Agenda packet — Glendale City Council, July 25, 2023

A G E N D A

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
Meetings

are

broadcast

live

Glendale

TV,

viewable

Spectrum

Cable,

channel

and

AT&T

U-
verse,

channel

99. Meetings

are

also

streamed

live

high

definition

(HD)

the

city's

webpage,
glendaleca.gov/live
,

YouTube.com/myglendale
,

and

Apple

TV,

Roku,

and

Amazon

Fire
devices

using

free

app

called

Screenweave

and

choosing

“Glendale

TV”

from

the

menu.

Meetings
are

also

archived

the

City

Website

for

viewing

anytime

glendaleca.gov/agendas
.

Call

(818)
548-4013

for

program

schedules.

For

public

comments

and

questions

during

the

meeting,

call

(818)
937-8100.

Public

comments

specific

agenda

item

will

taken

when

that

agenda

item

is
discussed.

you

have

any

question

about

matters

the

agenda,

requests

for

assistance,
please contact the City Clerk at (818) 548-2090 during regular business hours.

PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION In

compliance

with

the

Americans

with

Disabilities

Act

(ADA)

1990,

auxiliary

hearing

aids,

sign
language

translation,

and

Braille

transcripts

are

available

upon

request.

Assisted

listening

devices
are

available

same-day

upon

request.

least

48 hours

(or

two

business

days)

notice

required

for
requests

regarding

sign

language

translation

and

Braille

transcription

services.

All

documents
related

open

session

items

this

agenda

that

are

received

less

than

72 hours

prior

this
meeting,

and

are

public

records,

will

available

for

review

the

Office

the

City

Clerk,

613

Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.

Translation

services

are

provided

for

meetings

through

the

use

bilingual

staff

for

speakers

who
wish

utilize

the

service

available.

Speakers

should

state

their

request

contacting

the

City
Clerk’s

office

(818)

548-2090,

least

24 hours

prior

the

scheduled

meeting.

Please

specify
the

language

for

which

you

require

translation.

The

exclusive

use

City

provided

interpreters

not
required and persons are welcome to use their own interpreter or speak in their native language.

JULY 25, 2023

REVISED
- 1L AND 1M ADDED

ROLL CALL

1. CLOSED SESSION
– 1:00 PM ( To Commence at 3:00 PM)
a.

Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: Salazar v. City of Glendale, et al., L.A.S.C. Case No. BC 700257

1 TYPED 7/20/2023 2:00:24 PM
07 25 23
CC

Public Employee Performance Evaluation – City Manager
c.

Conference with Labor Negotiators: The City-designated negotiator attending the closed session is: Mayor Dan Brotman. Unrepresented Employee Position: City Manager
d.

Public Employee Performance Evaluation – City Attorney
e.

Conference with Labor Negotiators: The City-designated negotiator attending the closed session is: Mayor Dan Brotman. Unrepresented Employee Position: City Attorney
f.

Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation: Significant exposure litigation pursuant to paragraph subdivisions (d)(2), (e (2) and (e)(5) of Government Code Section 54956.9: Two (2) potential cases
g.

Public Employment – Attorneys
h.

Property location: 222 N. Orange Street. Negotiating Parties: Verizon. Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms for the lease of property i.

Conference with real property negotiators. City negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Jason Bradford, Michael J. Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, Gary Shaffer, and Kristina Gerber. Property location: 1000 E.

Palmer Avenue. Negotiating Parties: Newmark Real Estate. Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms for the lease of property j.

Conference with real property negotiators. City negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Bradley Calvert, Jason Bradford, Michael J. Garcia, and Gillian van Muyden. Property location: 212 and 216 S. Brand Blvd. Negotiating Parties: Museum of Neon Art. Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms for the lease of property
k.

Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 18 v. City of Glendale Case No: LA-CE-805-M, PERB Decision No. 2694-M
l.

Conference with Labor Negotiators. The City-designated negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Michael J. Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, Tim Ernst, Paula Adams, Aymee Martin, Jason Bradford and Laura Kalty.

The name of the employee organization is: Glendale Fire Fighters Association m.

Conference with Labor Negotiators. The City-designated negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Michael J. Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, Mark Young, Paula Adams, Aymee Martin, Jason Bradford and Peter Brown. The name of the employee organization is: I.B.E.W., Local 18, Unit 40

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA
– 6:00 PM
Roll Call
a.

Flag Salute: Mayor Dan Brotman
b.

Invocation: Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c.

Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the July 25, 2023 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on Wednesday, July 19,

2 TYPED 7/20/2023 2:00:24 PM
07 25 23
CC

2023, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a.

Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, August 1, 2023 b.

Proclamation designating July 30, 2023 as Korean Comfort Women Day c.

Proclamation designating July 2023 as Parks Make Life Better Month d.

Identification of Nominating Panel for Building and Fire Board of Appeals Commission (Kassakhian/Najarian)
e.

Identification of Nominating Panel for Building and Fire Board of Appeals Commission (Najarian/Devine)
f.

Identification of Nominating Panel for Audit Committee (Najarian/Asatryan) g.

Identification of Nominating Panel for Planning Commission (Asatryan/Devine) h.

Identification of Nominating Panel for Planning Commission (Brotman/Asatryan) i.

Identification of Nominating Panel for Arts and Culture Commission (Asatryan/Najarian)
j.

Identification of Nominating Panel for Arts and Culture Commission (Brotman/Kassakhian)
k.

Identification of Nominating Panel for Historic Preservation Commission (Najarian/Brotman)
l.

Identification of Nominating Panel for Historic Preservation Commission (Devine/Najarian)
m.

Identification of Nominating Panel for Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission (Asatryan/Kassakhian)
n.

Identification of Nominating Panel for Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission (Kassakhian/Asatryan)
o.

Identification of Nominating Panel for Community Development Block Grant Advisory Commission (Brotman/Najarian)
p.

Identification of Nominating Panel for Design Review Board Commission (Devine/Asatryan)
q.

Identification of Nominating Panel for Commission on the Status of Women (Kassakhian/Brotman)

City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of July 11, 2023 b.

Police Department, re: California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Program, Request for Authorization to Accept Grant Funds in the amount of $56,850 to be used for equipment and training for the Verdugo Regional Crime Laboratory

1. Motion authorizing acceptance of the 2022 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant and authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to execute the

3 TYPED 7/20/2023 2:00:24 PM
07 25 23
CC

necessary agreements, certification, and other documents required to accept the Grant

2. Resolution to appropriate $56,850 in 2022 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant funds
c.

Public Works, re: Contract for Community Beautification Project

1. Motion awarding a construction contract to Toro Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $8,356,288, approving a 15 percent contract contingency in the amount of $1,253,443, and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to execute the contract

2. Resolution of appropriation for the Community Beautification Project

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
a.

Community Development, re: Ordinance of the City of Glendale, Amending the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP), regarding Hotel Uses (Devine, 07/11/23)

8. ACTION ITEMS
a.

Management Services, re: Introduction of an Ordinance Banning the Use of Gas- Powered Leaf Blowers

1. Ordinance for Introduction
b.

Community Development, re: Consideration of a 45-Day Moratorium on New Firearms Retailers

1. Introduction of an Interim Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting New Firearms Retailers

9. HEARINGS
a.

Community Development, re: Appeal of Design Review Board's approval of DRB Case No. PDR 2210249 located at 3967 San Augustine Drive

1. Motion to sustain the Design Review Board’s decision to approve the Design Review Application with conditions

2. Motion to continue the matter, directing the City Attorney to draft findings reversing the Design Review Board’s decision and denying the Project

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION
a.

Public Outreach and Education on Organics and Recycling Programs

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS

13. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Each Speaker is Allowed 5 minutes.

Council May Question or Respond to The Speaker But There Will be no Debate or Decision.

The City Manager May Refer the Matter to the Appropriate Department for Investigation and Report.

14. NEW BUSINESS

4 TYPED 7/20/2023 2:00:24 PM
07 25 23
CC

15. ADJOURNMENT

5 TYPED 7/20/2023 2:00:24 PM
07 25 23
CC

6 of 183

Whereas, parks and recreation programs are an integral part of communities throughout this country, including City of Glendale; and are vitally important to establishing and maintaining the quality of life in our communities; and
Whereas, even through a pandemic, local parks, virtual recreation, trails, open space and human services remained accessible to our community; and
Whereas, throughout the City of Glendale, we are fortunate to have 47 beautiful park, recreation and special use facilities, including 286 acres of developed parkland and over 5,000 acres of open space, a historic nature center, and a wide variety of out-door recreation opportunities for its citizens and visitors; and Whereas, the Community Services & Parks Department promotes physical, emotional, and mental health and wellness, and offers an array of opportunities to go outside, create memorable experiences and play through fitness classes, sports and recreation programs, cultural events, lifelong learning classes and parks, trails and facilities for fitness and sports activities for all age groups and abilities; and Whereas, the Community Services & Parks Department also provides programs to address the basic human service needs of its residents including senior nutritional meals and case management; youth and family outreach, information and referral; youth employment and youth life skills training; homeless case management, prevention and housing; and job training programs; and
Whereas, the Community Services & Parks Department strengthens community safety and security and reduces juvenile crime, while fostering youth development and growth into productive adults through an array of after school and seasonal programs; and
Whereas, the strength of Glendale is increased through intergenerational recreation programs and events for all ages that allow people to play and grow together while providing the opportunity for residents to lead balanced, rewarding and healthy lives; and
WHEREAS, the Community Services & Parks Department remains versatile and innovative in providing vital services to our community; and
Now, therefore, I, Daniel “Dan” Brotman, Mayor of the City of Glendale, proclaim July 2023, as PARKS MAKE LIFE BETTER MONTH in Glendale and call on all of our citizens to celebrate by participating in recreation activities and community services, and spending time in our community’s parks.

PARKS MAKE LIFE BETTER

Daniel “Dan” Brotman, Mayor
July 18, 2023
7 of 183

1 Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
4A

M I N U T E S

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor Glendale, CA 91206
July 11, 2023
ROLL CALL – Absent: Kassakhian

1.CLOSED SESSION – 3:03 P.M.
a.Conference with Labor Negotiators. The City-designated negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Michael J. Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, Paula Adams, Aymee Martin, and Jason Bradford. The names of the employee organizations are: Glendale City Employees’ Association, Glendale Management Association, Glendale Police Officers’ Association, Glendale Fire Fighters Association and I.B.E.W., Local 18, Unit 40.

Unrepresented Employees: Executives and Confidential Employees b.Public Employee Performance Evaluation – City Manager c.Public Employee Performance Evaluation – City Attorney City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is not anticipated. Council recessed to closed session at 3:04 p.m.

2.REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:03 P.M.

Roll Call – Absent: Najarian (walked in at 6:05 pm)
a.Flag Salute: Mayor Dan Brotman
b.Invocation: Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c.Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the July 11, 2023 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on Thursday, July 6, 2023, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3.PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a.Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, July 18, 2023 The regular meetings for July 18th have been cancelled and will resume on July 25, 2023.

4.CONSENT ITEMS (Including Minutes)
The following are Routine and May be Acted Upon by One Motion. Any Member of Council or the Audience Requesting Separate Consideration May do so by Making Such Request Before Motion is Proposed.
a.City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Special City Council and Regular City Council Meetings of June 27, 2023
Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Najarian
8 of 183

2 Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
b.Community Development, re: Professional Service Agreement Contract

1. Motion authorizing amendment to Professional Services Agreement with Overland Pacific & Cutler to increase the maximum cost by $300,000 for a new not-to-exceed amount of $616,778 over an additional two-year term
Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Najarian
c.Fire Department, re: Public Provider Ground Emergency Transportation Inter- Governmental Transfer (PP-GEMT-IGT) Program

1. Motion authorizing the Glendale Fire Department to participate in the Public Provider Ground Emergency Transportation Inter-Governmental Transfer (PPGEMT-IGT) program that was established by Assembly Bill 1705; authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute grant documents on behalf of the City; and approve the City’s proportional amount of the non-federal matching funds Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Najarian

2. Resolution 23-108 of Appropriation
Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Najarian
d.Police Department, re: State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP), Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program, Grant Funds in the amount of $389,966 to reduce and mitigate the impacts of impaired driving in local communities

1. Motion to accept grant funds in the amount of $389,966 and authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the State of California – Department of California Highway Patrol for the award of funds under the California Highway Patrol (CHP), Cannabis Tax Fund Law Enforcement Grant Program Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Najarian
e.Public Works, re: Professional Services Agreement for Independent Expert Review Services Related to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities Permit Applications

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager or a designee to enter into and execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Telecom Law Firm (TLF) to provide Independent Expert Review Services Related to Wireless Telecommunications Facilities (WTF) Permit Applications in the amount of 9 of 183

3 Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
$450,000 for a duration of three years from the date of the contract execution with an option to extend the contract for two additional one-year terms at $150,000 per year
Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Najarian

5.CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Councilmember Najarian traveled to Armenia in the last week of June and met with several government agencies. On June 23rd, Najarian attended the opening of the Downtown Regional Connector for Metro and encouraged the public to ride the metro.

Councilmember Asatryan commended the Crescenta Valley Fireworks Association for putting together a spectacular firework show at the Crescenta Valley High School for the 4th of July celebration. She stated the whole event was put together by a committee of volunteers and to reach out to Crescenta Valley Fireworks at www.cwfireworks.com or email [email protected] for volunteer opportunities. Asatryan also mentioned that the CV Fireworks committee is looking for additional sponsors.

Councilmember Kassakhian attended the firework event at the Crescenta Valley High School. He commended the CV Fireworks Association for putting up a wonderful show. He acknowledged the Community Services and Parks Department for having their annual summer camp programs for kids. Kassakhian asked to adjourn the council meeting in memory of Steve Artinian. Mayor Brotman sent his condolences to the family of the deceased.

6.COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)
Raffi Wartanian

7.ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

8.ACTION ITEMS
a.Public Works, re: Contract for the Beeline fixed-route and Dial-A-Ride Transit Services
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manger
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Martha D’Andrea, Transit Manager
Presenting:

Yazdan Emrani, Director of Public Works
Public Comments:

Mike Borisov
Allen Durham
Guillermo Prieto
Alexander
10 of 183

4 Asatryan, Kassakhian, Najarian
Devine, Brotman
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

1. Resolution dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to extend the Beeline fixed-route agreement for a one-year period for a not to exceed the amount of $12,234,395 and to amend the Dial-A-Ride service operation and maintenance agreement with MV Transportation, Inc. for a one-year period for a not to exceed amount of $1,025,578, for a total amount of $13,259,973

2. Resolution dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a contract with MV Transportation, Inc. for the operation and maintenance of the City’s Beeline fixed-route and Dial-A-Ride transit services in a not to exceed amount of $76,506,800 for a six-year term, with two, two-year extension options; if the 1st option to extend is exercised, the amount will not exceed $106,245,519 for a total eight-year term; and, if the 2nd option to extend is exercised, the amount will not exceed $137,828,127 for a total ten-year term
Resolution 23-105 of the City of Glendale, California, dispensing with competitive bidding, and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to negotiate and amend to extend for one-year the Beeline Fixed Route Operation and Maintenance contract and the dial-a-ride demand response operation and maintenance contract Moved: Najarian Seconded: Asatryan
Agenda out of order. Item 8c read next.
b.City Attorney, re: Initial Review of Proposed Subject Matter of Charter Amendments Pertaining to a Directly Elected Mayor, Council Districts, Councilmember Compensation, Contract Procurement and Miscellaneous Changes to the City Charter
Presenting:

Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Public Comments:

Mike Mohill
Ramella Erraghi
Allan Durham
Guillermo Prieto
Vartan Gharpetian

1. Motion Directing Staff to Commence Drafting Charter Amendments c.Management Services, re: Consideration of Adopting a Resolution Denouncing Antisemitism and all Forms of Hatred and Prejudice
Presenting:

Armineh Hoonanian, Principal Administrative Officer
Jason Moss, Executive Director of Jewish Federation of the Greater San Gabriel of Pomona Valley
11 of 183

5 Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Public Comments:

Phillip Hain
Mike Mohill
Guillermo Prieto
Allen Dish
Jacky Gish

1. Resolution 23-109 Denouncing Antisemitism and all forms of hatred and prejudice Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
Agenda out of order. Item 9c read next.

9.HEARINGS
a.Public Works, re: Approval of the Final Engineer’s Report and Ordering the Levy and Collection of Annual Assessments for the North San Fernando Road Corridor Landscape Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 2023-24 Hearing opened and closed at 10:57 p.m.

Staff Comment:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager

1. Resolution 23-106 Approving the Engineer’s Annual Levy Report for the City of Glendale’s North San Fernando Road Corridor Landscape Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 2023-24
Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan

2. Resolution 23-107 Ordering the Levy and Collection of the City of Glendale’s North San Fernando Road Corridor Landscape Maintenance District for Fiscal Year 2023-24
Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
Agenda out of order. Item 9d read next.
12 of 183

6 b.Community Development, re: Ordinance for Introduction of Amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) Regarding Hotel Uses, As Directed by City Council on February 7, 2023 (General Plan Amendment Case No.

PGPA-001238-2023)
Hearing opened at 12:34 a.m. and closed at 1:01 a.m.

Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Presenting:

Vilia Zemaitaitis, Principal Planner
Public Comments:

Allan Durham
Charlie Carnow
Danielle Wilson

1. Ordinance for Introduction Amending the DSP
Ordinance Introduced by: Devine
c.City Attorney, re: Second Public Hearing Regarding the Composition of Council Districts Related to the City's Proposed Transition to District-Based Councilmember Elections
Hearing opened at 9:50 p.m. and closed at 10:55 p.m.

Presenting:

Doug Johnson, National Geographic
Stephanie Mkhlian, Sr Administrative Analyst
Staff Comment:

Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Public Comments:

Guillermo Prieto
Allan Durham
Vahan Aladadi
Alexander
Mike Mohill

1. Motion Directing Staff Regarding Preparation of Draft District Maps 13 of 183

7 Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
d.Community Development, re: Appeal of Design Review Board’s Approval of Design Review Case No. PDR-2201810 located at 1650 Hazbeth Lane to construct a new 3,239 square-foot, two-story, single-family residence and a detached 997 square- foot, three-car garage
Hearing opened at 10:59 p.m. hearing closed at 12:10 a.m.

Presenting:

Dennis Joe, Senior Planner
Staff Comment:

Roubik Golanian
Public Comments:

Pamela Sellers, Appellant
Fred Dean, Architect
Sam Talebian, Engineer
Howard Hughes, Appellant
Kurt Kirch
Delma Kirch
Beatriz Magallon
Erica Passman
Nelly Costanios
Adel Luzuriaga
Rick Slaughter
Guillermo Prieto
Derick Mailan

1. Motion to sustain the Design Review Board’s decision to approve the Design Review Application with conditions
Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Najarian

2. Motion to continue the matter, directing the City Attorney to draft findings reversing the Design Review Board’s decision and denying the Project

10.REPORTS - INFORMATION

11.WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12.DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS
14 of 183

8 13.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Each Speaker is Allowed 5 minutes. Council May Question or Respond to The Speaker But There Will be no Debate or Decision. The City Manager May Refer the Matter to the Appropriate Department for Investigation and Report.

Radan Vachagan
Carl Kruegerman
Karen Kwak

14.NEW BUSINESS

15.ADJOURNMENT– 1:20 a.m., adjourned in memory of Steve Artinian Moved: Kassakhian Seconded: Asatryan
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
15 of 183

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Program, Request for Authorization to Accept Grant Funds in the amount of $56,850 to be used for equipment and training for the Verdugo Regional Crime Laboratory.

1. Motion authorizing acceptance of the 2022 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant and authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to execute the necessary agreements, certification, and other documents required to accept the Grant.

2. Resolution to appropriate $56,850 in 2022 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant funds.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for July 25, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Glendale Police Department requests acceptance of $56,850 in grant funds from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) for the grant period of April 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024, to be used for equipment, laboratory supplies and training in the Verdugo Regional Crime Laboratory (VRCL).
16 of 183

24b
4 3
4 9

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
N/A

RECOMMENDATION
Accept the 2022 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant funds in the amount of $56,850, authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the necessary agreements, certification, and other documents required to implement the Grant, and adopt a resolution to appropriate the funds for equipment, laboratory supplies, and training.

BACKGROUND
In December 2022, an application seeking grant funds was submitted to the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services to improve the quality and timeliness of case processing by the Police Department’s Verdugo Regional Crime Laboratory (“Laboratory”). The Police Department was recently notified that its application was approved in the amount of $56,850 as part of the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Program. Grant funds will be used for equipment, laboratory supplies and training.

ANALYSIS
In applying for the grant, the Laboratory conducted a needs assessment and identified equipment, materials and training required to fulfill the grant objectives of improved forensic testing services. Grant funds will be used to upgrade digital evidence examination hardware and provide digital evidence training opportunities to examiners.

Over the last twenty years law enforcement investigative techniques have evolved due to advances in DNA testing technology. These advances have placed increased demands on a computer forensics laboratory to conduct examinations of evidence obtained from mobile devices to cloud data. As changes are rapidly occurring, it is incumbent upon laboratories to stay abreast of developments within the field of digital evidence examination to service the community with expedient examination of submitted evidence.

Online, on-demand, and online instructor-led courses cover a range of topics using different software currently in use in the laboratory. From fundamentals to advanced offerings, the range of training opportunities will address varying experience levels within the Computer Forensics Unit to improve the overall quality and efficiency of digital examination services.

The evolution of technology and increased storage capacity of digital devices has directly affected the timeliness of digital evidence examination. Mobile devices have developed into handheld computers, and the volume of acquired data on a single device can incapacitate the current processing capabilities of existing forensic workstations.

Examination software is unable to parse acquired data in a timely manner, delaying dissemination of vital investigative information. The Laboratory will use grant funds to assemble high performance forensic workstations specifically configured to process data intensive computing operations will improve the timeliness of digital examination services 17 of 183

34b
4 3
4 9
offered by the Laboratory.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Grant funds will be used to improve the quality of forensic testing services provided to customer agencies and the public.

FISCAL IMPACT
The 2022 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant funds in the amount of $56,850, which was not included as part of the FY2023-24 approved budget. Therefore, staff is requesting for an appropriation of $56,850 from grant revenue. The appropriation request is outlined below:

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$56,850 GL: 31240-2610-
GPD-0020
PL: GPD01032AG
Police Fund –
Federal Funding
$44,350 GL: 44650-2610-
GPD-0020
PL: GPD01032AG
Police Fund –
Training
$12,500 GL: 45350-2610-
GPD-0020
PL: GPD01032AG
Police Fund –
Supplies

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is considered a ministerial activity and therefore, not subject to CEQA/NEPA review. There is no possibility that the acceptance of this award may have a significant effect on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Approve as requested by the Police Department.

Alternative 2: Deny the Police Department’s request. Expenses for laboratory equipment, supplies and training would be absorbed by the Police Department budget.

Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff. 18 of 183

44b
4 3
4 9

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Catherine Nguyen, Lab Director
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
19 of 183

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ______________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________, that the Council hereby approves participation in the Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Program offered by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services and accepts a grant in the amount of $56,850.00 to be used for the purposes outlined in Report to Council by the Chief of Police dated July 25, 2023. The City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute all necessary agreements, certifications, and documents to accept and implement the grant.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
20 of 183

21 of 183

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Contract for Community Beautification Project
1) Motion awarding a construction contract to Toro Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $8,356,288, approving a 15 percent contract contingency in the amount of $1,253,443, and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to execute the contract.
2)Resolution of appropriation for the Community Beautification Project.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for July 25, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Community Beatification project is vast in scope and includes street resurfacing, pedestrian safety enhancements, tree planting and other infrastructure improvements at two locations in Glendale. On May 24, 2023, two bids were received for this Project, and after a thorough review, staff found Toro Enterprises, Inc.’s bid to be a responsive bid from a responsible bidder.

The intent of this item is for the City Council to award a contract to Toro Enterprises, Inc., that will cost $8,356,288 with a 15 percent contract contingency of $1,253,443, totaling $9,609,731. Additionally, a resolution of appropriation is needed to appropriate Measure S CIP, Gas Tax, Measure W, Sewer, and Water Surplus Funds for this project. 22 of 183

24c
4 3
2 6

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Financial Sustainability: This project takes advantage of economies of scale by combining similar types of improvements at multiple locations in the City to exercise financial sustainability.

Operational Efficiency: New, upgraded, and well-maintained infrastructure reduces downtime, minimizes disruptions, and optimizes resource allocation, allowing the City to provide efficient and reliable services to the community. Furthermore, the construction of this project enables the City to meet the needs of the community more efficiently.

Mobility/Traffic and Pedestrian Safety: This project will improve pedestrian and traffic safety, modernize the aging traffic signal infrastructure, and improve the use of several modes of transportation.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the motion authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract with Toro Enterprises, Inc., for the Community Beautification Project in the amount of $8,356,288 plus a 15 percent contingency of $1,253,443 and also approve the resolution of appropriation to appropriate funds in the amount of $10,445,360 from Measure S CIP, Gas Tax, Measure W, Sewer, and Water Surplus Funds for the project.

BACKGROUND
Concord Street runs perpendicular to the Glendale 134 Freeway and connects to Fairmont Avenue within a block of the freeway on and off ramps. The speed limit on Concord Avenue is posted at 30 mph, on Patterson Avenue, Greydale Avenue, Fairmont Avenue, and Chester Street at 15 mph. Fremont Park is a major destination adjacent to the project. Acacia Avenue runs east/west. The speed limits on Acacia Avenue, Mariposa Street, and Boynton Street are posted at 25 mph. Fire Station No. 22, Horace Mann Elementary School, John Muir Elementary School, Theodore Roosevelt Middle School, Glendale Community College Garfield Campus, and Palmer Park are major destinations adjacent to the project.

Project Location
The following capital improvements will be implemented as part of the project:

Street resurfacing at the following locations:
•Concord Street between Fairmont Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard; •Patterson Avenue between Concord Street and Easterly Terminus; •Fairmont Avenue between Concord Street and Chester Street; •Chester Street between Fairmont Avenue and Patterson Avenue; •Greydale Avenue between Patterson Avenue and Northerly terminus; •Acacia Avenue between Glendale Avenue and Chevy Chase Drive; •Mariposa Street between Chevy Chase Drive and Acacia Avenue, and •Boynton Street between Palmer Avenue and Acacia Avenue. 23 of 183

34c
4 3
2 6
Sewer capacity improvements/replacement/installation at the following locations:
•Concord Street between Burchett Street and Glenoaks Boulevard, and •Acacia Avenue between Glendale Avenue and Mariposa Street. •Concord Street between Fairmont Avenue and Patterson Avenue. •Acacia Avenue between Boynton Street and Adams Street.

Pedestrian and traffic improvements at the following intersections:
•Concord Street and Patterson Avenue, and
•Loraine Street and Columbus Avenue.

Existing traffic signal modifications at the following intersections:
•Concord Street and Glenoaks Boulevard;
•Boynton Street and Chevy Chase Drive, and
•Acacia Avenue and Verdugo Road.

Bicycle route (class III) with green shared roadway bicycle pavement marking (B-Type Sharrows) installations at the following location:
•Concord Street between Fairmont Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard.

Drywell installations at the following locations:
•Acacia Avenue between Boynton Street and Adams Street, and •Mariposa Street between Chevy Chase Drive and Acacia Avenue.

Project Scope of Work
•Surface grinding and placement of approximately 1.5 centerline miles of ARHM; and approximately 0.3 centerline miles of ARHM over Asphalt Rubber Aggregate Membrane (ARAM);
•Selective removal, repair, and reconstruction of approximately 6,700 linear feet of damaged curbs and gutters, and 18,700 square feet of sidewalks, driveways, cross gutters, alley aprons, and bus pads;
•Modification and reconstruction of approximately 15 existing curb ramps to meet current ADA standards;
•Adjustment of existing manholes and water meters to finished grade; •Removal and replacement of existing traffic striping and pavement markings; •Installation of 3,000 linear feet of new bicycle route (class III) with green shared roadway bicycle pavement markings (B-Type Sharrows);
•Removal and replacement of 1,380 linear feet of sanitary sewer main line; •Removal and replacement of 230 linear feet of storm drain line; •Installation of 1,430 linear feet of storm drain line; •Construction of 4 catch basins;
•Construction of 7 manhole structures;
•Realignment of two intersections;
•Planting of 128 new street trees;
24 of 183

44c
4 3
2 6
•Modification of existing traffic signals at three intersections, and •Installation of two drywells.

Pavement Rehabilitation
Pavement Rehabilitation consists of the removal and replacement of the top two inches of roadway pavement using ARHM. ARHM is composed of conventional asphalt concrete mixed with recycled tire rubber material. ARHM provides a longer service life than conventional asphalt concrete. It also provides a smoother and quieter ride while reducing the amount of scrap rubber tires buried in landfills.

ARAM is another structural pavement layer used in the pavement rehabilitation of this project. It is composed of asphalt emulsion and coarse aggregate coated with asphalt emulsion, where the asphalt emulsion is rubberized with recycled tire rubber material.

ARAM provides an extended service life to the existing asphalt concrete pavement by filling the pavement cracks with the flexible rubberized emulsion. ARAM is typically covered with either slurry seal or ARHM.

Conventional AC is also used for localized full depth pavement removal and replacement where required and will be used at localized areas that require the full pavement section to be repaired before the final asphalt wearing surface is installed.

Sanitary Sewer Improvements
As part of a Citywide wastewater infrastructure master plan, sections of deficient sanitary sewer lines are identified and recommended for capacity improvements.

Sanitary sewer capacity improvements as part of this project will consist of the removal of the surface pavement, supporting/protecting existing utilities, excavation to the depth below the existing sewer pipe, performing a temporary sewer bypass, replacement of existing sewer pipe with larger pipe size, reconnecting existing house connections, trench backfill, and finally, trench resurfacing.

Storm Drain Improvements
Public Works field crews clean and inspect City-owned storm drain infrastructures on a rotational basis. As part of the cleaning process, the field crews report observed deficiencies, damages, and needed repairs to the Engineering Division. Moreover, storm drain deficiencies resulting in street flooding are reported to Public Works by residents during large storm events. Based on these reports, Public Works evaluates the damages and deficiencies, studies existing conditions, identifies remedies, and prepares the plans and specifications for improvements to address these issues for bid.

Storm drain improvements include repairs to the existing storm drain infrastructure that is broken, damaged, and/or poses maintenance issues as well as installation of new storm drain lines where necessary.
25 of 183

54c
4 3
2 6
The improvements are as follows:

1. Pipe replacement consists of the removal of the surface pavement, supporting/protecting existing utilities, excavation to the depth below the existing storm drain pipe, replacement of damaged 18-inch corrugated metal pipe (CMP) with 18-inch reinforced concrete pipe (RCP), trench backfill, trench resurfacing, removal of the existing damaged catch basin, and construction of a new 14-foot curb opening catch basin.

2. New storm drain installation will consist of the removal of the surface pavement, supporting/protecting existing utilities, excavation to the depth below the proposed storm drain pipe, placement of new 18-inch RCP storm drain laterals and 24-inch RCP storm drain main line, trench backfill, trench resurfacing, and installation of new manholes and catch basins. This new storm drain line then connects to an existing County of Los Angeles storm drain line, and maintenance and operations will be transferred to the County once constructed.

Intersection Realignments
As part of any major CIP project, Public Works evaluates the existing intersection conditions to identify pedestrian mobility and safety improvements. To take advantage of economies of scale, Public Works includes realignment and improvements of previously identified deficient intersections to upcoming CIP projects.

Intersection realignments as part of this project include extending existing curb configurations, shortening crosswalk lengths, implementing all-way stop controlled intersections, installation of new ADA compliant curb ramps, and installation of new signing and striping.

Tree Plantings
A total of 128 new street trees will be planted in vacant locations to infill the street canopy and expand the urban forest on the following streets:
•23 trees on Concord Street between Fairmont Avenue and Glenoaks Boulevard; •7 trees on Patterson Avenue between Concord Street and Easterly Terminus; •2 trees on Chester Street between Fairmont Avenue and Patterson Avenue; •76 trees on Acacia Avenue between Glendale Avenue and Chevy Chase Drive; •6 trees on Mariposa Street between Chevy Chase Drive and Acacia Avenue; •13 trees on Boynton Street between Palmer Avenue and Acacia Avenue; and, •1 tree on Loraine Street near Columbus Avenue;
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The proposed project includes improvements that will comply with current Federal ADA guidelines.
26 of 183

64c
4 3
2 6

ANALYSIS
The City received two bids for all required bid items, and upon review of the bid documents, staff finds the bid of Toro Enterprises, Inc. of $8,356,288 to be the lowest responsive bid from a responsible bidder. The bid of Toro Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $8,356,288 is approximately 4% above the Engineer’s Estimate of $8,000,000 but is still appropriate for the improvements being constructed considering the current economic conditions.

In addition, staff recommends a reserve for contingencies in the amount of $1,253,443 or 15 percent of the bid amount. The contingency is based on previous experience with projects, and this is in conformance with the nature of this project. This will also allow staff to account for any incidental work, unforeseen field conditions that could be encountered during construction, underground utilities issues that could arise because of the nature of the project, and any resulting field modifications that may be necessary.

The State of California Contractor’s State License Board website confirms that the license of Toro Enterprises, Inc., is current, active and in good standing. Additionally, Staff contacted the references provided by Toro Enterprises, Inc., and found they had satisfactorily completed the projects. Also, Toro Enterprises, Inc., has previously completed the Maintenance District 6 Pavement Rehabilitation Phase I Project and the Fiscal Year 2020-21 Street Resurfacing and Sewer Repair Project for the City of Glendale in a satisfactory manner.

Furthermore, staff is requesting to budget approximately 10 percent of the construction amount, or $835,629 for staff who will provide construction management and engineering support services such as project management, project engineering, construction inspection, quality control, and material testing.

A resolution of appropriation in the amount of $10,445,360 is needed to provide adequate funding for this project and is recommended to be appropriated from the Measure S CIP, Gas Tax, Measure W, Sewer, and Water Surplus Funds.

The construction of this project is anticipated to begin in August 2023 and is scheduled for completion by March 2024.

Project Description: Community Beautification Project
Plans/Specs Adopted: March 7, 2023
Advertisement Method: Bid America, The Blue Book, ebidboard, CMD Group, Direct Connection, PlanIT Reprographics, Dodge Data
& Analytics, Construct Connect, Bidnetdirect, Glendale
Independent Newspaper, City’s website
27 of 183

74c
4 3
2 6
Specs Issued: April 20, 2023 – May 24, 2023
Bids Opened: May 24, 2023
Company Name
and Bid Amount:

Toro Enterprises, Inc. $ 8,356,288 Sully Miller Contracting Company $ 9,482,000
Recommended
Contractor(s)
Toro Enterprises, Inc.

New / Existing
Contractor(s):

Existing
Procurement Method
(Bid / SS):

Bid
Contract Term:

160 Working Days

Construction
Phase Begins:

August 2023
Construction
Phase Ends:

March 2024

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Approximately 5,318 notifications were sent to property owners and occupants along the project limits notifying them of the virtual community meeting on September 29, 2022. The in-person community meeting was held at the City Hall Council Chambers and was also broadcasted on the City’s YouTube channel. During the meeting, the public was informed of the project details, construction schedule, future City and contractor notifications, and the impacts of the construction work in their neighborhood.

Participants also had the opportunity to phone in and provide their comments and/or ask questions regarding the project.

Staff also contacted the Glendale Unified School District and the Horace Mann Elementary School Principal and their team, to coordinate the construction work adjacent to the school on Acacia Avenue. Recognizing the potential impacts of the project on Acacia Avenue, staff has carefully planned and scheduled the construction work in multiple phases to ensure a smooth, uninterrupted, and safe environment for all.

This collaboration will enable seamless coordination and regular updates regarding the construction progress, facilitating the prompt resolution of any potential issues that may arise, and ensuring the construction is aligned with the school's needs and activities.

Approximately one month before the commencement of the construction, staff will prepare a notification postcard containing essential project details including a link to the project website. This postcard will be mailed to the residences and businesses that will be affected by the construction. Additionally, the contractor will be responsible for distributing two distinct door hangers to the affected addresses. One set of door hangers will be provided two weeks prior to the start of any construction activity within the project area, while the second set will be distributed three days before construction begins.
28 of 183

84c
4 3
2 6
Furthermore, outreach on this project continues through a dedicated website for the project. The link to this website will be posted on all project outreach notifications such as project signs, postcards, and door hangers. The website page introduces the public to the project and to the team, explains the scope of work and project locations, and provides the public with staff contact information for questions, discussion, and/or input.

By following this comprehensive communication strategy, the construction team strives to adopt transparency, accountability, and mutual understanding with the residents and businesses impacted by the project, creating a supportive environment that enables the City a seamless transition into the construction phase and moving forward toward the successful completion of the project, while minimizing potential disruptions and inconveniences that may arise during and after construction.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Community Beautification Project costs consist of $8,356,288 for the construction contract with Toro Enterprises, Inc. plus a 15% contract contingency of $1,253,443, and $835,629 for construction management and engineering support services.

The total cost of the Community Beautification Project is $10,445,360, of which $4,341,200 is being requested from the Sewer Fund (5250) and $41,160 from the Water Surplus Fund (5910) net position. The remainder appropriation is being requested from shifting of appropriation from existing projects; $2,573,000 from the Measure S CIP Fund (4011), $2,910,000 from the State Gas Tax Fund (4020), and $580,000 from the Measure W Fund (2260).

The appropriation requests are outlined below:

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String) To (Account String) Funding
Source
$ 2,390,000
GL: 52100-4011-PWD-
0020-P0000
PL: PWD00596AN
GL: 52100-4011-PWD-
0020-P0000
PL: PWD01003AN
Measure S CIP
Fund
$ 183,000
GL: 52100-4011-PWD-
0020-P0000
PL: PWD00586AN
GL: 52100-4011-PWD-
0020-P0000
PL: PWD01003AN
Measure S CIP
Fund
$ 660,000
GL: 52100-4020-PWD-
0020-P0000
PL: PWD00533AN
GL: 52100-4020-PWD-
0020-P0000
PL: PWD01003BN
State Gas Tax
Fund
$ 2,250,000
GL: 52100-4020-PWD-
0020-P0000
PL: PWD00379AN
GL: 52100-4020-PWD-
0020-P0000
PL: PWD01003BN
State Gas Tax
Fund
$ 580,000
GL: 52100-2260-PWD-
0020-P0000
PL: PWD00848AA
GL: 52100-2260-PWD-
0020-P0000
PL: PWD01003CN
Measure W
Fund
29 of 183

94c
4 3
2 6
$ 4,341,200 GL: 27900-5250-PWD-
0000
GL: 52100-5250-PWD-
0020-P0000
PL: PWD01003DN
Sewer Fund
$ 41,160 GL: 27900-5910-GWP-
0000-P0000
GL: 52100-5930-GWP-
0020-P0000
PL: PWD01003EN
Water Surplus
Fund – Net
Position

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The Project is categorically exempt from environmental review because of CEQA Guidelines §§ 15301.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not Applicable

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Approve the motion authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract with Toro Enterprises, Inc., and approve the resolution of appropriation to provide adequate funding for the Community Beautification Project. This will improve the condition of the City streets, sewer and storm drain systems, and pedestrian and traffic safety.

Alternative 2: Do not approve the motion authorizing the City Manager to execute a construction contract for the Community Beautification Project, and do not approve the resolution of appropriation for additional funding. Doing so, however, will not improve the condition of the City’s streets, sewer and storm drain systems, and pedestrian and traffic safety will not be improved.

Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Viktoriya Pakhanyan, P.E., Civil Engineer II
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Project Location Map
30 of 183

MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded
by Council Member , that the Council of the City of
Glendale hereby:

1. Authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a construction contract – subject to approval by the City Attorney – with Toro Enterprises, Inc., for the Community Beautification Project, Specification No. 3849, for the amount of $8,356,288.

2. Authorizes a 15 percent reserve for contingency, equal to $1,253,443.

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk
31 of 183

32 of 183

33 of 183

34 of 183

ORDINANCE NO. 6007

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA,

AMENDING THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN (DSP),

REGARDING HOTEL USES
(CASE NO. PGPA-001238-2023)
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1. DSP Section 3.3 Land Uses & Permit Requirements - Land Use Chart Table 3-A-1 is hereby amended for hotel uses, as shown in Exhibit “A” attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. DSP Chapter 7 – Community Benefit, Sections 7.2.1 – SB 1818 Affordable Housing Density Bonus Law and 7.2.3 – Hotel, are hereby amended, as shown in Exhibit “B” and incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 3. Severability. This ordinance is adopted under the authority of the Charter of the City of Glendale and State law. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase is declared invalid or otherwise void by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect any remaining provision hereof. In this regard the City Council finds and declares that it would have adopted this measure notwithstanding any partial invalidity hereof.

SECTION 4. Hotel projects that have received at least a Stage I Preliminary Design Review approval prior to the adoption of this ordinance shall be reviewed under the zoning rules and regulations which were in effect on the day prior to adoption of this ordinance. The foregoing notwithstanding, any applicant may make a request in writing to the Director of Community Development that their application be reviewed under the zoning rules and regulations as amended by this ordinance.

Passed by the Council of the City of Glendale on the day of , 2023.

Mayor
Attest
City Clerk
1 35 of 183

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

CITY OF GLENDALE )
)
) SS.

I, Dr. Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, California, certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 6007 was passed by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, by a vote of four-fifths (4/5ths) of the members thereof, at a regular meeting held on the 11th day of July, 2023 by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk
2 36 of 183

EXHIBIT A

LAND USE
3 Downtown supports a variety of economic activities. The land use policies build on existing strengths and add
amenities, services, employment and living opportunities. A mix of land uses is critical to support a diverse downtown climate, enhance the pedestrian quality of the street,
reduce vehicle trips, and reinforce the existing varied character of Downtown Glendale. The land use policies
encourage the clustering of certain uses as definable
districts; designate key ground floor uses; identify
opportunities to create mixed-use neighborhoods; and
increase Downtown’s supply of open space.
3-1GLENDALE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
37 of 183

3.1 LAND USE POLICIES

3.1.1 Downtown Districts and
Complementary Land Use Options
Include many land use options to encourage healthy
urban districts with opportunities for interaction
between uses. Direct certain land uses to specific
areas to reduce potential land use conflicts such as
noise or parking demand, while encouraging those
land uses which enhance the attractiveness and
convenience of the primary downtown land uses
such as offices and residential use.

3.1.2 The 24-Hour Downtown
Encourage appropriate land uses that extend the life
of Downtown into the evenings and weekends so
that daytime, weekend, and nighttime uses can
support each other and share parking seven days a
week. Such uses can contribute to the vitality of the
downtown area and the viability of downtown
businesses.

3.1.3 Ground Floor Commercial
Provide ground floor uses where appropriate in
order to support a pedestrian-oriented
environment in Downtown. Strategically
encourage ground floor uses that will contribute to
creation of primary and secondary pedestrian
activity streets.
3-2 GLENDALE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
38 of 183

3.1.4 Infill Mixed-use and Residential
Provide mixed-use commercial and residential
development in designated areas of Downtown. In
addition to market rate housing, encourage
affordable and senior housing in Downtown as
part of the Community Benefit program.

3.1.5 Community Benefits
Through the use of provision of community
benefits that are consistent with the vision of the
community and the DSP, projects may reach their
full development potential, as described in Chapter
7 - Community Benefits. These benefits are
intended to enhance the livability, contribute to the
beautification of the city, and provide opportunity
and accessibility for those that live, visit and work
in the Downtown.

Amended by Ord. No. 5685, 5923 GLENDALE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 3-3 39 of 183

3.2 PERMITTED LAND USES

3.2.1 Permitted Uses by District
Downtown is divided into eleven sub-districts, as
identified in the Land Use map (Figure 3-A). Each
district or district group has its own permitted uses
described in Section 3.3

3.2.2 Ground Floor Uses
To accomplish pedestrian-oriented objectives of the
DSP, certain streets have use restrictions at the
ground floor (see Table 3-B in Section 3.3). These
use restrictions are coupled with the design
standards described by Sections 4.2 Building Design
and 4.3 The Pedestrian Realm with Ground Floor
frontage restrictions are indicated on the Land Use
map (Figure 3-A).

A. Primary Frontage Streets shall have ground
floor uses including retail, restaurants and
entertainment uses prescribed by the land use
standards. These uses are needed to activate
the street and support one another as a
destination and shopping experience. All such
streets shall be developed with retail
storefronts or arcades incorporating features
such as frequent entries and display windows to
enhance the pedestrian shopping experience.

Primary Frontage streets are concentrated
within a 5-minute walk (approximately 1/4 mile
radius) of the Brand/ Broadway intersection.

B. Entertainment Streets are established to
promote and encourage the concentration of
arts, cultural and entertainment venues such as
museums, galleries, theaters and nightclubs.

Supportive retail and restaurants are also
allowed on these streets, and therefore
entertainment streets share the similar design
standards of Primary Frontage Streets.

C. Residential Streets are located in the East
Broadway District, where landscaped setbacks
from the sidewalk are required (see Section

4.1.3). Ground floor uses may be retail, services,
office, live/work and/or residential.
3-4 GLENDALE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN Amended by Ord. No. 5726, 5865, 5923 40 of 183

N
FIGURE 3-A 0 150 300 600ftARDEN

LAND USE DISTRICTS
Alex Theatre

BURCHETT MONTEREY
Broadway Center
Civic Centers
SR-134 FREEWAY
EastBroadway
Galleria
PIONEER Gateway
Downtown “Art & Entertainment”DORAN
Mid-Orange
OrangeCentral
Town Center
DORAN
Transitional

GROUND-FLOOR USES

LEXINGTO
N
Primary FrontageStreets
EntertainmentStreets Residential
StreetsMYRTLE

CALIFORNIA
SALEM
WILSON

BROADWAY

HARVARD

ORANGEGROVE

COLORADO
ELK
Amended by Ord. No. 5727, 5738, 5776, 5815, 5865, 5923 GLENDALE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 3-5 41 of 183

3.3 LAND USES & PERMIT REQUIREMENTS
TABLE 3-A-1: Land Uses and Permit Requirements TABLE 3-B-1 Frontage
Land Uses 1, 2 Permit Requirements by District 3 Req’mts4 Key to Permit Requirements
A =Administrative Use Permit
(see Chapter 30.49)
P = Permitted Use
C = Conditional Use Permit
(see Chapter 30.42)
T = Temporary Use
N = Use NotAllowed
Accessory Buildings, Structures and Uses
Accessory buildings and structures
(associated with residential uses) P P
P
P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
- N
P
N
P
P
P
Accessory dwelling unit (ADU), and/or
junior accessory dwelling unit (JADU)
on a lot developed with one residential
dwelling unit
P N 30.34.080
Accessory dwelling unit(s) (ADU), and/ or
junior accessory dwelling unit(JADU) on a
lot developed with more than one
residential dwelling unit
P P N P P P P P P P 30.34.080 P P P
Accessory uses P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
-
-
N
N
N
N
P
Antennas (pole type) and flagpoles N N
Carts (freestanding, non-motorized
portable type) P P P P P P P P P P 30.34.040 P P P
Dish antennas P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P

30.34.050

30.45 5.110

30.33 -
N
N
N
P
N
N
N
P
N
PHome occupation
Home-sharing P
Signs P P
Solar Energy Equipment
Education, Public Assembly Uses
Convention Centers
Cultural Arts Centers
Gyms and health clubs

P P P P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
P
N
P
-
-
-
N
P
P
P
P
C
P

N C P C N P
Gyms and health clubs
(existing prior to June 1, 2003) P P N P P P P P P P - P P P Indoor recreation centers
Museums
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
P
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C
P
-
-
-
N
P
P
P
P
P
PPlaces of worship N C C N N
Places of worship
(existing prior to June 1, 2003) P P N P P P P P P P - P P P Private clubs and lodges
Public dances
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
P
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C
P
-
-
-
-
N
P
P
P
C
P
P
P
Schools, physical instruction
Schools, private
N
N
P P N
N
P
C C N
Schools, private specialized
education / training P
P
P
P
N
P
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P N
N
-
-
N
N
C
P
P
Theaters N N
See Table 3-A-2, page 3-7 for Footnotes
3-6 GLENDALE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN Amended by Reso No. 09-37; Ord No. 5726, 5777, 5819, 5865, 5923, 5943, 5958, 5993 42 of 183

TABLE 3-A-2: Land Uses and Permit Requirements TABLE 3-B-2 Frontage
Land Uses 1, 2 Permit Requirements by District 3 Req’mts4 Key to Permit Requirements
A = Administrative Use Permit
(see Chapter 30.49)
P = Permitted Use
C = Conditional Use Permit
(see Chapter 30.42)
T = Temporary Use
N = Use Not Allowed
Industrial, Manufacturing, Processing Uses
Broadcasting studios and indoor support P
P
P
P
N
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
-
-
N
N
N
N
N
N
facilities - production
Soundstages - production
Recreation
Adult Business Uses
Billiard establishment
Nightclubs
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
N
N
C

30.34.010

30.34.015

30.34.015
P
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
N
C
C
C
C
C
A
C
A
C
ATaverns
Residential Uses 5
Domestic violence shelter
Live/work units
P
P
P
P
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
- N
N
N
N
P
P30.34.090
Live / work units with conditionally
permitted uses C
P
C
P
N
N
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
P

30.34.090

30.34.100
N
P
N
P
C
P
Mixed Use Development, provided that
all uses are permitted in zone which the
project is located
Mixed Use Development, where at
least one use is conditionally permitted C C N C C C C C C C 30.34.100 C C C Multiple residential dwelling units P P N
N

P P P P P P P -
-
N
N
N
N
P
Residential congregate living, Limited C C C C C C C C C C Residential congregate living,
Non-Medical P
P
P
P
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
-
-
N
N
N
N
P
PSenior Housing
1 See Glendale Municipal Code Section 30.03.010 regarding uses not listed 2 See Glendale Municipal Code Chapter 30.70 for definitions of the land uses 3 Uses in the Town Center District are subject to the Town Center Specific Plan 4 Frontage Requirements apply only to the first 25 feet of lot depth of the ground floor for those streets designated with Ground Floor Uses on the Land Use Map (Figure 3- A)
5 Minimum unit size is 540 square feet (for senior or affordable units), 600 square feet (for efficiency and one bedroom units), 800 square feet (for two bedroom units), 1000 square feet (for three-bedroom units) with 90 cubic feet of private storage space(for all units). Projects must comply with Diverse Housing Mix percentages, unit sizes and development standards identified in Chapter 7.3.2.

Amended by Reso No. 09-37; Ord No. 5726, 5777, 5819, 5865, 5923, 5943, 5958, 5993 GLENDALE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 3-7 43 of 183

3.3 LAND USES & PERMIT REQUIREMENTS (cont’d)
TABLE 3-A-3: Land Uses and Permit Requirements TABLE 3-B-3 FrontageLand Uses 1, 2 Permit Requirements by District 3 Req’mts 4
Key to Permit Requirements
A = Administrative Use Permit
(see Chapter 30.49)
P = Permitted Use
C = Conditional Use Permit
(see Chapter 30.42)
T = Temporary Use
N = Use Not Allowed
Retail Uses
Alcoholic beverage sales A
P
A
P

A A A A A A A A - A A A
Alcoholic beverage sales, in Alex Theater,
Broadway Center, Art & Entertainment
districts only
w/ Billiard Establishments
w/ Indoor Recreation Centers
w/ Nightclubs
P
P
P
P
P
P
C

30.34.015

30.34.015
-
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
C
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
Pw/ Restaurant, full service
w/ Taverns P P P N
N
C
w/ Theaters P P P
Banquet halls C C N
T
N
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
C
T
N
T
N
Christmas tree sales lots, when
maintained between Nov 1 - Jan 9 T T T 5.44 T T T
Firearms, weapons sales
Hardware Stores
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
N
N
N
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
N
P
N
N
P
P
P
P
A
P
P
Jewelry Stores P
Liquor stores A
P
A
N
N
A
N
N
Nurseries and garden supplies
Paint and wallpaper stores N
Paint and wallpaper stores, existing
prior to June 1, 2003 P
P
P
P
N
N
T
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
-
-
P
P
P
P
T
P
P
T
Pharmacy
Pumpkin sales lots, when maintained
between Oct 15 and Nov 1 T T T T T T T T T 5.44 T
Restaurant, counter service w/
limited seating P P N P P P P P P P - P P P
Restaurant, fast food P
P
P
P
P
P
N
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
-
-
-
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Restaurant, full service
Retail stores, general merchandise
Spas and swimming pools, sales and
service P
P
P
P
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
-
-
N
C
N
N
P
PSupermarkets
See Table 3-A-4, page 3-9 for Footnotes
3-8 GLENDALE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN Amended by Reso No. 09-37; Ord No. 5726, 5777, 5819, 5865, 5923, 5943, 5958, 5993 44 of 183

TABLE 3-A-4: Land Uses and Permit Requirements TABLE 3-B-4 Frontage
Req’mtsLand Uses 1, 2 Permit Requirements by District 3 4 Key to Permit Requirements
A = Administrative Use Permit
(see Chapter 30.49)
P = Permitted Use
C = Conditional Use Permit
(see Chapter 30.42)
T = Temporary Use
N = Use Not Allowed
W = Wireless Telecommunications Facilities
Permit (see Chapter 30.48)
Service, Office Uses
Banks and financial institutions
Business support services
Contractor’s office and / or storage
Day care centers
P
P
T
A
P
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
T
A
P
C
P
P
P
P
P
N
N
T
P
P
P
P
T
A
P
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
T
A
P
C
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
- P P P
P- N
T
N
TT
A
P
T
A
P
T
A
P
T
A
P
T
A
P
- T
A
P
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
- N
P
N
PHotels 5 -
Massage establishment
Medical and dental laboratories
Medical and dental offices
Offices
C
N
P
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
N
P

5.64 N
N
N
N
P
N
N
N
N
P
C
P-
-
-
-
-

P P P P

P P P P P P
Personal services P P P P P P
Pet grooming P P P P P N N P
Repairand maintenance,
consumerproducts P
P
P
P
N
N
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
-
-
N
N
N
N
P
PVeterinary offices
Transportation, CommunicationUses
Non-emergency heliports C
P
C
P
C
P
N
N
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
P
C
P
N
N
-

30.34.120
-
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
PParking lot / structure facilities
Utility and transmission facilities
Wireless telecommunications facilities

C C C C C C C C C C N
NW W W W W W W W W W 30.48
1 See Glendale Municipal Code Section 30.03.010 regarding uses not listed 2 See Glendale Municipal Code Chapter 30.70 for definitions of the land uses 3 Uses in the Town Center District are subject to the Town Center Specific Plan 4 Frontage Requirements apply only to the first 25 feet of lot depth of the ground floor for those streets designated with Ground Floor Uses on the Land Use Map (Figure 3- A)
5 “Hotel” means a building in which there are fifty (50) or more guest rooms where temporary lodging is provided for compensation, for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less, and where no provision is made for stove-top cooking in any individual room or suite. A development agreement is required for all new hotels in the DSP. All new hotels in the DSP must also meet the minimum quality standard of facilities and service equal to the general requirements of an American Automobile Association three (3) diamond rating or higher, as established in the “AAA Hotel Requirements and Diamond Guidelines” and all subsequent amendments thereto, or equivalent rating system.

Amended by Reso No. 09-37; Ord No. 5293, 5726, 5746, 5865, 5869, 5923, 5943, 5958, 5993, 6007 GLENDALE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN 3-9 45 of 183

3-10 GLENDALE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN
46 of 183

EXHIBIT B
47 of 183

48 of 183

49 of 183

50 of 183

ALLOWABLE BONUS 7.2.4 Reuse of Existing Buildings
The maximum allowable height and/or density
available for this priority use ꢀr new hotels is
the maximum height and density allowed by
district as defined in Table 4-A.

COMMUNITY BENEFIT
The reꢁuse of existing buildings minimizes
environmental impacts from demolition and
disposal of building materials. In addition, the
retention of distinctive visual architecture and
architectural features sustains the public's
ꢂmiliarity and comꢃrt with Downtown. Reusing
older, nonꢁ historic buildings is also encouraged
to let our built heritage continue to tell the story
of Glendale.

Expansion of existing hotels will be reviewed on a
case by case basis, and bonuses awarded by the
review authority commensurate with the degree
to which the standards have been met and to the
public benefit provided.

STANDARDS
A. Reuse of older buildings that are not
historic resources shall be distinguished
from new construction and shall be defined
as the reuse of the structure's most
distinguishing architectural features and
maintaining a minimum of 50% of the
combined area of all of the exterior walls
and roof of the existing structure.

Nonconforming buildings shall comply with
GMC 30.60.040.
*** Local hire requirement. A requirement that a
hotel owner and/or operator include in all of its
construction contracts a provision whereby it
promises to make a goodꢁꢂith eﬀort, with the
assistance of local labor union hiring halls or
community organizations, to employ qualified
individuals who are, and have been for one year
prior to the eﬀective date of the labor contract,
residents of Glendale and/or residents of Los
Angeles County who live within a ten mile radius
of Glendale (collectively, "local workers"), in
suﬀicient numbers so that no less than ten ( I0)
percent of the contractor's total construction
work ꢃrce, including any subcontractor work
ꢃrce, measured in labor work hours, is
comprised of local workers. The contractor shall
keep, and provide to the City, on standardized
forms acceptable to the City, an accurate record
showing the name, place of residence, hours
employed and per diem wages and benefits of
each person employed by the contractor, and the
contractor's subcontractors, on the project,
including fullꢁtime, partꢁtime, permanent and
temporary employees. This Local Hire
B. Retention of distinctive architecture is
strongly encouraged.

C. Reꢁuse of significant architectural and
characterꢁ defining ꢄatures is strongly
encouraged.

D. The amount of the bonus received shall be
in proportion to the amount and the
architectural value of the building and
building features which are retained, as
determined by the review authority.

ALLOWABLE BONUS
The maximum allowable height increase available
for this priority use is an increase of 30 ꢄet; the
maximum allowable density increase under this
incentive is an additional 1.00 FAR.Requirement cannot be utilized by a hotel owner or operator as a menu option for purposes of
the Community Benefit program if the required
provision would conflict with a state or federal
law or regulation applicable to a particular
contract ꢃr construction and development.

Amended by Rꢀo. No. 09-37; Ord No. 5865, 5923, 6007 GLENDALE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PꢀN 7-3 51 of 183

52 of 183

53 of 183

54 of 183

55 of 183

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Public Hearing: Ordinance for Introduction of Amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) Regarding Hotel Uses, As Directed by City Council on February 7, 2023 (General Plan Amendment Case No. PGPA-001238-2023).

1. Ordinance for Introduction Amending the DSP

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for July 11, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pursuant to City Council direction of February 7. 2023, staff has prepared amendments to the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) related to hotel uses. These amendments (General Plan Amendment Case No. PGPA-001238-2023) were presented to the Planning Commission for review on June 7, 2023, and the Commission’s comments and recommendation of adoption of said amendments are included for City Council’s consideration.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
N/A.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council review the proposed amendments to the DSP and introduce and subsequently adopt the Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission. 56 of 183

2 4
3 1
3 BACKGROUND
On October 19, 2021, City Council adopted Interim Ordinance No. 5977 temporarily prohibiting new hotel development projects within the DSP. On November 30, 2021, City Council extended this hotel use moratorium for 10 months and 15 days (Interim Ordinance No. 5978). The moratorium exempted projects that received at least a Stage I Preliminary Design Review Approval. This moratorium was based on the potential impacts of hotels in Downtown, including several recent proposals that had been approved, and to allow the opportunity to also conduct a market study to identify expected future demand of hotels as well as gaps in the market. On October 18, 2022, City Council adopted a one-year extension of the hotel use moratorium (Interim Ordinance No. 5995), which is the final extension allowed by law. The hotel moratorium will thus expire in approximately three months, on October 19, 2023, by operation of law, unless sooner terminated by the City Council through adoption of zoning or development standards related to the subject of the moratorium, or through other Council action.

On September 13, 2022, City Council directed staff to investigate changes to the DSP hotel use incentive system. City Council requested the changes focus on the development of amenity-rich hotels that would bring new hospitality typologies to the City, while filling gaps within the hotel market. City Council also requested more information on the potential to use a Conditional Use Permit process for hotel uses within the DSP.

On February 7, 2023, staff provided City Council an outline of recommended amendments to the current hotel incentive program to encourage hotel developments that fill gaps in the type and quality of hotels in Downtown Glendale. The recommendations were derived from a market study commissioned by the City that identified the need for amenity-rich hotels that would include services such as spas, meaningful event space, and high-quality catering. Following feedback and direction from City Council, staff drafted updates to DSP regarding hotel uses in general and also specific threshold standards for hotels related to the DSP Community Benefit Incentive Program. Council also directed staff to no longer consider the Conditional Use Permit process.

In addition to amendments related to hotel uses/standards, staff is also presenting some minor DSP clean-ups and clarifications also reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission.

ANALYSIS
Hotels are a permitted use in the DSP and hotel projects can be developed by two different means: either by right in compliance with the DSP zoning standards (height, FAR, design) or through the Community Benefit Incentive Program. This program affords increased building height and FAR for certain projects, such as hotels, which provide community benefits in line with the City’s priorities. The community benefit of a hotel is based on its role as an important component of a thriving business district that not only provides temporary accommodations for guest and visitors, but also amenities available for use by the general public, such as entertainment, restaurants and meeting 57 of 183

3 4
3 1
3 rooms. Hotels also support increased economic activity and increased retail tax revenue. If a hotel meets the community benefit system objectives, hotels can build to the maximum allowable height and/or density within the proposed project’s district.

During the February 7, 2023 meeting, Council’s discussion focused on ensuring a higher caliber of hotel uses in the Downtown by requiring certain amenities and services. In order to meet the need for amenity-rich hotels in the Downtown, as identified in the presented hotel market study, Council directed that a range of community benefit options be incorporated into the DSP, providing clarity for applicants and the public. Council also specified that all hotels, regardless of whether the Community Benefit Program was utilized, be required to covenant (or agree) to maintain the use as a hotel, and provide the community benefits, in perpetuity; this would be done through a Development Agreement by the City and the hotel developer. Lastly, Council discussed possibly changing hotels from a “by right” land use in the DSP to a conditionally permitted one that would require a Conditional Use Permit. However, following much discussion, Council elected to forgo adding another separate discretionary process in addition to the Development Agreement process, as well as the required Design Review process, which already addresses site planning, massing and scale, and architectural design issues. It was pointed out that if the intent is to have amenity-rich hotels in Downtown, the CUP process is not a discretionary review procedure conducive to conditioning projects to incorporate certain features or amenities. Council’s ultimate direction was to focus on the hotel requirements and amenities instead.

The list below outlines the proposed amendments to the DSP, based on Council’s direction, as set forth in the Ordinance for introduction:

DSP Chapter 3 – Land Use Amendments
To address Council’s direction, staff proposes to amend the DSP Land Use Chapter 3 by modifying the existing hotel definition to ensure a higher caliber of hotel in the DSP and to require a Development Agreement for all new hotels. Staff recommends the following new footnote for hotels in the Land Use Chart – Table 3-A-4:
“Hotel” means a building in which there are fifty (50) or more guest rooms where temporary lodging is provided for compensation, for a period of 30 consecutive calendar days or less, and where no provision is made for stove-top or oven cooking in any individual room or suite. A development agreement or covenant is required for all new hotels in the DSP. All new hotels in the DSP must also meet the minimum quality standard of facilities and service equal to the general requirements of an American Automobile Association three (3) diamond rating or higher, as established in the “AAA Hotel Requirements and Diamond Guidelines” and all subsequent amendments thereto.”
As called out in this footnote, staff is recommending that all new hotels provide amenities and services equal to AAA’s established rating system’s three diamond status, or equivalent. According to the rating guidelines (Exhibit 3), this would mean that new hotels must be “distinguished, multifaceted with enhanced physical attributes, amenities and guest comforts”, versus a two diamond status hotel which would be 58 of 183

4 4
3 1
3 “affordable, with modestly enhanced facilities, décor and amenities”. The AAA guidelines go into further detail regarding Exterior, Public Areas, Guest Rooms, Bathrooms, and other hospitality standards required for the three diamond rating level; the combination of such amenities would ensure that all new proposals meet the elevated caliber of hotels intended by Council in the DSP.

The proposed footnote also specifies that all hotel development projects in the DSP, regardless of the hotel development project’s election to utilize any available incentives, shall enter into a development agreement and/or covenant with the City, as directed by Council. Because Council called for hotel developments to be of a specified quality and type, this development agreement requirement will memorialize the caliber and amenities of hotel project.

DSP Chapter 7 – Community Benefits Amendments
All new hotels in the DSP currently have the option of utilizing the Community Benefits (incentive) Program to maximize development potential. While the existing hotel incentive system that allows for increases to height and FAR is being maintained and no changes are proposed to the height and FAR limits, Council directed that the requirements for a hotel to participate in the incentive program be modified and enhanced.

Proposed amendments to DSP Section 7.2.3 - Hotel include a new point-based system of menu options that ensures all new hotels utilizing the Community Benefits Program feature increased amenities and community benefits. Each enhanced onsite use or amenity is assigned a point value, depending on the extent of the community benefit. To achieve the maximum development potential, new hotels must not only meet the minimum quality standard of facilities and service equal to the general requirements of an AAA three diamond rating, but also, they must provide a combination of features and amenities that total a minimum of 10 points. This menu of features and amenities includes those identified in the Council motion from February 7th, such as restaurants and taverns (using the AAA diamond rating system), meeting spaces, additional publicly accessible open space, sustainable design, local hiring agreement, contribution to the City’s affordable housing fund, etc., as well as ones proposed by staff. For example, staff suggests that a five diamond hotel, with all the luxury appointments and amenities associated with this rating level, automatically be granted the 10 points required for the additional/maximum height and FAR in the subject zone. Developers can incorporate any combination of such uses and amenities in the table, provided the value totals 10 points. This guarantees higher caliber, amenity-rich hotels with greater community benefits, as intended by Council, while allowing greater flexibility to the hotel developer/operator with menu options.
59 of 183

5 4
3 1
3 Amendments to the DSP Section 7.2.3 include a new definition for the local hiring requirement*, which has been reviewed by the City Attorney’s office. A labor peace agreement requirement was requested by City Council to be considered as a community benefit. However, after discussion with a local union and legal research and analysis by the City Attorney’s Office, it is staff’s opinion that the inclusion of a labor peace requirement as an optional menu item has some legal risks, in that there is an argument that such a regulation, though voluntary, may be preempted by Federal law under the broad preemption doctrine applicable to the National Labor Relations Act. Accordingly, staff can no longer recommend a labor peace agreement to be a consideration for an incentive. Staff explained these concerns to the Planning Commission, and the Commission specifically recommended that a labor peace agreement requirement option not be included in the Ordinance.

Use or Amenity Points
Minimum quality standard of facilities and service equal to the general requirements of an AAA five (5) diamond rating or higher, as established in the “AAA Hotel Requirements and Diamond Guidelines” and all subsequent amendments thereto, or equivalent rating system. 10 Minimum quality standard of facilities and service equal to the general requirements of an AAA four (4) diamond rating or higher, as established in the “AAA Hotel Requirements and Diamond Guidelines” and all subsequent amendments thereto, or equivalent rating system. 8 Full-service restaurant, upscale and comparable to a AAA Three Diamond restaurant
4 Full-service restaurant, not upscale/AAA Two Diamond, with breakfast service
3 Full-service restaurant, not upscale/AAA Two Diamond, without breakfast service
2 Roof-top deck with full-service restaurant or tavern 4 Tavern (bar or lounge), separate from restaurant 3
Separate spa facility open to the public 3
Separate convention or meeting space available to the
public/community
3 Additional publicly accessible open space equivalent to a minimum of 20% of the required publicly accessible open space
2 Live entertainment, as defined in GMC 5.16.010 and subject to any required licenses and/or permits
2 LEED Platinum (or equivalent) sustainable design 5
Contribution equal to the half of the amount of the affordable housing commercial development impact fee, as defined in GMC Chapter 4.11, from which hotels are currently exempt
5 Local hiring requirement* 2
Participation in the GWP peak demand response program 3 Participation in transportation demand program (if not already required by the GMC 30.32.171)
1 Airport shuttle 1
Available bicycle rental or bicycle share program 1
60 of 183

6 4
3 1
3 For the sake of illustration, below are several combinations that would meet the minimum 10 point requirement for the enhanced Community Benefit Hotel incentive program:

Scenario 1:
4-star hotel 8 Local hiring requirement 2

Scenario 2:

Full service restaurant, upscale, 3-stars 4
LEED Platinum sustainable design 5
Airport shuttle 1 Scenario 3:

Roof-top deck with restaurant 4 Additional publicly accessible open space 2
Labor peace agreement 2

Scenario 4:

Full service restaurant, 2-stars without breakfast 2 Separate meeting space 3 Contribution to affordable housing fund 5

Scenario 5:

Full service restaurant, 2-stars with breakfast 3 Separate spa facility open to the public 3 Participation in GWP Peak Demand Program 3
Available bicycle rental program 1

Proposed hotels utilizing the Community Benefits program would not be limited to the above scenarios but could incorporate any combination of the uses and amenities identified in the table.

Additional Proposed Amendment to Chapter 7 – Community Benefits Staff is also proposing two minor clean-ups to the DSP 7.2.1 SB 1818 Affordable Housing Density Bonus Law incentive program: eliminating references to “SB 1818” and updating the maximum density bonus from 35 percent to 50 percent to be consistent with State law.

Planning Commission Review
The proposed amendments were reviewed by the Planning Commission at a regularly scheduled meeting on June 7, 2023. The Planning voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend approval of the DSP amendments to City Council. The Planning Commission also supported the recommendation of staff (as further described at the hearing) that the labor peace agreement be eliminated as a menu option item. 61 of 183

7 4
3 1
3 STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Public notices consistent with state law and Glendale Municipal Code were provided for the proposed amendments.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The Project has been determined to be exempt from further environmental review under CEQA pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) because the majority of the proposed amendments deal with clarifications and additional entitlement requirements for hotels in the DSP, and the minor additional amendments to the density bonus provisions to be consistent with state law, that do not affect the current development thresholds related to FAR, density and height, and do not have any potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Introduce and subsequently adopt the ordinance amending the DSP, as described in this report.

Alternative 2: Do not introduce the ordinance amending the DSP, in which case the development standards and guidelines in the DSP will remain as is, and the moratorium on new hotel uses will continue until its expiration on October 19, 2023.

Alternative 3: Introduce and subsequently adopt the ordinance amending the DSP, as described in this report, but with revisions.

Alternative 4: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Vilia Zemaitaitis, Principal Planner
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Planning Commission’s Motion, dated June 7, 2023

2. City Council Motion and Staff Report, dated February 7, 2023

3. Current AAA Approval Requirements & Diamond Rating Guidelines - Lodging 2019

4. Current AAA Approval Requirements & Diamond Rating Guidelines – Restaurants 2019
62 of 183

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Introduction of an Ordinance Banning the Use of Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers

1. Ordinance for Introduction.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for July 25, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance banning the use of gas-powered leaf blowers within the City.

The proposed ordinance will:

1. Ban the use of all gas-powered leaf blowers in the City by property owners and landscaping maintenance business owners, and by City employees, except during emergencies for clearance.

2. Hold property owners or landscape maintenance businesses accountable for any code violations.

3. Include a two-year education period before enforcement begins and require staff to report back to City Council after year 1 of the outreach program.

Staff has also identified a consultant to conduct ordinance education and developed a rebate program for Glendale residents and businesses.
63 of 183

28a
4 2
7 9

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Not applicable.

RECOMMENDATION
That City Council adopt an ordinance banning the use of gas-powered leaf blowers.

BACKGROUND
At the February 28, 2023, meeting, City Council directed staff to prepare an ordinance banning the use of gas-powered leaf blowers with a two-year education period before enforcement. Council also directed staff to work with a consultant to conduct education and develop a rebate program.

On October 10, 2022, staff presented to the City Council seeking direction on whether to investigate a ban on the use of gas-powered small-off road engines (SOREs) and the scope of such a ban if the City Council wanted to pursue a ban. (Exhibit 1).

City Council directed staff to investigate a ban on the use of gas-powered two-stroke engines, share an overview of how to enforce a ban, explore the development of an incentive program, and form an outreach and education campaign.

The investigation of a ban on the use of gas-powered landscaping equipment and SOREs is due to the environmental and community impacts of such equipment. SOREs are highly polluting engines1 emitting oxides of nitrogen (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG), and blowing up particulate matter (PM). One hour of lawn mower use emits as much smog-forming pollution as a 2017 Toyota Camry driving 300 miles, and one hour of leaf blower use is equivalent to driving 1,100 miles2. Equipment use impacts the health of operators, such as asthma and hearing loss. Thus, Assembly Bill 1346 (AB1346)3, bans the sale of gas-powered SOREs, spark-ignition engines rated at or below 19 kilowatts like landscaping equipment, golf carts, and airport equipment, in 2024. Additionally, many cities in California, such as South Pasadena, Berkeley, and Pasadena, ban the use of gas-powered leaf blowers.

ANALYSIS
Ordinance
The gas-powered leaf blower ban would have a separate chapter in the Glendale Municipal Code under Title 8. The proposed place is Title 8 Chapter 8.50. 1 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/fact-sheets/sore-small-engine-fact-sheet 2 California Air Resources Board Small Off-Road Engines (SORE) fact sheet 3 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202120220AB1346 64 of 183

38a
4 2
7 9
The ordinance bans the use of gas-powered leaf blowers by any property owner or landscape maintenance business owner, as well as by City employees, within the City.

The only exemption is by emergency responders during an emergency response.

Following review of the proposed ordinance, the Sustainability Commission recommended focusing enforcement on property and homeowners. Staff recommends including landscape maintenance business owners in addition to homeowners.

However, City Council can direct staff to modify the ordinance so enforcement is directed only at property owners, or Council can expand the prohibition to include “any person”, which would include tenants and also employees of a landscape maintenance business or employees of a home or business owner.

Following a two year gas-powered leaf-blower ban public education program, the ordinance authorizes enforcement through issuance of an initial written warning notice served on the property owner or landscape maintenance business owner, and a request for voluntary compliance. If voluntary compliance is not achieved following the warning notice, and a second violation occurs, fines will be imposed as follows: 1st citation - $100, 2ndcitation- $200, and 3rd citation- $500. This fine schedule is based on the Ambient Noise Level (GMC 8.36.050) fine schedules the Citywide Fee Schedule (Section IV- Community Development, Section 6: Administrative Citations).

The ordinance would not go into effect until July 2025, nearly two years after passage.

During that period, staff would undertake an education program informing residents and businesses of the gas-powered leaf blower ban.

Ordinance Enforcement
Code Enforcement is currently implemented on a complaint driven basis; inspectors do not drive around the City searching for violations. The Council may direct enforcement of the ban on gas-powered leaf blowers to remain complaint driven, or direct proactive inspection. . I If the Council direction is to undertake proactive enforcement, at least two additional code enforcement inspectors and up to two 2 additional city vehicles would be needed to implement a proactive enforcement model.

Education
The proposed education program would be a two-year, multi-channel awareness and education program undertaken by an experience consultant (Exhibit 1), which includes of the development:
•Flyers,
•a webpage,
•social campaign,
•webinars, and
65 of 183

48a
4 2
7 9
•in-person demonstration events.

The aim of the education program is to educate residents and businesses about the gas-powered leaf blower ban, electric landscaping alternatives, and electric landscaping equipment rebates and incentives. Staff recommends providing City Council a progress report after year 1 of the education program.

Rebates and Incentives.

State Rebates and Incentives
Before the passage of AB 1346, rebates and incentives were available through local Air Quality Management Districts (AQMD). The South Coast (SCAQMD) has a Commercial Electric Lawn & Garden Equipment Exchange program where participants can receive up to an 85% discount on electric landscaping equipment in exchange for turning in gas-powered equipment4. The Commercial Lawn & Garden Battery Buy-Down Rebate Program is open, and businesses can receive a rebate of up to 75% off the cost of the replacement battery for electric lawn and garden equipment previously funded by that Program.

In November 2022, the CARB announced $27 million in voucher funds for professional landscape services operated by small businesses and sole proprietors to purchase discounted zero-emission landscaping equipment through the Clean Off-Road Equipment Voucher Incentive Project (CORE)5. $10 million was available until May 2023 for micro businesses, and the remaining $17 million will open for small businesses. To access these vouchers, landscaping businesses need to purchase equipment from a California CORE-approved dealer. The closest dealers are located in Burbank, La Crescenta, Pasadena, and Los Angeles.

For residential incentives, SCAQMD has a residential rebate program to obtain an electric lawn mower6. Residents can turn in their gasoline lawn mowers to an approved dismantler and receive a rebate to purchase a new battery-operated electric lawn mower.

City of Glendale Rebate Programs
4 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/programs/community/electric-lawn-and-garden-programs/lawn-and-garden- equipment
5 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/news/point-sale-vouchers-now-available-small-business-landscape-professionals- purchase-discounted
6 http://www.aqmd.gov/home/programs/ommunity/electric-lawn-and-garden-programs/electric-lawn-mower- rebate-program
66 of 183

58a
4 2
7 9
Glendale Water and Power (GWP) incorporated an electric leaf blower rebate as part of their Smart Home Rebates program budget for FY 2023-2024. It consists of a $40 rebate, if purchasing an electric leaf blower outside of Glendale, and a $50 rebate, if purchasing within Glendale.

Any electric leaf blower is eligible for the rebate. It is for both Residential and Commercial GWP customers. Rebates are issued in the form of a bill credit.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Staff connected with six cities to learn about their experiences and stages of implementing a similar ordinance. Staff also connected with the American Green Zone Alliance (AGZA) to share their experience of cities implementing a similar ordinance, as well as Community Services and Parks staff on their experience transitioning to electric landscaping equipment.

At the City Council meeting in October 2022, eight members of the public provided comments on the item - the majority in support of a ban on gas-powered leaf blowers.

An electric landscaping equipment demonstration event in partnership with AGZA was held on February 23, 2023. Information about this event and the California CORE’s voucher program was distributed to local business groups, local landscaping businesses, and community organizations, and shared with other cities to promote. It was posted on social media, included in newsletters, and posted in local community points around Glendale and California CORE-approved dealers. Staff also invested in digital marketing campaigns for this event and cold-called landscaping businesses and community groups for event promotion.

At the February 28, 2023, City Council meeting five speakers provided public comments, with three individuals in favor of a ban. Staff also received an email from a member of the public voicing their support for a gas-powered leaf blower ban.

Staff presented an informational item on the proposed gas-powered leaf blower ban to the Sustainability Commission at their July 2023 meeting. The Commission was generally in support of the ordinance. They recommended focusing fines and enforcement on the property owner, not landscape maintenance businesses, and recommended leveraging the MyGlendale app for the community to report violations, and also recommended that fees be doubled with each violation.

FISCAL IMPACT
Rebate Program
The electric leaf blower rebate program is included in GWP’s FY 23-24 Smart Home 67 of 183

68a
4 2
7 9
Rebate program budget.

Code Enforcement
Code enforcement is set to begin in 2025, about two years after the education and outreach phase is over. If the Council directs proactive enforcement of the ban, additional code enforcement staffing resources will be requested with the FY 2025-26 Budget. Anticipated future enforcement costs include two new vehicles (one time cost), and two new Assistant Code Compliance Inspectors, fully burdened each position is $91,670 annually.

Outreach Costs
The estimated cost to hire a consultant to do the education program is $20,000. This cost will be absorbed within the Management Services FY 2023-24 budget.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The proposed ordinance is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15061(b)(3), which states the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. It is found with certainty that there is no possibility this regulatory amendment prohibiting gas-powered leaf blowers will have a significant negative effect on the environment. Contrarily, the proposed ordinance will have a positive effect on the environment by reducing pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions, and noise.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Not introduce the ordinance.

2. Direct staff to modify the ordinance.

3.City Council may choose any other alternative not recommended by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Elizabeth Harris, Administrative Associate
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
68 of 183

78a
4 2
7 9
Exhibit1: Education Program RFP
69 of 183

1 8
7 6
0 ORDINANCE NO. ________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 8 OF THE
GLENDALE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD CHAPTER 8.50

PROHIBITING THE USE OF GAS-POWERED LEAF BLOWERS
WHEREAS, gas-powered leaf blowers emit high levels of air pollutants, including oxides of nitrogen (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG), and particulate matter (PM), contributing to the formation of ozone and climate change (California Assembly Bill No. 1346 effective July 1, 2022); and
WHEREAS, the State Legislature has also recognized that gas-powered small off-road engines, such as those used in leaf blowers produce periodic noise that can be disruptive to the City’s quiet residential neighborhoods, especially when it occurs in the early morning or late night hours and; and
WHEREAS, the toxic pollutants from gas-powered leaf blowers and other gas- powered landscaping equipment are known to cause health issues including dizziness, asthma attacks, headaches, and heart and lung disease for both operators and bystanders; and
WHEREAS, the quality of life in the City of Glendale can be affected by air contamination and noise experienced by those who live, work, and recreate within the City; and
WHEREAS, on June 27, 2023, the City Council approved the replacement of the City’s gas-powered landscape maintenance equipment with zero emission battery- powered equipment for all City facilities to achieve Green Zone Certification; and WHEREAS, the City of Glendale desires to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents, and the environment through the regulation of gas-powered leaf blowers in the community.

THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. Title 8 of the Glendale Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 8.50 entitled “Gas-Powered Leaf Blowers” as follows:

70 of 183

2 8
7 6
0 CHAPTER 8.50 GAS-POWERED LEAF BLOWERS

8.50.010 Definitions.

8.50.020 Prohibition on use of gas-powered leaf blowers.

8.59.030 Education Program.

8.50.040 Enforcement.

8.50.010 Definitions.

The following words and phrases, shall, for the purpose of this chapter have the meanings respectively ascribed to them in this section unless otherwise noted:
“Landscape maintenance business owner” means the owner or operator of any business that operates machines, tools, devices or equipment used for landscaping or gardening, including, but not limited to, domestic power tools, such as lawnmowers, lawn blowers, portable engines or motor powered equipment, electrical tools, compressors, chippers, chain saws, hand tools such as hammers, saws, large equipment such as tractors, trailers, flat-beds, forklifts, or cranes. “Leaf blower” means a machine, powered by a gasoline engine or electric motor, which uses a concentrated stream of air to blow, displace, or vacuum leaves, grass clippings, dirt, and/or other debris or material.

8.50.020 Prohibition on use of gas-powered leaf blowers.

Commencing July 1, 2025, it is unlawful for any person to operate or authorize the operation of a gas-powered leaf blower at any time for any purpose.

Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the person responsible for any violation of this subsection shall be limited to a landscape maintenance business owner, or property owner. Use of gas-powered leaf blowers is exempt from this section as follows:

A. When utilized by or at the direction of emergency responders for the purposes of responding to an emergency, or necessary to restore, preserve, protect or save lives or property from imminent danger of loss or harm.

B. When used to clear downed trees or vegetation in areas needing expedient clearance when necessary to protect public safety.

8.50.030 Education Program.

Prior to the commencement of enforcement of these regulations the City will conduct a public outreach and education program in order to inform residents and businesses about the gas-powered leaf blower regulations, the availability of electric leaf blower 71 of 183

3 8
7 6
0 alternatives, and available rebate and incentive programs. The City’s Sustainability Officer shall provide the City Council with a one-year progress report on the status of the education program.

8.50.040 Enforcement.

A. Administrative fines, penalties and costs may be imposed as follows, subject to Chapter 1.24 of the Glendale Municipal Code (Administrative Enforcement Remedies), which includes, among other applicable provisions and procedures, service of notice of violation (GMC section 1.24.050), authority to inspect (GMC Section 1.24.060), administrative citations (GMC section 1.24.190), administrative citation fines; assessment and amounts (GMC section 1.24.220), (GMC section 1.24.330) administrative costs, administrative civil penalties enforcement order (1.24.350).

B. Enforcement shall be suspended prior to July 1, 2025, or until the end of any extended public education program authorized by the city manager.

C. Written notice of violation of this chapter shall be served on the property owner or landscape maintenance business owner by either First-Class mail, or by personal service as specified in GMC section 1.24.050 (Service of Notice).

D. A property owner or landscape maintenance business owner in violation of this ordinance shall be subject to the following:

1. A written warning notice containing a request for voluntary compliance. If the property owner or landscape maintenance business owner receiving a warning notice does not voluntarily comply within thirty (30) calendar days of being served with a written notice of violation, the property owner or landscape maintenance business owner will be subject to an administrative fine of $100 for the 1st violation , $200 for the 2nd violation, and $500 for the 3rd violation.

2. An administrative fine shall be due and payable to the city within thirty (30) calendar days from the date the written notice of violation is served. Failure to timely pay a fine will result in the assessment of penalties and related costs, assessed daily at a rate of 7 percent per annum of the outstanding amount of the fine and late fees, if any, which interest shall be calculated from the thirty (30) days after the first billing, or from the date the order becomes final, whichever is later. The City may collect any unpaid fine, including the late fees pursuant to GMC section 1.24.100 (Collection of unpaid fines, penalties, and related costs), which unpaid fines or penalties and their related costs arising from administrative citations, administrative civil penalties actions or other administrative enforcement actions as provided by this code shall be a debt to the city and subject to all remedies for debt collection allowed by law. 72 of 183

4 8
7 6
0 3. A property owner or landscape maintenance business owner who receives a written notice of violation pursuant to this Chapter may request an administrative enforcement hearing pursuant to the procedures set forth in GMC section

1.24.110 (Administrative enforcement and appeal hearings).

SECTION 3. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act The City Council hereby finds that the proposed amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3), which states the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. It is found with certainty that there is no possibility this regulatory amendment prohibiting gas-powered leaf blowers will have a significant negative effect on the environment. Contrarily, the amendment will have a positive effect on the environment by reducing noise and air pollutants, including greenhouse gas emissions.

SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY.

This ordinance is adopted under the authority of the Charter of the City of Glendale and State law. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase is declared invalid or otherwise void by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect any remaining provision hereof. In this regard the City Council finds and declares that it would have adopted this measure notwithstanding any partial invalidity hereof.

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the date of its passage.

Passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the ____ day of ____________, 2023.
_______________________________
Mayor
Attest:
__________________________
City Clerk
73 of 183

5 8
7 6
0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Dr. Suzie Abajian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Ordinance 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 _______________, 2023, and that same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________
City Clerk
74 of 183

Leaf Blower Outreach Consultant RFP
Summary
City Council directed staff to investigate having a consultant conduct outreach and engagement regarding an upcoming ordinance banning the use of gas-powered landscaping equipment. The consultant would work with businesses and residents to inform them of the ban on gas-powered leaf blowers, and raise awareness of how they can switch to electric landscaping equipment.

Staff reached out to 3 companies to conduct this outreach. Staff received 3 responses, with 2 companies declining the opportunity. American Green Zone Alliance (AGAZA) responded with a proposal of $19,993.80, which includes outreach work and materials in multiple languages. Staff recommend proceeding with AGZA due to their response and experience in landscaping industry and in-depth knowledge of landscaping equipment.

The Office of Sustainability budgeted $20,000 for outreach regarding a gas-powered leaf blower ban. Staff recommend executing a professional service agreement with AGZA for the outreach.

RFP: Leaf Blower Outreach Scope of Work
The City of Glendale is passing an ordinance to ban the use of gas-powered leaf blowers. City Council has asked that we do an education and outreach campaign to inform the community of the proposed ban. Thus, we need to go to CC with a cost estimate of a campaign. If SGA Marketing would be interested in such work, I would need a proposal by end of day Friday, April 14th.

Below is the scope of work for our leaf-blower outreach. We are happy to discuss to clarify anything. We would like a proposal with cost estimates.

Scope of Work – Leaf blower Outreach
Hire a consultant to assist staff with a program to engage and educate the landscape business and residential community of Glendale on the City’s ordinance to implement a gas-powered leaf-blower ban.

Consultant shall:

1. Design and prepare content for dissemination.

2. Launch a multi-channel awareness campaign to educate businesses and homeowners about the ban, it’s purpose and the alternatives available.

3. Organize workshops and seminars to provide in-depth information about the ban and available alternatives.

4. Develop content for a website, with FAQs to provide businesses and residents information on the ban, purpose, and alternatives.

5. Outreach to business associations and chambers of commerce so they can inform their constituents.

6. Collect feedback and community support sentiment.

7. Duration: We would like an initial start off campaign that includes content development, social media, FAQ etc. Then every six months a week’s refresher campaign for a period of two years.
75 of 183

Estimated budget of $20,000.

Consultancies Engaged
• ReCreate Waste Collaborative
• SGA Marketing
• American Green Zone Alliance
AGZA’s Response
AGZA’s response to the RFP is the following two documents:
• Glendale LBO 1
• Glendale LBO 2
76 of 183

April 14, 2023

American Green Zone Alliance (AGZA)
3950 Laurel Canyon Blvd Ste,1191
Studio City, CA 91614
(310) 779-9785

Esther Wu – AGZA Logistics & Outreach Manager
[email protected]
818-400-2971

77 of 183

Leaf Blower Outreach – Table of Contents

Summary & Campaign/Outreach Design page 3

Scope of Work Tentative LBO Schedule page 4 - 5

Project Organization (A) page 6

Qualifications (B) page 6

Assigned Personal (C) page 6

AGZA Experience and Industry Knowledge (D) page 6

Subcontractors (E) page 6

AGZA General Qualifications (F) page 6

Additional Data & Examples of Work (G) page 6

Appendix A – Examples of Work page 7 - 9

Appendix B – Staff Bios page 10 - 11

78 of 183

Summary – The City of Glendale seeks to hire a consultant to assist staff with a program to engage and educate the landscape business and residential community of Glendale on the City’s ordinance to implement a gas-powered leaf-blower ban, current cost reduction programs, and information about current commercial rated battery electric equipment available on the market.

The American Green Zone Alliance (AGZA) is currently working with the City of Glendale on AGZA Green Zone Certifications and has conducted a day of outreach through the CORE program to initially engage the city about that program.

AGZA feels we would be a valuable partner and resource for the City of Glendale to conduct the type of outreach Glendale seeks to engage their residents, commercial property owners and management, as well as small businesses who provide gardening services within the City of Glendale.

Campaign/Outreach Design – AGZA proposed campaign for City of Glendale Leaf Blower Outreach (LBO) initiative:
• Design and prepare content for dissemination – Meet with city staff to understand specific rules and requirements of the proposed leaf blower ban for the City of Glendale to create/prepare appropriate content for dissemination. • Launch a multi-channel awareness campaign to educate businesses and homeowners about the ban, it’s purpose and the alternatives available – Develop/ Create City of Glendale LBO outreach flyers/door hangers in English/Spanish/Armenian, digital outreach through social media channels, email, and local Spanish Radio
• Program details – Take guidance from City of Glendale staff to understand and produce specific LBO details for city outreach efforts
• Organize workshops and seminars to provide in-depth information about the ban and available alternatives - Coordinate and conduct program workshops with municipalities, school districts, universities, and private industry to engage and educate LBO specifics and how to participate in battery electric cost reduction programs, equipment testing and tutorials.
• Develop content for a website, with FAQs to provide businesses and residents information on the ban, purpose, and alternatives – AGZA will provide the city with this request based on the specifics of the City of Glendale’s LBO program. • Outreach to business associations and chambers of commerce so they can inform their constituents – AGZA will work with the City of Glendale to indemnify and reach out to business associations and chambers of commerce to provide LBO details and encourage these entities to help inform their constituents. • Collect feedback and community support sentiment – AGZA will work with city staff to create a survey sheet to collect and understand level of community support.
• Duration: We would like an initial start off campaign that includes content development, social media, FAQ etc. Then every six months a week’s refresher campaign for a period of two years – AGZA can accommodate this structure.

AGZA suggests two webinars coordinated with city staff in a one year period. 79 of 183

Scope of Work & Tentative LBO Schedule (12-month example)

DATE ACTIVITY OUTCOME
4/21/23 Kick off meeting with City of Glendale staff
team regarding Leaf Blower Outreach (LBO)
Coordinate with City of Glendale staff
proposed development of outreach
collaterals, official initiative
announcement, tentative live workshops
schedule, social media, and email
outreach frequency
4/28/23 Create City of Glendale LBO outreach
collateral content for flyers/door hangers in
English/Spanish/Armenian, any proposed
ban details.

Links & QR codes to battery electric
equipment cost reduction programs pages
on City of Glendale and AGZA websites
Digital and printed flyers/door hangers
designed and approved by the city for
printing and posting through digital
means.

Links, QR codes to battery electric
equipment cost reduction programs
ready for dissemination
5/10/23 Complete City of Glendale’s LBO in
English/Spanish in a dedicated section on
AGZA’s website
AGZA will utilize our website for
additional information resource for the
LBO
5/19/23 First round of social media and email
outreach, official LBO initiative
announcement and overview, call to action
to participate in CORE and SCAQMD
programs for reduced cost of battery electric
equipment.

Forward City of Glendale staff post links
8/11/23 Second round of social media and email
outreach, ongoing LBO initiative
announcement and overview, call to action
to participate in CORE and SCAQMD
programs for reduced cost of battery electric
equipment.

Forward City of Glendale staff post links
and schedule date and location for first in
person workshop

80 of 183

DATE ACTIVITY OUTCOME
9/21/23 Conduct first in person LBO event Collect feedback from participants, small businesses, institutional
operators, home, and commercial
property owners. Video, and photo
document workshop to be used as
marketing collaterals for ongoing
outreach and marketing
11/11/23 The third round of social media and email
outreach, ongoing LBO initiative
announcement and overview, call to action
to participate in CORE and SCAQMD
programs for reduced cost of battery electric
equipment.

Forward City of Glendale staff post links
1/11/24 The fourth round of social media and email
outreach, ongoing LBO initiative
announcement and overview, call to action
to participate in CORE and SCAQMD
programs for reduced cost of battery electric
equipment.

Forward City of Glendale staff post links
2/12/24 The fifth round of social media and email
outreach, ongoing LBO initiative
announcement and overview, call to action
to participate in CORE and SCAQMD
programs for reduced cost of battery electric
equipment.

Forward City of Glendale staff post links
and schedule date and location for first
in person workshop
3/5/24 Conduct second in person LBO event Collect feedback from participants, small businesses, institutional
operators, home, and commercial
property owners. Video, and photo
document workshop to be used as
marketing collaterals for ongoing
outreach and marketing
4/18/24 The sixth round of social media and email
outreach, ongoing LBO initiative
announcement and overview, call to action
to participate in CORE and SCAQMD
programs for reduced cost of battery electric
equipment.

Forward City of Glendale staff post links

Webinar Schedule

DATE ACTIVITY OUTCOME
TBD LBO webinar Log amount and location of attendees 81 of 183

(A) Project Organization – AGZA will have one lead, one primary support and one bilingual support staff for this project. Support staff will create a working schedular and activities sheet to create, execute, and log LBO initiative progress. AGZA will utilize the experience of our established network of contacts with counties, municipalities, school districts, OEM’s, for social media and email campaigns as well as coordinating in person LBO workshops.

(B) Qualifications – AGZA is an entirely unique consultancy who specializes in the facilitation of gas to battery electric technologies for the landscape maintenance industry.

AGZA has worked with Municipalities, Universities, School Districts, Air Districts, County and State agencies, and Non-Profits to conduct outreach, equipment tutorials/education, and program outreach for their gas to battery electric initiatives and programs.

(C) Assigned Personnel
Daniel Mabe – President American Green Zone Alliance (Bio Appendix A) Esther Wu – Logistics and Outreach Manager (Bio Appendix A) Howard Wright – AGZA Designer and IT Manager (Bio Appendix A) Kevin Esparza – AGZA Spanish interpreter and advisor (Bio Appendix A)

(D) AGZA experience and industry knowledge - All AGZA team members have gone through AGZA Service Pro Certification, have a fundamental grasp and understanding of battery electric tool technology, air quality, and noise reduction benefits of replacing gas powered leaf blowers and other lawn and garden tools. All AGZA team members have experience executing and managing governmental projects.

(E) AGZA General Qualifications - AGZA is influencing how landscape maintenance operations are executed and how battery electric technology is being leveraged. AGZA's efforts have resulted in the creation of green collar jobs, improved health of landscape maintenance workers and communities.

(F) Subcontractors – AGZA will not use subcontractors for this contract.

(G) Additional Data – AGZA has over fifteen years’ experience specific to battery powered electric lawn and garden equipment. Our technical knowledge of the equipment’s workload capability and longevity helps us engage in “peer to peer” outreach, education, implementation, and inspiring the landscape maintenance industry to phase out gas tools and operations. Partnering with the City of Glendale to provide outreach support for the LBO initiative will lead to many positive outcomes for the city, industry, air & noise reduction quality. AGZA has built up a network consisting of landscape maintenance companies, manufacturers, equipment dealers, school districts, universities, and municipalities who know and trust AGZA. This gives us a unique advantage to reach city constituents effectively and efficiently.

82 of 183

Appendix A

Examples of our work:

Public Workshops & Demonstrations

83 of 183

Examples of our work:

AGZA Certified Service Pro - Workshops, Training &Certification

84 of 183

Examples of our work:

Additional Relevant Activities
Dan Mabe provided technical expertise and data for AB 1346 (phasing out of gas- powered equipment) in 2020. Photo with California assemblymember Marc Berman.

85 of 183

Appendix B

Assigned Personnel Bios

Daniel Mabe

Dan Mabe, Founder and President of the American Green Zone Alliance (AGZA) is on the forefront of clean technology for the grounds maintenance industry. He has extensive experience and understanding of equipment (gas, electric, and people- powered) and grounds maintenance operations. Before founding AGZA, he served as President of The Greenstation, an advanced electric lawn and garden maintenance, equipment manufacturing, and consulting company in 2008. During his tenure at The Greenstation, he helped develop early lithium battery equipment, developed protocols for maximizing work production rates for electric tools, set up and implemented off-grid solar charging for equipment batteries, produced prototypes of innovative electric tools, and created a profitable business model for battery electric operations. Dan is the originator of the AGZA Green Zone® program, a structured process to convert properties from fossil fuel-based maintenance to low noise, zero-emission maintenance and quantify the beneficial impacts. Furthermore, AGZA is the first certification company to train and certify professionals in advanced electric technologies and certify battery electric equipment in real world maintenance settings.

Esther Wu

Esther Wu has a background with electronics manufacturing and experience as a human resources director. She is currently AGZA’s logistics and filed coordinator as well as handling certain administrative responsibilities. Her experience and skill sets are ideal for helping AGZA manage and execute the LBO initiative.

86 of 183

Howard Wright

Howard is AGZA’s Lead designer and IT Manager. Howard is instrumental in developing outreach material and collaterals for social media and emails campaigns and has over four years of experience with AGZA positioning battery electric equipment for educational purposes.

Kevin Esparza

Kevin Esparza is AGZA’s lead Spanish interpreter and advisor. Kevin has been with AGZA for five years helping independently test battery electric tools in commercial settings, provide Spanish interpretation at AGZA workshops and classroom sessions.

87 of 183

page 1

April 14, 2023

American Green Zone Alliance (AGZA)
3950 Laurel Canyon Blvd Ste,1191
Studio City, CA 91614
(310) 779-9785

88 of 183

page 2

Glendale LBO – Cost Proposal

Summary (Section A) & Campaign/Outreach Design (Section B) page 3

Program Schedule (Section C) page 4 - 6

Project Organization (Section D) page 7

Qualifications (Section E) page 7

Assigned Personal (Section F) page 7

Subcontractors (Section G) page 7

Conflict of Interest (Section H) page 7

Conflict of interest (Section H) page 8 - 10 Additional Data & Examples of Work (Section I)

Appendix A - Staff Bios page 11-12

Appendix B - Statement of Work page 13

Appendix C - Required Qualifications page 14

89 of 183

page 3

Glendale LBO - COST PROPOSAL

A. Labor –

The proposed fee structure is based on Three AGZA team members performing their specialized roles to execute the deliverables following project management best practices.

The fees include organizing and leading Five Workshop & Demonstration Gathering Workshops

Personnel Labor Rate: Estimated Hours
Dan Mabe $195 / hour 22.5
Esther Wu $185 / hour 29
Howard Wright $185 / hour 14.75
Kevin Esparza $150 / hour 12

Total Cost (per year)

Personnel Webinar In Person
Workshops/Demos
Outreach and
Marketing
Campaign
Total Cost
Dan Mabe 614.25 1,638.00 819.00 3,071.25
Esther Wu 388.50 1,036.00 2,331.00 3,755.50
Howard
Wright
356.15 1,554.00 1,910.15
Kevin Esparza 315.00 945.00 1,260.00
9,996.90

90 of 183

page 4

Webinars (1 year)

Personnel Labor Rate: Estimated Hours
(prep & execution)
Estimated
Cost
Glendale
Contract Cost
30% off
Dan Mabe $195 / hour 4.5 877.50 614.25
Esther Wu $185 / hour 3 555.00 388.50
Howard Wright $185 / hour 2.75 508.75 356.15
Kevin Esparza $150 / hour 3 450.00 315.00

In Person Workshops/Demos (2 per year)

Personnel Labor Rate: Estimated
Hours
Estimated
Cost
Glendale
Contract
Cost 30%
off
Dan Mabe $195 / hour 6 x 2 1,170.00 x 2 1638.00
Esther Wu $185 / hour 4 x 2 740.00 x 2 1036.00
Kevin Esparza $150 / hour 4.5 x 2 675.00 x 2 945.00

Outreach and Marketing Campaign (6 post per year)

Personnel Labor Rate: Estimated
Hours
Estimated
Cost
Glendale
Contract
Cost 30%
off
Dan Mabe $195 / hour 1 x 6 195 x 6 819.00
Esther Wu $185 / hour 3 x 6 555.00 x 6 2,331.00
Howard Wright $185 / hour 2 x 6 370.00 x 6 1,554.00

Total Estimated Project Hours: 78.25 hours Estimated per year.

Estimated project cost (excluding direct expenses): $9996.90/year.

Direct expenses and additional costs will be covered by Glendale.

Billing Period Close Date: First payment upon signed contract 25% of $5,000 Balance of 75% of $15,000 billed last day of each month Payment Terms: Net 30 (invoices to be within 30 days of receipt)

91 of 183

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Consideration of a 45-Day Moratorium on New Firearms Retailers

1. Introduction of an Interim Urgency Ordinance Prohibiting New Firearms Retailers

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for July 25, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Council has requested the consideration of a moratorium on new firearms retailers in the City. This is based on the desire to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare and for staff to consider the impacts of such retailers in light of recent mass shooting events regionally and nationally. The following report provides federal, state, and local laws, in addition to details on the current status of gun retailer activity in Glendale.
92 of 183

28b
4 3
4 4

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
N/A.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the proposed urgency ordinance establishing a moratorium on the issuance of new licenses for firearms dealers. The City Council may adopt an urgency ordinance as an emergency measure to preserve the public health, safety, and general welfare.

BACKGROUND
Federal, State, and Local Laws
Federal, state, and local laws govern the sale and possession of firearms. The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) is the primary vehicle for federal regulation of firearms and, among other things, requires individuals dealing in firearms to obtain a Federal Firearms License.

The GCA bars Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) from knowingly selling or transferring a firearm to certain individuals (“prohibited possessors”) including felons, unlawful narcotics users, persons with domestic violence restraining orders, and persons experiencing severe mental illness. FFLs are also bound by the minimum age requirements in the GCA and may not sell a shotgun or rifle to individuals under 18 years old or a handgun to individuals under 21 years old. The law further stipulates that FFLs must maintain records of the acquisition, transfer, and disposition of firearms. In accordance with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, FFLs must also conduct background checks on firearms purchasers. In California, firearms retailers submit information on a prospective buyer to the California Department of Justice (Cal DOJ), which serves as a point of contact for the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System and searches records in relevant national and state databases to confirm whether or not an individual is a prohibited possessor. In 1994, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act further required that prospective FFLs submit photographs and fingerprints as part of their application for licensure and certify that their business complies with all state and local laws, including zoning regulations.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) serves as the federal regulatory body for FFLs, issuing licenses and inspecting retailers for compliance with national firearms laws by conducting comprehensive, unannounced on-site audits. The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act of 1986 limits these warrantless compliance inspections to one per every 12-month period, and any FFL who refuses to adhere to the examination may lose their license or be denied a renewal. ATF agents may inspect a retailer’s business premises, storage areas, inventory, and acquisition and sales logs, and if found out of compliance, the retailer may be issued a penalty ranging from a warning letter to revocation of their license. During the federal government’s 2020 Fiscal Year (October 2019 to September 2020), the ATF conducted 5,823 audits of retailers nationwide, revoking a total of 40 licenses. The Los Angeles Field Division of the ATF conducted 209 audits and issued 15 warning letters, with no license revocations.

Although the ATF posts summary audit data on its website, audit results for specific 93 of 183

38b
4 3
4 4
retailers are not publicly available but may be obtained through Public Disclosure Requests, which typically take 90 days to process.

At the state level, various laws regulate the activities of firearms dealers in California. In addition to a federal firearms license from the ATF, retailers must obtain a Certificate of Eligibility (COE) from Cal DOJ, a seller’s permit from the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration, and a valid listing on Cal DOJ’s Centralized List of Firearms Dealers. With few exceptions, California law establishes a minimum age of 21 to purchase a firearm; prohibits an individual from purchasing more than one handgun within a 30-day period; and requires that private party transfers be conducted by a licensed firearms dealer. Prospective buyers must show proof of California residency, possess a valid Firearm Safety Certificate, and perform a safe handling demonstration in the presence of a Cal DOJ-certified instructor. When conducting a sale, firearms retailers must submit a Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) to Cal DOJ with identifying information for both the retailer and the purchaser, prompting a mandatory 10-day waiting period during which a background check is conducted. All firearms sold or transferred in California by a licensed retailer must also be accompanied by a Cal DOJ- approved firearms safety device (i.e., gun safe or lock) in an effort to prevent minors and unauthorized users from accessing or firing the weapon. California law also bans the manufacture, import, and sale of assault weapons, which includes semiautomatic firearms with large magazines designed for rapid fire, such as AK-47s and AR-15s.

Like the ATF, Cal DOJ conducts independent audits of retailers in the state. Every two years, the agency completes an on-site inspection of firearms retailers that includes a spot check of inventory and examination of paperwork. Businesses that fail an audit may receive an administrative write-up or possibly lose their COE, barring them from operating as a firearms retailer in California. Cal DOJ inspection outcomes are not published but may be obtained through a Public Records Act request.

ANALYSIS
Within the City of Glendale, there are specific zoning designations and locations where firearm retail uses are allowed by-right. This is in the Commercial Districts of C2, C3, CR, and CH zone, and Mixed-Use Districts of IMU and IMU-R. To obtain a local firearms dealer license, business owners must satisfy federal and state licensing requirements, undergo a review of their business location by the Community Development Department for compliance with zoning laws, and submit an application for a revokable permit for the Retail Sales of Concealable Weapons which is authorized by the Chief of Police. This permitting process includes a review of the applicants Department of ATF Federal Firearms License, Department of Justice Certificate of Eligibility, California State Board of Equalization Seller’s Permit and California Driver’s License.

Timeline of Licensed Retailers in the City
As of April 2023, Glendale has six licensed firearms dealers, with the first retailer licensed in 1991 and the two most recent licenses issued in 2021. 94 of 183

48b
4 3
4 4
Surrounding cities are included below as a comparison.

Municipality Firearms Dealers Per Capita Rate
Burbank 14 1 per 7,386 residents
Glendale 6 1 per 32,061 residents
Pasadena 3 1 per 47,339 residents
Los Angeles 36 1 per 110,277 residents
The Glendale Police Department’s review of records does not indicate a pattern of calls for service or criminal activity involving any of the retailers in Glendale. Additionally, all of the Glendale retailers have remained in compliance with the renewal requirements.

Temporary Moratorium on Firearm/Ammunition Retail Uses
The City Council may decide that the land use or licensing requirements for the retail sale of firearms and ammunition do not sufficiently address the location, concentration, or high volume of gun retailers. This raises concerns for sustainable and economically diverse retail areas in the community. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65858, the Glendale City Council may impose a moratorium for 45 days prohibiting the establishment of new retail businesses selling firearms or ammunition to allow staff time to study, analyze, and propose potential land use regulations concerning firearms retailers, including:
• Limiting or reducing the number of firearm retailers in the City by suspending the issuance of new licenses and allowing the number of retailers to decline over time through attrition;
• Amending the business license process to establish additional requirements for firearms retailers, such as successfully passing an audit by a state or federal agency as a condition of license renewal. Council may further consider implementation of local inspections regarding inventory, storage, site security, and transaction procedures; and
• Adopting a Zone Text Amendment to reduce the zones firearm retailers can operate, or require they receive Conditional Use Permits instead of operating by- right.

Staff would further refine appropriate locations for firearms retail establishments in the City and assess possible health and safety regulations for these businesses in relation to neighboring uses. Adoption of the urgency ordinance and possible consideration of a subsequent Zone Text Amendment would provide the City the ability to create comprehensive regulations for the placement of future firearms and ammunition retailers. Without a temporary moratorium and absent additional regulations that govern the location of future firearms retail uses, new firearms retail establishments may result in compatibility issues with surrounding land uses and put the City at risk of impairing its substantial interests in economically sustainable development, community health and perceptions of safety, and public image.
95 of 183

58b
4 3
4 4
Conditional Use Permit
City Council may also consider requiring a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for any future licensed retailers. In general, a CUP is a zoning tool used to ensure that a proposed use is compatible in operation with the surrounding neighborhood, such as noise, lighting, safety, etc. A noticed public hearing is required for all CUPS and conditions can be applied to individual projects that address specific contextual challenges and possible operational issues to ensure compatibility. Moreover, if there is evidence that a use if violating a conditions of its CUP, enforcement tools include the revocation or modification of the CUP, following a public hearing.

Other Short-Term and Long-Term Options
The enforcement of firearms laws and the prevention of gun violence often require the cooperation of multiple governmental and community organizations. The Glendale Police Department continues to work with state and local agencies in this endeavor. In 2006, California became the first state to monitor individuals who legally purchased or acquired firearms and later became prohibited from owning or possessing them. The State of California Bureau of Firearms (BOF) maintains an Armed and Prohibited Persons System (APPS) database and coordinates with local law enforcement agencies to conduct surveillance, serve warrants, make arrests, and confiscate weapons from prohibited possessors. The Glendale Police Department has participated in joint operations with the BOF and maintains communication with the state agency regarding future collaborative efforts.

In addition to a temporary moratorium on new firearms retail establishments, Council may direct staff to pursue other short-term and long-term options to address community concerns regarding firearms.

Educational Campaign – Through its newsletter, press releases, social media platforms, and community engagement, the Glendale Police Department facilitates numerous awareness campaigns on a variety of public safety topics, from safe driving habits to crime prevention strategies. Utilizing social media and school and community outreach events, the Glendale Police Department can enhance general firearms safety education initiatives and provide information to increase awareness of existing programs that promote the safe and responsible handling of a firearm. These programs include:
• Gun Lock Program - Community members can request a free gun lock at the front counter of the Police Department lobby.
• Firearms Surrender/Destruction Program – Unwanted firearms may be surrendered for destruction.

Red Flag Procedure – In 2016, California implemented a Red-Flag law that established a process for law enforcement, family members, co-workers, employers, and teachers to seek a Gun Violence Restraining Order (GVRO) to temporarily remove access to firearms and ammunition from an individual at significant risk of self-harm or harming others. The Department currently has a policy that governs the process whereby an 96 of 183

68b
4 3
4 4
officer may petition the court for a GVRO. This legal instrument is vital for the safety of victims and families of domestic violence.

School & Student Involved Threat Assessment - The Glendale Police Department maintains a strong working relationship with local schools within the city to address any potential threat of violence. Glendale Unified School District’s administration and their staff work collaboratively with the police department, particularly with school resource officers to maintain a safe school climate and address behaviors or communications that may pose serious threat of violence. The Department will continue to coordinate with the school district to enhance campus safety, pursue best practices, and remain agile in assessing and responding to potential threats.

Mental Health Evaluation Team – The Glendale Police Department’s Mental Health Evaluation Team (MHET) is a co-response model that pairs a police officer and a licensed clinical professional to address any incident within the city that involves individuals who are experiencing a mental health crisis. MHET is a resource to the entire organization and plays a large part in the overall threat assessment and crisis response to incidents including those that may involve firearms.

Ghost Gun Ordinance – At a national level, the U.S. Department of Justice recently launched the National Ghost Gun Enforcement Initiative to prioritize federal prosecution of individuals who use ghost guns in the commission of a crime. In 2021, the City of San Diego adopted an ordinance prohibiting the purchase or sale of parts of firearms that lack serial numbers and enabling misdemeanor prosecution for violators. The City Council may consider institution of a similar ordinance to regulate ghost guns.

Gun Buyback Program – The City of Glendale does not currently have a permanent gun buyback program; however, the police department has coordinated one-day events where residents can turn in firearms for incentives such as gift cards. Other law enforcement agencies and cities have hosted similar events. Notably, the City of Los Angeles facilitates an annual event through the Mayor’s Office of Gang Reduction and Youth Development; at its March 2022 event, the city recovered 235 firearms. Council may consider implementation of an annual program in the City of Glendale; however, several questions need to be addressed relating to program funding and effectiveness.

The most recent in Glendale was in June of 2023 where the city recovered 39 firearms.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
No outreach has been conducted in preparation of this report. Should Council adopt an Urgency Ordinance, an educational campaign will be initiated for business awareness.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
97 of 183

78b
4 3
4 4

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The proposed urgency ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3). CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

Therefore, it is the City’s determination that this ordinance will not have a significant effect on the environment and is not subject to CEQA.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Introduce an interim urgency ordinance imposing a 45-day moratorium on all new firearm retailers.

Alternative 2: Note and file this report, decline to introduce an interim urgency ordinance, and provide staff further direction regarding requiring a Conditional Use Permit or otherwise.

Alternative 3: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Manuel Cid, Police Chief

Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
98 of 183

1 9
0 2
7 ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING ISSUANCE OF

ENTITLEMENTS AND/OR PERMITS FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW OR

REPLACEMENT RETAIL USES SELLING FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION

AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND DECLARE AS FOLLOWS:

WHEREAS, Governments at all levels have a substantial interest in protecting the people from those who acquire guns lawfully or illegally and then use them to commit crimes resulting in injury or death of their victims, or who use them in the commission of other crimes such as robbery, sexual assault or homicide, particularly mass shootings such as those that have occurred since 2017 in Chicago, Illinois; Thousand Oaks, California; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Perryman, Maryland; Bakersfield, California; Cincinnati, Ohio; Annapolis, Maryland; Santa Fe, Texas; Nashville, Tennessee; Parkland, Florida; Melcroft, Pennsylvania; Rancho Tehama, California; Sutherland Springs, Texas; Boulder, Colorado; Edgewood, Maryland; Las Vegas, Nevada; El Paso, Texas; Buffalo, New York; Uvalde, Texas, as well as the many other mass shootings over the past several years; and
WHEREAS, six (6) retail establishments that are licensed to sell firearms and ammunition currently operate in the City of Glendale [1 per 32,061 residents], while neighboring cities of Pasadena and Los Angeles have three (3) [1 per 47,339 residents] and thirty-six (36) [1 per 110,277 residents], respectively; the City of Glendale has a much higher concentration of firearms/ammunition retailers than these two neighboring cities, second only to the City of Burbank (a city that imposed a similar firearms/ammunition retailer moratorium), that has fourteen (14) retail establishments that are licensed to sell firearms and ammunition [1 per 7,386 residents]; and
WHEREAS under the City’s current zoning regulations retail firearm stores are allowed by-right in the Commercial Districts of C2, C3, CR, and CH zone, and Mixed-Use Districts of IMU and IMU-R, and firearm retailers simply require a business registration certificate and a permit from the Chief of Police, neither of which have a mechanism to impose distancing requirements or other land use conditions related to health and safety; and
WHEREAS, many of the commercial zones where existing and future retail firearm stores are located are adjacent to residential neighborhoods and other uses that include amongst other things, schools, child day care facilities, places of public assembly including places of worship, public parks and libraries; and 99 of 183

2 9
0 2
7 WHEREAS, the City is authorized by Article XI, Section 7 of the California Constitution to make and enforce all local, police, and other ordinances and regulations not in conflict with general laws; and

WHEREAS The City Council finds and declares that it has questions and concerns about the proliferation of this type of land use in the City, adjacent to residential neighborhoods and in proximity to schools, child day care facilities and places of public assembly and seeks to analyze the current regulations and alternative regulations and administrative procedures to ensure the future locations of retail establishments that sell firearms and ammunitions do not detrimentally impact the health, safety and welfare of residential neighborhoods and other, specific uses; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is necessary for the City staff to study, develop, and propose for review by the Planning Commission and adoption by the City Council regulations within a reasonable time regarding the disallowance of a land use for the retail sales of firearms and ammunition, a conditional use permit requirement for such use, and/or additional land use regulations for the use in the City of Glendale; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that given the potential deleterious effect an otherwise lawful but unregulated business selling ammunition or firearms can have on other incompatible neighboring uses, passage of this Interim Urgency Ordinance will provide City staff sufficient time to research this issue and present a comprehensive zoning proposal to help ensure that the establishment of a retail sales use engaged in the sale of firearms or ammunition within the City will not be located as to be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that other California cities have adopted zoning ordinances and business regulations that govern the sales of ammunition and firearms, and several municipalities, have adopted moratoria on an urgency basis prohibiting new commercial sales of ammunition or firearms while such ordinances or regulations are studied and considered; and
WHEREAS, in the absence of a moratorium, there is no way to study and consider the appropriate location of retail establishments that sell firearms in the City, and the nature and extent of health and safety regulations that could be imposed on such businesses due to the nature of the products they sell in relation to neighboring uses, thus impairing the City’s substantial interests in economically sustainable development, health, public safety, vitality, and image of the City; and
WHEREAS, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, it is now necessary for the City to undertake action to review and revise applicable provisions of the City’s Zoning Code (Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code) and/or other sections of the Code, in order to provide for the reexamination within a reasonable time, of development and entitlement standards and requirements for new or replacement retail uses selling firearms and ammunition; and
100 of 183

3 9
0 2
7 WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65858 provides that a city council may adopt by a four-fifths vote as an urgency measure an interim ordinance prohibiting any uses that may be in conflict with a general plan or zoning measure that the city is considering or studying, or intends to study within a reasonable time; and WHEREAS, the moratorium on new or replacement retail uses selling firearms or ammunition will prevent changes to the existing physical citywide, and therefore, will not result in significant environmental impacts under CEQA, which are made in comparison to existing physical conditions (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15125(a) and 15126.2(a)); accordingly, adoption of this ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Findings.

The City Council finds, determines, and declares that:

1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full.

2. The City’s Community Development Department staff have fully evaluated the potential environmental effects of adoption of this Interim Ordinance temporarily barring new or replacement retail uses selling firearms or ammunition within the City of Glendale within the meaning of and pursuant to CEQA, and the City Council finds that this action is consistent with classes of projects that do not have a significant effect on the environment and thereby approves a Categorical Exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(3) and 15308, and certifies that this Interim Ordinance is exempt from the requirement of further environmental review or the preparation of an environmental document.

3. The City has an overriding interest in planning and regulating land uses and other projects within the City. Implicit in any plan or regulation is the City’s interest in maintaining the quality of urban life and the character of the City’s neighborhoods, as well as maintaining compatibility of uses with surrounding land uses, and promoting economically sustainable development, community health, and perceptions of safety and public image.

4. The City has adopted a General Plan and various specific plans, to ensure a well-planned and safe community. Without stable, well-planned neighborhoods, areas of the City can quickly deteriorate, with negative consequences to social, environmental, and economic values.

5. The City does not have adequate regulations concerning the land use or licensing requirements for the retail sale of firearms and ammunition, allowing this use as a permitted use in several zones, without consideration of location and/or proximity to 101 of 183

4 9
0 2
7 other affected land uses or other conditions, and subject only to a business registration certificate and a revokable permit for the Retail Sales of Concealable Weapons.

6. Maintaining the status quo zoning regulations has the potential to result in the further proliferation of new or replacement retail uses that sell firearms or ammunition without the proper analysis of any potential impacts to public health, safety, and welfare.

By studying and analyzing our local land use regulations for the retail sale of firearms and ammunition during the moratorium, the City will be able to best tailor future regulations to the needs of our community in order to protect public health, safety, and welfare.

7. The current regulations, have the potential to result in new or replacement gun or ammunition retail stores that can displace other neighborhood-serving retail and service commercial uses from tenant spaces and therefore create a threat to critical commercial corridors and the City’s effort to preserve aesthetically inviting storefronts and pedestrian- friendly retail, restaurants and offices in such spaces, which have historically been the lifeblood of the community and a beacon to visitors.

8. In Suter v. City of Lafayette, 57 Cal. App. 4th 1109 (1997), the California Court of Appeal held that State law authorizes local governments to impose additional licensing requirements on firearms and ammunition dealers.

9. This moratorium is necessary to prevent irreversible issuance of permits, business licenses, and developments that could have a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community. Without it, the potential exists that establishment of new or replacement commercial operations engaged in the retail sale of firearms or ammunition within the City without addressing appropriate regulation could result in incompatibility of land uses and adverse impacts on residents, businesses and neighborhoods that present a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare.

SECTION 2. Moratorium.

1. The City Council does hereby, pursuant to Government Code Section 65858, impose a moratorium for forty-five (45) days prohibiting the establishment of new or replacement stores, shops, establishments or other locations throughout the City that engage in “Firearms, weapon sales”, as defined in Glendale Municipal Code section

30.70.070 [“’Firearms, weapon sales’ means the retail sales of guns, ammunition, and related products and accessories.“] (hereinafter, “New or Replacement Gun Store Project”). For purposes of this moratorium the following definitions apply:
a. “Firearm” shall mean any pistol, revolver, rifle, shotgun or other device, designed to be used as a weapon, from which a projectile is expelled through a barrel by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion, or any device which is capable of being altered so as to expel a projectile in such manner.

102 of 183

5 9
0 2
7 b. “Ammunition” shall mean any projectile designed to be expelled through the barrel of a firearm by the force of an explosion or other form of combustion.

2. Any application(s) for approval(s) of a New or Replacement Gun Store Project which has been accepted as complete may continue to be processed and reviewed, but shall not be finally approved during the pendency of this moratorium or any extensions thereof.

3. Said moratorium shall not apply to any New or Replacement Gun Store Project that has received all land use entitlements prior to the effective date of this Ordinance, and shall not apply to any subsequent approvals or project modifications to a project previously approved by the City.

4. It is the intent of the City Council that any proposal for a New or Replacement Gun Store Project in the City during the period of the moratorium shall be considered inconsistent with this Ordinance and with the City’s land use policies and zoning regulations for all purposes, and by all agencies charged with reviewing any application for such use except as specifically exempted in Section 3 above.

5. City staff is directed to undertake a comprehensive study, as described above, and recommend new or amended policies, Zoning Code amendments, and/or other Code amendments with respect to uses and development of new or replacement retail uses selling firearms or ammunition for consideration by the City Council.

6. Violations of this interim moratorium may be charged as a misdemeanor as set forth in Glendale Municipal Code Section 1.20.010, may be the subject of administrative code enforcement remedies as set forth in Chapter 1.24 of the Glendale Municipal Code, or may be deemed a public nuisance and may be enforced by an action for injunction or civil penalties as provided in the Glendale Municipal Code, or by any other remedy authorized by law.

7. The Glendale City Manager is hereby authorized to direct all City Departments, including the Community Development Department, the Police Department, and City Attorney, to facilitate compliance with the purpose and intent of this Interim Ordinance using the enforcement powers described in the preceding paragraph.

SECTION 3. Urgency.

By the City Council’s making the findings and determinations of fact which the Council declares to constitute an urgency for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety or welfare, the City Council hereby declares that this Ordinance is an urgency measure pursuant to City of Glendale Charter Article 6, Section 7 and Government Code Section 65858, which becomes effective immediately upon adoption by an affirmative vote of at least four-fifths (4/5ths) of the members of the City Council. 103 of 183

6 9
0 2
7 SECTION 4. Severability.

This Ordinance’s provisions are severable. If any portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, that decision does not affect the validity of the Ordinance’s remaining portions and the Ordinance’s application to other persons and circumstances. The City Council declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance without the invalid or unconstitutional provision.

SECTION 5. Adoption and Incorporation.

The findings and information contained in the City Council staff report dated July 25, 2023, are hereby adopted and incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein.

SECTION 6. Effectiveness.

This Ordinance shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption unless timely extended by further action of the City Council.

SECTION 7. Certification.

The City Clerk shall certify this Ordinance’s adoption and cause the Ordinance to be published in a manner consistent with the requirements of applicable state and local law.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the ____ day of ________, 2023.
___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk
104 of 183

7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, SUZIE ABAJIAN, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Urgency Ordinance No. _________ was passed by a 4/5ths vote of the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of _________________, 2023, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________________________
City Clerk
105 of 183

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Appeal of Design Review Board's approval of DRB Case No. PDR 2210249 located at 3967 San Augustine Drive

1. Motion to sustain the Design Review Board’s decision to approve the Design Review Application with conditions;

2. Motion to continue the matter, directing the City Attorney to draft findings reversing the Design Review Board’s decision and denying the Project.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for July 25, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This hearing is an appeal of a decision made by the Design Review Board on December 8, 2022, to approve with conditions Design Review Board Case No. PDR 2210249 for the demolition of an existing 2,123 SF single-story, single-family house with an attached two-car garage built in 1982, and the construction of a new, two-story, 4,872 SF single-family residence with an attached three-car garage on a 17,438 SF lot located in the R1R, FAR District III Zone.

The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Design Review Board’s decision to approve Design Review Board Case No. PDR 2210249.

The appellant’s arguments focus on the belief that the DRB violated specific provisions of law and failed to hear or consider certain facts regarding the case before rendering their decision and that evidence before the Board was insufficient or inadequate to support the Board’s approval decision for the project.
106 of 183

29a
4 3
3 1

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Not applicable.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council sustain the Design Review Board's approval of Case No. PDR 2210249, based on the rationale used in the December 8, 2022, Design Review Board staff report and the project’s overall conformance with the Comprehensive Design Guidelines.

If the Council is inclined to reverse the Design Review Board’s decision and deny the application, staff recommend 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 December 8, 2022, to approve Design Review Board Case No. PDR 2210249 for the demolition of an existing 2,123 SF single-story, single-family house with an attached two-car garage built in 1982, and the construction of a new, two-story, 4,872 SF single-family residence with an attached three-car garage on a 17,438 SF lot located in the R1R, FAR District III Zone.

General Information
Appellant:Clint Feddersen
Status of Appellant:Neighbor
Applicant:Armen Tutundzhyan
1812 West Burbank Boulevard
Burbank, CA 91506
Owner:Avetis Tashyan
3967 San Augustine Drive
Glendale, CA 91206
Requested Action:

The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Design Review Board decision to approve Design Review Board Case No. PDR 2210249. 107 of 183

39a
4 3
3 1
Legal Description: Lot 105, Tract No. 28337
APN: 5660-027-026
Zone:“R1R” Low Density Residential Zone, Floor Area District III Land Use Element: Low Density Residential
Lot Size and Frontage: The project site is approximately 17,438 SF and has a frontage of approximately 75 feet along San Augustine Drive and approximately 93 feet along Wendover Road.

Existing Site Characteristics: The project site is located in the San Rafael Hills/Chevy Chase Canyon area of the City and has frontage on San Augustine Drive and Wendover Road. Properties immediately north and east of the site are located within the city of La Canada Flintridge. The existing, irregularly-shaped property currently contains a 2,123 SF single-family residence with an attached two-car garage, which is proposed to be demolished. The topography of the lot slopes upward from both San Augustine Drive and Wendover Road to a pad that was graded with the development of the house and surrounding area in the 1980’s. Driveway access to the project site is from San Augustine Drive. There are no protected trees on the site.

Circulation: San Augustine Drive is classified as a local street in the City’s Circulation Element of the General Plan. Wendover Road is located in La Canada Flintridge and is considered a “residential roadway” in that City’s Circulation Element, similar to the “local street” designation in Glendale. On-street parking is available on both sides of both streets adjacent to the subject property.

Surrounding Land Use/Zoning: The properties nearby the subject site in Glendale are zoned R1R (Restricted Residential), FAR District III. Properties within La Canada Flintridge are zoned R-1-20,000, a single-family zoning designation. Surrounding properties within 300 linear feet, have an average lot size of 18,010 square feet, similar in size to the subject site. Nearby properties in Glendale tend to be smaller in size than those in La Canada Flintridge. The surrounding homes are predominantly one-story, although a number of two-story homes are located in the neighborhood. Home sizes range from 1,790 SF to 7,706 SF with an average size of 2,974 SF. While significantly larger than the average home in the neighborhood, the proposed 4,872 SF residence is within the range of home sizes in the area. Similar to lot sizes, homes in La Canada Flintridge tend to be larger than those in Glendale. The average floor area ratio in the neighborhood is 0.16, with the range being between 0.09 and 0.32 – the floor area ratio of the subject site will be 0.28. Nearby homes in Glendale were developed as a tract in the 1980’s and have a similar architectural vernacular, while homes in La Canada Flintridge are more custom in nature.

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. 108 of 183

49a
4 3
3 1

PROJECT HISTORY
DRB Case (PDR 2210249):

July 12, 2022 – Applicant submitted design review application proposing to demolish the existing 2,123 SF single-family house with an attached two-car garage, built in 1982 and construct a new, two-story, 4,872 square-foot single-family residence and an attached 699 square-foot three-car garage on a 17,438 square-foot lot in the R1R, District III zone.

December 8, 2022 - Design Review Board Case No. PDR 2210249 was presented to the Design Review Board with a staff recommendation to approve the project with conditions and a consideration. The DRB voted unanimously (3-0, Kaskanian and Tchaghayan absent) to approve the project with five conditions and one consideration:

Conditions:

1. The driveway areas shall be reduced in area to clearly delineate a walkway to the front door and increase the amount of landscaping, while maintaining the existing fountain.

2. The location of the stone cladding material shall be restudied to highlight this material, and ensure that its placement is logical and terminates appropriately.

3. Incorporate permeable paving into the design of the driveway.

4. Use darker finish color for the lintel elements.

5. Restudy proportions of the master bathroom windows at the front elevation.

Consideration:

1. Distinguish the porch openings from the garage openings.

December 21, 2022 – Neighbor (the appellant) appealed the case.

ANALYSIS
SUMMARY OF DESIGN REVIEW BOARD’S DISCUSSION FROM DECEMBER 8, 2022:
•Three of the five current Design Review Board members attended the December 8, 2022, meeting at which the subject project was discussed. Board Members Kaskanian and Tchaghayan were absent.
•Board Member Welch noted in response to concerns from the neighborhood that construction was always hard to live with but that the Board’s purview was how the proposed residence would blend in with the surrounding neighborhood and comply with the Hillside Design Guidelines. He stated that the subject 109 of 183

59a
4 3
3 1
neighborhood is unique. The area within the city of Glendale contained homes modest in size (roughly 2,000 SF) and most, if not all, were single-story, whereas homes in La Canada were large, on big lots and with big presence. Mr. Welsh pondered how to deal with the blending of these characteristics. He concluded that if the Board looked exclusively at the Glendale neighborhood, the proposed residence would be excessively large but if the Board incorporated the neighborhood in its entirety, it would blend well. Mr. Welch noted that he did not hear objections regarding the design, two-story nature or scale of the house.

Mr. Welch concluded that the proposed residence was in keeping with the Hillside Design Guidelines, that the design and composition were well-executed and nice and the site planning was fine. He spoke about several items (which resulted in conditions of approval) including making the proposed lintels darker in color and restudying the proportions of the triple windows in the second floor primary bathroom. The flat roof over the kitchen, highlighted as a concern in the staff report, did not particularly bother him. Mr. Welch also acknowledged the excessive paving of the driveway (noted in the staff report) and stated that it should be reduced to provide more landscaping.
•Board Member Lockareff believed that the design of the proposed residence suited the neighborhood and that the scale was appropriate. She empathized with the neighbors’ concerns about the nuisance of construction but noted that the work would be about 50 feet away. In response to privacy issues brought up by the public, Ms. Lockareff noted that the proposed second floor deck was modest in size, particularly when compared to decks proposed in other projects that had been recently evaluated. She agreed with Mr. Welch’s lack of concern regarding the flat roof over the kitchen and his suggestion that the proposed lentils should be painted darker. Ms. Lockareff felt that the similarity of the porch openings and garage openings made it appear that the garage was larger than it actually was and suggested some differentiation of these opening (resulting in a consideration contained in the Record of Decision). She concluded that permeable pavers and a clear path to the house would be desirable and generally concurred with staff’s conditions of approval. •Board Member Simonian stated that the project was well designed and thought out. He appreciated the discussion on neighborhood context, where homes to the east were larger than the homes found in the Glendale portion of the neighborhood. Mr. Simonian noted that the site was unique in that it got narrower to the rear and complemented the applicant’s effort in the site planning to address this. He concluded by stating that he supports the project and agrees with the other Board members comments on its design.

The Board voted to approve the project (3 - yes, 0 – no, 2 - absent) with five conditions and one consideration, as noted above.
110 of 183

69a
4 3
3 1
SUMMARY OF APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS:

In the appeal application, the appellant states that the DRB violated specific provisions of law and failed to hear or consider certain facts regarding the case before rendering their decision and that evidence before the Board was insufficient or inadequate to support the Board’s approval decision for the project. Below is a summary of the statements made by the appellant in his appeal application, as required by GMC

2.88.030:

A. The appellant claims that due process requirements under the Ralph M. Brown Act were violated because the Board was aware that the appellant had to leave the meeting for the airport but did not call the appellant until last and did not acknowledge or address points made in writing in a December 5, 2022 letter.

Because of this, the appellant was deprived of the opportunity to be heard verbally and their public comments considered, as required by this Act.

B. The appellant claims that a study of the adjoining hillside should have been required as a condition of approval to ensure that the design did not pose a threat to the hillside, which consists of a crumbling, sheer cliff in close proximity to the project.

C. The appellant claims that privacy of adjoining neighbors to the west with regard to the massiveness (of the proposed residence) from the perspective of the appellant’s property should have been protected. The appellant submitted photos showing the profile of the project from their property.

D. The appellant claims that the proposed residence is inconsistent with the Glendale neighborhood and that the Board should have addressed this lack-of-fit by evaluating it against the Glendale and not La Canada as-built development.

STAFF’S ANALYSIS OF APPEAL:

Following are summaries of the appellant’s main arguments against the proposed project and staff’s analysis of those arguments. Content of the appellant’s arguments are contained in the appeal application. For clarity, staff has labeled arguments contained in the appellant’s appeal application alphabetically A through D.

A.The appellant contends that due process requirements under the Ralph M. Brown Act were violated because the Board was aware that the appellant had to leave the meeting for the airport but did not call the appellant until last and did not acknowledge or address points made in writing in a December 5, 2022 letter.

Because of this, the appellant claims they were deprived of the opportunity to be heard verbally and their public comments considered, as required by this Act. 111 of 183

79a
4 3
3 1
Staff’s Response:

The project at 3967 San Augustine Drive was scheduled and heard at the December 8, 2022, Design Review Board meeting. It was the final case on the Board’s agenda that evening. Timely public notices were sent to property owners and occupants within a 500-foot radius of the subject site and a notice was posted outside the rear door of City Hall, as required. Also, the site was posted with a sign describing the scope of the proposed project. During the December meeting, the standard protocol for discussing the case was followed, whereby staff makes a presentation, the Board asks questions of staff, the applicant makes a presentation, the Board asks questions of the applicant, after which members of the public can speak for or against the project. The Board then discusses the project and renders a decision.

The appellant authored a letter dated December 5, 2022, which was forwarded to Board members. While the appellant did not speak at the Board meeting, the three main concerns regarding the project contained in this letter were considered by the Board, as documented in their discussion. The first concern related to the hillside between the appellant’s and applicant’s properties and that the proposed construction would damage the appellant’s property. During Board discussion, Mr. Welch stated that construction was hard to endure but that the Board’s purview was how the proposed residence would blend in with the surrounding neighborhood and comply with the Hillside Design Guidelines. Slope stability is outside of the Board’s purview. Should the proposed project be approved on appeal, a soils report will be required as part of plan check to ensure that the proposed residence will be constructed safely and not undermine slope stability in the neighborhood.

The appellant’s second concern was the loss of privacy. As noted in the appellant’s letter that while the existing house was mostly concealed by foliage, the proposed residence would loom over and dominate the appellant’s backyard and pool area.

Additionally, the proposed balcony was directed toward their property. Ms. Lockareff empathized with neighbor concerns but noted that the work would occur approximately 50-ft. away and the proposed second floor deck was modest in size, particularly when compared to those proposed on other projects the Board had evaluated. In the initial staff report on the project, staff concluded that given the topography of the surrounding neighborhood (the adjacent neighbor to the west is at a significantly lower elevation) it was not likely that the proposed balcony would result in privacy concerns.

The final concern cited by the appellant was the visibility and incompatibility with the neighborhood. During discussion regarding the project, the Board acknowledged that the subject neighborhood was unique in that the homes in Glendale were modest in scale and on smaller lots than homes in the adjacent La Canada Flintridge neighborhood. Ultimately, the Board concluded that the proposed residence was 112 of 183

89a
4 3
3 1
consistent with the Hillside Design Guidelines, well-designed and thought out and suited the neighborhood and appropriate in scale. Accordingly, it is clear the appellant’s three main concerns were not only communicated to the Board, but also, were considered and discussed by the Board.

B.The appellant claims that a study of the adjoining hillside should have been required as a condition of approval to ensure that the design did not pose a threat to the hillside, which consists of a crumbling, sheer cliff in close proximity to the project.

Staff’s Response:

The purposes of design review include:
•Protecting the community from the adverse effects of poor design and encourage good professional design practices;
•Enhancing the beauty, livability and prosperity of the community; •Encouraging high quality development;
•Encouraging originality, creativity and diversity in design and avoiding monotony; and
•Ensuring single family design which is compatible with the character inherent within the surrounding neighborhood.

The Design Review Board’s scope is limited to reviewing and evaluating the site planning, mass and scale, and design and detailing of new single-family homes to ensure that the project complies with the appropriate design guidelines as well as achieve the above-mentioned purposes. The Board does not have preview over nor the expertise to determine whether the project will pose a threat to the hillside. Chapter 18 of the California Building Code requires that a geotechnical report be provided for all new structures, which will include the proposed new house. Should the proposed residence be approved, a geotechnical report will be required as part of the plan check process to ensure that the residence can be constructed safely.

C.The appellant claims that privacy of adjoining neighbors to the west with regard to the massiveness (of the proposed residence) from the perspective of the appellant’s property should have been protected. The appellant submitted photos showing the profile of the project from their property.

Staff Response:

The Board is charged with ensuring that new development or remodeling of single- family homes that are more than one story in height will not unreasonably impact the privacy of nearby residences and their outdoor spaces but its discretion is limited.

Privacy is defined in the Glendale Municipal Code as the protection from an unreasonable level of visual intrusion into a residential building or property. Privacy is judged by the view from the living room, den, study, family room, great room, library, dining room or balconies (greater than 25 SF) of the new development into the buildings 113 of 183

99a
4 3
3 1
and backyard outdoor space of existing buildings. For new development and remodeling, consideration is given to the placement of windows in the new development vis-à-vis the placement of windows in adjacent residential buildings. Regarding the proposed project, evaluation of privacy concerns is restricted to the loft, proposed on the second level of the residence, and its adjacent balcony, which is approximately 108 SF. These features are more in line with the property located at 3945 Karen Lynn Drive, rather than the appellant’s property located at 3953 Karen Lynn Drive. The proposed balcony is oriented in a northwesterly direction, whereas the appellant’s property is located southwest of the project site. While windows in the proposed loft have views toward the southeast, these windows are a minimum of 12-ft. from the western interior property line and are not in line with any of the properties located on Karen Lynn Drive. The staff report for the project discussed privacy related to the balcony/loft and concluded that given the topography of the surrounding neighborhood, where neighbors to the west are at a significantly lower elevation, privacy issues would not likely result.

One of the characteristics that the Design Review Board is charged with evaluating is the mass and scale of proposed projects. The design and placement of the proposed residence assists in reducing its perceived mass and scale. The house is set back significantly from San Augustine Drive. The garage is approximately 27 feet from the street front property line and the main house is approximately 70 feet from this property line. The minimum street side setback is 12 feet and the minimum interior setback is 10 feet. Because of the site planning of the residence and the irregular shape of the lot, the aforementioned setbacks are typically much wider than those cited above.

Significant portions of the proposed residence are one-story in height, including the three-car garage and kitchen/family room area. These features of the house, along with the topography of the site and surrounding neighborhood mitigate the impact of the overall size of the proposed residence from nearby development.

D.The appellant contends that the proposed residence is inconsistent with the Glendale neighborhood and that the Board should have addressed this lack-of-fit by evaluating it against the Glendale and not La Canada as-built development.

Staff Response:

One of the purposes of design review is to ensure that single family design is compatible with the character inherent within the surrounding neighborhood. No distinction is made as to whether the neighborhood context outside City limits warrants the same level of review as that inside the City. In their discussion, the Board noted that development within Glendale was different than that in La Canada Flintridge but concluded that the proposed residence would blend in if incorporating the neighborhood in its entirety.

The staff report for the proposed residence concluded that given the large size of the lot and existing building pad, topography of the site and surrounding area, subdivision design and the generous setbacks of the residence, the proposed house would not have a significant relationship to the surrounding neighborhood. The report acknowledged that it would be one of the largest homes in the neighborhood. However, 114 of 183

109a
4 3
3 1
due to the topography and location of development in the surrounding area and generous setbacks, the perceived mass and scale of the project would be mitigated.

The proposed residence complies with the Hillside Design Guidelines as the previously graded pad is not being expanded, proposed landscaping is drought-tolerant and consistent with the design of the house, the second floor of the residence steps in from the first floor, the main entry to the home is modest in scale, and high quality materials are proposed for the residence, among other things. The Board generally concurred with staff’s comments regarding the project and included conditions of approval on driveway size and material, the location of the stone cladding material, restudying window sizes in the master bathroom, and using a darker color lintel.

SUMMARY
Based on the analysis of the appeal and the reasoning contained in the December 8, 2022 staff report, staff recommends that the City Council sustain the Design Review Board’s approval decision.

The basis of the staff’s recommendation includes the following:

Site Planning: The proposed site planning is appropriate, as modified by any conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
•The subject site and the surrounding neighborhood were previously graded to accommodate building pads when the subdivision was developed in the early 1980’s. No additional grading or building pad extension for the new single-family house is proposed.
•The proposed garage will be attached to the house by a covered breezeway. It is located closer to San Augustine Drive with the door set perpendicular to this street. While not common in the surrounding area, this arrangement is appropriate to the site and neighborhood.
•Proposed landscaping is both drought-tolerant and consistent with the style of the residence.
•As conditioned, the overall driveway area will be reduced to clearly delineate a walkway to the front door and increase landscaping, while maintaining the existing fountain.

Mass and Scale: The proposed mass and scale are appropriate, as modified by any conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
•Given the large size of the lot and existing building pad, topography of the site and surrounding area, subdivision design and the generous setbacks of the residence, the proposed house does not have a significant relationship to the surrounding neighborhood.
115 of 183

119a
4 3
3 1
•While the proposed residence will be one of the largest homes in the neighborhood, the topography and location of development in the surrounding area and generous proposed setbacks will mitigate much of the perceived mass and scale of the project.

Building Design and Detailing: The proposed building design and detailing are appropriate, as modified by any conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
•High quality materials are proposed for the residence, including smooth stucco, Casablanca stone cladding material, fiberglass windows. •The entry of the residence is well-sited and prominent without being monumental. •As conditioned, the location of the stone cladding material should be restudied to highlight this material, and ensure that its placement is logical and terminates appropriately.
•The area of paving is significant between the house/garage and the street. The applicant should consider incorporating permeable paving into the overall design of the driveway.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Code requires public notice when the Council considers approval of entitlements such as design review. Staff has mailed copies of the notice to all property owners and occupants within 500’ of the project. Also, a public notice was posted on-site.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The Project is exempt from further review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures” exemption (Section 15303 of the State CEQA Guidelines) because the Project is the construction of a new single-family house. The property was analyzed and determined to not appear eligible for historic designation at the federal, state or local levels and is, therefore, not considered a historic resource under CEQA. Moreover, there is no evidence that there is a reasonable possibility that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the 116 of 183

129a
4 3
3 1
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 #, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1. Sustain the Design Review Board’s decision to approve Case No. 2210249 with the conditions and considerations contained in the Record of Decision.

Alternative 2. Sustain the Design Review Board’s decision to approve Case No. 2210249 but modify and/or add to the conditions and/or considerations contained in the Record of Decision.

Alternative 3. Continue the case, directing the City Attorney to draft findings supporting denial of the Design Review Board application.

Alternative 4. Any other alternatives not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Roger Kiesel, Senior Planner
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Location Map
Exhibit 2: Project plans reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board on December 8, 2022
Exhibit 3: Staff report and Record of Decision for December 8, 2022, Board meeting Exhibit 4: Site and Neighborhood Photos
Exhibit 5: Appeal application of Board’s decision to City Council filed on December 21, 2022
Exhibit 6: Campaign Disclosure Form
117 of 183

MOTION
Moved by Council Member _____________________________, seconded by Council Member _________________________, that upon review and consideration of all documents, materials and exhibits relative to the appeal of the Design Review Board approval with conditions of Design Review Case No. PDR 2210249, located at 3967 San Augustine Drive, (“Design Review Case”), and after having conducted a public hearing on said appeal pursuant to the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, 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 Case with condition(s)/consideration(s) (“Project”), based on the findings and conclusions set forth in the July 25, 2023 staff report from the Director of Community Development, including any attachments thereto, and including additional condition(s)/consideration(s) set forth below in this motion. Further, the Council hereby adopts, and incorporates herein by this reference, the analysis, findings, conclusions and condition(s)/consideration(s) of the Design Review Board in its Record of Decision dated December 8, 2022 (Exhibit 3 to the staff report to Council).

DRB CONDITIONS:

1. The driveway areas shall be reduced in area to clearly delineate a walkway to the front door and increase the amount of landscaping, while maintaining the existing fountain.

2. The location of the stone cladding material shall be restudied to highlight this material, and ensure that its placement is logical and terminates appropriately.

3. Incorporate permeable paving into the design of the driveway.

4. Use darker finish color for the lintel elements.

5. Restudy proportions of the master bathroom windows at the front elevation.

DRB CONSIDERATION:

6. Distinguish the porch openings from the garage openings.

ADDITIONAL COUNCIL-IMPOSED CONDITON(S):

7. Armen Tutundzhyan and/or Avetis Tashyan (Applicant/Owner), and their respective successors; owners by deed, deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, foreclosure or otherwise; assigns; and/or any real party in interest with an interest in the property that is the subject of this approval and/or with an interest in the Project site, that is named as a 118 of 183

party in any suit (hereinafter, collectively, the “Developer”), agree to and shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Glendale (the “City”), and each of its agents, officers, council members, commissioners, attorneys, employees and representatives (the “Indemnitees”) from any claim, action or proceeding brought against the City and/or the Indemnitees to attack, set aside, void or annul any City land use or California Environmental Quality Act approval for the Project. The Developer agrees to use legal counsel reasonably acceptable to the City. The foregoing shall include, without limitation, payment of all damages awarded against the City and/or the Indemnitees, if any, costs of suit, attorney’s fees, and other costs and expenses incurred in connection with such action or proceeding. In the event that a claim, action or proceeding referenced herein is brought, the City shall promptly notify the Developer of the existence of the claim, action or proceeding and will cooperate fully in the defense of such claim, action or proceeding. As used herein, “land use approval” shall refer to decisions of the City approving requests of applicants for planning permits, including, but not limited to, general plan amendments, annexations, zone changes, zoning ordinance text amendments, tentative maps, vesting tentative maps, tentative parcel maps, reversions to acreage, final maps, final modifications or amendments, time extensions, parcel map waivers, lot line adjustments, boundary line adjustments, certificates of compliance, conditional certificates of compliance, design review approval(s), development agreements, conditional use permits, conditional use permit modifications, conditional use permit extensions, variances, variance modifications, precise plan of design, specific plans, density bonus review/housing plan applications, sign permits, parking reduction permits, site plans, temporary use permits, any administrative or discretionary permit pertaining to a land use approval, and/or any accompanying California Environmental Quality Act determination(s) pertaining to the type of approval referred to in this section, and any other similar approval.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
119 of 183

MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by Council Member that upon review and consideration of all documents, materials, exhibits, and testimony relative to the appeal of Design Review Case No. PDR 2210249 located at 3967 San Augustine Drive (“Design Review Case”), and after conducting a public hearing on said appeal pursuant to the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, and receiving testimony, the City Council, based upon all of the evidence in the record, hereby REVERSES the Design Review Board’s decision and DENIES the Design Review Case. The City Council hereby continues this matter for two weeks until the August 8, 2023 City Council meeting, without further public notice, and directs the City Attorney to prepare written findings in support of denying the Design Review Case.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
120 of 183

121 of 183

ZONING INFO:

ARMENARC
1812 W. BURBANK BLVD #148BURBANK, CA 91506
GENERAL NOTES:

[email protected]
ARMENTUTUNDZHYANC-37632
23 BUILDING INFO: SCOPE OF WORK:

APPLICABLE CODES:

LEGAL DESCRIPTION:

SHEET INDEX:

PARKING:

ISSUE (SEE BOTTOM OFSHEET)
SHEET NO. SHEET TITLE

GENERAL
LEGEND:

LANDSCAPE PROPERTY OWNER:AVETIS TASHYAN3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206T: (818) 842-7343ARCHITECTURAL

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
PROJECT ADDRESS:3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206

LANDSCAPE CALCULATION
VICINITY MAP:

SITE PLANCOVER SHEET
G-1001 PROJECT SITE
SITE PLANFile Location: C:\Users\artud\Dropbox\ARMENARC\00000 - Residential\00000 - SFR\00000 - SFR - Glendale\22001 - 3967 San Augustine Dr, Glendale, CA 91206\Drawings\G-100 + SITE PLAN COVER SHEET.dwg Last Saved: October 11, 2022, by artud Plotted: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 10:57:31 PM by artud 122 of 183

LEGEND:

ARMENARC
1812 W. BURBANK BLVD #148BURBANK, CA [email protected] 23 PROPERTY OWNER:AVETIS TASHYAN3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206T: (818) 842-7343

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
PROJECT ADDRESS:3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206

NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN
G-1011NEIGHBORHOOD PLANFile Location: C:\Users\artud\Dropbox\ARMENARC\00000 - Residential\00000 - SFR\00000 - SFR - Glendale\22001 - 3967 San Augustine Dr, Glendale, CA 91206\Drawings\G-100 + SITE PLAN COVER SHEET.dwg Last Saved: October 11, 2022, by artud Plotted: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 9:51:21 PM by artud 123 of 183

LEGEND:

ARMENARC
1812 W. BURBANK BLVD #148BURBANK, CA [email protected] 23 PROPERTY OWNER:AVETIS TASHYAN3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206T: (818) 842-7343

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
PROJECT ADDRESS:3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206

EXISTING SITE PLAN
G-1021EXISTING SITE PLANFile Location: C:\Users\artud\Dropbox\ARMENARC\00000 - Residential\00000 - SFR\00000 - SFR - Glendale\22001 - 3967 San Augustine Dr, Glendale, CA 91206\Drawings\G-102 - EXISTING SITE PLAN.dwg Last Saved: June 13, 2022, by artud Plotted: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 9:51:28 PM by artud 124 of 183

125 of 183

LEGEND:

ARMENARC
1812 W. BURBANK BLVD #148BURBANK, CA [email protected] 23 PROPERTY OWNER:AVETIS TASHYAN3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206T: (818) 842-7343

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
PROJECT ADDRESS:3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206

STAKING LEGEND

ROOF PLANTEMPORARY FRAMING
G-4001TEMPORARY FRAMINGFile Location: C:\Users\artud\Dropbox\ARMENARC\00000 - Residential\00000 - SFR\00000 - SFR - Glendale\22001 - 3967 San Augustine Dr, Glendale, CA 91206\Drawings\G-400 ROOF PLAN - TEMP FRAMING PLAN.dwg Last Saved: October 12, 2022, by artud Plotted: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 9:13:17 AM by artud 126 of 183

ARMENARC
1812 W. BURBANK BLVD #148BURBANK, CA [email protected] 23 1SOUTH ELEVATION (SAN AUGUSTINE DR)
PROPERTY OWNER:AVETIS TASHYAN3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206T: (818) 842-7343

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
PROJECT ADDRESS:3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206 2NORTH ELEVATION

ELEVATIONSTEMP FRAMING
G-401File Location: C:\Users\artud\Dropbox\ARMENARC\00000 - Residential\00000 - SFR\00000 - SFR - Glendale\22001 - 3967 San Augustine Dr, Glendale, CA 91206\Drawings\G-401+ ELEVATIONS - TEMP FRAMING PLAN.dwg Last Saved: October 12, 2022, by artud Plotted: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 9:13:50 AM by artud 127 of 183

ARMENARC
1812 W. BURBANK BLVD #148BURBANK, CA [email protected] 23 1EAST ELEVATION
PROPERTY OWNER:AVETIS TASHYAN3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206T: (818) 842-7343

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
PROJECT ADDRESS:3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206 2WEST ELEVATION

ELEVATIONSTEMP FRAMING
G-402File Location: C:\Users\artud\Dropbox\ARMENARC\00000 - Residential\00000 - SFR\00000 - SFR - Glendale\22001 - 3967 San Augustine Dr, Glendale, CA 91206\Drawings\G-401+ ELEVATIONS - TEMP FRAMING PLAN.dwg Last Saved: October 12, 2022, by artud Plotted: Wednesday, October 12, 2022 9:14:30 AM by artud 128 of 183

129 of 183

130 of 183

131 of 183

DEMOLITION NOTES: LEGEND:

ARMENARC
1812 W. BURBANK BLVD #148BURBANK, CA [email protected] NOTES:

ARMENTUTUNDZHYANC-37632
23 PROPERTY OWNER:AVETIS TASHYAN3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206T: (818) 842-7343

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
PROJECT ADDRESS:3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206

DEMO FLOOR PLANDEMO ROOF PLAN
A-1102 1DEMO ROOF PLAN DEMO FLOOR PLAN
File Location: C:\Users\artud\Dropbox\ARMENARC\00000 - Residential\00000 - SFR\00000 - SFR - Glendale\22001 - 3967 San Augustine Dr, Glendale, CA 91206\Drawings\A-110 DEMO PLAN & ROOF PLAN.dwg Last Saved: April 10, 2022, by artud Plotted: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 9:52:34 PM by artud 132 of 183

NOTES:

ARMENARC
1812 W. BURBANK BLVD #148BURBANK, CA [email protected] 23 LEGEND: PROPERTY OWNER:AVETIS TASHYAN3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206T: (818) 842-7343

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
PROJECT ADDRESS:3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206

PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLAN
A-1111PROPOSED FIRST FLOOR PLANFile Location: C:\Users\artud\Dropbox\ARMENARC\00000 - Residential\00000 - SFR\00000 - SFR - Glendale\22001 - 3967 San Augustine Dr, Glendale, CA 91206\Drawings\A-111 FIRST FLOOR PLAN.dwg Last Saved: July 23, 2022, by artud Plotted: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 9:52:39 PM by artud 133 of 183

NOTES:

ARMENARC
1812 W. BURBANK BLVD #148BURBANK, CA [email protected] 23 LEGEND: PROPERTY OWNER:AVETIS TASHYAN3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206T: (818) 842-7343ROOF PLAN LEGEND: SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE® PROJECT ADDRESS:3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206

PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLAN
A-1121PROPOSED SECOND FLOOR PLANFile Location: C:\Users\artud\Dropbox\ARMENARC\00000 - Residential\00000 - SFR\00000 - SFR - Glendale\22001 - 3967 San Augustine Dr, Glendale, CA 91206\Drawings\A-112 SECOND FLOOR PLAN.dwg Last Saved: July 23, 2022, by artud Plotted: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 9:52:43 PM by artud 134 of 183

ROOF PLAN LEGEND:
®

ARMENARC
1812 W. BURBANK BLVD #148BURBANK, CA [email protected] 23 PROPERTY OWNER:AVETIS TASHYAN3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206T: (818) 842-7343

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
PROJECT ADDRESS:3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206

ROOF PLAN
A-1311ROOF PLANFile Location: C:\Users\artud\Dropbox\ARMENARC\00000 - Residential\00000 - SFR\00000 - SFR - Glendale\22001 - 3967 San Augustine Dr, Glendale, CA 91206\Drawings\A-131 ROOF PLAN.dwg Last Saved: June 30, 2022, by artud Plotted: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 9:52:50 PM by artud 135 of 183

ARMENARC
1812 W. BURBANK BLVD #148BURBANK, CA [email protected] 23 1SOUTH ELEVATION (SAN AUGUSTINE DR)
PROPERTY OWNER:AVETIS TASHYAN3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206T: (818) 842-7343

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
PROJECT ADDRESS:3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206 2NORTH ELEVATION
EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE: EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE:EXTERIOR FIXTURE, ETC. SCHEDULE:TAG MATERIAL COLOR MANF. / SUPPLIER TAG MATERIAL COLOR MANF. / SUPPLIER TAG MATERIAL COLOR MANF. / SUPPLIER

ELEVATIONSSINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
A-201File Location: C:\Users\artud\Dropbox\ARMENARC\00000 - Residential\00000 - SFR\00000 - SFR - Glendale\22001 - 3967 San Augustine Dr, Glendale, CA 91206\Drawings\A-201+ ELEVATIONS.dwg Last Saved: September 22, 2022, by artud Plotted: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 9:53:20 PM by artud 136 of 183

ARMENARC
1812 W. BURBANK BLVD #148BURBANK, CA [email protected] 23 1EAST ELEVATION
PROPERTY OWNER:AVETIS TASHYAN3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206T: (818) 842-7343

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
PROJECT ADDRESS:3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206 2WEST ELEVATION
EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE:EXTERIOR FIXTURE, ETC. SCHEDULE: EXTERIOR FINISH SCHEDULE:TAG MATERIAL COLOR MANF. / SUPPLIER TAG MATERIAL COLOR MANF. / SUPPLIER TAG MATERIAL COLOR MANF. / SUPPLIER

ELEVATIONSSINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
A-202File Location: C:\Users\artud\Dropbox\ARMENARC\00000 - Residential\00000 - SFR\00000 - SFR - Glendale\22001 - 3967 San Augustine Dr, Glendale, CA 91206\Drawings\A-201+ ELEVATIONS.dwg Last Saved: September 22, 2022, by artud Plotted: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 9:53:40 PM by artud 137 of 183

ARMENARC
1812 W. BURBANK BLVD #148BURBANK, CA [email protected] 23 1SECTION
PROPERTY OWNER:AVETIS TASHYAN3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206T: (818) 842-7343

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
PROJECT ADDRESS:3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206

SECTIONS
A-3012SECTIONFile Location: C:\Users\artud\Dropbox\ARMENARC\00000 - Residential\00000 - SFR\00000 - SFR - Glendale\22001 - 3967 San Augustine Dr, Glendale, CA 91206\Drawings\A-301 SECTIONS.dwg Last Saved: June 13, 2022, by artud Plotted: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 9:54:13 PM by artud 138 of 183

ARMENARC
1812 W. BURBANK BLVD #148BURBANK, CA [email protected] 23 ™™ ®® ®
®
®
®
®
®
20 19
18 17
16 15
14 1 2
1 1
1 0
9 4
3 2
1 ™ ® ®
™™ ®® ®®™™ ®®
7 6
5 PROPERTY OWNER:AVETIS TASHYAN3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206T: (818) 842-7343

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
PROJECT ADDRESS:3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206 ™™ ®®

DETAILS
A-501File Location: C:\Users\artud\Dropbox\ARMENARC\00000 - Residential\00000 - SFR\00000 - SFR - Glendale\22001 - 3967 San Augustine Dr, Glendale, CA 91206\Drawings\A-501 DETAILS.dwg Last Saved: June 11, 2022, by artud Plotted: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 9:54:21 PM by artud 139 of 183

SCHEDULE NOTES:
··· ARMENARC
1812 W. BURBANK BLVD #148BURBANK, CA [email protected] ··
1ST FLOOR ···
··
ARMENTUTUNDZHYANC-37632·
·
23 2ND FLOOR

SIZE FIRERATING

THICKNESS TYPE MATERIAL FRAMEWIDTH HEIGHT
PROPERTY OWNER:AVETIS TASHYAN3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206T: (818) 842-7343

DOORSCHEDULE

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
PROJECT ADDRESS:3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206

T T T T T
T
T
6 -AWNING
5 -SLIDER
4 - 3 - 2 - DBLCASEMENT
1 -FIXED

SCHEDULE & DETAILSSINGLE HUNG CASEMENT

WINDOW TYPE
A-6012 1
File Location: C:\Users\artud\Dropbox\ARMENARC\00000 - Residential\00000 - SFR\00000 - SFR - Glendale\22001 - 3967 San Augustine Dr, Glendale, CA 91206\Drawings\A-601 SCHEDULES.dwg Last Saved: September 22, 2022, by artud Plotted: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 9:54:28 PM by artud 140 of 183

ARMENARC
1812 W. BURBANK BLVD #148BURBANK, CA [email protected] 23 FRONT VIEW 1 FRONT VIEW 2
PROPERTY OWNER:AVETIS TASHYAN3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206T: (818) 842-7343 FRONT VIEW 3 FRONT VIEW 4

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
PROJECT ADDRESS:3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.GLENDALE, CA 91206

PERSPECTIVE VIEWS
A-701

SIDE VIEW REAR VIEW
File Location: C:\Users\artud\Dropbox\ARMENARC\00000 - Residential\00000 - SFR\00000 - SFR - Glendale\22001 - 3967 San Augustine Dr, Glendale, CA 91206\Drawings\A-701 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS.dwg Last Saved: October 11, 2022, by artud Plotted: Tuesday, October 11, 2022 11:01:53 PM by artud 141 of 183

142 of 183

143 of 183

144 of 183

145 of 183

146 of 183

147 of 183

148 of 183

149 of 183

150 of 183

151 of 183

152 of 183

153 of 183

154 of 183

155 of 183

156 of 183

157 of 183

158 of 183

159 of 183

160 of 183

161 of 183

162 of 183

163 of 183

164 of 183

165 of 183

166 of 183

167 of 183

168 of 183

169 of 183

170 of 183

171 of 183

172 of 183

173 of 183

174 of 183

175 of 183

176 of 183

177 of 183

178 of 183

179 of 183

180 of 183

City of Glendale
Disclosure - Campaign Finance Ordinance
Applicants Seeking Entitlement
Submit to Permit Services Center, 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 101.

For more information, call 818-548-3200.
(To be Completed Prior to Preparation of Staff Reports for Consideration of Entitlement Matter by Council, Agency, or Authority, or at Time of Appeal to the City Council if the Applicant is also the Appellant) In August 2011, the Glendale City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5744, which becomes effective on September 9, 2011 (“Ordinance”). The Ordinance prohibits campaign contributions from “applicants seeking entitlement,” their contractors and subcontractors (including their architects, engineers, and design professionals) while the application is “pending” and for 12 months thereafter. The Ordinance also prohibits Council Members from voting on any matter pertaining to an entitlement if the Council member has received a campaign contribution from the applicant seeking the entitlement, or certain contractors or subcontractors of the applicant, within the 12-month period preceding the vote.

The Applicant and the Owner/Lessor hereby discloses as follows. (If printing, please print legibly. Use additional sheets as necessary.) I. Name of Applicant and Name of Owner/Lessor on whose behalf application is filed:

Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip

ARMEN TUTUNDZHYAN

AVETIS TASHYAN
ARCHITECT 1812 W. BURBANK BLVD #148
OWNER 3967 SAN AUGUSTINE DR.

BURBANK

GLENDALE
CA
CA
91504
91206

Page 1 of 3 ends

City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/9/11) 181 of 183

II. Officers or owners/investors of Applicant Entity. Please also disclose the following persons or entities related to the applicant entity: CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, and any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the contractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign + Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
III. Contractor of Applicant(s) Seeking Entitlement*
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
* “Contractor of Applicant Seeking Entitlement” means “a person who has, or has been promised, a contract as an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract with an applicant seeking entitlement. “Contractor of applicant seeking entitlement,” includes not only the contracting party but also the CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, and any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the contractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign committee that is sponsored and controlled by the contracting party.

Please list the names and addresses of all of these parties.

IV. Subcontractor of Applicant(s) Seeking Entitlement** Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
** “Subcontractor of Applicant Seeking Entitlement” means “a person who has, or has been promised, a subcontract as an architect, design professional, engineer, or perform other work with a ‘contractor an applicant seeking entitlement.”

Page 2 of 3 ends

City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/9/11) 182 of 183

“Subcontractor of applicant seeking entitlement,” includes not only the subcontracting party, but also the CEO/President, Chairperson, Chief Operations Officer, Chief Financial Officer, any member of the Board of Directors, and any individual or entity that owns 10% or more the subcontractor of applicant seeking entitlement, as well as any campaign committee that is sponsored and controlled by the subcontracting party. Please list the name and addresses of all of these parties.

V. Disclosure. The Applicant Seeking Entitlement has made campaign or officeholder contributions in the preceding 12 months to City of Glendale elected officials as follows:

Elected Official Name of Individual or Entity Date of Contribution I hereby certify, on behalf of the above-named applicant(s) and owner(s)/lessor(s), that the applicant seeking entitlement has made the campaign contributions as set forth above. I also certify that the names of all contractors of applicant and all subcontractors of applicant, as of today’s date, are fully set forth above. I further acknowledge that the applicant has a continuing obligation to update this disclosure form if the applicant selects additional or substitute architects, design professionals, contractors or subcontractors within ten (10) days of the selection or change. I hereby certify that I have been legally authorized by the applicant/owner/lessor to submit this disclosure form and certify to the content hereof.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

JULY 20 2022 GLENDALE
Executed on ___________________ at _____________________________, California Applicant’s Signature_____________________________, Print Applicant’s Full Name __
A
_
R
_
M
__
E
_
N
__
T
_
U
_
T
_
U
_
N
_
D
_
Z
_
H
_
Y
__
A
_
N
_______________
1812 W. BURBANK BLVD #148 BURBANK CA 91504Applicant’s Address _____________________________________________________________________ Applicant’s Contact Phone Number _
_
81 _
8 _
.
_
4 _
3 _

4. _
2 _
2 _
5 _
0 _________________
____________________________
[email protected]’s Email Address _______________________________________________________________

Page 3 of 3 ends

City of Glendale, Community Development Department (9/9/11) 183 of 183

Glendale City CouncilJuly 25, 2023

Glendale City Council
July 25, 2023