you have a current, active, valid California Contractor License? □YES □ NO
If Yes, provide the Contractor license number, license class, and expiration date:
3.1.1 Contractor License Number:
3.1.2 License Class:
3.1.3 Expiration Date:
3.2 Are you registered with California’s Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) in accordance with Labor Code Section 1725.5?
□YES □ NO
If Yes, provide the DIR Contractor Registration Number and expiration date:
3.2.1 DIR Contractor Registration Number:
3.2.2 Expiration Date:
3.3 List jurisdictions in which your firm is legally qualified to do business, provide license or registration number, and set forth the type of license. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
3.2.1 Jurisdiction:
3.2.2 License or registration number:
3.2.3 Type of license:
3.4 Are any of your firm’s licenses held in the name of a corporation or partnership? □YES □ NO
If Yes, list below the name of the corporation or partnership that actually holds the license:
3.1.1 Corporation’s or partnership’s name:
3.1.2 Type of license:
1383 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:13
For the following question, the term “owner” does not include owners of stock in your firm if your firm is a publicly traded corporation.
3.5 In the past seven years, has your firm or any of its owners, partners, officers, or employees been investigated, cited, assessed any penalties, subject to any disciplinary action by a licensing agency, or found to have violated any licensing laws or regulations?
□YES □ NO
If Yes, identity the licensing agency, type of license, date and reason for the disciplinary action. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
3.5.1 Licensing Agency:
3.5.2 Type of license:
3.5.3 Date of disciplinary action:
3.5.4 Reason for disciplinary action:
4. CLAIMS; LAWSUITS; CRIMINAL ACTS
For the following questions, the term “owner” does not include owners of stock in your firm if your firm is a publicly traded corporation.
4.1 In the past five years, has your firm or any of its owners, partners, officers, or employees been a defendant in court, or participated in an arbitration or mediation, or administrative hearing on a matter related to:
4.1.1 The performance, non-performance, default, violation, or breach of a contract or agreement? □YES □ NO
4.1.2 Damage to a government entity’s or a client’s premises, facility, or equipment arising out of your equipment, services, or operations?
□YES □ NO
4.1.3 Employment-related litigation brought by an employee of your firm? □YES □ NO
4.1.4 Payment or non-payment to a subcontractor or supplier? □YES □ NO
4.1.5 Federal Davis Bacon or California Labor Code requirements relating to underpayment of wages, failure to maintain or produce payroll records, failure to use apprentices in appropriate ratios, or failure to maintain workers’ compensation insurance?
1384 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:14
□YES □ NO
4.1.6 Defective, deficient, substandard, or noncompliant work? □YES □ NO
If the answer to any question in 4.1.1 to 4.1.6 is YES, identify the name of the person or entity that sued (i.e., “the plaintiff”) or was involved in the mediation or arbitration; list the date, court, court address, and case number; describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the lawsuit, mediation, or arbitration; and set forth the outcome or disposition. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
4.2 Has your firm ever filed a claim for damages or a lawsuit, or requested arbitration or mediation, against a government entity or a client?
□ YES □ NO
If YES, identify the government entity or client; list the date, court and case number; describe the facts and circumstances about the claim for damages, or the lawsuit, or both; and set forth the outcome or disposition. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
4.3 Are there any pending or outstanding judgments or liens against your firm or any of its owners, partners, officers, or employees?
□YES □ NO
1385 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:15
If YES, identify the name of the person or entity entitled to payment; list the date court and case number; describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to the judgment or lien; and set forth the amount of the judgment or lien. Attach additional sheets if necessary.
4.4 In the past five years, has any government entity ever: (a) investigated, cited, disciplined, or assessed any penalties against your firm or any of its owners, partners, officers, or employees, or (b) determined or concluded that your firm or any of its owners, partners, officers, or employees violated any laws, rules, or regulations? □YES □ NO
If YES, identify the government entity; list the date, and describe the facts and circumstances about each instance. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
4.5 In the past five years, has your firm or any of its owners, partners, officers or employees been convicted of a felony? (“Convicted” includes a verdict of guilty by a judge or jury, a plea of guilty, a plea of nolo contendere, or a forfeiture of bail.)
□YES □ NO
If YES, explain the details of that conviction and, if so, whether you or said officer have served his or her sentence. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
4.6 In the past five years, has your firm or any of its owners, partners, officers or employees been convicted of a crime related to the bidding of a government contract, the awarding of a government contract, or the performance of a government contract?
□YES □ NO
If YES, identify the government entity; list the date, court and case number; describe the facts and circumstances about each instance; and set forth the penalty or punishment imposed. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
1386 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:16
4.7 In the past five years, has your firm or any of its owners, partners, officers or employees been convicted of a crime involving embezzlement, theft, fraud, forgery, bribery, deceptive or unlawful business practices, perjury, falsifying or destroying records or evidence, or receiving stolen property, or making or submitting a false claim? □YES □ NO
If YES, identify the crime or offense; list the date, court and case number; describe the facts and circumstances about each instance; and set forth the penalty or punishment imposed. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
4.8 In the past five years, has a government entity determined or concluded that your firm or any of its owners, partners, officers or employees made or submitted a false claim (including a false claim for payment), or made a material misrepresentation?
□YES □ NO
If YES, identify the government entity, and describe the facts and circumstances about each instance. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
4.9 Is a government entity currently investigating your firm or any of its owners, partners, officers or employees for making false claim(s) or material misrepresentation(s)? □YES □ NO
If YES, identify the government entity, and describe the facts and circumstances about each instance. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
4.10 Have you or your company ever been charged by any governmental agency for failure to follow safety procedures?
□YES □ NO
1387 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:17
If YES, explain. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
4.11 Has any governmental agency ever submitted a complaint against you to the California State Labor Commission for failure to submit certified payrolls or use apprentices in proper ratios? □YES □ NO
If YES, provide the details of such complaint. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
4.12 Has any governmental agency ever issued against you or one of your subcontractors Civil Wage and Penalty Assessments?
□YES □ NO
If YES, list all Civil Wage and Penalty Assessments date and dollar amount issued against you or one of your subcontractor by any of the following entities: the California Department of Industrial Relations, a California public entity, or federal public entity, in the last five years and explain how the assessment was resolved. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
5. FIRM’S OPERATIONAL STATUS
5.1. In the past seven years, has your firm, or anyone else acting on behalf of your firm, filed for bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership, or reorganization?
□YES □ NO
If YES, list the filing date, identify the court and case number; describe the facts and circumstances giving rise to each instance; and set forth the disposition or current status. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
1388 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:18
5.2. In the past five years, has your firm had any consolidations, mergers, acquisitions, closings, layoffs or staff reductions?
□YES □ NO
If YES, list the filing date, and describe the facts and circumstances about each instance. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
5.3. Is your firm in the process of, or in negotiations toward: (a) consolidating, merging, selling, or closing its business, or (b) laying off employees or reducing staff? □YES □ NO
If YES, describe the transaction; list the anticipated date for completing the transaction, laying off employees, or reducing staff; and describe the facts, circumstances, and reason for taking the action.
Attach additional sheets as necessary.
6. BIDDING; DEBARMENT; CONTRACT PERFORMANCE
6.1. Has a government entity ever debarred, disqualified, removed, suspended, or otherwise prevented your firm from bidding on, contracting, or completing a construction project? □YES □ NO
If YES, identify the name of the government entity, list the date, and describe the facts and circumstances about each instance, and state the reason for the government entity’s action against your firm. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
1389 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:19
6.2. Has a government entity ever rejected your firm’s Bid or Proposal on the ground that your firm is a “nonresponsible” bidder or proposer? □YES □ NO
If YES, identify the name of the government entity, list the date, describe the facts and circumstances about each instance, and state the reason or basis for the government entity’s determining that your firm was a “non-responsible” bidder. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
6.3. Has your firm ever failed to fulfill or perform — either partially or completely — a contract or an agreement with a government entity or a client?
□YES □ NO
If YES, identify the name of the government entity or client, list the date, and describe the facts and circumstances about each instance. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
6.4. In the past five years, has any officer or principal of your firm been an officer of another firm which failed to perform a contract or agreement?
□YES □ NO
If YES, list the date, and describe the facts and circumstances about each instance. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
6.5. Has your firm ever advised a government entity or a client, while your firm was under contract with the government entity or client, that your firm could not (or would not) fulfill or perform — either partially or completely — the contract or the agreement based on the prices that your firm had originally submitted in a Bid or a Proposal?
□YES □ NO
If YES, list the date, identify the name of the government entity or client, and describe the facts and circumstances about each instance. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
1390 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:20
6.6. Has your firm ever requested a government entity or a client, while your firm was under contract with the government entity or client, to renegotiate one or more terms of the existing contract or agreement? □YES □ NO
If YES, identify the name of the government entity or client, list the date, and describe the facts and circumstances about each instance. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
6.7. Has your firm ever requested a government entity or a client, while your firm was under contract with the government entity or client, to: (a) cancel the contract or agreement, or (b) release or discharge your firm form the contract or agreement?
□YES □ NO
If YES, identify the name of the government entity or client, list the date, and describe the facts and circumstances about each instance. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
6.8. Has a government entity or a client ever terminated, suspended, or non-renewed your firm’s contract or agreement before its completion?
□YES □ NO
If YES, identify the name of the government entity, list the date, and describe the facts and circumstances about each instance. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
6.9. Has a government entity or a client ever notified or advised your firm that your firm’s performance under a contract or agreement was poor, substandard, defective, deficient, or non-compliant? □YES □ NO
1391 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:21
If YES, identify the name of the government entity or client, list the date, and describe the facts and circumstances about each instance. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
6.10. In the past five years, has your firm paid, or has your firm been assessed, liquidated damages on a contract or agreement?
□YES □ NO
If YES, identify all such contracts/projects by owner, owner’s address, the date of completion of the project, amount of liquidated damages assessed, and all other information necessary to fully explain the assessment or payment of liquidated damages. Attach additional sheets as necessary.
7. INSURANCE AND BONDS
7.1. In the past ten years, has an insurance company or a surety company:
7.1.1. Refused to insure your firm for liability coverage? □YES □ NO
7.1.2. Canceled or non-renewed your firm’s insurance coverage? □YES □ NO
7.1.3. Refused to issue your firm a bond?
□YES □ NO
7.1.4. Canceled or revoked a bond obtained by your firm? □YES □ NO
If the answer to any question in 7.1.1 to 7.1.4 is YES, identify the name of the insurance company or surety company, list the date, and describe the facts and circumstances about each instance.
Attach addition sheets as necessary.
1392 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:22
7.2 In the past ten (10) years, has an insurance company or surety company made any payments on your firm’s behalf as a result of a default, to satisfy any claims against a performance bond, payment bond, or maintenance bond issued on your firm’s behalf?
□YES □ NO
If YES, identify each contract completed or amount of each claim, the name and telephone number of the claimant, the date, grounds and current status of the claim, and if resolved, the method, nature, and amount of the resolution. Attach addition sheets as necessary.
7.3 A Proposer who is awarded a contract must maintain liability and workers’ compensation insurance, as more fully described in the RFP and the Contract. Place an “X” below, to indicate the type of insurance coverage that your firm now has:
□ Commercial General Liability
□ Business Automobile Liability
□ Workers’ Compensation Liability
□ Cyber Risk and Privacy Liability
□ Excess Liability or Umbrella
7.4 If your firm is self-insured, identify the liability(s) listed above for which your firm insures itself, and set forth the amount of the self-insured retention (SIR):
Liability: SIR amount:
Liability: SIR amount:
Liability: SIR amount:
1393 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:23
8. CREDIT AND REFERENCE CHECK
8.1 The City of Glendale may contact the references, government entities, and other persons listed in this Proposal. The City of Glendale will use this information to evaluate your firm’s responsibility and integrity with respect to this Proposal, an award of the Contract, or any contract renewal. The City of Glendale will treat any information that it obtains now or later as confidential.
8.1.1 Does your firm authorize the references, government entities, and other persons listed in this Proposal to release information about your firm to the City of Glendale?
Yes No
8.1.2 Does your firm authorize the references, government entities, and other persons listed in this Proposal to release information about your firm to the City of Glendale?
Yes No
1394 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:24
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AFFIDAVIT
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS AFFIDAVIT
THE PROPOSER’S INSURANCE COMPANY(S) OR INSURANCE AGENT MUST COMPLETE THIS FORM AND
THE PROPOSER MUST SUBMIT THIS AFFIDAVIT WITH THE PROPOSAL FORMS.
I, the undersigned (check one box: underwriter agent), certify that I and the Vendor listed below have jointly reviewed the “Insurance Requirements” in this Request for Proposals. If the City of Glendale (“City”) awards the Vendor the Contract (Facility Use Agreement) for the Mobile Cart Food and Beverage Services, I will be able—within fourteen (14) calendar days after the Vendor is notified of the Contract’s award—to furnish the City with valid insurance forms (including one or more insurance certificates and additional insured endorsements) that fully meet all of the Insurance Requirements.
Name of Insurance Company Date
Insurance Agent’s Name (Printed) Insurance Agent’s Name (signature)
Address City State Zip Code
Telephone Number Email Address
Vendor’s Name Request for Proposal
Below State the Name of Insurance Company Providing Coverage:
DO NOT write “Will Provide,” “To Be Determined,” “When Required,” or similar phrases.
Commercial General Liability Automobile Liability
Workers’ Compensation Liability Professional Liability
City Will Purchase Policy, if required
Builders Risk Cyber Risk and Privacy Liability
NOTE TO THE UNDERWRITER / AGENT: If the insurance forms that the Vendor submits to the City do not fully comply with the Insurance Requirements, and/or if the Vendor fails to submit the forms within the 14-day time limit, the City may: (1) declare the Vendor’s Proposal non-responsive, and (2) award the Contract to the next highest scoring, responsible proposer.
If you have any questions about Insurance Requirements, please contact the City Risk Management Section at (818) 548-2080. 1395 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:25
DISCLOSURE - CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE – CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5744, “Campaign Finance Ordinance,” which became effective on September 9, 2011, and amended it with Ordinance No. 5768, which became effective on March 15, 2012 (“the Ordinance”). The Ordinance prohibits: (1) A contractor* (including a subcontractor**)― who has a contract with the City of Glendale (“City”), Glendale Successor Agency or Glendale Redevelopment Agency (“GSA”), or the Housing Authority of the City of Glendale (“HA”) and that contract is subject to approval by the City Council, GSA, or HA― from making a contribution to a City Council member, GSA member, HA member, City Clerk, or City Treasurer; and (2) Council members, GSA members, and HA members from voting on matters concerning a contract affecting a contractor or subcontractor who has provided a campaign contribution.
The provisions of the Ordinance restricting Council members from voting on matters affecting campaign contributors applies to a contractor whose contract requires the City Council’s, GSA’s, or HA’s approval, and specified subcontractors. A contract with the City, GSA, or HA is known as a “City Contract.” The Ordinance excludes a competitively bid contract awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.
To assist members of the City Council, GSA, and HA before they vote on a matter regarding a City Contract, the Ordinance requires City staff to prepare this report which discloses certain information about: the contractor receiving the City Contract, and specified subcontractor(s) working under the City Contract.
Information that must be disclosed: ● Name of the person, entity, or organization (i.e., the Contractor or Subcontractor) ● Name of the Chief Executive Officer/President
● Chief Operating Officer
● Chief Financial Officer
● Chairperson
● All members of the Board of Directors
● All persons who own more than 10% of the person, entity, or organization ● Name of any campaign committee owned or controlled by the person, entity, or organization Please complete the following disclosure form:
Contractor(s)*:
Name Address
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
* “Contractor” is the person, entity, or organization that is the party, or prospective party, to the contract with the City, GSA, or HA. In addition to the name of the person, or entity, the Contractor must also disclose the name(s) of that person’s, entity’s, or organization’s Board of Directors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization. Please disclose these persons’ name and business address. 1396 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:26
Subcontractor(s)**:
Name Address
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
** “Subcontractor” is a person, entity, or organization that has entered into a contract for the performance of all or a portion of the work undertaken under an agreement with an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract, usually by a general or prime contractor. You must also disclose the names of each Subcontractor’s Board of Directors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization. Above please disclose these persons’ name and business address. Attach additional forms as needed for additional Subcontractors.
Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:
Title Business Address City State Zip
CERTIFICATION
On behalf of the above-named Contractor Subcontractor:
• I acknowledge that I have a continuing obligation to update this disclosure form if I substitute― or if I select additional― architects, design professionals, contractors, or subcontractors within ten (10) days of the selection or change; and • I hereby certify that:
I have identified all persons for which the Ordinance requires disclosure; The information in this disclosure form (and any attachment to this form) is true, accurate, correct, and complete; and I have been legally authorized to submit this disclosure form.
In total, this disclosure form (including attachments) is pages.
Executed on: , 20 , at: , California.
Signature: Print Full Name:
Address:
Phone Number: E-mail Address: 1397 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:27
PUBLIC RECORDS EXEMPT INFORMATION
Below identify (by a general description) all copyrighted material, trade secrets, or other proprietary information (“protectable documents”) that Proposer has included in this Proposal which Proposer believes should be exempt from disclosure under California’s Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6250, et seq. By listing the protectable documents below, Proposer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless City— including, its officers, agents, employees, and representatives— from and against any action, claim, lawsuit, or proceeding, including costs and expenses, arising out of or connected with the City’s refusal to disclose the protectable documents to any party making a request for those items. The City will treat any Proposer, who fails to identify below protectable documents that Proposer believes should be exempt from disclosure, as having waived its right to an exemption from disclosure, as the Public Records Act provides.
1398 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:28
VOLUME II. MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL
Volume II of your Proposal must include the following information and submittals. (1) Organizational/ Management Approach to the Work (3-page limit) Describe the organization approach for your proposed team, including the roles of and management of subcontractors, and an organization chat that identifies overall reporting structures. The approach to risk management and process for escalating issues within the Proposer’s organization and the City should be identified, including alternative procedures if the proposal milestones are not achieved within the scheduled milestone dates. Provide information that is detailed enough to demonstrate that the Proposer has the project management skills to deliver the required project on time. Describe the reporting that will be made available to the City, including the frequency, and how the City will have visibility into the Contractor’s performance.
(2) Qualifications of your Key Personnel (2-page limit each) Provide a summary of the qualifications of, and experience of, key personnel who will be assigned to the project, including resumes of key personnel of subconsultants or subcontractors. If subcontractors will be used, subcontractors shall not be allowed to further subcontract with others for work in this Statement of Work. (3) Key Personnel References
Provide a minimum of 3 relevant references for each team member identified as key personnel. References should be on similar projects or services that closely match the size, complexity, and tasks described in the statement of work of this RFP.
References must be from the end-client or users of the project or service, and not third-party consultants or owners’ representatives.
1399 of 1517
City of Glendale
Plan to Increase Solar Penetration and Develop Additional Distributed Energy Resources RFP PF:29
VOLUME III. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL
Volume III of your proposal must include the following information and submittals. (1) Project Summary (25-page maximum, excluding forms)
Provide a comprehensive description of the approach for meeting all of the requirements of the Statement of Work or Scope of Services. Particular emphasis should be given to confirm depth and breadth of technical and/or industry knowledge. At a minimum, the Technical Approach Section must include the following:
(a) Executive summary of the Proposal and general scope of work. (2) Budget
Provide a separate detailed budget, including administration, labor, materials, and other project costs for each Category your proposal includes:
Category 1 – Solar and DER Development Plan
Category 2 – Estimate of Dispatchable Capacity Analysis Category 3 – Cost & Benefit Analysis
(3) Project Development Process
Provide a task-by-task description of how each Category of the project will be developed and implemented.
(4) Project Implementation Timeline
Provide a project implementation timeline, with start and stop dates, deliverables, and other significant milestones.
1400 of 1517
8d
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Appointment of One City of Glendale Member to the Burbank-GlendalePasadena Airport Authority Commission
1. Motion appointing one individual to the vacant seat as a Glendale member on the Airport Authority Commission for the remainder of the unexpired term through May 31, 2025.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for November 15, 2022 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council is being asked to consider appointing one individual to the unexpired term (through May 31, 2025) to serve as a member representing the City of Glendale on the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority Commission. Council can appoint any elected or non-elected official to fill the vacancy. Former Mayor Frank Quintero and former Chief of Police Carl Povilaitis were nominated for consideration during the September 20, 2022 City Council Meeting.
1401 of 1517
2 d 8
COUNCIL PRIORITIES
N/A
RECOMMENDATION
That Council consider appointing one individual to the unexpired term (through May 31, 2025) to serve as a member representing the City of Glendale on the BurbankGlendale-Pasadena Airport Authority Commission.
BACKGROUND
The Hollywood Burbank Airport is owned and operated by the Burbank-GlendalePasadena Airport Authority (BGPAA), a government agency created and governed by a joint powers agreement (JPA) between the cities of Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena.
The BGPAA is governed by nine Commissioners, three appointed from each city. The Commissioners serve four-year terms, with current commissioners serving until their replacements are appointed.
Under the JPA, no qualifications are established for appointment of commissioners by any of the cities (Paragraph 2.2, Commission of the Authority). Each city appoints commissioners based upon their own policies and criteria. Currently, Councilmember Paula Devine and Councilmember Ara Najarian serve as Glendale’s members on the BGPAA Commission.
Regularly scheduled meetings take place the first and third Mondays of each month at 9:00 am, with various committee meetings taking place right before or after the regularly scheduled meetings.
ANALYSIS
On September 20, 2022, City Council received a report regarding a vacancy on the BGPAA Commission. During that meeting, Former Mayor Frank Quintero and former Chief of Police Carl Povilaitis were nominated for consideration, by Councilmembers Brotman and Devine, respectively.
Mr. Quintero has indicated interest in the appointment, and will accept if selected. Mr.
Povilaitis has withdrawn his name from consideration. Nominations have not closed.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The appointment of a member to the BGPAA is exempt from environmental review because it can be seen with certainty that the act of selecting a representative member would not have any effect on the environment, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 1402 of 1517
3 d 8
15061(b)(3).
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Close nominations and appoint Mr. Frank Quintero to serve as a Glendale member of the BGPAA Commission.
Alternative 2: Accept more nominations and vote to appoint one individual to serve as a Glendale member of the BGPAA Commission.
Alternative 3: Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:
Christine Powers, Senior Executive Analyst
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None
1403 of 1517
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby selects and appoints _________________ to fill a vacancy on the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority commission through the rest of the unexpired term, which unexpired term ends on May 31, 2025. Said appointment shall be effective immediately.
Vote as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
1404 of 1517
9a
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Public Hearing on Appeal of Design Review Board’s Case No. PDR 2002198, located at 3035 Edgewick Road
1. Motion to sustain the Design Review Board’s decision to approve the Design Review Board application with conditions, as presented in the revised plans.
2. Motion to continue, directing City Attorney to draft findings supporting denial of the Design Review Board application.
3. Motion to remand the case to the Design Review Board for further consideration.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for November 15, 2022 Calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This hearing is an appeal of the decision made by the Design Review Board on July 22, 2021, to approve Design Review Board Case No. PDR 2002198 with conditions for the construction of a new 3,260 square-foot (SF) two-story single-family residence with an attached 432 SF garage on an undeveloped 8,581 SF up sloping lot located in the R1RII (Restricted Residential, Floor Area Ratio District II) Zone.
The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Design Review Board decision to approve Design Review Board Case No. PDR 2002198.
The appellant’s arguments focus on the belief that 1) there was a violation of a specific provision of law citing the Glendale Municipal Code Title 30 (Zoning Code) and Comprehensive Design Guidelines Chapter 3, Hillside Design Guidelines, 2) that the Design Review Board exceeded their authority by virtue of any of the provisions of law associated with the maximum allowed height for a residential building, 3) that the Design Review Board refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision, and 4) that evidence before the Design Review Board was insufficient or inadequate to support their decision.
1405 of 1517
2 a 9
COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Not applicable.
RECOMMENDATION
Uphold the Design Review Board’s decision to approve the Design Review Board application with conditions as presented in the revised plans, which address the Board’s conditions. If the Council is inclined to reverse the Design Review Board’s decision and deny the application, staff recommends that City Council continue the matter for two weeks to allow the City Attorney to draft findings to support a motion for denial or remand the case to the Design Review Board for further consideration.
BACKGROUND
This hearing is an appeal of a decision made by the Design Review Board on July 22, 2021, to approve Design Review Board Case No. PDR 2002198 with conditions for the construction of a 3,260 SF two-story single-family residence with an attached 664 SF garage on an undeveloped 8,581 SF up sloping lot. The subject site has an average current slope of 35.5%, and the average current slope of the building footprint is 29.3%.
The project proposes to grade 895 cubic yards of cut, 122 cubic yards of fill, and export 773 cubic yards of earth in conjunction with the project with 3,320 SF or 38.7% of the hillside to remain ungraded open space. The new house will provide 1,730 SF of livable space on the first floor and 1,407 SF of livable space on the second floor. The garage and elevator access is proposed on the lower (street) level.
The project will also include the construction of retaining walls directly in front of the house, adjacent to the driveway, and along the side of the house including adjacent to the new staircase on the south side of the property.
Since the Design Review Board approval, in an effort to address DRB conditions related to the building’s mass and to address argument’s raised by the appellant in their appeal, the applicant has revised the design of the building. The revised project proposes 3,221 SF of floor area and a 580 SF garage. The changes to the project are further discussed Analysis section below.
General Information
Appellant: Wesley H. Avery
3030 Edgewick Road
Glendale, CA 91206
Applicant: John Deenihan
217 Alameda Avenue
Burbank, CA 91502
1406 of 1517
3 a 9
Property Owner: Anurj Properties LLC c/o Raymond Sohrabian 2544 ½ Montrose Avenue
Montrose, CA 91012
Requested Action:
The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Design Review Board’s decision of July 22, 2021 to approve Design Review Board Case No. PDR 2002198 with conditions.
Location/APN: 3035 Edgewick Road / APN: 5659-007-015
Legal Description: Portion of Lot 21, Block 3, Tract No. 9041 Zone: R1R-II: Restricted Residential Zone, FAR District II Land Use Element: Low Density Residential
Existing Site Characteristics:
The 8,531 SF hillside lot is vacant. The irregularly-shaped lot is located on the north side of Edgewick Road and consists of a steep up sloping terrain immediately adjacent to the street. Access to the site is taken from Edgewick Road which is classified as a local street in the Circulation Element. The grade rises over 10 to 12 feet from the toe of the slope which is approximately seven feet from the front property line. However, at the top of the slope, the lot is less steep, gradually sloping uphill. The subject site has an average current slope (ACS) of 35.5%. The surrounding uses consist of single-family residential dwellings.
The existing mature eucalyptus tree at the front of the property is proposed to be removed in conjunction with the new development. Also, there are two protected oak trees on the property proposed for removal in conjunction with the new development. An Indigenous Tree Report (ITR) prepared by Mary Beth MacKenzie dated September 21, 2019, and addendum dated April 10, 2020, was provided to the City’s Urban Forestry Division for review. The City’s Arborist reviewed the Indigenous ITR and included conditions in a memo dated May 5, 2020. The Arborist indicated they support the request to remove the two existing oak trees on the property so long as the applicant complies with Urban Forestry conditions included in their memo, which includes planting of four new coast live oak trees on the property.
1407 of 1517
4 a 9
Surrounding Uses/Zoning:
Zoning Existing Uses
North R1R II – Restricted Residential Zone,
Floor Area Ratio District II
Single-family residential
South R1R II – Restricted Residential Zone,
Floor Area Ratio District II
Single-family residential
East R1R II – Restricted Residential Zone,
Floor Area Ratio District II
Single-family residential
West R1R II – Restricted Residential Zone,
Floor Area Ratio District II
Single-family residential
Project Site R1R II – Restricted Residential Zone,
Floor Area Ratio District II
Vacant
Utilities and Public Services: All municipal and private utilities are in place serving the neighborhood and other public services are currently provided in the vicinity.
Project History
Design Review Board Case No. PDR2002198
July 22, 2021 – The project was presented to the Design Review Board with the recommendation to approve with conditions; the Board unanimously approved the project (3-0) with eight conditions, with two board members absent.
August 5, 2021 – Wesley H. Avery, the owner of the property directly across the street at 3030 Edgewick Road submitted an appeal of the Design Review Board’s decision (Exhibit 6).
June 29, 2022 – Administrative Exception Permit Case No. PAE2209089 was approved with conditions by the Planning Hearing Officer to allow maximum 20 percent deviation from the required; 1) minimum 40 percent of ungraded open space, and 2) minimum 18- foot driveway depth. The project proposes 38.7 percent of the site to be ungraded open space (approximately four percent deviation) where a minimum of 40 percent is required, and proposes a 15-foot driveway depth (17 percent deviation) where 18 feet is required.
June 29, 2022 – Reasonable Accommodation Case No. PAEPRACCOM2209090 was approved by the Planning Hearing Officer to allow the construction of a new single-family house with an internal residential elevator providing reasonable access between the lower level garage and the residential floors above. The requested accommodation would connect the garage at the lower level to the main residential floors above, resulting in a three-story house.
1408 of 1517
5 a 9
ANALYSIS
SUMMARY OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S DISCUSSION FROM JULY 22, 2021:
• Three members of the Design Review Board heard the case, with two members absent.
• The Board members believed that the Project could be approved with modifications to the building’s mass, with clear, specific conditions. • Board Member Simonian supported the project, indicating that the building’s mass and architecture were appropriate since the neighborhood is comprised of a variety of styles and architecture. He indicated that the use, application and distribution of building materials were appropriate and properly executed, and he supported the design and style of the building. In regards to the mass and scale of the building, Board Member Simonian believed that building was appropriately articulated through the use of cladding and other techniques. Additionally, he supported the elevator location at the front facing the street, stating that it was an interesting feature that appropriately articulated and balanced the front façade. He did not agree with some of staff’s suggested conditions, including condition No. 2, related to reducing the building’s mass; he did not support relocating the elevator further into the building, increasing the driveway slope to further reduce the height of the garage, and lowering the living area by 30-inches. He also indicated that these types of design changes could conflict with the zoning code, substantially change the design, and would not benefit the project.
• Board Member Minas supported the project, agreeing with Board Member Simonian’s comment to keep the elevator shaft at the front of the house as it helps articulate the building facing the street. Also, he suggested addressing staff’s concern regarding the building mass by slightly increasing the driveway slope as noted in the staff report (condition No. 2). Further, Board Member Minas suggested that the applicant could consider an alternate design which addresses staff’s concerns related to the building’s mass. He believed the project was thoughtfully executed and supported the project.
• Chairman Welch expressed his support for the design of the project. However, he indicated that some aspects of the building did not properly address the site topography, so he suggested lowering the height of the building including the garage as recommended in the staff report. However, he did not want to unnecessarily impose conditions that would result in major design revisions for the project. So, as an alternative he requested lowering the floor levels above the garage as necessary in order to reduce the overall height of the building.
The Board voted to approve the project with conditions with Motion by Board Member Minas, second by Board Member Simonian (3-yes, 2-absent (Smith and Tchaghayan) to approve with eight conditions as follows:
1409 of 1517
6 a 9
Conditions:
1. Provide a step back with a depth of one window bay (approximately 10 feet) at the upper portion of the south façade of the double-height living room to reduce the height and mass of this area. Extend the eave/fascia of the entry across the south and east sides of the lowered volume.
2. Work with staff to lower the height of the house and specifically the floor to ceiling height of the garage by aligning the master suite and rear bedroom level. This can be accomplished by balancing and lowering of the first/second floor living areas and/or slightly raising the rear bedroom level (as seen on Sheet A-5.1 Section thru South Elevation) without causing conflict/impacting the height of retaining walls or stories/height compliance.
3. Eliminate the clerestory window above the garage door.
4. Eliminate gray tinted windows and use clear window glass.
5. Eliminate and/or reduce the retaining walls at the rear of the house and those located outside of the property line at the front of the property unless required to comply with Building Code requirements. Show all proposed perimeter walls/fences (and material) on the site plan for staff review.
6. On the right side of the driveway, use a low garden wall with planting area and subsequent retaining wall along the right side of the driveway.
7. At the driveway, use earth-toned pavers as a finish material.
8. Comply with the City’s Urban Forestry comments/conditions included in their memo dated May 5, 2020.
STAFF’S ANALYSIS OF CONDITIONS FROM THE DRB MEETING July 22, 2021:
The following analysis examines the revision made to the proposal since the last DRB meeting. Refer to revised plans, which address the Board’s conditions (Exhibit 3).
1. Provide a step back with a depth of one window bay (approximately 10 feet) at the upper portion of the south façade of the double-height living room to reduce the height and mass of this area. Extend the eave/fascia of the entry across the south and east sides of the lowered volume.
Response: As an alternative to stepping back the south wall of the house in the living room, the applicant redesigned the building in an attempt to reduce the overall mass and scale of the building as follows:
• The entire house has been set further back into the site by an additional eight feet compared to the previous design that was approved by the DRB. Now the leading 1410 of 1517
7 a 9
edge of the house at the living room corner (south elevation) is 36 feet, 6-inches from the property line, and 39 feet from the toe of the slope where it meets the street;
• The wall thickness was increased allowing for more deep-set windows which increase the visual pattern along the wall to diminish the continuous planar nature of the surface; and
• The eave wraps the corner from the entry porch and extends a portion of the way along the wall, adding shade and shadow with its depth of extension from the structure.
2. Work with staff to lower the height of the house and specifically the floor to ceiling height of the garage by aligning the master suite and rear bedroom level. This can be accomplished by balancing and lowering the first/second floor living areas and/or slightly raising the rear bedroom level (as seen on Sheet A-5.1 Section thru South Elevation) without causing conflict/impacting the height of retaining walls or stories, height/compliance.
Response: The height of the house from where it meets the terrain has been reduced to 24 feet, 6-inches, the garage height was lowered to 11 feet facing the street, and the building’s floor heights have been reduced 10 feet, 6-inches at each level (approximately six-inches lower compared to the original design approved by the DRB). The garage facing the street was reduced to include a structural slab which will allow for mature landscaping separating the garage from the house above. Retaining walls are proposed given the site’s sloping uphill topography. However, an effort has been made to screen the walls with landscaping and reduce its visibility from the street.
3. Eliminate the clearstory window above the garage door.
Response: The garage height has been lowered and the clearstory above the garage door has been removed.
4. Eliminate gray tinted windows and use clear window glass.
Response: Gray tinted windows were eliminated, and replaced with clear glass.
5. Eliminate and/or reduce the retaining walls at the rear of the house and those located outside of the property line at the front of the property unless required to comply with Building Code requirements. Show all proposed perimeter walls/fences (and material) on the site plan for staff review.
Response: According to the applicant, the proposed retaining walls specified on the plans are required to comply with the Building Code. Aside from two minor extensions at the driveway, walls are not proposed beyond the property line.
6. On the right side of the driveway, use a low garden wall with planting area and subsequent retaining wall along the right side of the driveway. 1411 of 1517
8 a 9
Response: To the extent possible and considering the sloped nature of the site, low walls are being used to address the changes in grade and provide for viable planting areas.
7. At the driveway, use earth-toned pavers as a finish material.
Response: Earth-toned concrete in deep-scored 18-inch by 18-inch pattern with an acid wash to achieve a light exposed aggregate appearance (Bommanite Travertine Beige) is proposed.
8. Comply with the City’s Urban Forestry comments/conditions included in their memo dated May 5, 2020 including, but not limited to the following:
• That four new coast live oak trees be planted on the site. • That the landscape and irrigation plan must meet ordinance requirements for oak trees, including plant material and ground cover consistent with oak tree habitat and the Indigenous Tree Ordinance.
• That the applicant shall contact Forestry for an Indigenous Tree Permit during plan check. Landscape plans will be reviewed for compliance with the Indigenous Tree Ordinance.
Response: The applicant will comply with the City’s Urban Forestry comments. If the project is approved, during the plan check process and prior to permit issuance, the Urban Forestry staff will review the project and verify their comments/conditions are met.
Summary of the Appellant Discussion and Staff Responses The appellant contends that there was 1) a violation of the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Design Guidelines – Chapter 3, Hillside Design Guidelines, 2) the Design Review Board (DRB) exceeded their authority by virtue of any of the provisions of law associated with the maximum allowed height for a residential building, 3) the Design Review Board refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision, and 4) that evidence before the Design Review Board was insufficient or inadequate to support their decision.
The appellant alleges that the DRB did not enforce the City of Glendale Zoning Code and the compatibility ordinance of the Hillside Design Policy and Guidelines. In their appeal, the appellant argues that the, “DRB failed to consider that the proposed building height exceeds the maximum height limits of the Code, the compatibility ordinance was incorrectly applied,” citing that the maximum allowed number of stories for a building in the R1R zone is two with a maximum overall height for of 32 feet (height being measured from the lowest point of the building exposed above the ground surface to the highest point of the roof). The appellant argues that that the building height and design approved by the DRB was significantly higher than adjacent and all existing buildings in the neighborhood, including those built prior to the Hillside Design Guidelines, and that the proposed development is not in character with the neighborhood. 1412 of 1517
9 a 9
The appellant contends that the project violates the Hillside Development Review Policy (GMC 30.11.040) and the Comprehensive Design Guidelines, Chapter 3, Hillside Design Guidelines. They argue that their historic property, dubbed the “Knudsen House” located directly across the street at 3030 Edgewick Road, will be compromised if the subject vacant lot at 3035 Edgewick Road is developed with a new single-family house. The appellant states that the proposed “glass home” would be obtrusive as it does not transition nor relate to their historic property across the street and the neighborhood pattern. The appellant alleges the proposed development is incompatible with the guidelines for hillside development including site planning, mass and scale and design.
Staff’s Response:
Height
According to the Zoning Code, “height” means the vertical dimension from the lowest point of the building, structure or wall exposed above the ground surface to the highest point of the roof, parapet wall or uppermost part. Chimneys, vents, utility service structures, or portions of a building located below the ground surface existing at the time of construction and exposed as a result of excavation to create door, window or ventilation openings shall not be included in the measurement of vertical dimensions.
In the original design approved by the DRB, the height of the building was 32 feet. Based on the above-referenced zoning code definition, a portion of the garage door opening was not included in the 32-foot height, which is the zoning standard the appellant does not agree with. While the appellant does not agree with the way the height standard is applied here, it is consistent with the way it has been applied in the past with other new hillside homes.
As proposed in the revised drawings, the overall height of the main house was lowered by approximately 7.5 feet, and the height of the front wall of the garage facing the street will be 11 feet high. However, as previously indicated, a portion of the garage, specifically the door opening is not included in the overall height dimension of the building because it is located below the ground surface and excavated for purposes of creating the garage door opening. The roof of the garage consists of a structural slab, designed to slope upwards and abut to the new internal retaining wall at the back of the garage. As proposed, the project complies with the overall height regulation per the zoning code.
In the original design reviewed and approved by the DRB, the building was designed in a vertical, stacked form with the garage at the lower level, directly underneath the residential floors. However, in an effort to address DRB conditions related to the building’s mass, reduce the height of the house, and to address argument’s raised by the appellant in their appeal, the applicant has revised the design of the building by separating the garage from the house. In the revised site plan, the building more appropriately addresses the topography of the hillside slope, by siting the house further back into the site by an additional eight feet. Originally, the house was setback approximately 15 feet from the street front property. In the revised design, the garage is the only part of the 1413 of 1517
10 a 9
project located 15 feet from the front property line in compliance with the Zoning Code.
The first and second floors of the two story residence are pushed further back into the site, setback approximately 36 feet, 6-inches from the living room corner (south elevation) to the street front property line.
Site Planning
The appellant contends that the building does not follow the topography in a sensitive manner since it does not step back and terrace into the hillside stating, “the depth of the property site would allow the mass of the building to be stepped back up into the hillside (as per the Hillside Guidelines), as well as potentially proposing a detached garage, which would reduce the height and breakup the building mass.” Also, the appellant alleges there are discrepancies between some of the drawings associated with the location of the canopy and its relationship with the structure.
Retaining Walls
The appellant argues that the proposed retaining walls adjacent to the driveway are not accurately illustrated in cross sections, elevations and renderings, which the appellant alleges will have a “significant effect on the visual impact these walls create.” Further, the appellant argues that retaining walls have a visible impact on the proposed development, therefore, the DRB and staff need to consider their effect on the design.
Additionally, the appellant contends that the proposed grading associated with the retaining walls, that will be or maybe required for the project, are not accurately depicted on the plans. The appellant alleges the project would need additional retaining walls that were not shown on the drawings approved by the DRB.
Garage and Driveway Location
The appellant contends that the proposed driveway and garage location are not safe and do not follow the recommendations of the Hillside Design Guidelines, to ensure new driveways have safe site lines and distances. The appellant argues the project is situated between blind curves, compromises visibility when backing-out of the driveway, causing traffic congestion on a narrow street, and poses a danger to vehicular traffic and pedestrians.
Landscaping
The appellant argues that the landscape plan approved by the DRB does not adhere to the recommendations outlined in the Hillside Design guidelines because the landscape plan does not complement the site and the building design, it does not have a natural look, it does not minimize visual impact and size of buildings, decks, etc., and it does not propose to retain existing trees when possible. Additionally, the appellant alleges the existing Cypress trees on the north (right) side of the property proposed to remain would be impacted as a result of the new retaining wall proposed to be constructed in this area, and that the palm trees shown on the landscape plan, “could not be planted on this 1:1+ 1414 of 1517
11 a 9
slope.” Additionally, the appellant argues that the proposed palms along the street above the driveway retaining wall could potentially impede the view of on-coming cars, causing a safety hazard.
Staff’s Response:
As previously mentioned, in an effort to address the arguments raised by the appellant in their appeal, the applicant has redesigned the site plan from the original submittal approved by the DRB. In the revised site plan, the building more appropriately reflects the topography of the hillside slope with the garage located at the lower street level, nestled into the hillside and the residential floors of the house pushed further up and into the property. The revised site plan results an overall improved design approach for the site and the neighborhood as it properly addresses existing site constraints including the extreme sloping topography at the front of the site. The revised design proposes the garage setback 15 feet from the street front property line and the first and second residential floors above are setback further up the hill - the front of the house (east façade) on the first residential floor facing the street is setback approximately 34 feet from the street front property line and the second residential floor is setback approximately 28 feet from the street front property line to the elevator shaft facing the street.
Regarding discrepancies in the drawings, the applicant has indicated to staff that the revised plans are consistent and correspond. If the project is approved, the project plans will be required to go through the plan check process and will be reviewed by other City Divisions, including but not limited to, Building and Safety, Zoning, Fire, Public Works Engineering, Water and Power, etc., and staff will verify the plans are Code compliant and the information included in the plans is accurate.
According to the applicant, the proposed retaining walls specified on the plans are required in order to comply with the Building Code. The retaining wall section drawings and partial site plan shown on sheet RW-1.0 of Exhibit 3, illustrates the location of the walls proposed at the front of the property and adjacent to the staircase on the south side.
The walls are proposed to comply with the Zoning Code as it relates to height and decorative finish. The walls will be constructed with CMU, decorative material (Angeles block) to blend with natural hillside in compliance with the Zoning Code and the Guidelines. The retaining walls proposed at the front, north and south sides feature landscaping/vegetation adjacent to the walls to help soften the view of the walls from the street and the adjacent property to the south.
As proposed, the revised project is consistent with the Hillside Design Guidelines because it thoughtfully considers the topography. The garage is built into the hillside at the lower level and the residential floors above are terraced up the hillside, away from the garage and the street. As suggested by the Guidelines, the applicant has pushed back the house (by an additional eight feet compared to the previous design). In fact, building into the hillside to diminish visual impact of mass and scale is encouraged even if significant grading may be required. In this case, the project proposes to grade 895 cubic yards cut, 122 cubic yards fill, and export 773 cubic yards of earth in conjunction with the project, 1415 of 1517
12 a 9
which is not significant for a hillside property. In an effort to minimize the project’s mass and push the house further up the hill, the project obtained approval of an Administrative Exception request for a minor deviation to reduce the required 40 percent ungraded open space by 113 SF (a 3.3 percent deviation) - project proposes 38.7 ungraded open space).
The new garage will be situated 15 feet from the street front property line in compliance with the Zoning Code and the driveway depth is 15 feet subject to the Administrative Exception approval. The Administrative Exception approval allows the driveway length to be 15 feet (17 percent deviation) where 18 feet is required per Code. To ensure the driveway and garage locations are adequately safe for the site, complies with all Code and regulations including safety, it will be required to be reviewed by other City Departments including, but not limited to Building and Safety, Zoning, Public Works Engineering and Traffic during the plan check process.
The proposed landscape plan is consistent with the Hillside Design Guidelines, as it provides native plants, provides a natural look, minimizing visual impact and size of the building into the natural hill. Similar to the original plans that were approved by the DRB, the landscape plan includes drought tolerant landscaping, which has been certified by the landscape architect to comply with the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). The landscape design and plant selection complements the site and the building design, especially at the front facing the street. The red flowering California fuchsia plants above the garage help soften the view of the new building from the street.
Additionally, there are various succulents proposed in the planters adjacent to the front stairs and shrubs are proposed throughout the property to help soften and screen the fences and walls. In an effort to address the appellant’s concerns regarding traffic visibility, the palms have been relocated further the up in the planter adjacent to the house, away from the driveway. And the existing cypress trees along the north side of the property will remain. Overall, the prosed landscaping is appropriate to the site and complements the house and the neighborhood.
Mass and Scale
In their appeal, the appellant argues that the building was too tall and that its design including its flat roof line, canopies, windows, and the elevator emphasized the building’s height, mass and scale, and was not appropriate nor compatible with the character of the adjacent structures. The appellant contends that the design of the building resembled a large vertical mass with large windows, “producing the appearance of a monumental edifice”, and “less articulated than the adjacent homes and surrounding neighborhood.” Staff’s Response:
The applicant explored several design options to appropriately address the DRB conditions of approval as well as concerns raised by the appellant regarding the building’s mass and scale. In an effort to address the Board’s conditions and concerns and the arguments regarding mass and scale raised in the subject appeal, the applicant has redesigned the overall mass and scale of the project. In the original design reviewed and approved by the DRB, the building was designed in a vertical, stacked form with the 1416 of 1517
13 a 9
garage at the lower level, directly underneath the residential floors. To address the Board’s conditions related to reducing the building’s mass and address concerns raised by the appellant in his appeal, the applicant has redesigned significant portions of the building to reduce its mass and scale as viewed from the street. In the revised drawings, the garage is proposed to be built at the lower (street) level, nestled into the hillside and the house will be constructed further up the hill, step backed from the garage and the street front property line, thereby, reducing the mass and scale of the building. The overall height of the main house is 24 feet, 6 inches, and the height of the front wall of the garage facing the street is 11 feet. The roof of the garage consists of a structural slab, designed to slope upwards and abuts to a new retaining wall inside the garage.
In the revised design, the garage at the lower street level is visually separated from the main residential floors further up the hill with landscaping proposed on the roof of the garage. While the garage and the residential floors are visually separated by landscaping on the garage roof area, the building would be internally connected by an elevator inside the garage, connecting the garage at the lower level to the main residential floors above approved under a Reasonable Accommodation (Case No. PRACCOM2209090). The internal elevator will enable the owner’s disabled mother, who will be residing on the subject property, to circulate between the lower level garage and the residential floors above; the accommodation request connects the garage at the lower level to the main residential floors above, resulting in a three-story house. The elevator shaft still appropriately articulates the front façade as expressed by the DRB, and complements the building.
As proposed, the revised project is consistent with the Hillside Design Guidelines because the building considers and follows the site’s uphill topography. The garage is built into the hillside and the residential floors terrace further up the hill, following the site’s topography and by separating the garage from the house, the mass and scale of the house is significantly reduced. In fact, the Hillside Design Guidelines recommend building into the hillside to reduce the appearance of a monumental structure as evident in the revised plans. The project’s mass appropriately fits the site, adjacent homes and the neighborhood in general. While the new 3,260 SF house is larger in floor area compared to the existing adjacent homes to the north and south, 2,040 SF and 2,537 SF respectively, the size of the new house is not significantly higher than the neighborhood average of 3,059 SF. Further, the appellant’s house at approximately 4,834 SF is the second largest home in the neighborhood located directly across the street from the subject site. Based on the above, the proposed development is consistent with the Guidelines because the mass and scale of the new proposal is appropriate and transitions well into the existing neighborhood context.
Design Detailing
The appellant contends the new house is not compatible with the “character inherent within the adjacent and surrounding neighborhood” citing that the review authority is required to “avoid conflicting relationship between new development and adjacent buildings.” In their appeal, the appellant argues that the “glass house” including windows 1417 of 1517
14 a 9
on the street front façade, resembles a commercial storefront and the proposed building’s exterior materials and finishes are not appropriate nor compatible with the adjacent structures and the neighborhood. The appellant argues that the, “design fails to incorporate a variety of textures and colors to enhance the design.” In their appeal, the appellant includes the following statement: the “proposed spec home (it should be emphasized that this spec home is being built solely for profit by the developer LLC and is not the dream of a neighborhood resident who always wanted to modify his existing home).” But, the appellant but does not provide any material evidence with the appeal application to support their claim that the project is a “spec” home.
Staff Response:
The Design Review Board approved the project because they determined it was appropriate for the site and the neighborhood. In fact, the Board members expressed support for the style and design of the building indicating that the use, application and distribution of building materials were appropriate and thoughtfully executed. Ultimately, the Board made a motion to approve the project with conditions on the basis that the proposed site plan, mass and scale, and design and detailing were appropriate and complemented the site, the new house and the neighborhood. As previously mentioned, the applicant has made an effort to address the Board’s conditions to reduce the building’s mass and concerns raised by the appellant in his appeal. In doing so, the exterior design of the house changed. In the revised design, the garage is located at the lower, street level, visually separated from the main residential floors pushed further up the hill. Similar to the original design approved by the Design Review Board, the revised design incorporates floor to ceiling glass windows and doors. Also, the application of stone cladding for the elevator shaft facing the street as well as on the sides and rear of the building is appropriate, reinforcing the Contemporary style of the building as suggested by the Guidelines. The design and detailing proposed on the new building is consistent with the Guidelines in that it enhances the overall architectural idea and is consistent with the building. And while there is no preferred design style, new designs should consider the existing context. Also, the combination of colors and materials (stucco and stone cladding), bronze anodized windows, and cable railing provides visual interest, reinforces the overall building design with high quality design and detailing, which appropriately complements the site and the neighborhood. With the exception of the design, the building’s contemporary architectural style and use of colors, materials and finishes are similar to the original materials and finishes approved by the Design Review Board.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
1418 of 1517
15 a 9
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project is exempt from CEQA review as a Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” exemption pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the project involves the development of one single-family residence.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report are attached in Exhibit 7, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1. Approve the attached motion to sustain the Design Review Board’s decision to approve Case No. PDR2002198, and the revised drawings.
Alternative 2. Continue the case, directing City Attorney to draft findings supporting denial of the Design Review Board application.
Alternative 3. Make a motion to remand the case to the Design Review Board for further consideration.
Alternative 4: Consider any other alternatives to design review submission not proposed by staff.
1419 of 1517
16 a 9
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:
Milca Toledo, Senior Planner
Reviewed by:
Kristen Asp, Principal Planner
Erik Krause, Deputy Director of Community Development
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Location Map
Exhibit 2: Original Project Site plans, Floor Plans, Elevations, Landscape Plans Reviewed and Approved by the DRB (July 22, 2021)
Exhibit 3: Revised Project Site plan, Floor Plans, Elevations, Landscape Plans with DRB conditions addressed and incorporated into the design Exhibit 4: Staff Report (without attachments) and Record of Decision for Case No.
PDR2002198 for DRB Meeting held on July 22, 2021
Exhibit 5: Site and Neighborhood Photos
Exhibit 6: Appeal Application of DRB’s Decision to City Council filed August 5, 2021 Exhibit 7: Campaign Disclosure Form
1420 of 1517
MOTION
Moved by Council Member __________________, seconded by Council Member ________________, that upon review and consideration of all documents, materials, exhibits and testimony relative to Design Review Board Case No. PDR 2002198, located at 3035 Edgewick Road (the “Design Review Case”), and after having conducted a public hearing on November 15, 2022, pursuant to the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 (“GMC”), and receiving testimony, the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, based upon all of the evidence in the record, hereby SUSTAINS the Design Review Board’s decision to APPROVE the Design Review Board Case based on the design presented in the revised plans (Exhibit 3 to the Report to Council dated November 15, 2022), which address the Board’s conditions of approval.
In sustaining the Design Review Board’s decision and approving the Design Review Case, the Council makes the following findings:
Site Planning:
• The building’s location considers the site’s topography and its profile reflects the topography and uphill slope condition.
• The proposed street front and interior setbacks at the front, sides and rear of the property complies with the Zoning Code and is consistent with the neighborhood. • The garage at the front is consistent with the neighborhood pattern, and accessible from the new driveway. Low garden walls with planting are featured adjacent to the driveway and earth-toned concrete in deep-scored pattern is proposed to help soften the appearance from the street.
• An effort has been made to reduce or eliminate retaining walls at the front and walls on the sides and rear of the property, unless required to comply with the Building Code. The proposed stone cladding on the retaining/planter wall at the front street facing walls is appropriate to the site and complements the design of the house, and the angelus goldenrod burnished finish for the side and rear walls appropriately blends with the hillside.
Mass and Scale
• The home’s mass and scale follows the topography, relates better to surrounding context and provides appropriate massing concept, properly fitting into the neighborhood and in compliance with hillside development guidelines. • The project is broken up into various forms and volumes, and designed to follow the site’s uphill sloping topography. In this way, the building provides appropriate massing relief, especially along the street front where there is 79.65 linear feet of 1421 of 1517 3035 Edgewick Road
Design Review Board Case No. PDR2002198
2 street frontage. The massing is broken up visually separating the garage at the lower level from the residential floors above. Also, the building is appropriately articulated through recessed building forms, breaks in roof and wall planes, window patterning, cladding materials and horizontal planes of roof overhangs and balconies. This helps to articulate the facade, and minimize a boxy outline as recommended by the Guidelines.
• The proposed material palette of stucco, stone cladding and transparent treatment, along with the color palette, helps to reinforce the reading of different volumes and articulates the building to be consistent with the neighborhood pattern. • The contemporary style of the flat roof design is appropriate to the site, overall design, and neighborhood context.
• The street facing façade of the building is composed of staggered and setback building forms. The garage is proposed on the lower level, nestled into the hillside, and the two upper residential floors are proposed further up the hill, away from the garage and the street. The separation between the garage and the residential floors provides appropriate massing relief and the proposed planting above the garage helps soften the building’s mass and scale as viewed from the street. Also, the staggered configuration of these volumes and associated detailing creates interest and articulates the building facade, thereby reinforcing the building’s design.
• The project’s staggered volumes and the varied roofline are the predominant features of the design. Overall, the building’s massing is well-articulated by using various techniques, such as rhythm and variety of forms, recesses, and use of colors and materials to accentuate building elements as suggested by the Design Guidelines.
Design and Detailing
• The proposed contemporary architectural style of the house is appropriate to the site and the neighborhood. The design of the building includes an emphasis on rectangular shapes and voids, flat rooflines, crisp lines, appropriate materials and finishes, and transparent elements, which are consistently applied and complementary to the style of the building.
• The combination of colors and cladding materials are complementary to the contemporary style of the home. The proposed stone cladding, smooth-finish stucco, cable railing, and dark anodized aluminum windows help reinforce the overall contemporary building design. The project's color palette focuses on shades of gray color plaster and stone cladding, and dark window frames, which appropriately complement the design and the neighborhood. Also, stone clad retaining/planters at the front of the house appropriately recall the stone on the house, enhance the design and blend well with the site and neutral colors of other homes in the neighborhood.
• The main entry to the house is modestly scaled, and appropriately integrates with the house.
• The proposed dark anodized aluminum windows are appropriate to the design of the building and the neighborhood in terms of their material, operation, installation except for the solar gray tint glass. 1422 of 1517
3035 Edgewick Road
Design Review Board Case No. PDR2002198
3 Adopted this 15th day of November, 2022.
VOTE
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
1423 of 1517
MOTION
Moved by Council Member __________________, seconded by Council Member ________________, that upon review and consideration of all documents, materials, exhibits and testimony relative to Design Review Board Case No. PDR 2002198 located at 3035 Edgewick Road (“Design Review Case”), and after having conducted a public hearing, and receiving testimony, the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, based upon all of the evidence in the record, hereby CONTINUES the case directing City Attorney to draft findings in supporting denial of the Design Review Board application .
Adopted this 15th day of November, 2022.
VOTE
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
1424 of 1517
MOTION
Moved by Council Member __________________, seconded by Council Member ________________, that upon review and consideration of all documents, materials, exhibits and testimony relative to Design Review Board Case No. PDR 2002198, located at 3035 Edgewick Road, and after having conducted a public hearing, and receiving testimony, the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, based upon all of the evidence in the record, hereby REMANDS the case to the Design Review Board for further consideration.
Adopted this 15th day of November, 2022.
VOTE
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
1425 of 1517
LOCATION MAP
3035 Edgewick Rd
Glendale CA
1” = 200’ 1426 of 1517
PROJECT DIRECTORY PROJECT INFORMATION TITLE 24 ENVELOPE: STRUCTURAL: LR/ ARCHITECTURE 217 W ALAMEDA, SUITE 203 BURBANK, CA 91502 (818) 840-8361 (818) 840-8341 FAX ARCHITECT: OWNER: ADDRESS: 3035 EDGEWICK RD. GLENDALE,CA 91206 - LEGAL DESCRIPTION: OCCUPANCY: - STORIES: APPLICABLE CODES: 2016 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE EXISTING ZONE: (N) BLDG SQUARE AREA: FIRE ZONE: PLANNING NO. 3,260 SQ. FT. 2 STORIES, BELOW GRADE GARAGE SETBACKS: BUILDING USAGE: RESIDENTIAL APN: A-1.0 A-2.1 COVER SHEET 2386457 ARCHITECTURAL910 EDGEWICK RESIDENCE SITE PLAN A-2.0 GARAGE LEVEL FLOOR PLAN VICINITY MAP TRACT: NO 9041 LOT 21 BLOCK: LOT: LOT 21 2016 CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA MECHANICAL CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 2016 CALIFORNIA RESIDENTIAL CODE 2016 GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS111 FIRST FLOOR AND SPLIT LEVEL PLAN A-2.2 12 SECOND FLOOR PLAN A-3.0 13 ROOF PLAN 14 A-4.2 GENERAL NOTES ABBREVIATIONS SYMBOLSPROJECT SCOPE A-5.0 BUILDING SECTION 3035 EDGEWICK RD. GLENDALE,CA 91206 GOVERNING AGENCY: GLENDALE BUILDING AND SAFETY 633 E. BROADWAY #101 GLENDALE, CA 91206 818-548-3200 EXTERIOR ELEVATION A-4.1 A-4.3 CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE V AREA ANALYSIS: FRONT 15'-0"MIN.. SIDE (E) 10'-0" MIN. REAR 10'-0"MIN. SIDE (W) 10'-0"MIN. (E) LOT SIZE: 8,581 SQ. FT. LOT COVERAGE: 37.9 % R-1R 17. 19. 20. 18. 14. 16. 15. 13. 11. 12. 9. 10. 24. 25. 23. 22. 21. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 8. 6. 7. 3. 5. 4. 2.1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXAMINE THE CONDITION OF THE PROJECT AREA AND PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. REPORT ALL DISCREPANCIES TO THE ARCHITECT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AND OBTAIN ALL PERMITS, LICENSE, AND PAY ALL REQUIRED FEES. DIMENSIONS SHOWN ON PLANS ARE TO FACE OF EXTERIOR MASONRY, CONCRETE COLUMN OR GRID LINES AND FACES OF GYPSUM BOARD, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR DETAILED. CEILING HEIGHTS ON FINISH SCHEDULE ARE FROM FINISH CEILING CONTRACTOR SHALL IN THE WORK OF ALL TRADES, PERFORM ANY AND ALL CUTTING, PATCHING, REPAIRING, RESTORING AND THE LIKE NECESSARY TO COMPLETE THE WORK AND TO RESTORE ANY DAMAGED OR AFFECTED SURFACES RESULTING FROM THE WORK OF THIS CONTRACT TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITION AND TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ARCHITECT AND THE OWNER. PROVIDE BLOCKING BEHIND ALL FIXTURES, CLOSET SHELVES, POLES ETC., WHERE INDICATED OR REQUIRED. EXTEND SOFFIT FRAMING TO STRUCTURE ABOVE, DIAGONALLY BRACE AS REQUIRED. PROVIDE METAL BULLNOSE CORNER BEAD AT ALL OUTSIDE CORNERS OF PLASTERED OR DRYWALLED SURFACES; UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL FOOTINGS SHALL BE FOUNDED IN UNDISTURBED NATURAL SOIL PER CODE. ALL EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS, WINDOWS, DOORS, VENTS FLASHING, COPING AND EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE WEATHERPROOF. IN THE EVENT EXCAVATIONS REVEAL UNFAVORABLE CONDITIONS, THE SERVICES OF A SOILS ENGINEER AND/OR GEOLOGIST MAY BE REQUIRED. PROVIDE STIFFENERS, BRACING, BACK UP PLATE, ETC., AS REQUIRED AT STUD WALLS FOR SUPPORT OF TOILET ROOM FIXTURES OR OTHER EQUIPMENT. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT SHALL HAVE EVIDENCE OF CURRENT WORKMAN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE COVERAGE ON FILE WITH THE DEPARTMENT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LOCAL LABOR CODE. NO TRENCHES EXCAVATIONS OR MORE DEPTH INTO WHICH A PERSON IS REQUIRED TO DESCEND OR OBTAIN NECESSARY PERMISSION FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT. ALL DOORS MUST OPEN OVER A LANDING NOT MORE THAN 1/2" BELOW THE THRESHOLD. PROVIDE 70" HIGH NON-ABSORVENT WALL ADJACENT TO SHOWER AND APPROVED SHATTER-RESISTANT MATERIALS FOR SHOWER ENCLOSURE. FIRE CLASS A ROOF IS REQUIRED. WHERE FACTORY FINISHED ON FACTORY PRIMED ITEMS OCCUR SUCH AS GRILLES, DIFFUSERS, METAL TRIM AND ACCESSORIES, ETC., THEY SHALL BE PAINTED TO MATCH THE ADJACENT SURFACE AND OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ARCHITECT. ALL MATERIALS AND FINISHES INDICATED ON PLANS SHALL BE NEW AND UNUSED. CONTRACTOR SHALL COORDINATE WORK PERFORMED BY OTHER SUB CONTRACTORS, DISCREPANCIES, IF ANY, SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OD THE ARCHITECT FOR RESOLUTION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK. SHOULD THE DRAWING DISCREPANCIES IN THEMSELVES OR WITH THE SPECIFICATIONS OR SHOULD THE SPECIFICATIONS DISAGREE IN THEMSELVES, THE BETTER QUALITY AND/OR GREATER QUANTITY OF WORK AND/OR MATERIAL SHALL BE ESTIMATED UPON, AND UNLESS OTHERWISE ORDERED IN WRITING, SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED. IF ANY ERROR OR OMISSIONS OCCUR IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ARCHITECT IN WRITING OF SUCH ERROR OR OMISSION. IF CONTRACTOR FAILS TO GIVE SUCH NOTICE, HE WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR RESULTS OF SUCH ERRORS AND OMISSIONS AND FOR THE COST OF RECTIFYING SAME. KEEP ALL PIPING AS CLOSE TO WALLS AND AS HIGH TO UNDERSIDE OF FLOOR ROOF FRAMING AS POSSIBLE. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE AND LOCATE ACCESS PANELS AS REQUIRED AFTER INSTALLATION OF MECHANICAL DUCTS, PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL WORK. COORDINATE WITH ARCHITECT. ALL MILL WORK, ARCHITECTURAL WOODWORK, WOOD DOORS, MODULAR AND CUSTOM CASEWORK SHALL BE MANUFACTURED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STANDARD ESTABLISHED IN THE LATEST EDITION OF THE MANUAL OF MILLWORK OF THE WOODWORK INSTITUTE OF CALIFORNIA IN THE GRADE OR GRADES SPECIFIED THEREIN OR AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT RESTICT A FIVE FOOT CLEAR AND UNOBSTRUCTED ACCESS TO ANY WATER OR POWER DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES (POWER POLES, PULL-BOXES, TRANSFORMERS, VAULTS, PUMPS, VALVES, METERS, APPURTENANCES, ETC.) OR TO THE LOCATION OF THE HOOK-UP. THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT BE WITHIN TEN FEET OF ANY POWER LINES - WHETHER OR NOT THE LINES ARE LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY. FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY CAUSE CONSTRUCTION DELAYS AND/ OR ADDITIONAL EXPENSES. FOOTINGS SHALL BE SET BACK FROM THE DESCENDING SLOPE SURFACE EXCEEDING 3 HORIZONTAL TO 1 VERTICAL AS PER SECTION 91.1806.5.3. ALL CONCENTRATED DRAINAGE, INCLUDING ROOF WATER, SHALL BE CONDUCTED, VIA GRAVITY, TO THE STREET OR AN APPROVED LOCATION AT A 2% MINIMUM. PROVIDE RESIDENTIAL FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM. SPRINKLER CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE SPRINKLER SHOP DRAWINGS AND PERMIT. SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS TO ARCHITECT FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION. WATER HEATER WATER HEATER, GAS AMERICAN APPLIANCE MODEL #GFK454T CAPACITY: 50.00 GALS. DESIGN BUILD H.V.A.C. SOFFIT LOCATION SHADING DEVICES typ. TYPE: DOUBLE GLASS FRAME: METAL INTERIOR: DRAPERY-STANDARD EXTERIOR: BUG SCREEN INSULATION typ.SLAB + VA SHEET THERMAL MASS TILE. SPLIT SYSTEM FORCED AIR FURNACES FOR 72,000 CU. FT. PROPOSED DESIGN 5.96 REMOTE CONDENSERS (CONDITIONED COOLING) PROPOSED DESIGN 5.73 SEE TITLE 24 CALCULATIONS INSULATION typ. CEILING: R-30 WALLS: R-13 FLOOR: R-19 (U VALUE: 0.87) PLUMBING NOTES: 1. WALL COVERINGS SHALL BE GYPSUM GREEN BOARD, TILE OR APPROVED EQUAL TO 70 INCHES ABOVE THE DRAIN INLET AT SHOWERS OR TUB WITH SHOWER, MATERIALS OTHER THAN STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS SHALL BE MOISTURE RESISTANT. 2. GLASS ENCLOSURE DOORS AND PANELS MUST BE LABELED CATEGORY II; SWING DOOR OUTWARD; NET AREA OF SHOWER RECEPTOR SHALL BE NOT LESS THAN 1024 SQ. INCHES OF FLOOR AREA AND ENCOMPASS 30 INCH DIA. METER CIRCLE. 3. ALL PLUMBING WALLS SHALL BE 2x6 STUDS @ 16 INCH O.C. 4. PROVIDE LOW CONSUMPTION WATER CLOSETS (1.6 GALS. PER FLUSH) WATER HEATER NOTES: 1. PROVIDE 18 INCH HIGH PLATFORM. 2. INSTALL 3/4"x24 GAUGE PERFORMACE STEEL PLUMBERS TAPE TOP AND BOTTOM OF WATER HEATER. 3. PROVIDE 30" SQ. EACH VENT, TOP AND BOTTOM OF WATER HEATER ENCLOSURE DOOR. 4. PROVIDE VENT THRU ROOF. (12" MIN. ABOVE ROOF LINE.) GENERAL NOTES: 1. ALL DOORS OPEN ON A LANDING 1/2" BELOW THE THRESHOLD. 2. UNDER CUT BEDROOM DOORS BY 2" MIN. FOR WARM AIR CIRCULATION. 3. ALL GLASS WITHIN 18" OF FLOOR SURFACE SHALL BE APPROVED FOR IMPACT HAZARD. MECHANICAL NOTES SECURITY REQUIREMENTS 1. EXTERIOR DOORS, DOORS BETWEEN HOUSE AND GARAGE, WINDOWS AND THEIR HARDWARE SHALL CONFORM TO THE SECURITY PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 67 OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES BUILDING CODE: A. SINGLE SWINGING DOORS, ACTIVE LEAF OR A PAIR OF DOORS, AND THE BOTTOM LEAF OF DUTCH DOORS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH A LATCH AND A DEADBOLT KEY OPERATED FROM THE OUTSIDE. DEADBOLTS SHALL HAVE A HARDENED INSERT WITH MINIMUM 1-IN. THROW AND 5/8-IN. EMBEDMENT INTO THE JAMB. IF A LATCH HAS A KEY-LOCKING FEATURE, IT SHALL BE A DEAD LATCH TYPE. (6709.2) B. INACTIVE LEAF OF A PAIR OF DOORS OR UPPER LEAF OF DUTCH DOORS SHALL HAVE A DEADBOLT AS PER THE PARAGRAPH “A” NOT A KEY OPERATED, OR HARDENED DEADBOLT AT TOP AND BOTTOM WITH 1/2-IN. EMBEDMENT. (6709.3) C. SWINGING WOOD DOOR(S) SHALL BE SOLID CORE NOT LESS THAN 1-3/8-IN. THICK. (6709.1.1) D. PANELS OF WOOD DOORS SHALL BE 1-3/8-IN. THICK AND NOT MORE THAN 300 SQ. INCHES. STILES AND RAILS TO BE 1-3/8-IN. THICK AND 3-IN. MINIMUM WIDTH.(6709.1.2) E. DOOR HINGE PINS ACCESSIBLE FROM THE OUTSIDE SHALL BE NON-REMOVABLE. (6709.5) F. DOORSTOPS OF WOOD JAMBS OF IN-SWINGING DOORS SHALL BE ONE-PIECE CONSTRUCTION OR JOINED BY A RABBET. (6709.4) G. GLAZING WITHIN 40-IN. OF THE LOCKING DEVICE OF THE DOOR SHALL BE FULLY TEMPERED/APPROVED. (6714) H. OVERHEAD AND SLIDING GARAGE DOORS SHALL BE SECURED WITH A CYLINDER LOCK, A PADLOCK WITH A HARDENED STEEL SHACKLE, OR EQUIVALENT WHEN NOT OTHERWISE LOCKED BY ELECTRIC POWER OPERATION. JAMB LOCKS SHALL BE ON BOTH JAMBS FOR DOORS EXCEEDING 9-FT.IN WIDTH. (6711) I. SLIDING GLASS DOORS AND SLIDING GLASS WINDOWS SHALL BE CAPABLE OF WITHSTANDING THE TESTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 6706 AND 6707 AND SHALL BEAR FORCEDENTRY- RESISTANT LABELS. (6710, 6715) CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS 1. NOTCHING OF EXTERIOR AND BEARING/NONBEARING WALLS SHALL NOT EXCEED 25% / 40% RESPECTIVELY. BORED HOLES IN BEARING/NONBEARING WALLS SHALL NOT EXCEED 40% / 60% RESPECTIVELY. (2308.9.10, 2308.9.11) 2. PROVIDE FIRE BLOCKING IN CONCEALED SPACES OF STUD WALLS, PARTITIONS, INCLUDING FURRED SPACES, AT THE CEILING AND FLOOR LEVEL, AND AT 10-FT. INTERVALS BOTH VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL. (717.2) 3. DUCTS INSTALLED UNDER A FLOOR IN A CRAWL SPACE SHALL NOT PREVENT ACCESS TO AN AREA OF CRAWL SPACE. WHERE IT IS REQUIRED TO MOVE UNDER DUCTS FOR ACCESS TO AREAS OF THE CRAWL SPACE, A VERTICAL CLEARANCE OF 18" MIN. SHALL BE PROVIDED. 4. WHERE FLASHING IS METAL, THE METAL SHALL BE CORROSION RESISTANT WITH A THICKNESS OF NOT LESS THAN .019 INCH (NO. 26 GALVANIZED SHEET) 5. NOTE ON THE PLANS: “ROOF DIAPHRAGM NAILING TO BE INSPECTED BEFORE COVERING. FACE GRAIN OF PLYWOOD SHALL BE PERPENDICULAR TO SUPPORTS.” 6. SUBFLOORS SHALL HAVE END-MATCHED LUMBER, HAVE BLOCKED PANEL EDGES, OR OCCUR OVER SUPPORT. FLOOR SHEATHING SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION R503 SITE LOCATION GLAZING REQUIREMENTS THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE CONSIDERED SPECIFIC HAZARDOUS LOCATIONS REQUIRING SAFETY GLAZING PER SECTION R308: A. GLAZING IN FIXED AND OPERABLE PANELS OF SWINGING, SLIDING, AND BIFOLD DOORS. B. GLAZING IN FIXED OR OPERABLE PANELS ADJACENT TO A DOOR WHERE THE NEAREST VERTICAL EDGE OF THE GLAZING IS WITHIN A 24-INCH ARC OF EITHER VERTICAL EDGE OF THE DOOR IN A CLOSED POSITION AND WHERE THE BOTTOM EXPOSED EDGE OF THE GLAZING IS LESS THAN 60 INHES ABOVE THE WALKING SURFACE. C. WINDOW GLAZING IN AN INDIVIDUAL FIXED OR OPERABLE PANEL, THAT MEETS ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. THE EXPOSED AREA OF AN INDIVIDUAL PANE IS LARGER THAN 9 S.F. 2. THE BOTTOM EDGE IS LESS THAN 18 INCHES ABOVE THE FLOOR. 3. THE TOP EDGE IS MORE THAN 36 INCHES ABOVE THE FLOOR. 4. ONE OR MORE WALKING SURFACES ARE WITHIN 36 INCHES, MEASURED HORIZONTALLY AND IN A STRAIGHT LINE, OF THE GLAZING F. GLAZING ADJACENT TO STAIRS AND RAMPS WHERE THE BOTTOM EXPOSED EDGE IS LESS THAN 36 INCHES ABOVE THE PLANE OF THE ADJACENT WALKING SURFACE OF STAIRWAYS, LANDINGS BETWEEN FLIGHTS OF STAIRS, AND RAMPS, UNLESS THE GLAZING IS MORE THAN 36 INCHES MEASURED HORIZONTALLY FROM THE WALKING SURFACE, OR A RAIL IS DESIGNED PER SECTION R308.4.6. RAYMOND SOHRABIAN 3035 EDGEWICK RD GLENDALE,CA 91206 TEL: (-) - [email protected] A-4.0 A-0.0 COVER SHEET -WITH 2014 LOS ANGELES COUNTY AMENDMENTS & 2016 CALIFORNIA ENERGY CODE - A-5.1
- IDENTIFIER DOOR SYMBOL REVISION DETAILED AREA SECTION DETAIL LOCATOR SHEET PLAN DETAIL SCALE DRAWING NUMBER IDENTIFIER -
-
-
-
-- DRAWING NAME FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 - IDENTIFIER KEYNOTE WINDOW INTERIOR
-
- ELEVATIONS
A
D
B
C DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF FINISH UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED - IDENTIFIER WALL TYPE
SECTION NUMBER DETAIL ELEVATION
-
-
-
- LOCATOR SHEET ELEVATION LOCATION OTHERWISE REF. RPT. PR. PLYWD. PLAS. P.LAM. PL. OPP. OPNG. NO. OR # O.C. N.T.S. NOM. N.I.C. CNTR. COUNTER DRINKING FOUNTAIN DIMENSION DIAMETER DEPARTMENT DOUBLE CENTER DIA. DIM. DET. DEPT. D.F. DBL. CTR. DETAIL CONTINUOUS CONSTRUCTION CONCRETE COLUMN CEILING CERAMIC CONSTR. CONT. CONC. COL. CLG. CLR. CER. CLEAR PLYWOOD PLASTER PLASTIC LAMINATE POINT REFERENCE RADIUS PAIR PLATE OPPOSITE ON CENTER NOT TO SCALE NOMINAL NOT IN CONTRACT OPENING NUMBER INSUL. INT. MUL. MTD. M.O. MISC. MIR. MIN. MET. MECH. MAX. LT. LAV. LAM. JT. ARCH. ARCHITECTURAL BUILDING CEMENT BOTTOM BLOCKING CEM. BOT. BLKG. BLK. BLOCK BLDG. BD. BOARD
N POUND OR NUMBER DIAMETER OR ROUND APPROXIMATE ADJUSTABLE ACOUSTICAL EXISTING CENTERLINE #ACOUS. ADJ. APPROX. (E) @CO
L
&L ATANGLE AND MAXIMUM MOUNTED MASONRY OPENING MISCELLANEOUS MECHANICAL MULLION NORTH MIRROR METAL MINIMUM INSULATION INTERIOR LAVATORY LAMINATE JOINT LIGHT UNLESS NOTED HEIGHT HORIZONTAL HOLLOW METAL HGT. HR. HORIZ. H.M. HOUR GENERAL CONTRACTOR GLASS GYPSUM GROUND FOOT OR FEET GALVANIZED GAUGE FURRING FUTURE GL. GYP. G.C. GND. GALV. GA. FT. FUT. FURR. WOOD UNFINISHED TYPICAL WEST WITH TELEPHONE THICK U.N.O. WD. W/ W. UNF. TYP. THK. TEL. FLOOR FLUORESCENT FLASHING FIRE EXTINGUISHER FIRE ALARM FINISH FLOOR DRAIN EXTERIOR EXPANSION EXISTING (E) FIN. FL. FLOUR. FLASH F.E. F.D. EXP. F.A. EXT. EXIST. EQUAL ENCLOSURE EMERGENCY ELECTRICAL DRAWING EMER. EQ. ENCL. ELEC. EA. E. DWG. EACH EAST SYMMETRICAL SUSPENDED STRUCTURAL STORAGE STANDARD TREAD STEEL STAINLESS STEEL SQUARE SPECIFICATION SIMILAR TRD. SYM. SUSP. STRUCT. STOR. STL. STD. ST. STL. SPEC. SIM. SQ. SECTION SCHEDULE SOUTH RESILIENT REQUIRED REINFORCED ROOM SECT. SCHED. S. RESIL. REQ. REINF. RM. V.I.F VERIFY IN FIELD PROJECT INDEX BLK3 LR/ARCHITECTURE 3035 EDGEWICK RD GLENDALE Raymond Sohrabian 3035 EDGEWICK RD GLENDALE, CA 91206 CA 91206 EXTERIOR ELEVATION EXTERIOR ELEVATION EXTERIOR ELEVATION BUILDING SECTION A-0.0 PROJECT DATA A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A HILLSIDE SITE A-1.1 PLOT PLAN ENERGY LOGICS ENGINEERS 665 FAIRMONT AVE. #11 GLENDALE, CA 91203 CONTACT: ARMAND HENRY ESTRADA TEL: (213) 820-3683 CIVIL: MESSIHA ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. 9854 NATIONAL BLVD., SUITE 474 LOS ANGELES, CA 90034 TEL: (310)-717-3020 HANY MESSIHA, PE, MSCE MESSIHA ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. 9854 NATIONAL BLVD., SUITE 474 LOS ANGELES, CA 90034 TEL: (310)-717-3020 HANY MESSIHA, PE, MSCE PROJECT DATA: SITE AREA: 8,581 SQ.FT. AREAS: ENTRY AREA AT GARAGE: 123 SQ. FT. FIRST FLOOR: 1,730 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR: 1,407 SQ. FT. AREA FOR FAR CALC: 3,260 SQ. FT. FAR = .4(40% OF SITE AREA) 3,432 SQ. FT. ALLOWABLE PROJECT FAR: 37.9% OTHER SITE AREA: ADU: 500 SQ. FT. GARAGE: 432 SQ. FT. COVERAGE: 3,432 SQ.FT. ALLOWABLE ACTUAL COVERAGE: 31.2% (2,683 SQ. FT. INCLUDES ADU) LANDSCAPE AREA: 3,937 SQ.FT. (45.8 %) PROPERTY SLOPE: 32.5% UNDISTURBED AREA: 3,430 SQ. FT. (40%) SLOPE AT HOUSE POLYGON: 29.3% CUT: 1,150 C.Y. FILL: 25 C.Y. EXPORT: 835 C.Y. A-2.3 ADU PLAN AND ELEVATIONS 1427 of 1517
WALL FINISH FROM INSIDE CORNER TO ADU TO BE ANGELUS
BLOCK DECORATIVE CMU “GOLDENROD - BURNISHED 6x8x16
1 5/17/21 CMU spec revision
1428 of 1517
18.523.00 PLNG A-1.1 Site Plan Undisturbed.dwg
A-1.1
SITE PLAN
UNDISTURBED TERRAIN
KEYNOTES
SITE AREA : 8,581 S.F. 100%
HOUSE AND ADU COVERAGE : 2,703 S.F. 31%
HARDSCAPE,STEPS,PLANTERS: 2,440 S.F. 28%
UNDISTURBED: 3,438 S.F. 40%
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1
PLANTER 1
SITE PLAN NOTES LEGEND
ADJACENT PROPERTY
ADJACENT PROPERTY EDGEWICK ROAD
PROPOSED
2-STORY
RESIDENCE
ENTRY
79.65 PROPERTY LINE
117.28 PROPERTY LINE
58 PROPERTY LINE
135.15 PROPERTY LINE
15'-0"
SETBACK
10'-0"
SETBACK 10'-0" SETABCK
LR/ARCHITECTURE
3035 EDGEWICK RD GLENDALE
Raymond Sohrabian
3035 EDGEWICK RD
GLENDALE, CA 91206
CA 91206
ADU
DN
UP
UP
UP
±0'-0" F.G.
±18'-0" F.F.
±37'-0"
±40'-3" @ ROOF
14'-1"
INTERIOR WALL
(N) 2x STUD WALL @ 16" O.C. W/ 5/8" GYP. BD. - SEE
STRUCTURAL
PROPERTY LINE
CMU WALL
2% SLOPE SITE DRAINAGE DIRECTION
SLOPE
BUILDING GRID IDENTIFICATION WORK
POINT
6'-7"
±2'-6"
UP UP
UP
UP
±40"
±88"
±106"
2'-4"
4'-0"
3'-6"
3'-6"
TOP OF PARAPET
40'-6"
UNDISTURBED TERRAIN
6'-0"
24'-0"
5'-0" 10'-0"
17'-11"
5'-8"
1 1
1 1
1 3,438 SQ.FT.
1429 of 1517
2/22/21 Driveway width / stairs
TRASH BIN AREA
+2’-8” = 1036.66
+2’-8”
21’-6”
4’-6”
1430 of 1517
LEGENDS
1 SHADED AREA DENOTES AREA OF MID-LEVEL FLOOR @26'-0" A.F.F
GAS FIRE PLACE
DOUBLE-HEIGHT SPACE
EXTERIOR STAIRS
OUTDOOR DECK
PROPERTY LINE
CANOPY ABOVE
2 3
4 5
18.523.00 PLNG A-2.1 FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN.d
A-2.1
FIRST FLOOR
PLAN
GENERAL NOTES
A- THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT RESTRICT A FIVE-FOOT
CLEAR AND UNOBSTRUCTED ACCESS TO ANY WATER OR POWER
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES (POWER POLES, PULL-BOXES,
TRANSFORMERS, VAULTS, PUMPS, VALVES, METERS,
APPURTENANCES, ETC.) OR TO THE LOCATION OF THE HOOK-UP.
THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT BE WITHIN TEN FEET OF ANY
POWER LINES-WHETHER OR NOT THE LINES ARE LOCATED ON
THE PROPERTY. FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY CAUSE
CONSTRUCTION DELAYS AND/OR ADDITIONAL EXPENSES.
B- AN APPROVED SEISMIC GAS SHUTOFF VALVE WILL BE
INSTALLED ON THE FUEL GAS LINE THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF
THE UTILITY METER AND BE RIGIDLY CONNECTED TO THE
EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE CONTAINING THE
FUEL GAS PIPING. (PER ORDINANCE 170,158) (SEPARATE
PLUMBING PERMIT IS REQUIRED).
C- PLUMBING FIXTURES ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONNECTED TO A
SANITARY SEWER OR TO AN APPROVED SEWAGE DISPOSAL
SYSTEM (R306.3).
D- KITCHEN SINKS, LAVATORIES, BATHTUBS, SHOWERS, BIDETS,
LAUNDRY TUBS AND WASHING MACHINE OUTLETS SHALL BE
PROVIDED WITH HOT AND COLD WATER AND CONNECTED TO AN
APPROVED WATER SUPPLY (R306.4).
GARAGES OR FUEL-BURNING APPLIANCES SHALL BE PROVIDED
WITH A CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION R315.2. CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS SHALL ONLY BE
REQUIRED IN THE SPECIFIC DWELLING UNIT OR SLEEPING UNIT FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS OBTAINED. (R315.2.2).
N- EVERY SPACE INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY SHALL BE
PROVIDED WITH NATURAL LIGHT BY MEANS OF EXTERIOR
GLAZED OPENINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R303.1 OR
SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ARTIFICIAL LIGHT THAT IS ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE AN AVERAGE ILLUMINATION OF 6 FOOT-CANDELS
OVER THE AREA OF THE ROOM AT A HEIGHT OF 30 INCHES
ABOVE THE FLOOR LEVEL. (R303.1).
O- A COPY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT AND/OR CONDITIONS
OF LISTING SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE.
E- BATHTUB AND SHOWER FLOORS, WALLS ABOVE BATHTUBS
WITH A SHOWERHEAD, AND SHOWER COMPARTMENTS SHALL BE
FINISHED WITH A NONABSORBENT SURFACE. SUCH WALL
SURFACES SHALL EXTEND TO A HEIGHT OF NOT LESS THAN 6
FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR (R307.2).
F- PROVIDE ULTRA-LOW FLUSH WATER CLOSETS FOR ALL NEW
CONSTRUCTION. EXISTING SHOWER HEADS AND TOILETS MUST
BE ADAPTED FOR LOW WATER CONSUMPTION.
H- WATER HEATER MUST BE STRAPPED TO WALL. (SEC. 507.3,
LAPC)
H- WATER HEATER MUST BE STRAPPED TO WALL. (SEC. 507.3,
LAPC)
K- AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR OPENERS, IF PROVIDED SHALL BE
LISTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UL 325. (R309.4)
L- SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL DWELLING
UNITS INTENDED, FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY, UPON THE OWNER'S
APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT FOR ALTERATIONS, REPAIRS, OR
ADIITIONS, EXCEEDING ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS (1,000).
(R314.6.2).
M- WHERE A PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALTERATIONS, REPAIRS
OR ADDITIONS EXCEEDING ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000),
EXISTING DWELLING OR SLEEPING UNITS THAT HAVE ATTACHED
1- HEATER SHALL BE CAPABLE OF MAINTAINING A MINIMUM
ROOM TEMPERATURE OF 68 F AT A POINT 3 FET ABOVE THE
FLOOR AND 2 FEET FROM EXTERIOR WALLS IN ALL HABITABLE
ROOMS AT THE DESIGN TEMPERATURE. (R303.9)
2- PROTECTION OF WOOD AND WOOD BASED PRODUCTS FROM
DECAY SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE LOCATIONS SPECIFIED PER
SECTION R317.1 BY THE USE OF NATURALLY DURABLE WOOD OR
WOOD THAT IS PRESERVATIVE-TREATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
AWPA U1 FOR THE SPECIES, PRODUCTS, PRESERVATIVE AND
END USE. PRESERVATIVES SHALL BE LISTED IN SECTION 4 OF
AWPA U1.
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1
KEYNOTES
LR/ARCHITECTURE
3035 EDGEWICK RD GLENDALE
Raymond Sohrabian
3035 EDGEWICK RD
GLENDALE, CA 91206
CA 91206
ELEVATOR
40 SQ.FT.
000
LIVING ROOM
397 SQ.FT.
101
OFFICE
150 SQ.FT.
103
KITCHEN
260 SQ.FT.
102
41'-11" 24'-9" 7'-7" 7'-7"
16'-0"
50'-5"
BATHROOM 1
LAUNDRY
PANTRY 48'-6" 28'-2" 7'-11" 12'-5"
101A
101I
101H
101G
101D 101E 101F
STORAGE/
GUEST CLOSET
± 18'-0" F.F.
± 26'-0" A.F.F.
UP
135 SQ. FT.
237 SQ. FT.
1 A-5.0
1 A-5.1
8'-8"
101B
14'-10" 5'-1"
4'-0" 9'-11" 12'-1" 6'-11"
DINING AREA
ENTRY
105
104
101 102 103
108
107
106
UP
± 18'-0" F.F.
1 A-4.1
1 A-4.0
1 A-4.3
1 A-4.2
1 2
3 ± 18'-0" F.F.
4 4
5 5
WALL LIGHTS
INTERIOR WALL
DOOR TAG
WINDOW TAG
(N) 2x STUD WALL @ 16" O.C. W/ 5/8" GYP. BD. - SEE
STRUCTURAL
PROPERTY LINE
CMU WALL
2% SLOPE SITE DRAINAGE DIRECTION
SLOPE
BUILDING GRID IDENTIFICATION WORK
POINT 8'-7"
6 6
25'-9"
101C 4'-0" CLEAR
4'-11"
4'-0"
7 7
7 8'-7" 33'-2" 48'-6"
109
1431 of 1517
LEGENDS
18.523.00 PLNG A-2.2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN.dwg
A-2.2
SECOND
FLOOR PLAN
AND SPLIT LEVEL
GENERAL NOTES
A- THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT RESTRICT A FIVE-FOOT
CLEAR AND UNOBSTRUCTED ACCESS TO ANY WATER OR POWER
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES (POWER POLES, PULL-BOXES,
TRANSFORMERS, VAULTS, PUMPS, VALVES, METERS,
APPURTENANCES, ETC.) OR TO THE LOCATION OF THE HOOK-UP.
THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT BE WITHIN TEN FEET OF ANY
POWER LINES-WHETHER OR NOT THE LINES ARE LOCATED ON
THE PROPERTY. FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY CAUSE
CONSTRUCTION DELAYS AND/OR ADDITIONAL EXPENSES.
B- AN APPROVED SEISMIC GAS SHUTOFF VALVE WILL BE
INSTALLED ON THE FUEL GAS LINE THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF
THE UTILITY METER AND BE RIGIDLY CONNECTED TO THE
EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE CONTAINING THE
FUEL GAS PIPING. (PER ORDINANCE 170,158) (SEPARATE
PLUMBING PERMIT IS REQUIRED).
C- PLUMBING FIXTURES ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONNECTED TO A
SANITARY SEWER OR TO AN APPROVED SEWAGE DISPOSAL
SYSTEM (R306.3).
D- KITCHEN SINKS, LAVATORIES, BATHTUBS, SHOWERS, BIDETS,
LAUNDRY TUBS AND WASHING MACHINE OUTLETS SHALL BE
PROVIDED WITH HOT AND COLD WATER AND CONNECTED TO AN
APPROVED WATER SUPPLY (R306.4).
GARAGES OR FUEL-BURNING APPLIANCES SHALL BE PROVIDED
WITH A CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION R315.2. CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS SHALL ONLY BE
REQUIRED IN THE SPECIFIC DWELLING UNIT OR SLEEPING UNIT FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS OBTAINED. (R315.2.2).
N- EVERY SPACE INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY SHALL BE
PROVIDED WITH NATURAL LIGHT BY MEANS OF EXTERIOR
GLAZED OPENINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R303.1 OR
SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ARTIFICIAL LIGHT THAT IS ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE AN AVERAGE ILLUMINATION OF 6 FOOT-CANDELS
OVER THE AREA OF THE ROOM AT A HEIGHT OF 30 INCHES
ABOVE THE FLOOR LEVEL. (R303.1).
O- A COPY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT AND/OR CONDITIONS
OF LISTING SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE.
E- BATHTUB AND SHOWER FLOORS, WALLS ABOVE BATHTUBS
WITH A SHOWERHEAD, AND SHOWER COMPARTMENTS SHALL BE
FINISHED WITH A NONABSORBENT SURFACE. SUCH WALL
SURFACES SHALL EXTEND TO A HEIGHT OF NOT LESS THAN 6
FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR (R307.2).
F- PROVIDE ULTRA-LOW FLUSH WATER CLOSETS FOR ALL NEW
CONSTRUCTION. EXISTING SHOWER HEADS AND TOILETS MUST
BE ADAPTED FOR LOW WATER CONSUMPTION.
H- WATER HEATER MUST BE STRAPPED TO WALL. (SEC. 507.3,
LAPC)
H- WATER HEATER MUST BE STRAPPED TO WALL. (SEC. 507.3,
LAPC)
K- AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR OPENERS, IF PROVIDED SHALL BE
LISTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UL 325. (R309.4)
L- SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL DWELLING
UNITS INTENDED, FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY, UPON THE OWNER'S
APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT FOR ALTERATIONS, REPAIRS, OR
ADIITIONS, EXCEEDING ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS (1,000).
(R314.6.2).
M- WHERE A PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALTERATIONS, REPAIRS
OR ADDITIONS EXCEEDING ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000),
EXISTING DWELLING OR SLEEPING UNITS THAT HAVE ATTACHED
1- HEATER SHALL BE CAPABLE OF MAINTAINING A MINIMUM
ROOM TEMPERATURE OF 68 F AT A POINT 3 FET ABOVE THE
FLOOR AND 2 FEET FROM EXTERIOR WALLS IN ALL HABITABLE
ROOMS AT THE DESIGN TEMPERATURE. (R303.9)
2- PROTECTION OF WOOD AND WOOD BASED PRODUCTS FROM
DECAY SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE LOCATIONS SPECIFIED PER
SECTION R317.1 BY THE USE OF NATURALLY DURABLE WOOD OR
WOOD THAT IS PRESERVATIVE-TREATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
AWPA U1 FOR THE SPECIES, PRODUCTS, PRESERVATIVE AND
END USE. PRESERVATIVES SHALL BE LISTED IN SECTION 4 OF
AWPA U1.
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1
KEYNOTES
LR/ARCHITECTURE
3035 EDGEWICK RD GLENDALE
Raymond Sohrabian
3035 EDGEWICK RD
GLENDALE, CA 91206
CA 91206
ELEVATOR
46 SQ.FT.
000
MASTER BEDROOM
245 SQ.FT.
301
MASTER CLOSET
OPEN TO BELOW
205A
205B
205C
205D
± 11'-9" A.F.F.
320 SQ. FT.
144 SQ. FT.
HALLWAY DN
1 A-5.0
1 A-5.1
MASTER BATHROOM
186 SQ.FT.
301
206
203 204 205
211
209
LR/ARCHITECTURE
3035 EDGEWICK RD GLENDALE
Raymond Sohrabian
3035 EDGEWICK RD
GLENDALE, CA 91206
CA 91206
1 A-4.1
1 A-4.0
1 A-4.3
1 A-4.2
1 ROOF DECK ABOVE MID LEVEL
GAS FIRE PLACE
DOUBLE-HEIGHT SPACE BELOW
EXTERIOR STAIRS
BALCONY
2 3
4 5
1 2
5 ELECTRICAL DUPLEX OUTLET
SWITCH LOCATION
WALL LIGHTS
INTERIOR WALL
-- DOOR TAG
WINDOW TAG
(N) 2x STUD WALL @ 16" O.C. W/ 5/8" GYP. BD. - SEE
STRUCTURAL
PROPERTY LINE
CMU WALL
2% SLOPE SITE DRAINAGE DIRECTION
SLOPE
BUILDING GRID IDENTIFICATION WORK
POINT
4 ± 26'-0"
UP
201B
201C
201A
201D
202A
202B
202
201
204A
207
208
210
8'-5"
6'-7"
11'-7" 16'-9" 25'-9" 5'-8"
59'-9"
20'-10" 1342'-2"
2'-6"
10'-11"
59'-9"
DN
12'-5" 10'-3" 18'-10" 13'-5" 42'-6" 16'-0"
8'-3" 6'-0" 20'-7"
5'-3" 7'-7" 16'-2" 44'-4" 23'-9" 6'-11" 7'-2" 8'-3"
10'-11" 6'-7"
11'-2" 3'-9"
8'-1" 11'-1"
11'-11"
13'-10" 9'-11" 12'-1"
24'-9"
1432 of 1517
1 SHADED AREA DENOTES AREA OF MID-LEVEL
FLOOR @26'-0" A.F.F
GAS FIRE PLACE
DOUBLE-HEIGHT SPACE
EXTERIOR STAIRS
OUTDOOR DECK
PROPERTY LINE
CANOPY ABOVE
2 3
4 5
A-2.3
ADU
PLAN AND
ELEVATIONS
GENERAL NOTES
A- THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT RESTRICT A FIVE-FOOT
CLEAR AND UNOBSTRUCTED ACCESS TO ANY WATER OR POWER
DISTRIBUTION FACILITIES (POWER POLES, PULL-BOXES,
TRANSFORMERS, VAULTS, PUMPS, VALVES, METERS,
APPURTENANCES, ETC.) OR TO THE LOCATION OF THE HOOK-UP.
THE CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT BE WITHIN TEN FEET OF ANY
POWER LINES-WHETHER OR NOT THE LINES ARE LOCATED ON
THE PROPERTY. FAILURE TO COMPLY MAY CAUSE
CONSTRUCTION DELAYS AND/OR ADDITIONAL EXPENSES.
B- AN APPROVED SEISMIC GAS SHUTOFF VALVE WILL BE
INSTALLED ON THE FUEL GAS LINE THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE OF
THE UTILITY METER AND BE RIGIDLY CONNECTED TO THE
EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE CONTAINING THE
FUEL GAS PIPING. (PER ORDINANCE 170,158) (SEPARATE
PLUMBING PERMIT IS REQUIRED).
C- PLUMBING FIXTURES ARE REQUIRED TO BE CONNECTED TO A
SANITARY SEWER OR TO AN APPROVED SEWAGE DISPOSAL
SYSTEM (R306.3).
D- KITCHEN SINKS, LAVATORIES, BATHTUBS, SHOWERS, BIDETS,
LAUNDRY TUBS AND WASHING MACHINE OUTLETS SHALL BE
PROVIDED WITH HOT AND COLD WATER AND CONNECTED TO AN
APPROVED WATER SUPPLY (R306.4).
GARAGES OR FUEL-BURNING APPLIANCES SHALL BE PROVIDED
WITH A CARBON MONOXIDE ALARM IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION R315.2. CARBON MONOXIDE ALARMS SHALL ONLY BE
REQUIRED IN THE SPECIFIC DWELLING UNIT OR SLEEPING UNIT FOR WHICH THE PERMIT WAS OBTAINED. (R315.2.2).
N- EVERY SPACE INTENDED FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY SHALL BE
PROVIDED WITH NATURAL LIGHT BY MEANS OF EXTERIOR
GLAZED OPENINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION R303.1 OR
SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ARTIFICIAL LIGHT THAT IS ADEQUATE TO PROVIDE AN AVERAGE ILLUMINATION OF 6 FOOT-CANDELS
OVER THE AREA OF THE ROOM AT A HEIGHT OF 30 INCHES
ABOVE THE FLOOR LEVEL. (R303.1).
O- A COPY OF THE EVALUATION REPORT AND/OR CONDITIONS
OF LISTING SHALL BE MADE AVAILABLE AT THE JOB SITE.
E- BATHTUB AND SHOWER FLOORS, WALLS ABOVE BATHTUBS
WITH A SHOWERHEAD, AND SHOWER COMPARTMENTS SHALL BE
FINISHED WITH A NONABSORBENT SURFACE. SUCH WALL
SURFACES SHALL EXTEND TO A HEIGHT OF NOT LESS THAN 6
FEET ABOVE THE FLOOR (R307.2).
F- PROVIDE ULTRA-LOW FLUSH WATER CLOSETS FOR ALL NEW
CONSTRUCTION. EXISTING SHOWER HEADS AND TOILETS MUST
BE ADAPTED FOR LOW WATER CONSUMPTION.
H- WATER HEATER MUST BE STRAPPED TO WALL. (SEC. 507.3,
LAPC)
H- WATER HEATER MUST BE STRAPPED TO WALL. (SEC. 507.3,
LAPC)
K- AUTOMATIC GARAGE DOOR OPENERS, IF PROVIDED SHALL BE
LISTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UL 325. (R309.4)
L- SMOKE DETECTORS SHALL BE PROVIDED FOR ALL DWELLING
UNITS INTENDED, FOR HUMAN OCCUPANCY, UPON THE OWNER'S
APPLICATION FOR A PERMIT FOR ALTERATIONS, REPAIRS, OR
ADIITIONS, EXCEEDING ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS (1,000).
(R314.6.2).
M- WHERE A PERMIT IS REQUIRED FOR ALTERATIONS, REPAIRS
OR ADDITIONS EXCEEDING ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000),
EXISTING DWELLING OR SLEEPING UNITS THAT HAVE ATTACHED
1- HEATER SHALL BE CAPABLE OF MAINTAINING A MINIMUM
ROOM TEMPERATURE OF 68 F AT A POINT 3 FET ABOVE THE
FLOOR AND 2 FEET FROM EXTERIOR WALLS IN ALL HABITABLE
ROOMS AT THE DESIGN TEMPERATURE. (R303.9)
2- PROTECTION OF WOOD AND WOOD BASED PRODUCTS FROM
DECAY SHALL BE PROVIDED IN THE LOCATIONS SPECIFIED PER
SECTION R317.1 BY THE USE OF NATURALLY DURABLE WOOD OR
WOOD THAT IS PRESERVATIVE-TREATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
AWPA U1 FOR THE SPECIES, PRODUCTS, PRESERVATIVE AND
END USE. PRESERVATIVES SHALL BE LISTED IN SECTION 4 OF
AWPA U1.
FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1
KEYNOTES
LR/ARCHITECTURE
3035 EDGEWICK RD GLENDALE
Raymond Sohrabian
3035 EDGEWICK RD
GLENDALE, CA 91206
CA 91206
WALL LIGHTS
INTERIOR WALL
DOOR TAG
WINDOW TAG
(N) 2x STUD WALL @ 16" O.C. W/ 5/8" GYP. BD. - SEE
STRUCTURAL
PROPERTY LINE
CMU WALL
2% SLOPE SITE DRAINAGE DIRECTION
SLOPE
BUILDING GRID IDENTIFICATION WORK
POINT
6 7
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" 4 EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATION
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" 2 SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATIONSCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" 3 NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" 5 WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION 25'-0"
20'-0"
9'-7" 9'-0" 10'-0" 11'-0" 25'-0" 5'-7" 7'-0" 11'-0"
20'-0"
17'-0" CLEARSTORY ABOVE SLOPPING CEILING
LEGENDS 8'-0" 1'-6" 2'-0" 11'-0" 8'-0" 2'-0" 11'-0" 8'-0" 1'-6" 2'-0" 11'-0" 8'-0" 1'-6" 2'-0" 11'-0" 1433 of 1517
A-3.0 ROOF PLAN
1 FIRE BLOCKING NOTES KEYNOTES ROOF PLAN SCALE: 1/4"= 1'-0" 1 GENERAL NOTES SINGLE-PLY TPO ROOFING MATERIAL CLASS "A" EXTERIOR WALL OUTLINE BELOW CHIMNEY ROOF DECK BELOW STAIRS TO ROOF DECK CANOPY EXTERIOR STAIRS BELOW TO ENTRY ELEVATOR LOCATION LINE OF GRADE @ BUILDING BELOW LINE OF OVERHEAD BELOW 2 ATTIC VENT CALCULATIONS3
456 BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOTES LR/ARCHITECTURE 3035 EDGEWICK RD GLENDALE Raymond Sohrabian 3035 EDGEWICK RD GLENDALE, CA 91206 CA 91206 3 1
4 5 DN
7 7 ±18'-0" ±36'-6" A.F.G. ±40'-3" A.F.G8
8 6
6 28'-0"
32'-3" 12'-1"
4'-4" 7'-6" 25'-9" 8'-8"
16'-0" 7'-9" 20'-7"
44'-4" 13'-11"
44'-4" 41'-11" 33'-8"
6'-1" 5'-9"
15'-7" 10'-11"20'-9" ±0'-0" ±0'-0" ±0'-0" LANDING
31'-3" 27'-0"
7'-7" 37'-11" 24'-9"
28'-2" 16'-7" 20'-4" 16'-3"
9'-10"
17'-9"
3'-2"
9 9
4'-0"
8'-7"
8'-7" 10 10
2'-4"
1434 of 1517
3 2’-0”
1435 of 1517
PAD BEYOND FOR HVAC EQUIPMENT
STEPS AND PATHWAY TO ADU (IN FOREGROUND)
9 SEE A-5.1 FOR LOCATION OF PROFILE
NATURAL GRADE - PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
16’-4”
8 8
29’-6”
19’-0”
ROOF
1436 of 1517
ROOF
40’-0”
2/25/21 F to F Adjustments
29’-6”
19’-0”
8”
1437 of 1517
2’-8”
2/25/21 Elevation adjustments
40’-0”
ROOF
29’-6”
19’-0”
29-0”
1438 of 1517
2/26/21 Updates
40’-0”
1439 of 1517
2/26/21 Adjustments
2’-8”
ROOF
29’-6”
19’-0”
40’-0”
Mid Level
27’-0”
1440 of 1517
2/26/21 SecƟon Updates
27’-0”
21’ HE GI H
T
AT EXIS
T
NI G
G
R
A
DE
8”
2ϵ’-6”
40’-0”
1ϵ’-0”
1441 of 1517
1442 of 1517
1443 of 1517
1444 of 1517
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
WITH
TEMPORARY FRAME
LOCATIONS
.TF
SOUTH ELEVATION EAST ELEVATION
NORTH ELEVATION
WEST ELEVATION
grade at front
of house
1445 of 1517
ROOF PLAN WITH
TEMPORARY POSTS
.TP
Temporary Post locations
1446 of 1517
.
.-
. .
. . - . - -
. . .
. . .
. . .
.. . .
. . .
. . . . . .
. . .
. . . . . . 18.523.00 PLNG wl-1.0 window location exhibit.dwg WL-1.0
WINDOW LOCATION
EXHIBIT
KEYNOTES
SITE PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" 1
LINE OF BUILDING STRUCTURE BELOW
EXISTING CMU WALL
NEW PAVED DRIVEWAY
CHIMNEY
RETAINING WALL
EXTERIOR STEPS
ROOF DECK
ROOF
STAIRS TO ROOF DECK
BALCONY BELOW
FUTURE SINGLE STORY ADU
DECK AT ENTRY LEVEL
CANOPY
PLANTER
1 2
3 4
5 6
LEGEND
ADJACENT PROPERTY
ADJACENT PROPERTY EDGEWICK ROAD
PROPOSED
2-STORY
RESIDENCE
ENTRY
79.65 PROPERTY LINE
117.28 PROPERTY LINE
58 PROPERTY LINE
135.15 PROPERTY LINE
15'-0"
SETBACK
10'-0" SETBACK
10'-0"
SETBACK 10'-0" SETABCK
15'-0"
FRONT SETBACK
1 A-4.1
1 A-4.0
1 A-4.3
1 A-4.2
LR/ARCHITECTURE
3035 EDGEWICK RD GLENDALE
Raymond Sohrabian
3035 EDGEWICK RD
GLENDALE, CA 91206
CA 91206
5 1
7 8
9 10
11 11
7 8
6 9
DN
12 12
12 UP
UP
UP
13 13
13 ±0'-0" F.G.
±18'-0" F.F.
±37'-0"
±40'-3" @ ROOF
3 PROPERTY LINE
6'-7"
4 2
±2'-6"
UP
14 14
14 FIRST FLOOR WINDOW/DOORS OPEN TO
A PATIO WELL WITH RETAINING WALL
ACTING AS A VISUAL SCREEN
SINGLE SECOND FLOOR WINDOW
WINDOWS AT 3033 ARE APPROXIMATELY
12 FT BELOW 1ST FLOOR FINISH
ELEVATION OF NEW STRUCTURE.
WINDOWS AT 3030 ARE APPROXIMATELY
5 FT BELOW ROAD SURFACE
1 2
3 1
1 2
3 3
ADU
4 4
4 4
1447 of 1517
1448 of 1517
1449 of 1517
1450 of 1517
1451 of 1517
1452 of 1517
1453 of 1517
1454 of 1517
Ochre Blend
1455 of 1517
1456 of 1517
1457 of 1517
21 September 2019
Arborist report for Ray Sohrabian
SITE:
3035 Edgewick Road
Glendale
Above picture 1, bottom left picture 2, bottom right picture 3.
Front view of property with diagram on left plotting the location of the trees and bushes. Bottom picture faces the more northerly portion of the property (right side).
Picture 4: Facing toward the street to
the East, we see the backside of tree B
Coast Live Oak and A Silver Dollar
Eucalyptus which we viewed with the
first picture on page 1 from the front
side.
The only protected tree in this part of
the property is tree B the Coast Live
Oak with DBH of 11 inches, canopy
spread 20 feet, and health rated as
good. At this stage it would be rated as
young and not fully mature.
Above picture 4 and below picture 5.
Picture 5: these are trees C and D and are Cypress
And below is Picture 6 ( tree E) a small Coast Live Oak with 8 stems all with a DBH less than 6 inches, 15 foot spread canopy and health is good. It is more like a bush.
Tree F is not pictured; it is a small pine.
At the middle of the property is the Picture 7 left with G,H manzanita plants & Picture 8 below right with tree E Oak and G,H manzanita on left with oleander (I) in the center.
Most other bushes on the property are sumac. Picture 9 below left shows the sumac K and neighbor’s tree P butted to wall is a bottlebrush tree. Bottom right Picture 10 shows neighbor’s Eucalyptus trees about 10 feet away from the wall.
The only other tree that is protected is on the neighbor’s property to the north is a Coast Live Oak and it is greater than 30 feet away. As seen in the Picture 11 below left.
In the diagram page 1 all other bushes J, L, M, N are
sumac bushes.
To summarize the only trees protected are the 2 Coast
Live Oak B and E and they are minor trees.
Prepared by:
Mary Beth MacKenzie
Board Certified Arborist WE 6121
1458 of 1517
1459 of 1517
EXISTING CONDITIONS: UNDEVELOPED LOT
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND PROPOSED SCOPE:
NEW 1,604 SQ FT THREE-LEVELS SINGLE FAMILY
RESIDENCE AND ADU
BENCH MARK:
LEGEND
PROPERTY LINE
FLOW DIRECTION
FINISH GRADE ELEVATION IN FEET
GRADE SLOPE
SPLASH BLOCK - 2FT LONG
OPEN CURB
FLOW LINE
SC-8 SANDBAG BARRIER
4"~6" COBBLE
LANDSCAPE AREA
NEW CONCRETE SURFACE
GRADE BREAK
PL
EXISTING TREE
EXISTING CONTOUR LINE
x
SE-1 SILT FENCE
EXISTING FENCE
SC-8 SANDBAG BARRIER
ABBREVIATIONS
STORM DRAIN LINE
SANITARY SEWER LINE
SD
SS
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PROVIDED BY:
??
OWNER:
??
W WATER LINE
OHC OVER HEAD CABLE
E ELECTRIC LINE
SURVEYOR:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: TITLE SHEET
C-1
SERVICES
MESSIHA
ENGINEERING MESSIHA ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. 9854 NATIONAL BLVD. SUITE 474 LOS ANGELES, CA. 90034 Tel. (310) 717-3020 - [email protected] HM
AS NOTED
19-085
THE INFORMATION SHOWN
ON THESE DRAWINGS IS
OWNED BY AND IS THE
PROPERTY OF MESSIHA
ENGINEERING SERVICES NO
PART THEREOF SHALL BE
COPIED, ADAPTED, USED AT
ANY LOCATION OTHER THAN
SPECIFIC ADDRESS LISTED
BELOW OR DISTRIBUTED TO
OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR
WRITTEN CONSENT OF
MESSIHA ENGINEERING
SERVICES COPYRIGHT c 2005
2020-4-10
No. C56766
AN
H
S
Y MES
A I H
EXP. 06-30-2021
NDS 1200BKIT DRAINAGE INLET
?? SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 30325 EDGEWICK ROAD,
GLENDALE, CA 912064
???
??
BASIS OF BEARINGS:
PROJECT DATA:
DESCRIPTION AREA (SF)
LOT SIZE 8,582
LOT AREA DETAILS
TOTAL GRADED AREA 7,020
LOT 21, BLOCK 3
TRACT NO. 9041
123-59-64
APN:5659-007-015
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS PERCENTAGE =46%
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA 3,950
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.0
PROPOSED BUILDING FOOTPRINT 3,150
1460 of 1517
EDGEWICK ROAD
N89°20'43"E 117.28'
N11°37'00"E
58.00'
N80°54'05"W 135.15'
N03°14'20"W 79.65'
1035.00 1040.00
1050.00
1045.00
1055.00
1060.00
1065.00
1070.00 PROPOSED GARAGE ELEVATION 1036.50 PROPOSED BEDROOM LEVEL ELEVATION 1062.50 BEDROOM ELEV 1060.00PROPOSED ENTRY LEVEL ELEVATION 1052.00 ROOF DECK ELEV 1071.50 ADU
ELEV 1071.50
A
A
B
B
SECTION A
1030
1"=10'
1035
1040
1045
1050
1055
1060
1065
1070
1075
1080
1030
1035
1040
1045
1050
1055
1060
1065
1070
1075
1080
SECTION B
1030
1045
1V=5H
1035
1050
1040
1055
1060
1065
1070
1075
1080
1030
1035
1040
1045
1050
1055
1060
1065
1070
1075
1080 GRADING PLAN
C-2
SERVICES
MESSIHA
ENGINEERING MESSIHA ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. 9854 NATIONAL BLVD. SUITE 474 LOS ANGELES, CA. 90034 Tel. (310) 717-3020 - [email protected] HM
1"=10'
19-xxx
THE INFORMATION SHOWN
ON THESE DRAWINGS IS
OWNED BY AND IS THE
PROPERTY OF MESSIHA
ENGINEERING SERVICES NO
PART THEREOF SHALL BE
COPIED, ADAPTED, USED AT
ANY LOCATION OTHER THAN
SPECIFIC ADDRESS LISTED
BELOW OR DISTRIBUTED TO
OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR
WRITTEN CONSENT OF
MESSIHA ENGINEERING
SERVICES COPYRIGHT c 2005
2019-25-11
No. C56766
AN
H
S
Y MES
A IH
EXP. 06-30-2021 NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 3035 EDGEWICK ROAD GLENDALE, CA, PLAN
SCALE 1"=10'
1461 of 1517
1032.27
1032.98
1033.89
1034.58
1034.68
1034.91
1035.03
1034.57
1035.99
1037.62
1051.31
PINE
1049.35
PINE
1050.79
1051.23
1053.26 TW
1049.63
1034.63
1032.24 1042.77 1045.10 1047.08 1048.89
1049.73
1048.05
1037.11 1037.13 1037.29 1036.13 1036.88 1035.65 1035.31 1052.73
1052.06
1055.88
1063.61
1061.14
1062.53
1061.60
1031.55
1031.87 1032.43 1033.27 1033.06
1032.59 1033.86 1033.50 1033.90 1034.38
1034.54
1034.71
1053.09
1053.32
1053.20
1058.08
1060.21
1061.97 1063.69
1062.92
1052.96
18"ØTREE
1046.49
36"ØTREE
1044.42
1046.84
1050.19
1039.78
1040.87
1042.18 1042.16
1042.71
1042.72
1042.50
1052.24
1053.23
1042.83
1056.03
1058.37
1059.53
1061.55
1063.03
1063.08
1066.84
1068.97
1070.92
1070.22
1067.92 1068.24
1064.97
1064.73
1056.43
1057.38
1050.15
1057.93
1062.22
1052.17
1073.52
1071.69
1067.47
1063.71
1067.78
1052.66
1052.54
1058.04
1054.85
1057.74
1053.90
14"ØTREE
1056.52
1059.05
1067.10
1067.05
1070.58
1070.82
1064.19
12"ØTREE
1069.80
12"ØTREE
1074.84
1057.61
1053.35
1062.38
1063.92
1077.17
1074.77
1080.21
1073.53
1061.26
1058.84
1059.60
1061.84
1065.91
1064.08 TW
1080.08 TW
1070.49
1075.46
1078.52
1082.57 TW
1077.96
EDGEWICK ROAD EROSION CONTROL
C-3
SERVICES
MESSIHA
ENGINEERING MESSIHA ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. 9854 NATIONAL BLVD. SUITE 474 LOS ANGELES, CA. 90034 Tel. (310) 717-3020 - [email protected] HM
1"=10'
THE INFORMATION SHOWN
ON THESE DRAWINGS IS
OWNED BY AND IS THE
PROPERTY OF MESSIHA
ENGINEERING SERVICES NO
PART THEREOF SHALL BE
COPIED, ADAPTED, USED AT
ANY LOCATION OTHER THAN
SPECIFIC ADDRESS LISTED
BELOW OR DISTRIBUTED TO
OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR
WRITTEN CONSENT OF
MESSIHA ENGINEERING
SERVICES COPYRIGHT c 2005
No. C56766
AN
H
S
Y MES
A IH
EXP. 06-30-2021
PLAN
SCALE 1"=10'
1"=10'
2020-4-10 NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 3035 EDGEWICK ROAD GLENDALE, CA, 19-085
PUBLIC ROAD HARD SURFACE
N O T T O S C A L E
1462 of 1517
Gravel Barrier EROSION CONTROL
C-4
SERVICES
MESSIHA
ENGINEERING MESSIHA ENGINEERING SERVICES, INC. 9854 NATIONAL BLVD. SUITE 474 LOS ANGELES, CA. 90034 Tel. (310) 717-3020 - [email protected] HM
AS NOTED
19-085
THE INFORMATION SHOWN
ON THESE DRAWINGS IS
OWNED BY AND IS THE
PROPERTY OF MESSIHA
ENGINEERING SERVICES NO
PART THEREOF SHALL BE
COPIED, ADAPTED, USED AT
ANY LOCATION OTHER THAN
SPECIFIC ADDRESS LISTED
BELOW OR DISTRIBUTED TO
OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR
WRITTEN CONSENT OF
MESSIHA ENGINEERING
SERVICES COPYRIGHT c 2005
2020-4-10
No. C56766
AN
H
S
Y MES
A IH
EXP. 06-30-2021DETAILS NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 3035 EDGEWICK ROAD GLENDALE, CA, 1463 of 1517
1464 of 1517
6 SITE PLAN with
COMPOSITE
FLOOR PLANS
2/15/22 DRB UPDATES
PROJECT DATA:
SITE AREA: 8,581 SF
AREAS:
GARAGE LEVEL 664 SF
FIRST FLOOR: 1,730 SF
SECOND FLOOR: 1,407 SF
AREA FOR FAR CALC: (CREDIT 500SF FOR GARAGE) 3,301 SQ. FT.
FAR = .4(40% OF SITE AREA)
PROJECT FAR:
COVERAGE:
ACTUAL COVERAGE:
LANDSCAPE AREA:
PROPERTY SLOPE:
UNGRADED OPEN SPACE:
3,432 SQ. FT. ALLOWABLE
38.4%
3,432 SQ.FT. ALLOWABLE
2,934 SF (34.2%)
4,337 SF (51%)
32.5%
3,320 SF (38.7%)
SLOPE AT HOUSE POLYGON: 28.9%
CUT 895 C.Y.
FILL 122 C.Y.
EXPORT 773 C.Y.
1465 of 1517
1466 of 1517
1467 of 1517
1468 of 1517
1469 of 1517
1470 of 1517
1471 of 1517
1472 of 1517
Glass - Clear vision glass
ROOF
2ND FLOOR
1ST FLOOR
GARAGE FLOOR
STREET 2’-6” 18’-6” 10’-6” 10’-6”
GARAGE DOOR IS 15FT FROM PROPERTY LINE / 22 FT
FROM ROADWAY
FACE OF DECK IS 28’0” FROM PROPERTY LINE
FACE OF GLASS WALL IS 36’-0’ FROM PROPERTY LINE
1473 of 1517
SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION
OJ Smooth finish stucco - DE6365 "Cold Morning" 0 Norstone natural stone - "Ochre Blend" III Paint color - DE6384 "Iron Fixture"
0 Paint color - DE6369 "Legendary Gray"
[I) Vision glass - Vitro Clear Vison Glass
All Paint colors by Dunn Edwards
LR/A
LR/ARCHITECTURE
Architecture
Planning
Interior Design
Construction Management
217 W. Alomedo Al'eSIYe, SlJile 20J
8urbonk. CA 91502
(818) 840-8361 Fox {618) 840-8341
SUBMITTALS � OESCRIPT\CH
PR[-131():
BIOSt:T;
REl.EASES:
NO. DATE �OE�SCRl�P�TI�ON ___ _
0 2-�-2020 �tr.NG SUBMITTAL
0 4-22-2020 PI.ANN".NG RESU8LOTTAL
O�---==
ARCH/CONSULTANT:
P1!0,£CT
3035 EDGEWICK RD
GLENDALE, CA 91206
Raymond Sohrabian
3035 EOGEWICK RD GLENDALE
CA91200
K'-'SIOOS, _______ _
ISSU[ OATt: R[YtSION
/;). 2-la-22 .DRB/ Ad min EK
6 /;)._._ /;).__ . /;)._._ /;).__ . /;).__ .
ORAWH CHEO<EO
STAff W./ RM
18.523.00 PLNG A-2.0 GARAGE LEVEL<ill9
.K.ll! NO.
18523
om
08/03/2020
SCALE
AS SH0IIW
TI1t£
SOUTH
ELEVATION
SHEET
A-4.lA
1474 of 1517
I
I
I
I
I I �----------------------------------------------------------� I I
I I
L----------------------------------------------------------� 42'-0"
T.0. PARAPET
39·�· -------------------------�T=.o-.=ROOF===o ec-K=....,,_ 29'-6'
SECOND FLOOR
FIRST FLOOR
21·--0·
-----------------------------------i��:��U�N�D�FLOO� =R=-0-
WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION
SCALE:1f4" = 1".0" 1
OJ Smooth finish stucco - DE6365 "Cold Morning"
IT] Norstone natural stone - "Ochre Blend"
[TI Paint color - DE6384 "Iron Fixture"
0 Paint color - DE6369 "Legendary Gray"
[I] Vision glass - Vitro Clear Vision Glass
All Paint colors by Dunn Edwards
KEYNOTES
LR/A
LR/ ARCHITECTURE
Architecture
Planning
Interior Design
Construction Management
217 W. Alomedo Avenue, SI.lite 20J
Burbook, CA 91502
(818) 840-8361 F'O)( (818) 840-8341
SUBMITTAL$
PRE-BID:
DATE DESCRIPTION
BLD'G. DEPT.:
BIO SET:
RElfASES,
NO. DATE
O __
0 ARCH/CONSULTANT:
PROJECT
DESCRIPTION
3035 EDGEWICK RD
GLENDALE, CA 91206
CLIENT
Raymond Sohrabian
3035 EDGEWICK RD GLENDALE
CA 91206
REVISIONS
ISSUE DATE
DRAWN
STAFF
CAO FILE
RE\1SION
CHECKED
WR/ RM
18.523.00 PLNG A-4.3 Exterior Elevatioos.dwg
JOB NO.
18523
DATE
4-1-22
SCAU:
AS SHOWN
TITLE
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
SHEET
A-4.3
1475 of 1517
•
NORTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION
SCALE:1/4",. 1'-0" 1
[jJ Smooth finish stucco - DE6365 "Cold Morning"
[I] Norstone natural stone - "Ochre Blend"
[TI Paint color - DE6384 "Iron Fixture"
[D Paint color - DE6369 "Legendary Gray"
IT] Vision glass - Vitro Clear Vision Glass
All Paint colors by Dunn Edwards
KEYNOTES
LR/A
LR/ ARCHITECTURE
Architecture
Planning
Interior Design
Construction Management
217 W. Alameda Avenue, Suite 20.l
Burbank, CA 91502
(818) 840-8361 f'01e (818) 840-83'4-1
S\JBMlTTALS �
� DESCRIPTION _._. -
BLD'G. DEPT.:
810 SET:
RELEASES:
NO. DATE ..c.OEccSCR.=c.lP.c.
TION"'----- o -.
o-;
0 ARQt/CONSULTANT:
PROJECT
3035 EDGEWICK RD
GLENDALE, CA 91206
CLIENT
Raymond Sohrabian
3035 EDGEWICK RD GLENDALE
CA91206
BE:I.OSiONS
ISSUE DATE
STAFF
CAD FILE
REVl�ON
CHEa<EO
WR./ RM
18.523.00 PLNG A-4.2 Exterior Elevations.dWg
JOB NO.
18523
OA1£
4/1/22
SCALE
AS SHOWN
TITLE
EXTERIOR
ELEVATIONS
SHEET
A-4.2
1476 of 1517
Norstone - XL Rock
Panels Ochre Blend
Cable Railing System
IT]
Image representative of window, door
and garage treatments
Winchester Grey manufactured
wood deck by Trex
Typical window frame
Black anodized aluminum
Midtown 1/0 Led Sconce
by Sonneman Lighting -
18' tall
Stucco
OJ
DE6365
Cold Morning
Primary horizontal
overhang
[TI
DE6384
Iron Fixture
Garage door
Recessed eave
IT]
DE6369
Legendary Gray
Paint colors:
All colors by
Dunn Edwards
"'O Cl) CU0:: ·- 0 ro
� L..
.u Q)
3:.......,
Q) ro
��
�06
0 (") Cl)
L..
-0
0 (_)
w
a:: ::,
�I
,...,. a:: I.I.. ::f
...J�
1477 of 1517
12/2/19
1/16” - 1’-0”
WL - 1.0
WINDOW LOCATIONS
EXHIBIT
See Note # 2
See Note #1
NOTES
#1: First floor window/doors ( )
open to a patio well with
retaining wall acting as a
visual screen.
Single second floor window ( )
#2: Windows at 3033 are
approximately 12 ft below
1st floor finish elevation of
new structure.
1478 of 1517
CITY OF GLENDALE, CA
REPORT TO THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
DESIGN REVIEW STAFF REPORT – HILLSIDE SINGLE FAMILY
July 22, 2021 3035 Edgewick Road
Hearing Date Address
Design Review Board (DRB) 5659-007-015
Review Type APN
PDR2002198 John Deenihan
Case Number Applicant
Milca Toledo, Senior Planner Anurj Properties LLC
c/o Raymond Sohrabian
Case Planner Owner
Project Summary
To construct a 3,260 SF two-story single-family residence with an attached 432 SF garage on an undeveloped 8,581 SF uphill hillside lot. The subject site has an average current slope of 35.5%, and the average current slope of the building footprint is 29.3%. The project proposes to grade 950 cubic yards cut, 115 cubic yards fill, and export 835 cubic yards of earth in conjunction with the project with 40% (3,430 SF) of the hillside to remain ungraded. The new house will provide 1,730 SF of livable space on the first floor and 1,407 SF of livable space on the second floor. The garage and elevator access is proposed on the lower (street) level.
The project will also include the construction of retaining walls directly in front of the house, adjacent to the driveway, and along the side of the house including adjacent to the new staircase on the south side. The stair case will provide access to the rear of the property, which leads to a future proposed 500 SF accessory dwelling unit (ADU). The ADU will require a separate permit, and subject to the ADU Ordinance.
Environmental Review
The project is exempt from CEQA review as a Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” exemption pursuant to Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the project is the construction of a new single-family house.
Existing Property/Background
The 8,531 SF uphill hillside lot is vacant. The irregularly-shaped lot is located on the north side of Edgewick Road, and consists of a steep uphill sloping terrain immediately adjacent to the street. The grade rises over 10 ft. to 12 ft. from the toe of the slope which is approximately seven feet from the property line. However, at the top of the slope, the lot is less steep, gradually sloping uphill. 1479 of 1517
2 The existing mature eucalyptus tree at the front of the property is proposed to be removed in conjunction with the new development. Also, there are two protected oak trees on the property proposed for removal in conjunction with the new development. An Indigenous Tree Report (ITR) prepared by Mary Beth MacKenzie dated September 21, 2019 and addendum dated April 10, 2020 was provided to Forestry for review. The City’s Arborist reviewed the Indigenous Tree Report, and included conditions in a memo dated May 5, 2020.
The subject site has an average current slope of 35.5%, and the average current slope at the building footprint area is 29.3%. The project proposes to grade 950 cubic yards cut, 115 cubic yards fill, and export 835 cubic yards of earth in conjunction with the project with 40% (3,430 SF) of the hillside to remain ungraded. The lot is located in a high fire hazard area, and does not contain any blue line streams or primary/secondary ridgelines.
Edgewick Road is an improved local street with all public utilities in place.
Staff Recommendation
Approve with Conditions
________________________________________________________________________ Last Date Reviewed / Decision
First time submittal for final review.
Zone: RIR FAR District: II
Although this design review does not convey final zoning approval, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the applicable Codes and no inconsistencies have been identified.
Active/Pending Permits and Approvals
None.
Site Slope and Grading
The subject site has an average current slope for 35.5%, and the average current slope at the building footprint location is 29.3%. The project proposes to grade 950 cubic yards cut, 115 cubic yards fill, and export 835 cubic yards of earth in conjunction with the project, and 40% (3,430 SF) of the hillside will remain ungraded.
Neighborhood Survey
Average of
Properties within 300
linear feet of subject
property
Range of Properties
within 300 linear feet
of subject property
Subject Property
Proposal
Lot size 10,235 SF 5,210 SF – 15,420 SF 8,581 SF
Setback 17 ft. 0 ft. to 25 ft. 15 ft. min.
House size 3,059 SF 1,347 SF – 6,019 SF 3,260 SF
Floor Area Ratio 0.28 0.17 – 0.35 0.38
Number of stories
18% ~ 1 story
55% ~ 2 stories
27% ~ Vacant
1 to 2 Stories 2 Story
1480 of 1517
3 DESIGN ANALYSIS
________________________________________________________________________ Site Planning
Are the following items satisfactory and compatible with the project site and surrounding area?
Building Location
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Setbacks of buildings on site
☐ Prevailing setbacks on the street
☐ Building and decks follow topography
☐ Alteration of landform minimized
The subject 8,581 SF lot is undeveloped and has an irregular shape. The site steeply slopes uphill from the street, rising 10 feet in the first 12 feet from the toe of the slope.
The toe of the slope is located approximately seven feet from the property line. The subject site has an average current slope for 35.5%, and the average current slope at the building footprint location is 29.3%. The proposed residence is setback a minimum of 15 feet from the street front property line, and 10 feet from the interior property lines on the north, south, west (rear) sides of the property, which complies with the Zoning Code and is consistent with the neighborhood. The new house is appropriately located on the lot, and takes into account potential visual impact on surrounding properties.
The site plan shows a new 500 SF detached ADU proposed for future development.
The ADU is subject to the ADU ordinance, and will require a building permit. Staff recommends that the proposed ADU concept be revised to minimize the length and amount of walkways proposed to access the ADU, and that retaining walls to create level pads be eliminated.
Yards and Usable Open Space
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Avoid altering landform to create flat yards
☐ Outdoor areas integrated into open space
☒ Use of retaining walls minimized
☐ Provide landscaping to reduce visual impact of retaining walls ☐ Decorative material used for retaining walls to blend into landscape and/or complement the building design
The project proposes 40% ungraded open space including preservation of natural features and native vegetation consistent with the Hillside Development. Retaining walls are proposed at the front, side, and rear of the house. To reduce the visual impact, the walls at the front of the house are designed as decorative planters, which blend with the hillside and integrate same cladding material features on the house as suggested by the Hillside Design Guidelines. A condition is included to eliminate and/or reduce the retaining walls at the rear of the house) unless the retaining walls are required to comply with the Building Code.
1481 of 1517
4 Garage Location and Driveway
☐ yes ☐ n/a ☒ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Consistent with predominant pattern on street
☐ Compatible with primary structure
☐ Permeable paving material
☒ Decorative paving
Access to the proposed residence will be from Edgewick Road. The new 19-foot deep by 21’-6” wide driveway has a 9.6% slope, and will provide access to an attached twocar garage. The driveway features sand-textured and scored concrete. As conditioned, increase the driveway slope (maximum 20% allowed per Zoning) to further reduce the height of the garage, and use decorative pavers in an earth-tone color to visually diminish the expanse of concrete paving, and a one-foot planting strip at the base of the five-foot high retaining wall on the right side of the driveway is recommended to allow vines to screen the retaining wall.
Landscape Design
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Complementary to building design and surrounding site ☐ Maintains existing trees when possible
☐ Maximizes permeable surfaces
☐ Appropriately sized and located
The project proposes 45% landscaping for the entire site. The landscape palette features a variety of drought tolerant and California native landscaping as recommended by the Hillside Design Guidelines for hillside development. There are two protected coast live oak trees located within the property. Both of these trees appear to be semi-mature. One is a single trunk tree with a diameter at breast height (DBH) of approximately 11-inches, and the other is a multi-stem tree with eight trunks, and an average DBH of approximately four-inches each. Both protected oak trees are proposed for removal. As conditioned, the applicant shall comply with the City’s Urban Forestry comments/conditions included in their memo dated May 5, 2020. Per the City’s Urban Forestry conditions, a total of four new coast live oak trees must be planted on site, and are featured in the proposed landscape plan. Overall, the proposed plant palette reflects native plants, provides a natural look, minimizes visual impact, and is complementary to the site and building design as suggested by the Guidelines.
Walls and Fences
☐ yes ☐ n/a ☒ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☒ Appropriate style/color/material
☒ Perimeter walls treated at both sides
☒ Retaining walls minimized
☐ Appropriately sized and located
☐ Stormwater runoff minimized
1482 of 1517
5 The project features retaining walls at the front, side, and rear of the house. The front walls will be constructed with stone to match and integrate with the stone cladding proposed on the front of the house, and the side and rear walls will be constructed with angelus goldenrod with burnished finish to blend with the hillside. A condition is included to reduce and/or eliminate retaining walls at the front and rear of the property as well as the wall located outside of the street front property line unless required to comply with Buidling Code requirements. The Hillside Guidelines suggest that development should minimize the use of retaining walls to modify landform; and that the use of retaining walls to create backyards in hillside areas is not appropriate. A condition is also included to show all proposed perimeter walls and fences on the site plan.
Determination of Compatibility: Site Planning
The proposed site planning is appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The building’s location considers the site’s topography and its profile reflects the topography and uphill slope condition.
• The proposed residence is setback a minimum of 15 feet from the street front property line, and 10 feet from the interior property lines on the north, south, west (rear) sides of the property, which complies with the Zoning Code and is consistent with the neighborhood.
• The attached garage at the front is consistent with the neighborhood pattern, and accessible from an approximately 21’-6” wide driveway. As conditioned, increase the slope of the driveway (maximum 20% allowed per Zoning) to further reduce the height of the garage, reduce the driveway width by introducing a one-foot landscape bed at the base of the retaining wall (right side of driveway) and using earth-toned decorative pavers to help soften the appearance from the street. • The site plan shows a new 500 SF detached ADU proposed for future development.
The ADU is subject to the ADU ordinance, and will require a building permit. Staff recommends that the proposed master plan concept for the ADU be revised to minimize the length and amount of walkways proposed to access the ADU. And that retaining walls to create level pads between the ADU and the primary building be eliminated.
• As conditioned, in an effort to minimize grading, reduce and/or eliminate the retaining walls at the front of the property located outside of the property lines, and walls on the sides and rear of the property unless required to comply with the Building Code. The proposed stone cladding on the retaining/planter wall at the front street facing walls is appropriate to the site and complements the design of the house, and the angelus goldenrod burnished finish for the side and rear walls appropriately blends with the hillside.
• As conditioned, the applicant shall comply with the City’s Urban Forestry comments/conditions included in their memo dated May 5, 2020. ________________________________________________________________________ 1483 of 1517
6 Massing and Scale
Are the following items satisfactory and compatible with the project site and surrounding area?
Building Relates to its Surrounding Context
☐ yes ☐ n/a ☒ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Appropriate proportions and transitions
☒ Impact of larger building minimized
The project proposes a two-story structure and partial rooftop outdoor deck, which is accessible from an exterior staircase on the second level. The first level features the garage and elevator access leading to the upper levels. The adjacent home to the north is two-stories, however, the adjacent property to the south is developed with a one-story residence. As proposed, the new two-story house does not relate to the adjacent onestory house on the south side due to the home’s mass and two-story living room volume on the south façade. The Hillside Guidelines indicate that new buildings should relate (particularly if larger than existing context) to existing adjacent buildings through use of proportion, transition, or other design features. For better integration with the adjacent one-story home to the south, staff recommends stepping back the two-story volume of the living room significantly (10-feet +/- or a window bay) and reducing the height to approximately the railing height at the second floor for that portion of the living room.
Building Relates to Existing Topography
☐ yes ☐ n/a ☒ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☒ Form and profile follow topography
☐ Alteration of existing land form minimized
☐ Retaining walls terrace with slope
The home’s building form and profile follow existing topography except on the south side. Building form and profile should follow exiting topography as suggested by the Hillside Guidelines. Further, new projects may be larger than existing development, provided the mass and scale of the new development is appropriate and transitions well to the existing context. Therefore, thoughtful consideration should be given to the building’s form and profile on the south side to address the topography, surrounding context and provide an appropriate massing concept for proper fit into the neighborhood as suggested by the Hillside Guidelines. This is addressed under the previous Massing and Scale topic.
Consistent Architectural Concept
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Concept governs massing and height
The contemporary design of the new home appropriately articulates mass and scale through its use of design and details. The architectural concept is consistent throughout, which is paramount given that the building will be visible at the front and sides. The contemporary design includes thoughtful architectural elements by the use of cladding materials, projecting roof and balconies, and window pattern to help enliven the building's appearance. 1484 of 1517
7 Scale and Proportion
☐ yes ☐ n/a ☒ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☒ Scale and proportion fit context
☐ Articulation avoids overbearing forms
☐ Appropriate solid/void relationships
☐ Entry and major features well located
☒ Avoids sense of monumentality
Similar to other homes in the area located on up-hill slopes, the new home is designed with with an attached garage on the lowest level with street level access, and living areas on two upper floors. As proposed, the garage is located approximtely 2 feet, 8- inches above grade. Per the Zoning Code, the portion of the garage located below the ground surface and exposed as a result of excavation to create door, or window openings shall not be included in the measurement of vertical (height) dimension.
Based on the above, the height dimension of 32-feet for the house is taken from the garage door, on or about where the hillside will be excavated to create the door opening.
Minimizing the building’s mass and scale along the south side is discussed in the neighborhood context and can be addressed through stepbacks at the two-story living room volume by partially reducing the ceiling height. Additionally, to further reduce the overall height staff recommends eliminating the split level of the master suite and lowering the entire first floor living area by 2’-6”. Another consideration to reduce visual mass would be to relocate the elevator to the interior of the building and orient the view towards the street, reduce the length/depth of the building overhangs (eaves) facing the street and along the sides (north and south) of the building, and increase the driveway slope to further reduce the height of the garage.
Roof Forms
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Roof reinforces design concept
☐ Configuration appropriate to context
The project proposes a flat roof which is appropriate to and reinforces the contemporary style of the house. The roof design provides variation in roof forms and heights, consistent with the overall building design.
Determination of Compatibility: Mass and Scale
The proposed massing and scale are appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• As conditioned, the home’s mass and scale should be reduced along the south side, follow the topography, relate to surrounding context and provide an appropriate massing concept for proper fit into the neighborhood and comply with hillside development. This can be achieved by eliminating the offset floor of the master suite to reduce the overall height by approximately 2’-6” (30-inches) which also requires lowering the first floor living area by 30-inches. A consideration to reduce the height 1485 of 1517 8 and mass would be locating the elevator further into the buidling and orienting the view toward the street, and reduce the length/depth of the building overhangs (eaves) facing the street and along the sides (north and south) of the building. • The project is broken up into various forms and volumes, and designed to follow the site’s uphill sloping topography. In this way, the building provides appropriate massing relief, especially along the street front where there is 79.65 linear feet of street frontage. The massing is broken up by recessed building forms, breaks in roof and wall planes, window patterning, cladding materials and horizontal planes of roof overhangs and balconies. This helps to articulate the facade, and minimize a boxy outline as recommended by the Guidelines.
• The proposed material palette of stucco, stone cladding and transparent treatment, along with the color palette, helps to reinforce the reading of different volumes and articulates the building to be consistent with the neighborhood pattern. • The contemporary style of the flat roof design is appropriate to the site, overall design, and neighborhood context.
• The street facing façade of the building is composed of staggered and setback building forms, recesses on the ground and upper floor, and projecting balconies and overhangs. The staggered configuration of these volumes and associated detailing creates interest and articulates the building facade, thereby reinforcing the building’s design.
• The project’s staggered volumes and the varied roofline are the predominant features of the design. Overall, the building’s massing is well-articulated by using various techniques, such as rhythm and variety of forms, recesses, and use of colors and materials to accentuate building elements as suggested by the Design Guidelines. ______________________________________________________________________ Design and Detailing
Are the following items satisfactory and compatible with the project site and surrounding area?
Overall Design and Detailing
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Consistent architectural concept
☐ Proportions appropriate to project and surrounding neighborhood ☐ Appropriate solid/void relationships
The development features a contemporary style that employs a variety of geometric volumes and materials for architectural effect. The house features a combination of colors and materials including stone cladding, plaster and fenestration, which helps reinforce the reading of different volumes and provides interest. The project is stylistically consistent on all four elevations, recognizing that the front and side elevations will be visible from the street. Overall, the building’s design is appropriate to the site and the neighborhood, and employs a well-crafted design with high quality materials appropriate for hillside development.
Entryway
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no 1486 of 1517
9 If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Well integrated into design
☐ Avoids sense of monumentality
☐ Design provides appropriate focal point
☐ Doors appropriate to design
The main entry to the house is located above street level, and accessible from the front staircase leading to the entry located on the south side of the house. The entry is modest and well integrated into the design considering its visibility to the street. The entry door on the garage/street level provides elevator access only. Staff recommends that the first and second run of the entry stairs parallel to the street (from garage level to intermediate landing) be reduced in width to four feet to minimize the amount of grading. A recommendation is proposed to lower the first floor living area by 30-inches.
If conditioned, staff recommends removing the stair treads from the final run of stairs (those perpendicular to the street leading to the main entry) to minimize visibility of the disruption of grading visible from the street. The top run from intermediate landing to entry porch could remain the proposed width.
Windows
☐ yes ☐ n/a ☒ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Appropriate to overall design
☐ Placement appropriate to style
☐ Recessed in wall, when appropriate
The project features black anodized aluminum frame windows with solargray glass, with a gray tint, and the operation includes hung, slider and fixed windows. The window material, style and operation are appropriate to the house and design. However, solar gray tint windows are not appropriate for a single-family residence, and has a commercial appearance. A condition is included to use window glass appropriate to single-family residential.
Privacy
☐ yes ☐ n/a ☒ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☒ Consideration of views from “public” rooms and balconies/decks ☐ Avoid windows facing adjacent windows
The design of the house features a window wall and balcony on its south side, balconies on the street front facade, and a roof deck at the rear of the house. The balconies located at the front façade overlook the street and the front façade of development located directly across the street. Given the location of the new house on an uphill sloped property, and distance away from the home across the street, there do not appear to be privacy issues associated with the existing development.
The proposed balcony and the window wall on the south side were considered for privacy issues on adjacent development, particularly on the existing one-story house directly south of the subject site. Given the window orientation and their location closer to the front on the existing house, the windows on the south façade of the new house will not have face adjacent windows (sheet WL 1.0 shows the window location of adjacent properties to the north and south, and its relationship to the proposed 1487 of 1517 10 development). The roof deck does not appear to pose a privacy issue given its distance from the property lines and distance from adjacent development. And landscaping is proposed along the southerly property in an effort to screen the house from the adjacent property.
Finish Materials and Color
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Textures and colors reinforce design
☐ High-quality, especially facing the street
☐ Respect articulation and façade hierarchy
☐ Wrap corners and terminate appropriately
☐ Natural colors appropriate to hillside area
The proposed materials include a variety of finishes: stone cladding, smooth stucco, dark anodized aluminum windows, and horizontal cable railing. The materials reinforce the overall contemporary building design. The project's color palette focuses on shades of gray hues for exterior building walls, fascia, eaves, and building overhang, which enhance the design and blend with the hillside and neutral colors of other homes in the neighborhood, except for the gray tint window glass as described in the “window” section above.
Paving Materials
☐ yes ☐ n/a ☒ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☒ Decorative material at entries/driveways
☐ Permeable paving when possible
☐ Material and color related to design
The project features a sand textured, scored concrete driveway paving material and concrete for stairs and walkways. Staff recommends an earth-toned paver for the driveway to minimize its appearance.
Lighting, Equipment, Trash, and Drainage
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☐ no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Light fixtures appropriately located/avoid spillover and over-lit facades ☐ Light fixture design appropriate to project
☐ Equipment screened and well located
☐ Trash storage out of public view
☐ Downspouts appropriately located
☐ Vents, utility connections integrated with design, avoid primary facades The home features a modern style sconce light fixture, which complements the design of the hosue. The trash area is adequately screened from public view, and an internal gutter system is proposed for the house.
Ancillary Structures
☒ yes ☐ n/a ☒ no 1488 of 1517
11 If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Design consistent with primary structure
☐ Design and materials of gates complement primary structure The site plan shows a new 500 SF detached ADU proposed for future development. The ADU is subject to the ADU ordinance, and will require a building permit. Staff recommends that the proposed ADU floor plan and concept be revised to minimize the length and amount of walkways proposed to access the ADU; and that retaining walls to create level pads be eliminated as indicated in the “Site Planning” section above.
Determination of Compatibility: Design and Detailing
The proposed design and detailing are appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The proposed contemporary architectural style of the house is appropriate to the site and the neighborhood. The design of the building includes an emphasis on rectangular shapes and voids, flat rooflines, crisp lines, appropriate materials and finishes, and transparent elements, which are consistently applied and complementary to the style of the building.
• The combination of colors and cladding materials are complementary to the contemporary style of the home. The proposed stone cladding, smooth-finish stucco, cable railing, and dark anodized aluminum windows help reinforce the overall contemporary building design. The project's color palette focuses on shades of gray color plaster and stone cladding, and dark window frames, which appropriately complement the design and the neighborhood. Also, stone clad retaining/planters at the front of the house appropriatley recall the stone on the house, enhance the design and blend well with the site and neutral colors of other homes in the neighborhood.
• The main entry to the house is modestly scaled, and appropriately integrates with the house.
• The proposed dark anodized aluminum windows are appropriate to the design of the building and the neighborhood in terms of their material, operation, installation except for the solar gray tint glass. As conditioned, staff recommends substituting the gray tinted windows with a clear window glass.
________________________________________________________________________ Recommendation / Draft Record of Decision
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends Approval with Conditions. This determination is based on the implementation of the following recommended conditions:
Conditions
1. Reduce the home’s mass and scale on the south façade by stepping back the second floor volume at the living room by a window bay (approximately 10-feet) and lower the height in this area to approximately the second floor railing height; and reduce the length/depth of the building overhangs (eaves) facing the street and along the sides (north and side) of the building.
2. Reduce the overall building mass and height by eliminating the offset floor at the master suite and subsequently lower the first floor living area elevation by 30-inches.
This will reduce the overall height of the house and result in better proportions at the 1489 of 1517 12 garage header. To potentially further reduce the height, the elevator could be located further into the buidling and the internal view oriented toward the street, and increase the driveway slope to further reduce the height of the garage.
3. Eliminate and/or reduce the retaining walls at the rear of the house and those located outside of the property line at the front of the property unless required to comply with Buidling Code requirments. Show all proposed perimieter walls /fences (and material) on the site plan for staff review. Include minimizing the length and amount of walkways proposed to access the ADU and eliminating retaining walls to create level pads.
4. At the driveway use earth-toned pavers as a finish material; and reduce the driveway width by one-foot to introduce a landscape strip at the base of the retaining wall along the right hand side to allow for climbing vines or other vegetation in order to soften the appearance at the front of the property.
5. Comply with the City’s Urban Forestry comments/conditions included in their memo dated May 5, 2020.
6. Eliminate gray tinted windows, and use clear window glass.
7. Narrow the stair width to four feet from the driveway to the intermediate landings only. If lowering the overall building height as recommended (30-inches) is conditioned, minimize the number of stair treads visible from the street in the run of stairs perpendicular to the street.
________________________________________________________________________ Attachments
1. Reduced Plans
2. Photos of Existing Property
3. Location Map
4. Neighborhood Survey
5. Soils Report
1490 of 1517
1 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
RECORD OF DECISION
Meeting Date July 22, 2021 DRB Case No. PDR2002198
Address 3035 Edgewick Road
Applicant John Deenihan
Project Summary:
To construct a 3,260 SF two-story single-family residence with an attached 432 SF garage on an undeveloped 8,581 SF uphill hillside lot located in the R1R-II zone. The subject site has an average current slope of 35.5%, and the average current slope of the building footprint is
29.3%.
Design Review:
Board Member Motion Second Yes No Absent Abstain
Minas X X
Simonian X X
Smith X
Tchaghayan X
Welch X
Totals 3 0 2
DRB Decision Approved with Conditions
Conditions:
1. Provide a step back with a depth of one window bay (approximately 10 feet) at the upper portion of the south façade of the double-height living room to reduce the height and mass of this area. Extend the eave/fascia of the entry across the south and east sides of the lowered volume.
2. Work with staff to lower the height of the house and specifically the floor to ceiling height of the garage by aligning the master suite and rear bedroom level. This can be accomplished by balancing and lowering of the first/second floor living areas and/or slightly raising the rear bedroom level (as seen on Sheet A-5.1 Section thru South 1491 of 1517
3035 Edgewick Rd.
2 Elevation) without causing conflict/impacting the height of retaining walls or stories/height compliance.
3. Eliminate the clerestory window above the garage door.
4. Eliminate gray tinted windows and use clear window glass.
5. Eliminate and/or reduce the retaining walls at the rear of the house and those located outside of the property line at the front of the property unless required to comply with Buidling Code requirments. Show all proposed perimeter walls/fences (and material) on the site plan for staff review.
6. On the right side of the driveway, use a low garden wall with planting area and subsequent retaining wall along the right side of the driveway.
7. At the driveway, use earth-toned pavers as a finish material.
8. Comply with the City’s Urban Forestry comments/conditions included in their memo dated May 5, 2020.
Determination of Compatibility: Site Planning
The proposed site planning is appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• The building’s location considers the site’s topography and its profile reflects the topography and uphill slope condition.
• The proposed residence is setback a minimum of 15 feet from the street front property line, and 10 feet from the interior property lines on the north, south, west (rear) sides of the property, which complies with the Zoning Code and is consistent with the neighborhood.
• The attached garage at the front is consistent with the neighborhood pattern, and accessible from an approximately 21’-6” wide driveway. The Board voted to add conditions to reduce the driveway width by introducing a low garden wall with planting area and subsequent retaining wall along the right side of the driveway and by requiring the use of earth-toned decorative pavers to help soften the appearance from the street. • The site plan shows a new 500 SF detached ADU proposed for future development.
The ADU is subject to the ADU ordinance, and will require a building permit. Staff recommends that the proposed master plan concept for the ADU be revised to minimize the length and amount of walkways proposed to access the ADU, and that retaining walls to create level pads between the ADU and the primary building be eliminated. • As conditioned, in an effort to minimize grading, the retaining walls at the front of the property located outside of the property lines and walls on the sides and rear of the property will be reduced or eliminated, unless required to comply with the Building Code.
The proposed stone cladding on the retaining/planter wall at the front street facing walls is appropriate to the site and complements the design of the house, and the angelus 1492 of 1517 3035 Edgewick Rd.
3 goldenrod burnished finish for the side and rear walls appropriately blends with the hillside.
• As conditioned, the applicant shall comply with the City’s Urban Forestry comments/conditions included in their memo dated May 5, 2020.
Determination of Compatibility: Mass and Scale
The proposed massing and scale are appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
• As conditioned, the home’s mass and scale will be reduced along the south side, follow the topography a bit more, relate better to surrounding context and provide a more appropriate massing concept for proper fit into the neighborhood and in compliance with hillside development guidelines. Conditions specified that this can be achieved by providing a step back with a depth of one window bay (approximately 10 feet) at the upper portion of the south façade of the double-height living room to reduce the height and mass of this area, and extending the eave/fascia of the entry across the south and east sides of the lowered volume. The Board also conditioned that the height of the house be lowered, specifically the floor to ceiling height of the garage by aligning the master suite and rear bedroom level. This can be accomplished by balancing and lowering of the first/second floor living areas and/or slightly raising the rear bedroom level (as seen on Sheet A-5.1 Section thru South Elevation) without negatively impacting the height of retaining walls or stories/height compliance. • The project is broken up into various forms and volumes, and designed to follow the site’s uphill sloping topography. In this way, the building provides appropriate massing relief, especially along the street front where there is 79.65 linear feet of street frontage.
The massing is broken up by recessed building forms, breaks in roof and wall planes, window patterning, cladding materials and horizontal planes of roof overhangs and balconies. This helps to articulate the facade, and minimize a boxy outline as recommended by the Guidelines. As conditioned, the clerestory windows above the garage door will be eliminated.
• The proposed material palette of stucco, stone cladding and transparent treatment, along with the color palette, helps to reinforce the reading of different volumes and articulates the building to be consistent with the neighborhood pattern. • The contemporary style of the flat roof design is appropriate to the site, overall design, and neighborhood context.
• The street facing façade of the building is composed of staggered and setback building forms, recesses on the ground and upper floor, and projecting balconies and overhangs.
The staggered configuration of these volumes and associated detailing creates interest and articulates the building facade, thereby reinforcing the building’s design. • The project’s staggered volumes and the varied roofline are the predominant features of the design. Overall, the building’s massing is well-articulated by using various techniques, such as rhythm and variety of forms, recesses, and use of colors and materials to accentuate building elements as suggested by the Design Guidelines.
Determination of Compatibility: Design and Detailing
The proposed site planning is appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons: 1493 of 1517 3035 Edgewick Rd.
4 • The proposed contemporary architectural style of the house is appropriate to the site and the neighborhood. The design of the building includes an emphasis on rectangular shapes and voids, flat rooflines, crisp lines, appropriate materials and finishes, and transparent elements, which are consistently applied and complementary to the style of the building.
• The combination of colors and cladding materials are complementary to the contemporary style of the home. The proposed stone cladding, smooth-finish stucco, cable railing, and dark anodized aluminum windows help reinforce the overall contemporary building design. The project's color palette focuses on shades of gray color plaster and stone cladding, and dark window frames, which appropriately complement the design and the neighborhood. Also, stone clad retaining/planters at the front of the house appropriatley recall the stone on the house, enhance the design and blend well with the site and neutral colors of other homes in the neighborhood. • The main entry to the house is modestly scaled, and appropriately integrates with the house.
• The proposed dark anodized aluminum windows are appropriate to the design of the building and the neighborhood in terms of their material, operation, installation except for the solar gray tint glass. As conditioned, the gray tinted windows will be eliminated and clear glass windows will be installed.
DRB Staff Member Milca Toledo, Senior Planner
Notes:
Contact the case planner for an appointment for a DRB stamp. DRB stamps will not be stamped over the counter without an appointment with the case planner.
The Design Review Board approves the design of project only. Approval of a project by the Design Review Board does not constitute an approval of compliance with the Zoning Code and/or Building Code requirements.
If an appeal is not filed within the 15-day appeal period of the Design Review Board decision, plans may be approved for Building Division plan check. Prior to Building Division plan check submittal, Design Review Board approved plans must be stamped approved by the Design Review staff.
Any changes to the approved plans may constitute returning to the Design Review Board for approval. Prior to Building Division plan check submittal, all changes in substantial conformance with approved plans by the Design Review Board must be on file with the Planning Division. 1494 of 1517
SITE PHOTOS
KEY
Offsite trees within
20ft of property lines:
1 - Juniper
2 - Italian Cypress
3 - Canary Pine
4 - Eucalyptus
1 2
3 4
4 1495 of 1517
1496 of 1517
1497 of 1517
1498 of 1517
1499 of 1517
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
J
K
L
M
1” = 100’
Key:
Properties with:
2-story
residence
1-story
residence
no
residence
3035 EdgewJick
#
VICINITY
&
PHOTOGRAPHIC
SURVEY MAP
Street view
photo - see
attached
12 Key: A, B, C etc.
Refer to Neighborhood
Survey Data List
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 1500 of 1517
3035 Edgewick Rd
Design Review Submission
Street Views
View 1
3006 Paddington Rd
View 2
3006 Paddington Rd
1501 of 1517
3035 Edgewick Rd
Design Review Submission
Street Views
View 3
3008 Edgewick Rd
View 4
3016 Edgewick Rd
1502 of 1517
3035 Edgewick Rd
Design Review Submission
Street Views
View 5
3018 Paddington Rd
View 6
3018 Paddington Rd
1503 of 1517
3035 Edgewick Rd
Design Review Submission
Street Views
View 7
3033 Edgewick Rd
View 8
3033 Edgewick Rd
1504 of 1517
3035 Edgewick Rd
Design Review Submission
Street Views
View 9
3045 Edgewick Rd
View 10
3045 Edgewick Rd
1505 of 1517
3035 Edgewick Rd
Design Review Submission
Street Views
View 11
3030 Edgewick Rd
View 12
1651 Golf Club Dr
1506 of 1517
1507 of 1517
1508 of 1517
1509 of 1517
1510 of 1517
1511 of 1517
1512 of 1517
1513 of 1517
1514 of 1517