Agenda packet — Glendale City Council, August 15, 2023 (part 1 of 4)

A G E N D A

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
Meetings are broadcast live on Glendale TV, viewable on Spectrum Cable, channel 6, and AT&T Uverse, channel 99. Meetings are also streamed live in high definition (HD) on the city's webpage, glendaleca.gov/live, on YouTube.com/myglendale, and on Apple TV, Roku, and Amazon Fire devices usinga free app called Screenweave and choosing “Glendale TV” from the menu. Meetings are also archived on the City Website for viewing anytime at glendaleca.gov/agendas. Call (818) 548-4013 for program schedules. For public comments and questions during the meeting, call (818) 937-8100. Public comments ona specific agenda item will be taken when that agenda item is discussed. If you have any question about matters on the agenda, or 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) of 1990, auxiliary hearing aids, sign language translation, and Braille transcripts are available upon request. Assisted listening devices are available same-day upon request. At least 48 hours (or two business days) notice is required for requests regarding sign language translation and Braille transcription services. All documents related to open session items on this agenda that are received less than 72 hours prior to this meeting, and are public records, will be available for review in the Office of the City Clerk, 613 E.

Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.

Translation services are provided for meetings through the use of bilingual staff for speakers who wish to utilize the service as available. Speakers should state their request by contacting the City Clerk’s office at (818) 548-2090, at least 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please specify the language for which you require translation. The exclusive use of City provided interpreters is not required and persons are welcome to use their own interpreter or speak in their native language.

AUGUST 15, 2023

ROLL CALL

1. CLOSED SESSION – 1:00 PM (To Commence at 3:00 PM)
a. Public Employee Performance Evaluation – City Manager b. Conference with Labor Negotiators: The City-designated negotiator attending the closed session is: Mayor Dan Brotman. Unrepresented Employee Position: City Manager
1 TYPED 8/15/2023 5:22:50 PM
08 15 23
CC
c. Public Employee Performance Evaluation – City Attorney d. Conference with Labor Negotiators: The City-designated negotiator attending the closed session is: Mayor Dan Brotman. Unrepresented Employee Position: City Attorney
e. Conference with real property negotiators. City negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Bradley Calvert, Jason Bradford, Michael J. Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, and Onnig Bulanikian. Property location:
115 & 121 West Wilson Avenue. Negotiating Parties: Lillie S Makhanian Trust.

Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms for the acquisition of property
f. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, et al. v. City of Glendale, et al., U.S.D.C. Case No. 2:22-cv07346-SB-JC g. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: Alchian, et al. v. City of Glendale, et al., LASC Case No. 22STCV08075
h. 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 i. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: Glenoaks Canyon Homeowners Association v. City of Glendale, et al., L.A.S.C. Case No. 22STCP00114 j. Conference with real property negotiators. City negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Bradley Calvert, Jason Bradford, Michael J. Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, Dorine Martirosian, and Allen Castillo.

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 k. 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

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:00 PM
Roll Call
a. Flag Salute: Mayor Brotman
b. Invocation: Pastor Kurt Poland, First German United Methodist Church c. Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the August 15, 2023 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on August 10, 2023 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, August 22, 2023 b. Appointment of Armineh Megrabyan to the Civil Service Commission 2 TYPED 8/15/2023 5:22:50 PM
08 15 23
CC
(Brotman/Asatryan, 08/08/23)
c. Identification of Nominating Panel for Historic Preservation Commission (Devine/Brotman)

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 Regular City Council Meeting of August 8, 2023 b. Libraries, Arts, and Culture, re: Artsakh Ave. Gateway Public Art Piece - "Curtain" by Paul Cocksedge Studio

1. Rescind the May 10, 2022 Special City Council Meeting Motion authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to enter into and execute an Agreement for Commission of Artwork with Paul Cocksedge Studio in the amount of $550,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund, to design, fabricate, and install a public art piece entitled, “Curtain,” for the Artsakh Ave. Gateway Public Art Piece.

2. Redistribute $550,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund, to support the design, fabrication, and installation of public art pieces throughout the City c. Public Works, re: Dunsmore Park Improvements Project

1. Motion awarding a construction contract to All American Asphalt, in the amount of $741,261, approving a 15 percent contingency in the amount of $111,189, rejecting all other bids, and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to execute the contract d. Public Works, re: Professional Services Agreement for Professional Consultant Services for the Citywide Traffic and Mobility Study

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager or a designee to enter into and execute a Professional Services Agreement with ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. to provide Professional Consultant Services for the Citywide Traffic and Mobility Study in the amount of $495,208, plus a 10 percent contingency of $49,521

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
a. Community Development, re: Ordinance Prohibiting Issuance of Entitlements and/or Permits for Establishment of New or Replacement Retail Uses Selling Firearms or Ammunition and Declaring the Urgency Thereof (Devine, 07/25/23)

8. ACTION ITEMS
a. Finance, re: Employee Medical Stipend

1. Motion to approve a Medical Stipend for City of Glendale Employees, in the Aggregate Amount of $2,347,295, to Cover Medical Premium Increases from June 2023 through June 2024

2. Resolution of appropriation

9. HEARINGS
a. City Attorney, re: Third Public Hearing Regarding the Composition of Council Districts Related to the City's Proposed Transition to District-Based Councilmember 3 TYPED 8/15/2023 5:22:50 PM
08 15 23
CC
Elections

1. Motion Directing Staff Regarding Preparation of Draft District Maps b. Community Development, re: Appeal of Planning Commission’s approval of Density Bonus Review Case Number PDBP2120753, for 246 North Jackson Street (Environmental Determination of Class 32 “In-fill Development Project” Exemption Per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332)

1. Motion to sustain the Planning Commission’s decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s granting with conditions of Density Bonus Review Case Number PDBP2120753 for 246 North Jackson Street

2. Motion to continue the matter, directing the City Attorney to draft findings reversing the Planning Commission’s decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s granting with conditions of Density Bonus Review Case Number PDBP2120753 for 246 North Jackson Street

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS
a. Councilmember Najarian’s Request to Agendize a Review of the Noise Standards for the Downtown Specific Plan Area
b. Mayor Brotman’s Request to Agendize a Discussion of Shared Mobility Pilot Program Focused on Bicycles and E-Bikes

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

15. ADJOURNMENT
4 TYPED 8/15/2023 5:22:50 PM
08 15 23
CC
5 of 1003
6 of 1003
7 of 1003
8 of 1003
1 M I N U T E S

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor Glendale, CA 91206
AUGUST 8, 2023
ROLL CALL– Absent: Asatryan

1. CLOSED SESSION – 3:04 PM
a. Public Employee Performance Evaluation – City Manager b. Conference with Labor Negotiators: The City-designated negotiator attending the closed session is: Mayor Dan Brotman. Unrepresented Employee Position: City Manager
c. Public Employee Performance Evaluation – City Attorney d. Conference with Labor Negotiators: The City-designated negotiator attending the closed session is: Mayor Dan Brotman. Unrepresented Employee Position: City Attorney
e. Conference with real property negotiators. City negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Bradley Calvert, Jason Bradford, Michael J. Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, Mark Berry, and Onnig Bulanikian. Property location: 480 Mt. Carmel. Negotiating Parties:

Raz Zadorian. Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms for the sale of property
f. Conference with real property negotiators. City negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Bradley Calvert, Jason Bradford, Michael J. Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, and Onnig Bulanikian. Property location: 115 & 121 West Wilson Avenue. Negotiating Parties: Lillie S Makhanian Trust. Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms for the acquisition of property g. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: Maria Chavira v. City of Glendale, et al., L.A.S.C. Case No. 21STCV44569

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:06 PM
Roll Call-Absent: Asatryan
a. Flag Salute: Mayor Dan Brotman
b. Invocation: Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c. Report of the City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the August 8, 2023 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on Thursday, August 3, 2023, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, August 15, 2023 Assistant City Manager John Takhtalian provided the preview.

4. CONSENT ITEMS (Including Minutes)
9 of 1003
2 Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
Asatryan
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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.

Brotman indicated a member of the public has asked to pull Item 4B. a. City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of July 25, 2023 Moved: Najarian Seconded: Devine
b. Public Works, re: Professional Services Agreement for Federal Transit Vehicle Fleet Inspections for Beeline and Dial-A-Ride Vehicles

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to enter into and execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with TRC Engineering Services, LLC for quarterly fixed-route and demand-response transit fleet inspections and fixedroute new vehicle in-plant production inspections, delivery acceptance inspections and postdelivery compliance audit report services in an amount of $292,689 for a five-year term, with an option to extend the agreement for one additional year for $73,493 and a second additional year for $50,576 Public Comments:

Tamara Movsesyan
Staff Comment:

Yazdan Emrani, Director of Public Works
Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian
c. Fire Department, re: Concerning Destruction of Records of the Fire Department

1. Resolution 23-111 Approving the Destruction of Certain City Records Moved: Najarian Seconded: Devine
d. Public Works, re: Fiscal Year 2023 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program

1. Motion awarding a construction contract to Vart Construction, Inc. in the amount of $2,840,591, approving a 15 percent contract contingency in the amount of $426,089, and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to execute the contract. 10 of 1003
3 Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
Asatryan
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Moved: Najarian Seconded: Devine

2. Resolution 23-112 of appropriation to appropriate funds in the amount of $1,618,186 for the Fiscal Year 2023 ADA Curb Ramp Installation and Sidewalk Repair Program
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Devine
e. Management Services, re: Audit Committee Annual Report and Internal Audit Work Plan

1. Motion to note and file Fiscal Year 2022-23 Audit Committee Annual Report for the period of July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Devine

2. Motion to note and file Fiscal Year 2023-24 Internal Audit Work Plan Moved: Najarian Seconded: Devine

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Councilmember Devine stated she, and Mayor Brotman attended the 10th Anniversary of Comfort Women Peace Monument. She also thanked the police department and the community for a successful National Night Out. She congratulated Glendale Arts on their 15th anniversary. She also mentioned that the Museum of Martial Arts will be opening in October here in Glendale. Devine stated there is an opening on the Historic Preservation Commission and she encouraged those who are interested to apply. Also, Councilmember Devine requested to adjourn the meeting in the memory of Sebastian Sonny Sardo.

Councilmember Kassakhian stated most Councilmembers and the City Manager attended the Independent Cities Association Conference in the City of Coronado to discuss issues facing cities.

Councilmember Najarian also commented on the passing of Sebastian Sonny Sardo. He 11 of 1003
4 Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
Asatryan
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
asked his colleagues to support a review of the Downtown Noise Overlay Zone considering future uses of businesses on Central Ave. and Brand Blvd. He requested a report to evaluate the current situation and how it would impact future development.

Mayor Brotman stated he and councilmember Asatryan conducted the first interview panel for the Civil Service Commission and they would like to nominate Armineh Megrabyan. Mayor Brotman stated that he would like to discuss a shared mobility pilot program for the next business agenda. He mentioned that Council has previously debated this topic and had RFPs in the past. Mayor Brotman stated that he attended National Night Out and managed to attend seven locations.

City Manager Golanian stated that the city has embarked on the 2024 Integrated Resource Plan and that the city had two town hall meetings. He mentions the IRP outlines Glendale’s energy needs and the resources the city can use for the next 20 years. He encouraged community members to attend the 3rd town hall meeting on August 12th. He invited Elizabeth Harris to discuss the first clothing swap event scheduled on August 12th. Harris mentioned that this event will give the public the opportunity to swap clothes, reduce waste and receive a new wardrobe in return.

Councilmember Najarian recognized and welcomed the special guests in the audience from the IBEW Local 18.

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
a. Management Services, re: Ordinance Amending Title 8 of the Glendale Municipal Code, to Add Chapter 8.50 Prohibiting the Use of GasPowered Leaf Blowers (Devine, 07/25/23) Moved: Devine Seconded: Kassakhian
Staff Comment:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
b. Community Development, re: Ordinance Prohibiting Issuance of Entitlements and/or Permits for Establishment of New or Replacement Retail Uses Selling Firearms or Ammunition and Declaring the Urgency Thereof (Devine, 07/25/23)
This item is being moved to the next Regular meeting on August 15, 2023.

8. ACTION ITEMS
a. Public Works, re: Construction Contract for Fremont Park Renovation Project Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
12 of 1003
5 Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
Asatryan
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Presenting:

Kevin Todd, Assistant Director of Public Works
Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services and Parks Public Comments:

David Eisenberg
Ramella Eraghi
Allan Durham
Herbert Molano
Daniel Lemon

1. Resolution 23-113 dispensing with competitive bidding and awarding a construction contract to Dorado Design and Construction, Inc. in the amount of $21,750,220, approving a 10 percent contract contingency in the amount of $2,175,022 and authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute the contract
Moved: Kassakhian Seconded: Devine

2. Resolution 23-114 of Appropriation for the funding of the Fremont Park Renovation Project
Moved: Kassakhian Seconded: Devine
b. City Attorney, re: Review of Subject Matter and Language of Proposed Charter Amendments Pertaining to a Directly Elected Mayor, Council Districts, Councilmember Compensation, Contract Procurement and Miscellaneous Changes to the City Charter
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Presenting:

Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Public Comments:

Emanuel Gulakian
Stephen Meek
Karen Kwak
Marry Lynn Fisher
13 of 1003
6 Devine, Kassakhian
Brotman
Asatryan, Najarian
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Damien Sullivan

1. Motion Providing Direction to Staff
Najarian Left the Council Chamber at 8:12 P.M and Council moved on to the next item.
c. Finance, re: Employee Medical Stipend
Item C2 will come back next week for re-consideration.

Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Presenting:

Paula Adam, Chief Human Resources Officer
Public Comments:

Martin Marrufo
Allison Finch
Herbert Molano
Catherine Jurca

1. Motion to approve a Medical Stipend for City of Glendale Employees, in the Aggregate Amount of $2,347,295, to Cover Medical Premium Increases from June 2023 through June 2024
Moved: Devine Seconded: Kassakhian

2. Resolution of appropriation
Item C2 will come back next week for re-consideration.
d. Management Services, re: Legislative Update
Item D2 will come back next week for re-consideration.

Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Presenting:

Stephanie Mkhlian, Sr Administrative Analyst, City Manager Kyra Ross, Lobbyist at Emanuels Jones & Associates

1. Motion to note and file report
14 of 1003
7 Devine, Kassakhian, Brotman
None
Asatryan, Najarian
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Moved: Kassakhian Seconded: Devine

2. Motion providing direction on bills as recommended by the Commission on the Status of Women
Moved: Kassakhian Seconded: Devine

9. HEARINGS
a. Fire Department, re: Weed abatement charges 2022-2023 Hearing opened at 9:11 p.m. and closed at 9:14 p.m.

Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Presenting:

Jovan Diaz, Principal Fire Environmental Safety Specialist

1. Resolution 23-115 confirming weed abatement charges
Moved: Devine Seconded: Kassakhian

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS
a. Request By Councilmember Najarian to Agendize Consideration of a Revision to the Council Resolution Establishing the Selection Process for Appointments to the Boards and Commissions to Revise the Effective Date of Implementation of the Panel System
Public Comments:

Allan Durham
John Schuabsons
Scott Frasier
15 of 1003
8 Devine, Kassakhian, Brotman
None
Asatryan, Najarian
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Damien Sullivan

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.

Herbert Molano
Tamara Movsesyan
Emanuel Gulakian
Vahe Muradyan
Teresa Blackburn

14. NEW BUSINESS
a. Motion for the City Attorney be and herby is authorized to resolve the lawsuit entitled maria Chavira v. City of Glendale, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21STCV44569 in exchange for a full release of all claims in the amount of $25.000. This settlement is not an admission of any liability whatsoever for any wrongdoing with respect to Plaintiff by Defendant of by any person or department, but is the compromise of a disputed claim.

Moved: Devine Seconded: Kassakhian

15. ADJOURNMENT– 9:47 p.m. in Memory of Sunny Sardo
Moved: Devine Seconded: Kassakhian
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
16 of 1003
4b

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Artsakh Ave. Gateway Public Art Piece - "Curtain" by Paul Cocksedge Studio

2. Redistribute $550,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund, to support the design, fabrication, and installation of public art pieces throughout the City.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for August 15, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 1, 2022, during the Special City Council Meeting, Council directed Staff to delay a Motion to adopt plans and specification and advertise for the Artsakh Avenue Arts & Entertainment District Improvement Project. On June 13, 2023, during the Special City Council Meeting, Council approved a Motion to adopt plans and specifications and advertise for the Artsakh Avenue Arts & Entertainment District Improvement Project.

Due to the delay in the Artsakh Avenue Arts & Entertainment District Improvement Project, materials for artwork fabrication costs have increased therefore Staff is now recommending that City Council rescind the May 10, 2022 Special City Council Meeting Motion and re-distribute $550,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund to support the design, fabrication and installation of public art pieces throughout the City.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Economic Vibrancy:

The proposed re-distribution of funds will increase public art opportunities throughout the City which will encourage tourism in Glendale and increase visitation and patronage for nearby restaurants and businesses.
17 of 1003
2 b 4

RECOMMENDATION
That City Council rescind the May 10, 2022 Special City Council Meeting Motion and redistribute $550,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund to support the design, fabrication and installation of public art pieces throughout the City.

BACKGROUND
On October 20, 2020, the Council approved a Motion, upon the Arts and Culture Commission’s recommendation, authorizing the Interim City Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with LeBasse Projects (LBP Consulting, LLC), in an amount not to exceed $300,000 dispersed throughout three fiscal years (FY 20/2021, FY 2021/22 and FY 2022/23), from the Urban Art Fund, for professional public art procurement and management services for the commission of up to ten long-term to permanent pieces of artwork in all parts of Glendale where public space may be available and/or feasible.

On August 16, 2021, LeBasse Projects released a City-Wide Public Art Landmarks RFQ via the online application collection website, Submittable. The RFQ’s set out the following three criteria for evaluating and scoring of Artists:

1. Artistic Qualifications (strong artistic ability and experience);

2. Public Engagement / Community Outreach (connectivity to the community in their work); and

3. Cultural Equity (“Cultural and racial equity will be highly considered throughout the selection process, viewed through the lens of artist demographics as well through the perspectives showcased and represented through the artwork and experiences of the Artist or Artist Team.”).

LeBasse Projects also reached out to several local and international artists regarding this opportunity. Staff received 256 applications by the deadline.

In November 2021, the Artist Review and Selection Committee met to review applications and discussed recommendations for finalists to submit design concept proposals for two opportunities: Artsakh Ave. Overhead Public Art Piece and Artsakh Ave. Gateway Public Art Piece. In December 2021, LeBasse Projects proceeded to work with eight artists/artist teams to submit design concept proposals for the aforementioned opportunity.

On January 28, 2022, the Arts and Culture Commission reviewed a total of eight design concept proposals and agreed on a First Recommendation, and an Alternate Recommendation for the two locations. On March 1, 2022, during the Special Meeting of the City Council, Staff presented two recommendations for art piece installations as part of the Downtown Arts and Entertainment District’s revitalization project:

1. Artsakh Avenue – Overhead Public Art Piece (across from Home Goods in front of the Marketplace Parking Garage): Matthew Mazzotta Studio, for the artwork entitled, “Bountiful.”

2. Artsakh Avenue – Gateway Public Art Piece (on the south corner of Artsakh 18 of 1003
3 b 4
Avenue at Broadway): Paul Cocksedge Studio, for the artwork entitled, “Curtain.” For the Overhead Public Art Piece, City Council approved the “Bountiful” Art Piece.

For the Gateway Public Art Piece, the Arts and Culture Commission had agreed on the “Curtain” as a First Recommendation to the Council, and Christian Moeller Studio’s “Clip” as an Alternate Recommendation. The City Council directed Staff to consult with Building and Safety regarding the “Curtain” art piece, to address concerns about pedestrian and weather-related safety issues. The Council also requested that Staff return to Council to present the other three finalists for the Gateway Public Art Piece.

Building and Safety staff reviewed the initial design proposal and felt that the proposed design was structurally feasible, and that the proposed artwork:
• Could withstand Glendale weather patterns (i.e., large gusts of wind); • Would not cause any safety concerns for pedestrians; and • Would not cause any visual concerns (since the artwork would be white powder coated, and any evening lighting would only be ambient soft light).

Building and Safety staff did state that the artwork would need to meet the following standards:
• The overall artwork and “ribbon” pieces would be required to meet the minimum and maximum height requirements (per the Glendale Fire Department and Public Works Department); and
• The artwork would need to meet all code requirements and inspections from various departments.

On May 10, 2022, during the Special City Council Meeting, Staff presented the aforementioned findings and also shared design renderings from the three finalists for the Gateway Public Art Piece. Council provided feedback on the finalists’ design renderings and approved a Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute an Agreement for Commission of Artwork with Paul Cocksedge Studio, in an amount not to exceed $550,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund, to design, fabricate, and install a the “Curtain” for the Artsakh Ave. Gateway Public Art Piece.

ANALYSIS
On November 1, 2022, during the Special City Council Meeting, Council directed Staff to delay a Motion to adopt plans and specification and advertise bids for the Artsakh Avenue Arts & Entertainment District Improvement Project. On June 13, 2023, during the Special City Council Meeting, Council approved a Motion to adopt plans and specification and advertise bids for the Artsakh Avenue Arts & Entertainment District Improvement Project. 19 of 1003
4 b 4
Due to the delay in the Artsakh Avenue Arts & Entertainment District Improvement Project, materials for artwork fabrication costs have increased therefore Staff is now recommending that City Council rescind the May 10, 2022 Special City Council Meeting Motion and re-distribute $550,000, dispersed from the Urban Art Fund, to support the design, fabrication and installation of public art pieces throughout the City.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
LeBasse Projects reached out to several artists/artist teams within their networks for these opportunities. Staff also administered direct strategic outreach to artists/artist teams for these opportunities. The RFQ also was posted on the Arts and Culture Commission’s website (www.glendaleartsandculture.org), shared via social media, and sent to the Arts and Culture Commission’s e-newsletter list.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Artsakh Ave. Gateway Public Art Piece was anticipated to cost $550,000, which was approved as a part of the FY 2023-24 budget. No new appropriation is being requested at this time. The City Council approved funding is outlined below.

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$550,000 GL: 43110-2100-LAC-0010-P4148 Urban Art Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15301, the proposed monuments on Artsakh Avenue are categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review as a Class 1 Existing Facilities project (Minor Alternations to Structures or Facilities) that consists of the operation or minor alteration of existing public structures, facilities, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Installing the monuments would not involve anything other than minor alterations to existing landscapes or hardscaped areas on existing public property.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Adopt a Motion to 1) rescind the May 10, 2022 Special City Council Meeting Motion authorizing the City Manager to enter into and execute an Agreement for Commission of Artwork with Paul Cocksedge Studio to design, fabricate, and install a public art piece entitled, “Curtain,” for the Artsakh Ave. Gateway Public Art Piece; and 2) redistribute $550,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund, to support the design, fabrication, and installation of public art pieces throughout the City.

Alternative 2: The City Council may decline to adopt the Motion. 20 of 1003
5 b 4
Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Jennifer Fukutomi-Jones, Principal Arts & Culture Administrator Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
EXHIBIT A – SPCC_051022_MOTION - Artsakh Ave. Gateway Public Art Piece EXHIBIT B – SPCC_051022_PROPOSAL – “Curtain” by Paul Cocksedge Studio 21 of 1003
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ______________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby:

1. Rescinds the May 10, 2022 Special City Council Meeting Motion authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to enter into and execute an Agreement for Commission of Artwork— subject to approval by the City Attorney— with Paul Cocksedge Studio in the amount of $550,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund, to design, fabricate, and install a public art piece entitled, “Curtain,” for the Artsakh Ave. Gateway Public Art Piece; and

2. Redistributes $550,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund, to support the design, fabrication, and installation of public art pieces throughout the City.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
22 of 1003
23 of 1003
42 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: City-Wide Public Art Landmarks - Artsakh Avenue Gateway Public Art Piece

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to enter into an Agreement for Commission of Artwork— subject to approval by the City Attorney— with Paul Cocksedge Studio, in an amount not to exceed $550,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund, to design, fabricate, and install a public art piece entitled, “Curtain,” for the Artsakh Avenue Gateway Public Art Piece.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for May 10, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 1, 2022, during the Special Meeting of the City Council, Staff presented two recommendations for landmark public art pieces to be located on Artsakh Avenue as part of the Downtown Arts and Entertainment District’s revitalization project:
1) Artsakh Avenue – Overhead Public Art Piece (located directly across from Home Goods in front of the Marketplace Parking Lot): Matthew Mazzotta Studio, for the artwork entitled, “Bountiful.”
2) Artsakh Avenue – Gateway Public Art Piece (located on the south corner of Artsakh Avenue and Broadway): Paul Cocksedge Studio, for the artwork entitled, “Curtain.” As to the Overhead Public Art Piece, City Council approved “Bountiful” by Matthew Mazzotta Studio.

As to the Gateway Public Art Piece, City Council directed Staff to consult with Building and Safety regarding the “Curtain” artwork by Paul Cocksedge Studio, in order to assess concerns regarding pedestrian and weather safety. City Council also requested that Staff return to Council and present the other 3 finalists for the Gateway Public Art Piece for the Council’s consideration.

Library, Arts and Culture staff met with Building and Safety staff for a safety assessment of Paul Cocksedge Studio’s “Curtain” art piece, and for recommendations on 24 of 1003
2 2 4
maintaining its safety. Staff is now returning to City Council to present that information.

Also, Staff is presenting to the Council the other 3 finalists for consideration for the Gateway Public Art Piece.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Arts and Culture:

The proposed Gateway Public Art Piece located on Artsakh Avenue will advance the City’s mission of making Glendale an arts and culture destination, in addition to providing arts and cultural experiences celebrating the community’s diverse cultures, values and heritage.

Economic Vibrancy:

The proposed public art piece will encourage tourism in Glendale which potentially can increase visitation and patronage for nearby restaurants and businesses.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Motion authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to enter into an Agreement for Commission of Artwork with Paul Cocksedge Studio, as originally recommended by the Arts and Culture Commission, to design, fabricate, and install a public art piece entitled, “Curtain,” for the Artsakh Avenue Gateway Public Art Piece, in an amount not to exceed $550,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund.

BACKGROUND
On October 20, 2020, the Council approved a Motion, upon the Arts and Culture Commission’s recommendation, authorizing the Interim City Manager to enter into and execute a Professional Services Agreement with LeBasse Projects (LBP Consulting, LLC), in an amount not to exceed $300,000 dispersed throughout three fiscal years (FY 20/2021, FY 2021/22 and FY 2022/23), from the Urban Art Fund, for professional public art procurement and management services for the commission of up to ten long-term to permanent pieces of artwork in all parts of Glendale where public space may be available and/or feasible.

In February 2021, LeBasse Projects began working with Staff to develop a project plan for establishing recommendations for proposed public art locations throughout the City.

On May 20, 2021, LeBasse Projects presented their proposed strategic plan to the Arts and Culture Commission, and recommended locations for public art within the City.

During this meeting, the Commission chose 6 locations for an initial City-Wide Public Art Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process:

1. Artsakh Ave. Gateway Public Art Piece

2. Artsakh Ave. Overhead Public Art Piece

3. Artsakh Ave. Ground-level Sculpture
25 of 1003
3 2 4

4. Central Park Ground-level Sculpture

5. Glenoaks Blvd. / Brand Blvd. Median Sculpture

6. Verdugo Park Ground/Building Mural
On August 16, 2021, LeBasse Projects released a City-Wide Public Art Landmarks RFQ via the online application collection website, Submittable. The RFQ’s set out the following three criteria for evaluating and scoring of Artists:
(1) Artistic Qualifications (strong artistic ability and experience); (2) Public Engagement / Community Outreach (connectivity to the community in their work); and
(3) Cultural Equity (“Cultural and racial equity will be highly considered throughout the selection process. Cultural equity will be viewed through the lens of artist demographics as well through the perspectives showcased and represented through the artwork and experiences of the Artist or Artist Team.”).

LeBasse Projects also reached out to several local and international artists regarding this opportunity. The RFQ closed on October 8, 2021, and Staff received 256 applications for consideration.

On September 16, 2021, the Arts and Culture Commission appointed Chairperson Sue Bell Yank to represent the Commission on an Artist Review and Selection Committee to review applications for the City-Wide Public Art Landmarks RFQ.

In November 2021, the Committee met to review applications and discussed recommendations for finalists to submit design concept proposals for two opportunities:

Artsakh Ave. Overhead Public Art Piece and Artsakh Ave. Gateway Public Art Piece.

In December 2021, LeBasse Projects proceeded to work with 8 artists/artist teams to submit design concept proposals for the aforementioned opportunities.

On January 28, 2022, the Arts and Culture Commission reviewed a total of 8 design concept proposals for the Artsakh Ave. Overhead Public Art Piece and Artsakh Ave.

Gateway Public Art Piece, and agreed on a First Recommendation, and an Alternate Recommendation for the two locations.

On March 1, 2022, during the Special Meeting of the City Council, Staff presented two recommendations for landmark public art pieces to be located on Artsakh Avenue as part of the Downtown Arts and Entertainment District’s revitalization project:
26 of 1003
4 2 4
1) Artsakh Avenue – Overhead Public Art Piece (located directly across from Home Goods in front of the Marketplace Parking Lot): Matthew Mazzotta Studio, for the artwork entitled, “Bountiful.”
2) Artsakh Avenue – Gateway Public Art Piece (located on the south corner of Artsakh Avenue and Broadway): Paul Cocksedge Studio, for the artwork entitled, “Curtain.” As to the Overhead Public Art Piece, City Council approved “Bountiful” by Matthew Mazzotta Studio.

For the Gateway Public Art Piece, the Arts and Culture Commission had agreed on Paul Cocksedge Studio’s “Curtain” as a First Recommendation to the Council, and Christian Moeller Studio’s “Clip” as an Alternate Recommendation. However, City Council directed Staff to consult with Building and Safety regarding the “Curtain” art piece, in order to assess concerns about pedestrian and weather safety.

The Council also requested that Staff return to Council and present the other 3 finalists for the Gateway Public Art Piece for the Council’s consideration.

ANALYSIS
In March 2022, Paul Cocksedge Studio provided updated renderings of the “Curtain” proposal which are superimposed on a photo of the current view of Artsakh Avenue and are shown below. Although Studio 1:11 will be creating updated design renderings for Artsakh Avenue, Paul Cocksedge Studio used current photos of the street for reference. 27 of 1003
5 2 4
On March 23, 2022, Library, Arts & Culture Staff and LeBasse Projects met with Building and Safety staff to discuss Paul Cocksedge Studio’s “Curtain” proposal.

Building and Safety staff reviewed the initial design proposal and felt that the proposed design was structurally feasible, and that if the artwork was fabricated and engineered by a California licensed company, staff felt confident that the proposed artwork:
 Could withstand Glendale weather patterns (i.e., large gusts of wind);  Would not cause any safety concerns for pedestrians/constituents; and  Would not cause any visual concerns (since the artwork would be white powder coated, and any evening lighting would only be ambient soft light).

Building and Safety staff did state that the artwork would need to meet the following standards:
 The overall artwork and “ribbon” pieces would be required to meet the minimum and maximum height requirements (per the Glendale Fire Department and Public Works Department); and
 The artwork would need to meet all code requirements and inspections from various departments.

Building and Safety staff also recommended that the fabricator do a maintenance check once per year in order to check structural connections of the public art piece (e.g., ribbons and any other pieces).
28 of 1003
6 2 4
Below, for the City Council’s consideration, are the other 3 finalists for the Artsakh Avenue Gateway Public Art Piece opportunity which the Arts and Culture Commission evaluated:
“Clip” by Christian Moeller Studio, LLC (Alternate Recommendation by the Arts and Culture Commission)
“Vortex” by Futureforms Studio
29 of 1003
7 2 4
“Sky Lantern” by James Carpenter Design Associates

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
LeBasse Projects, the City’s Public Art Consultant, reached out to several artists/artist teams within their networks for these opportunities. Staff also administered direct strategic outreach to artists/artist teams for these opportunities. The RFQ also was posted on the Arts and Culture Commission’s website (www.glendaleartsandculture.org), shared via social media, and sent to the Arts and Culture Commission’s e-newsletter list.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Artsakh Avenue Gateway Sculpture will cost $550,000, which was approved as a part of the FY 2021-2022 budget. No new appropriation is being requested at this time.

The City Council approved funding is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$550,000 43110-2100-LAC-0010-P4148 Urban Art Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15301, the proposed monuments 30 of 1003
8 2 4
on Artsakh Avenue are categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review as a Class 1 Existing Facilities project (Minor Alternations to Structures or Facilities) that consists of the operation or minor alteration of existing public structures, facilities, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Installing the monuments would not involve anything other than minor alterations to existing landscapes or hardscaped areas on existing public property.

In addition, Under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15304, the proposed monuments are categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review as a Class 4 Existing Facilities project (Minor Alternations to Land) that entails minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve the removal of healthy, mature, or scenic trees. Installing the monuments would not involve the removal of any trees, and would not involve anything other than minor alterations to existing landscapes or hardscaped areas on existing public property.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: The City Council may adopt a Motion authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to enter into an Agreement for Commission of Artwork— subject to approval by the City Attorney— with Paul Cocksedge Studio, in an amount not to exceed $550,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund, to design, fabricate, and install a public art piece entitled, “Curtain,” for the Artsakh Avenue Gateway Public Art Piece.

Alternative 2: The City Council may decline to adopt the Motion.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Jennifer Fukutomi-Jones, Principal Library, Arts & Culture Administrator Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
EXHIBIT A – City-Wide Public Art Landmarks RFQ
EXHIBIT B – “Curtain” Design Concept Proposal by Paul Cocksedge Studio EXHIBIT C – Arts and Culture Commission Regular Meeting – Artsakh Avenue Gateway Public Art Piece Recommendation Motion (1.28.22) 31 of 1003

CITYWIDE PUBLIC ART LANDMARKS RFQ

OVERALL PROJECT OPPORTUNITY
The City of Glendale aims to become an arts and culture destination in the Los Angeles metropolitan region. Reflecting on its diverse population, history and innovation in public spaces, the City seeks to further enrich the day-to-day experiences of the community with its emphasis on the importance of arts and culture. The Arts and Culture Commission (ACC) realizes this vision by consciously integrating arts and culture into the daily life of the people of Glendale. As community stewards of the arts, the ACC is responsible for advising City Council on the use of the City’s Urban Art Fund, and recommending how the City should invest in the Arts.

As part of the City of Glendale’s initiative to become a prime arts and culture destination, up to ten long-term to permanent artwork installations will be commissioned, developed and established over the course of the next few years. These landmark installations will be strategically placed throughout the City in locations that focus on public accessibility and encourage public engagement and interactivity.

We envision a public art program that draws in the local community and is highly alluring to the greater LA area and visitors/tourists.

This call for artists will reach out for multiple unique project opportunities. The aim across the various artwork opportunities is to create world-class public artwork in a diverse range of mediums that are designed to engage the community, showcase the cultural diversity of the City and enhance the various civic and public spaces.

Each location is different and asks for its own unique mediums utilizing highly imaginative and forward-thinking approaches. Selected artists and artist teams will be asked to demonstrate creative applications to support the building and activation of a city and community interconnected by its public art.

GLENDALE
32 of 1003
We encourage Artists and Artist Teams to review the opportunities and consider how their own practice relates to the conceptual and visual demands and how their art practice might address the stated project goals. When applying to the RFQ, Artists and Artist Teams may apply for one or multiple opportunities that they feel they can develop strong concepts and visions for.

UNDERSTANDING THE CITY OF GLENDALE
Glendale has a wealth of assets that can be amplified through visual arts and cultural activities. The City, founded in 1906, evokes specific images for its residents and people who visit it. Glendale is bordered by the Verdugo Mountains and surrounded by other mountain ranges. It boasts gracious hillside homes that reflect a diverse architectural heritage, lush landscape, freeways, and the large flat expanse of South Glendale that was once rich farm and ranchland but now contains modest homes, apartments and condominiums. Glendale was originally populated by the Tongva people. Glendale is also notable for its remarkable accessibility to key Los Angeles neighborhoods and other municipalities.

Glendale has a large Armenian population, in addition to Black, Latinx, Korean, and Filipino communities. Glendale has openly acknowledged its unfortunate history of racial discrimination, apologizing and committing to atone for these practices in a formal resolution issued in September 2020 - making it the first city in California and third city in the nation to do so. Additionally, in 2017 the City Council passed a resolution against LGBT discrimination. The
City’s recognition of its diversity is reflected in its arts and cultural offerings, its political life, its neighborhoods and its many language-immersion programs. Glendale is also
a regional shopping destination, with the Glendale
Galleria, The Americana at Brand, the Brand Boulevard of Cars. Downtown Glendale contains a mix of department
stores, chains, and small independent businesses. Lastly, San Fernando Boulevard is a media-tech corridor for
many film- related businesses including DreamWorks
Animation and Walt Disney Studios. Glendale’s Tech
Strategy provides a road map for growing Glendale’s
technology-based business sector.
33 of 1003
Over the last decade, Downtown Glendale has been transforming with the creation of the Downtown Strategic Plan and the support of the former Redevelopment Agency and the Department of Community Development. Condominiums and apartment buildings have joined the already bustling retail environment. The presence of more and more people living downtown, particularly Millennials, has led Glendale toward envisioning an “18-hour downtown.” The City recognizes the need to provide more arts and cultural activities to encourage activity day and night.

The City of Glendale’s position as an arts and cultural destination has been bolstered by Redevelopment Agency and City investments in cultural infrastructure including:
• The Alex Theatre
• Brand Library & Art Center
• The Japanese Tea House and Garden
• The Doctor’s House
• Verdugo Adobe
• ReflectSpace exhibits in the Downtown Central Library • Antaeus Theatre
• ACE 121 Gallery and artist live/work space
• Museum of Neon Art
• Casa Adobe de San Rafael
In addition, there are numerous multi-cultural organizations and a sprinkling of art galleries located around the City. Outdoor performing arts events, including summer concerts in Verdugo Park and the Brand Library Plaza Series, have become more popular every year. And, while Glendale’s Redevelopment Agency no longer exists, it left an indelible legacy of arts infrastructure and urban design.

All these assets contribute to the City’s cultural potential. Now is the time to look at Glendale’s arts and cultural activities and find ways to support them, amplify them and make them more visible.
34 of 1003

CURATORIAL EXPECTATIONS
This program is searching for innovative Artists and Artist Teams with an ability to creatively approach engaging and active public art, and a deep understanding of how public art complements and challenges our community and civic environment.

Artists or Artist Teams shortlisted through this RFQ will be asked to address the selected locations as landmark visual opportunities and to create an engaging and dynamic element inviting residents and visitors to the City to interact, connect and utilize the spaces around the art.

Each of the individual locations demand unique approaches and creative uses of materials and sustainability and we invite Artists and Artist Teams to offer their approaches to attaining the project goals. Artist and Artist Teams should take the following under consideration across each of the opportunities:
• Physical engagement with the public
• Creating multiple visual angles and approaches
• All day activation - Day and night
• Utilization of creative mediums
• Artwork sustainability and conservation

ELIGIBILITY
Artists age 18 or older may apply as an individual or as a team. The RFQ is open to all and not restricted to any geographic location but the following considerations will be strongly considered:
• Artists who can demonstrate the ability to oversee the design, fabrication and installation of public works - or who have a history of working with design/build/engineering//fabrication teams to accomplish these needs. • Artists without previous public art experience that demonstrate an ability to manage a team to accomplish the goals are still strongly encouraged to apply.
• Artists in traditionally and historically underrepresented groups are strongly encouraged to apply.
35 of 1003

SELECTION PROCESS
The Art Consultant (LeBasse Projects) for the City will evaluate all responses to this RFQ and present a short list for review by the Artist Review and Selection Committee for selection.

Selected Artists or Artist Teams will then be invited to create a RFP (Request for Proposal) and tasked with delivering site specific concepts and designs. These invited Artists will be provided a stipend upon submitting responses. The stipend totals will depend on their individual location opportunities. Invited Artists and Artist Teams will be given additional site details as well as sample contracts to review during this process.

The Art Consultant and the Artist Review and Selection Committee will then make recommendations to the Arts and Culture Commission on which Artists will be awarded the individual commissions.

The evaluation and scoring of Artists submitting an RFQ will center around the following criteria:

1. ARTISTIC QUALIFICATIONS
Based on written response and examples of prior work submitted:
• The Artist can display a strong artistic ability based on their past work. • The Artist has a proven ability to successfully execute the project within the timeline and budgets provided.
• The Artists past work shows an appropriate connection to the art opportunity.

2. PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT / COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Based on past work and written responses:
• The Artist shows a strong sense of public engagement and connectivity to the community in their work.
• The Artists past work shows a level of activation with the viewer/audience.

3. CULTURAL EQUITY
Based on application responses:
• Cultural and racial equity will be highly considered throughout the selection process. Cultural equity will be viewed through the lens of artist demographics as well through the perspectives showcased and represented through the artwork and experiences of the Artist or Artist Team.
36 of 1003
BUDGET
Each of the 10 artwork locations has an allocated budget ranging from $75,000 to $750,000.

The exact final commission contracts will be determined based on the approved and selected proposals and the needs of each.

Commission budgets are to be inclusive of Artist fees, artwork fabrication and installation costs, insurance, engineering and any transportation costs as well as any other costs associated with creating the artwork including foundations, footings, lighting or signage.

APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

1. Letter of Interest: Include the Proposer’s name, address, phone number, and email. Compose a statement (maximum 1000 words) outlining relevant experience completed within the past five years and your interest in developing a public art proposal that would positively impact the City of Glendale.

2. Detailed Resume and CV

3. Samples of Past Projects (Up to 5): Showcase up to 5 relevant past projects.

Details must include appropriate images and photography as well as information including - Title, budget, client, location, media/materials, year completed and a short description of the project.

A pdf and details may be uploaded to the submission platform.

4. References: Submit two references that include client name and contact person along with title, contact details, and specific project information associated with the listed reference. References will only be contacted if the candidate meets the qualifications to continue on in the selection process. 37 of 1003

RFQ TIMELINE
The following schedule may be updated by the City at any point, but the below is the intended RFQ timeline:

RFQ released: August 16th, 2021 (9am PST)
Deadline for questions: August 27th, 2021 (5pm PST)
Response to questions posted: August 31st, 2021 (5pm PST) Deadline to apply: October 8th, 2021 (5pm PST)
Shortlist Selected: October 29th, 2021
• Shortlisted Artists start on conceptual designs to present in December Shortlisted Artists present concepts at Arts and Culture Commission Meeting:

December 2021
Finalists Selected: January 2021

HOW TO APPLY
Applications will be received via Submittable:
https://lebasseprojects.submittable.com/submit
Installation deliveries estimated April through December 2022. 38 of 1003
3 2
4 1

ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT
Gateway Installation - $550,000

ARTSAKH AVE
Overhead Installation - $500,000

ARTSAKH AVE
Ground Level Installation - $100,000

CENTRAL PARK / ARMENIAN MUSEUM
Ground Level Installation - $100,000
1 2
3 4
5 6

VERDUGO PARK
Ground / Building Mural - $50,000

GLENOAKS / BRAND BLVD
Median Installation - $100,000
5 6

LOCATIONS
39 of 1003
OPPORTUNITY 1 | ARTS AND ENTERTAINMENT

DISTRICT

GATEWAY INSTALLATION
Budget $550,000
Located near the intersection of E Broadway and Artsakh Ave within Glendale’s Arts and Entertainment District, this large installation will be a bold gateway along Artsakh Ave. The installation will be featured in the upcoming remodeled Artsakh Ave streetscape, placing it in the center of outdoor dining spaces, public gathering areas, local businesses, retail and restaurants.

This location and project is calling for an Artist or Artist Team to deliver a monumental and iconic gateway installation or sculpture that would potentially span the street.
40 of 1003
OPPORTUNITY 2 | ARTSAKH AVE

OVERHEAD INSTALLATION
Budget $500,000
Placeholder rendering of installation
The overhead installation will be located within Artsakh Ave, as both an active and engaging art piece and a shade structure for the public to enjoy in the future outdoor plaza. Due to the location of the installation, the design must be in compliance with Glendale Fire Code. The plaza will include outdoor seating, gathering areas, and nearby businesses, encouraging heavy foot traffic and creating a space the overhead installation will be highly visible.

This location and project is calling for an Artist or Artist Team to deliver an overhead installation that can potentially act as a landmark to the area. Options that provide some potential shade or lighting are highly desirable.
41 of 1003
OPPORTUNITY 3 | ARTSAKH AVE

GROUND LEVEL INSTALLATION
Budget $100,000
This ground level installation will be located within the upcoming remodeled Artsakh Ave streetscape, featured in the public outdoor plaza. The plaza will include outdoor seating, gathering areas, and nearby businesses, encouraging heavy foot traffic and creating a space the ground level installation will be highly visible and interacted with.

This location and project is calling for an Artist or Artist Team to deliver a ground level sculpture that can be directly viewed by the public. Options including new media, lighting elements or interactivity are highly recommended. 42 of 1003
OPPORTUNITY 4 | CENTRAL PARK /

ARMENIAN MUSEUM

GROUND LEVEL INSTALLATION
Budget $100,000
Located between Glendale Central Library and the upcoming Armenian Museum, the art installation at Glendale Central Park will be an iconic and stimulating art piece for the community and visitors. With many people passing by, coming to and from the Museum and Library, or enjoying the open greenery of the Park, this location is perfect for an active installation for the public to engage with.

GROUND / BUILDING MURAL
Budget $50,000
Verdugo Park is located near Glendale Community College in northern Glendale. It features a playground, skatepark, and facilities for baseball and basketball. The mural at Verdugo Park could be a bright and vibrant addition to the ground plane of the basketball court or the bathroom facilities in the park.

This location and project is calling for an Artist or Artist Team to deliver a painted or surface applied installation.
44 of 1003
OPPORTUNITY 6 | GLENOAKS / BRAND

MEDIAN INSTALLATION
Budget $100,000
Glenoaks Blvd is a roadway spanning across Glendale from its east end in Burbank through Glenoaks Canyon to the west. In North Glendale, near the intersection with N Brand Blvd, W Glenoaks Blvd sports wide medians that make great locations for an art installation. Being at a busy intersection and frequented route into Glendale, the median installation will be a bold, enjoyable statement for those driving past.

This location and project is calling for an Artist or Artist Team to deliver a sculpture that would sit within the median but provide enough visibility to create a gateway or marker to the entrance to Glendale.
45 of 1003
FAQS

1. Who can apply to the Glendale Citywide Public Landmarks RFQ? Practicing artists or artist teams over the age of 18 can apply. The RFQ is open to all and is not restricted to any geographic location.

2. What qualifies as an eligible artist or artist team? The following considerations will be strongly noted:
• Artists who can demonstrate the ability to oversee the design, fabrication and installation of public works - or who have a history of working with design/ build/engineering//fabrication teams to accomplish these needs. • Artists without previous public art experience that demonstrate an ability to manage a team to accomplish the goals are still strongly encouraged to apply.
• Artists in traditionally and historically underrepresented groups are strongly encouraged to apply.

3. Will artists need to propose a concept to apply?
No, this RFQ is for qualifications only. A shortlist of artists will be selected from the applicants to move on to the next stage of developing concepts to present to the Glendale Arts and Culture Commission. These finalists will receive a stipend for their concept design work. Applicants should not propose a concept when applying to the RFQ.

4. Can artists apply for multiple installation locations? Yes, artists are encouraged to apply for the installation opportunities that best fit their qualifications. Please apply only for opportunities best reflected by past work and practices.

5. Will artists need to submit an application for each location? No, artists will only need to submit one application. The application will allow artists to check each location they are interested in applying for. 46 of 1003

6. Will artists receive a stipend for their work?
Selected finalists will be asked to create site-specific concept designs to present to the Glendale Arts and Culture Commission. These selected artists will receive a stipend for their concept work.

7. Will all artists be able to look at the city contract when applying to the RFQ?
No, only the selected finalists will be sent examples of the final contract.

8. When is the deadline to apply?
The deadline to apply to the RFQ is October 8, 2021 at 5pm PST.

9. How should artist teams submit their CVs?
Artists can combine their CVs into a single PDF for submission.

10. Is there a maximum word count for providing the associated project information under References?
There is no maximum word count, but a short description of the project and artwork done is preferred.

11. If applying as an artist team, will the collective experiences of the artist team be considered, or will selection be based primarily on the work of one artist?
Selection will be based on the collective experience of an artist team. It is more advantageous to provide experience of the team as a whole in order to showcase the work of the group.

12. How can artists submit the descriptions of the five work examples? Artists can submit five different files, one for each work example, with the description of that artwork in each of those files. Artists can also combine all work examples and descriptions into a single PDF.
47 of 1003

GLENDALE
21 April 2022

CITYWIDE PUBLIC ART LANDMARKS RFP

GATEWAY PROPOSAL
48 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 15
2 Paul Cocksedge Studio was founded in 2004 in London and has established a reputation for its original and innovative design - winning awards nationally and internationally.

We’re known for our people-centred approach, as well as our willingness to push the boundaries of materials and manufacturing processes. Over the last decade, we’ve designed products, architectural installations, and several major public art pieces for locations around the world. We have more than 17 years’ experience delivering public art projects, which includes permanent art installations for the Lois Eskenazi Museum of Art in Indianapolis, as well as the City of Norman, Oklahoma.

Our work often speaks to communities, engaging people and transforming their experience of the world around them. For example, Please Be Seated - a public art piece commissioned by British Land and London Design Festival - which was installed in the largest pedestrianised neighbourhood in London, and designed to inhabit the public space without disrupting the flow of movement.

We have extensive experience working in the public realm which includes collaborating with property developers, cultural clients, governmental organisations, architects, landscape architects, planners and engineers. We understand how to meet tight deadlines without compromising on our creative approach. Our approach is to prioritise durability, designing pieces that are long-lasting, energy efficient and easy to maintain - using natural materials where possible.

For this project, we would work with UAP - who we’ve collaborated with several times in the past - to fabricate the piece. UAP is an international leader in developing, fabricating and installing public art projects and signature architectural features. UAP has realised over 1,500 projects in the last 25 years, with notable projects including Rafael Lozano-Hemmer’s Speaking Willow in Washington DC ,and Emilie Brzezinski’s Lament, also in Washington DC. UAP has completed multiple projects from its NY workshop, which is a four-hour drive from Baltimore.

Although Paul Cocksedge Studio has not completed any projects in Baltimore to date, we have worked extensively in the US, as well as many other international locations.

We believe this gives us the advantage of bringing a fresh perspective to the area, while drawing on our previous experience to respond thoughtfully and sensitivity to the local community and their unique needs.

EXPRESSION OF INTEREST
CONTACT DETAILS:

Joana Pinho
[email protected]
+44 7796 081365
Paul Cocksedge Studio was founded in 2004 in London and has established a reputation for its original and innovative design - winning awards nationally and internationally. We’re known for our people-centred approach, as well as our willingness to push the boundaries of materials and manufacturing processes. Over the last decade, we’ve designed products, architectural installations, and several major public art pieces for locations around the world. We have more than 17 years’ experience delivering public art projects, which includes permanent art installations for the Lois Eskenazi Museum of Art in Indianapolis, as well as the City of Norman, Oklahoma.

ABOUT US
CONTACT DETAILS:

Joana Pinho
[email protected]
+44 7796 081365
16 ABOUT US
49 of 1003

ARTWORK TITLE

LOCATION
CLIENT
BUILD
MEDIA
YEAR
Timeloop
Kwun Tong, Hong Kong
Sino Group
UAP
Steel, wood, concrete
2021
Created in partnership with Sino Group, Time Loop is an installation designed for Hong Kong’s Yue Man Square. It takes inspiration from the rich history of the surrounding Kwun Tong district, created as an infinite loop that echoes the constant change and pace of life in the city. Passersby can sit on the artwork, which frames views of the surrounding architecture and is engraved with an ‘infinite’ poem reflecting on the passage of time.
“I can’t wait to see the human form bringing life to the artwork.

When people sit on Time Loop they become part of the

TIMELOOP

PAUL COCKSEDGE
movement of the city, as well as its transformation. It reflects a place that’s endured for many years but remains constantly moving and evolving. And that’s the symbolism of the form,” says Paul Cocksedge.

The piece is a gift from Sino Group to Hong Kong as the company celebrates its 50th anniversary, and is made from sustainably sourced timber.
17 50 of 1003
18 ARTWORK TITLE

LOCATION
CLIENT
BUILD
MEDIA
YEAR
BUDGET
Please Be Seated
London, UK
British Land and London
Design Festival
White & White
Recycled wood planks & steel
2019
we are not in a position to disclose this
as it’s confidential information
Please Be Seated was a landmark commission for London Design Festival and British Land, located in the busy thoroughfare of Finsbury Avenue Square. It was designed as a rippling wave of wood that rises up to form arches for people to walk through, and curves under to create spaces for people to sit, lie, and relax. “This piece was an instinctive response to the space and the rhythm of people through it, based on early sketches by hand,” says Paul Cocksedge. “It solves the practical problem of creating an artwork that fills a public square and engages passersby, without obstructing the space.”

PLEASE BE SEATED

PAUL COCKSEDGE
Paul Cocksedge Studio partnered with Essex high-end interior company White & White and Arup to create the first edition of Please be Seated, which was made from 1,152 reclaimed scaffolding boards. Each one was planed, sanded, and cut to become part of a series of huge curves and concentric circles.

The piece was located in the heart of London’s Broadgate - a diverse hub connecting innovation and finance.
51 of 1003

ARTWORK TITLE

LOCATION
CLIENT
BUILD
MEDIA
YEAR
Manuscript
Beijing, China
Beijing Design Week
PCS
Steel
2011
Paul Cocksedge was invited to create a major installation which was a key highlight of the First Beijing International Design Triennial, which featured London as its guest city.

Sited on Chang’An Avenue, the main east-west axis of the city, this temporary piece has been designed to be explored visually and physically by visitors to the China Millennium Monument, a cultural and events complex built to celebrate the turn of the millennium.

Passers-by can sit and rest on the curved sheets and absorb the

MANUSCRIPT

PAUL COCKSEDGE
pages of poetry in one of the world’s most impressive public spaces.

Entitled Manuscript, the sculptural design celebrates a wonderful Chinese invention, manuscript paper, the foundation of global literature and communication. It follows Cocksedge’s ongoing interest in this inspirational material, and his investigations into its morphological potential.
19 52 of 1003

ARTWORK TITLE

LOCATION
CLIENT
BUILD
MEDIA
YEAR
Bourrasque
Lyon, France
City Council of Lyon
PCS
Electroluminescent material
2011
In this installation, Paul Cocksedge has combined his interest in the nature and morphology of paper with a subject that has long been an important element of his design work: light.

As with all Paul’s work, Bourrasque shows an acute sense of the role of technology in design, combined with a characteristic lightness of touch, with elegance and joy.

Paul Cocksedge explains: ‘I’ve been fascinated for a long time by the various properties of light: how it emanates, how it diffuses, bends, reflects, and scatters. With these EL sheets I’ve been

BOURRASQUE

PAUL COCKSEDGE
able to explore much further the idea of light as a flat object, as something touchable and malleable - not housed in a glass bulb or a neon strip, but an object you can bend and twist - and almost see it come alive in your hands...’
20 53 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 16
Paul Cocksedge Studio was founded in
2004 by Paul Cocksedge and Joana
Pinho. With a strong and dedicated team
of collaborators, the studio has won national
and international acclaim for its original and
innovative design, underpinned by research
into the limits of technology, materials and
manufacturing processes.

A key feature of our work, in everything from
product design and architectural projects
to installations and sculpture, is a focus on
simplicity and imagination in order to create
unique people-centred designs. At the core
of this focus lies an unrelenting attention
to detail, a willingness to question previous
assumptions about design, and an eagerness
to take on a wide-ranging array of projects.

The studio works on projects across the
world, dealing with a variety of different
objectives, budgets and regulations.

Adaptability is at the heart of every project we take
on, large or small. Through effective planning and
close collaboration with clients and stakeholders, we
bring a high level of expertise to every part of the
design process.

Our clients include British Land, Swire Properties,
Swarovski, Fendi, NHS, BMW, City of Norman, Indiana
University Bloomington, as well as private clients,
and our work is included in collections at the V&A,
MoMA and Vitra Design Museum. Our work has
received accolades from Wallpaper*, the Design
Museum, Homes & Gardens and the German Design
Council.

Awards
2018 Winner of ‘Best Last Word’ for the ‘Excava
tion’ 2018 Wallpaper Design Awards
2018 ‘Excavation’ project nominated for
Beazley Designs of the Year 2018
2018 Finalist, Design of the British Pavilion,
Dubai Expo 2020
2014 ELLE Decoration British Design Awards
nomination in the Best British Sustainable
Design Category with ‘The Vamp’
2014 Moët Hennessy PAD London prize 2014
for best Contemporary Design Object
with the ‘Poised Table’
2014 The Homes & Gardens Award for best
Product and Innovation Designer with
‘The Vamp’
2014 Winner of the Lighting category for
‘Shade’ by Flos - Elle Decoration China,
Elle Deco International Design Awards
2013 Illumni Infinity Award (Gold) for ‘Bourrasque’
2011 German Design Council Awards to BMW
for ‘Sestosenso’
2009 Grand Designs Awards for ‘Best Lighting
Design’ Finalist
2008 Brit Insurance ‘Designs of the Year’
Award nomination
2004 Design Museum’s Designer of the Year’
Award nomination
2003 The Bombay Sapphire Glass Prize, 1st
Prize
Museum and Public Collections
British Council, London
Die Neue Sammlung, Munich, Germany
London Design Museum, London
Museum of Arts and Design, New York
Museum of Modern Art, New York
Victoria & Albert Museum, London
Vitra Design Museum, Germany
Selected Solo Exhibitions, Installations and
Architectural Projects
2019 ‘Unbound’, public art for Norman Public Li
brary, OK, USA
2019 ‘Gust of Wind’, art installation for Indiana
University Bloomington, USA
2019 Please Be Seated, public art for Broadgate,
British Land, London
2019 ‘Spectrum’, design of VIP Lounge for Swire
Properties, Art Basel Hong Kong
2018 ‘Breathe’, in collaboration with The Estée
Lauder Companies for China Xintiandi,
Shanghai
2018
2017
‘Orbits’ for COS store, Coal Drops Yard, London
‘Excavation: Evicted’ at Salone di Mobile, Milan, Italy 2015 ‘Freeze’ at Friedman Benda, New York
Paul Cocksedge
Years of Experience - 19
Qualifications
MA Product Design,
Royal College of Art (2002)
Joana Pinho
Years of Experience - 19
Qualifications
MA Communication in Art &
Design, Royal College of Art
(2002)

BIOGRAPHY
2020 ‘Here Comes The Sun’, open-source
design personal project
2020 ‘Slump’ solo exhibition at Carpenters
Workshop Gallery, London
2021 ‘Performance’ solo exhibition at
Friedman Benda New York
2021 ‘Gravity Chandelier’ for Moooi
2021 ‘Why Run store’ interior, Milan, Italy
2021 ‘Please Be Seated’ China edition, public art
installation for Swire Properties
2021 ‘Time Loop’ public art installation commissioned
by Sino Group for Kwun Tong, Hong Kong
21 54 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 17 3
WEBSITE: www.paulcocksedgestudio.com
SOCIAL MEDIA: @paulcocksedge
22 55 of 1003
ARTIST’S INITIAL THOUGHTS
2 56 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 3

CONCEPT SKETCH & INSPIRATION
3 CONCEPT SKETCH & INSPIRATION
57 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 4
This sculpture serves as a portal to the site, resembling a piece of fabric that’s been caught in the wind and frozen in time. It brings a sense of energy and direction to the surrounding area, as well as a feeling of being welcomed in. Each metal line could be engraved, with words that reference the surrounding area in some way. “This outdoor sculpture is a celebration of natural forces, and the joy of being outdoors. I believe public art should prompt an emotional reaction, and connect with as many people as possible.”

PAUL COCKSEDGE
4 58 of 1003
59 of 1003
60 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 5
7 61 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 6
62 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 7
9 63 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 8

LED LIGHTING
64 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 9
We could use poetry as an extra element in this piece, inscribing verses on the edge of the metal lines so that words run throughout the artwork. This poem, or set of poems, could create a direct connection with the community - perhaps written by a local poet or writer, as well as based on and inspired by the City of Glendale and its initiative to become a prime arts and culture destination. 11 ENGRAVING DETAIL
65 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 10

DIMENSIONS & MATERIALS
27’
35’
16’
material: brushed stainelss steel
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 10

DIMENSIONS & MATERIALS
27’
35’
16’
material: brushed stainelss steel
12 MATERIAL & DIMENSIONS
66 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 12

FABRICATION METHODOLOGY
Note that our Scope, Approach and Pricing are preliminary, and we will need to go through Design Development with the chosen Fabricator, the Client, and engineers to come to a final fixed cost. In this process we will define the final design of the artwork, exact scope of works, material quantities, design connection details, firm up vendor quotes, and engineering of the artwork, the foundation and requirements for installation & setting out of the piece. Our final Scope, Approach and final Pricing proposal will be issued for the confirmation by the client before commence of the Fabrication.

SCOPE & APPROACH
Initiation: Paul Cocksedge Studio (PCS) will kick-off the project with a detailed, preliminary engineering study. This will dictate the final form, material & scale of the piece. PCS will work alongside the fabricator’s engineers & the Client to define unknowns in the design, identify the necessary connection details, and engineer the artwork for permanent installation.

A series of meetings with the project architects, engineers & building contractors will inform the appropriate approach to the project.

We will revise drawings, renders and specifications as needed in order to have the project approved and supported by the relevant parties.

Design Development & Fabrication: During Design Development, PCS, & the Fabricator will work alongside the Client to produce a range of material samples & finishes to fabricate the final piece. The Fabricator will provide sample boards including different colours/finishes for the stainless steel ribs as well as the frame.

The Fabricator will also produce a mockup section prototype, showing all final details & finishes of the piece. This will also be used to identify the best lighting scheme for the artwork.

A lighting study/workshop will be organized to identify the most suitable solution for illuminating the piece at night. This will be done through a series of video calls, with support of a Lighting Designer provided by the Fabricator.

PCS & Fabricator will submit to the client regular project status reports, photos and/or videos in order to obtain sign offs before proceeding with the fabrication.

The fabrication of the Artwork will take place in the Fabricator’s workshop, located in the US (California or Colorado). Fabricator will provide the engineering coordination, detailed connections analysis, foundation design, structural drawings and calculation package for permitting, with stamped and sealed drawings by their engineer licensed in the state of California.

Packaging and crating: Shipping from Fabricator’s workshop to site in Glendale, CA, the piece will be installed by the Fabricator in coordination with the Client to receive the artwork on site.

The piece will come in parts and be assembled on-site.

Installation: In preparation for the Installation, PCS and Fabricator will coordinate with the Client & their contractors for landscaping around foundation and artwork.

The cost includes installation of the artwork in Glendale, CA, including labour, necessary equipment, and trash removal. The installation excludes excavation for preparing the site for foundation, pouring of the foundations and back filling after installation. Fabricator’s PM, alongside a PCS representative will oversee installation of the artwork, the cost listed includes travel, meals and accommodations for the duration of the installation & handover. All travel costs are included at today’s rate for both Fabricator & PCS.

Handover: following the installation of the artwork, the Fabricator will complete the official handover of the artwork to the Client, alongside a PCS representative. In case of an international travel restrictions, a PCS representative will be present during the installation & handover remotely, via video conferencing. PCS have delivered successful international projects in the past 2 years using this approach.

EXCLUSIONS + ASSUMPTIONS
- Assumes artwork sections mechanically fixed on-site
- Assumes duration of the install - 2 days
- Assumes daytime labour
- Assumes the Client to provide electric access for the lighting fixtures at pre-agreed locations - Assumes the wiring, controls and installation of the light fixtures is done by the Client - Assumes a $4,500.00 allowance for two (2) in ground light fixtures to illuminate the Artwork.

Fixtures will be static and not programmable.
- Assumes the Client will be responsible for obtaining and paying for all permits required to perform the work, including a building permit and street closure permits if applicable - Assumes the Client will be responsible for Building Department fees, governmental approvals, surveyors or third part inspections
- Assumes the Client will be responsible for any ground works & pouring of the foundations, specified by the Fabricator. A suitable template will be provided for laying down the foundations & be inspected prior to installation by the Fabricator. - Assumes the worksite will have clear and unobstructed access during installation - Assumes the Client will be responsible for back filling & landscaping around the piece - Assumes the scale of the artwork based on today’s cost of raw materials, subject to change - Artwork may require additional support to assist with deflection, not pictured in the visualizations
- Artwork may be adjusted in scale, form & materials based on engineering studies - Excludes site work outside of installation
- Excludes Civil Engineering
- Excludes coordination with other consultants/contractors, unless listed - Excludes insurance in excess of the fabricator’s standard limits 13 FABRICATION METHODOLOGY
67 of 1003
PRELIMINARY TIMELINE Issue date: 21 April 2022
Artist: Paul Cocksedge Location: Glendale, CA
Artwork: Curtain (working title) Artwork intent: as per visuals, subject to Client: City of Glendale modifications
DELIVERY IN APRIL 2023
PHASE DETAILS Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2022 Q1 2023 Q2 2023

APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 1 Contract signed by 6 June
2 Design Development 6-8 weeks
3 Shop Drawings 4-6 weeks
4 Permitting TBC
5 Fabrication 24-30 weeks
6 Final sign off by end of February 2023
7 Shipping 1-2 weeks
8 Installation 1 week
9 Handover by April 2023
14 TIMELINE
68 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 14
Carlson Baker Arts is dedicated to providing the arts community and creative professionals worldwide with the highest level of design development, engineering, and custom fabrication services.

Their Sun Valley, California firm has become one of the most soughtafter resources for artists seeking to produce technically challenging, complicated, large-scale works, with cost-effective solutions to complex projects.

With over fifty years of collective industry experience, CBA offers the latest in state-of-the-art technology and precision, enhancing their ability to serve a diverse range of design professionals.

We have been working with Carlson Baker Arts on this pitch. They are very excited about this opportunity and have an excellent track record of delivering projects of this scale and quality. They have been briefed in detail and through design workshops, they provided a quote for the piece. https://www.carlsonbakerarts.com

CARLSON BAKER ARTS

FABRICATOR
April 19, 2022
Mr. Eryk Jeziorski
Paul Cocksedge Studio
2A Brenthouse Road, Soloman’s Yard
London E9 6QG
Re: Gateway Artwork
Dear Eryk,
Based on our initial review of the Gateway Artwork for Artsakh Avenue Enhancement project in Glendale, CA, CBA feels the project can be fabricated as currently rendered. During Phase 1, CBA will collaborate with PCS and the structural engineer to define the unknowns in the design, identify necessary structural changes for the permanent artwork and ensure any visual changes will align with the Artist's intent within the fixed budget.

Best regards,
Diana Campbell
Administrator
15 FABRICATOR
69 of 1003
April 19, 2022
Mr. Eryk Jeziorski
Paul Cocksedge Studio
2A Brenthouse Road, Soloman’s Yard
London E9 6QG
Re: Gateway Artwork
Dear Eryk,
Based on our initial review of the Gateway Artwork for Artsakh Avenue Enhancement project in Glendale, CA, CBA feels the project can be fabricated as currently rendered. During Phase 1, CBA will collaborate with PCS and the structural engineer to define the unknowns in the design, identify necessary structural changes for the permanent artwork and ensure any visual changes will align with the Artist's intent within the fixed budget.

Best regards,
Diana Campbell
Administrator
70 of 1003

THE END
Disclaimer:

The information contained in this proposal is confidential and intended only for the use of Paul Cocksedge Studio® and individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any unauthorized use, retention, distribution, disclosure, printing or copying of this proposal is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this proposal in error please notify Paul Cocksedge Studio® by returning this proposal to us at [email protected] and destroying all copies. 71 of 1003
MOTION
Moved by Vice-Chair Viar, seconded by Commissioner Tufenkian, that the Arts and Culture Commission hereby recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager, or a designee, to enter into an Agreement for Commission of Artwork with the artist/artist team listed below to design, fabricate, and install a public art piece for the Artsakh Ave. Gateway Artwork in an amount not to exceed $550,000, as more fully outlined in the January 28, 2022 Report by the Library, Arts & Culture’s Principal Arts & Culture Administrator:

First Recommendation: Paul Cocksedge Studio, for the artwork entitled, “Curtain.” Alternate Recommendation: Christian Moeller Studio, for the artwork entitled, “Clip.” Vote as Follows:

Ayes: Commissioners Tufenkian, Vidor, Zadorian, Vice-Chair Viar, Chairperson Yank
Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

MOTION ADOPTED BY THE ARTS & CULTURE COMMISSION AT ITS SPECIAL MEETING HELD ON: Friday, January 28, 2022.
2-10-2022
72 of 1003

GLENDALE
21 April 2022

CITYWIDE PUBLIC ART LANDMARKS RFP

GATEWAY PROPOSAL
73 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 15
2 Paul Cocksedge Studio was founded in 2004 in London and has established a reputation for its original and innovative design - winning awards nationally and internationally.

Although Paul Cocksedge Studio has not completed any projects in Baltimore to date, we have worked extensively in the US, as well as many other international locations.

EXPRESSION OF INTEREST
CONTACT DETAILS:

ABOUT US
CONTACT DETAILS:

Joana Pinho
[email protected]
+44 7796 081365
16 ABOUT US
74 of 1003

ARTWORK TITLE

When people sit on Time Loop they become part of the

TIMELOOP

The piece is a gift from Sino Group to Hong Kong as the company celebrates its 50th anniversary, and is made from sustainably sourced timber.
17 75 of 1003
18 ARTWORK TITLE

PLEASE BE SEATED

The piece was located in the heart of London’s Broadgate - a diverse hub connecting innovation and finance.
76 of 1003

ARTWORK TITLE

Passers-by can sit and rest on the curved sheets and absorb the

MANUSCRIPT

PAUL COCKSEDGE
pages of poetry in one of the world’s most impressive public spaces.

ARTWORK TITLE

As with all Paul’s work, Bourrasque shows an acute sense of the role of technology in design, combined with a characteristic lightness of touch, with elegance and joy.

BOURRASQUE

PAUL COCKSEDGE
able to explore much further the idea of light as a flat object, as something touchable and malleable - not housed in a glass bulb or a neon strip, but an object you can bend and twist - and almost see it come alive in your hands...’
20 78 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 16
Paul Cocksedge Studio was founded in
2004 by Paul Cocksedge and Joana
Pinho. With a strong and dedicated team
of collaborators, the studio has won national
and international acclaim for its original and
innovative design, underpinned by research
into the limits of technology, materials and
manufacturing processes.

The studio works on projects across the
world, dealing with a variety of different
objectives, budgets and regulations.

BIOGRAPHY
2020 ‘Here Comes The Sun’, open-source
design personal project
2020 ‘Slump’ solo exhibition at Carpenters
Workshop Gallery, London
2021 ‘Performance’ solo exhibition at
Friedman Benda New York
2021 ‘Gravity Chandelier’ for Moooi
2021 ‘Why Run store’ interior, Milan, Italy
2021 ‘Please Be Seated’ China edition, public art
installation for Swire Properties
2021 ‘Time Loop’ public art installation commissioned
by Sino Group for Kwun Tong, Hong Kong
21 79 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 17 3
WEBSITE: www.paulcocksedgestudio.com
SOCIAL MEDIA: @paulcocksedge
22 80 of 1003
ARTIST’S INITIAL THOUGHTS
2 81 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 3

CONCEPT SKETCH & INSPIRATION
3 CONCEPT SKETCH & INSPIRATION
82 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 4
This sculpture serves as a portal to the site, resembling a piece of fabric that’s been caught in the wind and frozen in time. It brings a sense of energy and direction to the surrounding area, as well as a feeling of being welcomed in. Each metal line could be engraved, with words that reference the surrounding area in some way. “This outdoor sculpture is a celebration of natural forces, and the joy of being outdoors. I believe public art should prompt an emotional reaction, and connect with as many people as possible.”

PAUL COCKSEDGE
4 83 of 1003
84 of 1003
85 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 5
7 86 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 6
87 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 7
9 88 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 8

LED LIGHTING
89 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 9
We could use poetry as an extra element in this piece, inscribing verses on the edge of the metal lines so that words run throughout the artwork. This poem, or set of poems, could create a direct connection with the community - perhaps written by a local poet or writer, as well as based on and inspired by the City of Glendale and its initiative to become a prime arts and culture destination. 11 ENGRAVING DETAIL
90 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 10

DIMENSIONS & MATERIALS
27’
35’
16’
material: brushed stainelss steel
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 10

DIMENSIONS & MATERIALS
27’
35’
16’
material: brushed stainelss steel
12 MATERIAL & DIMENSIONS
91 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 12

A series of meetings with the project architects, engineers & building contractors will inform the appropriate approach to the project.

We will revise drawings, renders and specifications as needed in order to have the project approved and supported by the relevant parties.

The Fabricator will also produce a mockup section prototype, showing all final details & finishes of the piece. This will also be used to identify the best lighting scheme for the artwork.

PCS & Fabricator will submit to the client regular project status reports, photos and/or videos in order to obtain sign offs before proceeding with the fabrication.

Packaging and crating: Shipping from Fabricator’s workshop to site in Glendale, CA, the piece will be installed by the Fabricator in coordination with the Client to receive the artwork on site.

The piece will come in parts and be assembled on-site.

Installation: In preparation for the Installation, PCS and Fabricator will coordinate with the Client & their contractors for landscaping around foundation and artwork.

Fixtures will be static and not programmable.
- Assumes the Client will be responsible for obtaining and paying for all permits required to perform the work, including a building permit and street closure permits if applicable - Assumes the Client will be responsible for Building Department fees, governmental approvals, surveyors or third part inspections
- Assumes the Client will be responsible for any ground works & pouring of the foundations, specified by the Fabricator. A suitable template will be provided for laying down the foundations & be inspected prior to installation by the Fabricator. - Assumes the worksite will have clear and unobstructed access during installation - Assumes the Client will be responsible for back filling & landscaping around the piece - Assumes the scale of the artwork based on today’s cost of raw materials, subject to change - Artwork may require additional support to assist with deflection, not pictured in the visualizations
- Artwork may be adjusted in scale, form & materials based on engineering studies - Excludes site work outside of installation
- Excludes Civil Engineering
- Excludes coordination with other consultants/contractors, unless listed - Excludes insurance in excess of the fabricator’s standard limits 13 FABRICATION METHODOLOGY
92 of 1003
PRELIMINARY TIMELINE Issue date: 21 April 2022
Artist: Paul Cocksedge Location: Glendale, CA
Artwork: Curtain (working title) Artwork intent: as per visuals, subject to Client: City of Glendale modifications
DELIVERY IN APRIL 2023
PHASE DETAILS Q2 2022 Q3 2022 Q4 2022 Q1 2023 Q2 2023

APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN 1 Contract signed by 6 June
2 Design Development 6-8 weeks
3 Shop Drawings 4-6 weeks
4 Permitting TBC
5 Fabrication 24-30 weeks
6 Final sign off by end of February 2023
7 Shipping 1-2 weeks
8 Installation 1 week
9 Handover by April 2023
14 TIMELINE
93 of 1003
PAUL COCKSEDGE STUDIO® 14
Carlson Baker Arts is dedicated to providing the arts community and creative professionals worldwide with the highest level of design development, engineering, and custom fabrication services.

With over fifty years of collective industry experience, CBA offers the latest in state-of-the-art technology and precision, enhancing their ability to serve a diverse range of design professionals.

CARLSON BAKER ARTS

Best regards,
Diana Campbell
Administrator
15 FABRICATOR
94 of 1003
April 19, 2022
Mr. Eryk Jeziorski
Paul Cocksedge Studio
2A Brenthouse Road, Soloman’s Yard
London E9 6QG
Re: Gateway Artwork
Dear Eryk,
Based on our initial review of the Gateway Artwork for Artsakh Avenue Enhancement project in Glendale, CA, CBA feels the project can be fabricated as currently rendered. During Phase 1, CBA will collaborate with PCS and the structural engineer to define the unknowns in the design, identify necessary structural changes for the permanent artwork and ensure any visual changes will align with the Artist's intent within the fixed budget.

Best regards,
Diana Campbell
Administrator
95 of 1003

THE END
Disclaimer:

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Dunsmore Park Improvements Project
1) Motion awarding a construction contract to All American Asphalt, in the amount of $741,261, approving a 15 percent contingency in the amount of $111,189, rejecting all other bids, and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to execute the contract.

COUNCIL ACTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 16, 2022, three bids were received for the Dunsmore Park Improvements Project, and after a thorough review, staff found All American Asphalt’s bid to be the lowest responsive bid from a responsible bidder. This project includes sidewalk repair, accessibility improvements, and a parking lot reconstruction. The proposed contract with All American Asphalt will cost $741,261 with a 15 percent contingency of $111,189, totaling $852,450.

On January 10, 2023, City Council directed staff to incorporate solar improvements as part of the reconstruction of the parking lot, and after a thorough analysis, Glendale Water and Power (GWP) staff determined that moving ahead with the solar project, under existing conditions would yield very minimal benefits. Maximizing the solar power generation benefits would require a redesign of the park amenities, which would delay the badly needed parking lot reconstruction projects, plus would involve additional funds to re-design as well as construct the park. Therefore, Public Works worked with GWP and the Dunsmore Park parking lot solar project was replaced with the Glendale Community College Lot 34 parking lot solar project.

The intent of this item is for the City Council to award a construction contract and allow staff to proceed with the construction of this project.

Item Type: Consent
Approved for August 15, 2023 calendar
97 of 1003

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Mobility, Traffic & Pedestrian Safety: This project will significantly improve the condition of the parking lot of Dunsmore Park and improve access and safety for all users of the park to the different amenities available.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the motion authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to enter into and execute a construction contract with All American Asphalt for the Dunsmore Park Improvements Project in the amount of $741,261 plus a 15 percent contingency of $111,189.

BACKGROUND
As part of Public Works and Community Services and Parks’ ongoing efforts to improve the condition of the city’s parks, the plans and specification have been prepared for the Dunsmore Park Improvements Project.

Parking lot pavement resurfacing and reconstruction involves the rehabilitation of existing pavement that has deteriorated beyond routine maintenance strategies. It typically consists of the removal of the existing Asphalt Concrete (AC) pavement, followed by placement a new AC pavement. This method improves the ride quality within parking lot, the structural integrity of the pavement, and begins a new service life.

Project Location
• Dunsmore Park located at 4700 Dunsmore Avenue
Project Scope of Work
• Asphalt Pavement Removal and Grinding of Various Thickness (54,000 square feet);
• Asphalt Surface Course Placement of Various Thickness (54,000 square feet); • Selective removal and reconstruction of concrete curbs (100 linear feet) and sidewalks (510 square feet)
• Installation of new striping, signing, and pavement markings in the parking lot.

ANALYSIS
On November 16, 2022, the city received three bids for all required items, and upon review of the bid documents and after consultation with the City Attorney’s office found Access Pacific, Inc.’s bid to be non-responsive for failure to meet minimum experience requirements (at least two prior City of Glendale projects), failure to submit required copies of bid depositories for obtaining subcontractors, and failure to submit fully completed Insurance Requirements Declaration Form.

Upon review of the second lowest bidder’s bid documents, staff finds the bid of All 98 of 1003
American Asphalt to be the lowest responsive bid from a responsible bidder. The bid of All American Asphalt in the amount of $741,261 is approximately 13 percent below the Engineer’s estimate of $850,000.

In addition, Staff recommends a reserve for contingencies in the amount of $111,189, or 15 percent, of the bid amount. The contingency is based on previous experience and is commensurate with the nature of the project. This will allow us to account for any incidental work, unforeseen field conditions that could be encountered during construction, underground utilities related issues that could arise because of the nature of the project, and any resulting field modifications that may be necessary, including repairing additional asphalt concrete pavement, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and cross gutters.

The State of California Contractor’s State License Board website confirms that the licenses of All American Asphalt and their subcontractors are current, active and in good standing. Additionally, Staff contacted the references provided by All American Asphalt and found they had satisfactorily completed the projects. All American Asphalt has also worked with the City of Glendale on the Montrose Community Park Project, Traffic Signal Installations and Modifications at Various Locations Phase 2 Project, and various other City of Glendale projects, satisfactorily completing all these projects.

Furthermore, staff has budgeted 10 percent of the construction amount, or $74,126 for staff who will provide construction management and engineering support services such as project management, project engineering, and construction inspection.

A summary of the project budget is below:

Project Component Amount
Base Construction Contract $741,261
Contract Contingency (15%) $111,189
Construction Management & Engineering Support (10%) $74,126 TOTAL: $926,576
Project Description: Dunsmore Park Improvements Project Plans/Specs Adopted: October 25, 2022
Advertisement
Method:

Bid America, The Blue Book, Construction Bid Board,
Construct Connect, Direct Connection, PlanIT
Reprographics, Dodge Data & Analytics, Glendale
Independent Newspaper, City’s website
Specs Issued: October 26, 2022 – November 16, 2022
Bids Opened: November 16, 2022
99 of 1003
Company Name
and Bid Amount:

Access Pacific, Inc. - $614,743.98
All American Asphalt - $741,260.50
CS Legacy Construction, Inc. - $792,039.00
Recommended
Contractor(s)
All American Asphalt
New / Existing
Contractor(s):

Existing
Procurement Method
(Bid / SS):

Bid
Contract Term: 1 year
Construction
Phase Begins:

November 2023
Construction
Phase Ends:

February 2024
On January 10, 2023, City Council directed staff to incorporate solar improvements as part of the reconstruction of the parking lot. The proposed solar project at the Dunsmore Park parking lot was discussed with the City Manager’s office and the Department of Public Works and Glendale Water and Power. Following a technical analysis from Glendale Water and Power, it was determined that the power yield from parking lot solar is not substantial enough to warrant the investment. For solar panels to be viable at the parking lot, a significant reconfiguration of the park would need to occur including the relocation of tennis courts.

Since this project is for the reconstruction of the parking lot area only, solar for Dunsmore Park was removed from Phase 1 of the Solar Development Program. The Dunsmore Park parking lot solar project was replaced with the Glendale Community College Lot 34 parking lot solar project and the Phase 1 Solar Development Program RFP was subsequently issued on May 22, 2023. The new solar project at Lot 34 will provide substantially more solar power generation benefits.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Dunsmore Park Improvements Project benefits to the community will include the following:
• Improved safety for all users; and,
• Improved recreational experience at the park and service to the community.

Furthermore, outreach on this project continues to occur through a dedicated website for the project. The website page introduces the public to the project and to the project team, explains the scope of work and project locations, highlights the project phase, and provides the public with Staff contact information for questions, discussion and/or input.

FISCAL IMPACT
100 of 1003
The construction of the Dunsmore Park Improvements Project will cost $926,576 which was approved as a part of the FY 2023-24 budget. No new appropriation is being requested at this time.

The City Council approved appropriation is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$ 926,576 GL: 51200-4010-CSP-0020-P0000
PL: CSP00138AN
Capital Improvement
Fund

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

Moreover, conventional AC is composed of aggregate and emulsified liquid asphalt.

The aggregate is allowed to contain up to 20 percent recycled AC, which extends the life of both landfills and quarries. Finally, as part of this project, up to 250 tons of asphalt concrete will be diverted from the landfills and used in the roadway structures.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not Applicable

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Authorize the City Manager or a designee to execute a contract with All American Asphalt for the Dunsmore Park Improvements Project.

This will significantly improve the safety of the park by improving the parking lot and surrounding sidewalk access.

Alternative 2: Do not authorize the City Manager or a designee to execute a contract for the Dunsmore Park Improvements Project. Doing so, however, will not improve the safety and condition of the park.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
101 of 1003
Prepared by:

Marc David, Project Manager
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Project Location Map
102 of 1003
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 All American Asphalt for the Dunsmore Park Improvements Project, Specification No. 3840, for the amount of $741,261.

2. Authorizes a 15 percent reserve for contingency, equal to $111,189.

3. Rejects all other bids for the project.

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk
103 of 1003

PENNSYLVANIA AV

ZOE ANNE WY

ACAMPO AV REYNARD AV

EL MORENO ST EL CAMINITO PL

FRANKLIN ST

FAIRESTA ST LOWELL AV ABELLA ST

ALTURA AV

GROMER TER HENRITETTA AV

MEVEL PL

BROOKHILL ST HENRITETTA AV

CHERYL AV

EL CAMINITO ST PONTIAC ST

FAIRESTA

ALTURA AV NEW YORK AV

MARYANN ST KENTUCKY WASHINGTON PL

QUAIL CANYON RD

MARKRIDGE RD RIMHILL RD

FRANCES AV CHERYL AV MARYLAND AV

PONTIAC ST FAIRESTA ST

ARNELL PL

BOSTON AV

BURRITT WY SANTA CARLOTTA ST EL CAMINITO ST

MARKRIDGE RD CAROLYN WY

BROOKHILLTREND TER

BURRITT WY PARAISO WY

PARAISO WY

EL CAMINITO ST LOS ANGELES ST EL MORENO ST LOS OLIVOS LN MOORE ST

DANNY ST

VISTA CT LAUDERDALE AV

VIRGINIA ST FIRST AV SECOND AV THIRD AV FOURTH AV

FIFTH AV

SECOND AV BOSTON AV

BETH PL

LIRIO LN

WILEY LN

MAYFIELD AV

ANDERSON AV LEHMAN LN LOWELL AV

OAKGROVE CT HONOLULU AV MONTROSE AV

BOSTON AV

ANDERSON AV

COMMUNITY AV MARYANN ST PROSPECT AVE

FAIRCHILD ST

FOOTHILL BLVD

FAIRMONT AV MELANIE

FREDERICK ST

FAIRESTA ST LOS OLIVOS LN ALABAMA ST

STEVENS ST WILLALEE

DANNY DR

RETA ST SANTA CARLOTTA ST EL CAMINITO PONTIAC ST CLOUDSDALE AV

PARAISO WY BURRITT WY BROOKHILL ST HENRITETTA AV FREDERICK AV

GLENCOVE AV

COMMUNITY AV

ABELLA ST

MEVEL PL FINEHILL AV
TER AV
LN
ST

PL DUNSMORE AVE
dunsmore
elementary
school
210 FWY

NOT TO SCALE
EXHIBIT 1: PROJECT LOCATION MAP

DUNSMORE PARK IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT
SPECIFICATION NO. 3840R
LEGEND

PROJECT LOCATION
SCHOOL

CITY LIMITS
104 of 1003
4d

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Professional Services Agreement for Professional Consultant Services for the Citywide Traffic and Mobility Study
1) Motion authorizing the City Manager or a designee to enter into and execute a Professional Services Agreement with ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. to provide Professional Consultant Services for the Citywide Traffic and Mobility Study in the amount of $495,208, plus a 10 percent contingency of $49,521.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for August 15, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A professional services agreement (PSA) is needed for a consultant to provide professional consultant services for the Citywide Traffic and Mobility Study (CTMS).

Following a Request for Proposals (RFP) process, the consulting team of ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers, Inc. (ADVANTEC) was selected to perform the work for the CTMS. The proposed PSA with ADVANTEC will cost $495,208 plus a 10 percent contingency of $49,521, for a total of $544,729.

The intent of this item is for the City Council to approve the PSA and allow staff to proceed with the study.
105 of 1003
2 d 4

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Mobility, Traffic & Pedestrian Safety: The CTMS aims to improve mobility within the city, focusing on the present as well as the near future, specifically the next 10 years. The study recognizes the importance of addressing current transportation challenges, considering the needs and safety of pedestrians, cyclists and vulnerable roadway users while also considering the forecasted changes and growth that the city may experience.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the motion authorizing the City Manager or a designee to enter into and execute a PSA with ADVANTEC for the CTMS in the amount of $495,208 plus a 10 percent contingency of $49,521, for a total of $544,729.

BACKGROUND
Traffic congestion and mobility challenges are prevalent issues faced by cities globally, and the City of Glendale is no exception. In response to these concerns, the staff initiated the CTMS, a transformative initiative aimed at addressing key transportation issues within the city.

The primary goal of the CTMS is to improve mobility, optimize transportation systems within Glendale while considering the needs and safety of pedestrians, cyclists and vulnerable roadway users. By analyzing traffic patterns, identifying congestion areas, and evaluating bottlenecks, the study provides valuable insights to guide data-driven decision-making for future infrastructure improvements and transportation network optimization. The study provides recommended countermeasure alternatives to improve traffic flow and circulation, while maintaining consideration of other active modes of travel and discouraging commuter traffic intrusion into residential neighborhoods. Understanding vehicular traffic flow citywide is vital when developing targeted measures to enhance the safety and accessibility of non-motorized transportation modes within Glendale.

The study utilizes various methodologies, including the city traffic model, to develop accurate traffic forecasts for the next decade. It conducts a comprehensive analysis of Glendale's transportation system, assessing existing challenges, impacts, trends, and capacity surplus or shortfalls. Additionally, the CTMS evaluates lane reconfiguration alternatives outlined in the Citywide Pedestrian Plan (CPP - 2021) and examines corridors identified in the Glendale Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP - 2012 or most recent version/updates). This evaluation aims to understand impacts on traffic congestion, vehicle miles traveled, and potential traffic intrusion into residential neighborhoods.

Pedestrians and Cyclists: Conducting a Citywide Traffic and Mobility Study provides insight into the traffic dynamics, congestion hotspots, and potential risks to vulnerable road users. The study provides data and findings to help identify streets with low-traffic 106 of 1003
3 d 4
or low-congestion roads where the repurposing of roadway space to active modes of travel can be considered. Having this information available to engineers, planners and decision makers will lead to better planning and infrastructure development that considers all roadway users.

As mentioned previously in this report, the CTMS will evaluate lane repurposing alternatives outlined in the Citywide Pedestrian Plan and Bicycle Transportation Plan, and will provide a clearinghouse of results to help streamline future projects identified in the plans. Traffic counts conducted at signalized intersections will include pedestrian and bicycle counts. All-way stop controlled intersections will include bicycle and pedestrian counts for streets and intersections on designated bicycle facilities or identified project locations in the Citywide Pedestrian Plan. Traffic count data, including pedestrian and bicycle counts, will be manifested on a comprehensive GIS web base map to facilitate access. The study will also compile findings of potential Business Activity District Streets for consideration of lowering speed limits, per Assembly Bill 43.

Citywide Emergency Vehicle Response Routes: The study will update the existing citywide fire response route map, identify challenging corridors for emergency response and develop mitigation strategies to improve emergency response.

The City of Glendale's CTMS is a comprehensive initiative that aims to address traffic congestion, enhance safety, and optimize the city's transportation system for all roadway users. Through data-driven analysis and stakeholder input, the CTMS seeks to provide insight and recommendations to improve mobility, reduce congestion, and create a more efficient and sustainable transportation network that benefits the community.

ANALYSIS
To ensure a thorough and proper CTMS, staff recommends using a professional consultant services firm.

On January 12, 2023, the city received three proposals from consulting teams for the CTMS under RFP# PWA 2022-207.

An evaluation team of staff from Public Works and Community Development Departments reviewed the proposals. The proposals were all ranked based on the following criteria: proposed implementation and workflow, experience, project management, staffing of project/ability to perform, and best value/cost effectiveness.

Based on the combination of written submittals and the results of the interviews, the ADVANTEC team was determined to be the top ranked firm for the CTMS as well as the lowest cost proposal. Staff then held a negotiation conference with ADVANTEC and were successfully able to reduce the schedule of fees from the original $631,011 to the final fee of $495,208, which translates to a 22 percent reduction, with minor modifications to the required scope of services without compromising any intent of the study.
107 of 1003
4 d 4
ADVANTEC’s primary responsibilities will include conducting the necessary traffic counts and analysis of traffic conditions Citywide to produce a comprehensive CTMS.

The City of Glendale has previously engaged ADVANTEC for the Regional Arterial Traffic Performance Measurement System project, where they demonstrated their outstanding capabilities and delivered exceptional results. As a testament to their qualifications and expertise, ADVANTEC is also included in the city's list of on-call consultants. This inclusion highlights the city's recognition of their proficiency and reliability in providing valuable consulting services for various transportation projects.

With their exceptional performance, demonstrated expertise, and inclusion as an on-call consultant, ADVANTEC has proven themselves as a trusted partner for the City of Glendale, offering innovative solutions and reliable expertise to address transportation challenges effectively.

Additionally, the budget includes $50,000 for staff who will provide project management and consultant oversight services and 10 percent or $49,521 for contract contingency.

Therefore, the total costs for the PSA for the CTMS are as follows:

Base PSA $ 495,208
Agreement 10% Contingency $ 49,521
Staff Time $ 50,000
Total: $ 594,729
Table 1
Project Description: Professional Consultant Services for Citywide Traffic and Mobility Study
RFP Approved: N/A
Advertisement Method: Bid America, The Blue Book, Construction Bid Board, Construct Connect, Direct Connection, PlanIT
Reprographics, Dodge Data & Analytics, eBidBoard,
Glendale Independent Newspaper, City’s website
RFP Issued: November 21, 2022
RFP Due Date: January 12, 2023
Company Name(s): 1. ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers, Inc.

2. KOA Corporation

3. TJKM Transportation Consultants
Selection Criteria
(If SS, list applicable
Provision):

Proposed implementation and workflow; experience;
project management; staffing of project/ability to
perform; best value/cost effectiveness
Recommended
Consultant(s):

ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers, Inc.
108 of 1003
5 d 4
New / Existing
Consultant(s):

Existing
Procurement Method
(RFP / SS):

RFP
Contract Term: 2 years
Project Begins: Upon signing of contract
Project Ends: Upon the expiration date of the contract

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Outreach for this project will encompass a wide range of stakeholders, both internal and external. Internal stakeholders will include, but not be limited to, various City Departments, the Glendale Unified School District (GUSD), the Police Department, and the Fire Department. External stakeholders will involve agencies such as METRO, Caltrans, Metrolink, hospitals, Glendale Community College (GCC), and other relevant organizations, business, and community groups. Additionally, the public and residents of Glendale will play a vital role in the outreach efforts.

To ensure comprehensive engagement, a diverse set of strategies will be employed, including the development of a dedicated project website, multilingual surveys, community and stakeholder meetings, press releases, social media outreach, and other interactive platforms. These initiatives will foster collaboration and input from a wide range of stakeholders, ensuring that the project reflects the needs and perspectives of the entire community.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Citywide Traffic and Mobility Study (CTMS) will cost $594,729, which was approved as part of the FY 2023-24 budget. No new appropriation is being requested at this time.

The City Council approved funding is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$ 500,000 GL: 43110-1070-PWD-8508-P8005 General Measure S Fund
$ 94,749 GL: 43110-4020-PWD-0020-P0000
PL: 52083
State Gas Tax
Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The Project is categorically exempt from environmental review because of CEQA 109 of 1003
6 d 4
Guidelines §§ 15301.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10 percent interest in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report are attached in Exhibit 1, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: The City Council may elect to authorize the City Manager or a designee to execute a PSA with ADVANTEC for the CTMS in the amount of $495,208, plus a 10 percent contingency of $49,521.

Alternative 2: The City Council may elect not to award the PSA as recommended herein.

This would risk limiting our understanding of current transportation challenges and missing opportunities to enhance traffic management and mobility within the city.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Saed Roudsari, P.E., Traffic Engineer II
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: ADVANTEC Campaign Disclosure Forms
110 of 1003
4d
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _________________________________, seconded by Council Member _____________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby:

1. Authorizes the City Manager, or a designee, to execute a professional services agreement – subject to approval by the City Attorney – with ADVANTEC Consulting Engineers, Inc., for four hundred ninety-five thousand, two hundred eight dollars ($495,208) to provide Professional Consulting Services for the Citywide Traffic and Mobility Study.

2. Authorizes a 10% reserve for contingencies of forty-nine thousand five hundred twenty one dollars ($49,521).

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk
111 of 1003
mended it with Ordinance No. 5768,
its: (1) A contractor* (including a subcontractor**
from making a contribution to a City Council member, GSA member, HA member, City Clerk, or City Treasurer; and (2) Council members, GSA members, and HA members from voting on matters concerning a contract affecting a contractor or subcontractor who has provided a campaign contribution.

The provisions of the Ordinance restricting Council members from voting on matters affecting campaign contributors applies to a contractor bid contract
awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.

To assist members of the City Council, GSA, and HA before they vote on a matter regarding a City Contract, the Ordinance requires City staff to prepare this report which discloses certain information about: the contractor receiving the City Contract, and specified subcontractor(s) working under the City Contract.

Information that must be disclosed: Name of the person, entity, or organization (i.e., the Contractor or Subcontractor) Name of the Chief Executive Officer/President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Chairperson
All members of the Board of Directors
All persons who own more than 10% of the person, entity, or organization Name of any campaign committee owned or controlled by the person, entity, or organization Please complete the following disclosure form:

Contractor(s)*:

Name Address
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner ** on of the work undertaken under an agreement with an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract, usually by a general or prime contractor. You must a Board of Directors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, enti business address.

Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:

Title Business Address City State Zip

CERTIFICATION
On behalf of the above-named Contractor Subcontractor:

I acknowledge that I have a continuing obligation to update this disclosure form if I substitute or if I select additional architects, design professionals, contractors, or subcontractors within ten (10) days of the selection or change; and I hereby certify that:

I have identified all persons for which the Ordinance requires disclosure; The information in this disclosure form (and any attachment to this form) is true, accurate, correct, and complete; and I have been legally authorized to submit this disclosure form.

In total, this disclosure form (including attachments) is pages.

Executed on: , 20 , at: , California.

Signature: Print Full Name:

Address:

Phone Number: E-mail Address: 113 of 1003
114 of 1003
115 of 1003
mended it with Ordinance No. 5768,
its: (1) A contractor* (including a subcontractor**
from making a contribution to a City Council member, GSA member, HA member, City Clerk, or City Treasurer; and (2) Council members, GSA members, and HA members from voting on matters concerning a contract affecting a contractor or subcontractor who has provided a campaign contribution.

The provisions of the Ordinance restricting Council members from voting on matters affecting campaign contributors applies to a contractor bid contract
awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.

Contractor(s)*:

Name Address
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner * is the person, entity, or organization that is the party, or prospective party, to the contract with the City, GSA, or HA. In addition to the name of the person, or entity, the Contractor must also disclose the name(s) of that Board of Directors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization 116 of 1003
117 of 1003
mended it with Ordinance No. 5768,
its: (1) A contractor* (including a subcontractor**
from making a contribution to a City Council member, GSA member, HA member, City Clerk, or City Treasurer; and (2) Council members, GSA members, and HA members from voting on matters concerning a contract affecting a contractor or subcontractor who has provided a campaign contribution.

The provisions of the Ordinance restricting Council members from voting on matters affecting campaign contributors applies to a contractor bid contract
awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.

Contractor(s)*:

Name Address
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner ** on of the work undertaken under an agreement with an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract, usually by a general or prime contractor. You must a Board of Directors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, enti business address.

Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:

Title Business Address City State Zip

CERTIFICATION
On behalf of the above-named Contractor Subcontractor:

In total, this disclosure form (including attachments) is pages.

Executed on: , 20 , at: , California.

Signature: Print Full Name:

Address:

Phone Number: E-mail Address: 119 of 1003
mended it with Ordinance No. 5768,
its: (1) A contractor* (including a subcontractor**
from making a contribution to a City Council member, GSA member, HA member, City Clerk, or City Treasurer; and (2) Council members, GSA members, and HA members from voting on matters concerning a contract affecting a contractor or subcontractor who has provided a campaign contribution.

The provisions of the Ordinance restricting Council members from voting on matters affecting campaign contributors applies to a contractor bid contract
awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.

Contractor(s)*:

Name Address
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner ** on of the work undertaken under an agreement with an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract, usually by a general or prime contractor. You must a Board of Directors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, enti business address.

Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:

Title Business Address City State Zip

CERTIFICATION
On behalf of the above-named Contractor Subcontractor:

In total, this disclosure form (including attachments) is pages.

Executed on: , 20 , at: , California.

Signature: Print Full Name:

Address:

Phone Number: E-mail Address:
10 121 of 1003
1 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, seven (7) retail establishments that are licensed to sell firearms and ammunition currently operate in the City of Glendale [1 per 27,480 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 122 of 1003
2 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
123 of 1003
3 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 environment 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 124 of 1003
4 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.

125 of 1003
5 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. 126 of 1003
6 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
127 of 1003
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
128 of 1003
7b

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.
129 of 1003
2 b 7

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 130 of 1003
3 b 7
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 DOJapproved 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. 131 of 1003
4 b 7
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 byright.

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.
132 of 1003
5 b 7
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 133 of 1003
6 b 7
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.
134 of 1003
7 b 7

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.
135 of 1003
8c

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Employee Medical Stipend

1. Motion to approve a Medical Stipend for City of Glendale Employees, in the Aggregate Amount of $2,347,295, to Cover Medical Premium Increases from June 2023 through June 2024

2. Resolution of appropriation

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for August 15, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In June 2022, the City’s health insurance premium for its Anthem Plan had a single year increase of 29.2%. Per the terms of the various Memorandum of Understandings for all City bargaining groups, this increase was to be shared between employees and the City on a 50/50 basis. As a result, employees experienced significant increases in their premiums that ranged from $1,084 per year to $3,935 per year, depending on the level of coverage (i.e., singe, two-party, family). Given these unprecedented increases, and historic levels of inflation, in December 2022 the City Council authorized a one-time medical stipend payment of approximately $1.7 million to make employees whole for these increases.

Since then, staff has started evaluating different options regarding its health benefits offered to employees. Suffice to say, health insurance coverage is a complex topic and depending on the decisions made in the upcoming months, it will have a lasting impact on all City of Glendale employees. As such, staff is performing their due diligence to determine the best path forward for employees of today, tomorrow, and the future.

Given the time needed to analyze this issue, the City worked with its current broker for the 2023 renewal rates. Fortunately, the Anthem rates increased a modest 2% while Kaiser’s rates increased 13%. While the 2023 premium increases were better across the board, employees are still feeling the effect of the 2022 increases while staff continues to evaluate options. Therefore, we recommend one final medical stipend payment, totaling approximately $2.3 million for all City of Glendale employees for the medical premium increases experienced since 2022. This will provide enough time for staff to complete its analysis while easing the burden of the premium increases for the 136 of 1003
2 c 8
next 12 months (June 2023 through May 2024) until the next open enrollment period in the spring of 2024.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
N/A

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the motion authorizing a medical stipend payment to City of Glendale Employees and the accompanying resolution of appropriation.

BACKGROUND
The City of Glendale offers health care to its full-time employees as part of its comprehensive benefit package. Approximately 1,200 City of Glendale employees currently receive coverage. The City utilizes the services of an insurance broker to negotiate the best rates possible for the City. The City offers its employees several plans via Anthem Blue Cross and Kaiser. Each year, the City’s insurance broker negotiates with each carrier to arrive at the lowest cost possible for the level of coverage offered through the various plans. Generally, Glendale’s premiums are affected by a) claims experience of its employees, and b) the general increase in medical costs.

From June 2016 through June 2021, the City’s average annual increase for the Anthem PPO has been approximately 3% and for Kaiser is approximately 6%. In June of 2022, the City’s premium for the Anthem PPO plan increased 29.2%, which is unusual given the average annual increases up until this point. While there are several factors that contributed to the increase, including record inflation, the City had an unusually high claims experience during the measurement period which caused the sharp increase.

The monthly increases for the Anthem PPO single, two-party, and family is summarized in the table below.

Anthem Blue Cross PPO
Monthly Premium
June 2021
Monthly Premium
June 2022
Monthly Premium
Monthly
Increase
Employee
Monthly
Increase
Single $617.12 $797.85 $180.73 $90.37
Two-Party $1,579.18 $2,041.70 $462.52 $231.26
Family $2,239.49 $2,895.39 $655.90 $327.95
Per the MOU’s for all City bargaining groups, all yearly increases in medical premiums are shared equally between the City and employees. As such, employees covered under the Anthem PPO plan saw their medical premiums increase $1,084 per year for single coverage, $2,775 per year for two-party coverage, and $3,935 per year for family coverage. Given the significant and unusual increase in medical premiums, in addition to record inflation during that year, the City Council authorized in December 2022 a 137 of 1003
3 c 8
medical stipend payment which made all employees who were enrolled in an Anthem health plan whole for the increases. This was a one-time, non-persable payment that was distributed at the end of December 2022, totaling approximately $1.7 million. It should be noted that those employees covered under Kaiser did not receive a medical stipend as those rates decreased 5%.

ANALYSIS
Given the unusually high increase in 2022, staff has begun the process of examining other alternatives to better manage healthcare costs over the long-term. These options include examining other insurance pools, issuing a request for proposal for a new insurance broker, and different options on how to structure the City’s health benefits package. Health insurance coverage is a complex topic and depending on the choices and decision made in the upcoming months, it will have a lasting impact on all City of Glendale employees. As such, staff continues to perform their due diligence to determine the best path forward for employees of today, tomorrow, and the future.

This stipend payment will make whole all employees for the medical premium increases for the next 12 months, from June 2023 through June 2024. This stipend also provides enough time for staff to complete its analysis and potentially restructure its health benefit offerings by the time the next open enrollment period begins in the spring of 2024.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not Applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Medical Stipend payment totaling to $2,347,295 will be paid with unrestricted fund balance dollars from the various City funds in which employees are budgeted. The table below summarizes the medical stipend payment by fund type.

Fund Type
Medical
Stipend
General Fund $1,616,346
Special Revenue Funds 10,596
Enterprise Funds 567,250
Internal Service Funds 153,103
Total $2,347,295
138 of 1003
4 c 8

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is considered a ministerial activity and therefore, not subject to CEQA review.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Adopt the motion authorizing a medical stipend payment to City Employees and the accompanying resolution of appropriation.

Alternative 2: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

John Takhtalian, Assistant City Manager
Paula Adams, Chief Human Resources Officer
Jason Bradford, Director of Finance & Information Technology Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
139 of 1003

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member _________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the Council hereby approves the Medical Stipend, in the aggregate amount of $2,347,295 to cover all employee medical premium increases for the period from June 2023 through June 2024, as outlined in Report to Council dated August 8, 2023.

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
140 of 1003
141 of 1003
142 of 1003
143 of 1003
144 of 1003
9a

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Third Public Hearing Regarding the Composition of Council Districts Related to the City's Proposed Transition to District-Based Councilmember Elections

1. Motion Directing Staff Regarding Preparation of Draft District Maps

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for August 15, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Council has initiated the process to transition from its at-large council election system to council districts. This matter is the third public hearing to solicit public input on the composition of council districts. 19 draft maps have been submitted by members of the public; of those, four are not population balanced. The City’s demographer has prepared an additional two draft maps taking into consideration public input on communities of interest. The Council should take public input and may select three to five focus maps to highlight during the next phase of community outreach. 145 of 1003
2 a 9

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
N/A.

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council conduct the third public hearing pertaining to the composition of council districts related to the City’s proposed transition to district-based elections and consider selecting three to five maps to focus on for the next phase of community outreach.

BACKGROUND
On May 2, 2023, the Council adopted Resolution No. 23-55 declaring its intent to initiate the process to transition from at-large to district-based councilmember elections pursuant to Elections Code section 10010. The Council directed staff to commence the process to transition to council districts by way of amendment to the City Charter, to include a proposal to transition to six council districts and a directly elected mayor who would be a voting member of the Council. This hearing is the third public hearing the Council will hold regarding the composition of council districts.

ANALYSIS
Public Hearing
Pursuant to Elections Code section 10010, the Council is required to hold at least four public hearings - two hearings before the preparation of draft maps, and at least two public hearings after the publication of draft maps. The City held its first public hearings on June 13, 2023 and July 11, 2023.

After this public hearing, the additional public hearings are scheduled for October 10, 2023, and October 24, 2023. The principal purpose of this third public hearing is for the City’s demographer, National Demographics Corporation (NDC), to provide an overview of the maps presented to date as well as review the public input received on communities of interest.

District Criteria
In accordance with Elections Code section 21601, the Council must draw districts that satisfy the following criteria:
• Council districts must be substantially equal in population based on the total population of residents of the city as determined by the most recent census with adjustments mandated by the State of California.
• Council district boundaries must comply with the United States Constitution, the California Constitution, and the federal Voting Rights Act. • The Council shall adopt district boundaries using the following criteria as set forth in the following order of priority:
(i) To the extent practicable, council districts shall be geographically contiguous. (ii) To the extent practicable, the geographic integrity of any local neighborhood or local community of interest shall be respected in a manner that minimizes its division. A “community of interest” is a population that shares common social or 146 of 1003
3 a 9
economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Communities of interest do not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates. (iii) Council district boundaries should be easily identifiable and understandable by residents. To the extent practicable, council districts shall be bounded by natural and artificial barriers, by streets, or by the boundaries of the city. (iv) To the extent practicable, and where it does not conflict with the preceding criteria, council districts shall be drawn to encourage geographical compactness in a manner that nearby areas of population are not bypassed in favor of more distant populations.
• The Council must not draw district boundaries for the purpose of favoring or discriminating against a political party.

Draft District Maps
There are currently 21 draft maps that have been submitted to or prepared by the City.

Members of the public have submitted 19 maps and NDC has prepared two maps. Of the 19 maps submitted by the public, four are not population-balanced. The draft maps are attached as Exhibit 1 and can also be viewed using an Interactive Review Map available at https://mapglendale.org/draft-maps/. NDC will provide a review during the public hearing.

NDC recommends that after taking public input, the Council should consider selecting three to five maps to focus on for the next phase of community outreach. Such a narrowing would not preclude the Council from making further adjustments or even selecting another map, but would allow the outreach team to focus public comments on maps that have generated some consensus by Council at this stage. Indeed, the City will continue to solicit draft maps through September 28, 2023.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The City continues an extensive public outreach process. In addition to the first two public hearings and this public hearing, the City has held 7 public workshops and 4 popups. The City will hold an additional 7 public workshops and will hold additional pop-up events in addition to the two public hearings scheduled in October. (See Exhibit 2 for calendar of remaining outreach events). The outreach is being conducted in multiple languages – English, Armenian, Spanish, Korean, and Tagalog. A website dedicated to the districting effort, which includes draft maps, calendar of hearings and workshops dates and pertinent updates, has been established at https://mapglendale.org. Stakeholders are welcome to submit public comments and share their input throughout the process by attending district formation meetings, sending a direct email to [email protected], and/or submitting feedback through the contact form on MapGlendale.org.
147 of 1003
4 a 9

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This activity involves organizational and administrative activities of the government related to election procedures and eligibility requirements, and such internal procedural and eligibility changes have no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. As such, this action is not a “project” subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15378.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES

1. The Council can conduct the public hearing and provide direction for the demographer.

2. The Council can conduct the public hearing and provide no direction.

3. The Council can select an alternative not identified by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Maps

2. Schedule of Remaining Public Hearings, Workshops, and Pop-Ups

3. Powerpoint Presentation from Community Workshops
148 of 1003

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member _________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that regarding the 3rd public hearing for the transition to Council districts held on August 15, 2023, the Council directs staff and the City’s demographer to:
[1. Focus on the following maps for purposes of future community outreach:} ____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
____________________________
[2. Other Direction.]
Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
149 of 1003
2 1
4 3
5 6
Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
Sonora Ave
W Kenneth Rd
N
Glendale
Ave
N
C
e
ntral A
v
e
Western Ave
N
Pa
cific
Ave
N
Bra
n
d
Blv
d
Gra
ndview
Ave
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St Dunsmore Ave
5 210
Glendale Districting
Proposed Election Sequence:
2026: Any three of Districts 1 (vacant),
2 (vacant), 4 (vacant), 5 (vacant) or
6 (Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, & Najairan)
2028: District 3 (Kassakhian) and any two of
Districts 1 (vacant),
2 (vacant), 4 (vacant), 5 (vacant) or
6 (Asatryan, Brotman, Devine, & Najairan)
National Demographics Corporation, July 12, 2023
Not Population
Balanced
©2021 CALIPER
150 of 1003
Map 101
District 1
Total Pop 33,116
Deviation from ideal 286
% Deviation 0.87%
% Hisp 22.6%
% NH White 53%
% NH Black 4%
% Asian-American 19%
Total 20,548
% Hisp 21%
% NH White 57%
% NH Black 5%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 16%
Total 16,979
% Latino est. 25%
% Spanish-Surnamed 22%
% Asian-Surnamed 6%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 63%
% NH Black 4%
Total 11,472
% Latino est. 26%
% Spanish-Surnamed 24%
% Asian-Surnamed 6%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 61%
% NH Black 4%
Total 6,235
% Latino est. 30%
% Spanish-Surnamed 28%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 5%
% NH White est. 58%
% NH Black est. 3%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 33,952
age0-19 18%
age20-60 62%
age60plus 20%
immigrants 55%
naturalized 55%
english 27%
spanish 22%
asian-lang 11%
other lang 39%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 38%
hs-grad 47%
bachelor 27%
graduatedegree 10%
Child in Household child-under18 23%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 64%
income 0-25k 23%
income 25-50k 16%
income 50-75k 16%
income 75-200k 37%
income 200k-plus 7%
single family 15%
multi-family 85%
rented 87%
owned 13%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. 2 30,041
-2,789
-8.50%
25%
57%
2%
15%
18,691
24%
59%
2%
14%
16,051
26%
23%
4%
4%
66%
2%
10,568
28%
25%
4%
5%
63%
2%
6,131
29%
27%
4%
5%
61%
2%
30,554
20%
55%
24%
60%
61%
22%
22%
11%
45%
41%
47%
25%
12%
27%
60%
28%
21%
14%
31%
5%
20%
80%
85%
15%
3 30,908
-1,922
-5.85%
17%
66%
2%
13%
20,988
18%
63%
4%
13%
17,760
18%
16%
5%
3%
71%
4%
12,217
19%
18%
5%
3%
69%
4%
7,085
21%
20%
5%
3%
66%
3%
31,276
19%
57%
24%
58%
68%
27%
14%
8%
50%
38%
52%
24%
11%
24%
64%
25%
20%
15%
33%
7%
25%
75%
81%
19%
4 32,969
139

0.42%
17%
63%
2%
16%
20,256
14%
68%
3%
15%
18,663
19%
18%
5%
3%
71%
3%
12,747
21%
19%
5%
4%
68%
3%
7,515
22%
20%
5%
4%
68%
2%
31,908
17%
57%
26%
61%
62%
27%
10%
8%
55%
40%
47%
27%
12%
23%
60%
27%
14%
14%
37%
7%
14%
86%
79%
21%
5 36,820
3,990

12.15%
13%
60%
1%
25%
25,697
13%
64%
2%
19%
25,609
11%
10%
11%
2%
75%
1%
20,172
11%
11%
11%
2%
75%
1%
13,985
11%
11%
9%
2%
77%
1%
36,286
25%
50%
24%
37%
80%
49%
8%
15%
27%
18%
38%
34%
23%
36%
65%
12%
10%
12%
43%
24%
69%
31%
35%
65%
6 33,126
296

0.90%
10%
75%
1%
12%
23,538
11%
77%
2%
10%
23,340
9%
8%
5%
1%
84%
1%
18,024
9%
9%
5%
2%
83%
1%
12,116
10%
10%
5%
2%
82%
1%
32,536
21%
50%
29%
44%
78%
42%
6%
5%
47%
21%
43%
30%
22%
27%
61%
13%
10%
13%
38%
26%
71%
29%
31%
69%
Total
196,980
6,779

20.65%
17%
62%
2%
17%
129,718
17%
65%
3%
15%
118,402
17%
15%
6%
3%
73%
2%
85,200
17%
16%
6%
3%
72%
2%
53,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
71%
2%
196,512
20%
55%
25%
52%
66%
33%
14%
10%
43%
32%
46%
28%
15%
27%
62%
21%
15%
14%
37%
13%
36%
64%
66%
34%
08/08/2023 13:14 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
151 of 1003
2 1
3 4
5 6
Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
Sonora Ave
W Kenneth Rd
N
Glendale
Ave
N Central Ave
Western Ave
N
Pacific Ave
N Brand Blvd
Gra
ndview
Ave
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
Dunsmore Ave
E Chevy Chase Dr
5 210
152 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, July 26, 2023 Map 102
District 1
Total Pop 33,116
Deviation from ideal 286
% Deviation 0.87%
% Hisp 22.6%
% NH White 53%
% NH Black 4%
% Asian-American 19%
Total 20,548
% Hisp 21%
% NH White 57%
% NH Black 5%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 16%
Total 16,979
% Latino est. 25%
% Spanish-Surnamed 22%
% Asian-Surnamed 6%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 63%
% NH Black 4%
Total 11,472
% Latino est. 26%
% Spanish-Surnamed 24%
% Asian-Surnamed 6%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 61%
% NH Black 4%
Total 6,235
% Latino est. 30%
% Spanish-Surnamed 28%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 5%
% NH White est. 58%
% NH Black est. 3%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 33,952
age0-19 18%
age20-60 62%
age60plus 20%
immigrants 55%
naturalized 55%
english 27%
spanish 22%
asian-lang 11%
other lang 39%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 38%
hs-grad 47%
bachelor 27%
graduatedegree 10%
Child in Household child-under18 23%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 64%
income 0-25k 23%
income 25-50k 16%
income 50-75k 16%
income 75-200k 37%
income 200k-plus 7%
single family 15%
multi-family 85%
rented 87%
owned 13%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. 2 32,846
16 0.05%
24%
59%
2%
14%
20,518
23%
61%
2%
13%
17,600
24%
22%
3%
4%
68%
2%
11,526
26%
24%
4%
5%
65%
2%
6,589
28%
26%
4%
4%
63%
2%
33,067
19%
55%
25%
62%
62%
22%
20%
10%
48%
43%
46%
25%
12%
25%
58%
31%
20%
13%
31%
5%
19%
81%
86%
14%
3 31,914
-916
-2.79%
17%
66%
2%
13%
21,828
18%
63%
4%
13%
18,448
18%
16%
5%
2%
72%
3%
12,669
19%
18%
5%
3%
70%
3%
7,337
21%
20%
5%
3%
67%
3%
32,280
19%
57%
24%
57%
68%
27%
14%
8%
50%
38%
52%
24%
12%
24%
64%
25%
20%
14%
34%
7%
27%
73%
80%
20%
4 33,895
1,065

3.24%
17%
62%
2%
17%
21,404
15%
65%
4%
16%
19,533
19%
18%
5%
4%
71%
3%
13,624
21%
19%
5%
4%
69%
2%
8,235
21%
19%
5%
4%
68%
2%
33,409
20%
57%
24%
55%
63%
31%
10%
9%
50%
35%
47%
29%
12%
27%
64%
21%
14%
17%
40%
9%
18%
82%
76%
24%
5 33,089
259

0.79%
12%
59%
1%
26%
22,722
12%
65%
1%
20%
23,190
11%
10%
12%
2%
75%
1%
18,337
11%
10%
11%
2%
75%
1%
12,807
11%
10%
9%
2%
77%
1%
32,272
25%
50%
25%
38%
80%
48%
8%
16%
27%
18%
37%
32%
24%
36%
64%
12%
10%
10%
42%
25%
73%
27%
31%
69%
6 32,120
-710
-2.16%
10%
75%
1%
12%
22,698
11%
76%
2%
10%
22,652
9%
8%
5%
1%
83%
1%
17,572
9%
9%
5%
2%
83%
1%
11,864
10%
10%
5%
2%
82%
1%
31,532
21%
50%
30%
44%
77%
42%
6%
5%
47%
20%
43%
30%
22%
27%
61%
12%
10%
13%
38%
26%
70%
30%
32%
68%
Total
196,980
1,981

6.03%
17%
62%
2%
17%
129,718
17%
65%
3%
15%
118,402
17%
15%
6%
3%
73%
2%
85,200
17%
16%
6%
3%
72%
2%
53,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
71%
2%
196,512
20%
55%
25%
52%
66%
33%
14%
10%
43%
32%
46%
28%
15%
27%
62%
21%
15%
14%
37%
13%
36%
64%
66%
34%
08/08/2023 13:16 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
153 of 1003
2 4 5
1 3
6 Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
Sonora Ave
S Chevy Chase Dr
W Kenneth Rd
N
Glendale
Ave
N Central Ave
Western Ave
N
Pacific Ave
N Brand Blvd
Gra
ndview
Ave
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
Dunsmore Ave
E Chevy Chase Dr
5 210
Proposed Election Sequence:
2026, four-year term: Districts 6 (Brotman & Najarian) and any two of 1 (vacant), 3 (vacant) or 5 (vacant)
2026: two-year term: District 4 (Asatryan & Devine)
2028: Districts 2 (Kassakhian), District 4 (Asatryan & Devine) and any one of 1 (vacant), 3 (vacant) or 5 (vacant)
154 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, July 25, 2023 Map 103
District 1
Total Pop 33,106
Deviation from ideal 276
% Deviation 0.84%
% Hisp 24.6%
% NH White 55%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 17%
Total 20,960
% Hisp 23%
% NH White 59%
% NH Black 3%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 15%
Total 18,787
% Latino est. 25%
% Spanish-Surnamed 23%
% Asian-Surnamed 4%
% Filipino-Surnamed 5%
% NH White est. 65%
% NH Black 3%
Total 12,967
% Latino est. 27%
% Spanish-Surnamed 24%
% Asian-Surnamed 4%
% Filipino-Surnamed 5%
% NH White est. 63%
% NH Black 2%
Total 7,998
% Latino est. 27%
% Spanish-Surnamed 25%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 63%
% NH Black est. 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 32,898
age0-19 20%
age20-60 55%
age60plus 25%
immigrants 56%
naturalized 62%
english 27%
spanish 21%
asian-lang 11%
other lang 41%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 36%
hs-grad 47%
bachelor 25%
graduatedegree 14%
Child in Household child-under18 28%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 61%
income 0-25k 24%
income 25-50k 19%
income 50-75k 12%
income 75-200k 37%
income 200k-plus 9%
single family 27%
multi-family 73%
rented 77%
owned 23%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. 2 32,272
-558
-1.70%
26%
51%
3%
17%
20,828
24%
55%
5%
14%
17,909
26%
24%
5%
4%
62%
4%
12,326
27%
25%
6%
5%
60%
4%
7,236
31%
29%
5%
4%
57%
3%
33,643
19%
60%
21%
53%
57%
30%
26%
11%
33%
36%
48%
27%
9%
23%
64%
24%
18%
16%
35%
7%
26%
74%
82%
18%
3 33,428
598

1.82%
10%
76%
1%
11%
23,697
11%
78%
2%
8%
20,682
10%
10%
5%
1%
83%
1%
14,722
11%
10%
5%
1%
82%
1%
8,923
12%
12%
5%
2%
80%
1%
33,883
20%
53%
27%
55%
75%
29%
8%
5%
59%
33%
48%
25%
17%
28%
61%
19%
15%
16%
35%
16%
48%
52%
57%
43%
4 33,744
914

2.78%
14%
65%
3%
16%
22,474
15%
63%
5%
17%
20,043
15%
14%
6%
3%
75%
3%
14,684
16%
15%
6%
3%
73%
3%
8,976
17%
16%
5%
3%
73%
2%
33,738
20%
57%
24%
51%
64%
38%
8%
10%
44%
30%
46%
31%
17%
26%
65%
17%
14%
15%
40%
13%
23%
77%
70%
30%
5 32,302
-528
-1.61%
15%
64%
2%
17%
19,871
14%
67%
3%
15%
18,691
16%
15%
7%
3%
72%
3%
12,906
18%
16%
7%
3%
70%
2%
7,697
18%
17%
7%
3%
70%
2%
31,365
18%
56%
27%
60%
62%
26%
10%
9%
55%
41%
44%
29%
13%
22%
58%
29%
15%
15%
32%
10%
25%
75%
74%
26%
6 32,128
-702
-2.14%
13%
61%
1%
23%
21,888
14%
66%
1%
19%
22,290
10%
9%
10%
2%
77%
1%
17,595
10%
10%
10%
2%
77%
1%
12,237
10%
10%
8%
2%
80%
1%
30,985
25%
50%
25%
38%
82%
48%
8%
15%
28%
17%
40%
31%
24%
36%
65%
14%
9%
11%
43%
24%
71%
29%
33%
67%
Total
196,980
1,616

4.92%
17%
62%
2%
17%
129,718
17%
65%
3%
15%
118,402
17%
15%
6%
3%
73%
2%
85,200
17%
16%
6%
3%
72%
2%
53,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
71%
2%
196,512
20%
55%
25%
52%
66%
33%
14%
10%
43%
32%
46%
28%
15%
27%
62%
21%
15%
14%
37%
13%
36%
64%
66%
34%
08/08/2023 13:16 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
155 of 1003
1 30.47%
4 42.11%
2 -14.93%
6 -25.88%
5 -46.29%
3 14.52%
Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
Sonora Ave
W Kenneth Rd
N
Glendale
Ave
Western Ave
N
Pacific Ave
N Brand Blvd
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
Dunsmore Ave
5 210
156 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, July 26, 2023 Map 104
District 1
Total Pop 42,833
Deviation from ideal 10,003
% Deviation 30.47%
% Hisp 21.4%
% NH White 60%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 15%
Total 25,843
% Hisp 21%
% NH White 62%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 14%
Total 22,861
% Latino est. 24%
% Spanish-Surnamed 22%
% Asian-Surnamed 4%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 67%
% NH Black 3%
Total 15,129
% Latino est. 26%
% Spanish-Surnamed 24%
% Asian-Surnamed 4%
% Filipino-Surnamed 5%
% NH White est. 64%
% NH Black 3%
Total 8,667
% Latino est. 28%
% Spanish-Surnamed 26%
% Asian-Surnamed 4%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 62%
% NH Black est. 3%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 41,664
age0-19 19%
age20-60 56%
age60plus 25%
immigrants 63%
naturalized 61%
english 22%
spanish 18%
asian-lang 10%
other lang 50%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 42%
hs-grad 48%
bachelor 25%
graduatedegree 11%
Child in Household child-under18 26%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 58%
income 0-25k 29%
income 25-50k 18%
income 50-75k 15%
income 75-200k 33%
income 200k-plus 5%
single family 17%
multi-family 83%
rented 85%
owned 15%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. 2 27,929
-4,901
-14.93%
16%
70%
2%
11%
18,774
17%
71%
2%
7%
17,099
15%
14%
4%
2%
78%
1%
12,206
16%
15%
5%
2%
76%
1%
7,566
17%
17%
4%
2%
74%
1%
27,841
21%
54%
25%
54%
70%
31%
13%
5%
51%
33%
51%
23%
14%
27%
64%
22%
19%
14%
32%
13%
51%
49%
63%
37%
3 37,598
4,768

14.52%
12%
71%
2%
14%
26,636
13%
69%
3%
14%
24,824
11%
10%
6%
2%
79%
3%
18,601
12%
11%
6%
2%
78%
3%
11,980
13%
12%
6%
2%
77%
2%
37,477
19%
53%
28%
49%
73%
37%
7%
8%
47%
27%
44%
30%
19%
25%
61%
16%
12%
14%
39%
19%
45%
55%
52%
48%
4 46,654
13,824

42.11%
22%
55%
3%
18%
29,313
19%
60%
4%
15%
24,563
23%
21%
5%
4%
66%
3%
16,547
24%
22%
6%
4%
64%
3%
9,189
27%
25%
5%
4%
61%
3%
47,853
17%
61%
22%
57%
58%
26%
20%
11%
43%
39%
48%
27%
11%
23%
64%
26%
16%
16%
35%
7%
12%
88%
86%
14%
5 17,633
-15,197
-46.29%
13%
63%
2%
21%
12,262
13%
62%
5%
19%
12,557
13%
12%
10%
3%
74%
1%
9,721
13%
12%
10%
3%
74%
1%
6,620
13%
13%
9%
3%
74%
1%
17,263
23%
52%
25%
35%
72%
48%
8%
9%
35%
19%
36%
37%
21%
30%
66%
10%
10%
11%
44%
25%
66%
34%
39%
61%
6 24,333
-8,497
-25.88%
14%
57%
1%
26%
16,890
14%
65%
1%
19%
16,498
11%
10%
11%
2%
75%
1%
12,996
11%
11%
10%
2%
76%
1%
9,045
11%
10%
8%
2%
78%
1%
24,414
26%
50%
23%
38%
81%
49%
9%
18%
24%
18%
39%
31%
23%
39%
66%
13%
10%
12%
43%
21%
66%
34%
38%
62%
Total
196,980
29,021

88.40%
17%
62%
2%
17%
129,718
17%
65%
3%
15%
118,402
17%
15%
6%
3%
73%
2%
85,200
17%
16%
6%
3%
72%
2%
53,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
71%
2%
196,512
20%
55%
25%
52%
66%
33%
14%
10%
43%
32%
46%
28%
15%
27%
62%
21%
15%
14%
37%
13%
36%
64%
66%
34%
08/08/2023 13:16 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
157 of 1003
1 4
2 3
5 6
Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
Sonora Ave
W Kenneth Rd
N
Glendale
Ave
Western Ave
N
Pacific Ave
N Brand Blvd
Gra
ndview
Ave
W Broadway
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
Dunsmore Ave
E Chevy Chase Dr
5 210
158 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, July 27, 2023 Map 105
District 1
Total Pop 33,156
Deviation from ideal 326
% Deviation 0.99%
% Hisp 23.7%
% NH White 59%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 15%
Total 20,418
% Hisp 23%
% NH White 61%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 14%
Total 17,783
% Latino est. 25%
% Spanish-Surnamed 23%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 67%
% NH Black 2%
Total 11,704
% Latino est. 27%
% Spanish-Surnamed 25%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 5%
% NH White est. 64%
% NH Black 2%
Total 6,752
% Latino est. 29%
% Spanish-Surnamed 27%
% Asian-Surnamed 4%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 62%
% NH Black est. 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 32,969
age0-19 20%
age20-60 56%
age60plus 24%
immigrants 61%
naturalized 61%
english 22%
spanish 20%
asian-lang 10%
other lang 48%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 42%
hs-grad 47%
bachelor 25%
graduatedegree 12%
Child in Household child-under18 27%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 59%
income 0-25k 28%
income 25-50k 20%
income 50-75k 14%
income 75-200k 32%
income 200k-plus 5%
single family 20%
multi-family 80%
rented 85%
owned 15%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

2.85%
23%
53%
3%
18%
21,445
22%
58%
5%
15%
17,806
24%
22%
5%
4%
64%
4%
12,004
26%
24%
5%
4%
62%
4%
6,627
29%
27%
5%
4%
58%
3%
35,260
17%
61%
22%
57%
55%
27%
22%
11%
40%
41%
46%
27%
10%
21%
63%
27%
17%
17%
33%
6%
12%
88%
88%
12%
3 32,172
-658
-2.00%
15%
71%
2%
11%
22,048
16%
73%
2%
7%
20,146
14%
13%
4%
2%
79%
1%
14,551
14%
13%
5%
2%
78%
1%
9,118
16%
15%
5%
2%
76%
1%
32,111
21%
53%
26%
53%
72%
31%
13%
5%
51%
31%
49%
24%
15%
27%
62%
21%
17%
14%
34%
15%
56%
44%
57%
43%
4 33,795
965

2.94%
13%
66%
3%
16%
22,956
13%
67%
4%
16%
19,636
15%
14%
6%
3%
73%
4%
13,754
17%
15%
6%
3%
71%
4%
8,089
18%
17%
5%
3%
70%
3%
34,247
17%
59%
24%
54%
67%
30%
8%
11%
51%
34%
48%
29%
15%
24%
64%
20%
14%
16%
39%
11%
17%
83%
74%
26%
5 32,588
-242
-0.74%
14%
64%
2%
19%
21,428
13%
65%
4%
17%
21,196
15%
13%
8%
3%
73%
2%
15,930
15%
14%
8%
3%
72%
2%
10,466
15%
14%
8%
3%
73%
1%
31,506
21%
52%
27%
48%
67%
40%
9%
9%
42%
27%
42%
31%
17%
29%
61%
17%
12%
13%
40%
18%
49%
51%
52%
48%
6 31,502
-1,328
-4.05%
13%
61%
1%
23%
21,423
14%
66%
1%
18%
21,835
10%
10%
10%
2%
77%
1%
17,257
10%
10%
9%
2%
78%
1%
12,015
10%
10%
7%
2%
80%
1%
30,419
25%
50%
24%
38%
82%
49%
9%
15%
28%
17%
40%
31%
24%
37%
65%
13%
9%
11%
43%
24%
71%
29%
33%
67%
Total
196,980
2,293

6.98%
17%
62%
2%
17%
129,718
17%
65%
3%
15%
118,402
17%
15%
6%
3%
73%
2%
85,200
17%
16%
6%
3%
72%
2%
53,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
71%
2%
196,512
20%
55%
25%
52%
66%
33%
14%
10%
43%
32%
46%
28%
15%
27%
62%
21%
15%
14%
37%
13%
36%
64%
66%
34%
08/08/2023 13:17 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
159 of 1003
6 4
5 1
3 2
Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
Sonora Ave
S Chevy Chase Dr
W Kenneth Rd
N Central Ave
Western Ave
N
Pacific Ave
N Brand Blvd
W Broadway
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
Dunsmore Ave
E Chevy Chase Dr
5 210
160 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, August 7, 2023 Map 106
District 1
Total Pop 33,642
Deviation from ideal 812
% Deviation 2.47%
% Hisp 10.4%
% NH White 74%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 12%
Total 23,822
% Hisp 12%
% NH White 73%
% NH Black 3%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 11%
Total 20,712
% Latino est. 10%
% Spanish-Surnamed 10%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 80%
% NH Black 3%
Total 14,877
% Latino est. 11%
% Spanish-Surnamed 11%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 79%
% NH Black 3%
Total 9,015
% Latino est. 13%
% Spanish-Surnamed 12%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 78%
% NH Black est. 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 34,665
age0-19 19%
age20-60 56%
age60plus 25%
immigrants 54%
naturalized 72%
english 32%
spanish 6%
asian-lang 7%
other lang 54%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 33%
hs-grad 48%
bachelor 29%
graduatedegree 16%
Child in Household child-under18 26%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 63%
income 0-25k 18%
income 25-50k 16%
income 50-75k 17%
income 75-200k 34%
income 200k-plus 16%
single family 39%
multi-family 61%
rented 63%
owned 37%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. 2 32,484
-346
-1.05%
12%
62%
1%
22%
22,578
14%
68%
1%
17%
22,494
10%
9%
10%
2%
78%
1%
17,690
10%
10%
9%
2%
78%
1%
12,241
10%
10%
7%
2%
80%
1%
31,846
25%
49%
26%
39%
83%
48%
9%
14%
29%
17%
40%
30%
24%
35%
63%
13%
9%
11%
46%
22%
71%
29%
33%
67%
3 33,448
618

1.88%
14%
64%
2%
18%
21,869
13%
66%
4%
16%
22,682
14%
13%
8%
3%
75%
1%
17,442
15%
14%
8%
3%
74%
1%
11,655
14%
14%
7%
2%
75%
1%
32,280
22%
51%
26%
45%
67%
41%
8%
9%
42%
24%
39%
34%
21%
31%
63%
12%
11%
12%
42%
23%
56%
44%
44%
56%
4 31,907
-923
-2.81%
27%
54%
2%
16%
20,041
26%
57%
2%
14%
17,442
28%
26%
4%
4%
63%
3%
11,636
30%
27%
4%
5%
60%
3%
6,817
32%
29%
4%
5%
58%
3%
32,846
19%
58%
23%
58%
57%
24%
25%
11%
41%
41%
47%
24%
11%
26%
62%
26%
20%
12%
36%
6%
19%
81%
86%
14%
5 32,640
-190
-0.58%
21%
57%
3%
17%
21,002
20%
58%
5%
15%
17,953
22%
20%
6%
3%
66%
3%
12,411
24%
22%
6%
4%
64%
3%
7,129
26%
25%
5%
4%
61%
3%
32,189
18%
60%
22%
54%
63%
31%
20%
10%
39%
34%
51%
26%
11%
24%
66%
24%
19%
15%
34%
9%
23%
77%
80%
20%
6 32,859
29 0.09%
19%
61%
3%
16%
20,406
17%
66%
3%
14%
17,119
20%
18%
4%
4%
70%
3%
11,144
22%
20%
5%
4%
68%
2%
6,210
24%
23%
5%
4%
65%
2%
32,686
17%
57%
26%
62%
61%
22%
15%
10%
54%
44%
48%
26%
10%
21%
58%
33%
16%
17%
31%
3%
10%
90%
88%
12%
Total
196,980
1,735

5.28%
17%
62%
2%
17%
129,718
17%
65%
3%
15%
118,402
17%
15%
6%
3%
73%
2%
85,200
17%
16%
6%
3%
72%
2%
53,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
71%
2%
196,512
20%
55%
25%
52%
66%
33%
14%
10%
43%
32%
46%
28%
15%
27%
62%
21%
15%
14%
37%
13%
36%
64%
66%
34%
08/08/2023 13:17 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
161 of 1003
4 1
2 3
5 6
Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
Sonora Ave
W Kenneth Rd
N
Glendale
Ave
Western Ave
N
Pacific Ave
N Brand Blvd
Gra
ndview
Ave
W Broadway
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
Dunsmore Ave
E Chevy Chase Dr
5 210
162 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, August 7, 2023 Map 107
District 1
Total Pop 33,156
Deviation from ideal 326
% Deviation 0.99%
% Hisp 23.7%
% NH White 59%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 15%
Total 20,418
% Hisp 23%
% NH White 61%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 14%
Total 17,783
% Latino est. 25%
% Spanish-Surnamed 23%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 67%
% NH Black 2%
Total 11,704
% Latino est. 27%
% Spanish-Surnamed 25%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 5%
% NH White est. 64%
% NH Black 2%
Total 6,752
% Latino est. 29%
% Spanish-Surnamed 27%
% Asian-Surnamed 4%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 62%
% NH Black est. 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 32,969
age0-19 20%
age20-60 56%
age60plus 24%
immigrants 61%
naturalized 61%
english 22%
spanish 20%
asian-lang 10%
other lang 48%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 42%
hs-grad 47%
bachelor 25%
graduatedegree 12%
Child in Household child-under18 27%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 59%
income 0-25k 28%
income 25-50k 20%
income 50-75k 14%
income 75-200k 32%
income 200k-plus 5%
single family 20%
multi-family 80%
rented 85%
owned 15%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. 2 32,722
-108
-0.33%
24%
53%
4%
18%
20,585
22%
58%
5%
14%
17,246
24%
22%
5%
4%
64%
4%
11,636
26%
24%
5%
4%
62%
4%
6,446
29%
27%
5%
4%
58%
3%
34,181
17%
61%
22%
57%
55%
28%
23%
10%
40%
40%
46%
26%
10%
21%
63%
27%
17%
17%
33%
6%
12%
88%
89%
11%
3 33,001
171

0.52%
15%
71%
2%
11%
22,626
16%
73%
2%
7%
20,715
14%
13%
4%
2%
79%
1%
14,967
14%
13%
5%
2%
78%
1%
9,381
16%
15%
5%
2%
76%
1%
32,888
21%
53%
26%
53%
73%
31%
13%
5%
51%
31%
49%
24%
16%
27%
62%
20%
17%
14%
34%
15%
56%
44%
56%
44%
4 32,815
-15
-0.05%
13%
66%
3%
16%
22,138
13%
65%
4%
17%
18,864
15%
14%
6%
3%
73%
4%
13,134
17%
15%
6%
3%
71%
4%
7,631
18%
16%
6%
3%
70%
4%
32,814
17%
59%
24%
54%
67%
30%
9%
11%
50%
34%
48%
30%
15%
24%
64%
21%
14%
16%
39%
11%
16%
84%
75%
25%
5 32,203
-627
-1.91%
14%
63%
2%
19%
21,098
14%
64%
4%
17%
20,663
14%
13%
8%
3%
73%
2%
15,331
15%
14%
8%
3%
72%
2%
10,065
15%
14%
8%
3%
73%
2%
30,950
21%
53%
26%
46%
67%
40%
9%
10%
41%
27%
44%
31%
16%
28%
62%
17%
12%
13%
42%
16%
44%
56%
57%
43%
6 33,083
253

0.77%
13%
62%
1%
22%
22,853
13%
68%
1%
18%
23,131
11%
10%
10%
2%
77%
1%
18,428
11%
11%
9%
2%
77%
1%
12,792
11%
11%
8%
2%
79%
1%
32,710
25%
49%
25%
41%
79%
46%
9%
14%
31%
19%
39%
31%
24%
37%
64%
12%
10%
11%
41%
26%
73%
27%
30%
70%
Total
196,980
953

2.90%
17%
62%
2%
17%
129,718
17%
65%
3%
15%
118,402
17%
15%
6%
3%
73%
2%
85,200
17%
16%
6%
3%
72%
2%
53,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
71%
2%
196,512
20%
55%
25%
52%
66%
33%
14%
10%
43%
32%
46%
28%
15%
27%
62%
21%
15%
14%
37%
13%
36%
64%
66%
34%
08/08/2023 13:18 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
163 of 1003
1 2
3 4
5 6
Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
Sonora Ave
W Kenneth Rd
N
Glendale
Ave
N Central Ave
Western Ave
N
Pacific Ave
N Brand Blvd
Gra
ndview
Ave
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
Dunsmore Ave
E Chevy Chase Dr
5 210
164 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, August 7, 2023 Map 108
District 1
Total Pop 33,156
Deviation from ideal 326
% Deviation 0.99%
% Hisp 23.7%
% NH White 59%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 15%
Total 20,418
% Hisp 23%
% NH White 61%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 14%
Total 17,783
% Latino est. 25%
% Spanish-Surnamed 23%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 67%
% NH Black 2%
Total 11,704
% Latino est. 27%
% Spanish-Surnamed 25%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 5%
% NH White est. 64%
% NH Black 2%
Total 6,752
% Latino est. 29%
% Spanish-Surnamed 27%
% Asian-Surnamed 4%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 62%
% NH Black est. 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 32,969
age0-19 20%
age20-60 56%
age60plus 24%
immigrants 61%
naturalized 61%
english 22%
spanish 20%
asian-lang 10%
other lang 48%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 42%
hs-grad 47%
bachelor 25%
graduatedegree 12%
Child in Household child-under18 27%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 59%
income 0-25k 28%
income 25-50k 20%
income 50-75k 14%
income 75-200k 32%
income 200k-plus 5%
single family 20%
multi-family 80%
rented 85%
owned 15%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

0.94%
15%
70%
2%
11%
22,901
15%
72%
3%
8%
20,199
15%
14%
4%
2%
77%
2%
14,315
16%
15%
5%
2%
75%
2%
8,695
18%
17%
5%
2%
73%
2%
33,401
20%
55%
25%
54%
72%
29%
13%
6%
52%
34%
51%
24%
13%
27%
64%
22%
18%
14%
33%
13%
46%
54%
66%
34%
4 32,448
-382
-1.16%
13%
67%
3%
16%
21,653
13%
68%
3%
15%
19,449
13%
12%
6%
2%
76%
3%
13,943
14%
13%
6%
3%
74%
3%
8,505
15%
14%
5%
3%
74%
3%
32,114
18%
56%
25%
53%
67%
35%
8%
9%
48%
30%
46%
30%
17%
24%
62%
19%
13%
15%
40%
13%
26%
74%
64%
36%
5 32,310
-520
-1.58%
15%
63%
2%
19%
20,687
13%
67%
3%
16%
20,810
15%
14%
8%
3%
73%
2%
15,525
16%
15%
8%
3%
72%
2%
10,300
15%
15%
7%
3%
73%
2%
30,547
19%
53%
28%
48%
66%
38%
9%
10%
43%
29%
45%
28%
17%
27%
60%
18%
13%
12%
41%
16%
45%
55%
57%
43%
6 32,923
93 0.28%
13%
62%
1%
22%
23,029
15%
64%
2%
19%
22,738
10%
10%
10%
2%
77%
1%
17,984
11%
10%
9%
2%
77%
1%
12,351
11%
10%
8%
2%
79%
1%
32,649
26%
49%
24%
39%
82%
47%
9%
14%
30%
17%
38%
34%
22%
38%
67%
12%
8%
13%
42%
26%
70%
30%
33%
67%
Total
196,980
846

2.58%
17%
62%
2%
17%
129,718
17%
65%
3%
15%
118,402
17%
15%
6%
3%
73%
2%
85,200
17%
16%
6%
3%
72%
2%
53,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
71%
2%
196,512
20%
55%
25%
52%
66%
33%
14%
10%
43%
32%
46%
28%
15%
27%
62%
21%
15%
14%
37%
13%
36%
64%
66%
34%
08/08/2023 13:18 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
165 of 1003
4 1
2 3
5 6
Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
Sonora Ave
W Kenneth Rd
N
Glendale
Ave
N Central Ave
Western Ave
N
Pacific Ave
Gra
ndview
Ave
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
Dunsmore Ave
E Chevy Chase Dr
5 210
166 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, August 7, 2023 Map 109
District 1
Total Pop 33,156
Deviation from ideal 326
% Deviation 0.99%
% Hisp 23.7%
% NH White 59%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 15%
Total 20,418
% Hisp 23%
% NH White 61%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 14%
Total 17,783
% Latino est. 25%
% Spanish-Surnamed 23%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 67%
% NH Black 2%
Total 11,704
% Latino est. 27%
% Spanish-Surnamed 25%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 5%
% NH White est. 64%
% NH Black 2%
Total 6,752
% Latino est. 29%
% Spanish-Surnamed 27%
% Asian-Surnamed 4%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 62%
% NH Black est. 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 32,969
age0-19 20%
age20-60 56%
age60plus 24%
immigrants 61%
naturalized 61%
english 22%
spanish 20%
asian-lang 10%
other lang 48%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 42%
hs-grad 47%
bachelor 25%
graduatedegree 12%
Child in Household child-under18 27%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 59%
income 0-25k 28%
income 25-50k 20%
income 50-75k 14%
income 75-200k 32%
income 200k-plus 5%
single family 20%
multi-family 80%
rented 85%
owned 15%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

0.53%
23%
53%
4%
18%
21,030
21%
58%
5%
15%
17,423
24%
22%
5%
4%
64%
3%
11,729
26%
24%
5%
4%
62%
3%
6,464
29%
27%
5%
4%
59%
3%
34,832
17%
61%
22%
56%
55%
27%
23%
11%
40%
41%
46%
27%
10%
21%
63%
27%
17%
16%
34%
7%
12%
88%
88%
12%
3 32,246
-584
-1.78%
16%
69%
2%
11%
21,582
16%
71%
3%
9%
19,884
15%
14%
4%
2%
77%
1%
14,162
16%
15%
5%
2%
76%
1%
8,812
17%
17%
5%
2%
74%
1%
31,889
21%
55%
25%
54%
71%
31%
13%
6%
50%
33%
50%
25%
13%
27%
64%
22%
18%
15%
32%
14%
51%
49%
63%
37%
4 32,407
-423
-1.29%
13%
66%
3%
16%
21,937
13%
67%
4%
15%
18,782
15%
14%
6%
2%
74%
4%
13,322
16%
15%
6%
3%
72%
4%
7,878
17%
16%
5%
3%
71%
3%
32,500
18%
58%
24%
54%
67%
33%
8%
10%
50%
33%
48%
29%
15%
25%
63%
19%
15%
16%
39%
11%
17%
83%
73%
27%
5 32,882
52 0.16%
14%
64%
2%
19%
21,658
14%
65%
4%
17%
21,401
14%
13%
8%
3%
74%
2%
16,074
15%
14%
8%
3%
73%
2%
10,554
15%
14%
8%
3%
73%
1%
31,700
21%
52%
27%
47%
68%
38%
10%
9%
43%
27%
42%
32%
17%
29%
61%
17%
11%
13%
40%
19%
49%
51%
51%
49%
6 33,284
454

1.38%
12%
62%
1%
22%
23,093
13%
68%
1%
18%
23,129
10%
9%
10%
2%
78%
1%
18,209
10%
10%
9%
2%
78%
1%
12,607
10%
10%
7%
2%
80%
1%
32,622
25%
49%
26%
39%
83%
47%
9%
14%
30%
16%
40%
30%
24%
35%
64%
13%
9%
11%
45%
23%
71%
29%
32%
68%
Total
196,980
1,038

3.16%
17%
62%
2%
17%
129,718
17%
65%
3%
15%
118,402
17%
15%
6%
3%
73%
2%
85,200
17%
16%
6%
3%
72%
2%
53,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
71%
2%
196,512
20%
55%
25%
52%
66%
33%
14%
10%
43%
32%
46%
28%
15%
27%
62%
21%
15%
14%
37%
13%
36%
64%
66%
34%
08/08/2023 13:19 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
167 of 1003
4 1
2 3
5 6
Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
Sonora Ave
W Kenneth Rd
N
Glendale
Ave
N Central Ave
Western Ave
N
Pacific Ave
Gra
ndview
Ave
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
Dunsmore Ave
E Chevy Chase Dr
5 210
168 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, August 7, 2023 Map 110
District 1
Total Pop 33,156
Deviation from ideal 326
% Deviation 0.99%
% Hisp 23.7%
% NH White 59%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 15%
Total 20,418
% Hisp 23%
% NH White 61%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 14%
Total 17,783
% Latino est. 25%
% Spanish-Surnamed 23%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 67%
% NH Black 2%
Total 11,704
% Latino est. 27%
% Spanish-Surnamed 25%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 5%
% NH White est. 64%
% NH Black 2%
Total 6,752
% Latino est. 29%
% Spanish-Surnamed 27%
% Asian-Surnamed 4%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 62%
% NH Black est. 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 32,969
age0-19 20%
age20-60 56%
age60plus 24%
immigrants 61%
naturalized 61%
english 22%
spanish 20%
asian-lang 10%
other lang 48%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 42%
hs-grad 47%
bachelor 25%
graduatedegree 12%
Child in Household child-under18 27%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 59%
income 0-25k 28%
income 25-50k 20%
income 50-75k 14%
income 75-200k 32%
income 200k-plus 5%
single family 20%
multi-family 80%
rented 85%
owned 15%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

1.87%
16%
69%
2%
12%
23,088
15%
71%
3%
9%
20,267
16%
15%
5%
2%
76%
2%
14,151
17%
16%
5%
2%
74%
2%
8,386
19%
18%
5%
2%
72%
2%
33,885
20%
56%
24%
55%
72%
28%
13%
6%
53%
35%
51%
24%
12%
27%
64%
22%
18%
15%
33%
11%
44%
56%
69%
31%
4 32,574
-256
-0.78%
14%
66%
3%
16%
21,286
14%
66%
3%
16%
18,697
15%
14%
5%
2%
74%
4%
13,289
16%
15%
6%
3%
72%
3%
8,049
17%
16%
5%
3%
72%
3%
32,173
18%
57%
25%
55%
64%
34%
8%
10%
49%
34%
49%
28%
15%
24%
62%
21%
15%
16%
38%
10%
17%
83%
73%
27%
5 32,326
-504
-1.54%
14%
64%
2%
18%
21,298
13%
64%
4%
18%
21,741
14%
13%
8%
3%
74%
2%
16,581
15%
14%
8%
3%
74%
2%
11,031
15%
14%
8%
3%
74%
1%
30,788
21%
53%
26%
44%
70%
41%
9%
9%
40%
24%
41%
33%
18%
29%
64%
14%
10%
12%
41%
23%
56%
44%
46%
54%
6 32,475
-355
-1.08%
12%
62%
1%
22%
22,598
13%
69%
1%
16%
22,491
10%
9%
10%
2%
78%
1%
17,746
10%
10%
9%
2%
78%
1%
12,385
10%
9%
7%
2%
80%
1%
31,865
25%
48%
27%
39%
82%
46%
9%
14%
30%
17%
38%
31%
25%
35%
63%
12%
9%
11%
45%
23%
73%
27%
30%
70%
Total
196,980
1,118

3.41%
17%
62%
2%
17%
129,718
17%
65%
3%
15%
118,402
17%
15%
6%
3%
73%
2%
85,200
17%
16%
6%
3%
72%
2%
53,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
71%
2%
196,512
20%
55%
25%
52%
66%
33%
14%
10%
43%
32%
46%
28%
15%
27%
62%
21%
15%
14%
37%
13%
36%
64%
66%
34%
08/08/2023 13:19 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
169 of 1003
5 4
3 2
1 Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
Sonora Ave
S Chevy Chase Dr
W Kenneth Rd
N Central Ave
Western Ave
N
Pacific Ave
N Brand Blvd
Gra
ndview
Ave
W Broadway
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
Dunsmore Ave
E Chevy Chase Dr
5 210
170 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, August 7, 2023 Map 111
District 1
Total Pop 28,193
Deviation from ideal -11,203
% Deviation -28.44%
% Hisp 10.3%
% NH White 75%
% NH Black 1%
% Asian-American 12%
Total 20,257
% Hisp 11%
% NH White 76%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 10%
Total 19,988
% Latino est. 9%
% Spanish-Surnamed 8%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 83%
% NH Black 1%
Total 15,615
% Latino est. 9%
% Spanish-Surnamed 9%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 83%
% NH Black 1%
Total 10,608
% Latino est. 10%
% Spanish-Surnamed 9%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 82%
% NH Black est. 1%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 27,183
age0-19 21%
age20-60 49%
age60plus 30%
immigrants 43%
naturalized 82%
english 44%
spanish 6%
asian-lang 5%
other lang 46%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 18%
hs-grad 40%
bachelor 32%
graduatedegree 23%
Child in Household child-under18 29%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 61%
income 0-25k 11%
income 25-50k 9%
income 50-75k 12%
income 75-200k 39%
income 200k-plus 29%
single family 75%
multi-family 25%
rented 27%
owned 73%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data.
2 35,782
-3,614
-9.17%
12%
59%
1%
25%
24,750
13%
65%
2%
20%
25,023
11%
10%
12%
2%
75%
1%
19,744
11%
11%
11%
2%
75%
1%
13,737
11%
11%
9%
2%
77%
1%
35,169
25%
50%
25%
37%
80%
49%
8%
15%
27%
18%
38%
33%
23%
36%
65%
12%
10%
12%
43%
24%
70%
30%
34%
66%
3 46,147
6,751

17.14%
20%
62%
2%
14%
30,297
20%
62%
4%
12%
25,960
21%
19%
5%
3%
69%
3%
17,543
22%
21%
5%
3%
67%
2%
9,997
26%
24%
5%
3%
63%
2%
47,980
20%
58%
23%
56%
64%
25%
20%
9%
45%
39%
50%
24%
10%
26%
63%
25%
19%
16%
33%
8%
29%
71%
81%
19%
4 43,638
4,242

10.77%
15%
63%
3%
17%
27,754
15%
64%
4%
17%
24,492
16%
15%
6%
3%
72%
4%
17,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
70%
3%
10,052
19%
17%
5%
3%
69%
3%
42,863
17%
58%
25%
56%
61%
31%
9%
10%
51%
36%
49%
28%
15%
22%
62%
24%
15%
15%
37%
8%
13%
87%
78%
22%
5 43,220
3,824

9.71%
24%
57%
2%
16%
26,660
22%
61%
3%
14%
22,939
26%
24%
4%
4%
65%
3%
15,231
28%
25%
4%
5%
63%
3%
8,673
29%
27%
4%
5%
60%
3%
43,317
19%
58%
23%
61%
59%
23%
20%
11%
46%
42%
47%
25%
11%
26%
60%
28%
19%
14%
35%
5%
17%
83%
87%
13%
Total
196,980
17,954

45.57%
17%
62%
2%
17%
129,718
17%
65%
3%
15%
118,402
17%
15%
6%
3%
73%
2%
85,200
17%
16%
6%
3%
72%
2%
53,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
71%
2%
196,512
20%
55%
25%
52%
66%
33%
14%
10%
43%
32%
46%
28%
15%
27%
62%
21%
15%
14%
37%
13%
36%
64%
66%
34%
08/08/2023 13:19 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
171 of 1003
3 4
6 5
2 7
1 Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
Sonora Ave
S Chevy Chase Dr
W Kenneth Rd
Western Ave
N Brand Blvd
Gra
ndview
Ave
W Broadway
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
E Chevy Chase Dr
5 210
172 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, August 7, 2023 Map 112
District 1
Total Pop 23,028
Deviation from ideal -5,112
% Deviation -18.17%
% Hisp 10.3%
% NH White 76%
% NH Black 1%
% Asian-American 11%
Total 16,438
% Hisp 13%
% NH White 75%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 10%
Total 16,675
% Latino est. 8%
% Spanish-Surnamed 8%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 85%
% NH Black 1%
Total 13,208
% Latino est. 9%
% Spanish-Surnamed 8%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 84%
% NH Black 0%
Total 9,082
% Latino est. 9%
% Spanish-Surnamed 9%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 84%
% NH Black est. 0%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 22,249
age0-19 24%
age20-60 48%
age60plus 28%
immigrants 39%
naturalized 84%
english 46%
spanish 7%
asian-lang 5%
other lang 43%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 13%
hs-grad 38%
bachelor 34%
graduatedegree 25%
Child in Household child-under18 31%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 63%
income 0-25k 9%
income 25-50k 8%
income 50-75k 12%
income 75-200k 41%
income 200k-plus 30%
single family 83%
multi-family 17%
rented 23%
owned 77%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. 2 24,304
-3,836
-13.63%
14%
57%
1%
26%
16,873
14%
65%
1%
19%
16,469
11%
10%
11%
2%
75%
1%
12,972
11%
11%
10%
2%
76%
1%
9,032
11%
10%
8%
2%
78%
1%
24,386
26%
50%
23%
38%
81%
49%
9%
18%
24%
18%
39%
31%
23%
39%
66%
13%
10%
12%
43%
21%
66%
34%
38%
62%
3 25,475
-2,665
-9.47%
11%
72%
2%
13%
18,161
13%
70%
4%
13%
15,077
11%
10%
5%
2%
78%
4%
10,501
12%
12%
5%
2%
77%
3%
6,032
14%
13%
6%
2%
75%
3%
25,995
18%
57%
25%
59%
72%
28%
7%
8%
57%
38%
49%
27%
14%
25%
61%
21%
17%
17%
34%
11%
29%
71%
72%
28%
4 33,339
5,199

18.48%
20%
57%
3%
17%
20,859
21%
61%
4%
14%
17,416
23%
21%
5%
4%
66%
3%
11,483
25%
23%
5%
4%
64%
3%
6,484
28%
26%
5%
4%
60%
3%
33,861
17%
58%
25%
58%
59%
24%
19%
10%
48%
43%
48%
25%
10%
20%
59%
31%
16%
16%
33%
5%
12%
88%
88%
12%
5 35,033
6,893

24.50%
19%
61%
3%
16%
21,654
17%
63%
4%
14%
19,505
21%
19%
5%
3%
69%
3%
13,440
22%
21%
6%
4%
66%
3%
7,780
25%
23%
5%
4%
64%
3%
33,608
18%
58%
23%
58%
64%
29%
17%
10%
45%
36%
50%
25%
12%
25%
65%
23%
17%
14%
37%
9%
21%
79%
77%
23%
6 33,534
5,394

19.17%
26%
56%
2%
15%
21,158
23%
60%
2%
14%
17,921
26%
24%
4%
4%
65%
3%
11,889
28%
26%
4%
5%
63%
3%
6,808
29%
27%
4%
4%
60%
3%
34,148
19%
57%
23%
61%
59%
23%
21%
11%
45%
41%
48%
25%
11%
26%
61%
27%
20%
14%
34%
5%
18%
82%
86%
14%
7 22,267
-5,873
-20.87%
15%
62%
2%
20%
14,575
14%
64%
3%
18%
15,339
15%
14%
9%
3%
73%
1%
11,707
16%
14%
9%
3%
72%
1%
7,849
15%
14%
8%
3%
73%
1%
22,265
21%
53%
25%
40%
60%
43%
10%
9%
38%
25%
42%
32%
19%
29%
63%
14%
13%
11%
41%
21%
56%
44%
47%
53%
Total
196,980
12,766

45.37%
17%
62%
2%
17%
129,718
17%
65%
3%
15%
118,402
17%
15%
6%
3%
73%
2%
85,200
17%
16%
6%
3%
72%
2%
53,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
71%
2%
196,512
20%
55%
25%
52%
66%
33%
14%
10%
43%
32%
46%
28%
15%
27%
62%
21%
15%
14%
37%
13%
36%
64%
66%
34%
08/08/2023 13:20 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
173 of 1003
4 1
2 3
5 6
Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
Sonora Ave
W Kenneth Rd
N
Glendale
Ave
Western Ave
N
Pacific Ave
N Brand Blvd
Gra
ndview
Ave
W Broadway
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
Dunsmore Ave
E Chevy Chase Dr
5 210
174 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, August 7, 2023 Map 113
District 1
Total Pop 33,156
Deviation from ideal 326
% Deviation 0.99%
% Hisp 23.7%
% NH White 59%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 15%
Total 20,418
% Hisp 23%
% NH White 61%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 14%
Total 17,783
% Latino est. 25%
% Spanish-Surnamed 23%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 67%
% NH Black 2%
Total 11,704
% Latino est. 27%
% Spanish-Surnamed 25%
% Asian-Surnamed 3%
% Filipino-Surnamed 5%
% NH White est. 64%
% NH Black 2%
Total 6,752
% Latino est. 29%
% Spanish-Surnamed 27%
% Asian-Surnamed 4%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 62%
% NH Black est. 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 32,969
age0-19 20%
age20-60 56%
age60plus 24%
immigrants 61%
naturalized 61%
english 22%
spanish 20%
asian-lang 10%
other lang 48%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 42%
hs-grad 47%
bachelor 25%
graduatedegree 12%
Child in Household child-under18 27%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 59%
income 0-25k 28%
income 25-50k 20%
income 50-75k 14%
income 75-200k 32%
income 200k-plus 5%
single family 20%
multi-family 80%
rented 85%
owned 15%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. 2 32,722
-108
-0.33%
24%
53%
4%
18%
20,585
22%
58%
5%
14%
17,246
24%
22%
5%
4%
64%
4%
11,636
26%
24%
5%
4%
62%
4%
6,446
29%
27%
5%
4%
58%
3%
34,181
17%
61%
22%
57%
55%
28%
23%
10%
40%
40%
46%
26%
10%
21%
63%
27%
17%
17%
33%
6%
12%
88%
89%
11%
3 33,001
171

2.90%
17%
62%
2%
17%
129,718
17%
65%
3%
15%
118,402
17%
15%
6%
3%
73%
2%
85,200
17%
16%
6%
3%
72%
2%
53,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
71%
2%
196,512
20%
55%
25%
52%
66%
33%
14%
10%
43%
32%
46%
28%
15%
27%
62%
21%
15%
14%
37%
13%
36%
64%
66%
34%
08/08/2023 13:20 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
175 of 1003
2 1
4 3
5 6
Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
Sonora Ave
W Kenneth Rd
N Central Ave
Western Ave
N
Pacific Ave
N Brand Blvd
W Broadway
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
Dunsmore Ave
E Chevy Chase Dr
5 210
176 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, August 7, 2023 Map 114
District 1
Total Pop 32,850
Deviation from ideal 20
% Deviation 0.06%
% Hisp 23.0%
% NH White 52%
% NH Black 4%
% Asian-American 19%
Total 20,193
% Hisp 22%
% NH White 57%
% NH Black 5%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 15%
Total 16,776
% Latino est. 25%
% Spanish-Surnamed 23%
% Asian-Surnamed 6%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 63%
% NH Black 4%
Total 11,309
% Latino est. 26%
% Spanish-Surnamed 24%
% Asian-Surnamed 6%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 61%
% NH Black 4%
Total 6,177
% Latino est. 30%
% Spanish-Surnamed 28%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 58%
% NH Black est. 3%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 33,827
age0-19 18%
age20-60 62%
age60plus 19%
immigrants 55%
naturalized 55%
english 28%
spanish 23%
asian-lang 10%
other lang 39%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 39%
hs-grad 48%
bachelor 26%
graduatedegree 10%
Child in Household child-under18 24%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 64%
income 0-25k 23%
income 25-50k 17%
income 50-75k 16%
income 75-200k 37%
income 200k-plus 7%
single family 14%
multi-family 86%
rented 88%
owned 12%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

1.38%
23%
59%
2%
15%
20,658
23%
61%
2%
13%
17,959
24%
22%
4%
4%
67%
2%
11,811
26%
24%
4%
5%
65%
2%
6,743
28%
26%
4%
4%
62%
2%
33,369
19%
55%
26%
62%
61%
22%
20%
11%
47%
43%
45%
26%
12%
25%
59%
31%
20%
14%
31%
5%
19%
81%
86%
14%
3 32,583
-247
-0.75%
14%
73%
1%
11%
22,611
14%
74%
3%
9%
19,785
13%
12%
4%
2%
80%
2%
14,060
14%
13%
5%
2%
79%
2%
8,554
15%
15%
5%
2%
77%
1%
33,052
21%
55%
25%
54%
73%
30%
11%
5%
54%
33%
49%
24%
15%
28%
63%
19%
18%
16%
32%
15%
44%
56%
63%
37%
4 32,685
-145
-0.44%
18%
61%
2%
17%
20,794
15%
65%
3%
16%
18,482
20%
19%
5%
4%
68%
3%
12,643
22%
21%
5%
4%
65%
3%
7,532
24%
22%
5%
4%
64%
3%
31,316
15%
58%
27%
62%
64%
26%
12%
11%
52%
40%
50%
26%
11%
22%
61%
27%
15%
15%
36%
7%
15%
85%
77%
23%
5 33,094
264

0.80%
13%
67%
2%
17%
22,884
14%
64%
5%
17%
22,906
12%
11%
8%
2%
76%
2%
17,687
13%
12%
8%
2%
76%
2%
11,820
13%
12%
8%
2%
76%
2%
33,102
22%
53%
25%
42%
68%
45%
8%
8%
39%
22%
40%
34%
21%
28%
64%
13%
12%
12%
40%
23%
56%
44%
47%
53%
6 32,484
-346
-1.05%
12%
62%
1%
22%
22,578
14%
68%
1%
17%
22,494
10%
9%
10%
2%
78%
1%
17,690
10%
10%
9%
2%
78%
1%
12,241
10%
10%
7%
2%
80%
1%
31,846
25%
49%
26%
39%
83%
48%
9%
14%
29%
17%
40%
30%
24%
35%
63%
13%
9%
11%
46%
22%
71%
29%
33%
67%
Total
196,980
800

2.44%
17%
62%
2%
17%
129,718
17%
65%
3%
15%
118,402
17%
15%
6%
3%
73%
2%
85,200
17%
16%
6%
3%
72%
2%
53,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
71%
2%
196,512
20%
55%
25%
52%
66%
33%
14%
10%
43%
32%
46%
28%
15%
27%
62%
21%
15%
14%
37%
13%
36%
64%
66%
34%
08/08/2023 13:21 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
177 of 1003
3 2
6 5
1 4
Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
Sonora Ave
S Chevy Chase Dr
W Kenneth Rd
N
Glendale
Ave
N Central Ave
Western Ave
N
Pacific Ave
N Brand Blvd
Gra
ndview
Ave
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
Dunsmore Ave
E Chevy Chase Dr
5 210
178 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, August 7, 2023 Map 115
District 1
Total Pop 32,474
Deviation from ideal -356
% Deviation -1.08%
% Hisp 17.8%
% NH White 59%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 20%
Total 20,791
% Hisp 16%
% NH White 61%
% NH Black 3%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 19%
Total 20,905
% Latino est. 19%
% Spanish-Surnamed 17%
% Asian-Surnamed 8%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 68%
% NH Black 3%
Total 15,416
% Latino est. 20%
% Spanish-Surnamed 18%
% Asian-Surnamed 8%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 68%
% NH Black 2%
Total 10,136
% Latino est. 19%
% Spanish-Surnamed 18%
% Asian-Surnamed 7%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 68%
% NH Black est. 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 31,468
age0-19 20%
age20-60 54%
age60plus 26%
immigrants 48%
naturalized 64%
english 35%
spanish 14%
asian-lang 12%
other lang 39%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 30%
hs-grad 41%
bachelor 31%
graduatedegree 17%
Child in Household child-under18 28%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 63%
income 0-25k 19%
income 25-50k 13%
income 50-75k 11%
income 75-200k 41%
income 200k-plus 16%
single family 44%
multi-family 56%
rented 58%
owned 42%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

0.87%
23%
53%
4%
19%
20,548
21%
57%
5%
16%
16,979
25%
22%
6%
4%
63%
4%
11,472
26%
24%
6%
4%
61%
4%
6,235
30%
28%
5%
5%
58%
3%
33,952
18%
62%
20%
55%
55%
27%
22%
11%
39%
38%
47%
27%
10%
23%
64%
23%
16%
16%
37%
7%
15%
85%
87%
13%
3 31,439
-1,391
-4.24%
22%
61%
2%
14%
18,350
22%
64%
2%
12%
15,961
23%
21%
3%
4%
69%
2%
10,128
25%
23%
4%
4%
66%
2%
5,412
28%
26%
4%
4%
63%
2%
30,247
18%
56%
26%
68%
60%
21%
17%
8%
54%
47%
50%
22%
10%
23%
57%
34%
20%
15%
28%
3%
12%
88%
91%
9%
4 34,393
1,563

4.76%
12%
63%
1%
22%
23,973
14%
68%
1%
17%
23,963
10%
9%
10%
2%
78%
1%
18,878
10%
10%
9%
2%
78%
1%
13,064
10%
9%
7%
2%
80%
1%
33,708
25%
50%
26%
38%
83%
47%
9%
14%
31%
16%
39%
31%
24%
35%
64%
13%
8%
10%
45%
24%
72%
28%
31%
69%
5 31,591
-1,239
-3.77%
13%
68%
2%
14%
22,577
13%
66%
5%
15%
19,826
13%
12%
5%
2%
77%
3%
14,575
14%
13%
6%
2%
75%
3%
9,262
15%
14%
5%
2%
75%
2%
32,959
19%
55%
26%
50%
67%
37%
7%
9%
47%
30%
44%
32%
17%
25%
63%
17%
15%
17%
37%
14%
25%
75%
64%
36%
6 33,967
1,137

3.46%
15%
70%
2%
11%
23,479
15%
72%
3%
8%
20,768
15%
14%
5%
2%
77%
2%
14,731
16%
15%
5%
2%
75%
2%
8,958
18%
17%
5%
2%
73%
2%
34,178
20%
55%
25%
54%
73%
29%
13%
6%
52%
33%
51%
24%
14%
28%
64%
21%
18%
15%
33%
13%
47%
53%
65%
35%
Total
196,980
2,954

9.00%
17%
62%
2%
17%
129,718
17%
65%
3%
15%
118,402
17%
15%
6%
3%
73%
2%
85,200
17%
16%
6%
3%
72%
2%
53,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
71%
2%
196,512
20%
55%
25%
52%
66%
33%
14%
10%
43%
32%
46%
28%
15%
27%
62%
21%
15%
14%
37%
13%
36%
64%
66%
34%
08/08/2023 13:21 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
179 of 1003
1 Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
Sonora Ave
S Chevy Chase Dr
W Kenneth Rd
N
Glendale
Ave
N Central Ave
Western Ave
N
Pacific Ave
N Brand Blvd
Gra
ndview
Ave
W Broadway
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
Dunsmore Ave
E Chevy Chase Dr
5 210
180 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, August 7, 2023 Map 116
District 1
Total Pop 33,318
Deviation from ideal 488
% Deviation 1.49%
% Hisp 12.0%
% NH White 60%
% NH Black 1%
% Asian-American 25%
Total 22,173
% Hisp 13%
% NH White 66%
% NH Black 1%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 20%
Total 23,267
% Latino est. 10%
% Spanish-Surnamed 9%
% Asian-Surnamed 12%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 76%
% NH Black 1%
Total 18,346
% Latino est. 10%
% Spanish-Surnamed 10%
% Asian-Surnamed 11%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 76%
% NH Black 1%
Total 12,677
% Latino est. 10%
% Spanish-Surnamed 10%
% Asian-Surnamed 9%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 78%
% NH Black est. 1%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 31,448
age0-19 25%
age20-60 49%
age60plus 26%
immigrants 39%
naturalized 80%
english 47%
spanish 8%
asian-lang 16%
other lang 28%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 19%
hs-grad 38%
bachelor 32%
graduatedegree 24%
Child in Household child-under18 35%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 64%
income 0-25k 13%
income 25-50k 9%
income 50-75k 11%
income 75-200k 42%
income 200k-plus 24%
single family 74%
multi-family 26%
rented 30%
owned 70%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Total
33,318
488

1.49%
12%
60%
1%
25%
22,173
13%
66%
1%
20%
23,267
10%
9%
12%
2%
76%
1%
18,346
10%
10%
11%
2%
76%
1%
12,677
10%
10%
9%
2%
78%
1%
31,448
25%
49%
26%
39%
80%
47%
8%
16%
28%
19%
38%
32%
24%
35%
64%
13%
9%
11%
42%
24%
74%
26%
30%
70%
08/08/2023 13:23 Page 1 of 2
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
181 of 1003
3 4
2 5
1 6
Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
Sonora Ave
S Chevy Chase Dr
W Kenneth Rd
N
Glendale
Ave
N Central Ave
Western Ave
N
Pacific Ave
N Brand Blvd
Gra
ndview
Ave
W Broadway
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
Dunsmore Ave
E Chevy Chase Dr
5 210
182 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, August 7, 2023 Map 117
District 1
Total Pop 32,769
Deviation from ideal -61
% Deviation -0.19%
% Hisp 11.5%
% NH White 71%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian-American 14%
Total 23,985
% Hisp 13%
% NH White 70%
% NH Black 4%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 12%
Total 21,105
% Latino est. 11%
% Spanish-Surnamed 10%
% Asian-Surnamed 6%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 79%
% NH Black 3%
Total 15,779
% Latino est. 12%
% Spanish-Surnamed 11%
% Asian-Surnamed 6%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 78%
% NH Black 2%
Total 10,114
% Latino est. 13%
% Spanish-Surnamed 12%
% Asian-Surnamed 6%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 78%
% NH Black est. 2%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 34,220
age0-19 20%
age20-60 54%
age60plus 26%
immigrants 48%
naturalized 72%
english 38%
spanish 7%
asian-lang 8%
other lang 47%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 26%
hs-grad 41%
bachelor 34%
graduatedegree 19%
Child in Household child-under18 27%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 62%
income 0-25k 15%
income 25-50k 12%
income 50-75k 15%
income 75-200k 40%
income 200k-plus 18%
single family 40%
multi-family 60%
rented 54%
owned 46%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. 2 32,759
-71
-0.22%
16%
69%
2%
12%
21,780
17%
69%
3%
10%
19,977
16%
15%
4%
2%
76%
2%
14,042
17%
16%
5%
2%
74%
2%
8,470
19%
18%
5%
2%
72%
1%
32,114
20%
55%
25%
56%
71%
30%
14%
6%
50%
34%
52%
23%
12%
26%
64%
23%
18%
16%
32%
12%
46%
54%
67%
33%
3 32,976
146

0.44%
16%
61%
3%
18%
20,250
13%
68%
4%
14%
17,503
18%
16%
5%
3%
71%
3%
11,839
20%
18%
6%
3%
68%
3%
6,598
21%
20%
6%
3%
67%
3%
31,473
16%
59%
25%
62%
62%
26%
10%
9%
54%
42%
48%
26%
14%
21%
61%
29%
14%
16%
34%
7%
7%
93%
85%
15%
4 32,649
-181
-0.55%
28%
53%
3%
15%
20,323
27%
55%
3%
14%
16,576
29%
26%
4%
4%
62%
3%
10,852
31%
28%
4%
5%
59%
3%
6,096
35%
32%
4%
4%
55%
3%
34,463
19%
59%
22%
58%
56%
24%
28%
10%
38%
42%
49%
23%
8%
25%
61%
27%
20%
14%
33%
5%
17%
83%
89%
11%
5 33,389
559

1.70%
18%
58%
2%
20%
21,572
17%
61%
3%
18%
20,733
20%
18%
7%
4%
68%
2%
14,925
21%
19%
7%
4%
67%
2%
9,421
20%
19%
7%
4%
68%
2%
33,319
20%
55%
25%
50%
62%
32%
14%
11%
42%
32%
41%
30%
16%
28%
61%
19%
16%
12%
40%
13%
39%
61%
65%
35%
6 32,438
-392
-1.19%
13%
61%
1%
23%
21,808
13%
66%
1%
19%
22,508
10%
9%
10%
2%
77%
1%
17,763
10%
10%
10%
2%
77%
1%
12,368
10%
10%
8%
2%
79%
1%
30,923
25%
50%
25%
38%
82%
49%
8%
15%
27%
17%
40%
31%
23%
36%
65%
13%
9%
11%
43%
24%
71%
29%
33%
67%
Total
196,980
951

2.90%
17%
62%
2%
17%
129,718
17%
65%
3%
15%
118,402
17%
15%
6%
3%
73%
2%
85,200
17%
16%
6%
3%
72%
2%
53,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
71%
2%
196,512
20%
55%
25%
52%
66%
33%
14%
10%
43%
32%
46%
28%
15%
27%
62%
21%
15%
14%
37%
13%
36%
64%
66%
34%
08/08/2023 13:23 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
183 of 1003
4 5
6 3
2 1
Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
Sonora Ave
S Chevy Chase Dr
W Kenneth Rd
N
Glendale
Ave
N Central Ave
Western Ave
N
Pacific Ave
N Brand Blvd
Gra
ndview
Ave
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
Dunsmore Ave
E Chevy Chase Dr
5 210
184 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, August 7, 2023 Map 118
District 1
Total Pop 32,688
Deviation from ideal -142
% Deviation -0.43%
% Hisp 12.9%
% NH White 61%
% NH Black 1%
% Asian-American 23%
Total 22,713
% Hisp 14%
% NH White 65%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 18%
Total 22,380
% Latino est. 10%
% Spanish-Surnamed 10%
% Asian-Surnamed 10%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 76%
% NH Black 1%
Total 17,598
% Latino est. 11%
% Spanish-Surnamed 10%
% Asian-Surnamed 10%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 77%
% NH Black 1%
Total 12,148
% Latino est. 10%
% Spanish-Surnamed 10%
% Asian-Surnamed 8%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 79%
% NH Black est. 1%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 31,939
age0-19 26%
age20-60 50%
age60plus 24%
immigrants 37%
naturalized 82%
english 49%
spanish 9%
asian-lang 15%
other lang 27%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 17%
hs-grad 40%
bachelor 32%
graduatedegree 22%
Child in Household child-under18 36%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 66%
income 0-25k 13%
income 25-50k 9%
income 50-75k 13%
income 75-200k 44%
income 200k-plus 21%
single family 65%
multi-family 35%
rented 39%
owned 61%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. 2 32,475
-355
-1.08%
12%
72%
2%
13%
22,351
12%
73%
3%
11%
21,493
11%
10%
5%
2%
81%
2%
16,323
12%
11%
5%
2%
80%
2%
10,731
13%
12%
5%
2%
79%
2%
32,995
21%
52%
28%
49%
71%
39%
7%
6%
48%
26%
42%
31%
21%
28%
61%
14%
12%
13%
39%
22%
50%
50%
45%
55%
3 33,240
410

1.25%
18%
58%
2%
20%
21,172
17%
61%
3%
18%
21,079
20%
18%
7%
4%
68%
2%
15,385
20%
19%
7%
4%
67%
2%
9,958
20%
19%
7%
4%
68%
2%
31,893
19%
54%
27%
50%
64%
33%
15%
12%
40%
31%
41%
30%
17%
27%
61%
19%
14%
11%
41%
15%
43%
57%
61%
39%
4 32,505
-325
-0.99%
22%
62%
2%
13%
20,689
19%
65%
2%
13%
16,858
21%
20%
4%
3%
70%
3%
10,800
24%
22%
4%
4%
67%
2%
5,950
25%
24%
4%
4%
65%
2%
33,239
18%
58%
25%
64%
61%
21%
16%
8%
55%
44%
50%
24%
10%
23%
59%
33%
19%
15%
29%
4%
10%
90%
88%
12%
5 32,995
165

0.50%
22%
53%
4%
19%
20,233
21%
56%
5%
17%
16,966
24%
22%
6%
4%
64%
3%
11,475
26%
24%
6%
5%
61%
3%
6,289
29%
27%
5%
5%
58%
3%
33,300
18%
62%
20%
55%
55%
29%
23%
11%
37%
38%
47%
27%
10%
23%
64%
23%
16%
17%
36%
7%
15%
85%
86%
14%
6 33,077
247

0.75%
16%
68%
2%
12%
22,560
16%
68%
3%
11%
19,626
16%
15%
5%
2%
74%
3%
13,619
17%
16%
5%
2%
72%
2%
7,991
20%
19%
5%
2%
70%
2%
33,146
19%
57%
24%
57%
70%
27%
13%
8%
52%
37%
52%
24%
11%
26%
63%
24%
18%
15%
33%
9%
36%
64%
74%
26%
Total
196,980
765

2.33%
17%
62%
2%
17%
129,718
17%
65%
3%
15%
118,402
17%
15%
6%
3%
73%
2%
85,200
17%
16%
6%
3%
72%
2%
53,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
71%
2%
196,512
20%
55%
25%
52%
66%
33%
14%
10%
43%
32%
46%
28%
15%
27%
62%
21%
15%
14%
37%
13%
36%
64%
66%
34%
08/08/2023 13:24 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
185 of 1003
1 Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
S Chevy Chase Dr
W Kenneth Rd
N
Glendale
Ave
N Central Ave
Western Ave
N
Pacific Ave
N Brand Blvd
Gra
ndview
Ave
W Broadway
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
Dunsmore Ave
E Chevy Chase Dr
210
5 186 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, August 7, 2023 Map 119
District 1
Total Pop 33,027
Deviation from ideal 197
% Deviation 0.60%
% Hisp 26.4%
% NH White 52%
% NH Black 3%
% Asian-American 16%
Total 21,672
% Hisp 24%
% NH White 56%
% NH Black 4%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 14%
Total 18,387
% Latino est. 27%
% Spanish-Surnamed 25%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 62%
% NH Black 4%
Total 12,543
% Latino est. 28%
% Spanish-Surnamed 26%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 60%
% NH Black 4%
Total 7,340
% Latino est. 31%
% Spanish-Surnamed 29%
% Asian-Surnamed 5%
% Filipino-Surnamed 4%
% NH White est. 56%
% NH Black est. 3%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 34,770
age0-19 19%
age20-60 60%
age60plus 21%
immigrants 54%
naturalized 57%
english 28%
spanish 25%
asian-lang 10%
other lang 36%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 37%
hs-grad 49%
bachelor 26%
graduatedegree 8%
Child in Household child-under18 24%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 64%
income 0-25k 24%
income 25-50k 18%
income 50-75k 15%
income 75-200k 36%
income 200k-plus 7%
single family 26%
multi-family 74%
rented 83%
owned 17%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Total
33,027
197

0.60%
26%
52%
3%
16%
21,672
24%
56%
4%
14%
18,387
27%
25%
5%
4%
62%
4%
12,543
28%
26%
5%
4%
60%
4%
7,340
31%
29%
5%
4%
56%
3%
34,770
19%
60%
21%
54%
57%
28%
25%
10%
36%
37%
49%
26%
8%
24%
64%
24%
18%
15%
36%
7%
26%
74%
83%
17%
08/08/2023 13:24 Page 1 of 2
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
187 of 1003
5 3
2 6
4 1
Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
S Chevy Chase Dr
W Kenneth Rd
N
Glendale
Ave
N Central Ave
Western Ave
N
Pacific Ave
N Brand Blvd
Gra
ndview
Ave
W Broadway
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
Dunsmore Ave
E Chevy Chase Dr
5 210
188 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, August 7, 2023 Map 120
District 1
Total Pop 33,056
Deviation from ideal 226
% Deviation 0.69%
% Hisp 12.0%
% NH White 60%
% NH Black 1%
% Asian-American 25%
Total 22,049
% Hisp 13%
% NH White 66%
% NH Black 1%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 20%
Total 23,071
% Latino est. 10%
% Spanish-Surnamed 9%
% Asian-Surnamed 12%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 76%
% NH Black 1%
Total 18,184
% Latino est. 10%
% Spanish-Surnamed 10%
% Asian-Surnamed 11%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 76%
% NH Black 1%
Total 12,563
% Latino est. 10%
% Spanish-Surnamed 10%
% Asian-Surnamed 9%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 78%
% NH Black est. 1%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 31,261
age0-19 25%
age20-60 49%
age60plus 26%
immigrants 39%
naturalized 80%
english 47%
spanish 8%
asian-lang 16%
other lang 28%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 19%
hs-grad 38%
bachelor 32%
graduatedegree 24%
Child in Household child-under18 35%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 64%
income 0-25k 13%
income 25-50k 9%
income 50-75k 11%
income 75-200k 42%
income 200k-plus 24%
single family 73%
multi-family 27%
rented 30%
owned 70%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

3.50%
24%
56%
2%
17%
21,218
22%
59%
3%
15%
19,224
25%
23%
5%
5%
66%
2%
13,235
26%
24%
5%
5%
64%
2%
8,194
26%
24%
5%
5%
63%
2%
33,409
20%
55%
25%
56%
63%
27%
21%
12%
40%
36%
47%
25%
14%
28%
61%
24%
19%
12%
36%
8%
26%
74%
77%
23%
3 33,177
347

1.06%
26%
54%
3%
15%
21,284
25%
56%
4%
13%
18,297
27%
25%
4%
4%
62%
4%
12,385
28%
26%
5%
4%
60%
4%
7,173
31%
29%
4%
4%
57%
3%
34,858
19%
59%
22%
54%
58%
26%
27%
10%
37%
39%
50%
24%
7%
25%
64%
25%
19%
14%
35%
6%
26%
74%
85%
15%
4 33,123
293

0.89%
10%
74%
2%
12%
23,738
12%
74%
3%
11%
20,457
10%
9%
5%
2%
81%
3%
14,694
11%
10%
5%
2%
80%
3%
8,968
12%
12%
5%
2%
79%
2%
33,711
19%
55%
26%
54%
74%
31%
7%
7%
55%
32%
46%
28%
17%
26%
61%
18%
15%
16%
35%
16%
43%
57%
59%
41%
5 30,917
-1,913
-5.83%
17%
61%
3%
18%
19,014
16%
65%
4%
15%
15,955
19%
17%
5%
3%
71%
3%
10,651
20%
19%
6%
4%
68%
3%
5,712
22%
21%
6%
4%
65%
2%
30,107
16%
60%
23%
60%
61%
27%
12%
9%
52%
41%
47%
27%
13%
21%
61%
30%
16%
16%
32%
5%
9%
91%
87%
13%
6 32,729
-101
-0.31%
14%
69%
2%
14%
22,416
13%
69%
3%
14%
21,398
13%
12%
5%
2%
78%
2%
16,051
14%
13%
5%
2%
77%
2%
10,457
15%
14%
5%
2%
77%
2%
33,166
21%
54%
25%
48%
67%
39%
7%
7%
47%
25%
44%
32%
18%
29%
63%
16%
10%
15%
40%
19%
41%
59%
55%
45%
Total
196,980
3,061

9.32%
17%
62%
2%
17%
129,718
17%
65%
3%
15%
118,402
17%
15%
6%
3%
73%
2%
85,200
17%
16%
6%
3%
72%
2%
53,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
71%
2%
196,512
20%
55%
25%
52%
66%
33%
14%
10%
43%
32%
46%
28%
15%
27%
62%
21%
15%
14%
37%
13%
36%
64%
66%
34%
08/08/2023 13:24 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
189 of 1003
5 3
4 6
2 1
Foothill Blvd
Honolulu Ave
N Verdugo
Rd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
E Palmer Ave
W Colorado St
W Maple St
W Los Feliz Rd
W Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
S Glenoaks Blvd
Sonora Ave
S Chevy Chase Dr
W Kenneth Rd
N
Glendale
Ave
N Central Ave
Western Ave
N
Pacific Ave
N Brand Blvd
Gra
ndview
Ave
W Mountain St
Santa Carlotta St
Dunsmore Ave
E Chevy Chase Dr
5 210
190 of 1003 �2021 CALIPER National Demographics Corporation, August 7, 2023 Map 121
District 1
Total Pop 32,962
Deviation from ideal 132
% Deviation 0.40%
% Hisp 12.9%
% NH White 61%
% NH Black 1%
% Asian-American 22%
Total 22,764
% Hisp 14%
% NH White 66%
% NH Black 2%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 18%
Total 22,788
% Latino est. 10%
% Spanish-Surnamed 10%
% Asian-Surnamed 10%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 77%
% NH Black 1%
Total 17,985
% Latino est. 10%
% Spanish-Surnamed 10%
% Asian-Surnamed 9%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 78%
% NH Black 1%
Total 12,447
% Latino est. 10%
% Spanish-Surnamed 10%
% Asian-Surnamed 7%
% Filipino-Surnamed 2%
% NH White est. 80%
% NH Black est. 1%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 32,070
age0-19 26%
age20-60 50%
age60plus 24%
immigrants 37%
naturalized 83%
english 49%
spanish 9%
asian-lang 14%
other lang 28%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 16%
hs-grad 39%
bachelor 32%
graduatedegree 23%
Child in Household child-under18 37%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 66%
income 0-25k 12%
income 25-50k 9%
income 50-75k 12%
income 75-200k 43%
income 200k-plus 24%
single family 68%
multi-family 32%
rented 36%
owned 64%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data. 2 31,896
-934
-2.84%
15%
62%
2%
19%
19,663
14%
65%
3%
17%
19,624
17%
16%
8%
3%
71%
2%
14,224
18%
17%
8%
3%
69%
2%
9,017
18%
17%
8%
3%
70%
2%
30,198
20%
54%
26%
52%
64%
34%
11%
9%
46%
34%
43%
29%
15%
27%
60%
21%
13%
13%
39%
14%
39%
61%
62%
38%
3 33,779
949

2.89%
23%
53%
4%
19%
20,931
21%
57%
5%
16%
17,237
25%
23%
5%
4%
63%
4%
11,598
26%
24%
6%
4%
61%
4%
6,315
30%
28%
5%
4%
58%
3%
34,643
18%
62%
20%
55%
55%
28%
23%
11%
39%
39%
47%
27%
10%
24%
64%
24%
16%
17%
36%
7%
15%
85%
88%
12%
4 33,141
311

0.95%
15%
70%
2%
11%
22,649
15%
72%
3%
8%
20,273
15%
14%
5%
2%
77%
2%
14,399
16%
15%
5%
2%
76%
2%
8,754
17%
16%
5%
2%
74%
2%
33,178
21%
55%
24%
54%
72%
30%
13%
5%
52%
33%
51%
24%
14%
28%
64%
21%
18%
15%
33%
13%
47%
53%
65%
35%
5 31,720
-1,110
-3.38%
24%
58%
2%
15%
19,678
23%
60%
2%
14%
17,267
24%
22%
4%
4%
67%
2%
11,408
26%
24%
4%
5%
65%
2%
6,586
27%
25%
4%
5%
63%
2%
31,766
19%
56%
25%
61%
61%
22%
20%
11%
47%
42%
47%
25%
12%
25%
60%
30%
20%
13%
31%
5%
18%
82%
85%
15%
6 33,482
652

1.99%
13%
69%
2%
14%
24,034
13%
68%
3%
14%
21,213
13%
12%
5%
2%
77%
3%
15,586
14%
13%
6%
2%
76%
3%
9,948
15%
14%
5%
2%
75%
3%
34,657
18%
54%
28%
52%
68%
35%
7%
9%
49%
30%
45%
30%
18%
23%
61%
18%
13%
15%
39%
15%
32%
68%
59%
41%
Total
196,980
2,059

6.27%
17%
62%
2%
17%
129,718
17%
65%
3%
15%
118,402
17%
15%
6%
3%
73%
2%
85,200
17%
16%
6%
3%
72%
2%
53,067
18%
17%
6%
3%
71%
2%
196,512
20%
55%
25%
52%
66%
33%
14%
10%
43%
32%
46%
28%
15%
27%
62%
21%
15%
14%
37%
13%
36%
64%
66%
34%
08/08/2023 13:25 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats
191 of 1003
NDC 8/7/2023
Armenian Voter Percentage of Total Registered Voters
Maps 101 - 121 (Red maps are not population balanced maps) District 1234567 Total
Map 101 29% 31% 36% 35% 22% 38% n/a 32%
Map 102 29% 33% 37% 33% 21% 38% n/a 32%
Map 103 26% 27% 45% 33% 37% 22% n/a 32%
Map 104 33% 39% 36% 31% 29% 18% n/a 32%
Map 105 32% 30% 39% 37% 31% 22% n/a 32%
Map 106 42% 23% 31% 27% 31% 37% n/a 32%
Map 107 32% 29% 39% 37% 30% 23% n/a 32%
Map 108 32% 29% 40% 36% 29% 24% n/a 32%
Map 109 32% 29% 39% 36% 32% 23% n/a 32%
Map 110 32% 29% 40% 35% 31% 23% n/a 32%
Map 111 37% 22% 36% 33% 30% n/a n/a 32%
Map 112 37% 18% 42% 33% 34% 29% 29% 32%
Map 113 32% 29% 39% 37% 30% 23% n/a 32%
Map 114 29% 32% 42% 33% 31% 23% n/a 32%
Map 115 26% 29% 38% 24% 35% 40% n/a 32%
Map 116 22% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 32%
Map 117 37% 39% 35% 29% 28% 22% n/a 32%
Map 118 22% 38% 27% 38% 29% 38% n/a 32%
Map 119 28% n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 32%
Map 120 22% 27% 29% 42% 36% 35% n/a 32%
Map 121 22% 32% 29% 40% 31% 37% n/a 32%
192 of 1003
Districting Outreach Events Calendar Remaining August – October 2023 Date & Time Location
Tuesday, August 15 at 6 p.m. Public Hearing 3 - City Hall, 613 E Broadway Thursday, August 17 at 6:30 p.m. Virtual Workshop
Saturday, August 19 at 10 a.m Workshop - Chevy Chase Library Saturday, August 19 at 2:30 p.m Workshop - Adult Recreation Center Monday, August 21 at 6:30 p.m. Workshop - Griffith Manor Friday, August 25, 7 p.m. Pop-up: Concert in the Park at Brand Park Wednesday, August 30 at 6:30 p.m Workshop - Sparr Heights Community Center Thursday, August 31 at 6:30 p.m Workshop - Chevy Chase Library Thursday, August 31 at 6:30 p.m Workshop - Chevy Chase Library Thursday, September 7 at 6:30 p.m. Workshop - Griffith Manor Park Saturday, September 16, 9 a.m. Pop-up: Touch-A-Truck at Elks Lodge Tuesday, October 10 at 6 p.m. Public Hearing 4 - City Hall, 613 E Broadway Tuesday, October 24 at 6 p.m. Public Hearing 5 - City Hall, 613 E Broadway 193 of 1003
City of Glendale
Introduction to Districting
Douglas Johnson, National Demographics Corporation
Sydni Overly, Tripepi Smith
194 of 1003
2 Introductions
195 of 1003
3 Today’s Goals
You Learn from the Experts
Experts Listen to You
Mapping Tools Overview
You Leave Empowered to Give Effective Feedback
196 of 1003
4 Why You Should Care
 Democracy works better when people are engaged
 You are the experts on your community and
neighborhood
 The districts determined in this process could be
around until 2031
197 of 1003
5 Presentation Overview
I. Current Election System and Proposed Transition
II. 5-Minute Initial Q&A
III. Background: The Districting Process
IV. Legal Requirements for Districts
V. Demographic Profile of Glendale
VI. Community of Interest Discussion
VII. Public Mapping Tools
VIII.Q&A
IX. How to Stay Engaged
Today’s Goal: You leave empowered to participate
effectively in the districting process
198 of 1003
6 Current Election System
 “At Large” also known as “Citywide,” Council elections  Two seats up in 2024, three in 2026
 Any city voter can run for Council in any year
 All city voters cast ballots for two (in 2024) or three (in 2026) candidates  The top two (in 2024) or top three (in 2026) candidates are elected  One Councilmember is chosen as Mayor each year by vote of the Council 199 of 1003
7 Transition to Districts – Why?
The Council Majority Has Mentioned the
Following Reasons:
 Increased Geographic and Socioeconomic Diversity on
City Council
 South Glendale
 Renters
 Constituent Services
 Councilmembers will live in or near their constituents’ neighborhoods and be directly impacted by same quality of life issues
 Cost of Entry to Run in Citywide Race
 Expensive to outreach and campaign successfully for citywide office
200 of 1003
8 Transition to Districts – Why Not?
Others Have Expressed the Following Views:
 Possible Balkanization
 Less Attention Paid to Citywide Issues
 Intra-district Fights Over City Resources
 Councilmembers May View Districts as Their “Fiefdoms” – Despite All Decisions Still Requiring Council Majority
 Directly Elected Mayor
 Unnecessary
 Citywide-elected Mayor can be perceived as more powerful or otherwise more important than other elected
Councilmembers
201 of 1003
9 California Voting Rights Act (CVRA)
 The CVRA makes it significantly easier for plaintiffs to force jurisdictions into “by-district” election systems by:
 Eliminating requirement to show that a protected minority group can constitute a majority of a district
 Focusing liability on the existence of racially polarized voting 202 of 1003
10 CVRA Impact
 Switched (or in the process of switching) as a result of CVRA:
 At least 275 school districts
 36 Community College Districts
 191 cities
 1 County Board of Supervisors
 53 water and other special districts.
203 of 1003
11 CVRA Battles
 Cases So Far:
 Palmdale, Santa Clara and Santa Monica went to trial on the merits. Cyprus’s trial has not begun.
 Palmdale and Santa Clara lost. Santa Monica is awaiting a State Supreme Court ruling (hearing was held June 27).
 Modesto, Santa Clara and Palmdale each spent about $1.8 million on their defense (in addition to the attorney fee awards in those cases).  Santa Monica has spent an estimated $7 to $10 million so far.  Plaintiffs in Santa Monica requested $22 million in legal fees after just the original trial.
204 of 1003
12 CVRA Battles
 Palm Desert: $555,000
 Tulare Hospital: $500,000
 Ontario: $300,000
 Santa Clarita (round 2): $250,000
 Camarillo: $233,000
 Compton Unified: $200,000
 Madera Unified: about $170,000
 Hanford Joint Union Schools: $118,000
 Merced City: $42,000
 Key settlements:
 Palmdale: $4.7 million
 Santa Clara: $4.55 million
 Modesto: $3 million
 Highland: $1.3 million
 Anaheim: $1.1 million
 Whittier: $1 million
 Santa Barbara: $600,000
 Santa Clarita (round 1): $600,000
 Palm Desert: $555,000
An estimated $18 million in total settlements and court awards so far. 205 of 1003
13 CVRA “Safe Harbor”
 Government Code Section 34886:
 Cities can comply with CVRA by becoming “by district or by district with an elective mayor.”
 Elections Code Section 14026(a):
 "At-large method of election" means . . .
 “One in which the voters of the entire jurisdiction elect the members to the governing body . . .
 “One which combines at-large elections with district-based elections.” The California Voting Rights Act was
written to specifically encourage bydistrict elections. 206 of 1003 14 Proposed New Election System
 Six Districts with Citywide-elected Mayor
 City would divided into six districts, each holding an election every four years (Candidates need to live in the district, and only district residents vote for who will represent them)
 Separate citywide election for Mayor every four years  No required change in Mayor’s role beyond what is currently in City Charter, but that is open to discussion
 Enters CVRA “safe harbor”
 Each voter has two representatives: a district Councilmember and a citywide Mayor
 Keeps a Citywide representative while implementing districts  All Subject to Voter Approval
207 of 1003
15 5-Minute Initial Q&A
208 of 1003
16 The Districting Process
Step Description
1st Council Hearing
June 13
Held prior to release of draft maps.

Education and to solicit input on the composition of districts. 1st Round of Community
Forums
First round: 1 virtual workshop, 6 in-person workshops + pop-up events. Beginning June 13 through July 27
2nd Council Hearing
July 11
Very similar presentation to the first hearing, but with a summary of feedback from the forums. Council opportunity to give direction to NDC.

Initial Deadline for the
public to submit maps
August 5
Maps must be submitted far enough in advance to allow NDC to download, input and process the maps for posting online before the August 8 posting deadline.

Deadline to post initial draft
maps on project website
August 8
Maps must be posted at least 7 days prior to 3rd hearing. 3rd Council Hearing
August 15
First formal public and Council consideration of initial draft maps.

Opportunity for Council to select “focus” maps options and to request new or revised maps.

Part 1 of 2
209 of 1003
17 Step Description
2nd Round of Community
Forums
Second round: 1 virtual workshop, 6 in-person workshops + popup events. Beginning August 17 through September 7 Deadline to submit maps
September 28
Maps must be submitted far enough in advance to allow NDC to download, input and process the maps for posting online.

Deadline to post new maps
October 3 Maps must be posted at least 7 days prior to 4th hearing. 4th Council Hearing
October 10
Public & Council to consider “focus” maps and any new or revised maps. Preferred map and election sequence selected and 1st reading of adoption ordinance.
5th Council Hearing and
Map Adoption
October 24
Council selects map via ordinance, contingent on voter approval.

Final map must be posted at least 7 days prior to adoption.

Citywide Vote
March 5, 2024
Vote on transition to by-district elections on primary and (at-large) City Council election ballot
The Districting Process
Part 2 of 2
210 of 1003
18 1. Equal Population

2. Federal Voting Rights
Act

3. No Racial
Gerrymandering

1. Respect voters’ choices /
continuity in office

2. Future population growth

1. Federal Laws 2. California Criteria for
Cities

1. Geographically contiguous

2. Undivided neighborhoods
and “communities of
interest”
(Socio-economic geographic areas
that should be kept together)

3. Easily identifiable
boundaries

4. Compact
(Do not bypass one group of
people to get to a more distant
group of people)
Prohibited:
“Shall not favor or discriminate against
a political party.”

3. Other Traditional
Redistricting Principles
Districting Rules and Goals
211 of 1003
19 Demographic
Summary
Each of the 6
districts must
contain about
32,830 people.

Category Field Total Category Field Total
2020 Census Total Population 196,980 age0-19 20%
Hispanic/Latino 17% age20-60 55%
NH White 62% age60plus 25%
NH Black 2% immigrants 52%
NH Asian/Pac.Isl. 18% naturalized 66%
NH Native Amer. 0% english 33%
Total 129,718 spanish 14%
Hisp 17% asian-lang 10%
NH White 65% other lang 43%
NH Black 3% Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less
than Very Well" 32%
Asian/Pac.Isl. 15% hs-grad 46%
Native Amer. 0% bachelor 28%
Total 118,402 graduatedegree 15%
Latino est. 17% Child in Household child-under18 27%
Spanish-Surnamed 15% Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 62%
Asian-Surnamed 6% income 0-25k 21%
Filipino-Surnamed 3% income 25-50k 15%
NH White est. 73% income 50-75k 14%
NH Black 2% income 75-200k 37%
Total 85,200 income 200k-plus 13%
Latino est. 17% single family 36%
Spanish-Surnamed 16% multi-family 64%
Asian-Surnamed 6% rented 66%
Filipino-Surnamed 3% owned 34%
NH White est. 72%
NH Black 2%
Total 53,067
Latino est. 18%
Spanish-Surnamed 17%
Asian-Surnamed 6%
Filipino-Surnamed 3%
NH White est. 71%
NH Black est. 2%
Voter Turnout (Nov
2018)
Household Income
Education (among
those age 25+)
Immigration
Language spoken at
home
Total population data from California's adjusted 2020
Census data. Citizen Voting Age Population, Age,
Immigration, and other demographics from the 2017-
2021 American Community Survey and Special
Tabulation 5-year data. Turnout and Registration data
from California Statewide Database. "Latino" figures
calculated by NDC using Census Bureau's Latino
undercount by surname estimate.

Total Pop.

Citizen Voting Age Pop
Housing Stats
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout (Nov
2020)
Age
212 of 1003
20 Latinos are somewhat more
concentrated along the I-5 corridor
and Los Angeles City border.

Latino CVAP
213 of 1003
21 Asian-American
CVAP
Asian-Americans concentrated in
the north and Rancho San Rafael.
214 of 1003
22 African-Americans are not
geographically concentrated in
any specific part of the City.

AfricanAmerican CVAP
215 of 1003
23 Data from PDI.

Community of Interest:

Armenian % of
Registered Voters
216 of 1003
24 Other Potential Communities of Interest:

Socio-Economic Demographics
Child at home Spanish spoken at home Household income over $75,000 / yr.

Renters
Multi-Family Housing
(Apartments or Condos)
217 of 1003
25 Other Possible Geographic Communities (1)
Homeowner Associations
218 of 1003
26 Other Possible Geographic Communities (2)
Unofficial Rough Neighborhoods
219 of 1003
27 Defining Neighborhoods
1st Question: What is your neighborhood?
2nd Question: What are its geographic boundaries?
Examples of physical features defining a neighborhood boundary:
 Natural neighborhood dividing lines, such as highway or major roads, rivers, canals and/or hills
 Areas around parks or schools
 Other neighborhood landmarks
In the absence of public testimony, planning records and other similar documents may provide definition.
220 of 1003
28 Beyond Neighborhoods:

Defining Communities of Interest
1st Question: What defines your community?
 Geographic Area, plus
 Shared issue or characteristic
 Shared social or economic interest
 Impacted by city policies
 Tell us “your community’s story”
2nd Question: Would this community benefit from being “included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation”?  Or would it benefit more from having multiple representatives? Definitions of Communities of Interest may not include relationships with political parties, incumbents, or political candidates. 221 of 1003
29 Community of Interest Input
 From community workshops to date:
 Crescenta Highlands and the Far North
 Verdugo mountains
 Glendale Unified School District
 Glendale Community College
 South Glendale renters (south of Colorado)
 Northwest neighborhood – single family homes
 Branch libraries & civic center
 Montrose shopping district
 Cresenta Valley High School and Verdugo Mountains
 Adams Hill neighborhood and neighborhoods to their north  Mariposa
222 of 1003
30 Your Turn – Communities of Interest

1. What area is your community of interest?

2. What are some meaningful places your community recognizes or gathers at?

3. What are some common concerns you share with a group?

4. What are some common cultural characteristics that unite a community?

5. What are common work-related traits that bring a community together?

6. What is significant about the physical environment?

7. What areas benefit from staying together in a district? Your thoughts will become part of the record.
223 of 1003
31 Public Mapping and Map Review Tools
 Different tools for different purposes
 Different tools for different levels of technical skill and interest  Simple “review draft maps” tool
 Paper-based simple “Draw a draft map” tool
 Powerful, data-rich “Draw a draft map” online tool
Whether you use the online mapping tool, the paper kit, or just draw on a napkin, we welcome your maps!
224 of 1003
32 Interactive Review Map
For Viewing Maps, not Drawing Them
 Demographic data
 Population Unit details
 Zoom in and out
 Search by address
 View (and overlay) draft
maps, when available
225 of 1003
33 Simple Map Drawing Tool
Paper “Public Participation Kit”
 For those without internet access or
who prefer paper
 Total Population Counts only – no
demographic details
226 of 1003
34 DRA (Dave’s Redistricting App)
Draw Your Community of Interest or a Full District Map
 Easy-to-use online mapping tool
 Full demographic and geographic database
 Email a link to your map to the City and publish or share 227 of 1003
35 Q&A With Your Hosts
228 of 1003
36 How to Stay Engaged
 Dedicated website:
www.mapglendale.org
 In-person workshops
 Virtual workshops
 Pop-up events in the community
 Social media (including online ads)
 Animated explainer video
 Flyers
 Community group outreach
 Interpretation/translation of
materials
The City is committed to robust outreach and engagement throughout the process, including the following:
229 of 1003
37 How to Stay Engaged
Website: MapGlendale.org |Phone: (818) 548-4844, ext. 1 Email: [email protected]
230 of 1003
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Karin Kaehler <[email protected]>
Wednesday, June 14, 2023 6:04 PM
[email protected]; Karin Kaehler; Brotman, Daniel; Asatryan, Elen; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Devine, Paula; Najarian, Ara
Thoughts on the district proposal in Glendale
Some people who re(eived this message don't often get email from kk<[email protected]. Learn why this is important r C;UTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are ~ sure as to the sender.

Hello everyone,
I hope this email finds you well.

I am a Glendale resident of 5 years and absolutely love the way the city council works. It feels very democratic with the mayors taking turns via ceremony every two years. I would deeply mourn any changes to this system. I heard what people said yesterday during the council meeting about district kingdoms and couldn't agree more. There is no such thing as a representative of a district without bribery, corruption, or cronyism. There is also no such thing as one ethnic group in one district, nor is there cohesiveness within any ethnicity. People are people no matter what skin color and what origin. The only thing we have in common may be language and maybe certain experiences or traditions due to where we grew up. But all of this is more or less left behind when we experience daily life in America.

I am against being put into any kind of box by demographics, income, or location. I prefer melting pots and the ability to be able to raise my voice and be heard the way it works now.

I hope this districting and elected mayor proposal will be discontinued as soon as possible and the money for it will be invested in public anti-violence education because this is what we ALL need. PEACE - people experiencing awesome childhood education because mentally healthy kids become mentally healthy adults!
This is the future that we all want in Glendale - productive healthy human beings fulfilling their purpose and potential.

Thank you.

Warmly,
Karin
We are fundraising to buy and plant native trees in Glendale! Sign up for web hosting with 300% renewable energy here https-//www.greengeeks.com/track/afhclub Thank you!!
Karin Kaehler (she/her),
President
231 of 1003 1
Connect. Protect. Support. Repair. (TM)
ECHO nonviolent, trauma-informed parent and child educator "Compassion is the sincere effort to recognize, alleviate and prevent suffering" " Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." - The Lorax Join Zoom Meeting
https :l/us06web.z_oom.us/j/81128864294
[email protected]
2 232 of 1003
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Karin Kaehler <[email protected] >
Thursday, June 15, 2023 5:14 PM
[email protected]; Asatryan, Elen; Devine, Paula Brotman, Daniel; Najarian, Ara; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Karin Kaehler Add-on re: Thoughts on the district proposal in Glendale Some people w ho received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn whv this is important CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear council members and mapglendale,
Who so kindly responded.

You all made it perfectly clear on Tuesday evening that you follow CA state guidelines to provide an option on a ballot next year.

I responded to mapglendale's call for comment and I included you to say thank you for your excellent work as a team.

I understand that the districting idea is meant to help CA people groups who usually do not get the representation they may want and need.

Systemic miseducation and policies that cause great suffering and inequality like racism, and other -isms, hurt marginalized communities because they strip the humanity of each individual.

However, districting is not the answer to this problem. This is the answer: humane, antiviolent, trauma-informed public education, education, education.

When we properly, kindly, gently educate every child and individual, so ALL truly feel safe and that they matter, THEN we can use our full humanity to address any and a 11 issues we face together.

We all truly want to feel safe and that we matter. Districting does the opposite: it divides and so we can be conquered instead of standing united as humanity.

Thank you.

Warmly,
Karin
Karin Kaehler (she/her),
President, Advocating for humanity - transforming education CONNECT. PROTECT. SUPPORT. REPAIR. (TM)
ECHO trauma-informed, nonviolent parent and child educator lend_ale.edu
---Forwarded message ----
From: Madeline Pettit <[email protected]>
233 of 1003
Date: Thu, Jun 15, 2023, 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: Thoughts on the district proposal in Glendale To: Karin Kaehler <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Hi Karin,
Thank you for contacting us and participating in the City of Glendale's potential move to district-based elections. Your comment will be posted to the Schedule Page as a public comment for the next Public Hearing.

Please continue to visit MapGlendale.org for the most up-to-date news and information on the districting process and to share your thoughts on specific neighborhoods and communities in the Jewel City.

Tripepi Smith is a marketing, technology and public affairs firm based in Orange County, CA. The Tripepi Smith team is working with the City of Glendale to provide outreach and communications se,vices regarding the districting process.

On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 6:04 PM Karin Kaehler <[email protected]> wrote:

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello everyone,
I hope this email finds you well.

I am a Glendale resident of 5 years and absolutely love the way the city council works. It feels very democratic with the mayors taking turns via ceremony every two years. I would deeply mourn any changes to this system. I heard what people said yesterday during the council meeting about district kingdoms and couldn•t agree more. There is no such thing as a representative of a district without bribery, corruption, or cronyism. There is also no such thing as one ethnic group in one district, nor is there cohesiveness within any ethnicity. People are people no matter what skin color and what origin. The only thing we have in common may be language and maybe certain experiences or traditions due to where we grew up. But all of this is more or less left behind when we experience daily life in America.

I am against being put into any kind of box by demographics, income, or location. I prefer melting pots and the ability to be able to raise my voice and be heard the way it works now.

Thank you.

Warmly,
Karin
We are fundraising to buy and plant native trees in Glendale! Sign up for web hosting with 300% renewable energy here hUps.//www.greengeeks.com/track/afhclub Thank you!!
2 234 of 1003
Karin Kaehler (she/her),
President
0 - ---- 0 - ------
Connect. Protect. Support. Repair. (TM)
ECHO nonviolent, trauma-informed parent and child educator "Compassion is the sincere effort to recognize, alleviate and prevent suffering" 11 Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, nothing is going to get better. It's not." - The Lorax Join Zoom Meeting
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/81128864294
[email protected]
Madeline Pettit
844-TS-COMM-
~.

Website I Facebook I Twitter I YouTube I Linkedln
235 of 1003 3
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Mary-Lynne Fisher <[email protected]>
Tuesday, June 20, 2023 3:01 PM
[email protected]
Log in info for June 21st Zoom
Follow up
Flagged
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
t want to attend the community workshop on council districts on June 21st. How can I get the log in information? Mary-Lynne Fisher, president
Crescenta Highlands Neighborhood Association
236 of 1003 l
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Maro Yacoubian <[email protected]>
Wednesday, June 21, 2023 4:06 PM
[email protected]

HUGE MISTAKE
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected].

Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

I am 100% against redistricting. I do not believe that forming districts in areas to create "equity" will create the desired result. Gerrymandering is the major concern for me.

I will be speaking against this process from beginning to end. We do not need "little kingdoms" in Glendale ... nor do we need to open ourselves up to more corruption like Los. Angeles.

Maro Yacoubian
Glendale resident
237 of 1003
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Narine Tadevosyan <[email protected]>
Wednesday, June 21, 2023 4:57 PM
[email protected]
No
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important at https:1/aka.ms/LearnAboutSenderldentification ] CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

You will ruin Glendale.

Sent from my iPhone
238 of 1003 l
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From: Maro Yacoubian <maroyacoubian@gmaiLcom>
Thursday, June 22, 2023 9:50 AM
[email protected]
[email protected]
Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject: Re: HUGE MISTAKE
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are- - 7 unsure as to the sender. __J
Is there a reason why you gave the public only 2 hours notice before the scheduled zoom meeting on this controversial topic?
a content.govdeliveiy.com
Get Involved in the City of Glendale's
o· · tlon Process!
nt this bulletin at 06/21/2023
Get Involved In the City of Glendale's District
Formation Process!
Good morning,
Want to help shape the future of Glendale? Get
involved I trict fonm\tion process by
on
om and will
nd
ing tool
re.

Additional workshop dates and locations can be
found here.

Residents can now begin drawing proposed district
239 of 1003 1
On Jun 22, 2023, at 8:57 AM, Madeline Pettit <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Maro,
Thank you for contacting us and participating in the City of Glendale's potential move to districtbased elections. Your comment will be posted to the Schedule Page as a public comment for the next Public Hearing.

Tripepi Smith is a marketing, technology and public affairs firm based in Orange County, CA.

The Tripepi Smith team is working with the City of Glendale to provide outreach and communications services regarding the districting process.

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 4:06 PM Maro Yacoubian <[email protected]> wrote:

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

I am 100% against redistricting. I do not believe that forming districts in areas to create "equity" will create the desired result. Gerrymandering is the major concern for me.

I will be speaking against this process from beginning to end. We do not need "little kingdoms" in Glendale ... nor do we need to open ourselves up to more corruption like Los. Angeles.

Maro Yacoubian
Glendale resident
Madeline Pettit
· · · m1th.com
-TS-COMM-1 x717
Website
~ I Facebook I Twitter I YouTube I Llnkedln
2 240 of 1003
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Susan Collins <[email protected]>
Thursday, June 22, 2023 5:40 PM
[email protected]
Changes to how Glendale elects City Council and our major Some people w ho received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important ~ UTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are ~ re as to the sender.

I was dismayed to recently learn about the resolution to split Glendale into "districts" and the change to how our city Mayor is chosen. Clearly I'm joining this conversation late! I listened to the City Council meeting of June 13th, and all of the discussion was about engaging the public in how to create the districts ... getting the community involved in it. But the entire discussion about forums and such were entirely about how to draw the maps.

What I don't understand is: why are we doing this at all?? I can't weigh in on how to draw the district maps until I understand WHY the resolution came about. I searched the city's website but couldn't find an explanation. I have some concerns:
• Won't this just balkanize Glendale, pitting different parts of Glendale against each other (more than they already are!! ) ??
• And regarding the election of the major, I am concerned that this will turn our elections into the kind of politicalparty-circuses that we currently see in the State and Federal elections.

So I would really like to know:

1. What was the problem that this change is trying to solve? and

2. What evidence do we have that this change will actually solve the problem? I'm hoping that the community forums will provide an explanation of why this resolution was passed.

Susan Collins
241 of 1003 1
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, June 16, 2023 9:59 PM
[email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Glendale Districting - New submission from Contact Us
You don't often get email from [email protected]. le{lrn why this is imgprt<]nt . .

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Name
Keith K
Email
[email protected]
Message
Do you need help with graphic design - brochures, banners, flyers, advertisements, social media posts, logos etc? We charge a low fixed monthly fee. Let me know if you're interested and would like to see our portfolio . 242 of 1003 l
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Follow Up Flag:

Flag Status:

Tom M. OWCA est <[email protected]>
Monday, July 3, 2023 5:00 PM
[email protected]
[email protected]; GlenBBK Border RESIDENTS Riverside Rancho District
Follow up
Flagged
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected] Learn why this is important CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are 7 unsure as to the sender.

Can you please send me a map that includes the Rancho equestrian district.

Thank you
243 of 1003 1
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Shant Jaltorossian <[email protected]>
Wednesday, July 5, 2023 10:49 AM
[email protected]
[email protected]; [email protected]
Re: Glendale District Map Proposal Submission
Some people w ho received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is important CAUTION, This email was delivered from the lnte,net. Do not dick links, open attadiments, or reply ii you are ~··~· 1 unsure as to the sender.

Hello.

Thank you for letting me know. I have made adjustments: https://davesredistricting.org/join/e4ad4451-e7Sd-44Sb8383-ce0820be8b0d Best,
Shant Jaltorossian
On Mon, Jun 26, 2023 at 8:37 AM Douglas Johnson <[email protected]> wrote:

Thank you for your map submission. NOC (the City's demographic consultant for this project) has imported your map, and I wanted to be sure you were aware that the map does not meet the federal requirement for equal population in each district. Under federal law, the largest and smallest districts must be within 10% of each other-- in Glendale's case, within 3,283 people. Unfortunately in the submitted map the largest district (District 5) and the smallest district (District 2) are separated by 6,779 people. When you are using the ORA mapping tool, in the top right the "deviation" column next to each district number provides the district total population and each district's deviation from the ideal (perfectly-balanced) population count.

Would you like to revisit your map and submit an updated version? If you would prefer the original map be shared with the public and the Council we will do so, but it would be shared with a note stating it does not meet the federal requirements for a district map.

Thank you again for your interest and participation in this important process for the City's future! Douglas Johnson
National Demographics Corporation
~ch.com
On Mon, Jun 12, 2023 at 4:19 PM Shant Jaltorossian <""sh"""'a .... n=t":j9:-=1.,_@_.g..,_m'=a=i=l.c=o=m='"·>_:_: w..:.. ro:.:t::e.:... __________ _ CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Thank you, Madeline.

Best,
Shant
244 of 1003 1
On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 2:14 PM M adeline Pettit <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello Shant,
Thank you for contacting us and participating in the City of Glendale's potential move to district-based elections.

All maps compliant with districting criteria will be processed by the demographer and posted to the Draft Maps Page as part of the draft maps publication presented to the City Council during the next Public Hearing.

Please continue to visit MapGlendale.org for the most up-to-date news and information on the districting process.

On Fri, Jun 9, 2023 at 10:45 AM Shant Jaltorossian <[email protected]> wrote:

I CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Good morning.

Here is my proposal:
https://davesredistricting.org/join/e4ad4451-e7Sd-44Sb-8383-ce0820be8b0d Best,
Shant Jaltorossian
Madeline Pettit
844-TS-COMM-1 x717
~ Website J Facebook I Twitter I YouTube J Linkedln
2 245 of 1003
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Darren Kameya <[email protected]>
Thursday, July 6, 2023 1 :43 PM
[email protected]
Districting Map Proposal
Kameya Draft District Proposal.json
Some people who received this message don't often get email from [email protected]. Learn why this is imuortant CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello there,
Please sec the attached draft district map (in DR.A 2020 archive format) for your consideration. I belie,·e that you can re•import the file after you've downloaded it.

Thank you,
~
Darren C. Kameya
246 of 1003 1
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Araik Sinanian <[email protected]>
Tuesday, July 11, 2023 10:37 PM
[email protected]
A Call to Preserve Glendale's Community Values
Some people who received this message don't often get email from araiksinanian@icloud-com. learn why this is important CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello,
I'm Araik Sinanian, a lifelong resident of Glendale, homeowner in Mariposa and Riverside Rancho neighborhoods, HOA president at Nor Windsor, and founder of the local nonprofit, Bridging the Borders.

Recently, our city has seen an influx of newcomers, largely attracted by our proximity to Los Angeles proper and the entertainment industry. While diversity and change are important for a vibrant community, we've begun to see the tell-tale signs of gentrification, which has sometimes been accompanied by a disregard for the deep-rooted values of our community.

Too often, these newcomers seem to view Glendale as a mere appendage to LA, failing to truly invest themselves in our local community's distinct culture and identity. Glendale is not just a place to live; it's a community to belong to, with a rich history and diverse population that has worked tirelessly to build the city we know and love.

This is why I write to you today. It is crucial that we actively involve ourselves in guiding the future growth of our city. We need to ensure that our community values remain intact, even as we navigate the tide of change.

I welcome your thoughts on how we can collaboratively mitigate these issues and help newcomers understand and respect the uniqueness of our beloved Glendale.

Thank you for your time, and I look forward to our combined efforts in keeping Glendale's spirit alive and vibrant. I will be attending the districting meetings coming up but would love to get involved in other ways as well.

Best Regards,
Araik Sinanian
Lifelong Glendalian President, Nor Windsor HOA Board Founder, Bridging the Borders 247 of 1003 1
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Ingrid Wilcox <[email protected]>
Thursday, July 20, 2023 9:21 AM
[email protected]
City Council District Map
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

AHNA City Council Districts
davesred1stnct1ng.org
248 of 1003 1
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Pam Ellis <[email protected]>
Friday, July 21, 2023 12:41 PM
[email protected]
2023 Districting Public Participation
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

I have signed into the app but cannot find the Glendale map. Please advise.

You should also mention in future workshops that the software is PC friendly, but no good for Apple.

Pam Ellis
249 of 1003
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

CA <[email protected]>
Wednesday, July 26, 2023 1 :23 PM
[email protected]
City Council Map
Screenshot_20230726_ 114801 _Adobe AcrobatJ pg
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not elf ck links, open attachments, or reply If you are I unsure as to the sender.

Hello,
Please see my attached map.

Note: It's imperative to have 2 representatives in South Glendale due to the high population and densely populated neighborhoods. Thank you.

Best,
Christine Aghakhani
250 of 1003
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

M D < [email protected]>
Wednesday, July 26, 2023 1:56 PM
[email protected]
Use existing neighborhoods/boundaries
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are I unsure as to the sender. _ __J
People already live in areas with names and boundaries, similar needs/interests. Doesn't need to become more complicated than that, use these areas as district boundaries. 251 of 1003 l
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Jayasri Hart <[email protected]>
Wednesday, July 26, 2023 5:02 PM
[email protected]
Draft map of Montrose
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

This is more for information than as a suggestion.

I am not sure that beyond the general need for safety, the neighborhoods included in the Montrose draft map have much in common. This may or may not be an advantage. I would like to know the pros and cons.

In the Sanitation charter, for instance, multi-family dwellings (rentals and condos) are lumped together and designated as "commercial" property if there are more than 5 units. This created a lot of problems specially in the older condominiums like ours on Piedmont Ave. which are not designed for large trashbins and haulers.

Right now, I see that "Montrose" includes the businesses on either side of Honolulu and around the crossing with Ocean View and Verdugo Blvd. It also includes the Verdugo Hills hospital. Our utility and public lighting needs will be very different, for example.

I just don't know enough about this issue. There may be advantages. I am asking for time on the agenda for discussion of what mixing residential and commercial might mean for a district, specially in light of the difficulty we face because of the trash collection charter.

Thank you,
Joyce
252 of 1003
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Sydni Overly <[email protected]>
Thursday, July 27, 2023 11 :05 AM
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Glendale Proposed District Map
I CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are ~ nsure as to the sender.

Good morning,
Thank you for contacting us and participating in the City of Glendale's potential move to district-based elections. Your comment wil l be posted to the Schedule Page as a public comment for the next Public Hearing.

Please continue to visit MapGlendale.orq for the most up-to-date news and information on the districting process and to share your thoughts on specific neighborhoods and communities in the Jewel City.

Thank you,
Sydni
Sydrn Overly
· · · th.com
844-TS-COMM-1 x724
Website
~ I Facebook I Twitter I YouTube I Linkedln
On Thu, Jul 27, 2023 at 7:07 AM [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote:
---------~- CA UT 10 N: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
---------- Here is a link to a great map for the districting of Glendale: https://davesredistricting.org/join/36060a32-893b-41e6- 88fl-2fb5fafe4d2b.

We are strongly in favor of districting, if done properly.

Another neighborhood that should go on the website is Adams Hill. One of the best in Glendale.

Thanks.
253 of 1003 1
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:
brian ellis <[email protected]>
Thursday, July 27, 2023 5:18 PM
[email protected]
pam ellis
Map for redistricting Glendale
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello,
While my preference is for at large voting and I believe precincts are a bad idea for Glendale, here's a map suggestion:
https://davesredistricting.org/join/6992a7b3-16dd-4e27-b792-734ef371678b Please confirm your receipt of this email and put me on the mail list for any public meetings for discussion of submitted maps.

Thank you
Brian Ellis
254 of 1003
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Robert Taylor <robert. taylor5549@sbcglobat net>
Thursday, July 27, 2023 7:55 PM
[email protected]
Robert J Taylor
Roberts Proposed Of strict Map showing five districts (seven districts were not allowed by the program)
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Please find the link to my proposed District Map showing five districts based primarily on demographic data provided for "Renters" and "Income". Race, language, political party affiliations were not a priority. My idea is to provide increased representation to the renters of this city.

The renters have been left out of the local government decision making process. For more than the sixty years I've Jived in this city there has been over-representation of Home Owners Associations, Real Estate interests, Big monied businesses and City Employee unions ...... atl looking for more influence and special treatment in exchange for campaign contributions. This District Map should break-up the HOA's influence (divide and conquer). It should separate and discourage joint efforts by big-monied businesses (ie: car dealerships} to reduce their sales taxes and permits.

These districts are not based on equal population numbers for each district. No, only those districts with a substantial potential to increase the number of housing units will be allowed larger population numbers with the possibility of splitting the districts in the future when the population has increased and need for more representation is necessary.

Those districts which do not have many Multi-family zones are not expected to increase their population and therefore no increase in representation. There should be an odd number of districts to prevent a deadlock during Council Voting. I would prefer seven districts but the program only allows six. Also, the Template inaccurately shows un-inhabitable acreage which gives the wrong impression of the population size of the city ..... the blocks showing the city dump, mountain tops, city parks,power generation plants and industrial and commercial uses should not be included with housing! And NOL.I don't want Caruso for Mayor!
Regards,
Robert Taylor
Copy of Glendale Crty Council Map Template
" id q
255 of 1003
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, July 28, 2023 4:14 PM
[email protected]
Re: Glendale Proposed District Map
UTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are J Here
sure
is a
as
link
to
to
the
a
sender.
great map for the districting of Glendale: https://davesredistricting.org/join/Sa3d5338-e4c3-4266 --~ 8c96-ce3e5ea543 le.

Thanks.
256 of 1003 1
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, July 28, 2023 4:14 PM
[email protected]
Re: Glendale Proposed District Map
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you a-;;--J unsure as to the sender. _ ]
Here is a link to a great map for the districting of Glendale: https://davesredistricting.org/join/Sa3d5338-e4c3-4266- 8c96-ce3e5ea5431e.

Thanks.
257 of 1003
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, July 28, 2023 4:16 PM
[email protected]
Re: Glendale Proposed District Map
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender. l
Here is a link to a great map for the districting of Glendale: https://davesredistricting.org/join/d0300ecd-7bc4-48d9- 8d45-14aee0197a52.

Thanks.
258 of 1003 l
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Friday, July 28, 2023 4:16 PM
[email protected]
Re: Glendale Proposed District Map
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
- ------- Here is a link to a great map for the districting of Glendale: https://davesredistricting.org/ioin/f6d51ccb-0428-4e58- bbf6-87ab6531c4f4.

Thanks.
259 of 1003 1
7/31/23, 9:00 AM Ndcresearch.com Mail - City of Glendale District Map - 7 districts https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ik=073bd3bf3e&view=pt&search=all&permthid=thread-f:1772904769934940193%7Cmsg-f:1772904769934940193&… 1/1 Douglas Johnson <[email protected]>
City of Glendale District Map - 7 districts
1 message
Robert Taylor <[email protected]> Sun, Jul 30, 2023 at 8:22 PM To: [email protected]
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

The at-large system of council representation is obsolete. Representation in this age requires real and constant contact with their constituents either in person with groups or face-to-face with individuals. The days of Council members beholden to high-dollar campaign contributors like the Home-Owners Associations, Movie and Television Studios, Car dealerships and University affiliations are over…or at least will soon be with the district system.

The number of districts must be an “odd number” to avoid deadlocks during voting. I have submitted two maps, one with a five district plan and one seven district plan. A mayor should not be a voting council member but should be independently elected by the voters to enforce the council members accurate representation without collusion or overlap with other council district members, conflicts of interest, Quid pro Quo, preferential treatment to any one group, race, religion, education level, income level or number or quantity of campaign contributions.

Those areas of the city where incomes exceed $70,000 a year per household should be isolated or at very least be diluted with lower income voters and renters to balance the influence of the district. Those areas of the City where Media Studios and Car Dealerships should not be located within the same districts to avoid undue influence. Those areas of the city that are zoned for multi-family development can expect increases in their voter populations and therefore a relative increase in representation. At some point in the future these multi-family districts may “split” to provide the necessary representation for a larger district population.

I’ve lived in Glendale for more than 50 years in many different locations, from west Glendale, Montrose, North Glendale, Chevy
Chase Canyon, Somerset and now on Adams Hill. I’ve always felt welcomed wherever I’ve lived with this City.

Regards,
Robert Taylor
City of Glendale 7-district Map
davesredistricting.org
260 of 1003
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Attachments:

Joe Kroening <[email protected] >
Monday, July 31, 2023 11:48 AM
[email protected]
Joe Kroening
FW: Voting District Map
Scan.pdf
I CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are ~ ureas to the sender.

Here is the Map of Council Districts that I would like to see implemented.

Although I have plagiarized Map 102, I feel that it shows exactly what I would have drawn. I trust that this acceptable.

I believe Districting, with an elected Mayor, is the best form of governing for Glendale and I support this action to make it so.

Thank you for considering my thoughts.

Joe Kroening
Andy's Transfer & Storage
www.AndysTransfer.com
Like us on Facebook: www.Facebook.com/AndysMoving
261 of 1003 1
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Madeline Pettit <[email protected]>
Monday, July 31, 2023 10:12 AM
John Pryor
[email protected]
Re: Mapping
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply If you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello, John - ------~-~------------ ------- ------ ......1 Thank you for your question.

On May 2, 2023, the Glendale City Council initiated a process to undertake a transition in the makeup of its governing body intended to give residents a more prominent voice in local government. The Council initiated the process for the following reasons: geographically and socioeconomically diverse representation on City Council, constituent services, costs to run for City Council and potential legal risks.

For more details regarding the background of the process, visit the Background section on the districting website. You can also learn more about the process by watching a recorded public hearing or attending one of the City's community workshops. Please visit the Calendar Page of the website for recordings and future meeting dates.

On Mon, Jul 31, 2023 at 2:03 AM John Pryor <[email protected]> wrote:

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click Jinks, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Why? You don't explain why Glendale is considering this and what it would mean. I have no idea.

Madeline Pettit
844-TS-COMM-1 x717
~ Website I Facebook I Twitter I YouTube I Linkedln
262 of 1003 1
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Hayk Makhmuryan <[email protected]>
Thursday, August 3, 2023 6:46 PM
[email protected]
Glendale Districting Map from Resident
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
-------- Good evening dear Glendale Mapping Team,
I believe it is exceedingly important to have districts in our city, and applaud this work! Any argument against districting, is an argument against democracy and against representation.

I'd like to encourage the city to send postcards to all city residents about this process. I understand it is a cost, but this is literally about cultivating a more active involvement in local government, which should be the top priority of city hall. More active resident involvement in turn promote increased safety, cohesiveness, and mutual support in our neighborhoods! Lastly, I'd like to submit my map, using the provided tool: https://davesredistrictinq.org/join/140ab234-4fa7-4617-82be99497e71cd32 (Please let me know if you are having difficulty opening it}.

The division is not exact and could definitely be tweaked, but having learned about population distribution in our city, and having been a resident for over two decades, the distinct districts/neighborhoods I see are:
1} North Glendale/Montrose
2) Mountain/Glenoaks Canyon/East Glendale
3) Brand Park and adjacent neighborhoods
4) West Glendale
5) Central Glendale
6) South Glendale
Thank you,
Hayk Makhmuryan
23 year resident of Glendale
~w;~ I Hayk [l1ike] Makhmuryan (p1onou11s lie i1Jm (what's this? ) Armenian artist, art worker community organizer
Skid Row (predominantly Black worr<mg class neighborhood threatened by erasure) and Glendale (city with large working class Armenian d·asporan community threatened by econom!c eraswel Tongva/Chumash/Kizh Land (aka Los Angeles region, CAJ
eqw:aiJle access to ans cultural ancl soc1a1 !:>paces ,s a fur1damental human ngl1t and collective respons1b111ty love the people decommod1iy life
S,911 up for doodlesw,thoutborders com mo11thly1sl1 newsletter IG ancl FB @doodleswithoutborders
263 of 1003 1
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Mary-Lynne Fisher < [email protected]>
Saturday, August 5, 2023 11:10 AM
mapg [email protected]
Partial district map: northern and northeastern Glendale CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

I am submitting a partial map because I don't know other areas of the city well enough to draw lines for their districts. In evaluating draft maps I hope Glendale pays particular attention to submissions from people who live in the districts. They know as others may not where natural community boundaries lie. An example of not understanding this is Draft Map 102 which puts Whiting Woods, a single access neighborhood that debouches on to Honolulu, in a district to the south to which it has no access.
264 of 1003 l
Gle
Pul
265 of 1003
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

I
Adrienne Griffin <[email protected]>
Saturday, August 5, 2023 4:30 PM
[email protected]
District Map Submission
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hi,
Here my District Map
https://davesredistricting.org/join/2e80c57a-e6fb-4513-993e-fd2c96de4dc3 Adrienne Griffin
Montrose
266 of 1003 l
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Saturday, August 5, 2023 10:43 PM
[email protected]
Glendale 2023 redistricting map
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
-------- The main purpose of this map is to show that draft maps 104 and 105 problematically divide neighborhoods/communities of interest in the region of Glendale near San Fernando and the 1-5 corridor. This is particularly true for the neighborhoods of Pelanconi and Fremont Park, which should not be divided.

It may make sense to have a district that includes the northern part of the district shown in the linked map, and a separate district that includes the southern portion, rather than keeping this all in a single district. However, the residents that live along San Fernando Road and within a close distance from 1-5 have the highest scores in CalEnviroScreen, as shown in the screenshot below the map link https:// daves redist r icti ng.o rg/jo i n/9f2 bSf 68-9c 70-400b-ae b 1-cf04e 7f 2 SO b3 267 of 1003 1
uni Sln111
emonal
Park
st Lawn
,rial Park
JOOd Hills
r t -Lee
=s
)
Gr~tt:Patlt
iL \_. OS
t 3 1ll<.lill n
C
Glendale E 1/•,'il..on Av · E BroM ,V,I)'
fe\il- e,wd ~
...
~ ,, C t· m
2 268 of 1003
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Madeline Pettit <[email protected]>
Monday, August 7, 2023 8:17 AM
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Submission of Map
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello,
Thank you for contacting us and participating in the City of Glendale's potential move to district-based elections.

Please continue to visit MapGlendale.orq for the most up-to-date news and information on the districting process.

On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 2:57 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
f CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are I unsure as to the sender.

North Glendale Renter District Glendale City
Council Map Template
Madeline Pettit
844-TS-COMM-1 x717
~ Website I Facebook I Twitter I YouTube I Linkedln
269 of 1003 1
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Jane Blissert <[email protected]>
Tuesday, August 8, 2023 12:24 PM
[email protected]
Armenian population breakdown
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello
Why is there a breakdown for the Armenian population and none of the others? Glendale is quite diverse and I would benefit from knowing the breakdown of other ethnicities.

Thank you for your work on this.

Jane Blissert
Sent from my iPhone
270 of 1003 l
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Attachments:

Araik Sinanian <[email protected]>
Tuesday, August 8, 2023 2:24 PM
[email protected]
Understanding Map
Gfendafe-Map-Armenian-Voter-Percentages-Maps-101-121.pdf CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not dick links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello!
f wanted to understand the maps better and saw this list. Can I know what this list describes because I've pulled up the maps it refers to and still don't get it.

Also, what is the reasoning behind having this chart only for Armenians vs other communities? Thank you,
Araik
271 of 1003 1
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Tuesday, August 8, 2023 3:36 PM
Mkhlian, Stephanie; [email protected]
Re: The First Set of Draft Maps Are Here!
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender. - -------- Hi. Thanks for the response. The process you describe is problematic; it allows City Councilmembers who have a vested interest in certain maps (i.e., the ones that do not force them to lose their seats) to determine the map the only map that residents get to vote on. This approach presents a clear conflict of interest. Instead, the maps presented for the vote should be selected by the voters.

Is there a mechanism through which I can voice this concern? I fear that the City will be forced into costly litigation if it proceeds down the path you describe.

Thanks. · M ,
On Tue, 2023-08-08 at 22:25 +0000, Mkhlian, Stephanie wrote:

Hello M.

Thank you for your inquiry. "NOC" also known as National Demographics Corporation was hired by the City of Glendale as a non-partisan firm focused on guiding the City through the districting process, while leaving the final policy choices to the residents and City Council. The Maps that you see titled "NOC" reflect the input from the communities of interest (https://mapglendale.org/communities-of-interest/responses/) and the maps received. The maps from NOC aim to round out the options and carry no more weight or importance than any other map.

After the extensive public outreach process the Council will select a map that will go on the March 2024 ballot for the voters to approve or disapprove. To stay informed on the districting outreach process, visit the calendar page for workshops and public hearings:https://mapglendale.org/schedule/.

With gratitude,
Stephanie Mkhlian I Sr. Administrative Analyst I City of Glendale 613 E Broadway, Suite 200 I Glendale, CA I 818-548-4844 [email protected] I www.glendaleca.gov I Follow us! From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 11:21 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: The First Set of Draft Maps Are Here!
272 of 1003 1
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:
[email protected]
Wednesday, August 9, 2023 8:49 AM
Mkhlian, Stephanie; [email protected]
Re: The First Set of Draft Maps Are Here]
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are J Thanks.
unsure
So,
as to
just
the
send
sender.
an email to the councilmembers? Ok. I will copy the City Attoney too. --
I should note that there would be no additional expense (or violation of California law) if voters were allowed to select the map that will be presented on the ballot through the City's existing website. In other words, the City could put the submitted maps up for a vote on the website - then use the chosen map for the ballot.

Thanks. - M.

On Wed, 2023-08-09 at 15:36 +0000, Mkhlian, Stephanie wrote:

HiM,
California law requires charter revisions to be put to the voters in a yes/no format, so even if the expense were not so prohibitive, the City is not allowed to put 20 or 30 different maps on the ballot for voters to consider. Please feel free to express your thoughts -- and map preferences -- to the Council via email or appearing at one or more of the upcoming hearings and community forums . . r .. With gratitude,
Stephanie Mkhhan I Sr. Admm1strat1ve Analyst I City of Glendale 613 E Broadway, Suite 200 I Glendale, CA I 818-548-4844 [email protected] I www.glendaleca.gov I Follow us! From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 3:36 PM
To: Mkhlian, Stephanie <[email protected]>; [email protected] Subject: Re: The First Set of Draft Maps Are Here!
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hi. Thanks for the response. The process you describe is problematic; lt allows City Councilmembers who have a vested interest in certain maps (i.e., the ones that do not force them to lose their seats) to determine the map the only map that residents get to vote on. This approach presents a clear conflict of interest. Instead, the maps presented for the vote should be selected by the voters.

Is there a mechanism through which I can voice this concern? I fear that the City will be forced into costly litigation if it proceeds down the path you describe.

Thanks. · M.
273 of 1003 l
On Tue, 2023~08-08 at 22:25 +0000, Mkhlian, Stephanie wrote:

Hello M,
Thank you for your inquiry. "NDC" also known as National Demographics Corporation was hired by the City of Glendale as a non-partisan firm focused on guiding the City through the districting process, while leaving the final policy choices to the residents and City Council. The Maps that you see titled "NDC" reflect the input from the communities of interest (https://mapglendale.org/communities-of-interest/responses/) and the maps received. The maps from NOC aim to round out the options and carry no more weight or importance than any other map.

With gratitude,
Stephanie Mkhlian I Sr. Administrative Analyst I City of Glendale 613 E Broadway, Suite 200 I Glendale, CA I 818-548-4844 [email protected] lwww.glendaleca.gov I Follow us! From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 11:21 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: The First Set of Draft Maps Are Here!
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if~ 7 unsure as to the sender. ____J
Hi. Who or what is "NDC" (the proposer of Map 120 and 121)? And what is their role in this process? Is it inevitable that their maps will be priortized? Lastly, who is selecting the final map? Thanks. - M. ------ Forwarded Message - --
From: My Glendale <[email protected]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
Subject: The First Set of Draft Maps Are Here I
Date: 08/08/2023 12:01:39 PM
11 Having trouble viewing this?~ 1 .
2 274 of 1003
T'he First Set of Draft Maps Are Here!
Dear Glendale Community,
The City of Glendale's districting outreach process is in full swing! OnTuesday, August 15, the City will hold its third public hearing on district formation at the City Council's regularly scheduled meetingstarting at 6:00 PM. Head over to City Council Chambers, 613 E. Broadway, to make your voice heard in the district formation process and ensure your community is represented.

The third public hearing is the City Council's first review of draft maps prepared by the City's professional demographer, National Demographics Corporation (NOC). NOC will present the maps that the public submitted through August 5 and the maps they created based on communities of interest information that residents have submitted since June 2023.

All draft maps being considered are posted onMapGlendale.org/Draft-Maps.

View Draft Maps
We encourage you to share your feedback on map elements you agree or disagree with at the public hearing or by
[email protected]. You can also continue to submit maps and share your thoughts about where you think district lines should be drawn and other feedback for the Council's consideration at the fourth public hearing, which will take place on Tuesday, October 10.
275 of 1003 3
To review draft maps and
collect public input on
potential district
boundaries, we are
hosting a second round of
community workshops and
events, which will run from
August 17 through
September 16. The
districting outreach team
will be at the following
workshops:

For our virtual community workshop scheduled forThursday, August 17 at 6:30 PM, click on the button below to join the Zoom meeting.

Join the Virtual Community Workshop
In addition to the community
workshops above, the
following pop•up events
offer additional opportunities
for the community to engage
and provide feedback on the
districting process:

X
In addition to the button above,the calendar page on MapGlendale.orq hosts Zoom meeting information forour virtual workshop on August 17 at 6:30 PM. For more information on Glendale's district formation process and all of the ways you can participate, visitMapGlendale.org.

We look forward to hearing from you.
4 276 of 1003
City of Glendale
Public Information Office
613 E. Broadway Room 200, Glendale, CA 91206
(818) 548--4844
@MyGlendale
Update your subscriptions, modify your password or email address, or stop subscriptions at any time on yourSubscribcr Prcfercnces Page. You will need to use your email address to log in. If you have questions or problems with the subscription service, please visitsubscriberhelp.gmd~livcr.·1com.

This service is provided to you at no charge byGlendale, California.

This em:itl was sent toxmbwd@hotmail com us,ng govDcl,very Co111r111m.c<1t1011, Cloud on behnlf of Glero,1lc CJl,lorr,a r, 1,, E Broadway GlencliJ:c CA 9120G-4391
277 of 1003 5
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Subject:

Julie Griffin <[email protected]>
Thursday, August 10, 2023 2:48 PM
[email protected]
Glendale Maps
j CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. D~ not click links, open attachments, or reply if you ~ L unsu~e as to the sender. j
Hello City of Glendale,
Thank you for the communication about this process! It's been really informative and interesting! I live in Sycamore Woods of Verdugo City and I suggest Nothem Glendale should be grouped together as one district (e.g. Crescenta Highlands, Montrose, Spar Heights, Whiting Woods, etc.). These neighborhoods have similar interests • schools attended, parks (or lack thereof), our gathering place of Downtown Montrose, local events attended, lost pets, infrastructure most used, walking/biking routes, etc. I know that my time locally spent surrounds these neighbors/neighborhoods, and I would guess that many of my neighbors feel the same.

For example, District 6 of Map 117 is a good example of keeping these northern neighborhoods together. 6 HOVr 1,/0LJN
l I m.>I> rtm1,,, •• '!i
,.,,
lh
fi
\
Conversely, the split in Map 108 of districts 6 & S is conversely an example of our neighborhoods being split up in a way that divides our local community within the city.
278 of 1003 1
6 Thank you for your time,
Julia Kobie
2 279 of 1003
Mkhlian, Stephanie
From:

Sent:

To:

Cc:

Subject:

Julie Griffin <[email protected]>
Thursday, August 10, 2023 7:32 PM
[email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Glendale Maps
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you a;--i unsure as to the sender. ___J
Thanks, Kevork! After rereading this without a baby on my hip, I found some embarrassing typos. Do you mind replacing my original comment with the following with minor spelling corrections since it's going to be pa,rt of the public record? Sorry about that, and thanks!
Hello City of Glendale,
Thank you for the communication about this process! It's been really informative and interesting I I live in Sycamore Woods of Verdugo City and I suggest Northern Glendale should be grouped together as one district (e.g. Crescenta Highlands, Montrose, Sparr Heights, Whiting Woods, etc.). These neighborhoods have similar interests - schools attended, parks (or lack thereof), our gathering place of Downtown Montrose, local events attended, lost pets, infrastructure most used, walking/biking routes, etc. I know that my time locally spent surrounds these neighbors/neighborhoods, and I would guess that many of my neighbors feel the same.

For example, District 6 of Map 117 is a good example of keeping these northern neighborhoods together. "''"' Cr _, 6
HOVT 1.11.>IIN
l , Jll:l'I I
lmt11l1J!!
Conversely, the split in Map 108 of districts 6 & S is an example of our neighborhoods being split up in a way that divides our local community within the city.
280 of 1003 1
6 Thank you for your time,
Julia Kobie
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 5:58 PM Kevork Kurdoghlian <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Julia,
Thank you for contacting us and participating in the City of Glendale's potential move to district-based elections. Your comment will be posted to the Schedule Page as a public comment for the next Public Hearing.

Best,
Kevork Kurdoghlian
On behalf of the City of Glendale
On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 2:49 PM Julie Griffin <[email protected]> wrote:
--- CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello City of Glendale,
Thank you for the communication about this process! It's been really informative and interesting! I live in Sycamore Woods of Verdugo City and 1 suggest Nothem Glendale should be grouped together as one district (e.g. Crescenta Highlands, Montrose, Spar Heights, Whiting Woods, etc.). These neighborhoods have similar interests - schools attended, parks (or lack thereof), our gathering place of Downtown Montrose, local events attended, lost pets, infrastructure most used, walking/biking routes, etc. I know that my time locally spent surrounds these neighbors/neighborhoods, and I would guess that many of my neighbors feel the same. 2 281 of 1003
For example, District 6 of Map 117 is a good example of keeping these northern neighborhoods together .

G
,
L.> .. 111 .. t.1
flm-u,J.J•
._-_::;r- ~
\
...
"· F,
Conversely, the split in Map 108 of districts 6 & 5 is conversely an example of our neighborhoods being split up in a way that divides our local community within the city.
6 Thank you for your time,
Julia Kobie
282 of 1003 3
283 of 1003
From: Morgan B. Ward Doran
Cc: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Glendale Districting Maps
Date: Saturday, August 12, 2023 4:43:40 PM
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hi. I write to give my support for the City's move to district-based voting. This has been a long time coming for Glendale. If implemented properly, it will give minority residents of Glendale who live in less wealthy areas a greater voice. This is a goal to be celebrated.

That said, I write to voice my concern that the City will perpetuate past inequalities by submitting to the voters a district map that dilutes the voice of less affluent, minority Glendale residents. This sort of gerrymandering, which is attempts to minimize or whitewash the discrete districts below the 134, is evident in the following maps:
https://mapglendale.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Map-103.pdf *** https://mapglendale.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Map-115-1.pdf https://mapglendale.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Map-117-1.pdf https://mapglendale.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Map-118-1.pdf https://mapglendale.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Map-120-1.pdf *** Maps 103 and 120 are particularly glaring in their attempt to ensure that no district's population is comprised wholly of Glendale residents below the 134 (a border which is a rough proxy for wealth and race divisions in Glendale). Others, like Maps 115, 117, 118, and 120, try to co-opt the Somerset, Maripose, and Adams Hill neighborhoods into the Glenoaks Canyon, Scholl Canyon, Chevy Chase neighborhoods -- very different demographic areas.

Map 120 is especially troubling because it was offered by the company that the City hired to assist with the mapping process -- a fact that has now been scrubbed from the City's mapping website (see https://mapglendale.org/draft-maps/).

Since the City has chosen a process whereby the City Council determines the sole map that residents will get to vote on (rather than allowing residents to choose the best map from those submitted), it is up to the City Council to ensure that the process is fair, impartial, and does not disenfranchise residents.

Please be mindful of the goals and requirements that motivate districting when making your decision to submit a map to voters.

Thank you.
284 of 1003
City of Glendale
Initial Draft Maps Hearing
August 15, 2023 Douglas Johnson
National Demographics Corporation
285 of 1003
2 The Districting Process
Step Description
1 st Council Hearing
June 13
Held prior to release of draft maps.

Education and to solicit input on the composition of districts. 1 st Round of Community
Forums
First round: 1 virtual workshop, 6 in-person workshops + pop-up events. Beginning June 20 through July 27
2 nd Council Hearing
July 11
Very similar presentation to the first hearing, but with a summary of feedback from the forums. Council opportunity to give direction to NDC.

Deadline to post initial draft
maps on project website
August 8
Maps must be posted at least 7 days prior to 3rd hearing. 3 rd Council Hearing
August 15
First formal public and Council consideration of initial draft maps.

Opportunity for Council select “focus” maps options and to request new or revised maps.

Part 1 of 2 August 15, 2023
286 of 1003
3 Step Description
2 nd Round of Community
Forums
Aug. 17 – Sept. 16
Second round: 1 virtual workshop, 6 in-person workshops + pop-up events.

Deadline to submit maps
September 28
Maps must be submitted far enough in advance to allow NDC to download, input and process the maps for posting online.

Deadline to post new maps
October 3 Maps must be posted at least 7 days prior to the Council hearing. 4 th Council Hearing
October 10
Public & Council considers “focus” maps and any new or revised maps. Preferred map and election sequence selected and 1st reading of adoption ordinance.
5 th Council Hearing and
Map Adoption
October 24
Council selects map via ordinance, contingent on voter approval.

Final map must be posted at least 7 days prior to adoption.

Citywide Vote
March 5, 2024
Vote on transition to by-district elections on primary and (at-large) City Council election ballot
The Districting Process
Part 2 of 2 August 15, 2023
287 of 1003
4  Equal Population
 Federal Voting Rights
Act
 No Racial
Gerrymandering
 Respect voters’ choices /
continuity in office
 Future population growth

1. Federal Laws 2. California Criteria for
Cities

1. Geographically contiguous

2. Undivided neighborhoods
and “communities of
interest”
(Socio-economic geographic areas
that should be kept together)

3. Easily identifiable
boundaries

4. Compact
(Do not bypass one group of
people to get to a more distant
group of people)
Prohibited:
“Shall not favor or discriminate against
a political party.”

3. Other Traditional
Redistricting Principles
Districting Rules and Goals
August 15, 2023
288 of 1003
5 Community Input
Communities of Interest suggested by forum & hearing participants:
 Crescenta Highlands and the Far North
 Verdugo Mountains
 Glendale Unified School District / Glendale Community College  South Glendale renters (especially those south of Colorado)  Northwest neighborhood (single family homes)
 Branch libraries & civic center
 Montrose
 Crescenta Valley High School and Verdugo Mountains
 Adams Hill
 Mariposa
August 15, 2023
289 of 1003
6 Proposed Election Sequencing is on the PDF
maps on the Draft Maps web page.

All maps are also available on the Interactive
Web Viewer
Draft Maps
290 of 1003
7 Draft Maps Overview
 19 maps submitted
 Two are partial maps that include one district for a six-district map  One five-district map (not population balanced)
 One seven-district map (not population balanced)
 Two of the 15 full six-district maps are not population balanced  Two maps are identical (107 and 113)
 Twelve unique population-balanced, contiguous full six-district maps submitted by residents
 NDC added two maps based on partial maps and community input  The 14 population-balanced maps are grouped for this discussion Interactive Web Viewer August 15, 2023
291 of 1003
8 Not Population-Balanced Maps
August 15, 2023
Five-District Map,
but not populationbalanced
Seven-District Map,
but not populationbalanced
Map 102 is a
balanced version
A regional map, but
not population
balanced
Interactive Web Viewer
292 of 1003
9 Single-District Maps
August 15, 2023
Submitter preferred a northern
district that did not split the
Verdugo Woodlands area
Submitter preferred for the
Rancho to be with the southern
areas bordering Los Angeles
Interactive Web Viewer
293 of 1003
10 North + Verdugo Maps
August 15, 2023
107 and 113 are identical but submitted separately.

All 3 have the same District 1.

Interactive Web Viewer
294 of 1003
11 North + Partial Verdugo Maps
August 15, 2023
Map 105 has the same District 1 as Maps 107/108.

Map 117’s southern section and Map 118’s southern
section are each unique.

Interactive Web Viewer
295 of 1003
12 North + NW Hills & a Central District
August 15, 2023
These maps all put Crescenta Highlands with the
hillside homes of Northwest Glendale, and include a
‘central city’ district centered on Brand north and
south of the 134 (D4 in 109 and 110, D5 in 115).

Interactive Web Viewer
296 of 1003
13 North + NW Hills, no Central District
August 15, 2023
These maps also put Crescenta Highlands with the
hillside homes of Northwest Glendale, but each has a
unique version of District 4.

Interactive Web Viewer
297 of 1003
14 Unique Maps
August 15, 2023
Adams Hill
Neighborhood
Association
A mostly-south of Maple D4. Verdugo
Woodlands with the Canyons, Upper
Northwest with the North.

Interactive Web Viewer
298 of 1003
15 Combined Public Comment Maps
August 15, 2023
Combines single-district Maps 119 and Map
116, adds D2 from Map 103, then follows
neighborhood lines as much as possible.

Unites the Canyons, unites the south on
the west side of Brand, has Adams Hill
in a southern district, and has the
Rancho with Northwest.

Interactive Web Viewer
299 of 1003
16 Public Hearing & Discussion
 What do you like or dislike about the draft maps?
 Which map(s) is/are your favorite(s)?
 How would you improve your preferred map(s)?
 Any questions about the mapping tools?
August 15, 2023
300 of 1003
17 Next Steps
Tonight: Public Hearing followed by Council selection of “focus maps” August 15, 2023
Step Description
2 nd Round of Community
Forums
Aug. 17 – Sept. 16
Second round: 1 virtual workshop, 6 in-person workshops + pop-up events. Beginning August 17 through September 7
Deadline to submit maps
September 28
Maps must be submitted far enough in advance to allow NDC to download, input and process the maps for posting online.

Final map must be posted at least 7 days prior to adoption.

Citywide Vote
March 5, 2024
Vote on transition to by-district elections on primary and (at-large) City Council election ballot
301 of 1003
18 Share Your Thoughts
Website
MapGlendale.org
Phone
(818) 548-4844, option 1
Email
[email protected]
August 15, 2023
302 of 1003
19 Full & Population-Balanced Maps
Interactive Web Viewer August 15, 2023
Map 113
303 of 1003
9b

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Hearing: Appeal of Planning Commission’s approval of Density Bonus Review Case Number PDBP2120753, for 246 North Jackson Street (Environmental Determination of Class 32 “In-fill Development Project” Exemption Per State CEQA Guidelines Section 15332)

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for August 15, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This hearing is an appeal of a decision made on November 2, 2022 by the Planning Commission to sustain the decision made on July 7, 2022 by the Planning Hearing Officer, to grant with conditions the requested density bonus, incentives/concessions, and waivers associated with Density Bonus Review Case Number PDBP2120753 (“DB Review Case”), pursuant to the provisions of Cal. Gov’t Code sections 65915, et seq. (“State Density Bonus Law”) and the Glendale Municipal Code (“GMC”), Title 30, Chapter 30.36 (“City Density Bonus Law”).

The project involves construction of a new 9,760 square-foot (SF), three-story,11-unit rental housing project, with one unit being reserved for very low-income households, and with a request for two incentives and two waivers. The two incentives are for additional height/stories and reduced setbacks, and the two requested waivers are for increased floor area ratio and decreased unit sizes. Development of the project includes 304 of 1003
2 b 9
demolition of an existing three-unit multi-family building (constructed in 1946), and will require subsequent Design Review Board approval.

The appellant’s arguments focus on its claim that both the Planning Commission and the Planning Hearing Officer relied on invalid calculation of base density, invalid calculation of density bonus units, invalid calculation of incentives, invalid calculation of replacement units required; and that the decision was not based on adequate findings.

As detailed below, staff’s calculations, upon which the Planning Commission relied, were correctly made, and there was adequate support for the incentives and waivers granted. Additional justification and evidence to support the calculations and the grant of the incentives and waivers were submitted by the applicant/owner in July of 2023 (dated May of 2023) (Exhibit 13), and such justification and evidence is incorporated into, and discussed in, this report. Since any appeal to City Council is de novo, the Council can consider any additional or new evidence produced as part of this hearing.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
N/A.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council review, consider and affirm staff’s and the Planning Commission’s Class 32 CEQA exemption determination and sustain its decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s granting with conditions of the DB Review Case for 246 North Jackson Street, based on the evidence and findings made by the Planning Hearing Officer, as well as any additional evidence and findings in the record. If the Council is inclined to reverse the Planning Commission’s decision and deny the application, staff requests a continuance for two weeks so that the City Attorney may prepare denial findings.

BACKGROUND
General Information
Appellant: Grant Michals, Glendale Homeowners Coordinating Council Applicant: Farzin Maly (“Applicant”)
Owner: Artshar, LLC
Requested Action: Reverse the Planning Commission’s decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision to grant with conditions Density Bonus Review Case Number PDBP2120753
General Plan: High Density
305 of 1003
3 b 9
Zone: R-1250 (High Density Residential)
Description of Existing Properties and Uses: The site is located on the southeast corner of North Jackson Street and East California Avenue, on a relatively flat lot 7,512 SF in size; there is a slight slope across the lot from the north-east corner to the southeast corner of the property (“Project Site”). The lot is currently developed with a twostory multi-family building, constructed in 1946, with three units. The building is not identified as a historic resource. There are no indigenous protected trees per GMC

12.44 on or within 20 feet of the Project Site.

Neighboring Zones and Uses:

Zoning Existing Uses
North R-1250 One-story multi-family
South R-1250 Two-story multi-family
East R-1250 Two-story multi-family
West R-1250 Two-story multi-family
Project Site R-1250 Three-story multi-family
See Exhibits 3 and 4 for location map and photos.

Previous Permits for the Site:

November 9, 1945 – Building permit #23939 issued to build a two-story duplex with a four-car garage on the first floor.

February 9, 1951 – Building permit #39591 issued to convert two garage spaces and a store room to a residential unit.

April 22, 1971 – Building permit #69216 issued to demolish a one-story, 700 SF dwelling.

Project History:

February 24, 2021 – Applicant submitted a “preliminary application” per Gov. Code §65941.1;
March 10, 2021 – Staff feedback provided to Applicant;
306 of 1003
4 b 9
June 25, 2021 – Applicant resubmitted a “preliminary application” per Gov. Code §65941.1;
July 22, 2021 – Staff feedback provided to Applicant;
July 23, 2021 – Applicant resubmitted a “preliminary application” per Gov. Code §65941.1;
August 12, 2021 – Staff feedback provided to Applicant; November 3, 2021 – Applicant resubmitted a “preliminary application” per Gov. Code §65941.1;
January 3, 2022 – Applicant submitted the Density Bonus Review Application (“Application”);
May 4, 2022 – Application deemed complete; see Exhibits 5 and 6 for architectural plans and City department comments.

June 1, 2022 – The Planning Hearing Officer conducted a public hearing for the Application. A copy of the staff report presented at this hearing is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.

July 7, 2022 –The Planning Hearing Officer granted with conditions the requested incentives/concessions and waivers associated with the Application. A copy of the decision letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 8.

July 22, 2022 – Grant Michals, representing Glendale Homeowner’s Coordinating Council), submitted an appeal of the Planning Hearing Officer’s approval. A copy of the application (also known as the “Notice of Appeal”) is attached hereto as Exhibit 9.

November 2, 2022 – The Planning Commission conducted a hearing on the appeal of the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision, and sustained the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision to grant with conditions the requested incentives/concessions and waivers associated with the Application. A copy of the staff report is attached hereto as Exhibit

10. A copy of the Planning Commission Motion is attached hereto as Exhibit 11.

November 16, 2022 - Grant Michals, representing Glendale Homeowner’s Coordinating Council, submitted an appeal of the Planning Commission’s decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision. A copy of the application (also known as the “Notice of Appeal”) is attached hereto as Exhibit 12.

May 4, 2023 – Additional documentation submitted by project owner, Artshar LLC is attached hereto as Exhibit 13.
307 of 1003
5 b 9
Files Available for Review:

All files and exhibits relative to the DB Review Case have been available for review in the Community Development Department – Planning Division, are available at this hearing, and by reference are hereby made part of the record.

Project Information:

The project consists of demolition of an existing three-unit multi-family building, and constructing a new 9,760 SF, three-story, 11-unit (with seven base units and four density bonus units) multi-family building on a 7,512 SF lot in the R-1250 Zone (High Density Residential Zone). One unit will be reserved for very low-income households (hereinafter, “Project”).

The Project is not subject to the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance per GMC section

30.35, which requires a rental housing development with a base density of eight or more dwelling units to provide fifteen percent of the units as affordable to low-income households. With a base density of seven units, the Project is not subject to this code section. See GMC sections 30.35.020(B) & 30.35.030(A) (inclusionary requirement only applies to housing development of 8 or more units).

The Project qualifies as a density bonus project per State Density Bonus Law and City Density Bonus Law, because according to the Project’s Density Bonus Housing Plan (see Exhibit 2), the Project provides at least 5% of the total units (not including the density bonus units) of the housing development for very low-income households, as defined in the California Health and Safety Code §50105. The Project provides one affordable unit to very low-income households (one of seven units = 14%), which exceeds the 5% minimum. Therefore, the Project qualifies as a density bonus project.

Per State Density Bonus Law, an applicant is ineligible for a density bonus or any other incentives or concessions if a project is proposed on a parcel(s) with rental dwelling units that have been vacated or demolished within a five-year period preceding the project’s development application, or have been occupied by lower1 or very low2 income households, unless the proposed project replaces those units. Cal. Gov’t Code section 65915(c)(3)(B)(ii).
1 Lower income means household income that does not exceed the maximum income set forth in California Health and Safety Code (HSC) § 50079.5. Lower income means 80% area median income and below, including low-income, very low income, extremely low income and acutely low income.
2 Very low income means household income that does not exceed the maximum income set forth in HSC § 50105. Very low income means 31% to 50% area median income. 308 of 1003
6 b 9
If the rental dwelling units have been vacated or demolished within a five-year period preceding the project’s development application, the proposed project is required to provide the same number of units of equivalent size (i.e., the same total number of bedrooms as the units being replaced) as affordable to the same or lower income households in occupancy during such time. Id. If the incomes are unknown to the applicant, there is a rebuttable presumption that low-income3 and very low-income renter households occupied these units in the same proportion of low-income and very low income renter households to all rental households within the jurisdiction, as determined by the most recently available data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Database4. Id. The rebuttable presumption per HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Database amounts to 37%5 of renter households at or below 80% area median income. Replacement unit calculations resulting in fractional units are rounded up per State Density Bonus Law.

Per the Los Angeles County Assessor, the Project Site contains three (3) residential dwelling units at one (1) bedroom each, with an average of 569 square feet per unit6.

The Site was purchased on September 2, 2020 and Applicant submitted a development application to Planning (PMPA2016969) on February 24, 2021. Applicant has provided Housing staff supporting documentation in the form of a Grant Deed, Real Estate Withholding Statements, an Addendum, Tenant Estoppel Certificates and Mutual Termination of Rental Agreements to confirm owner-occupancy of one (1) residential unit with a household at or above 80% area median income and the vacancies of the remaining two (2) residential units within a five-year period preceding the Project’s development application. (See Exhibit 14).

By applying the statutorily required rebuttable presumption of 37% to the two (2) remaining vacant residential units, one replacement unit at one (1) bedroom is required under State Density Bonus Law (37% x 2 = .74 (rounded up to 1)). The household size assumption for a one (1) bedroom unit is two persons. Applicant will reserve Unit 204, a 3 Low-income means household income that does not exceed the maximum income given to “lower income” households in HSC § 50079.5. Low-income means 51% to 80% area median income.
4 https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html#2006-2018 5 Pursuant to the most recently available data from HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Database for Los Angeles County between years 2014 and 2018, very low income (318,845) and low-income (344,185) renter households make up 663,030 (318,845 + 344,185 = 663,030) of renter households within the jurisdiction of Los Angeles County. From a total of 1,791,480 renter households in Los Angeles County, these 663,030 renter households make up 37% (663,030 / 1,791,480 = .37) of renter households at or below 80% area median income in Los Angeles County.
6 https://portal.assessor.lacounty.gov/parceldetail/5642018039 309 of 1003
7 b 9
two (2) bedroom unit at 768 square feet, as affordable to very low-income households.

The household size assumption for a two (2) bedroom unit is three persons. HSC section 50052.5(h). Accordingly, although the Applicant is replacing the required one unit, it is replacing the existing 1-bedroom unit with a larger 2-bedroom unit.

The Applicant is requesting a 46.25% density bonus for a total of 11 units. Per State Density Bonus Law (Gov’t Code §65915(f)(2)), a Project qualifies for the requested

46.25% density bonus if it provides at least 14% of the total number of units (not including the density bonus units) as affordable to very low-income households. The Project’s zone (R-1250) permits a maximum density of 34 units per acre (one unit per 1,250 SF). Based on the lot area of 7,512 SF, a total of 7 units (6.01 rounded up7) are permitted as the base density. The Applicant is providing 14% of the base density as affordable housing for very low income households (14% of 7 = 1), and is therefore entitled to a 46.25% density bonus of four additional units (46.25% of 7 = 3.2 rounded up to 4). This results in a total of 11 units with the density bonus.

The Applicant is requesting two incentives/concessions. Per State Density Bonus Law (Gov’t Code §65915(d)(2)(B)) and GMC 30.36.070, a project qualifies for two incentives/concessions if it provides at least 10% of the total units for very low-income households. Since the Project provides 14% of the base density units as affordable to very low-income households, it qualifies for two incentives, which are described in the below section.

Per State Density Bonus Law, the City shall not require parking spaces in excess of one-half parking space (inclusive of handicapped and guest parking) per unit if the Project includes at least 11% very low income housing and is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the California Public Resources Code (“the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods”), and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the housing development.

The Applicant has demonstrated the Project qualifies for this parking concession because the Project provides the requisite affordable housing and is located 0.4 miles from the intersection of North Glendale Avenue and East Broadway. The Glendale/Broadway intersection is served by the Beeline Route 4, which runs north/south and east/west between the Glendale Galleria and the Glendale Transportation Center, the central transportation hub for the City of Glendale, and Metro 7 Per State Density Bonus Law (Gov’t Code §65915(q)) and GMC 30.36.050, each component of any density calculation, including base density and bonus density, resulting in fractional units shall be separately rounded up to the next whole number. 310 of 1003
8 b 9
Bus Route 180/181, a regional route running primarily east/west from Pasadena to Hollywood. Both lines have a service interval of less than 15 minutes during peak commute periods. Under this provision, the Project is only required to provide six parking spaces (0.5 space x 11 units). The Project provides 14 parking spaces, which meets and exceeds the parking minimum under State Density Bonus Law.

REQUESTED INCENTIVES

1. Maximum Height/Stories
Requested: The Applicant is requesting an incentive to allow a maximum height of 37’-6” and three stories.

Required: In the R-1250 Zone, on lots having a width of 90 feet or less, a maximum of 26 feet and two stories are allowed.

2. Setbacks8
Requested:

Street Front: 4’-4” minimum and an average of 15’-10” on the subterranean parking level; 20 feet minimum and an average of 23 on the first floor; 20 feet minimum and an average of 26 feet on the second and third floor. 8 The Appellant claims that the Project’s setback incentives should have been separated out into three separate incentives (street front, street side, and interior), per the City Council’s direction on October 11, 2021 related to density bonus setback incentives. In this case, the City may not apply this policy change to the Project because the Applicant submitted a preliminary application, pursuant to Gov. Code section 65941.1 on February 24, 2021 – well before October of 2021, when the City Council passed the motion directing staff to change its practice with respect to density bonus setback incentives.

A submitted preliminary application that meets the requirements of Government Code section 65941.1 (which is the case here) has the effect of vesting a project pursuant to California Government Code section 65589.5(o)(1). Such vesting restricts a local agency from applying ordinances, policies or standards enacted after a preliminary application is submitted.

Specifically, if a preliminary application is submitted, “a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application . . . was submitted.” Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(o)(4), "’ordinances, policies, and standards’ includes general plan, community plan, specific plan, zoning, design review standards and criteria, subdivision standards and criteria, and any other rules, regulations, requirements, and policies of a local agency, as defined in Section 66000, including those relating to development impact fees, capacity or connection fees or charges, permit or processing fees, and other exactions.” Id. (emphasis added). 311 of 1003
9 b 9
Street Side: Zero feet and 4 inches minimum and average on the subterranean parking level; 4 feet minimum and 8’ average on the first floor; 4 feet minimum and 7’-8” average on the second floor; 4 feet minimum and 8’-10” average on the third floor.

Interior: 5 feet minimum and an average of 10’-9” on the second floor.

Required:

Street Front: 20 feet minimum and an average of 23 feet for any garage or first residential floor; not less than 23 feet and an average of 26 feet for the second and third residential floors.

Street Side: 5 feet minimum and an average of 8 feet for the first residential floor; not less than 8 feet and an average of 11 feet for the second residential floor; and not less than 11 feet and an average of 14 feet for the third residential floor.

Interior: 5 feet minimum and an average of 8 feet for the first residential floor; not less than 8 feet and an average of 11 feet for the second residential floor; and not less than 11 feet and an average of 14 feet for the third residential floor. No setback required for subterranean parking garage.

REQUESTED WAIVERS

1. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
Requested: Maximum 1.32 (9,760 SF)
Required: Maximum 1.2 (8,904 SF)

2. Dwelling Unit Size
Requested: Minimum 574 SF for one-bedroom units and 768 SF for two-bedroom units:

Unit Number # Bedrooms Floor Area (SF)
102 1 574
103 1 574
202 1 574
203 1 574
204 2 768
302 1 574
303 2 768
312 of 1003
10 b 9
Required: Minimum 600 SF for efficiency and one-bedroom units; 800 SF for twobedroom units.

ANALYSIS
Requested Action by the Appellant:

Appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission’s decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s approval of the subject DB Review Application.

DENSITY BONUS FINDINGS
Incentives/Concessions: Pursuant to GMC section 30.36.080(A) and California Government Code section 65915(d)(1), when an applicant for a density bonus requests incentives, the hearing officer must grant the requested incentives, unless he or she makes written findings, based upon substantial evidence, of any of the following:

1. The incentive or concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or to provide affordable rents.

2. The incentive or concession will have a “specific adverse impact upon public health and safety,” as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the housing development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households. As used herein, “specific adverse impact upon public health or safety” means a significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete.

Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or the land use designation in the general plan shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety.

3. The incentive or concession will be contrary to state or federal law. The granting of an incentive or concession shall not require or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, zoning change, study, or other discretionary approval. For purposes of this subdivision, “study” does not include reasonable documentation to establish eligibility for the concession or incentive or to demonstrate that the incentive or concession meets the definition.

Waivers: Pursuant to GMC section 30.36.080(B) and California Government Code section 65915(e)(1), when an applicant requests waivers in addition to incentives, the hearing officer shall review the request(s) for modifications of development standards or waivers in conjunction with the density bonus request and incentive(s) at a public 313 of 1003
11 b 9
hearing. The hearing officer may grant the request(s) for waivers or reductions in development standards only if he or she makes all of the following written findings:

1. The application of said development standard(s) will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development at the density and with the incentives granted pursuant to this chapter.

2. The waiver(s) or reduction in development standard(s) will not have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact;

3. The waiver(s) or reduction in development standard(s) will not have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.

4. The waiver(s) or reduction in development standard(s) will not be contrary to state or federal law.

BASIS OF THE PLANNING HEARING OFFICER’S & THE PLANNING
COMMISSION’S DECISIONS:

After considering the evidence presented with respect to the DB Review Case, the plans submitted therewith, the Planning Hearing Officer (“Hearing Officer”), on July 7, 2022, approved the DB Review Case, inclusive of the mandatory density bonus, two incentives, two waivers, and the mandatory parking concession, with eight conditions, allowing for the development of the affordable housing Project with reduced setbacks and increased height, as well as increased floor area and lot coverage. Following the appeal of that decision by the same Appellant, on November 2, 2022, the Planning Commission sustained the Hearing Officer’s decision to grant approval of the DB Review Case. The Planning Commission adopted and incorporated the reasoning and findings made by the Hearing Officer. (See Exhibit 11 (PC Motion)).

The following is a summary of the findings contained in the Planning Hearing Officer’s Decision Letter, dated July 7, 2022 (Exhibit 8):

Incentives/Concessions: The City has the burden to make a showing of substantial evidence to support findings to deny a requested incentive. The Hearing Officer and Planning Commission approved the two requested incentives for increased height/stories and reduced setbacks because they were unable to make findings, based upon substantial evidence, of any one or more of the following:
314 of 1003
12 b 9

1. The incentive or concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or to provide affordable rents.

This finding cannot be made. There is no evidence in the record that the granting of the incentives or concessions will not result in cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or provide affordable rents. To the contrary, evidence supports the conclusion that the incentives or concessions do result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or to provide affordable rents. The requested concessions for additional height/stories and reduced setbacks are required in this case to allow for additional buildable area to provide more units and accommodate the additional density resulting from the grant of the density bonus. These additional units will reduce the costs to the developer of providing the affordable unit. The cost reductions that the developer will realize will allow the affordable housing costs to be reduced to a point where the development will be economically feasible. The additional height/story and reduced setbacks will allow for the proposed density and appropriately sized apartment units with sufficient on-site parking to ensure Project success with the intended market.

These concessions enable the Project to be economically feasible for the following reasons:

A) To facilitate the proposed design and programming and ensure architectural character that complies with the City's Design Guidelines, including distinct and separate common open spaces with amenities both on the building's ground level and also on the third floor deck, including provision of a required elevator, the Applicant is proposing a 37’-6” high building. The additional height is necessary for the elevator shaft to provide access to the units and to the common open space on the third floor, and the additional building height/stories will enable the construction of additional buildable area to provide more units (density bonus units) that will reduce the overall costs per unit of the Project and thereby make the very low income affordable unit economically feasible.

B) The reduction in the subterranean parking garage setbacks will enable the construction of a larger garage area and additional parking spaces that will improve the viability and marketability of the Project. The additional parking spaces will enable the Project to better compete with its surrounding development.

The two concessions will reduce costs to the Applicant of providing an affordable unit by creating cost reductions from allowing the construction of a greater number of units and improving the viability of the Project. The additional units will result in actual and identifiable cost reductions because the additional units will take 315 of 1003
13 b 9
advantage of construction efficiencies when being built, and will generate rental income to offset the cost of providing the unit at an affordable rent. Without these concessions, the Applicant would not be able to provide the additional affordable unit.

Inconsistency with the zoning ordinance or the land use designation in the general plan shall not constitute a specific, adverse impact upon public health or safety.

This finding cannot be made. The incentives or concessions will not have a “specific adverse impact upon public health and safety” or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. Staff research finds that the property does not meet any of the eligibility criteria for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers and therefore is not considered a historic resource under CEQA. The Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as a Class 32 Infill Exemption and no significant environmental impacts have been identified. The Project is designed to comply with the various sections of the Glendale Municipal Code as administered by different City Departments (e.g. Fire, Glendale Water & Power, Public Works, Building & Safety, etc.). Aside from the two incentive/concession requests and waivers, the Project otherwise fully complies with the Zoning Code (GMC Title 30).

Any Project impacts with respect to increased height/stories and reduced setbacks are mitigated by several factors, such as: The Project is located on a corner lot with two sides adjacent to a street, and one side adjacent to an alley.

These public rights-of-way that are open to the sky provide a buffer of air and light and visual massing that mitigates the impact of the three-story building in a typically two-story neighborhood. Furthermore, the building uses several design techniques that reduce the apparent massing and scale of the building, including the central part of the building which features a two-story massing, a variation in building form and façade planes that break up the massing, and a variety of exterior finish materials to help break up the apparent massing. Finally, the 316 of 1003
14 b 9
building provides setbacks in excess of code requirement on various sides/floors of the building to help compensate for the reduced setbacks in other areas, particularly on the south side of the building, which is adjacent to a two-story apartment building. The provision of housing and affordable housing benefits the public health and safety, and is consistent with the Glendale General Plan Housing Element goals of providing a wide range of housing types, including affordable housing.

3. The incentive or concession will be contrary to state or federal law.

This finding cannot be made. The incentives will not be contrary to state or federal law. The Project complies with State Density Bonus Law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance, and is designed to comply with the various sections of the Glendale Municipal Code as administered by City Departments (e.g. Fire, Glendale Water & Power, Public Works, Building & Safety, etc.). The incentives do not require any other discretionary entitlement other than future design review approval. No other known federal or state laws would be in conflict with granting of the incentives/concessions.

Waivers: The Applicant/Owner has the burden to provide substantial evidence that it is entitled to a waiver to allow the City to make the necessary findings. The Hearing Officer and Planning Commission approved the two requested waivers/modifications of development standards for increased floor area and reduced dwelling unit size, because they were able to make all of the following findings pursuant to GMC §30.36.080(B), based on substantial evidence:

This finding can be made. As to the first requested waiver, the Applicant seeks relief from the minimum unit size requirements in GMC section 30.11.050, since the units listed below do not meet the minimum unit size, as follows:
• Unit 102 - 1 bedroom at 574 SF, which is 26 SF (4.33%) less than the minimum 600 SF requirement
• Unit 103 - 1 bedroom at 574 SF, which is 26 SF (4.33%) less than the minimum 600 SF requirement
• Unit 202 - 1 bedroom at 574 SF, which is 26 SF (4.33%) less than the minimum 600 SF requirement
• Unit 203 - 1 bedroom at 574 SF, which is 26 SF (4.33%) less than the 317 of 1003
15 b 9
minimum 600 SF requirement
• Unit 204 - 2 bedrooms at 768 SF, which is 32 SF (4.0%) less than the minimum 800 SF requirement
• Unit 302 - 1 bedroom at 574 SF, which is 26 SF (4.33%) less than the minimum 600 SF requirement
• Unit 303 - 2 bedrooms at 768 SF, which is 32 SF (4.0%) less than the minimum 800 SF requirement
The Project is designed to optimize density with a balanced unit mix consisting of one-bedroom and two-bedroom apartments within the allowable 11-unit density (with the density bonus). The requested waiver from minimum unit sizes is needed to make this balanced unit mix physically possible to build. The waiver will allow relief to provide for a more balanced unit mix that will meet the 11-unit design of the proposed development Project. The minimum unit size requirements of GMC §30.11.050 would physically preclude the construction of the housing development (with the desired unit mix) at the density and with the incentives or concessions.

As an example, Unit 102 is 26 SF less than the minimum 600 SF requirement for a one-bedroom unit. However, Unit 102 is a functional, contemporary onebedroom urban in-fill unit. As designed, the 26 SF is inconsequential since the unit has functional kitchen and living areas, an above average-sized bedroom area, a private bathroom, a private washer and dryer and adequate storage/closet area. Without the requested waiver the Project would consist of five (5) studios and six (6) one-bedroom units, which would physically preclude the construction of the housing development at the allowable 11-unit density with the desired unit mix, and with the incentives or concessions. In addition to the increased number of bedrooms, the requested waiver will improve and balance the Project’s unit mix which will help provide a range of housing types which is consistent with the General Plan Housing Element.

The proposed decrease in the minimum unit size is minor, not exceeding 4.33% less than the minimum requirement. While the units listed above are smaller than the minimum requirements of the GMC, the Project will comply with the various sections of the Glendale Municipal Code as administered by different City Departments (e.g., Fire, Glendale Water & Power, Public Works, Building & Safety, etc.). Moreover, there are similarly sized residential units elsewhere in the City.

Additionally, the current trend of urban infill multifamily unit sizes is smaller in footprint compared to units built during the latter part of the 20th century. The requested minimum unit size waiver will provide the creation of a greater number of marketed bedrooms and will allow the very low-income affordable unit to be a 318 of 1003
16 b 9
two-bedroom unit versus a one-bedroom unit. Without the waiver it will be physically impossible to build the Project with the proposed unit mix and the development, as proposed, would be physically precluded.

As to the second requested waiver, the Applicant is requesting a waiver to allow an increase in FAR to 1.32 (9,760 SF) where a maximum FAR of 1.20 (8,904 SF) is permitted.

Similar to the minimum unit size waiver, the requested waiver to exceed the FAR maximum is necessary to accommodate added floor area to achieve a more balanced unit mix as an 11-unit development Project. If the Project were to comply with the FAR maximum of 1.2, the Project would necessarily include smaller residential units with less total bedrooms and only 10 total units versus the maximum allowable 11 units.

The additional FAR allows for an 11-unit Project with a more balanced unit mix consisting of six (6) two-bedroom units and five (5) 1-bedroom units. Similarly, the increased FAR allows for the one very low-income affordable unit to be a twobedroom versus a one-bedroom unit – allowing the affordable unit to accommodate a larger family. As a result, the strict application of the FAR development standard would physically preclude the construction of the housing development at the 11-unit density, with the unit mix, and with the incentives or concessions.

The Density Bonus Housing Plan meets the requirements of Government Code Section 65915 because at least 14% of the total units of the housing development are for very low-income households. The waivers result in a Project with appropriate unit sizes, an appropriate number of bedrooms and a balanced unit mix, to provide a variety of housing types and thus render the Project feasible to build per the maximum allowable 11-unit density and with the incentives/concessions granted pursuant to Density Bonus Law.

2. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact;
This finding can be met. The Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act and no significant environmental impacts have been identified. The Project is designed to comply with the various sections of the Glendale Municipal Code as administered by different City Departments (e.g., Fire, Glendale Water & 319 of 1003
17 b 9
Power, Public Works, Building & Safety, etc.). Aside from the two incentive/concession requests and waivers, the Project otherwise fully complies with the Zoning Code (GMC Title 30). Further, the provision of additional housing and affordable housing benefits the public health and safety, and is consistent with the General Plan Housing Element goals of providing a wide range of housing types, including affordable housing.

Furthermore, the building uses several design techniques that reduce the apparent massing and scale of the building, including a variation in building form and façade, and a variety of exterior finish materials that help break up the apparent building size. The reduced unit sizes (574 SF instead of 600 SF and 768 SF instead of 800 SF) are 4% less than the required size, a relatively insubstantial amount. Further, there has been increased interest in the housing market for smaller units that lend support to the proposal in order to assist in the provision of affordable housing.

3. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources.

This finding can be met. Staff research finds that the property does not meet any of the eligibility criteria for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers, and therefore, is not considered a historic resource under CEQA. Please see Exhibit 1 (specifically, Attachment A to Exhibit 1) for further information and analysis.

4. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not be contrary to state or federal law.

This finding can be met. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not be contrary to state or federal law and do not require any other discretionary entitlement other than future design review approval. The Project complies with State Density Bonus Law, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance, and is designed to comply with the various sections of the Glendale Municipal Code as administered by City Departments (e.g., Fire, Glendale Water & Power, Public Works, Building & Safety, etc.). No other known federal or state laws would be in conflict with granting of the waiver/reduction.

Because the Planning Hearing Officer and Planning Commission determined that all required findings for the incentives/concessions (per Government Code section 65915(d)(1) and GMC section 30.36.080.A) and waivers/modifications (Government 320 of 1003
18 b 9
Code section 65915(e)(1) and GMC section 30.36.050.B) were satisfied and could be made, the Hearing Officer and subsequently, the Planning Commission, approved the density bonus request, the two requested incentives and two requested waivers.

Planning Hearing Officer’s Hearing
The hearing is available for viewing online: https://youtube.com/watch?v=kpJtR5jSj-c Planning Commission Hearing
The hearing is available for viewing online: https://youtube.com/watch?v=cV_FNVasS8k SUMMARY OF THE APPELLANT’S DISCUSSION AND STAFF RESPONSES Appellant’s Argument
Below are summaries of the statements made by the Appellant in their application (“Part

4. Statement of Error” – see Exhibit 12 [Notice of Appeal] for detailed statements) that form the basis of the appeal.

A. There was a violation of a specific provision of law in that the City:
1) miscalculated the density bonus, 2) failed to comply with the California Public Records Act, 3) failed to require information from Applicant to justify the waiver findings of fact, 4) miscalculated the number of incentives, and 5) miscalculated the required number of affordable housing replacement units.

B. The Planning Commission exceeded its authority by virtue of any of the provisions of law given in item A above by failing to consider evidence, not citing evidence for its decision, and not making findings.

C. The Planning Commission failed to fulfill a mandatory duty by any provision of law given in item A above by failing to consider evidence, not citing evidence for its decision, and not making findings.

D. The Planning Commission refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision, specifically the documentation shared by appellant at the hearing including staff emails and staff oral presentation at the hearing pertaining to calculation of lot size and base density, not requiring documentation from application to support requested incentives/waivers, not requiring more affordable units, and miscalculating requested incentives.

E. The evidence before the Planning Commission was insufficient or inadequate to support its action, determination or ruling or any specific finding in support thereof, because the Commissioners did not cite relevant evidence to support their decisions.

F. The appellant stated they will likely obtain new evidence of material facts not previously presented, which if considered should change the act, determination, 321 of 1003
19 b 9
or ruling, but to date have not submitted any additional information or documentation since their initial appeal application.

The appeal hearing is de novo, meaning that the City Council must evaluate the case anew and is not bound by any of the findings or determinations made by the Planning Commission or Planning Hearing Officer.

Staff’s Analysis of Appeal
The appellant’s main arguments for the appeal are: 1) miscalculation of base density, number of waivers/incentives, and required affordable housing replacement units, and 2) not requiring additional information from Applicant to support requested incentives/waivers.

As detailed above, as well as below, the calculations of base density, waivers/incentives, and required affordable housing replacement units are in compliance with State Density Bonus Law and the GMC, and the Applicant has provided sufficient evidence to allow the City Council to make the required findings in favor of approving the requested incentives and waivers.

Part 4A (Violation of Specific Provision of Law)
The Appellant cites five violations of specific provisions of law which form the basis of this appeal:
1) Miscalculation of base and bonus density (GMC section 30.10.70(H) and GMC section 30.36.050-060)
The Applicant is requesting a 46.25% density bonus for a total of 11 units. Per State Density Bonus Law (Gov’t Code section 65915(f)(2)), a project qualifies for the requested 46.25% density bonus if it provides at least 14% of the total number of units (not including the density bonus units) as affordable to very low-income households.

The Project’s zone (R-1250) permits a maximum density of 34 units per acre (one unit per 1,250 SF). Based on the lot area of 7,512 SF, a total of 7 units (6.01 rounded up9) are permitted as the base density. The Applicant is providing 14% of the total number of units as affordable housing (14% of 7 = 1) and therefore is requesting a 46.25% density bonus of four additional units (46.25% of 7 = 3.2 rounded up to 4). This results in a total of 11 units with the bonus.

The Appellant objects to the use of 7,512 SF as the lot size for calculating the base density, which includes a 1972 easement to the City of Glendale for a portion of the 9 Per State Density Bonus Law (Gov’t Code section 65915(q)) and GMC section 30.36.050, each component of any density calculation, including base density and bonus density, resulting in fractional units shall be separately rounded up to the next whole number. 322 of 1003
20 b 9
northwest corner of the lot to be used for public street purposes, approximately 21 SF in size. The Applicant has proposed, and the City has agreed to allow (as a condition of approval), the requirement that the Applicant apply for a vacation of the easement to restore the lot size to the full amount of 7,512 SF, and subsequently record a new easement to restore and expand the existing easement, which is required in order for the public street easement to meet current Americans with Disabilities Act accessibility requirements. This would provide a benefit to the City through a new code-compliant easement. The vacation process complies with the GMC, and Density Bonus Law requires cities to interpret the law liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units (Gov’t Code section 65915(r)); therefore, staff and the Community Development Department Director allowed the applicant to utilize this process to calculate the lot size for purposes of determining the base density. Although no building permits for the Project would be issued without the vacation process being completed, the Planning Commission also added a condition of approval (included in the City Council Motion as well) to ensure the Applicant vacates the easement to validate the lot size calculation, and then records the new easement to meet the City’s current easement requirements.

The Applicant’s arguments, statements and supporting evidence for its contention that the base density was correctly calculated (related to the 1972 easement discussed above) can be found on pages 4-5 of a May 4, 2023 letter to Planner Cassandra Pruett from Artshar LLC (the Owner). (See pgs. 4-5 of Exhibit 13). These additional arguments/statements/evidence may be considered by the City Council. 2) Failure to comply with the California Public Records Act (CPRA) Appellant claims the City has withheld (“unlawfully redacted”) documents in response to a Public Records Act Request submitted by Appellant on August 8, 2022, November 2, 2022, and January 9. 2023. However, the City timely produced all relevant documents.

Appellant claims the City is withholding documents related to: 1) staff communications relating to item no.1 above (lot size and dedication); 2) the operating agreement of the LLC that owns the property; and 3) documents related to findings of fact for waivers.

As for item 1 (lot size and dedication records), staff searched for any such additional records as soon as the request was made to ensure it did not inadvertently miss any records that should have been produced during the first-round response to the public records request, but could not locate any – and this fact was communicated to the Appellant and/or his representative (Ms. Catherine Jurca) through the City Attorney’s Office. (See Exhibit 15, pg. 4). As for item no. 2 above (LLC operating agreement), that document was determined by the City Attorney’s Office to be exempt from disclosure because it was not relevant or related to the Project decision and the public interest served by not disclosing it (privacy and confidentiality concerns of the Owner) 323 of 1003
21 b 9
outweighed the public interest served by disclosure (little to no interest since it lacks relevance to the decision and was only used to verify which members of the LLC (natural persons) are authorized to sign the development application on behalf of the LLC). (See Exhibit 15, pg. 7). As for item no. 3 above (findings-related records) all such records were provided to Appellant and nothing was withheld. (See Exhibit 15, pgs. 1- 3 & pg. 6).
3) Failure to require necessary information from Applicant to justify the waiver requests (GMC 30.40.020(B)(3)), which requires density bonus requests to contain any information necessary to determine… whether and in what amount the Applicant qualifies for any requested density bonus and/or any concessions or waivers The Planning Hearing Officer and Planning Commission Staff Reports (Exhibits 7 & 10, respectively) provided detailed analysis of the requested incentives and waivers in relation to the required findings, and along with the submitted correspondence and public testimony at the hearing, the evidence before the Planning Hearing Officer and Planning Commission was sufficient and adequate to support their decision.

Subsequent to the Planning Hearing Officer hearing, as is not unusual, staff asked the Applicant for further information regarding their findings of fact, in order to more fully demonstrate that without the waiver the Project would be physically precluded from being able to be developed. The Applicant provided this information which was sufficient to determine whether and in what amount the Project qualified for waivers.

For the benefit of City Council’s review, the Project owner has provided additional evidence to support the findings (in particular, Finding 1) for the requested waivers. (See Exhibit 13).

In summary, the following additional information was provided, which staff has determined provides additional substantial evidence to support the required waiver findings:

FINDING 1:

The application of said development standard(s) will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development at the density and with the incentives or concessions granted pursuant to this chapter:

The Project’s compliance with the City’s other development standards leaves no room to spare on the Project Site since the proposed Project is already at the bare minimum in meeting the various components of the City’s development standards, the City’s Design Guidelines, and basic building codes. Adhering to the City’s minimum unit size requirements, therefore, will physically preclude the Project from being built, as 324 of 1003
22 b 9
envisioned at the density allowed under the State Density Bonus Law and with the requested incentives.

If the Applicant cannot create a larger building via the waivers requested, the Project is reduced from 11 units with one affordable unit to 6 units with no affordable units, which is contrary to the spirit and intent of the State Density Bonus Law. Eleven units, however, are also only possible if the minimum size of some of the units are reduced slightly so that the Project can comply with the City’s Design. In particular, and as described by license architect in the May 4, 2023 letter (Exhibit 13), the site is fully built out under the proposed design and there is no room to push the building boundary any further than what is being proposed with the concessions for setbacks and for height/stories. There also is no extra space on the site for larger units because the common open space ratio and the landscape ratio already are at the code minimums.

Similarly, the interior circulation elements such as the corridors, staircases and elevator shafts are at the code minimums. As such, if the Applicant must comply with the minimum unit size requirements, the Project will lose one, probably 2 units, one of which will be the on-site affordable unit. The Project also will lose its distinct common open spaces and amenities on the ground level, and on the 3rd floor deck. At that point, it makes no sense to build a density bonus Project. Instead, the Applicant would be the by-right 6-unit Project, which is contrary to the purposes of the State Density Bonus Law.

The necessity for the second waiver from the maximum floor area ratio of 1.20 is the same. As described in the license architect’s May 4, 2023 letter (Exhibit 13), the proposed Project has a floor area ratio of 1.32 so that it can construct the 9,760 square feet needed for all eleven units. Without it, the maximum floor area ratio is 1.20, and the Project could be no larger than 8,904 square feet, which results in the loss of one, and probably two units, including the on-site affordable unit. The requested deviation is thus minor and consists of only 856 square feet of additional floor area over the allowable limit so that the Project can provide all eleven units with the one on-site affordable unit and the amenities and open-space shown on the plans. Without the additional 856 square feet, the units size also shrinks even further, thus exacerbating the minimum unit size problem. Simply put, the two waivers will provide the necessary building square footage and unit count to allow for the desired Project size, the desired Project unit-mix, and the desired Project amenities to bring this Project to fruition as envisioned and as explained in the architect’s letter, with the density and requested concessions allowed under the State Density Bonus Law. To state the converse, denying the requested waivers from the floor area ratio and minimum unit size requirements will physically preclude the Project from being built per the desired unit mix, per the desired number of bedrooms, per the desired net livable area and per the desired net average unit size, and with the density permitted under the State Density Bonus Law. 325 of 1003
23 b 9
Further evidence and facts supporting this finding can be found in the architect’s May 4, 2023 letter (subject line: “Density Bonus Review Case No. PDBP2120753 at 246 N.

Jackson Street, Glendale CA Letter Addressing the Necessity for the Waivers”), and, in general, throughout Exhibit 13.
4) Miscalculated the number of incentives contrary to City Council policy direction and GMC 30.36.030 (“Definitions”)
Appellant claims the Project’s setback incentives should have been separated out into three separate incentives (street front, street side, and interior). This argument is based on the fact that in October of 2021 City Council adopted a motion that directed staff to draft revisions to the City’s density bonus ordinance and to institute a policy to separate out setback incentive/waiver requests (as opposed to the currently practiced policy of grouping setback incentives them into one request). As discussed on page 8 of footnote 8, above, notwithstanding the City Council motion, such a policy cannot legally apply to the Applicant/Owner here because of prohibitions imposed by State Law.

The Applicant submitted a preliminary application, pursuant to Government Code section 65941.1 on February 24, 2021 – well before October of 2021, when the City Council passed the motion directing staff to change its practice with respect to density bonus setback incentives. A submitted preliminary application that meets the requirements of Government Code section 65941.1 (which is the case here) has the effect of vesting a project pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5(o)(1). Such vesting restricts a local agency from applying ordinances, policies or standards enacted after a preliminary application is submitted. Specifically, if a preliminary application is submitted, “a housing development project shall be subject only to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application . . . was submitted.” “’[O]rdinances, policies, and standards’ includes general plan, community plan, specific plan, zoning, design review standards and criteria, subdivision standards and criteria, and any other rules, regulations, requirements, and policies of a local agency, as defined in Section 66000, including those relating to development impact fees, capacity or connection fees or charges, permit or processing fees, and other exactions.” Cal. Gov. Code section 65589.5(o)(4) (emphasis added).

Accordingly, the Project was vested under ordinances, policies and standards existing as of February 24, 2021 (including the policy of grouping setback incentives into one incentive) per the mandates of the Housing Accountability Act (Gov’t Code section 65589.5), because the Applicant submitted a qualifying preliminary application on February 24, 2021 (see “Project History” section of this report, page 3). 326 of 1003
24 b 9
5) Miscalculated the required number of affordable housing replacement units (Government Code section 65915 [Density Bonus and Other Incentives]) Per Government Code section 65915, and as more fully described in the “Background” (“Project Information”) section of this report (pgs. 5-6), the Project is required to provide one affordable replacement unit and provides one very low-income unit; therefore, it meets the replacement requirement. Further, the replacement unit is larger and provides two bedrooms, whereas the original unit was only one bedroom.

The Appellant states that “there is no evidence one of the units was owner occupied and thus the number of replacement affordable units deficient….”; however, as set froth in pages 5-7 of this report, the Applicant has provided Housing staff supporting documentation in the form of a Grant Deed, Real Estate Withholding Statements, an Addendum, Tenant Estoppel Certificates and Mutual Termination of Rental Agreements to confirm owner-occupancy of one (1) residential unit above 80% area median income and the vacancies of the remaining two (2) residential units. (See Exhibit 14). The Appellant refers to a Form 593 “Real Estate Withholding” that it claims shows there was not an owner-occupied unit; however, the form shows the property being sold qualified as the seller’s principal residence.

Applicant/Owner has since provided additional information/evidence to address this point, as summarized below. (See Exhibit 13):
“The IRS Tax Form 593 used by the Seller, plus the Grant Deed that shows “Letticia Banaag” as the previous owner and the seller of the property, are consistent with the name of the landlord on the two August 2020 Tenant Estoppel Certificates for the twoupper level units occupied by tenants, as well as the name of the landlord on the Mutual Termination of Rental Agreements that were signed before Applicant closed escrow. All of these tenant documents are limited to only two of the units being tenant occupied, because Ms. Banaag was occupying one of the 3 units; specifically, the lower-level unit was occupied by Ms. Banaag and the two upper level units were tenant occupied.

To add to that evidence, enclosed (see Exhibit 13, Exhibit A) is a letter from Mr. Paul Sarkissian dated February 16, 2023, who co-represented buyer during the acquisition of the property, stating that he directly communicated with Ms. Banaag at her unit on the property, and that he saw Ms. Banaag packing her belongings before vacating her unit.

Further, the Applicant will testify at the City Council hearing that he too witnessed the seller, Ms. Banaag, packing her belongings before vacating her lower level unit. This direct evidence should put to rest any objection to the fact that one of the units was owner occupied.”
327 of 1003
25 b 9
Accordingly. The weight of the evidence demonstrates that one unit was owneroccupied and not rented, disqualifying it as a rental unit subject to State Density Bonus Law replacement obligation. The remaining two rental units were considered in calculating the replacement obligation, resulting in a statutory obligation to replace a single one-bedroom unit, which is satisfied because Applicant has agreed to replace the one-bedroom unit with a two-bedroom unit. (See pg. 6 above for detailed discussion).

Part 4B (Planning Commission exceeded its authority)
Appellant states the Planning Commission exceeded its authority by virtue of any of the provisions of law given in Part 4A, because it failed to consider evidence presented by the Appellant, did not cite evidence for its decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision, and did not make findings.

Part 4C (Planning Commission failed to fulfill a mandatory duty) Appellant states the Planning Commission failed to fulfil a mandatory duty by any provision of law given in Part 4A, because it failed to consider evidence presented by the Appellant, did not cite evidence for its decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision, and did not make findings.

The Planning Commission did listen to and consider the evidence the Appellant presented at the hearing, as evidenced by the fact that the Commission asked follow-up questions and obtained clarification from staff on the various issues raised by the appellant at the hearing. The staff report (Exhibit 10) provided detailed analysis of the requested incentives and waivers in relation to the required findings, and along with the submitted correspondence and public testimony at the hearing, the evidence before the Planning Commission was sufficient and adequate to support their decision. The Motion approved by the Commission cites as its basis the findings of fact as outlined in the Planning Hearing Officer’s approval.
328 of 1003
26 b 9
Part 4D (Planning Commission refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision)
Appellant states the Planning Commission refused to consider documentation shared by the Appellant at the hearing, including staff emails and staff oral presentation at the hearing pertaining to processing the density bonus application. The Planning Commission did listen to and consider the evidence the Appellant presented at the hearing, as evidenced by the fact that the Commission asked follow-up questions and obtained clarification from staff on the various issues raised by the Appellant at the hearing. Based on all of the information provided, the Planning Commission was able to render its decision in compliance with State and local Density Bonus Law and under the purview of its authority.

Appellant cites to an email between staff referring to “special treatment” given to the Applicant/Owner from the case planner regarding calculating base density and density bonus; however, Appellant has taken this email entirely out of context and assumed it applies to matters not related to the email content. The email discussion was about only one matter and that was accommodating the Applicant in terms of scheduling a meeting time with staff; no other subject matter was part of that email thread, which would have been apparent had the appellant not obscured the surrounding email text and email thread components during the Planning Commission presentation, or excluded that email from the most recent appeal application.

Appellant claims to cite to staff’s oral presentation where, Appellant alleges, staff stated it would “gift” the developer City-owned property for the purpose of increasing the lot size and corresponding base density calculation; however, staff made no such statement. Staff only described the Applicant’s proposal to vacate an existing street dedication, which would restore the original lot size, and then record a new (larger) dedication to meet current dedication requirements. This vacation would have to be applied for by the Applicant through the City’s standard process, and only if such application was approved would the Applicant then be able to use the resulting lot size for density calculation purposes. Staff stated at the hearing that no building permits would be issued unless the applicant completed such process. Further, staff clarified that Density Bonus Law requires cities to interpret the law liberally in favor of producing the maximum number of total housing units, which is why staff supported this proposal for the Project.

Appellant also contends that staff’s request for additional information after the Planning Hearing Officer hearing from the Applicant regarding the waiver finding of fact was unlawful. Staff’s intent in making the request was merely to seek clarification of some information on the waiver findings but understands that the communication may not 329 of 1003
27 b 9
have been in line with best practices. Regardless, with two de novo hearings being held subsequent to the planning hearing officer hearing, all relevant evidence pertaining to the waiver findings will have been clearly presented in those hearings and any alleged due process issue will have been addressed.

Appellant states that all of the existing dwelling units are affordable units and two affordable replacement housing units should be provided, not one. This claim has already been addressed above (pgs. 5-6 and 23-24).

Appellant raises the issue of grouping setback incentives, which has been addressed above in Part 4A, #4 (pgs. 22-23 and footnote 8, pg. 8).

Part 4E (The evidence before the Planning Commission was insufficient or inadequate to support its action)
The staff report (Exhibit 10) provided detailed analysis of the requested incentives and waivers in relation to the required findings, and along with the submitted correspondence and public testimony at the hearing, the evidence before the Planning Commission was sufficient and adequate to support their decision. The Motion approved by the Commission cites as its basis the findings of fact as outlined in the Planning Hearing Officer’s approval.

Part 4F (The appellant has new evidence of material facts not previously presented, which if considered should change the act, determination, or ruling) To date, Appellant has not submitted any new evidence of material facts not previously presented.

Conclusion
In conclusion, staff finds that the appeal does not present any new substantial evidence not already analyzed and discussed by the Planning Commission that warrants overturning the decision, and that the Planning Commission fulfilled their duty in accordance with State Density Bonus Law. Moreover, additional substantial evidence submitted by the Applicant supports denial of the appeal, and is included herein for Council’s consideration. (Exhibit 13) Therefore, based on the above analysis, all of the evidence in the record, and the reasoning set forth in the approval of Density Bonus Review Case No.

PDBP2120753, staff recommends that, following review, consideration and adoption of the Class 32 CEQA exemption findings/analysis, the City Council deny the appeal, and sustain the Planning Commission’s decision to sustain the Planning Hearing decision to grant with conditions the requested incentives/ 330 of 1003
28 b 9
concessions and waivers for the Project. The corresponding Motion for this action includes comprehensive findings and additional recommended conditions for Council consideration.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
In addition to the City Council agenda being posted on the bulletin board in front of City Hall, a public notice was sent to all owners and occupants within 500 feet of the subject Project Site, a sign was posted on the Project Site, and a public notice was sent as a courtesy to all Glendale homeowners associations.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the decision to deny the appeal, and sustain the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the DB Review Case, other than potential increases to property tax and/or other fee/impact fee revenues.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Planning Hearing Officer and Planning Commission found, and Planning staff recommends that the City Council find, that this Project is categorically exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as it qualifies as a Class 32 In-Fill Development Project per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, because the Project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code; occurs within city limits on a project site of less than five acres surrounded by urban uses; is on a site with no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; upon approval would not result in any significant impacts relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. (See Exhibit 1 for full analysis and further information, including supporting studies and other documentation).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report are attached in Exhibit 16, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Following CEQA exemption consideration, sustain the Planning Commission’s decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s granting with conditions of Density Bonus Application for 246 North Jackson Street. 331 of 1003
29 b 9
Alternative 2: Continue the matter for two weeks and direct the City Attorney to draft findings reversing the Planning Commission’s decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s granting with conditions of Density Bonus Application 246 North Jackson Street.

Alternative 3: Any other alternatives not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Cassandra Pruett, Senior Planner
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS

1. CEQA Class 32 Infill Exemption Analysis (with Attachment A)

2. Density Bonus Housing Plan

3. Location Map

4. Photographs

5. Reduced Plans

6. Departmental Comments

7. Planning Hearing Officer’s Staff Report for Density Bonus Review Case No.

PDBP2120753 (report with Exhibit 5 only)

8. Planning Hearing Officer’s Decision Letter, dated July 7, 2022

9. Notice of Appeal to Planning Commission of Planning Hearing Officer’s Decision

10.Planning Commission Staff Report for Density Bonus Review Case No.

PDBP2120753

11.Planning Commission Motion sustaining Planning Hearing Officer’s Decision

12.Notice of Appeal to City Council of Planning Commission’s Decision

13.Additional documentation/evidence provided by Applicant 332 of 1003
30 b 9

14.Evidence submitted to Housing staff re: replacement obligation

15.City Attorney e-mail correspondence with Appellant re: Public Records Act requests

16.Campaign Disclosure Form
333 of 1003
1 MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________, seconded by Council Member ___________, that upon review and consideration of all materials and exhibits of current record relative to Density Bonus Review Case No. PDBP2120753 (“Density Bonus Review Case” or “Project”) for the project site located at 246 North Jackson Street (“Project Site”), and after having conducted a public hearing on the appeal of said matter, pursuant to the Glendale Municipal Code (“GMC”), 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 Planning Commission’s decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer’s decision GRANTING WITH CONDITIONS said Density Bonus Review Case, along with the requested incentives/concessions and waivers, for all of the reasons outlined in the August 15, 2023 staff report from the Director of Community Development, including any attachments thereto and any other evidence presented at the hearing, including any additional Council comments at the hearing, subject to the conditions below and pursuant to the facts and findings as follows:

1. In reviewing, considering and affirming the Class 32 California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), exemption determination, the City Council adopts and incorporates the findings and analysis contained in Exhibit 1 to the August 15, 2023 staff report from the Director of Community Development, and hereby finds that the Project is categorically exempt from further review CEQA, as it qualifies as a Class 32 In-Fill Development Project per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, because the Project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code; occurs within city limits on a project site of less than five acres surrounded by urban uses; is on a site with no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; upon approval would not result in any significant impacts relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality; and can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

2. In sustaining the Planning Commission decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer decision granting the Density Bonus Review Case, the City Council hereby makes the following findings pursuant to GMC Chapter 30.36 (“City’s Density Bonus 334 of 1003
2 Ordinance”) and California Government Code sections 65915, et seq. (“State Density Bonus Law”):
a. The Project consists of demolition of an existing three-unit multi-family building, and constructing a new 9,760 SF, three-story, 11-unit (with 7 base units and 4 density bonus units) multi-family building on a 7,512 SF lot in the R-1250 Zone (High Density Residential Zone). One unit will be reserved for very low-income households.
b. The Project is not subject to the City’s Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance per GMC section 30.35, which requires a rental housing development with a base density of eight or more dwelling units to provide fifteen percent of the units as affordable to low-income households. With a base density of seven units, the Project is not subject to this Code section. (GMC §§ 30.35.020(B) & 30.35.030(A)). c. Applicant is entitled to a 46.25% density bonus for a total of 11 units. Based on the lot area of 7,512 SF, a total of 7 units (6.01 rounded up) are permitted as the base density. Applicant is providing 14% of the base density as affordable housing for very low income households (14% of 7 = 1), and is therefore entitled to a 46.25% density bonus of four additional units (46.25% of 7 = 3.2 rounded up to 4). This results in a total of 11 units with the density bonus. d. One replacement unit at one (1) bedroom is required under State Density Bonus Law (37% x 2 = .74 (rounded up to 1)). Applicant will reserve Unit 204, a two (2) bedroom unit at 768 square feet, as affordable to very low-income households.

Accordingly, Applicant meets and exceeds the replacement obligation through replacement of the existing 1-bedroom unit with a larger 2-bedroom unit. e. Per State Density Bonus Law, the City shall not require parking spaces in excess of one-half parking space (inclusive of handicapped and guest parking) per unit if the Project includes at least 11% very low income housing and is located within one-half mile of a major transit stop, as defined in subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the California Public Resources Code and there is unobstructed access to the major transit stop from the housing development. Applicant has demonstrated the Project qualifies for this parking concession because the 335 of 1003
3 Project provides the requisite affordable housing and is located 0.4 miles from the intersection of North Glendale Avenue and East Broadway. The Glendale/Broadway intersection is served by the Beeline Route 4, which runs north/south and east/west between the Glendale Galleria and the Glendale Transportation Center, the central transportation hub for the City of Glendale, and Metro Bus Route 180/181, a regional route running primarily east/west from Pasadena to Hollywood. Both lines have a service interval of less than 15 minutes during peak commute periods. Under this provision, the Project is only required to provide six parking spaces (0.5 space x 11 units). The Project provides 14 parking spaces, which meets and exceeds the parking minimum under State Density Bonus Law.

3. In sustaining the Planning Commission decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer decision granting the Density Bonus Review Case, the City Council is unable to make any of the findings to deny the two incentives/concessions requested (as described in detail in the August 15, 2023 staff report from the Director of Community Development related to maximum height/stories and setbacks), and therefore, grants the two incentives/concessions, pursuant to GMC Section 30.36.080(A) because:
a. There is no evidence in the record that the incentives/concessions do not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or to provide affordable rents: The City Council finds that substantial evidence demonstrates the incentives/concessions do result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or to provide affordable rents. The requested concessions for additional height/stories and reduced setbacks are required in this case to allow for additional buildable area to provide more units and accommodate the additional density resulting from the grant of the density bonus. For example, absent the setback incentive, the Project would have to pull the building back in all directions, resulting in a much narrower and small building and the loss of 5 units. These additional 5 market rate units are necessary to offset the overall costs per unit for the Project that enable the construction of a subsidized very low income affordable unit. In sum, the 336 of 1003
4 incentives will reduce the costs to Applicant of providing the affordable unit. The cost reductions Applicant will realize will allow the affordable housing costs to be reduced to a point where the development will be economically feasible. The additional height/story and reduced setbacks will allow for the proposed density and appropriately sized apartment units with sufficient on-site parking to ensure Project success with the intended market.

Furthermore, these concessions enable the Project to be economically feasible for the following reasons: (1) to facilitate the proposed design and programming and ensure architectural character that complies with the City's Design Guidelines, including distinct and separate common open spaces with amenities both on the building's ground level and also on the third floor deck, including provision of a required elevator, Applicant is proposing a 37’-6” high building; and the additional height is necessary for the elevator shaft to provide access to the units and to the common open space on the third floor, and the additional building height/stories will enable the construction of additional buildable area to provide more units (density bonus units) that will reduce the overall costs per unit of the Project and thereby make the very low income affordable unit economically feasible; and (2) the reduction in the subterranean parking garage setbacks will enable the construction of a larger garage area and additional parking spaces that will improve the viability and marketability of the Project. The additional parking spaces will enable the Project to better compete with its surrounding development.

Moreover, the two concessions will reduce costs to Applicant of providing an affordable unit by creating cost reductions in allowing the construction of a greater number of units and improving the viability of the Project. The additional units will result in actual and identifiable cost reductions because the additional units will take advantage of construction efficiencies when being built, and will generate rental income to offset the 337 of 1003
5 cost of providing the unit at an affordable rent. Without these concessions, Applicant would not be able to provide the additional affordable unit. b. There is no evidence in the record that the incentives/concessions will have a “specific adverse impact upon public health and safety,” as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact without rendering the housing development unaffordable to lowincome and moderate-income households: The City Council finds that substantial evidence demonstrates the incentives/concessions will not have a specific adverse impact upon public health and safety or the physical environment or on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources. The City Council finds that the property does not meet any of the eligibility criteria for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers and therefore is not considered a historic resource under CEQA. The Project is exempt from CEQA as a Class 32 Infill Exemption and no significant environmental impacts have been identified. The Project is designed to comply with the various sections of the GMC, as administered by different City departments (e.g., Fire, Glendale Water & Power, Public Works, Building & Safety, etc.). Aside from the two incentive/concession requests and waivers, the Project otherwise fully complies with the Zoning Code (GMC Title 30).

Moreover, any Project impacts with respect to increased height/stories and reduced setbacks are mitigated by several factors, such as the fact that the Project is located on a corner lot with two sides adjacent to a street, and one side adjacent to an alley. These public rights-of-way that are open to the sky provide a buffer of air and light and visual massing that mitigates the impact of the three-story building in a typically two-story neighborhood. Furthermore, the building uses several design techniques that reduce the apparent massing and scale of the building, including the 338 of 1003
6 central part of the building which features a two-story massing, a variation in building form and façade planes that break up the massing, and a variety of exterior finish materials to help break up the apparent massing.

Finally, the building provides setbacks in excess of code requirement on various sides/floors of the building to help compensate for the reduced setbacks in other areas, particularly on the south side of the building, which is adjacent to a two-story apartment building. The provision of housing and affordable housing benefits the public health and safety, and is consistent with the Glendale General Plan Housing Element goals of providing a wide range of housing types, including affordable housing. c. There is no evidence in the record that the incentives/concessions will be contrary to state or federal law: The City Council finds that substantial evidence demonstrates the incentives/concessions will not be contrary to state or federal law. The Project complies with State Density Bonus Law, CEQA, and the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance, and is designed to comply with the various sections of the GMC as administered by City departments (e.g., Fire, Glendale Water & Power, Public Works, Building & Safety, etc.). The concessions do not require any other discretionary entitlement other than future design review approval. No other known federal or state laws would conflict with granting of the concessions. d. In addition to the above incentives/concessions findings, the City Council adopts and incorporates facts, evidence and findings made by the Planning Hearing Officer on July 7, 2022, by the Planning Commission on November 2, 2022, and facts, evidence and findings contained in Exhibit 13 of the August 15, 2023 staff report from the Director of Community Development.

4. In sustaining the Planning Commission decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer decision granting the Density Bonus Review Case, the City Council finds that substantial evidence supports the grant of the two requested waivers/modifications (as described in detail in the August 15, 2023 staff report from the Director of Community 339 of 1003
7 Development related to increased floor area and reduced dwelling unit size), and therefore, grants the two waivers/modifications, pursuant to GMC Section 30.36.080(B) because:
a. The application of said development standard(s) will have the effect of physically precluding the construction of the housing development at the density and with the incentives or concessions granted pursuant to this chapter: As to the first requested waiver, Applicant seeks relief from the minimum unit size requirements in GMC section 30.11.050, since the units listed below do not meet the minimum unit size, as follows:
• Unit 102 - 1 bedroom at 574 SF, which is 26 SF (4.33%) less than the minimum 600 SF requirement;
• Unit 103 - 1 bedroom at 574 SF, which is 26 SF (4.33%) less than the minimum 600 SF requirement;
• Unit 202 - 1 bedroom at 574 SF, which is 26 SF (4.33%) less than the minimum 600 SF requirement;
• Unit 203 - 1 bedroom at 574 SF, which is 26 SF (4.33%) less than the minimum 600 SF requirement;
• Unit 204 - 2 bedrooms at 768 SF, which is 32 SF (4.0%) less than the minimum 800 SF requirement;
• Unit 302 - 1 bedroom at 574 SF, which is 26 SF (4.33%) less than the minimum 600 SF requirement;
• Unit 303 - 2 bedrooms at 768 SF, which is 32 SF (4.0%) less than the minimum 800 SF requirement.

The allowed 11-unit density of the Project has been configured by creating six (6) two-bedroom units and five (5) one-bedroom units. If required to comply with minimum unit size requirements of GMC 30.11.050, the Project would have to, at a minimum, provide the following unit sizes:
340 of 1003
8 • Six (6) 800 sq ft. 2-bedroom units (6 x 800)=4,800 sq, ft. • Five (5) 600 sq. ft. 1-bedroom units (5 x 800) =3,000 sq. ft. • At a minimum the project would have to consist of 7,800 sq. ft.

The Project’s livable area, however, is 194 square feet short of this required minimum. Specifically, some units are larger to be able to provide two-bedroom units; but, seven (7) of them are not and do not meet the minimum size requirements. Since the Project complies with all other Zoning Code development standards, this precludes the Project from adding any additional livable area to meet the City’s minimum unit size requirements. In particular:
• The maximum allowable lot coverage for the Project Site is a 50% ratio, and Applicant has proposed a lot coverage of a 49.75% ratio, just shy of it. It is physically impossible to push beyond the current footprint of the proposed project without going over the 50% floor area ratio, and, additional area cannot be borrowed from the landscape and common open space portions of the Project in order to increase the livable areas of the project to meet the minimum unit size requirements of the Code;
• The minimum required landscape area is a 25% ratio, and Applicant has provided a 25% ratio. There is no additional livable area available to meet the minimum unit area requirements of the Code;
• Applicant is providing the minimum required open space areas.

There is thus no additional livable area available to be used. In fact, the lot coverage ratio is the governing factor in determining the outline of the ground level floor plan, which in turn determines the boundary of the area that can be utilized for the common open space. Since the project is unable to push beyond its current 341 of 1003
9 footprint without going over the current floor area ratio (already over allowed and subject to additional waiver below), it is physically impossible to allocate additional livable area within the proposed ground level common open space area;
• The Project’s setbacks are already at or just below the City’s minimum setback requirements (hence the necessity for the requested concession for the Project’s setbacks). Therefore, additional livable area cannot be attained by encroaching onto the setbacks. Although, the East setback is greater than the minimum, the East setback area has been utilized in its entirety to satisfy the landscape requirements, the common open space requirements and necessary circulation elements that dictate a second form of exit from the subterranean parking garage. These factors, in addition to the limitations pertaining to the enlargement of the Project’s footprint illustrated above, preclude additional livable area to be gained by encroaching onto the common open space
portions, the landscape portions, or the circulation portions of the Project in order to meet the minimum unit size requirements of GMC 30.11.050.
• The Glendale Building and Safety Code requires minimum widths and clearances. The interior corridor clearances have been reduced to the bare minimum in order to meet basic ADA
clearances, along with other circulation factors necessary in order for the Fire Department to be able to navigate a gurney through the Project. These Building Code requirements, in addition to the limitations illustrated above, prevent allocation of additional livable area in order to meet the minimum unit size requirements.

Moreover, the 26 square feet and 32 square feet unit size deviation for one-bedroom and two-bedroom units, respectively, is inconsequential since the units have functional kitchens and living areas, an above 342 of 1003
10 average-sized bedroom area, a private bathroom, a private washer and dryer and adequate storage/closet area. Without the requested waiver the Project would consist of five (5) studios and six (6) one-bedroom units, which would physically preclude the construction of the housing development at the allowable 11-unit density with the desired unit mix, and with the incentives or concessions. In addition to the increased number of bedrooms, the requested waiver will improve and balance the Project’s unit mix, which will help provide a range of housing types which is consistent with the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan.

The proposed decrease in the minimum unit size is minor, not exceeding

4.33% less than the minimum requirement. While the units listed above are smaller than the minimum requirements of the GMC, the Project will comply with the various sections of the GMC, as administered by the various City departments (e.g., Fire, Glendale Water & Power, Public Works, Building & Safety, etc.). Moreover, there are similarly sized residential units elsewhere in the City. Additionally, the current trend of urban infill multifamily unit sizes is smaller in footprint compared to units built during the latter part of the 20th century. The requested minimum unit size waiver will provide the creation of a greater number of marketed bedrooms and will allow the very-low-income affordable unit to be a twobedroom unit versus a one-bedroom unit. Without the waiver it will be physically impossible to build the Project with the proposed unit mix. In sum, the Project’s compliance with the City’s other development standards leaves no room to spare on the Project Site since the Project is already at the bare minimum in meeting these other standards (including the City’s Design Guidelines, and basic Building Code requirements). Adhering to the City’s minimum unit size requirements, therefore, will physically preclude the Project from being built as designed – at the density allowed under the State Density Bonus Law, with the requested concessions, and with the desired unit mix.
343 of 1003
11 Applicant is also requesting a waiver to allow an increase in floor area ratio (“FAR”) to 1.32 (9,760 sq. ft.) where a maximum FAR of 1.20 (8,904 sq. ft.) is permitted. The requested deviation is minor and consists of only 856 sq. ft. of additional floor area over the allowable limit. For all of the reasons set forth above, the increase in FAR ratio is necessary to allow the Project adequate square footage to be built at the density allowed and to comply with other development standards and other basic Code requirements. In particular, without the requested waiver for FAR, the Project floor area will have to be reduced by 856 square feet, which reduces the number of units from 11 to 9/10. Further, the loss of two units results in the loss of the affordable unit; and, by reducing the Project by 856 square feet, the minimum unit size non-conformity is further exacerbated because the unit size shrinks even further. Furthermore, the increase in FAR to 1.32 from the allowable FAR of 1.20 will provide the necessary building square footage to allow for the desired Project size, for the desired Project unit-mix, and for the desired Project amenities to bring the Project to fruition as envisioned, all while complying with the City’s open space, landscaping and other Zoning Code requirements, and with the City’s Building and Safety Code. The Project is designed to optimize density with a balanced unit mix consisting of one-bedroom and twobedroom units within the allowable 11-unit density (with the density bonus) development. The strict application of the FAR development standard would physically preclude the construction of the housing development at the 11-unit density, with the unit mix, and with the incentives or concessions.
b. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not have a specific, adverse impact, as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of California Government Code Section 65589.5, upon health, safety, or the physical environment, and for which there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact: The Project is exempt from further review under CEQA and no significant environmental impacts have 344 of 1003
12 been identified. The Project is designed to comply with the various sections of the GMC, as administered by different City departments (e.g., Fire, Glendale Water & Power, Public Works, Building & Safety, etc.).

Aside from the two incentive/concession requests and waivers, the Project otherwise fully complies with the Zoning Code (GMC Title 30). Further, the provision of additional housing and affordable housing benefits the public health and safety, and is consistent with the General Plan Housing Element goals of providing a wide range of housing types, including affordable housing.

The Project’s impact in terms of increased FAR and decreased minimum unit sizes are mitigated by certain factors. The Project is located on a corner lot with two sides adjacent to a street, and one side adjacent to an alley. These public rights-of-way that are open to the sky provide a buffer of air and light and visual massing that mitigates the impact of the building that features a higher than code-allowed FAR. Furthermore, the building uses several design techniques that reduce the apparent massing and scale of the building, including a variation in building form and façade, and a variety of exterior finish materials that help break up the apparent building size. The reduced unit sizes (574 SF instead of 600 SF and 768 SF instead of 800 SF) are 4% less than the required size, a relatively insubstantial amount. Further, there has been increased interest in the housing market for smaller units that lend support to the proposal in order to assist in the provision of affordable housing.
c. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources: Staff research finds that the property does not meet any of the eligibility criteria for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers, and therefore, is not considered a historic resource under CEQA. Please see Exhibit 1 (specifically, Attachment A to Exhibit 1) for further information and analysis.
345 of 1003
13 d. The waiver or reduction in development standards will not be contrary to state or federal law: The waiver or reduction in development standards will not be contrary to state or federal law and do not require any other discretionary entitlement other than future design review approval. The Project complies with CEQA, and the City’s Density Bonus Ordinance, and is designed to comply with the various sections of the GMC, as administered by City departments (e.g., Fire, Glendale Water & Power, Public Works, Building & Safety, etc.). No other known federal or state laws would be in conflict with granting of the waiver/reduction. e. In addition to the above waiver findings, the City Council adopts and incorporates facts, evidence and findings made by the Planning Hearing Officer on July 7, 2022, by the Planning Commission on November 2, 2022, and facts, evidence and findings contained in Exhibit 13 of the August 15, 2023 staff report from the Director of Community Development.

5. In sustaining the Planning Commission decision to sustain the Planning Hearing Officer decision granting the Density Bonus Review Case, the City Council adopts and incorporates herein by reference all of the conditions of approval set forth in the Planning Hearing Officer Decision Letter, dated July 7, 2022, Exhibit 8 to the August 15, 2023 staff report from the Director of Community Development. In addition to the conditions of approval set forth in the July 7, 2022 Planning Hearing Officer Decision Letter, the City Council approval of the Density Bonus Review Case is also subject to the following additional conditions:
a. Farzin Maly (Applicant) and/or Artshar LLC (Owner), must apply for and complete the conditional vacation of the existing Street Easement (Instrument No. 2255, Recorded on July 6, 1972 in Book D5520 Pages 963 - 964) and record a new street easement covering the area of the existing Street Easement (to be vacated) together with any additional area required for the construction of a new handicap ramp in compliance with current ADA requirements.
346 of 1003
14 b. Farzin Maly (Applicant) and Artshar LLC (Owner), and their respective successors, owners by deed, deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, foreclosure or otherwise, and assigns, and/or any real party in interest with an interest in the Project Site named as a party in any suit (hereinafter collectively “the Developer”), agree to and shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless 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 to attack, set aside, void or annul any City land use or California Environmental Quality Act approval for, or related to, the Density Bonus Review Case and/or the Project. The Developer agrees to use legal counsel reasonable acceptable to the City. The foregoing shall include, without limitation, payment of all damages awarded against 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, 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 347 of 1003
15 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:

Abstain:

Absent:
348 of 1003
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________, seconded by Council Member ___________, that upon review and consideration of all materials and exhibits of current record relative to Density Bonus Review Case No. PDBP2120753 (“Density Bonus Review Case”) for the project site located at 246 North Jackson Street, and after having conducted a public hearing on the appeal of said matter, 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 REVERSES the Planning Commission’s decision granting the Density Bonus Review Case, and DENIES the request. The City Council hereby continues this matter until August 29, 2023, without further public notice, and directs the City Attorney to prepare written findings in support of reversing the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Density Bonus Review application.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:
349 of 1003
EXHIBIT 1
PAGE 1 OF 5
CEQA Exemption Findings
246 North Jackson Street
Density Bonus Case Number PDBP2120753
PROJECT LOCATION: 246 North Jackson Street, Glendale, CA 91206 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Density Bonus to construct a new 3-story, 11-unit, 9,760 square-foot (SF) residential building, featuring 10 market rate units and one affordable unit with a one-level subterranean garage on a 7,512 SF lot in the R-1250 Zone. The existing three-unit multi-family building built in 1945/1946 will be demolished.

CEQA REVIEW: The proposed residential project, located at 246 North Jackson Street, is exempt from CEQA as a Class 32 “In-fill Development Projects” exemption, pursuant to §15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

CCR § 15300.2. EXCEPTIONS
(c) Significant Effect. A categorical exemption shall not be used for an activity where there is a reasonable possibility that the activity will have a significant effect on the environment due to unusual circumstances.

There are no unusual circumstances associated with the project. The existing site is developed with a three-unit multi-family building to be demolished and replaced with an 11- unit multi-family project utilizing density bonus incentives and waivers due to the project providing affordable housing and being located near transit.

The site is located on the southeast corner of North Jackson Street and East California Avenue, on a relatively flat lot in an urbanized area with similar and complimentary uses (i.e., multi-family housing) in the immediate project vicinity.

The property is zoned R-1250 (High Density Residential Zone), and the proposed housing development is permitted in this zone and complies with the zoning code development standards considering density bonus provisions.

As indicated in the City’s Safety Element, the project site is not within a liquefaction zone, landslide hazard zone, dam inundation zone, fault hazard zone or fire hazard zone.

Staff research finds that the property does not meet any of the eligibility criteria for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers and therefore is not considered a historic resource under CEQA (see Attachment A).

CCR § 15332. IN-FILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section.
350 of 1003
EXHIBIT 1
PAGE 2 OF 5
(a) The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations.

The project is consistent with the General Plan designation (High Density) and zoning designation (R-1250, High Density Residential Zone), which is described as being intended for high-density residential development with a minimum of 1,250 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit. The project complies with the zoning code development standards considering density bonus provisions in Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) Section 30.36.

All other elements of the General Plan will not be impacted as a result of the project. The project site has not been slated for open space or recreation, and will operate within compliance with the Noise Element thresholds. The Circulation Element identifies Jackson Street between Glenoaks Boulevard and Colorado Street as an Urban Collector, a fully developed street that can adequately handle the traffic circulation around the site.

Vehicular access to the site will be from a new driveway entrance from Jackson Street.

Additionally, the City’s Traffic Engineer reviewed the project and determined that no significant increase in traffic would occur as a result of the project, as it would not generate a significant increase in the number of vehicle trips to and from the site. (b) The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses.

The project site is located within City of Glendale limits and is 7,512 SF (0.17 acres) in size, which is far less than five acres. The site is located in the City’s downtown area near two of the City’s main thoroughfares (Glendale Avenue and Colorado Street). The site is surrounded by high-density residential development.
(c) The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species.

The project is located in an area that has been heavily urbanized for decades. The site is surrounded by densely developed urban properties and is unsuitable for use as a wildlife habitat due to its location. No riparian habitat or sensitive natural community is located in the surrounding area or on the project site, and the site does not contain any indigenous trees or habitat areas. No wildlife species other than those which can tolerate human activity and/or are typically found in urban environments are known to exist on or near the project site. These human-tolerant species are neither sensitive, threatened, nor endangered. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means.

Implementation of the project would not result in any impact to species identified as endangered, threatened, sensitive or being of special concern by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. In addition, 351 of 1003
EXHIBIT 1
PAGE 3 OF 5
the project site does not provide suitable habitat for endangered or rare species given the pattern, type, and level of development in the area.

The project site itself is developed with a vacant apartment building and an unimproved front yard. Only a limited number of plant species common in urban environments, none of which are considered rare or endangered, are found near the project site. Suitable habitats for sensitive mammal, reptile, amphibian, or fish species do not exist on the project site or within the surrounding area.
(d) Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality.

Traffic
The project site is served by two streets: North Jackson Street and East California Avenue.

The City’s Traffic Engineer reviewed the proposed project and commented that per CEQA the project has no anticipated traffic impacts, because the project is estimated to generate less than 50 net peak-hour trips and therefore does not require a Local Transportation Analysis. However, a condition of approval has been recommended that the wall along the driveway to the subterranean garage not block visibility to pedestrians on the sidewalk.

Therefore, the project has been designed to ensure the wall complies with this condition.

Furthermore, in terms of visibility at the traffic intersection, the project will be required to comply with GMC Section 10.64.060 to ensure landscaping within the 25-foot triangular area of the corner (as more fully described in the code section) will not block traffic visibility, and no other traffic visibility issues have been identified that could impact pedestrians, bicyclists or vehicle drivers.

The applicant provided a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis demonstrating the project will generate 70 daily vehicle trips (less than the 145 daily trip threshold), which is considered to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact and would not require a more detailed VMT analysis per the City’s Transportation Impact Guidelines.

A Construction Traffic Management Plan will be required to be submitted to the City’s Public Works Department for review and approval prior to project construction. The Construction Traffic Management Plan will include a Construction Traffic Control Plan, a Construction Parking Plan, a Haul Routes Plan, and construction hours. Therefore, no significant impacts are anticipated.

Noise
The project is located in a developed urban area, within a neighborhood developed with multi-family residential buildings.

The General Plan Noise Element 2030 Noise Contour map indicates the noise level at the subject site ranges from 60 CNEL at the eastern end of the property to 70 or more at the western end of the property. The Noise Element of the General Plan (Noise/Land Use 352 of 1003
EXHIBIT 1
PAGE 4 OF 5
Compatibility Table) indicates that multifamily residential development is conditionally acceptable in areas with noise levels ranging from 60 CNEL to 70 CNEL, and that new construction or development should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation features included in the design. Therefore, and a condition of approval has been imposed on the project per GMC

8.36.140 that prior to issuance of a building permit, an acoustic analysis of the project be presented demonstrating the project will comply with GMC 8.36, including the interior noise standard of 45 dBA.

In terms of construction noise, pursuant to Section 4.4.3 of the Noise Element of the City’s General Plan, construction noise is exempted from compliance with the City’s Noise Ordinance in Section 8.36.080. It states, “The noise ordinance exempts construction activities from compliance with the noise ordinance limits under certain circumstances. If construction occurs within 500 feet of a residential zone, then construction is prohibited from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. every night and from 7 p.m. on Saturday to 7 a.m. on Monday (i.e., no Sunday construction). Construction on certain holidays is also prohibited.” The Project will comply with these General Plan restrictions which are echoed in the Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) restricts operation of noise generating construction equipment from occurring between the hours of 7:00 PM on one day and 7:00 AM of the next day, or from 7:00 PM on Saturday to 7:00 AM on Monday, or from 7:00 PM preceding a holiday.

Air Quality
The California Emissions Estimator Model® (CalEEMod) was used to estimate air quality impacts during the construction and operation stages of the project. Results from the model indicate that the proposed project would not exceed the Southern California Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) thresholds (See calculations in original staff report “Exhibit 5 – CEQA” at
https://glendaleca.primegov.com/meeting/attachment/5955.pdf?name=PHO_06012022_E XHIBIT5_CEQA).

If asbestos‐containing materials (ACM) are found to be present in building materials to be removed, the applicant will be required to submit specifications signed by a certified asbestos consultant for the removal, encapsulation, or enclosure of the identified ACM in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not necessarily limited to: California Code of Regulations, Title 8; Business and Professions Code; Division 3; California Health and Safety Code Section 25915‐ 25919.7; and other local regulations.

If the project includes the demolition or modification of buildings constructed prior to 1968, the applicant will be required to complete an assessment for the potential presence or lack thereof of ACM, lead‐based paint, and any other building materials or stored materials classified as hazardous waste by state or federal law.

Where the remediation of lead‐based paint is determined to be required, the applicant will be required to provide specifications to the appropriate agency, signed by a certified Lead Supervisor, Project Monitor, or Project Designer for the stabilization and/or removal of the 353 of 1003
EXHIBIT 1
PAGE 5 OF 5
identified lead paint in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations, including but not necessarily limited to: California Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s (Cal OSHA’s) Construction Lead Standard, Title 8 California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 1532.1 and Department of Health Services (DHS) Regulation 17 CCR Sections 35001–36100, as may be amended. If other materials classified as hazardous waste by state or federal law are present, the applicant will be required to submit written confirmation to the appropriate local agency that all state and federal laws and regulations should be followed when profiling, handling, treating, transporting, and/or disposing of such materials.

Water Quality
Implementation of the proposed project will require compliance with all the NPDES requirements including the submittal, review and approval of a Low Impact Development (LID) drainage system proposal. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project is not expected to violate any water quality standards or waste water discharge requirements since the project will be required to comply with applicable permitting requirements. (e) The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.

The project site is a previously developed infill parcel and can be adequately served by existing public facilities.

The Glendale Police Department (GPD) provides police services to the project site. The overall need for police protection services is not expected to increase significantly as a result of the proposed project as the project site is located in an already urbanized area.

The City of Glendale Fire Department (GFD) provides fire and paramedic services to the project site. The project will be required to comply with the Uniform Fire Code, including installation of fire sprinklers, and to submit plans to the Glendale Fire Department at the time building permits are submitted to ensure adequate fire flow protection.

Attachments:

A) Staff historic evaluation
354 of 1003
Staff Historic Evaluation
Address: 246 N. Jackson Street
Demolition
A. The resource is identified with important events in national, state, or city history, or exemplifies significant contributions to the broad cultural, political, economic, social, tribal, or historic heritage of the nation, state, city, and retains integrity.

The building was originally constructed in 1945 as a two-story duplex with a third unit added to the first story in 1951. The lot at 246 N. Jackson Street was originally developed in the early 1900’s with a onestory, single-family residence which was owned by Fred A. Tarr as early as 1922 (demolished in 1971).

Tarr constructed the duplex at the rear of his lot to provide additional housing for his immediate family including his son and soon to be son-in-law.

In the post-World War II years, the development of multi-family properties such as bungalow courts, fourplexes, and apartment buildings boomed in Southern California and the South Glendale area to accommodate the soaring population growth. The property is not individually associated this significant event as it was constructed by Tarr for use by his family. The property was also not identified with important events in national, state, or city history and does not exemplify significant contributions to the broad cultural, political, economic, social, tribal, or historic heritage of the nation, state, or city during the South Glendale Historic Resources Survey completed in 2017-2019. The building is a common duplex design, later turned into a triplex, constructed in an area that is dense with multi-family development. Therefore, the property does not appear to be eligible for listing under Criterion 1.

B. The resource is associated with a person, persons, or groups who significantly contributed to the history of the nation, state, region, or city, and retains historic integrity. 1947 1948 1949 1957 1958 1967
244 ½ Arthur Tarr Arthur Tarr Arthur Tarr Gerald L. Pettitt Stanton F. Kahan Vacant 246 ½ William
Phetteplace
William
Phetteplace
Robert E.

Holzner
Mrs. Mona
Pringle
Mrs. Mona
Pringle
Mrs. Viola Myers
246A - - - Mrs. Garfay
Wylie
Mrs. Garfay
Wylie
Emma Cowen
Fred A. Tarr and his son Arthur were tile contractors that operated their own business, Fred A. Tarr & Son, in the city of Glendale. Arthur was also a building contractor in Southern California. Fred appears to have passed away in the late 1940s. Arthur left the tile and building business due to poor health and opened/operated Art’s Liquor Barn in West Covina until he retired in 1977. He passed in 2002.

Frank’s daughter Marjorie married William Phetteplace and lived at the main house, 246 Jackson Street, until they built a new residence in La Canada in the late 1940s. William Phetteplace opened a scaffolding

ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 1 OF 3
355 of 1003
business in 1946 called Atlas Scaffold Corporation that he operated into the 1980s and was eventually taken over by their son Stephen.

By the 1950’s all the units were being rented out to various tenants not in the Tarr family, as noted above. Information on the remaining tenants include:
• Robert E. Holzner was a salesman in an unknown industry. • Wayne Thomas was an inspector for the Bank of America. • Mrs. Mona Pringle was a widow.
• Mrs. Wylie was a dietitian at Burbank Hospital.
• Mrs. Viola Myers was retired from an unknown industry when she lived at 246 ½ Jackson Street. • Information for an Emma Cowen living in Glendale who was a laundress and widow was found in the 1950 Census data, but it is unclear if this is the same Emma Cowen listed in the 1967 city directory.
• No information was found on Stanton Kahan or Gerald Pettitt.

Though Fred A. Tarr owned and operated a tile contracting business with his son in the city, no information was found to suggest he was a significant craftsman or that the business had a significant impact on the history of the city. Arthur also was a building contractor who left the field in the 1950’s and does not appear to be a master builder. No other residents of the property appear to be significant in the history of the nation, state, region, or city based on lack of press coverage and information found and therefore the property does not appear to be eligible under Criterion 2.

C. The resource embodies the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of an architectural style, architectural type, period, or method of construction; or represents a notable work of a master designer, builder, or architect whose genius influenced his or her profession; or possesses high artistic values, and retains historic integrity.

The two-story triplex at the east end of the lot was constructed in 1945 originally as a duplex, 244 ½ and 246 ½. It was converted into a triplex in 1951 with the addition of 246A at the southern end of the first story.

The building is vernacular with stucco cladding, a low-pitched hipped roof, and a mixture of vinyl, aluminum, and original wood windows. A staircase leading from the sidewalk along California Avenue at the north grants access to the second story units with entrances faces west. The additional unit is located on the first story to the south. The second story of the building slightly cantilevers on the east (rear) façade with two swing up garage doors on the north end of the first story.

The building is simple in design with little to no ornamentation. It is not a distinctive or excellent example of an architectural style and is not a distinctive, excellent, or unique example of a multi-family building type that was popular in the post-World War II years. Therefore, the property does not appear to be eligible for listing under Criterion 3.

D. The resource has yielded, or has the potential to yield. Information important to archeological pre-history or history of the nation, state, region, or city, and retains historic integrity.

ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 2 OF 3
356 of 1003
The property was constructed using common building techniques and was graded at the time of construction and therefore is unlikely to yield information important to archeological pre-history or history of the nation, state, region, or city.

Final Determination: Staff research finds that the property does not meet any of the eligibility criteria for listing in the National, California, or Glendale Registers and therefore is not considered a historic resource under CEQA.

Reviewer/Date: Kasey Conley June 8, 2022

ATTACHMENT A
PAGE 3 OF 3
357 of 1003
EXHIBIT 2
Density Bonus Housing Plan
246 North Jackson Street
Glendale, CA 91206
June 30, 2022
Artshar LLC
c/o Farzin Maly
12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 217
Los Angeles, CA 90025
City of Glendale Community Development Department
Housing Division
141 North Glendale Avenue, Room 202
Glendale, CA 91206
358 of 1003
EXHIBIT 2
Number of Dwelling Units Proposed:

Applicant has proposed the development of a new, density bonus rental housing project totaling eleven (11) residential dwelling units (the “Project”). The Project will provide a total of one (1) affordable unit (14 percent of the total number of units of the base density of 6.01 (rounded up to 7)) to very low income households.

Maximum Number of Units Permitted per GMC:

The Project is located in the R-1250 (High Density Residential) zone. The Project site (APN 5642- 018-039) has a lot area of 7,512 square feet. Sites zoned R-1250 are permitted one (1) unit per 1,250 square feet. By right, applicant has a base density of 7 units (7,512 / 1,250 = 6.01 rounded up).

Number of Replacement Units Under Density Bonus Requirement:

Per State Density Bonus Law (CA Govt Code § 65915), an applicant is ineligible for a density bonus or any other incentives or concessions if a project is proposed on a parcel or parcels with rental dwelling units that have been vacated or demolished within a five (5) – year period preceding the project’s development application, or have been occupied by lower or very low income households, unless the proposed project replaces those units.

If the rental dwelling units have been vacated or demolished within a five (5) - year period preceding the project’s development application, the proposed project is required to provide the same number of units of equivalent size (i.e., the same total number of bedrooms as the units being replaced) as affordable to the same or lower income households in occupancy during such time. If the incomes are unknown to the applicant, it shall be rebuttably presumed that low-income and very low income renter households occupied these units in the same proportion of low-income and very low income renter households to all rental households within the jurisdiction, as determined by the most recently available data from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD’s) Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Database. The rebuttable presumption per HUD’s Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy Database amounts to 37% of renter households at or below 80% area median income. Replacement unit calculations resulting in fractional units are rounded up.

Per the Los Angeles County Assessor, the Project site contains three (3) residential dwelling units at one-bedroom each. The Project site was purchased on September 2, 2020. On October 22, 2020, Applicant submitted a development application to Planning (PMPA2016969). Applicant has provided Housing staff supporting documentation in the form of a Grant Deed, Real Estate Withholding Statements, an Addendum, Tenant Estoppel Certificates and Mutual Termination of Rental Agreements to confirm owner-occupancy of one (1) residential unit above 80% area median income and the vacancies of the remaining two (2) residential units. By applying the rebuttable presumption of 37% to the two (2) remaining vacant residential units, one replacement unit at one (1) bedroom is required under State Density Bonus Law (37% x 2 = .74 (rounded up to 1)).
2 359 of 1003
EXHIBIT 2
Number of Affordable Units Meeting Density Bonus Requirement:

The applicant is required to designate one (1) unit as affordable to very low income households (14% of 7 base density units (.98 rounded up to 1)). As currently designed, the Project contains five (5) one-bedroom units and six (6) two-bedroom units, which amounts to seventeen (17) bedrooms total. The Project must generate 2 bedrooms to Housing ((17 bedrooms / 11 total units) x 1 affordable unit = 1.54 rounded up to 2). As such, one (1) affordable unit with two (2) bedrooms must be selected. Applicant has proposed Unit 204, which consists of two (2) bedrooms. Housing preliminarily approves Unit 204 as the affordable unit. The affordable unit is detailed in Project floorplans attached hereto as Attachment 1, as well as immediately below:

Unit Number
204
Square Footage
768
Bedroom(s)
2 Bathroom(s)
1 Amount of Density Bonus Requested:

Applicant is entitled to a forty-six point twenty-five percent (46.25%) density bonus by providing one (1) very low income unit (14 percent of the base density of 7 = .98 (rounded up to 1)). This request complies with State Density Bonus Law, which allows up to a forty-six point twenty-five percent (46.25%) density bonus, as well as two (2) incentives in exchange for the provision of a fourteen percent (14%) affordability level of very low income units. By providing one (1) very low income unit, applicant also meets the replacement unit obligation under State Density Bonus Law. With a forty-six point twenty-five percent (46.25%) density bonus, the Project is permitted eleven (11) units (7 (rounded up from 6.01) x 1.4625 = 10.24 (rounded up to 11)).

Number and Description of Concessions and Waivers Requested:

Pursuant to CA Govt Code § 65915(d)(2)(B) and GMC 30.36.070, the applicant is entitled to two (2) concessions by reserving fourteen percent (14%) of the units for very low income households. Applicant has requested two (2) concessions:
1) increase in height and number of stories from two (2) stories and twenty-six (26) feet to three (3) stories and thirty-seven (37) feet and six (6) inches in height (GMC

30.11.020); and
2) reduction in street front, street side and interior setbacks (GMC 30.31.020).

Applicant has also requested two (2) waivers:
1) increase in Floor Area Ratio (FAR) from 1.2 to 1.32; and 2) reduction in square footage minimum for one bedroom and two bedroom units.

Amount of Parking Concessions Requested:

Pursuant to CA Govt Code § 65915(p)(1), an applicant of a housing development meeting the minimum requirements to qualify for a density bonus may apply for a parking concession, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, pursuant to the following ratios: one (1) on-site parking space per unit for zero to one bedroom units and one and one-half (1.5) on- site parking 3 360 of 1003
EXHIBIT 2
spaces per unit for two to three bedroom units. The Project proposes a unit mix of five (5) onebedroom units and six (6) two-bedroom units. Based on the number of units and bedrooms provided, the parking concession pursuant to CA Govt Code § 65915(p)(1) requires a minimum of fourteen (14) residential parking spaces ((5 units x 1 = 5) + (6 units x 1.5 = 9) = 14)). The Project exceeds the minimum requirement per CA Govt Code § 65915(p)(1), and proposes to provide fifteen (15) parking spaces total. Accordingly, the Project meets and exceeds the parking requirements under CA Govt Code § 65915(p)(1).

Alternatively, an applicant may request an automatic parking concession under CA Govt Code § 65915(p)(2)(A), which provides that upon the request of an applicant, the required vehicle parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, is not to exceed one-half (0.5) space per unit of a development providing at least eleven percent (11%) very-low income units located within one-half (0.5) mile of a major transit stop with unobstructed access. The applicant has demonstrated to Planning that the Project qualifies for this parking concession because the Project is located four-tenths (0.4) of a mile from the intersection of North Glendale Avenue and East Broadway. The Glendale/Broadway intersection is served by the Beeline Route 4, which runs north/south and east/west between the Glendale Galleria and the Glendale Transportation Center, the central transportation hub for the City of Glendale, and Metro Bus Route 180/181, a regional route running primarily east/west from Pasadena to Hollywood. Both lines have a service interval of less than fifteen (15) minutes during peak commute periods. The parking concession per CA Govt Code § 65915(p)(2)(A) would amount to a minimum of six (6) residential parking spaces (11 units x 0.5 = 5.5 rounded up to 6). The Project exceeds the minimum requirement per CA Govt Code § 65915(p)(2)(A), and proposes to provide fifteen (15) parking spaces total. Accordingly, the Project meets and exceeds the parking requirements under CA Govt Code § 65915(p)(2)(A).

Child Care Space:

Not applicable.

Inclusionary Housing Requirement:

On May 7, 2019, the City adopted a Citywide Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No. 5928, codified at GMC Chapter 30.35 (the “IZO”). The IZO became effective after a 30-day period on June 7, 2019. The IZO requires a housing development (a rental development project with a base density of eight (8) or more dwelling units proposed to be constructed in the City) to provide fifteen percent (15%) of the units as affordable to low income households. The Project is not subject to the IZO as the Project has a based density of seven (7).

Affordable Housing Commercial Development Impact Fee:

On May 7, 2019, the City adopted a Citywide Affordable Housing Commercial Development Impact Fee, Ordinance No. 5929, codified at GMC Chapter 4.11 (the “CDIF”). The CDIF became effective after a 60-day period on July 7, 2019.

With the exception of hotels, auto dealerships, community land uses which serve the public, and the reconstruction of any building destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake or other act of nature (so 4 361 of 1003
EXHIBIT 2
long as the square footage does not exceed the square footage before the loss), the CDIF imposes a $4 per square foot fee (per the FY 2021-2022 Citywide Fee Schedule) on all commercial development projects with a gross floor area exceeding 1,250 square feet. The Project is not subject to the CDIF as it does not entail a permitted commercial component. 5 362 of 1003
Attachm
ent 1

JACKSON
APARTMENT SHEET INDEX - ARCHITECTURAL PROJECT INFORMATION - AB 2345 PROJECT INFORMATION - SITE LEGAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS DESCRIPTION Sheet List - CALCULATION TABLE: Architecture SHEET
ASSESSOR PARCEL (APN):

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
5642- 018-039 PROJECT NAME/ LOGO LOT 2 IN BLOCK 6 OF TOWN OF GLENDALE, IN THE CITY OF GLENDALE, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 14, PAGE(S) 95 TO 96 OF MISCELLANEOUS RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.

TOTA NUMB L ER Sheet Name PROJECT Is WITHIN 0.5 REQUIRED PARKING: 1-PARKING SPOT PER 0.5 UNIT REQUIRED PARKING: MILE OF A MASS REQUIRED PARKING: TRANSIT AREA (GMC 30.36.090(B):
11 X 0.5
- MASSING ELEVATION = 5.5 DIAGRAM

COVER SHEET

PROJECT INFORMATION

SITE SURVEY & BOUNDARY

PLOT PLAN

NEIGHBOR WINDOWS PRIVACY DIAGRAM
FAR + LOT COVERAGE DIAGRAM

AVERAGE SETBACK CALCULATION DIAGRAM
6 PROJECT ADDRESS: A0. 0
A0. 1
A1. 0
A1. 1
A1. 2
A1. 3
A1. 4
A1. 5
PROVIDED PARKING: EXISTING LAND USE: PROPOSED LAND USE:

MULTIPLE - DWELLING AB 2345 DENSITY UNITS OCCUPANCY CALCULATION: BASE DENSITY DENSITY INCREASE TOTAL ALLOWABLE TOTAL PROVIDED ZONIN G: R-1250
R2
PRIVATE + COMMON OPEN SPACE CALCULATION DIAGRAM
LOT AREA / 1250 46.25% FOR 14% VERY LOW INCOME CALCULATION CLIE NT OCCUPANCY GROUP" Artshar LLC GROSS LOT / PARCEL AREA: NET AFTER DEDICATION:
7,512 sq A1. ft 7
A2. 1
A2. 2
A2. 3
A2. 4
A2. 5
A3. 1
A3. 2
A3. 3
A3. 4
A3. 5
A3. 6
A3. 7

LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATION

BASEMENT FLOOR

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

THIRD FLOOR PLAN

ROOF PLAN

ELEVATIONS

ELEVATIONS & SECTION

SECTION
7,512 / 1250 = 6.01 7 X 46.25% = 3.24 11 7 + 4 = 11 UNIT UNIT 7,420 sqft(after public works engineering required ROW dedication SUBTERRANEAN PARKING + 3 RESIDENTIAL STORIES ROUND UP = 7 ROUND UP = 4 NUMBER OF STORIES:

TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:

SPRINKLERED:

VERY LOW INCOME UNIT CALCULATIONS: BASE DENSITY ROUNDED-UP: 7.0 PERCENT OF VERY LOW INCOME UNITS WITH 2- CONCESSIONS: 14.0% NUMBER OF VERY LOW INCOME UNIT CALCULATION: 7.0 X 14.0% = .98 UNITS NUMBER OF VERY LOW INCOME UNITS ROUNDED- UP: 0.98 UNITS TO 1.0 UNITS 10 MARKET UNITS PLUS 1 VERY LOW INCOME UNIT TOTAL 11 UNITS

ARCHIT ECT TYPE V-A (APARTMENTS) & TYPE I-A (PARKING GARAGE) YES, FULLY SPRINKLERED FIRE THROUGHOUT NFPA13 ALARM: FIRE ALARM SHOULD BE PROVIDED THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING 11 UNITS [ 5X 1-BED + 6X 2-BED ] TOTAL PROJECT UNITS:

MATERIAL BOARD VICINIT
Y MAP CONCESS IONS LOT COVERAGE - SHEET A1.3

FARZIN FACADE MALY MATERIAL BOARD

FACADE MATERIAL BOARD

FACADE MATERIAL BOARD
7136 Haskell Ave., #320 Van Nuys, CA 91406
LOT COVERAGE CALCULATION: 3,691 / 7,420 = 49.75% PROVIDED LOT COVERAGE < 50% MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE OF 3,710 S.F. 2 CONCESSIONS REQUESTED : Ph: 310- CONCESSION 993 1220 S -1 :

Email:
farzin.maly@gmail. 1.HEIGHT & com

STORIES

LOCATION
OF THE

PROJECT
1 Date 1Revisio
n 1 BASE BUILDING HEIGHT (HEIGHT LIMIT FOR LOT WIDTH LESS THAN 90')

STORIE S
101 102 103 1042 BED 1 BED 1 BED 2 BED847 S.F. 574 S.F. 574 S.F. 823 S.F. 201 202 203 2042 BED 1 BED 1 BED 2 BED818 S.F. 574 S.F. 574 S.F. 768 S.F. 301 302 303
2 BED 1 BED 2 BED818 S.F. 574 S.F. 768 S.F.

CODE

INFORMATIO
N
CONCESSION S -2 : ONLY THE LESS THAN MINIMUM REQUIRED SETBACKS ARE MENTIONED IN THIS CHART- SEE SHEET A1.4 FOR COMPLETE SETBACK DIAGRAM AND CALCULATION.

TOTAL:17 BEDROOMS TOTAL:7,712 S.F. A 2.SETB ACK

APPLICABLE

BUILDING
CODES:

APPLICANT REQUESTS A WAIVER FROM THE MINIMUM UNIT SIZE REQUIREMENTS IN GMC 30.11.050. UNITS 102,103,201,202,203,204,302 AND 303 DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM AND ARE SLIGHTLY SHY OF THE MINIMUM UNIT SIZE REQUIREMENTS.

BUILDIN
G CODE:
2020 LOS ANGELES

BUILDING CODE

SETBACK REQUIRED FRONT YARD (WEST)

INTERIOR YARDSOUTH
STREET SIDENORTHINTERIOR YARDEAST NO. C- BASEME 33731

NT BASEME NT BASEME NT BASEMENT
MIN:0' MIN:0 ' MIN:5 ' MIN:20 'AVG:2 3'

ELECTRICAL
CODE:

MECHANICA
L CODE:

PLUMBING
CODE:

ENERGY
CODE:

SUSTAINABI
LITY CODE:

FIRE CODE:
2020 CALIFORNIA

ELECTRICAL CODE
2020 CALIFORNIA

MECHANICAL CODE
2020 CALIFORNIA

PLUMBING CODE
2020 CALIFORNIA ENERGY
CODE
2020 CALIFORNIA GREEN

BUILDING STANDARDS
2020 CALIFORNIA FIRE
CODE
05-31- AVG: 23
0' AVG: 8' AVG: 1ST 0'
FLOOR
RENEWAL 1ST DATE FLOOR 1ST FLOOR 1ST FLOOR MIN:5 ' MIN:5 ' MIN:5 ' MIN:2 0' BUILDING AREA AVG:2 3' AVG: 8' AVG: 8' AVG:8 ' 2ND FLOOR MIN:8'
2ND C
FLOOR 2ND FLOOR 2ND FLOOR LIVABLE AREA ELEVATOR, W/ PERIMETER STAIRS,

ENCLOSED CORRIDORS, LOBBY PRINT W/ WALLS
FLOOR FOOT MIN:8 ' MIN:8 ' MIN:2 3' AVG:2 6' AVG:1 1' AVG:1 1' AVG:1 1' Seal/Sign ature 3RD FLOOR 3RD FLOOR 3RD FLOOR 3RD FLOOR
WALL SSHAFT S MIN:11 '
AVG:1 4'
MIN:11 '
AVG:1 4'
MIN:11 '
AVG:1 4'
MIN:23 'AVG:2 6'

FIRST FLOOR

SECOND FLOOR

THIRD FLOOR
2,818 S.F.
2,734 S.F.
396 S.F.
396 S.F.
429 S.F.
431 S.F.
3,643 S.F.
3,561 S.F.

FRONT YARD (WEST)INTERIOR YARDSOUTHSTREET SIDENORTHINTERIOR YARDEAST SETBACK PROVIDED PER CBC TABLE 601 FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS (HOURS) - TYPE VA Jackson Apartment Building
MF-20-006
BASEME NT BASEME NT BASEME NT BASEME NT 2,160 S.F. 396 S.F. BUILDING

ELEMENT

REQUIRED RATING
2,556 S.F. MIN:4'- 4" MIN:4 "
AVG:4 "
AVG:15'- 10" 1ST FLOOR TOTAL : 9,760 S.F. 1ST FLOOR
2ND FLOOR
1ST FLOOR 1ST FLOOR
2ND FLOOR
3RD FLOOR

PRIMARY

STRUCTURAL
FRAME:

BEARING WALLS

EXTERIOR

INTERIOR

NONBEARING

WALLS &

PARTITIONS

EXTERIOR
1 HRS MIN:4'- 0" AVG:8'- 1" TOTAL SUBTERRANEAN GARAGE :6,620 SQFT 2ND FLOOR 2ND FLOOR 1 HRS
1 HRS
MIN:20'- 0"
AVG:30' -7"
MIN:5 ' MIN:4'-
AVG:10' 0"
-9" AVG: 7'- 8" APPLICANT REQUESTS A WAIVER TO INCREASE THE FAR FROM 1.2 TO 1.32(SEE SHEET A1.03 FOR CALCULATION DETAILS) 3RD FLOOR 3RD FLOOR 3RD FLOOR MIN:20'- 0"
AVG:30' -3"
MIN:4'- 0" 1HR (PER CBC TABLE 602)
AVG: 8'- 10" INTER
IOR
0 STAIR SHAFT HR

ELEVATOR , MECH AND CHUTE SHAFT

FLOOR AND ROOF
2 HRS
2 HRS
1 HRS
BICYCLE PARKING LANDSCAPED AREA - SHEET A1.7 PER CBC TABLE 601 FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS (HOURS) - TYPE IA

REQIUIRED LONG TERM BICYCLE
:
1 PER 4 UNITS = 3 LONG TERM BICYCLE PARKINGS

PROJECT

INFORMATIO
N
REQUIRED LANDSCAPED AREA: 7,420 X 25%=1,855 SQFT PROVIDED 1,862 SQFT>REQUIRED 1,855 SQFT SEE SHEET A1.7 FOR LANDSCAPE CALCULATIONS

BUILDING

ELEMENT
REQUIRED SHORT TERM BICYCLE : RATING 1 SPACE PER 20 UNITS = 1 SHORT TERM BICYCLE PROVIDED PRIMARY

STRUCTURAL
FRAME:

BEARING WALLS
3 HRS PROVIDED: 3 LONG TERM BICYCLE - SEE A2.1
EXTER
IOR
INTER
IOR
3 HRS
3 HRS

THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE

FOR WHICH THET WERE PREPARED AND

PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED

TO SUCH USE, REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR

PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD,

IN WHOLE OR IN
PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE VISUAL CONTACTWITH

THESE DUCUMENTS SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. 1 SHORT TERM BICYCLE - SEE A2.1 NONBEARING

WALLS &

PARTITIONS

EXTERIOR
3 HR (PER CBC
INTER TABLE 602)
IOR
3 STAIR SHAFT HR

ELEVATOR , MECH AND CHUTE SHAFT

FLOOR AND ROOF
3 HRS
3 HRS
3 HRS
OPEN SPACE - SHEET A1.5
1/8" =
1'-0"
REQUIRED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE: TOTOAL REQUIRED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE: TOTOAL PROVIDED PRIVATE OPEN SPACE:
40 S.F. PER UNIT 40 x 11 = 440 S.F. PROVIDED 500 S.F.> REQUIRED 440 S.F.

REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE: 200 S.F. PER Unit TOTAL REQUIRED COMMON OPEN SPACE: 200 x 11 = 2,200 S.F. TOTAL PROVIDED COMMON OPEN SPACE: PROVIDED 2,243 S.F. > REQUIRED 2,200 S.F.

A0
.1 4/2/2022 3:49:25 PM
363 of 1003
PLANTER IS MAXIMUM 18 INCHES HIGH MEASURED FROM SIDEWALK PLANTER IS MAXIMUM 18 INCHES HIGH MEASURED FROM SIDEWALKPLANTER IS MAXIMUM 18 INCHES HIGH MEASURED FROM SIDEWALK 2 02 03
A3. 2
A3. 3
A3. ON-GRADE 3 LANDSCAPING SEE LANDSCAPE PLAN L-1
PROJECT NAME/ LOGO 42" HIGH GAURDRAIL TWO COMMUNITY CLUSTER MAILBOXES ENTRAN EXI CE
T

LANDSCAPE AREA LANDSCAPE AREA LANDSCAPE
DN AREA PROJECT ADDRESS: PLANTER IS MAXIMUM
6' -
7"
8' -
9"
9' -
3"
6' -
5" 18 INCHES HIGH MEASURED FROM SIDEWALK
5' -
7"
5' -
9"
8' -
0"
10' -
4"
8' -
3"
7' -
10"
10' -
4"
9' - 8"
10' -
0"
10' -
8"
7' -
6" 246 N Jackson St, Glendale, CA 91206
PRI8V
' -A8T" E OPEN SPACE FOR #101
9' -
0".
18' -
2"
12' -
1"
8' -
6" 9' -
8"UP ELEVAT OR

PRIVATE
OPEN

SPACE FOR
#104

DN LIVIN G
9' -
0"
UNIT #103 1 BEDROO M
574 SQFT
BATH
#1 8' -
7" CL CLIENT Artshar LLC
TV BEDROOM #1 LANDSCAPE AREA
KITCH
4' - EN 0"4' -
0" KITCH EN LIVIN G

ON- GRADE
UP 19' -
7"
16' -
4"
1' -
11"
11' -
11"
8' -
4"
18' -
9" 8' - LANDSCAPI 7" NGSEE LANDSCAPE PLAN L-1
DN
4' -
8"
KITCH EN BATH #1
6" ARCHIT ECT 6' - UNIT 9" #101 2 BEDROOM 847 SQFT
LIVING
ROOM 17' -
6"
3' -
2"
9' -
11"
574' - 0"
UNIT
#104
2 BEDROOM
823
SQFT

W&D DINNI
NG 42"
GUARDRAIL MAILB OX 23'-
0". 15' -
6" 3' -
0" 3' - 6" TV TV
6' -
7"
2' -
9" 3' -
7"W&D
6' - 1" CL.
4' -
3" 4' -
11"
BEDROOM #1
10' - 3"
9' -
5"
10' -
6"
3' -
3"
3' -
1"
12' -
8" 20' -
0". 5' -
4"CL.

CL CL FARZIN MALY
W&D 7' -
9"
42' -
0" 5' - 2" BATH #1 7136 Haskell Ave., #320 Van Nuys, CA 91406

W&D ON- GRADE UP LANDSCAP ING SEE LANDSCAP E
PLAN L-1
BEDROOM #2 6" BATH #1 KITCH EN Ph: 310-993 1220 Email:
[email protected] om

LANDSCAPE AREA

BEDROOM
#1 BEDROOM
#2 13' -
3" 10' -
8"
6' -
7" 7' -
9"
6' -
0"
15' -
6"
9' -
6"
3' -
2"
17' -
9"
5' -
8"
9' -
5"
10' -
6"
6' -
4"
12' -
8"
01 UNIT #102 1 BEDROO M
574 SQFT
BATH #2 A3. 2
UP BATH COMMON #2 OPENSPAC E
PLANTER IS MAXIMUM 18 INCHES HIGH MEASURED FROM SIDEWALK TV

LIVIN G

PLANT PLANTER

PLANT PLANTER
27' -
11"
7' -
9"
5' - 42" 3" RAILING 13' -
10"
17' -
3" 4' -
11"
10' -
3"
9' -
11"
6' -
8"
12' - CL 10" COMMON
OPEN
SPAC
E
BEDROOM DECORAT #1 IVE DRIVEWA Y

DECORAT IVE DRIVEWA Y
5' -
5"
5' - 0"
10% TRANSITI
ON
31' - 2"
20% VEHICLE
RAMP
PRIVATE OPEN 04 SPACE FOR #102
A3. 3
STOP SIGN PAINTED ON THE FLOOR NOTE: SEE LANDSCAPE
NOTE: SEE PACKAGE FOR LANDSCAPE COMMON AREA AMENITIES

PACKAGE FOR COMMON AREA AMENITIES A
NO. C- 33731 1 1ST
FLOOR
PLAN
05-31- 23 RENEWAL DATE SCALE:
3/16" = 1'-0" C
Seal/Signa
ture
LEGE
ND: INTERIOINTERIOR ENVIRONMENT Jackson
Apartment Building
MF-20-006
PROVIDEPROVIDE STAIRWAY ILLUMINATION. MIN. 1 FOOT- CANDLE AT TREAD RUNS.4(1205.4) INDICATINDICATE ON PLANS THAT INTERIOR FINISH MATERIALS APPLIED TO WALLIAND CEILINGS SHALL BE TESTED AS SPECIFIED IN SECTIONSECTION 803. SPECIFYSPECIFY THE CLASSIFICATIONS PER TABLE 803.11 AND SECTION 803.1.

ACCESSIBLE PATH

CLEARLYCLEARLY INDICATE OF TRAVEL
ON THE PLANS ALL SHOALL SHOWER COMPARTMENTS, REGARDLESS OF SHAPE, SHALL HAVE A PC/STR/CORR.LST.18 (REV. 11/02/17) WWW.LADBS.ORG PAGE 15 OF 115 OF 19 MINIMUMMINIMUM FINISHED INTERIOR AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 1024 SQUARE INCHES AND SHALL BE CAPABLE OF ENCOMPASSING A 30 INCH MINIMUMMINIMUM AREA AND DIMENSIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO A POINT 72 INCHES ABOVE THE SHOWER DRAIN INLET. (1210.2(1210.2.3, LAPC 411.7) 2x STUD WALL @ 16" O.C.,

REFER TO STRUCTURAL
TOILET TOILET ROOMS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A FULLY OPENABLE EXTERIOR WINDOW WITH AN AREA NOT LESS THAN 3 SQUARE FEET OR A VERTICAVERTICAL DUCT NOT LESS THAN 100 SQUARE INCHES IN AREA FOR THE FIRST WATER CLOSET PLUS 50 SQUARE INCHES ADDITIONAL OF AREAOF AREA FOR EACH ADDITIONAL WATER CLOSET, OR A MECHANICALLY OPERATED EXHAUST SYSTEM CAPABLE OF PROVIDING A COMPLETE CHANGE CHANGE OF AIR EVERY 15 MINUTES. SUCH MECHANICALLY OPERATED EXHAUST SYSTEM SHALL BE CONNECTED DIRECTLY TO THE OUTSIDEOUTSIDE, AND THE POINT OF DISCHARGE SHALL BE AT LEAST 3 FEET FROM ANY OPENING THAT ALLOWS AIR ENTRY INTO OCCUPIED PORTIONPORTIONS OF THE BUILDING. 8" "CMU" WALL, REFER

TO STRUCTURAL
2-HOUR FIRE RATED WALL
FIRST
FLOOR
PLAN CEMENT,CEMENT, FIBER-CEMENT, OR GLASS MAT GYPSUM BACKERS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ASTM C1178, C1288 OR C1325 SHALL BE USED AS A BASE FOBASE FOR WALL TILE IN TUB AND SHOWER AREAS AND WALL AND CEILING PANELS IN SHOWER AREAS. WATER-RWATER-RESISTANCE GYPSUM BACKING BOARD SHALL BE USED AS A BASE FOR TILE IN WATER CLOSET COMPARTMENT WALLS WHEN INSTALLINSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GA-216 OR ASTM C840. REGULAR GYPSUMAWALLBOARD IS PERMITTED UNDER TILE OR WALL PANELS IN OTHEIN OTHER WALL AND CEILING AREAS WHEN INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GA-216

THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE

FOR WHICH THET WERE PREPARED AND

PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED

TO SUCH USE, REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR

PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD,

IN WHOLE OR IN
PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE VISUAL CONTACTWITH

THESE DUCUMENTS SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. 1-HOUR FIRE

RATED WALL
OR ASTMOR ASTM C840. WATER-RESISTANT GYPSUM BOARD SHALL NOT BE USED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: SECTION 2509.2 A. OVERA. OVER A VAPOR RETARDER. B. IN AB. IN AREAS SUBJECT TO CONTINUOUS HIGH SHOWER SHOWER ROOMS CONCRETE COLUMN / WALL.

HUMIDITY,SUCH AS SAUNAS, SEE STRUCTURAL. STEAM ROOMS OR GANG C. ON CC. ON CEILINGS WHERE FRAME SPACING EXCEEDS 12 INCHES INCHES O.C. FOR ½ INCH THICK AND MORE THAN 16 INCHES INCHES O.C. FOR 5/8 INCH THICK. 2x6 @ 16" O.C. PLUMBING WALL
(NO SHEAR VALUE)

REINFORCED TO SUIT GRAB BAR

ILLUMINATED EXIT

SIGN WITH

DIRECTION ARROW

EXIT SIGN
EXI T
3/16" =
1'-0"

1. WALL LIGHT FIXTURE 1. WAL (SELECTED BY OWNER) 2. FACIAL MIRRORURE (SELECTED BY OWNER) 3.LAVETORY & FAUCET 2. FAC SMOKE
DETECTOR 4. COUNTERTOP SPLASH & RETURN) GRANIT SD 3.LAVE FIN. - TO BE SELECTED) 5. REMOABLE UNDER COUNTER BASE CABINET & TOE BASE (TYP. TO ALL ADAPTABLE BATHROOMS AND UNIT KITCHEN (2'-6" 4. COU MIN. WHEN CABINET DOORS ARE 90' OPEN) NIT FIN. - TO BE SELECTED)

CARBON MONOXIDE

DETECTOR

CLASS ONE STAND
PIPE

WATER CURTAIN

5. REM6. MDFE UNDER COUNTER BASE CABINET & TOE BASE (TYP. TO ALL ADAPTABLE BATHROOMS 7.BACKING AS REQUIRED CM (TYPICAL) 8. BATHTUB / SHOWER (ONE PICE FIBERGLASS)
AND UN WHEN CABINET DOORS 6. MDFLASCO BATHWARE ARE 90' OPEN) - 2603 - SMTE) SP

7.BACK(INCLUDES SHOWER FIXTURESY,PIGCRAABL )BARS, CURTAIN, ROD & ASSEMBLIES, SHOWER SEAT) 9.5/8" GYPSUM WALLBOARD 10.SEMI GLASS PAINT

8. BAT LASCO BATHWARE - 2603 - SMTE)ONE PICE FIBERGLASS)

THERMOS
TAT (INCLUDES SHOWER FIXTURES, GRAB BARS, CURTAIN, ROD & ASSEMBLIES, SHOWER SEAT) 9.5/8" GYPSUM WALLBOARD 10.SEMI GLASS PAINT

EXHUAST
FAN A2
.2

FANS SHALL BE ENERGY STAR COMPLIANT AND

BE DUCTED TO TERMINATE
TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING. II.

FANS, NOT FUNCTIONING AS A

COMPONENT OF A WHOLE HOUSE VENTILATION

SYSTEM, MUST BE
CONTROLLED BY A HUMIDITY CONTROL.

T
4/2/2022 3:49:55 PM
364 of 1003
TYPE VA CONSTRUCTION LEVEL 2

PROJECT NAME/ LOGO
2 02 03
A3. 2A3. 3A3. 3 PROJECT ADDRESS: 246 N Jackson St, Glendale, CA 91206

OPEN TO SKY

ELEVAT OR
UNIT 204

PRIVATE OPEN
SPACE
UNIT9' 2- 100"1 PRIVATE OPEN SPACE CLIENT Artshar LLC
UP 8' -
11" 30' -
2"
8' -
7"
11' -
1"
12' -
9" LIVING ROOM 9' - 8"
DN 9' - UNIT 8" #203 1 BEDROO M
BATH #1 574 SQFT TV DINNI
NG ARCHIT ECT 16' -
3" 19' -
5"
9' -
8"
8' -
11"
2' -
2"
11' -
10"
15' -
4"
14' -
9"
8' -
4"
8' -
9"

LIVIN G
19' -
0" LIVING
ROOM
UP UNIT 280
' 3-
11"PRIVATE

OPEN SPCE
18' -
11"
10' -
4"
20' -
7"
9' - 7" BATH #1 UN
1I8'T- 8"
#204
2 BEDROOM
768
SQFT
KITCH EN UNIT #201 2 BEDROOM 818 SQFT

DN KITCH EN
W&D
29' -
2"
9' -
0"
30' -
2"
15' -
4"
27' -
3" FARZIN MALY 23'-
0". 15' -
6" TV 7136 Haskell Ave., #320 Van Nuys, CA 91406
TV W&D
6' -
3" 5' -
4"
9' -
6" 4' -
1"
6' -
7" W&D 4' - 11" BAT7'H9"#1 42' - 0"
3' -
7"
8' -
10"
2' -
4"
14' -
8"
13' -
3" Ph: 310-993 1220

BEDROOM
#2 20'-
0". DN CL Email:
[email protected] om
W&D 1' -
9" UP
7' - 6' - 8" 7"
10' -
3"
6' -
0"
9' -
6"
3' -
2"
18' -
1"
4' -
11"
9' -
5"
12' -
5"
2' -
4"
14' -
8" 10' -
4" UNIT #202 1 BEDROO M
574 SQFT
BATH #1 KITCH BEDROOM EN #1 STORA GE BEDROOM #1
CL
BEDROOM #2 DN
01 BATH #2 A3. 2
13' - UP
6"
16' -
11" BEDROOM #1 TV

LIVIN G
2' -
5"
11' -
1"
A
2 2ND
FLOOR
PLAN
NO. C- 33731
05-31- SCALE: 23 3/16" = 1'-0"

RENEWAL DATE
C
Seal/Signa
ture
LEGE ND:

Jackson
Apartment Building
MF-20-006

INTERIOR ENVIRONMENT
PROVIDE STAIRWAY ILLUMINATION. MIN. 1 FOOT- CANDLE AT TREAD RUNS. (1205.4) INDICATE ON PLANS THAT INTERIOR FINISH MATERIALS APPLIED TO WALL AND CEILINGS SHALL BE TESTED AS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 803. SPECIFY THE CLASSIFICATIONS PER TABLE 803.11 AND SECTION 803.1. CLEARLY INDICATE ON THE PLANS

ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
ALL SHOWER COMPARTMENTS, REGARDLESS OF SHAPE, SHALL HAVE A PC/STR/CORR.LST.18 (REV. 11/02/17) WWW.LADBS.ORG PAGE 15 OF 19 2x STUD WALL @ 16" O.C., REFER TO STRUCTURAL MINIMUM FINISHED INTERIOR AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 1024 SQUARE INCHES AND SHALL BE CAPABLE OF ENCOMPASSING A 30 INCH MINIMUM AREA AND DIMENSIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO A POINT 72 INCHES ABOVE THE SHOWER DRAIN INLET. (1210.2.3, LAPC 411.7) TOILET ROOMS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A FULLY OPENABLE EXTERIOR WINDOW WITH AN AREA NOT LESS THAN 3 SQUARE FEET OR A VERTICAL DUCT NOT LESS THAN 100 SQUARE INCHES IN AREA FOR THE FIRST WATER CLOSET PLUS 50 SQUARE INCHES ADDITIONAL OF AREA FOR EACH ADDITIONAL WATER CLOSET, OR A MECHANICALLY OPERATED EXHAUST SYSTEM CAPABLE OF PROVIDING A COMPLETE CHANGE OF AIR EVERY 15 MINUTES. SUCH MECHANICALLY OPERATED EXHAUST SYSTEM SHALL BE CONNECTED DIRECTLY TO THE OUTSIDE, AND THE POINT OF DISCHARGE SHALL BE AT LEAST 3 FEET FROM ANY OPENING THAT ALLOWS AIR ENTRY INTO OCCUPIED PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING. 8" "CMU" WALL, REFER TO STRUCTURAL
2-HOUR FIRE RATED WALL
SECOND
FLOOR
CEMENT, FIBER-CEMENT, OR GLASS MAT GYPSUM BACKERS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ASTM C1178, C1288 OR C1325 SHALL BE USED AS A PLAN BASE FOR WALL TILE IN TUB AND SHOWER AREAS AND WALL AND CEILING PANELS IN SHOWER AREAS. WATER-RESISTANCE GYPSUM BACKING BOARD SHALL BE USED AS A BASE FOR TILE IN WATER CLOSET COMPARTMENT WALLS WHEN INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GA-216 OR ASTM C840. REGULAR GYPSUM WALLBOARD IS PERMITTED UNDER TILE OR WALL PANELS IN OTHER WALL AND CEILING AREAS WHEN INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GA- 216

THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE

FOR WHICH THET WERE PREPARED AND

PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED

TO SUCH USE, REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR

PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD,

IN WHOLE OR IN
PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE VISUAL CONTACTWITH

THESE DUCUMENTS SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. 1-HOUR FIRE RATED WALL OR ASTM C840. WATER-RESISTANT GYPSUM BOARD SHALL NOT BE USED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: SECTION 2509.2 A. OVER A VAPOR RETARDER. B. IN AREAS SUBJECT TO CONTINUOUS HIGH SHOWER ROOMS CONCRETE COLUMN / WALL. HUMIDITY,SUCH AS SAUNAS, SEE STRUCTURAL. STEAM ROOMS OR GANG C. ON CEILINGS WHERE FRAME SPACING EXCEEDS 12 INCHES O.C. FOR ½ INCH THICK AND MORE THAN 16 INCHES O.C. FOR 5/8 INCH THICK. 2x6 @ 16" O.C. PLUMBING WALL (NO SHEAR VALUE) REINFORCED TO SUIT GRAB BAR

ILLUMINATED EXIT

SIGN WITH

DIRECTION ARROW

EXIT SIGN
3/16" = EXI 1'-0" T

1. WALL LIGHT FIXTURE (SELECTED BY OWNER) 2. FACIAL MIRROR 3.LAVETORY & FAUCET SMOKE

DETECTOR
SD 0 25
50 100 200 4. COUNTERTOP SPLASH & RETURN) GRANIT FIN. - TO BE SELECTED) 5. REMOABLE UNDER COUNTER BASE CABINET & TOE BASE (TYP. TO ALL ADAPTABLE BATHROOMS AND UNIT KITCHEN (2'-6" MIN. WHEN CABINET DOORS ARE 90' OPEN) 6. MDF

CARBON MONOXIDE

DETECTOR

CLASS ONE STAND
PIPE

WATER CURTAIN
CM
Ref. North
SP

7.BACKING AS REQUIRED (TYPICAL) 8. BATHTUB / SHOWER (ONE PICE FIBERGLASS) LASCO BATHWARE - 2603 - SMTE) (INCLUDES SHOWER FIXTURES, GRAB BARS, CURTAIN, ROD & ASSEMBLIES, SHOWER SEAT) 9.5/8" GYPSUM WALLBOARD 10.SEMI GLASS PAINT

THERMOS
TAT A2
.3

EXHUAST

FAN FANS SHALL BE ENERGY STAR COMPLIANT AND

BE DUCTED TO TERMINATE
TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING. II.

FANS, NOT FUNCTIONING AS A

COMPONENT OF A WHOLE HOUSE VENTILATION

SYSTEM, MUST BE
CONTROLLED BY A HUMIDITY CONTROL.

T
4/2/2022 3:49:56 PM
365 of 1003
TYPE VA CONSTRUCTION LEVEL 3

PROJECT
2 02
03 NAME/ LOGO A3. 3 A3. 2 A3. 3
PROJECT ADDRESS: 246 N Jackson St,
11' - Glendale, CA 91206 6"
10' -
9"
7' -
10"
10' -
4"
8' -
3"
31' -
0"
7' -
10"
10' -
4"
9' -
10"
14' -
1"
13' -
6"

ELEVAT PRIVATE OR OPEN

PRIVATE

SPACE UNIT OPEN
301

SPACE UNIT
303 30"X42" ROOF ACCESS CLIENT Artshar LLC
18' - DN LIVIN 2" G 19' -
4"
9' -
8"
9' -
0"
16' -
2"
2' -
0"
12' -
1"
8' -
7"
9' -
8"
5' -
5"
18' - 42" H 10" RAILI NG
TV UNIT #302 1 BEDROOM 574 SQFT
CL BATH #1 ARCHIT ECT
KITCH
EN KITCH EN LIVIN G PRIVATE OPEN SPACE UNIT 302
BATH #1 DN UNIT #
139'0- 41"
2 BEDROOM 818 SQFT
10' -
0"
8' -
3"
17' -
6"
3' -
2"
9' -
1"
14' -
7"
8' -
8"
18' -
10"
2' - KITCH 7" EN 146 SQFT COMMON OPEN SPACE W&D UNIT #303 1 BEDROOM 768 SQFT 30"X42" ROOF ACCESS 13' -
7" FARZIN MALY TV TV
W&D 7136 Haskell Ave., #320 Van Nuys, CA 91406
CL
6' -
3"
4' -
1"
6' -
7"
6' -
7"
W&D 5' - 4C" L
4' -
11"
' - 9" 41' -
3"
9' -
10"
DN
3' -
7" CL CL
Ph: 310-993 1220 Email:
[email protected] om
10' - 5" BEDROOM #210' -
3"
7' -
8"
4"
BEDROOM BEDROOM #1 #1 BEDROOM
#2 787 SQFT COMMON OPEN SPACE
DN
01 BATH #2 A3. 2
BATH
#2 6' -
0"
5' -
7"
6' -
1"
6' -
8"
27' -
11"
7' -
8"
41' -
5"
29' -
9"
10' -
2"
9' -
11"
12' -
9"
04 A3. 3
A
3 3RD
FLOOR
PLAN
SCALE:
3/16" = 1'-0"
NO. C- 33731
05-31- 23 RENEWAL DATE
C
Seal/Signa
ture LEGE ND: Jackson
Apartment Building
MF-20-006

ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
ALL SHOWER COMPARTMENTS, REGARDLESS OF SHAPE, SHALL HAVE A PC/STR/CORR.LST.18 (REV. 11/02/17) WWW.LADBS.ORG PAGE 15 OF 19 2x STUD WALL @ 16" O.C., REFER TO STRUCTURAL MINIMUM FINISHED INTERIOR AREA OF NOT LESS THAN 1024 SQUARE INCHES AND SHALL BE CAPABLE OF ENCOMPASSING A 30 INCH MINIMUM AREA AND DIMENSIONS SHALL BE MAINTAINED TO A POINT 72 INCHES ABOVE THE SHOWER DRAIN INLET. (1210.2.3, LAPC 411.7) TOILET ROOMS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A FULLY OPENABLE EXTERIOR WINDOW WITH AN AREA NOT LESS THAN 3 SQUARE FEET OR A VERTICAL DUCT NOT LESS THAN 100 SQUARE INCHES IN AREA FOR THE FIRST WATER CLOSET PLUS 50 SQUARE INCHES ADDITIONAL OF AREA FOR EACH ADDITIONAL WATER CLOSET, OR A MECHANICALLY OPERATED EXHAUST SYSTEM CAPABLE OF PROVIDING A COMPLETE CHANGE OF AIR EVERY 15 MINUTES. SUCH MECHANICALLY OPERATED EXHAUST SYSTEM SHALL BE CONNECTED DIRECTLY TO THE OUTSIDE, AND THE POINT OF DISCHARGE SHALL BE AT LEAST 3 FEET FROM ANY OPENING THAT ALLOWS AIR ENTRY INTO OCCUPIED PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING. 8" "CMU" WALL, REFER TO STRUCTURAL
2-HOUR FIRE RATED WALL
THIRD
FLOOR
PLAN
CEMENT, FIBER-CEMENT, OR GLASS MAT GYPSUM BACKERS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ASTM C1178, C1288 OR C1325 SHALL BE USED AS A BASE FOR WALL TILE IN TUB AND SHOWER AREAS AND WALL AND CEILING PANELS IN SHOWER AREAS. WATER-RESISTANCE GYPSUM BACKING BOARD SHALL BE USED AS A BASE FOR TILE IN WATER CLOSET COMPARTMENT WALLS WHEN INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GA-216 OR ASTM C840. REGULAR GYPSUM WALLBOARD IS PERMITTED UNDER TILE OR WALL PANELS IN OTHER WALL AND CEILING AREAS WHEN INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GA- 216 1-HOUR FIRE RATED WALL

THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE

FOR WHICH THET WERE PREPARED AND

PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED

TO SUCH USE, REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR

PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD,

IN WHOLE OR IN
PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE VISUAL CONTACTWITH

THESE DUCUMENTS SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.

OR ASTM C840. WATER-RESISTANT GYPSUM BOARD SHALL NOT BE USED IN THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: SECTION 2509.2 A. OVER A VAPOR RETARDER. B. IN AREAS SUBJECT TO CONTINUOUS HIGH SHOWER ROOMS CONCRETE COLUMN / WALL. HUMIDITY,SUCH AS SAUNAS, SEE STRUCTURAL. STEAM ROOMS OR GANG C. ON CEILINGS WHERE FRAME SPACING EXCEEDS 12 INCHES O.C. FOR ½ INCH THICK AND MORE THAN 16 INCHES O.C. FOR 5/8 INCH THICK. 2x6 @ 16" O.C. PLUMBING WALL (NO SHEAR VALUE) REINFORCED TO SUIT GRAB BAR

ILLUMINATED EXIT

SIGN WITH

DIRECTION ARROW

EXIT SIGN
EXI T

1. WALL LIGHT FIXTURE (SELECTED BY OWNER) 2. FACIAL MIRROR 3.LAVETORY & FAUCET 3/16" =
SMOKE 1'-0"

DETECTOR
SD

4. COUNTERTOP SPLASH & RETURN) GRANIT FIN. - TO BE SELECTED) 5. REMOABLE UNDER COUNTER BASE CABINET & TOE BASE (TYP. TO ALL ADAPTABLE BATHROOMS AND UNIT KITCHEN (2'-6" MIN. WHEN CABINET DOORS ARE 90' OPEN) 6. MDF

CARBON MONOXIDE

DETECTOR

CLASS ONE STAND
PIPE

WATER CURTAIN
0 25
50 100 200
CM
SP 7.BACKING AS REQUIRED (TYPICAL) Ref. 8. BATHTUB / SHOWER (ONE PICE FIBERGLASS) North LASCO BATHWARE - 2603 - SMTE) (INCLUDES SHOWER FIXTURES, GRAB BARS, CURTAIN, ROD & ASSEMBLIES, SHOWER SEAT) 9.5/8" GYPSUM WALLBOARD 10.SEMI GLASS PAINT

THERMOS
TAT

EXHUAST FAN

FANS SHALL BE ENERGY STAR COMPLIANT AND
BE DUCTED TO TERMINATE A2
.4
T TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING. II.

FANS, NOT FUNCTIONING AS A

COMPONENT OF A WHOLE HOUSE VENTILATION

SYSTEM, MUST BE
CONTROLLED BY A HUMIDITY CONTROL. 4/2/2022 3:49:57 PM
366 of 1003

LOCATION MAP
01-07-2021
300' RADIUS MAP
EXHIBIT 1
367 of 1003

CITY OF GLENDALE N

PHOTO BROCHURE
CASE NO.

DATE: 07 - 28 - 2021
SCALE: 1" = 100'

PHOTO PLAN
GC MAPPING SERVICE, INC.
3055 WEST VALLET BOULEVARD
ALHAMBRA CA 91803
(626) 441-1080, FAX (626) 441-8850
[email protected]

CALIFORNIA AVE JACKSON ST ISABEL ST
1 3 2 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
22 21 24 23
25 26 27 28
29 30
32 31
33 34
35 36
37 38 40 39 41 42
45 43 44 46
2 4
6 8
10 12
14 16
1 3
5 7
2 4
6 8
10 1
7 22
21 1
1 1
23 2
1 3
5 7
9 11
13 15
17 19
21 1
21 19
17 20
18 16 16
LEGEND
PHOTO NO.

STREET ADDRESS

LOT NUMBER
1 2
EXHIBIT 3
368 of 1003
369 of 1003
370 of 1003
371 of 1003
372 of 1003
373 of 1003
374 of 1003
375 of 1003
376 of 1003
377 of 1003
378 of 1003
379 of 1003
380 of 1003
381 of 1003
382 of 1003
383 of 1003
384 of 1003
385 of 1003
386 of 1003
387 of 1003
388 of 1003
389 of 1003
390 of 1003
391 of 1003
EXHIB
IT 5 EXHIB Jackson
IT 2
Apartment Building 246 N Jackson St, UNIT 1-11, Glendale, CA 91206

ARCHIT ECT MALY ARCHITECTS
INC. 7136 HASKELL AVE, # 320
LOS ANGELES, CA 91406
(310) 993 1220
NOTE: 100% PRIVATELY
FUNDED

NO TAX CREDIT NOT PUBLIC HOUSING
AB 2345 PROJECT 04/02/ 2022
392 of 1003

JACKSON
APARTMENT SHEET INDEX - ARCHITECTURAL PROJECT INFORMATION - AB 2345 PROJECT INFORMATION - SITE LEGA L D ES PARKING REQUIREMENTS CRIP TION Sheet List - CALCULATION TABLE: Architecture SHEET
ASS ESS ORPA RCEL (AP N) :

P ROP ERTY D ES CRIP TION:
5 642 -018 -039 PROJECT NAME/ LOGO LOT2 IN BLOCK 6 OF TOWN OFG LENDA LE, IN THE CITY OF G LENDA LE, COUNTY OF LOS A NG ELES, S TA TE OF CA LIFORNIA, AS P ERMAP RECORD ED IN BOOK 14, PAG E(S) 95 TO 96 OF M IS CELLA NEOUS RECORDS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORD ER OFSA ID COUNTY .

TOTA NUMB L ER Sheet Name P ROJ ECT Is WITHIN 0.5 REQUIRED PA RKING : 1-PA RKING SP OTP ER 0.5 UNIT REQUIRED PA RKING : M ILE OFA MASS REQUIRED PA RKING : TRA NS IT A REA (G M C 30.36.090(B) :
11 X 0.5
- MASSING ELEVATION =5 .5 DIAGRAM

COVER SHEET

PROJECT INFORMATION

SITE SURVEY & BOUNDARY

PLOT PLAN

NEIGHBOR WINDOWS PRIVACY DIAGRAM
FAR + LOT COVERAGE DIAGRAM

AVERAGE SETBACK CALCULATION DIAGRAM
6 PROJECT ADDRESS: A0. 0
A0. 1
A1. 0
A1. 1
A1. 2
A1. 3
A1. 4
A1. 5
P ROV ID ED PA RKING : EXIS TING LA ND US E: P ROP OS ED LA ND US E:

M ULTI-FAM ILY APA RTM ENT BUILD ING, 11 UNITS
P ROV ID ED 14> 6
14 246 N Jackson St, Glendale, CA 91206
P ROJ ECT TYP E: NEWA B2 345 P ROJ ECT CONS IS TING OF 10MA RKET RA TE UNITS A ND 1-V ERY LOW INCOM E UNIT. US E: M ULTIP LE -D WELLING AB 2345 DENSITY UNITS OCCUPA NCY CALCULATION: BAS ED ENS ITY D E NS ITY INCREAS E

TOTA LA LLOWA BLE TOTA LP ROV ID ED ZONING
:

R-125 0
R2
PRIVATE + COMMON OPEN SPACE CALCULATION DIAGRAM
LOTA REA / 125 0 46.25 % FOR 14%V E RY LOW INCOM E CA LCULA TION CLIE NT OCCUPA NCY G ROUP " Artshar LLC G ROSS LOT/ PA RCELA REA : NETA FTERD ED ICA TION:
7,5 12 sq A1. ft 7
A2. 1
A2. 2
A2. 3
A2. 4
A2. 5
A3. 1
A3. 2
A3. 3
A3. 4
A3. 5
A3. 6
A3. 7

LANDSCAPE AREA CALCULATION

BASEMENT FLOOR

FIRST FLOOR PLAN

SECOND FLOOR PLAN

THIRD FLOOR PLAN

ROOF PLAN

ELEVATIONS

ELEVATIONS & SECTION

SECTION
7, 5 12 / 12 5 0 = 6.01 7 X 46.25 % = 3.2 4 11 7 + 4 = 11 UNIT UNIT 7, 42 0 sq ft (afte r pub licw ork sen ginee rin g req uire d ROW de dicat ion S UBTERRA NEA NPA RKING + 3 RES ID ENTIA LS TORIES ROUND UP = 7 ROUND UP = 4 NUM BER OFS TORIES :

TYP E OF CONS TRUCTION:

SP RINKLERED :

V E RY LOW INCOM E UNIT CA LCULA TIONS : BAS ED ENS ITY ROUND ED -UP : 7.0 P ERCENT OFV ERY LOW INCOM E UNITS WITH2 - CONCESS IONS : 14.0% NUM BER OFV ERY LOW INCOM E UNIT CA LCULA TION: 7.0 X 14.0% = .98 UNITS NUM BER OFV ERY LOW INCOM E UNITS ROUND ED - UP : 0.98 UNITS TO 1.0 UNITS 10MA RKET UNITS P LUS 1V ERY LOW INCOM E UNIT TOTA L 11 UNITS

ARCHIT ECT TYP EV -A (APA R TM ENTS) & TY P E I-A (PA RKING GA RAG E) Y ES , FULLY SP RINKLERED THROUG HOUT NFPA 13

FIREA LA RM S HOULD BEP ROV ID ED THROUG HOUT THE BUILD ING 11 UNITS [5 X 1-BED + 6X2 -BED ]

FIREA LA RM
:

TOTA LP ROJ ECT UNITS :

MATERIAL BOARD VICINIT
Y MAP CONCESS IONS LOT COVERAGE - SHEET A1.3

FARZIN FACADE MALY MATERIAL BOARD

FACADE MATERIAL BOARD

FACADE MATERIAL BOARD
7136 Haskell Ave., #320 Van Nuys, CA 91406
LOT COV ERAG E CA LCULA TION: 3, 691/ 7, 42 0 = 49.75 %P ROV ID ED LOT COV ERAG E <5 0%MA XIM UM A LLOWA BLE OF 3, 710S .F. 2 CONCESSIONS REQUESTED : Ph: 310- CONCESSION 993 1220 S -1 :

Email:
farzin.maly@gmail. 1.HEIGHT & com

STORIES

LOCA TION
OF THE

P ROJ ECT
1 Date 1Revisio
n 1 BAS E BUILD ING HEIG HT (HEIG HT LIM IT FOR LOT WID TH LESS THA N 90')

HEIG HT INCREAS E AV ERAG EG RAD E P ROP OS ED HEIG HT
3-S TORY P ROJ ECT
UNIT SUMMARY - SHEET A1.3 GM C 30.70.08 0 - G RAD E M EA NS THE AV ERAG E OF THE HIG HES T (5 75 .94) A ND LOWES T (5 73.2 9) TOP OF CURB ELEVA TIONS OF THE CURB ADJA CENT TO THE P ROP ERTY . AV ERAG E G RAD E FORP ROJ ECTS HA LL BE5 74.62 ' MA X.2 6 FEETP LUS 5 FEET FOR THE ROOF P ITCH IFP ITCH IS 3:12 ORG REA TER TOP OF THE ROOF: 31'-6"
1ADD ITIONA LS TORY UNITS CHED ULE TOP OF ELEVA TORS HA FT : 37'-6" FROM LOWES T P OINT @374'S EE ELEVA TIONSP OT ONP LOT P LA N S HEETA 1.1& S ECTION#2 S HEET ON A 3.3 UNIT NUM BER # OF BED ROOMS A 2 -S REA TORIES 101 102 103 104 2 BED1 BED 1 BED8 47S .F. 5 74S .F. 5 74S .F. 82 3S .F. 2 BED
2 012 02 2 032 BED1 BED 1 BED8 18 S .F. 5 74S .F. 5 74S .F. 768 S .F. 2 04 2 BED 301 302 303
2 BED1 BED 2 BED8 18 S .F. 5 74S .F. 768 S .F.

CODE

INFORMATIO
N
CONCESSION S -2 : ONLY THE LESS THA NM INIM UM REQUIRED S ETBA CKS A REM ENTIONED IN THIS CHA RT-S EES HEETA 1.4 FOR COMP LETES ETBA CKD IAG RAM A ND CA LCULA TION.

TOTA L:17 BED ROOMS TOTA L:7, 712 S .F. A 2.SETB ACK

APPLICABLE

BUILDING
CODES:

APP LICA NT REQUES TS A WA IV ER FROM THEM INIM UM UNITS IZE REQUIREM ENTS INGM C 30.11.05 0. UNITS 102, 103,2 01,2 02,2 03,2 0 4, 302 A ND 303D O NOT M EET THEM INIM UM A ND A RES LIG HTLY S HY OF THEM INIM UM UNITS IZE REQUIREM ENTS .

BUILDIN
G CODE:
2020 LOS ANGELES

BUILDING CODE

S ETBA CK REQUIRED FRONTY A RD(WES T)

INTERIOR YA RDS OUTH
S TREETS ID ENORTHINTERIOR YA RDEAS T NO. C- BAS EM 33731 ENT BAS EM ENT BAS EM ENT BAS EM ENTMIN:0'
MIN:0 ' MIN:5 ' MIN:20 'AVG:2 3'

ELECTRICAL
CODE:

MECHANICA
L CODE:

PLUMBING
CODE:

ENERGY
CODE:

SUSTAINABI
LITY CODE:

FIRE CODE:
2020 CALIFORNIA

ELECTRICAL CODE
2020 CALIFORNIA

MECHANICAL CODE
2020 CALIFORNIA

PLUMBING CODE
2020 CALIFORNIA ENERGY
CODE
2020 CALIFORNIA GREEN

BUILDING STANDARDS
2020 CALIFORNIA FIRE
CODE
05-31- AVG: 23
0' AVG: 8' AVG: 1S T 0'
FLOOR
RENEWAL 1S T DATE FLOOR 1S T FLOOR 1S T FLOOR MIN:5 ' MIN:5 ' MIN:5 ' MIN:2 0' BUILD ING A REA AVG:2 3' AVG: 8' AVG: 8' AVG:8 ' 2 ND FLOOR MIN:8'
2 ND C
FLOOR 2 ND FLOOR 2 ND FLOOR LIVA BLEA REA ELEVA TOR, W/ P ERIM ETER S TA IRS,

ENCLOS ED CORRID ORS, LOBBY P RINT W/ WA LLS
FLOOR FOOT MIN:8 ' MIN:8 ' MIN:2 3' AVG:2 6' AVG:1 1' AVG:1 1' AVG:1 1' Seal/Sign ature 3 RD FLOOR 3 RD FLOOR 3RD FLOOR 3RD FLOOR
WA LLS S HA F TS MIN:11 '
AVG:1 4'
MIN:11 '
AVG:1 4'
MIN:11 '
AVG:1 4'
MIN:23 'AVG:2 6'
FIRS T FLOOR 2,8 18 S .F. 396S .F. 42 9S .F.
431S .F.
3, 643S .F. FRONTY A RD(WES T)

INTERIOR YA RDS OUTHS TREETS ID ENORTHINTERIOR YA RDEAS T S ETBA CKP ROV ID ED 2, 734S .F. 396S .F.
396S .F.
3,5 61S .F.

PER CBC TABLE 601 FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS (HOURS) - TYPE VA

S ECOND FLOOR

THIRD FLOOR
Jackson
Apartment Building
MF-20-006
BAS EM ENT BAS EM ENT BAS EM ENT BAS EM ENT 2, 160S .F. BUILDING

ELEMENT

REQUIRED RATING
2,55 6S .F. MIN:4'- 4" MIN:4
AVG:15'- "
10" 1S T FLOOR
AVG:4 " TOTA L : 9, 760S .F. 1S T FLOOR 1S T FLOOR 1S T FLOOR 2 ND FLOOR
3RD FLOOR

PRIMARY

STRUCTURAL
FRAME:

BEARING WALLS

EXTERIOR

INTERIOR

NONBEARING

WALLS &

PARTITIONS

EXTERIOR
1 HRS MIN:4'- 0" AVG:8'- 1" TOTA LS UBTERRA NEA NGA RA G E : 6, 62 0S QFT 2 ND FLOOR 2 ND FLOOR 2 ND FLOOR 1 HRS
1 HRS
MIN:20'- 0" MIN:5 ' MIN:4'-
AVG:30' 0"
-7" AVG:10'- 9" 3 RD FLOOR
AVG: 7'- 8" APP LICA NT REQUES TS A WA IV ER TO INCREAS E THE FA R FROM 1.2 TO 1.32 (S EES HEETA 1.03 FOR CA LCULA TIOND ETA ILS) 3 RD FLOOR 3RD FLOOR MIN:20'- 0"
AVG:30' -3"
MIN:4'- 0" 1HR (PER CBC TABLE 602)
AVG: 8'- 10" INTER
IOR
0 STAIR SHAFT HR

ELEVATOR , MECH AND CHUTE SHAFT

FLOOR AND ROOF
2 HRS
2 HRS
1 HRS
BICYCLE PARKING LANDSCAPED AREA - SHEET A1.7 PER CBC TABLE 601 FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING ELEMENTS (HOURS) - TYPE IA

REQIUIRED LONG TERM BICY CLE
:
1P ER 4 UNITS = 3 LONG TERM BICY CLEPA RKINGS

PROJECT

INFORMATIO
N
REQUIRED LA NDS CAP ED A R EA : 7, 42 0 X25 %=1,855 S QFT P ROV ID ED 1,8 62 S QFT> REQUIRED 1,855 S QFT S EES HEETA 1.7 FOR LA NDS CAP E CA LCULA TIONS

BUILDING

ELEMENT
REQUIRED S HORT TERM BICY CLE : RATING 1SPA CEP ER2 0 UNITS = 1S HORT TERM BICY CLEP ROV ID ED PRIMARY

STRUCTURAL
FRAME:

BEARING WALLS
3 HRS P R OV ID ED : 3 LONG TERM BICY CLE -S EEA2 .1
EXTER
IOR
INTER
IOR
3 HRS
3 HRS

THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE

FOR WHICH THET WERE PREPARED AND

PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED

TO SUCH USE, REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR

PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD,

IN WHOLE OR IN
PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE VISUAL CONTACTWITH

THESE DUCUMENTS SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. 1S HORT TERM BICY CLE -S EEA2 .1 NONBEARING

WALLS &

PARTITIONS

EXTERIOR
3 HR (PER CBC
INTER TABLE 602)
IOR
3 STAIR SHAFT HR

ELEVATOR , MECH AND CHUTE SHAFT

FLOOR AND ROOF
3 HRS
3 HRS
3 HRS
OPEN SPACE - SHEET A1.5
1/8" =
1'-0"
REQUIRED P RIVA TE OP ENSPA CE: TOTOA L REQUIRED P RIVA TE OP ENSPA CE: TOTOA LP ROV ID ED P RIVA TE OP ENSPA CE:
40S .F.P ER UNIT 40 x 11 = 440S .F. P ROV ID ED 5 00S .F.> REQUIRED 440S .F.

REQUIRED COMM ON OP ENSPA CE: 2 00S .F.P ER Un it TOTA L REQUIRED COMM ON OP ENSPA CE: 2 00 x 11 =2,2 00S .F. TOTA LP ROV ID ED COMM ON OP ENSPA CE: P ROV ID ED 2,2 43S .F.> REQUIRED 2,2 00S .F.

A0
.1 4/2/2022 3:49:25 PM
393 of 1003

PROJECT NAME/ LOGO
PROJECT ADDRESS: 246 N Jackson St, Glendale, CA 91206
CLIENT Artshar LLC

ARCHIT ECT
FARZIN MALY 7136 Haskell Ave., #320 Van Nuys, CA 91406
TOC -5 75 .94 AV ERAG EG RAD E -5 74.62 Ph: 310-993 1220 Email:
farzin.maly@gmail. com
TOC -5 73.2 9 AV ERAG EG RAD E -5 74.62
A
NO. C- 33731
05-31- 23 RENEWAL DATE
C
Seal/Sign
ature
Jackson
Apartment Building
MF-20-006

SITE SURVEY
& BOUNDARY

THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE

FOR WHICH THET WERE PREPARED AND

PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED

TO SUCH USE, REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR

PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD,

IN WHOLE OR IN
PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE VISUAL CONTACTWITH

THESE DUCUMENTS SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.

A1
.0 4/2/2022 3:49:25 PM
394 of 1003

PROJECT NAME/ LOGO
PROJECT ADDRESS: 246 N Jackson St, Glendale, CA 91206
3 A 3.3
2 02
A3. 2
A3. 3

NEWS TREET TREES S EE LA NDS CAP EP LA N
S TREET TREES S EE LA NDS CAP EP LA N CLIE NTArtshar LLC S EE LA NDS CAP EPA CKAG E S HEET L-2 WA LL LEG END FORP LA NTER WA LL HEIG HT A ND D ETA IL

EXIS TING UTILITY WA TERM ETER
ARCHIT
WM P LA NTER IS ECT MA XIM UM 18 INCHES HIG H M EAS URED FROM S ID EWA LK 6'-0"HIG HS TUCCO
WA LL

S EE LA NDS CAP EPA
CKAG E
S HEET L-2 WA LL

L EG END FOR

WA LLD ETA IL
ON-G RAD E LA NDS CAP ING S EE LA NDS CA P EP LA N L-1
G WP REQUIRED D OM ES TICA ND IRRIGA TION BA CK-FLOWD EV ICEASS EM BLIES 18 "MA X HIG H WITH LA NDS CAP ES CREENING CALIFORNI A AVE P LA NTER IS MA XIM UM P LA NTER IS MA XIM UM 18 INCHES HIG H M EAS URED FROM S ID EWA LK S EE LA NDS CAP EPA CKAG E 18 INCHES HIG H M EAS URED FROM S ID EWA LK

BUILD ING A ND SA

FETY REQUIRED

BAS EM ENTGA RAG E

EXITS TA IR

BUILD ING A ND SA FETY REQUIRED BAS EM ENTGA RAG E EXITS TA IR TWO COMM UNITY CLUS TERMA ILBOXES P.L

ENTRA NCE
M ETA
LGA TE 42 " HIIG HG UA RD RA IL S EE LA ND S CA P EPA CKAG E S HEET L-2 WA LL LEG E ND FORP LA NTER WA LL HEIG HT A ND D ETA IL 44' -
6" S EE LA NDS CAP

EPA CKAG E
S HEET L-2 WA

LL LEG END

FORM ETA LGA

TED ETA IL

EXI T FARZIN MALY
DN
7136 Haskell Ave., #320 Van Nuys, CA 91406
P RIVA TE OP ENSPA CE FOR# 101
P RIVA TE OP ENSPA CE FOR# 104
4 5 6'-0"HIG HM ETA

L RA IL ON-G RAD E
6 DN Ph: 310-993 1220 Email:
farzin.maly@gmail. com
140S .F. LA NDS CA P EA REA
7 LA NDS CA P ING S EE LA NDS CAP EP LA N L-1
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
8 7S .F. LA NDS CA P EA REA

S EE LA NDS CAP

EPA CKAG E
S HEET L -2 WA LL

LEG END

FORP LA NTER WA

LL HEIG HT

A ND D ETA IL
1 Date 1Revisio
n 1 LINE OF BA LCONY LOWES TV IS IBLEP OINT A BOV E M EAS URED A T WA LKWAY A T ELEV .5 74' DN16 RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 11 UNIT TYPE V-A RESIDENTIAL ON I-A PARKING R 1250 P.L
.

NEWS TREET TREE S EE LA ND S CAP EP LA N
18' - P. 8"
L

SIDEWAL K
3 STORY OVER ONE LEVEL
ON-G SUBTERRANEAN PARKING RAD E 116' - 9".

BUILDING
LENGTH
LA NDS CAP ING S EE LA NDS CAP E P LA N L-1
20' -
0"
13' - 3"
S.Y.

SETBAC
K
190S .F. LA NDS CA P EA REA
1 A 3.2 OVERHA

COMM ON OP NG

ENSPA CE PLANT PLANTER

PLANT PLANTER
600S .F. SY NTHETICG

RAMP D RASS
OWN 4 D ECORA A

TIV E D RIV EWAY
P RIVA TE OP ENSPA CE FOR# 102
170S .F. L ID P LA NTER BOX
A 3.3
NOTE
S EE LA NDS CAP :

PA CKAG E FOR

COMM ON

A REA AM

ENITIES
D RIV EWAY CURB CUT P.L
NO. C- 33731 5' -
5"
5' -
0"
40' - 1"
20% SLOPE TRANSITION
6' -
0" 6'-0" BLOCK WA LL S EE LA NDS CAP EPA CKAG E S HEET L-2 WA LL LEG END FORP LA NTER WA LL HEIG HT A ND D ETA IL

S EE LA NDS CAP
EPA CKAG E 10% SLOPE TRANSITION
10% SLOPE TRANSITION S HEET L -2 WA LL

LEG END

FORP LA NTER WA

LL HEIG HT

A ND D ETA IL
05-31- 42 " RA 23 ILING
RENEWAL DATE P LA NTER IS MA XIM UM 18 INCHES HIG H M EAS URED FROM S ID EWA LK C
Seal/Sign
ature

LA NDS CAP E

BUILD ING
Jackson
Apartment Building
MF-20-006
HA RDS CAP E 1
PLOT
PLAN
SCALE:
1/8" = 1'-0" Note : 1-The re are n o prote cte d oak, b ay, or sycamore t ree s on the prope rt y orw ith in 2 0 feet ofthe prope rt y pe rGM C 12 .44 req uire ment s. 2 -P lant four (4) new Cit y st reet t ree s. On E. Californ iaA ven ue, plant th ree (3) Ch ine se t allow t ree s (Triadica seb ife ra) . On N.J ack son St reet, plant one (1) flowe rin g pe ar (P yrus calle ryan a) of an y cult ivar in the e xist in gt ree we ll. 3-Exist in g grow space in the parkw ay, ort ree we lls, sh ouldbe ret aine d ore xpan de dt o maximize space fort ree root s an dt o limit con flict s fut ure w ith the t ree . De ve lope r must follow Cit y st an dards an d spe cificat ion s for st reet t ree plant in g. A llt ree s must be 2 4"b ox size . Exact locat ion s can be site db ythe de ve lope r, PLOT
sub je ct t o approvalb PLAN
ythe Cit y.

THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE

FOR WHICH THET WERE PREPARED AND

PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED

TO SUCH USE, REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR

PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD,

IN WHOLE OR IN
PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE VISUAL CONTACTWITH

THESE DUCUMENTS SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS. 1/8" =
1'-0"
A1
.1
ROOF & BALCONY DECK COATING BY: URETHANE POLYMERS INTERNATIONAL , INC. RESEARCH REPORT: RR 25261 (CSI # 07180) 4/2/2022 3:49:27 PM
395 of 1003

PROJECT
2 NAME/ LOGO
A3. 2
PROJECT ADDRESS: 246 N Jackson St, Glendale, CA 91206
P.L.

DN CLIE NT
OVERHA
NG Artshar
DN LLC

ARCHIT ECT
P.L.

P.L. WIND OWS ON 1S T FLOOR SIDEW ALK FARZIN MALY 7136 Haskell Ave., #320 Van Nuys, CA 91406 OVERHA
NG
Ph: 310-993 1220 Email:
farzin.maly@gmail.
04 com
A3. 3 D OOR ON 1S T P.L.

FLOOR
WIND OWS ON 1S T FLOOR
NEIGHBOR WINDOWS PRIVACY FIRST FLOOR 3/32" = 1'-0"
1 A
NO. C- 33731
05-31- 23 RENEWAL DATE
C
2 A3. 2 Seal/Sign
ature
Jackson
Apartment Building
MF-20-006

NEIGHBOR

WINDOWS

PRIVACY
WIND OWS ON2 ND FLOOR DIAGRAM THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE

FOR WHICH THET WERE PREPARED AND

PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED

TO SUCH USE, REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR

PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD,

IN WHOLE OR IN
PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE VISUAL CONTACTWITH

THESE DUCUMENTS SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.

OVE R
3/32" =
04 1'-0"
A3. 3
D OOR ON2 ND FLOOR
WIND OWS ON2 ND FLOOR A1
.2 NEIGHBOR WINDOWS PRIVACY 2ND FLOOR
4/2/2022 2 3/32" = 3:49:35 PM
1'-0"
396 of 1003
DN
LOT AREA 7,420 S.F. LOT COVERAGE 3,691 S.F. (49.75 %)
LOT

COVERAG
E
DN
I J K
L
M N
O
P LOT COV ERAG E CA LCULA TION:
3, 691/ 7, 42 0 = 49.75 %P ROV ID ED LOT COV ERAG E <5
0%MA XIM UM A LLOWA BLE OF 3, 710S .F. PROJECT B C D E NAME/ LOGO F
G H
3' -
0"
3' -
0"
11' -
4"
8' -
0"
5' -
6"
4' -
10"
3' -
0"
5' -
3"
31'-
0".
2' -
9"
7' -
6"
3' -
0"
7' -
0"
3' - 0"
3' - 9"
10' -
6"
2' -
3" Q PROJECT A ADDRESS: 5' -
0"
246 N Jackson St, Glendale, CA 91206
03 A3. 3 CLIENT Artshar LLC
04 A3. 3
ARCHIT ECT LOT COVERAGE Copy 1
4 2 3/32" = 1'-0" A3. 2
1S T FLOOR

DN - FA R FARZIN MALY

UNIT NUM
BER

CORRID OR
A REA
42 9S
.F.
7136 Haskell Ave., #320 Van Nuys, CA 91406
10' -
4"
UP
31' -
0"
10' -
4" T3
N
O
DN
F UNIT # UNIT # 104 101 Ph: 310-993 1220 Email:
farzin.maly@gmail. com
T1 M P
Q
R
LIVA

BLEA REA

WITH WA
LLS
2,8 18 S
.F. UNIT # 103 K
L
UP
8' -
3" B C D E
H
2' -
9" " 5' - 3 I
" J
7' -
6"
ELEVA TOR +S
TA IR
396S
.F. 12 4S
31' - QFT
0"
5' -
A
0" 10' -
3" T2 7' - 0"
3' - 0"
3' - 9"
10' -
6"
2' -
3" 3'-
0". UP TOTA
L
3, 643S S .F.
3' -
0"
11' -
4"
8' -
0"
5' -
6"
4' -
10"
3' -
0"
31'-
0". 01 UNIT # 102G
A3. UP
2 03
A3. 3
04 A3. 3
2 P RIVA TE OP ENSPA CE FOR# 1 02
A3. 2 1ST FLOOR - FAR 3/32" = 1'-0"
1 2 ND FLOOR
- FA R A

UNIT NUM
BER

CORRID OR
A
10' - REA
4"
UP
31' -
0"
10' - F 4" T3 431S
.F. NO. C- 33731 UNIT #2 03 UNIT #2 01 UNIT #2 04 R
05-31- 23 T1 N
O
P
Q
LIVA

BLEA REA

WITH WA
LLS
RENEWAL DATE K M 2, 734S
.F. UP
DN C

B C D E
H
Seal/Sign
ature 5' -
3"I J ELEVA TOR +S
TA IR
396S
.F. 5' - 12 4S 0" QFT 31' -
0"
10' -
3"
DN
7' -
0"
3' - 0"
3' - 9"
10' -
6"
2' - T2 3" A 3'-
0". UP Jackson
Apartment Building
MF-20-006
S TOTA
L
3,5 61S
3' - .F.
0"
11' -
4"
8' -
0"
5' -
6"
4' -
10"
3' -
0"
31'-
0".

A3.
01 G UP
2 U IT #2 02
04 A3. 3
2 03
A3. 2A3. 3 2ND FLOOR - FAR 3/32" = 1'-0"
2 FAR + LOT

COVERAGE
2 ND FLOOR DIAGRAM
- FA R

THE USE OF THESE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS

SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE ORIGINAL SITE

FOR WHICH THET WERE PREPARED AND

PUBLICATION THEREOF IS EXPRESSLY LIMITED

TO SUCH USE, REUSE, REPRODUCTION OR

PUBLICATION BY ANY METHOD,

IN WHOLE OR IN
PART IS PROHIBITED. TITLE TO THE PLANS AND

SPECIFICATIONS REMAINS WITH THE ARCHITECT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE VISUAL CONTACTWITH

THESE DUCUMENTS SHALL CONSTITUTE PRIMA
FACIE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS.

UNIT NUM
BER
A
REA F
31' -
0" T3 LIVA

BLEA REA

WITH WA
LLS
2, 160S
DN .F.
7' -
0"
3' - 0"
3' - 9"
10' -
6" 11' -
4" T1 N
O
P
Q

R ELEVA TOR
+S TA IR
TOTA L
UNIT # 302 6' -
9" 396S
UNIT # .F.
301 DN 2,55 6S B C D E .F.

H 3/32" =
1'-0"
3' -
0"
3' -
0"
10' -
3" 2' -
3" T2 UNIT #
DN 303
A S
11' -
4"
8'-
0".
5'-
6".
4' - 11"
2' - 11"
01 N
A3. 2 TOTA L F.A .R: 3, 643 + 3,5 61
+2,55 6 = 9, 760S .F. 3' -
0"
6' -
10" 6' -
9"
12' -
9" FA
RMA X.A LLOWA

BLE FA R

P ROP OS ED
FA R A1
.3

1.2 :1 04
A3. 3
7, 42 0 X 1.2 =8,
904S .F.
9, 760 : 7, 42 0
= 1.32 P ROV ID ED FA R IS 85
6S .F.

M ORE THA N THE
REQUIERED FA R.
4/2/2022 3:49:40 PM 3RD FLOOR - FAR 3/32" = 1'-0"
3 397 of 1003
16' - 0". 185 s.f. BASEM ENT

REQUIR ED
MIN: 20'

PROPO SED
MIN: 4' - 4" FRONT SETBACK (WEST)
UP AVG: 23' AVG:15' - 10" PROJECT
MIN: NAME/ LOGO
5'
AVG: 8'
MIN: 0' - 4"
AVG: 0' - 4"

STREET SIDE SETBACK (NORTH)
114 s.f.

MIN: 0
AVG: 0
MIN: 0' - 4"
AVG: 0' - 4"
4' -
4" PROJECT ADDRESS: INTERIOR SETBACK (SOUTH) 246 N Jackson St, MIN: Glendale, CA 91206
0 AVG: 0
MIN: 0'- 4"
AVG: 0'-4"

REAR INTERIOR SETBACK
41' - (EAST)
0"
12 ' x 41'-0" = 492
CLIE NTArtshar BASEMENT FLOOR LLC
PLAN- SETBACK 3/32" = 1'-0"
2 116' - 9". AV ERAG E R EA RYA RD EAS TS ETBA CK / 116'-9" =8 '-1" ARCHIT ECT 3' -
0"
11' -
4"
8' - 0" 10'-3" X8 '-0" 10'- 4" X5 '-0"=5210' -
4"
8' - 3". 19'-9" X8 '-3" = 16331' - 0" 31'-0" X 4'-0" = 12 47'- 9". 7'-
10'-6". 10'-6" X5 '-0" =5 310' - 0". 10'- 0"X10'-0"= 1002' - 3" X
14'-9" = 115
14'-3" X5 '- 0" = 71 11'-4" X5 '-0" =5 7 =82
DN
UP DN 1ST FLOOR FARZIN MALY REQUIR ED PROPO SED 7136 Haskell Ave., #320 Van Nuys, CA 91406 15' -
6" 19'-0" X2 3'- 0" = 437 19-0" X 15 '- 6" =2 95 MIN: 20' AVG: 23'
MIN: 20' UP FRONT SETBACK (WEST) AVG: 28' - 3" Ph: 310- 993 1220 Email:
farzin.maly@gmail. com
23' -
0" MIN: 5'
AVG: 8'
MIN: STREET 4' SIDE SETBACK (NORTH)
AVG:
20' - 8'-1" 4" 13' -
3" 2 0'-0" X 14'- UP 4" =28 7 13'-3" X 12 '- 6" = 166 MIN: 5' AVG: 8'
MIN: 5' INTERIOR SETBACK (SOUTH) AVG: 10'- 9"
UP 26' - 0" 2 6'-0" X2 '- 0" =52
MIN: 5'
AVG: 8'

REAR INTERIOR SETBACK (EAST)
MIN: 13'-3"
AVG: 22'-3"
61' -
2"
58 '-0"X6'- 6"= 377 6'-8 " X 60'- 10" = 405
31'-0" X5 '- 0" = 15 5
27' -
10"
7'-
10".
5' -
3"
31' -
0"
5' -
0"
10' -
3"
10' -
0".
6' -
9"
12' - 1ST FLOOR - 9" SETBACK 3/32" = 1'-0"
1 AV ERAG ES ID EYA RD S ETBA CK = 1,25 7/ 116'-9" = 10'- 9" 116' - 2 9". AV ERAG E REA RYA RD EAS TS ETBA CK=8 96/ 116'-9" = 7'-8 " 03 7A' -
3 9".3
A3. 2
3' -
0"
19' - 4" 19'-4" X 10'- 3" =19810' - 3" 10'-3" X5 '-0" =528' - 3" 15 '-0" X8 '-3" = 12 331' - 0". 31'-0" X 4'-0" = 12 410'-6". 10'-6" X5 '-0" =5 324' - 3" 2 4'-3" X5 '- 0" = 12 1 7'-9" X 12 '-9" =99 2' -
3"
A
5 '-0" X 39'- 39' - 9" = 199 9". 5 '-3" X 42 '- 4" =222 UP DN 2ND FLOOR NO. C- REQUIR 33731 ED PROPO 13'-9" X2 3'- 0" = 311 14-0" X 15 '-6" =2 17 SED 05-31- UP 23
DN MIN: 23'
AVG: 26'
MIN: 20'

Glendale City CouncilAugust 15, 2023

Glendale City Council
August 15, 2023