A G E N D A
SPECIAL MEETING: 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
U-
verse,
channel
99. Meetings
are
also
streamed
live
in
high
definition
(HD)
on
the
City
webpage,
glendaleca.gov/live
,
on
YouTube.com/myglendale
,
and
on
Apple
TV,
Roku,
Amazon
Fire,
iOS
and
Android
devices
using
a
free
app
called
Cablecast
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
on
a
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.
The
City
Clerk’
office
should
be
notified
72 hours
(three
business
days)
or
as
soon
as
practicable
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
72 hours
prior
to
the
scheduled
meeting
or
as
soon
as
practicable.
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.
NOVEMBER 14, 2023
ROLL CALL
-
2:00 PM
-
Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, November 14, 2023 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on November 9, 2023, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.
1 TYPED 11/9/2023 7:26:30 PM
11 14 23
SP CC
A
SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING
of the City Council is hereby called to meet at
2:00
PM
on
Tuesday, November 14, 2023
, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
,
Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;
1. Community Development, re: Presentation of Proposed Amendments to GMC Chapter 30.11 Residential Districts Regarding Multi-Family Zoning Standards and Objective Design Standards for Multi-Family Residential Development
a. Motion to provide direction on the proposed concepts for multi-family zoning amendments and objective design standards and to proceed with finalizing the standards for presentation to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to returning to City Council for Introduction
2. Community Development, re:
Downtown Noise Ordinance Review of Standards and
Enforcement
a. Motion directing staff to conduct a Noise Ordinance Study in the Downtown Specific Plan area and modifying enforcement within the area until which time a study can be completed
3. Public Works, re:
Status Update on Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Project
a. Motion to note and file this report on Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Project status
4. Public Works, re:
Standardization of Ambulances, Ambulance Parts, Maintenance Services and Repairs to Braun Northwest
a. Resolution adopting Braun as the city-standard for all Glendale Fire Department (GFD) ambulances and dispense with competitive bidding for the procurement of ambulances, ambulance parts, maintenance services and repairs from Braun Northwest Inc.
ADJOURNMENT
2 TYPED 11/9/2023 7:26:30 PM
11 14 23
SP CC
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Presentation of Proposed Amendments to GMC Chapter 30.11 Residential Districts Regarding Multi-Family Zoning Standards and Objective Design Standards for Multi-Family Residential Development
1. Motion to provide direction on the proposed concepts for multi-family zoning amendments and objective design standards and to proceed with finalizing the standards for presentation to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to returning to City Council for Introduction.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Report
Approved for November 14, 2023 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff is presenting a variety of new site planning and massing concepts for multi-family development for Council’s review and comment. Based on Council’s feedback and following public outreach, staff will prepare code amendments to be brought before the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to returning to City Council for introduction.
RECOMMENDATION
Provide comments on the proposed amendment concepts and objective design standards for multi-family residential development and direct staff regarding continued preparation of final draft amendments to Chapter 30.11 Residential Districts for consideration in early 2024.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
As part of the SB 2 Grant program, staff has been working with Crandall Arambula (consultant) to prepare and implement objective design standards for all multi-family residential projects, with modifications to the zoning and development standards. Such updates were recommended by City Council, based on public comments that currently, the existing multi-family standards often do not allow for developments to reach their maximum density potential, especially in the High Density R-1250 Zone. Development- limiting standards include: the current minimum interior setbacks, which result in a 3 of 34
21 4
6 8
1 “wedding cake” massing; the two-story height limit for site less than 90 feet in width; and common open space requirements that often result in overlooked, unused pocket areas, etc. Modifying the development standards will increase that likelihood of achieving housing unit potential, while also increasing certainty in the review process and ensuring livability and design compatibility within existing neighborhoods.
Objective design and development standards (e.g., those based on numerical criteria) for review of multi-family housing applications are more straightforward for applicants and are also consistent with the following recent State legislation:
•SB 35 Streamlined Affordable Housing - Requires approval of qualified housing projects based on objective regulatory standards.
•SB 167 Housing Accountability Act - Local governments may not deny, reduce density, or make infeasible housing projects consistent with objective design standards.
•SB 330 Housing Crisis Act of 2019 - Prohibits imposing or enforcing new design standards established on or after January 1, 2020, that are not objective.
Much of this legislation focuses on objective design and development standards to help address the housing shortage within the State. Currently, design guidelines are used to assess projects, and these guidelines can be “subjective”, requiring personal interpretation of their meaning and application. This interpretation, in turn, can lead to a lengthy project review and approval process, and uncertainty for project applicants. The intent of new State housing laws is to streamline the review process for multi-family residential projects to increase housing production and decrease costs. Objective design standards would ensure a more efficient, predictable, and equitable path to obtaining and granting planning approvals for a wide variety of development projects, especially for affordable housing projects. Such objectives standards are also a powerful tool that allow communities to respond to State housing laws that are reducing local control of development and to provide an opportunity to ensure that the appearance of new development is compatible with the City’s vision for multi-family neighborhoods.
The proposed objective standards consist of two parts: code amendments to the development standards for multi-family residential zoning and objective design standards for multi-family development. The first part, code amendments to the multi- family residential development standards, focuses on updates to existing residential district general development standards table:
GMC 30.11.030, Table 30.11-B
Requirement by Zoning DistrictDevelopment Feature R-3050 R-2250 R-1650 R-1250 Minimum Lot Size Minimum lot area and width required
Area/Width N/A N/A N/A N/A
4 of 34
31 4
6 8
1 Residential Density
Maximum
1 dwelling unit per
3,050 sq. ft. of lot
area.
1 dwelling unit for
each 2,250 sq. ft. of lot
area. On lots having a
width of 90 feet or
greater, there shall be
not more than 1
dwelling unit for each
1,800 sq. ft. of lot
area.
1 dwelling unit for
each 1,650 sq. ft. of
lot area. On lots
having a width of 90
feet or greater, there
shall be not more
than 1 dwelling unit
for each 1,320 sq. ft.
of lot area.
1 dwelling unit for
each 1,250 sq. ft.
of lot area. On
lots having a
width of 90 feet or
greater, there
shall be not more
than 1 dwelling
unit for each
1,000 sq. ft. of lot
area.
Floor Area Ratio
Maximum .65 .85 1.0 1.2
Lot Coverage (2) 50% maximum including all residential and accessory buildings Setbacks Required (2) See Section 30.11.070 for setback exceptions Street Front 25 feet minimum
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 (see Diagram 1 in Figure 30.11.030).
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 (see Diagram 2 in Figure 30.11.030).
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 (see Diagram 2 in Figure 30.11.030). (1)
Interior when abutting
the ROS, R1R or R1
zones (excluding
chimneys, railings and
vents)
8 feet minimum and an average of 11 feet for the first residential floor; not less than 11 feet and an average of 14 feet for the second residential floor; and not less than 17 feet and an average of 20 feet for the third residential floor (see Diagram 3 in Figure
30.11.030). (1)
Height Limits (2)(6) Maximum of 3 stories and a maximum of 36 feet. (3) (4) (5) On lots having a lot width of 90 feet or less, a maximum of 2 stories and a maximum of 26 feet. (3) (4) (5)
Accessory Buildings 12 feet, or 15 feet where a minimum roof pitch of 3 feet in 12 feet is provided, pursuant to the definition of height set forth in this title.
Accessory Structures 15 feet pursuant to the definition of height set forth in this title.
Minimum Permanently
Landscaped Open
Space (2)
30% of lot area. See
Chapter 30.31 for
additional
requirements
25% of lot area. See Chapter 30.31 for additional requirements Parking and Loading As required by Chapter 30.32 (Parking and Loading) Notes: (1) For additions to existing dwelling units where only one (1) dwelling unit exists on the lot and for which a building permit was issued prior to December 14, 1995, see Section 30.11.070. (2) For lot coverage, setback, height, and landscape open space requirements, see Section 30.30.050. (3) Additional five (5) feet of height shall be permitted for any roofed area having a minimum pitch of three (3) feet in twelve (12) feet.
(4) Rooftop equipment shall not be included in the measurement of the vertical dimension provided that said equipment is fully screened by a roofed element of the building having a minimum pitch described herein. (5) A mezzanine shall not be considered a story. See Chapter 30.70 (Definitions). (6) For exceptions to height limits for wireless telecommunications facilities, see Chapter 30.48.
DENSITY:
No changes are proposed to the existing density (dwelling units per acre) limits.
Current density limits for the R-2250, R-1650 and R-1250 zones depend on the lot width. For lots 90 feet or less in width, the density is one unit per 2,250, 1,650 5 of 34
41 4
6 8
1 or 1,250 SF of lot area, respectively. For lots greater than 90 feet in width, an increased density is permitted – up to 24 du/ac in R-2250 (Medium Density Residential), 33 du/ac in R-1650 (Medium High Density Residential), and 43 du/ac in R-1250 (High Density Residential). In order to incentivize lot consolidation, more units within a larger project are allowed on a larger lot.
Based on the Density Bonus provisions and State law, additional density up to 50% is permitted depending on number of affordable units and levels of affordability.
FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR):
No changes are proposed at this time. Additional FAR is allowed for projects of three to 10 units, per State statute (SB 478) and GMC 30.11.050.K. Density Bonus projects may request to exceed the FAR limits.
LOT COVERAGE:
The existing 50% limit is appropriate for smaller scale projects in the R-3050 (Moderate Density) and R-2250 (Medium Density) zones that are typically adjacent to single family zones. The lot coverage in the R-1650 (Medium High Density) and R-1250 (High Density) zones could be slightly increased to permit greater maximization of the lot for residential development. For example, Burbank allows for 60% for lots located within 500 feet of a single family zoned property and 70% for lots located greater than 500 feet. Staff is considering increasing the lot coverage limit for the higher density districts.
SETBACKS
The existing standards, often criticized for resulting in “wedding cake” massing, will be updated to not require different minimums and averages on each residential floor. Instead, uniform setback minimums and averages on all floors will be proposed for the interior, street front and side street elevations. Such uniform minimums will be layered with the objective design standards to ensure articulation across the elevations and varying depth in building massing.
Additional setbacks and an increased setback for the upper floor will be required for projects abutting single family zones.
HEIGHT
The current standards limit development to two stories and 26 feet in height for lots less than 90 feet in width (same width threshold as for density), and three stories and 36 feet in height (with additional five feet for sloped roofs) on lots greater than 90 feet in width. To address the State’s requirements for Glendale’s adopted Housing Element, the two-story height limit is being eliminated; all multi- family residential projects will be allowed three stories by right. Staff is proposing an upper floor step-back requirement for all floors above the second floor for projects adjacent to single-family zones to ensure appropriate transitions between multi-family and single family zones.
MINIMUM LANDSCAPING
6 of 34
51 4
6 8
1 Currently, 25% of the lots in the R-1650, R-2250 and R-1250 must be landscaped.
This standard may be updated to specify the percentage amount of the required common open space that must be landscaped. See section below.
OPEN SPACE
Currently, 40 square feet (SF) of private open space and 200 SF of common open space must be provided for the first 25 dwelling units on a lot, with 150 SF of common space for the second 25 units on a lot, and 100 SF of common open space for each unit above 50 units. No change is proposed for the 40 SF private open space requirement. For projects with six (6) or fewer units, staff is proposing that 200 square feet of private open space per unit may be provided in lieu of providing separate 200 SF of common and 40 SF of private open space per unit.
Such private open space must comply with private open space requirements and need not comply with common open space requirements. Also, new site planning concepts described below as part of the site planning objective design standards concentrate on locating the common open space on the ground floor to achieve building separation and break down building massing. These new concepts also modify the way open space requirement is currently calculated by shifting away from a fixed number of square feet per unit to a percentage of the lot area on the ground floor.
OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS
The objective design standards will be similar to the formatting/regulations in the Tropico Transit Oriented Development (TOD) zoning and the Downtowns Specific Plan (DSP), while the existing design guidelines for multi-family development (Comprehensive Design Guidelines:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community- development/planning/design-guidelines), specifically Chapter 5 – Multi-Family and Mixed Use, provide the starting point for staff’s study. The existing City-adopted guidelines language will be converted to design standards by modifying the subjective language applicable to site planning, massing & scale, and design & detailing sections to objective language, wherever possible. As per State law, however, only objective design standards will be included in the proposed updates.
One of the main goals for this report to is to solicit Council’s feedback on several new site planning and massing concepts. These concepts will be presented in detail during the PowerPoint presentation to City Council.
In summary, the proposed concepts are based on the existing 90-foot lot width threshold for densities. Applicants/developers can either apply the new standard, uniform minimum/average setbacks OR select an interior courtyard (“Courtyard Option”). Each of these options would have specific standards for building setbacks, amount of common open space amenity area (COSA), and access dimensions.
Depending on the “Condition” (Condition 1 - lot width less than 90 feet, or Condition 2 – 7 of 34
61 4
6 8
1 lot width 90 feet or greater), and the chosen “Option” (Standard Setbacks Option or Courtyard Option), the multi-family residential project would have to comply with the applicable development standards, as well as the additional objective design standards related to massing/scale and architectural detailing. Standards for massing would regulate modulation of the building both vertically, in terms of height, and horizontally, resulting in recesses/projections across a façade elevation. Objective design standards for materials, fenestration (doors and windows), etc., for architectural detailing would also apply.
The consultant prepared models to assess the appropriateness of the development and design standards and viability of the proposals. The diagrams illustrate two conditions for lot sizes less than 90 feet in width and greater than 90 feet. The actual dimensions shown are for typical lots in Glendale, 50 x 150 feet and 100 x 150 feet. The massing models show that the proposed concepts are feasible, workable, and at the same time allow applicants to maximize the number of residential units on multi-family zoned lots.
The diagrams on the next few pages illustrate the site planning and massing concepts for two lot width Conditions and the open space/setback Options. 8 of 34
71 4
6 8
1 Condition 1 – Lot width 90 feet or less
Option 1 - min/ave setbacks w/ 15% COSA Option 2 - fixed setback with 15% COSA 9 of 34
81 4
6 8
1 Horizontal Modulation for Condition 1
Vertical Modulation for Condition 1
10 of 34
91 4
6 8
1 These examples are based on the proposed by-right development standards for lots less than 90 feet in width (for density and stories/height purposes). Given that any multi- family residential project with eight units or more must comply with the City’s inclusionary housing ordinance and must provide 15% affordable housing units, such a project would also qualify for a density bonus, as permitted by the State’s density bonus law and the City’s Zoning Code. Below is an example of massing for a density bonus project on a lot less than 90 feet in width, where the massing would be located towards the rear of the lot which would maintain the existing streetscape as much as possible.
Vertical Modulation for Condition 1 –for a density bonus project The diagrams on the following page depict the the common open space courtyard option on a lot greater than 90 feet wide (“Condition 2” - typical 100’ wide double lot in most multi-family residential zones). Based on Council’s input and direction additional diagrams for Condition 2 would be prepared, similar to those shown for Condition 1 above.
11 of 34
101
4 6
8 1
Condition 2 – Lot width greater than 90 feet
12 of 34
111
4 6
8 1
Staff will provide greater detail on these illustrations during the PowerPoint presentation, as well as on other development and design standards for Council’s consideration and discussion.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Based on Council’s comments and direction, staff will update the presentation and prepare standards for public outreach and comment by the development community prior to Design Review Board and Planning Commission review.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The proposed zoning code amendments are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061(b)(3), which states the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects [that] 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. Council is only providing direction on the development of new objective multi-family development standards at this time, which standards, once finalized will be subjected to any required CEQA review prior to returning to the City Council for approval. As currently conceptualized, the new multi-family residential standards would not change housing densities, and the objective design standard amendments would not result in any environmental impacts. Future, individual development projects would be subject to the proposed ordinance and reviewed for potential environmental impacts.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Provide comments and adopt motion for staff to proceed with drafting the objective design and development standards.
Alternative 2: City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:
Vilia Zemaitaitis, AICP, Deputy Director of Long Range Planning 13 of 34
121
4 6
8 1
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
14 of 34
9 3
9 1
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _________________________________, seconded by Council Member _____________________________, that the City Council hereby provides the following direction on the proposed concepts for multi- family zoning amendments and objective design standards, and authorizes staff to proceed with finalizing the standards for presentation to the Design Review Board and Planning Commission prior to returning to City Council for Introduction: _____________ _____________________________________________.
Votes as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
City Clerk
15 of 34
2 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Downtown Noise Ordinance Review of Standards and Enforcement
1.Motion directing staff to conduct a Noise Ordinance Study in the Downtown Specific Plan area and modifying enforcement within the area until which time a study can be completed.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for November 14, 2023 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
During the August 15, 2023 meeting, Council requested that the noise standards in the downtown area be agenized for review. Staff is seeking direction on what those new standards might encompass, and how enforcement should be handled in the interim. 16 of 34
22 4
7 0
3 RECOMMENDATION
That Council provide direction on whether to move forward with a study of the noise standards in the downtown, and if any modifications are necessary for enforcement during a study period.
ANALYSIS
The current noise ordinance, found in the Glendale Municipal Code Chapter 8.36 NOISE CONTROL, outlines the City’s standards for amplified sound. Chapter 8.36.280 Regulations states:
B. The operation of sound-amplifying equipment shall only occur between the hours of seven a.m. and ten p.m. each day except on Sundays and legal holidays. No operation of sound-amplifying equipment for commercial purposes shall be permitted on Sundays or legal holidays. The operation of sound- amplifying equipment for noncommercial purposes on Sundays and legal holidays shall only occur between the hours of seven a.m. and ten p.m.
The City of Glendale has focused economic efforts on building a vibrant downtown area to include nightlife entertainment options. The current noise ordinance is restrictive to these goals as it ends amplified sounds at 10:00 p.m. It should be noted that neither the Police Department nor Code Enforcement Inspectors are authorized to measure sound levels. Only a certified acoustical engineer can measure decibel levels. As such, current enforcement requires that even ambient music that is amplified is not permitted beyond 10:00 pm.
Future study recommendations may include to extend the hours of operation of amplified sound to a later hour such as midnight or 2:00 am, and/or removing the Sunday or legal holiday restrictions. At this time, it is recommended these changes be isolated to just the Downtown Specific Plan area as that accomplishes Council’s stated goal of increasing nighttime activity, while preserving noise levels in the rest of the city and narrowing the study scope.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
No outreach has been conducted to date. If City Council temporarily or ultimately modifies the noise standards, outreach to the business community will be conducted to ensure compliance with new standards.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Noise standards, if ultimately modified following a study, will require CEQA review.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements. 17 of 34
32 4
7 0
3 ALTERNATIVES
1. Suspend enforcement of noise standards in the downtown while new noise standards are studied.
2. Modify enforcement of noise standards in the downtown while new noise standards are studied.
3. Do not modify or suspend enforcement while new noise standards are studied in the downtown.
4. Do not study noise standards in the downtown.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:
Tamar Sadd, Deputy Director of Community Development
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
18 of 34
9 3
9 1
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _________________________________, seconded by Council Member _____________________________, that the City Council pursuant to the information provided in the November 14, 2023 staff report from the Director of Community Development pertaining to a review of the Downtown Noise Ordinance Standards and Enforcement, hereby directs staff to conduct a Noise Ordinance Study in the Downtown Specific Plan area and modify enforcement within the area until such time as the study is completed.
Votes as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
City Clerk
19 of 34
3 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Status Update on Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Project
1.Motion to note and file this report on Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Project status.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for November 14, 2023 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Project is ready to proceed to the 60 percent completed plans, specifications, and estimate phase. The intent of this item is to provide the City Council with an update on the project progress to date. 20 of 34
23 4
7 3
9 RECOMMENDATION
Approve a motion to note and file this report on the Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Project.
ANALYSIS
The Glendale Narrows Riverwalk (Riverwalk) site is located on the north bank of the Los Angeles River opposite from Griffith Park. This unique community resource increases access to the Los Angeles River and Griffith Park, improves connections, and increases the safety of paths used for bicycling and walking. Riverwalk also provides a gateway to the Grand Central Creative Campus, River Glen Opportunity Area, and the San Fernando Creative Corridor.
The Riverwalk Project is divided into three phases. Phase 1 of the Riverwalk Project included a half mile of recreational trail for bicyclists and pedestrians, an equestrian facility, interpretive signage, extensive landscaping with native plants, and a major improvement of the character of the riverfront area. The construction of Phase 1 was completed in December 2012.
Phase 2 of the Riverwalk Project included one small park, construction of the remainder of the recreational trail, and a bridge crossing over a drainage culvert. Construction work was funded by a Proposition 84 Grant, Measure R funds, Development Impact (DIF) funds, and Gas Tax monies. The construction of Phase 2 was completed in October 2018.
Phase 3, originally called the Glendale Narrows Bridge, now known as the Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Project (Project), includes the planning, development, design, and construction of a 320-foot curvilinear concrete or concrete and steel bridge with concrete substructure planking and two piers in the river, safety railings, trash cans, pet waste stations, interpretive signs, pedestrian safety lighting, and access gates.
After the completion of the construction of Phase 3, this project will provide approximately one mile of recreational trail for bicyclists and pedestrians, with associated parks, rest areas, river overlooks, an equestrian facility, interpretive signage, a public art project, and potentially two bridges connecting Riverwalk to Griffith Park and/or North Atwater, thus significantly improving the present character of the river frontage in this area. The project will extend from the city limits near the intersection of Garden Street and Paula Avenue to the confluence of the Los Angeles River and the Verdugo Wash, adjacent to the 134 Freeway (the entire length of Glendale’s Los Angeles River frontage).
In 2010, the City of Glendale engaged outside consultant firms to prepare the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk Master Plan to improve the character of the river along the City of Glendale frontage area, the Master Plan was finalized in 2011.
On March 3, 2015, City Council passed a Motion approving the concept for the preliminary Los Angeles River bridge design (Phase 3). Council also directed staff to 21 of 34
33 4
7 3
9 submit grant applications to fund the continuation of design, construction documents, and construction of the bridge.
On September 25, 2015, as part of the 2015 Call for Projects, the Metro Board of Directors authorized a grant to the City of Glendale for the design and construction of the Project in the amount of $3,070,080. As part of this obligation, the city will need to contribute $767,520 of local match funds. Metro has issued a Funding Agreement authorizing the city to proceed with the design and construction of the project.
On June 5, 2017, California voters approved Proposition 68, which authorized $4 billion in general obligation bonds for state and local parks, environmental protection projects, water infrastructure projects and flood protection projects. From this, $20 million was earmarked for Glendale’s River Bridge project (Phase 3). The funds are administered by the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) and a portion will be used as local match funds for the Metro 2015 Call for Projects grant.
On December 14, 2021, the City Council awarded a Professional Services Agreement with Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. (BCA) to provide Professional Engineering, Environmental Document and Construction Management Services for the Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Project in the amount of $3,789,489, plus a 10 percent contingency of $378,949. The contract was based on the Garden River Bridge concept selected in 2014.
The overall project budget is estimated as follows:
Description
Total
Project
Costs
Proposition
68 Funds
2015 Call
for
Projects
Funds
Assembly
Bill 170
Funds
Measure
R Sub-
Regional
Funds
Environmental
Document &
Design Plans,
Specifications
and Estimates $4,535,000 $1,535,000 $3,000,000 $0 $0
Construction
Management $3,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000
Construction $25,260,080 $16,199,000 $61,080 $9,000,000 $0 Construction
Contingency $2,624,000 $1,615,000 $9,000 $1,000,000 $0
GRAND TOTAL $35,419,080 $19,349,000 $3,070,080 $10,000,000 $3,000,000 The implementation schedule for this project moving forward is estimated to be as follows:
22 of 34
43 4
7 3
9 ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION TIMELINE
Environmental Document & Design Plans, Specifications and Estimates:
Execute Professional Services Agreement with
BCA & Issue Notice to Proceed
November 2021 – December
2021
Environmental Consultant Preliminary Report April 2022 – December 2022 Submit Adequate Site Control and Land Tenure
documents to State September 2022 – May 2024
Submit Operation and Maintenance Agreement
between City of Glendale and City of Los Angeles November 2022 – April 2024 Environmental Clearance May 2023 – November 2024
Submit final CEQA documents to State November 2024
Submit Project Permit/Approval Status document
to State December 2024 – May 2025
Construction:
Advertise Bids/Bid Opening, Award Contract and
Certify August 2025 – February 2026
Mobilization and construction March 2026 – July 2028
Submit evidence of signage August 2028
Record deed restriction; submit project closeout
package with final payment request to State February 2029 Staff is providing a status update on the progress of the design alternative which was chosen by the community and further refined in the schematic design process.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
In 2010, the City engaged consulting firms to prepare the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk Master Plan to improve the character of the river along the City of Glendale frontage.
Outreach occurred in various forms throughout the master planning process. This included a dedicated website for the project and two well-publicized community meetings. In addition, numerous stakeholder meetings were held with agencies and organizations with a specific interest in the bridge project, such as jurisdictional or user concerns. These agencies and organizations included the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, National Park Service, Caltrans District 7, LA County Public Works Department, various City of Los Angeles Departments, Walt Disney Company, Dreamworks Animation, Friends of the LA River, North East Trees, Sierra Club Conservation Committee, LA County Bicycle Coalition, LA River Revitalization Corporation, the late Senator’s Feinstein, former Senator Boxer, and Liu’s staff, Representative Schiff’s staff, Assembly Member Gatto’s staff, and Glendale and LA City Councilmembers and their staff.
From the numerous outreach and stakeholder meetings and in-depth design and technical analyses, the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk Phase II and Phase III Master Plan was finalized in 2011.
23 of 34
53 4
7 3
9 On March 18, 2014, Council authorized the City Manager to enter into a consultant agreement with Atkins for the design of the completion of the Riverwalk and the planning of the potential future bridges over the Los Angeles River and the Verdugo Wash. Katherine Padilla & Associates (KPA) was selected as the community outreach consultant for the future bridge over the Los Angeles River.
Prior to hosting community meetings, KPA implemented various public engagement strategies, including stakeholder education and involvement targeting elected officials, the business community, and members of neighborhood associations, recreational, environmental, community-based organizations, as well as other interested persons.
KPA conducted the following outreach:
•Announcements at Glendale City Council and at board meetings of community organizations in Glendale and the neighborhoods of Griffith Park/Los Feliz and Atwater Village. Flyers were also distributed;
•Flyers distributed at public counters in adjacent Los Angeles neighborhoods and throughout the City of Glendale;
•E-mails notifying community members of the meetings;
•Phone calls to key stakeholders representing community organizations requesting that flyers and meeting notices be forwarded to organizations’ members and placed on websites for wider promotion; and •Press release for City of Glendale to disseminate to media outlets.
On September 11, 2014, Atkins, the Public Works Department (PWD), and the Community Services and Parks Department (CSP) hosted the first of three community workshops. The first workshop was to solicit the public’s input on bridge locations to augment the prior 2011 Riverwalk Master Plan study, and insights on the bridge design, style, and function. Over 70 participants attended the workshop.
On October 29, 2014, the second meeting, with over 50 participants, was held to confirm the Flower Plaza as the preferred location of the Los Angeles River Bridge and to present site specific conceptual bridge designs for public input. Prior to the meeting, over 30 participants attended a project walk. At the end of the meeting, participants chose their preferred options.
Between the second and third workshops, staff worked with the consultant to further develop the two most preferred options to include the amenities most desired by the public. The Garden Bridge, the most preferred option, was then further developed for the final workshop.
On December 11, 2014, the third and final workshop was held, with over 40 participants, on selecting the final design for the Garden Bridge. It should be noted that comments from previous meetings, including email and telephone correspondences, were incorporated into each successive meeting. The public was encouraged to attend all meetings to provide additional input before the study was finalized and presented to 24 of 34
63 4
7 3
9 City Council. It was made clear to the public that the purpose of the bridge workshops was to solicit the amenities they would value on a bridge and that the preferred bridge option selected would be used to obtain grant funding.
As of result of the extensive stakeholder outreach, the Garden River Bridge was selected as the preferred alternative through the community workshops. The Garden River Bridge is a two-span curvilinear structure with two canopied seating areas that will offer views of the river and be a continuation of the parks between the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles, with the canopies providing shading and space to enjoy the river environment. Lighting will also be incorporated to enhance the user experience and make the structure a landmark viewed from the parks or the adjacent freeways.
The Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge will be an extension of the Riverwalk parks and both cities’ urban communities and provide a space for users on the bridge to enjoy the river.
The current professional engineering services scope with BCA consists of multiple and equally critical phases, and the BCA team will be responsible for stakeholder outreach and community engagement as the project progresses. A variety of communication tools will be employed to ensure appropriate reach as part of the public notification for the community meetings.
During the final design development phase, the BCA team will hold further public outreach meetings to share the environmental document findings through an official public comment period and outline the design development process to arrive at final plans, drawings, and specifications. The BCA team will also highlight design and permitting progress prior to bid and advertisement, to provide an update to the public on what to expect during construction, the construction schedule, detour plans, ways to obtain information, and safety reminders.
Last, but not least, a dedicated project website has been developed and hosted by BCA that serves as the public portal for all project information.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The current draft environmental document prepared by BCA is under review by the City Attorney’s office and upon review and approval of the draft document, the draft environmental report will be released for public review and comment. This will then be followed by the appropriate application procedures to ensure environmental compliance with CEQA and NEPA for design and construction of the project.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements. 25 of 34
73 4
7 3
9 ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
N/A.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Yazdan T. Emrani, P.E., Director of Public Works
Prepared by:
Sarkis Oganesyan, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works/City Engineer Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None
26 of 34
3 MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded
by Council Member , that the Council of the City of
Glendale hereby notes and files this staff report on the Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Project status.
Votes as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
27 of 34
4 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Standardization of Ambulances, Ambulance Parts, Maintenance Services and Repairs to Braun Northwest
1) Resolution adopting Braun as the city-standard for all Glendale Fire Department (GFD) ambulances and dispense with competitive bidding for the procurement of ambulances, ambulance parts, maintenance services and repairs from Braun Northwest Inc.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for November 14, 2023 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
GFD currently operates nine Braun ambulances providing the city with critical emergency medical services. Braun ambulances continue to be the best fit for GFD emergency medical services and standardizing to a single manufacturer affords the city with a more reliable and easier to maintain fleet. Additionally, this standardization allows the city to have existing patient treatment boxes remounted onto new chassis retaining the manufacturer’s warranty on the box.
The intent of this item is for the City Council to approve a resolution adopting Braun as the city-standard for ambulance procurements as well as for the purchase of ambulance parts, maintenance services and repairs for ten years.
COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Financial Sustainability: Continuing with Braun at the standard for Glendale ambulances for the next ten years is expected to streamline maintenance, repair, and operator usability along with projected cost saving with future body remounts.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve a resolution adopting Braun as the city-standard for GFD ambulances and dispense with competitive bidding for the procurement of ambulances, ambulance parts, maintenance services and repairs from Braun Northwest Inc. 28 of 34
24 4
7 1
6 BACKGROUND
In October 2013, following a competitive bid process, the GFD purchased two Braun Type 1 ambulances, each with a Dodge 4500 chassis (truck chassis). Prior to this, the city had historically purchased Type 3 Ambulances utilizing Ford E450 chassis (van chassis) from other vendors. This procurement represented a significant shift in the city’s ambulance fleet going forward.
At that time, GFD in conjunction with the Public Works Department (PWD) prepared a plan projecting ambulance needs into the future. During this projection phase, staff recognized that there was an opportunity to save money and achieve cost effectiveness in the long-term through a new model of ambulances that are designed as a two-piece unit separating the chassis from the patient treatment box which would allow for the replacement of the chassis while refurbishing/remounting the patient treatment box. At the time, if a chassis needed replacement, the entire vehicle needed to be replaced.
This results in approximately 30% savings compared to replacing both the chassis and the patient treatment box. In general, the treatment module boxes usually remain in excellent condition when the chassis of the vehicle reaches its service life due to wear and tear and excessive mileage.
Braun provides a lifetime warranty for the patient treatment module/box which extends to remounted units. However, if another company remounts a Braun module the lifetime warranty is voided. Braun Northwest Inc. can apply the patient treatment box to any standard chassis, Ford, Dodge, GM, Freightliner and International. GFD currently has seven frontline Braun ambulances, each with a Dodge chassis and one with a GM chassis. One additional reserve Braun ambulance is in service with a Dodge chassis.
On July 18, 2017, the City Council approved a resolution to dispense with competitive bidding and to purchase five ambulances over 5 years from Braun Northwest, Inc. due to the same operational and cost advantages described in this report. These ambulance replacements have been successfully integrated into the fleet and justify moving forward with Braun as the city standard for GFD ambulances
ANALYSIS
Dispensing with competitive bidding and standardizing to Braun ambulances will target the remainder of the older model ambulance fleet as the city currently has a total of nine Braun ambulances and would require the three remaining Ford E450 ambulances to be replaced with Braun. This standardization will allow GFD to then have a full fleet of Type I ambulances from Braun and provide retiring units for remounting in the following purchase cycle. This replacement cycle also covers the initial two Braun units originally purchased in 2013.
Braun Northwest provides a lifetime warranty on the box if the remount is performed by Braun. Further, the lifetime warranty of box continues to exist after remount. Braun performs the remounts with their own workforce versus outsourcing to another 29 of 34
34 4
7 1
6 manufacturer which would potentially lead to safety issues and damage to the box.
Braun ambulances feature hard wired electrical systems comprised of commonly available circuit breakers, relays and switches built in by Braun. This allows for uncomplicated electrical component repair and parts replacement as opposed to complex proprietary electrical systems which most of the ambulance manufacturing competitors have, and thus can only be repaired by the manufacturer. Braun provides all welded aluminum cabinets versus wood products or wood biproducts found on competitor’s apparatus. Aluminum cabinets are the best option for compartment sterilization and overall durability and longevity.
More importantly, staff has found the combined safety of the materials and design built into the Braun ambulances are not available in any other manufacturer’s product. This includes the strength of the module/box. The outer skin, roof, floor and compartments are made from thicker aluminum alloys and manufactured using a process which creates fewer seams. Braun seams are full length welds on the sides as opposed to skip welds found at corners and door openings. This provides greater protection equating to lower risk and a better chance of the unit remaining intact if involved in a collision.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT
The purchase of five new ambulances in FY 2023-24 will cost $1,875,000, 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
$1,875,000 51000-6010-PWD-7509-P0000 Fleet Management Fund
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is considered a ministerial activity and therefore, not subject to CEQA review.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
In accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744, the following are 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. 30 of 34
44 4
7 1
6 ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Approve a resolution adopting Braun as the city-standard for GFD ambulances and dispense with competitive bidding for the procurement of ambulances, ambulance parts, maintenance services and repairs from Braun Northwest Inc.
Alternative 2: The City Council may elect to competitively bid Fire Ambulances from various manufacturers. This alternative would require extensive additional training for Fire personnel and Public Works Mechanics. This alternative would also require Public Works to significantly increase the inventory of warehouse stock and service vendors.
Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:
Sevada Hambarsumian, Fleet Superintendent
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None
Officers of Braun Northwest Inc.Full NameTitle Business AddressCityStateZipJohn R. BraunChairman of the Boardof Directors150 NorthstarRoadChehalisWA98532Linda K. BraunDirector 150 Northstar RoadChehalisWA98532John E. BraunPresident and Director 150 Northstar RoadChehalisWA98532James R. BraunVice President and Director 150 Northstar RoadChehalisWA98532Kent R. JohnsonVice President/ CFO150 Northstar RoadChehalisWA98532Tami C. McCallumVice President 150 Northstar RoadChehalisWA98532 31 of 34
RESOLUTION NO. _________________
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,
CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING STANDARDIZATION OF
MANUFACTURER, DISPENSING WITH COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND
AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF BRAUN AMBULANCES,
AMBULANCE PARTS, MAINTENANCE SERVICES AND REPAIRS
FROM BRAUN NORTHWEST, INC.
WHEREAS, the Glendale Fire Department utilizes Braun ambulances sold locally by Braun Northwest, and
WHEREAS, Braun Northwest, Inc. (“Braun Northwest”) is the only local source from which to procure Braun ambulances, parts, maintenance services and repairs; and WHEREAS, typically when the chassis on an ambulance reaches the end of its useful life, the entire vehicle, including the treatment module box, has to be replaced; and WHEREAS, Braun Northwest offers a new model of ambulances that are designed as two-piece units separating the chassis from the treatment module box; and WHEREAS, significant savings are achieved by using these two-piece units since the treatment module box could be refurbished or remounted even when the chassis reaches the end of its useful life; and
WHEREAS, Braun Northwest offers a unique lifetime warranty program on the their treatment module boxes which allows these components to be reinstalled on new chassis after their original chassis reaches their useful life resulting in savings; and WHEREAS, Braun Northwest treatment module boxes feature hardwired electrical systems with commonly available circuit breakers, relays and switches as opposed to complex proprietary electrical systems which most of the ambulance manufacturing competitors have which allows for more uncomplicated electrical component repair and parts replacement; and
WHEREAS, Braun Northwest treatment module boxes include all welded aluminum cabinets which are the best option for compartment sterilization and overall durability and longevity versus more commonly found wood products or wood bi-products; and
WHEREAS, Braun Northwest Basic Life Support (BLS) ambulances feature outer skin, roof, floor and compartments made from thick aluminum alloys and manufactured using a process which creates fewer seams; and with seams that are full length welds on the sides instead of skip welds at corners and door openings; and 32 of 34
2 1
0 0
7 0
WHEREAS, the Glendale Fire Department has converted nine ambulances to Braun and has three remaining and once the entire fleet is converted staff projects significant savings in replacement costs; and
WHEREAS, the City of Glendale has a policy of competitive purchasing practices wherever practicable and the purchasing policy recognizes that in some cases, there is a need for standardization on the purchase of some specialized items; and WHEREAS, Braun ambulances allow for uncomplicated repair and parts replacement, offer significant savings due to their unique two-piece units, and Braun treatment module boxes are more durable to ensure the safety and efficiency for operations; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is in the best interests of the city to dispense with competitive bidding, and to authorize the Deputy Director of Finance/Purchasing Administrator to execute purchase order contracts for ambulances, ambulance parts, maintenance services and repairs.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA:
1. That the City Council hereby approves the standardization of the manufacturer of ambulances to Braun and procurement of Braun ambulances, ambulance parts, maintenance services and repairs to Braun Northwest, Inc.; to ensure safety and efficiency for the next 10 years, with the understanding that reasonable effort will be made in the purchase of such equipment, equipment parts and services to obtain competitive pricing.
2. That the determination to Braun ambulances, parts, maintenance services and repairs will be reviewed by the Public Works department and Purchasing Section at least every five years and the Public Works department will seek approval from City Council at least every ten years.
3. That Braun Northwest, Inc., is the only available distributer of Braun equipment, parts, maintenance, and repair as specified under the standardization.
4. That the foregoing facts are deemed to be true and correct and a basis for dispensing with competitive bidding and the Council hereby finds that it is in the best interests of the City to dispense with competitive bidding. 33 of 34
3 1
0 0
7 0
5. That the Deputy Director of Finance/Purchasing Administrator is hereby authorized to procure Braun ambulances, ambulance parts, maintenance services and repairs from Braun Northwest, Inc., as long as the budget is available.
Adopted on this _________________ day of _______________________, 2023. ______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Suzie Abajian, P.E., Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _________________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _______ day of _____________________, 2023, and that same was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
______________________________
City Clerk
34 of 34