Agenda packet — Glendale City Council, December 5, 2023

A G E N D A

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

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

are

broadcast

live

Glendale

TV,

viewable

Spectrum

Cable,

channel

and

AT&T

U-
verse,

channel

99. Meetings

are

also

streamed

live

high

definition

(HD)

the

City

webpage,
glendaleca.gov/live
,

YouTube.com/myglendale
,

and

Apple

TV,

Roku,

Amazon

Fire,

iOS

and
Android

devices

using

free

app

called

Cablecast

and

choosing

"Glendale

TV"

from

the

menu.

Meetings

are

also

archived

the

City

Website

for

viewing

anytime

glendaleca.gov/agendas
.

Call

(818)

548-4013

for

program

schedules.

For

public

comments

and

questions

during

the
meeting,

call

(818)

937-8100.

Public

comments

specific

agenda

item

will

taken

when

that
agenda

item

discussed.

you

have

any

question

about

matters

the

agenda,

requests

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

PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION In

compliance

with

the

Americans

with

Disabilities

Act

(ADA)

1990,

auxiliary

hearing

aids,

sign
language

translation,

and

Braille

transcripts

are

available

upon

request.

Assisted

listening

devices
are

available

same-day

upon

request.

The

City

Clerk’

office

should

notified

72 hours

(three
business

days)

soon

practicable

for

requests

regarding

sign

language

translation

and
Braille

transcription

services.

All

documents

open

session

items

this

agenda

that

are
received

less

than

72 hours

prior

this

meeting,

and

are

public

records,

will

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

bilingual

staff

for

speakers

who
wish

utilize

the

service

available.

Speakers

should

state

their

request

contacting

the

City
Clerk’s

office

(818)

548-2090,

least

72 hours

prior

the

scheduled

meeting

soon

as
practicable.

Please

specify

the

language

for

which

you

require

translation.

The

exclusive

use

City
provided

interpreters

not

required

and

persons

are

welcome

use

their

own

interpreter

speak
in their native language.

DECEMBER 5, 2023

ROLL CALL

1. CLOSED SESSION
– 1:00 PM ( To Commence at 5:00 PM)
a.

Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation: Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraphs (d)(2) and (e)(1) of Government Code Section 54956.9: One potential case

1 TYPED 11/30/2023 4:20:26 PM
12 05 23
CC

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA
– 6:00 PM
Roll Call
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 December 5, 2023 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on November 30, 2023, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a.

Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, December 12, 2023 b.

Appointment of Rima Gregorian Cameron to the Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee (Brotman/Najarian, 11/07/23)
c.

Appointment of Jeffrey Head to the Historic Preservation Commission (Devine/Brotman, 11/28/23)
d.

Identification of Nominating Panel for Civil Service Commission (Asatryan/Brotman) e.

Identification of Nominating Panel for Civil Service Commission (Brotman/Devine)

4. CONSENT ITEMS
(Including Minutes)
The following are Routine and May be Acted Upon by One Motion. Any Member of Council or the Audience Requesting Separate Consideration May do so by Making Such Request Before Motion is Proposed.
a.

City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Special City Council and Regular City Council Meetings of November 28, 2023
b.

Glendale Water and Power, re: Adoption of Plans and Specification for the Park Manor Slope Repair and Debris Mitigation Project

1. Resolution adopting Specification No. 3972 and Plan No. 6979 for Park Manor Slope Repair and Debris Mitigation Project and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

8. ACTION ITEMS
a.

Police Department, re: Police Department Brand Standardization with procurement provided by Axon Enterprise Inc., hardware, and software upgrades to include In- Car Video systems, Body Worn Cameras, Drones, Interview room cameras and technology to support the Real Time Intelligence Center

1. Resolution adopting Axon Enterprise Inc.’s In-Car Video systems, Body Worn Cameras, Drones, Interview room cameras, storage, technology, licenses, hardware, and software as the City's standard for the Police Department and dispensing with competitive bidding authorizing the City Manager or designee to procure related hardware, software, parts, maintenance, and services

2. Resolution of Appropriation
b.

City Manager, re: Direction on the Formation of Human Relations Coalition

2 TYPED 11/30/2023 4:20:26 PM
12 05 23
CC

1. Motion to Note and File Report

2. Motion Directing Staff
c.

City Attorney, re:

Discussion of Potential Ballot Measures Amending City Charter

1. Resolution Authorizing Placing on the Ballot Questions of Amending the Charter of the City of Glendale to Allow for Alternate Locations for Council Meetings, for the Council to Prescribe the Standards and Procedures for Awarding City Contracts, for Certain Urgency Ordinances for the Immediate Preservation of Public Health, Safety or Welfare to Be Introduced and Adopted at the Same Meeting, and to Make Other Miscellaneous Changes to the Charter; Directing City Attorney to Prepare Impartial Analysis

2. Motion Directing Staff Regarding Potential Charter Amendments

3. Resolution Calling for Arguments for and Against the Ballot Measures d.

Community Services and Parks, re:

Dog Park Feasibility Study

1. Motion approving the draft Dog Park Feasibility Study report

2. Motion approving a location(s) for a new dog park(s) and directs CSP staff to request proposals from design consultants to prepare design alternatives and cost estimates for the approved dog park location(s) for subsequent Council consideration

9. HEARINGS
a.

Community Development, re: 1326 N. Maryland Avenue: Consideration of Glendale Register Nomination and Request for a Mills Act Historic Property Contract

1. Resolution to designate the residential property at 1326 N. Maryland Avenue as a historic resource in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, as the Wyman House, and authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act Historical Property Contract with the property owner

2. Motion to deny the request of the property owner to designate the residential property at 1326 N. Maryland Avenue as a historic resource in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS
a.

Councilmember Asatryan’s Request for a Report Regarding Childcare Services for City Employees
b.

Councilmember Kassakhian’s Request to Explore Litigation Against Citibank for its Secret Practice of Rejecting Credit Card Applications Because Applicants Had Armenian Surnames
c.

Councilmember Kassakhian’s Request re: Translation Services for Council meetings
d.

Councilmember Najarian’s Request to Write a Letter to Jerusalem Leaders Regarding Recent Events in the Armenian Quarter of Jerusalem e.

Councilmember Kassakhian’s Request for a Report on Addressing Loopholes and Enforcement Issues Related to Short Term Rentals
f.

Councilmember Kassakhian’s Request to Schedule a Discussion During the 2024-25 Budget Process on Adding a State Misdemeanor Prosecution Unit to the City

3 TYPED 11/30/2023 4:20:26 PM
12 05 23
CC

Attorney’s Office
g.

Councilmember Kassakhian’s Request for a Report on a Summary of the Agreements Governing the Americana at Brand
h.

Mayor Brotman’s Request for a Report on a Coyote Management Plan

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 11/30/2023 4:20:26 PM
12 05 23
CC

5 of 195

6 of 195

7 of 195

8 of 195

9 of 195

10 of 195

11 of 195

12 of 195

13 of 195

14 of 195

1 4A

M I N U T E S
SPECIAL MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
NOVEMBER 28, 2023
The Special Public Meeting of the Glendale City Council convened in the City Hall Council Chambers, in said City, at 3:03 p.m. on the above date, pursuant to a call for such meeting signed by the City Clerk of the City Council, and on file with the City Clerk, a copy of which is as follows:

November 22, 2023
Date
A SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING of the City Council is hereby called to meet at 3:00 PM on Tuesday, November 28, 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: Alex Theatre Annual Report a. Note and File 12-Month Alex Theatre Update and Provide Direction regarding Utilization of City Days at the Theatre

2. Community Development, re: Update on the Entitlement and Code Review Process a. Motion to note and file the update regarding the entitlement and code review process, and provide direction on additional elements to review and develop alternatives to improve
Written Notice of said meeting was given, which Notice consisted of a copy of the foregoing Call, and was served on each Member of the Council not joining in the Call, and upon the in said City not less than 24 hours before the time fixed in said Call for said meeting, as follows:

Upon Elen Asatryan at 5:00 p.m. November 22, 2023 Glendale, CA Upon Paula Devine at 5:00 p.m. November 22, 2023 Glendale, CA Upon Ardy Kassakhian at 5:00 p.m. November 22, 2023 Glendale, CA Upon Ara Najarian at 5:00 p.m. November 22, 2023 Glendale, CA Upon Dan Brotman at 5:00 p.m. November 22, 2023 Glendale, CA Mayor Brotman called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.

ROLL CALL
- All Present
- Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, November 28, 2023 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on November 22, 2023 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

1. Community Development, re: Alex Theatre Annual Report Presenting:

Tamar Sadd, Deputy Director of Community Development
Miles Williams, SAS Entertainment
15 of 195

2 Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
a. Motion to Note and File 12-Month Alex Theatre Update and Provide Direction regarding Utilization of City Days at the Theatre
Moved: Kassakhian Seconded: Asatryan
Vote as Follows
a.

2. Community Development, re: Update on the Entitlement and Code Review Process Presenting:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Staff Comment:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Public Comments:

Rick Lemmo
Betty Porto
Cathy Yurca
Allen Malekian
Randy Stevenson
Damien Sullivan
a. Motion to note and file the update regarding the entitlement and code review process, and provide direction on additional elements to review and develop alternatives to improve
Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
b.

ADJOURNMENT – 5:35 p.m.

Moved: Najarian Seconded: Asatryan
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Najarian
Brotman
None
Kassakhian
City Clerk of the City of Glendale Mayor of the City of Glendale Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
16 of 195

1 4A

M I N U T E S

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor Glendale, CA 91206
NOVEMBER 28, 2023
ROLL CALL – All Present

1. CLOSED SESSION – 5:36 p.m.
a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation: Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraphs (d)(2) and (e)(1) of Government Code Section 54956.9: One potential case
b. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: Ruiz v. City of Glendale, et al., LASC Case No. 21STCV26610
c. Public Employee Performance Evaluation – City Manager d. Public Employee Performance Evaluation – City Attorney City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is anticipated on item 1b. Council recessed to closed session at 5:38 p.m.

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:00 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 November 28, 2023 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on November 22, 2023 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, December 5, 2023 Asst. City Manager John Takhtalian provided the preview. b. Commendation for the Glendale High School Girls Volleyball Team c. Identification of Nominating Panel for Arts and Culture Commission (Najarian/Kassakhian)

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.

Item 4g pulled for separate consideration.
a. Cty Clerk, re: Minutes of the Joint City Council and Housing Authority, Special City Council, and Regular City Council Meetings of November 14, 2023 Moved: Najarian Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows
a. Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
Asatryan
None
17 of 195

2 b. Glendale Water and Power, re: Adoption of Plans and Specifications for the Glorietta 968 Reservoir West Cell Floor Rehabilitation Project

1. Resolution 23-180 adopting Specification No. 3962 and Plans, for the work necessary to complete the Glorietta 968 Reservoir West Cell Floor Rehabilitation Project and authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows
b.
c. Public Works, re: Award of Construction Contract for the Permeable Alley Projects

1. Motion to accept the grant award and award a construction contract to Toro Enterprises, Inc. in the amount of $8,345,145, approving a 10 percent contract contingency in the amount of $834,515, and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to execute the contract
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows
c.

2. Resolution 23-181 of appropriation to appropriate funds in the amount of $9,179,660 for the Permeable Alley Project
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows
d.
d. Community Services and Parks, re: Recreation Access Competitive Grant Program funds from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) or Metro for the Nature Education Program at the Stone Barn Nature Center in Glendale’s Deukmejian Wilderness Park for Fiscal Years (FY) 2023-24, 2024-25, and 2025-26

1. Motion accepting Recreation Access Competitive Grant Program ID# RAP02 funds in the amount of $252,755.46 from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) or Metro for the Nature Education Program at Stone Barn Nature Center in Glendale’s Deukmejian Wilderness Park - LACMTA Recreation Access Competitive Grant Program for Fiscal Years (FY) 2023-24, 2024-25, and 2025-26; and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to execute all agreements, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funds 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
18 of 195

3 Moved: Najarian Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows
e.

2. Resolution 23-182 of Appropriation to appropriate $252,756 in Recreation Access Competitive Grant Program ID# RAP02 funds from Metro for the Nature Education Program at Stone Barn Nature Center in Glendale’s Deukmejian Wilderness - for Fiscal Years (FY) 2023-24, 2024-25, and 2025-26
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows
f.
e. Fire Department, re: Amendment of Professional Services Agreement with Digital EMS Solutions Inc., to provide Electronic Patient Care Reporting System (ePCR) services to the Fire Department

1. Motion Authorizing the City Manager to amend the current agreement to extend the term and for the life of the software, so long as the funds have been approved in the annual budget plan (Contract No. C105518B) between Digital EMS Solutions Inc. and the City of Glendale for the renewal of ePCR services Moved: Najarian Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows
g.
f. Public Works, re: Removal of Brick Façade at Fire Training Center Tower and Exterior Concrete Planter Boxes at Civic Center Parking Structure Project, Adopt Specification

1. Resolution 23-183 adopting Specification No. 3970 for the Removal of Brick Façade at Fire Training Center Tower and Exterior Concrete Planter Boxes at Civic Center Parking Structure Project and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows
h.

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:

Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
Asatryan
None
19 of 195

4 g. Public Works, re: San Fernando Road Beautification Project Phase I, Adopt Plans and Specification
Presenting:

Yazdan Emrani, Director of Public Works

1. Resolution 23-184 adopting the Plans and Specification for the San Fernando Road Beautification Project Phase I, Specification No. 3973, Plan Nos. 1-3121, 18- 117, 49-262, 50-712, 50-713, 50-714, and 50-715; and directing the City Clerk to Advertise for Bids
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
i.

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Councilmembers attended the Montrose Christmas Tree lighting. Councilmember Devine thanked the Glendale Police and Fire Departments’ staff for attending the tree lighting. She invited the public to attend the Montrose Parade this Saturday.

Councilmember Najarian announced that Metrolink will revive their Holiday Express on December 9th and invited the public to join the Holiday Express from the Burbank Metro Station . Najarian asked to agendize a discussion on writing a letter to Jerusalem leaders regarding recent events in the Armenian quarter of Jerusalem.

Councilmember Kassakhian asked to agendize a discussion to address loopholes and enforcement issues related to short term rentals such as Airbnb. Kassakhian would also like to agendize a discussion during the 2024-25 budget process to add a State Misdemeanor Prosecution Unit to the City Attorney’s Office. He would also like to have a Council study session or a report on a summary of the agreements governing the Americana at Brand.

Mayor Brotman and Councilmember Devine nominated Jeffrey Head to the Historic Preservation Commission. Brotman attended the meeting presented by the Pasadena Humane Society about “Coyote Safety” but was saddened by the lack of public turnout due to the holiday season. Brotman asked to agendize a report on a Coyote Management Plan.

City Clerk Dr. Abajian spoke about the successful event held on Wednesday, Nov. 15th, by the Commission on the Status of Women in collaboration with the City Clerk’s Office, entitled “Glendale Women Today.” The event was to launch the release of the new 2022-23 Report on the Status of Women and Girls in Glendale. The event was well attended with over 80 participants, despite the pouring rain.

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)
Mike Mohill
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
Asatryan
None
20 of 195

5 7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
a. City Attorney, re: Ordinance 6017 Amending Section 9.25.050 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, Pertaining to Exemptions to the City's Ban on the Possession of Firearms and Ammunition on City Property (Najarian, 11/14/23) Moved: Najarian Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows
j.

Staff Comment:

Mike Garcia, City Attorney
b. Glendale Water and Power, re: Ordinance 6016 Establishing Electric Rates and Charges for Electric Services provided by Glendale Water and Power Department for Fiscal Years 2023-2024 through 2027-2028 (Devine, 11/14/23) Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
k.

Staff Comment:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Agenda out of order. Item 8c read next into the record.

8. ACTION ITEMS
a. Community Development, re: Formation of a Project Development Team for Vision Zero Action Plan (VZAP)
Presenting:

Ismael Perez, Planning Associate/Mobility Division
Staff Comment:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development

1. Motion directing staff to request the Transportation & Parking Commission and the Sustainability Commission to each select a Commissioner to serve as ad hoc members of the City’s newly created VZAP Project Development Team Moved: Devine Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
l.

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
21 of 195

6 b. Community Development, re: Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.30 (Rental Rights Program)
Staff Comments:

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

Peter Zovak, Asst. Director of Community Development – Housing Lucy Varpetian, Principal Assistant City Attorney
Public Comments:

Zhana Azizz
Addora Beall
Henry Mantel
David Kaishchyan
Susan Broussalian
Ira Bland
Jen Rosser
Grace Brands
Sevak Sohrabian
Victor Hairapetian
Eddie Minassian
Greg Alexanian
Patrick McCarthy
Albert Hairapetian
Varouj Mirzaians
Ramella Eraghi
Margaret Cashion
Vahe Saginian
Arin Gharibian
Armen Avedian
Greg Astorian
Dulce Ambriz
Celeste Tovar
Victor
Marra Padilla
Liana Parunakyan
Davit Zargaryan
Alex
Linda Neumaier
Carmen Aron
Bridget McNally
Lupe Cajero
Jeero Habeshian
Kathy Lefkowitz
Pamela Augustine
Matthew Buck
22 of 195

7 1. Ordinance for Introduction Amending Chapter 9.30 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 – Relating to the Rental Rights Program

2. Motion Directing Staff re Administrative Citations
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows
m.
c. Glendale Water and Power, re: Glendale Care Program Electric Bill Discount Adjustment
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Scott Mellon, Assistant General Manager/Power Management Presenting:

Bryan Salazar, Acting Business Transformation Manager

1. Resolution 23-185 adjusting Glendale Water & Power’s Glendale Care Program benefit from the current rate of $17.50 to $20.50 effective January 1, 2024, to $23.50 effective July 1, 2024, and to $26.50 effective July 1, 2025, in alignment with the proposed electric rate increases outlined in the Electric Rates Cost of Service Analysis (COSA)
Moved: Devine Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
n.

9. HEARINGS

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS

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

Patrick Masihi
Ramella Eraghi
Michael Morgan
Sevak Sohrabian
Damien Sullivan
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
Asatryan
None
23 of 195

8 14. NEW BUSINESS
a. Motion to authorize to resolve the lawsuit entitled Mary Ruiz v. City of Glendale, et al., Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 21STCV26610 in exchange for a full release of all claims
Moved: Devine Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
o.

15. ADJOURNMENT – 10:32 p.m.

Moved: Kassakhian Seconded: Najarian
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
Asatryan
None
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
24 of 195

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Adoption of Plans and Specification for the Park Manor Slope Repair and Debris Mitigation Project.
1) Resolution adopting Specification No. 3972 and Plan No. 6979 for Park Manor Slope Repair and Debris Mitigation Project and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for December 5, 2023 Calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Specifications and Plans have been completed for the Park Manor Slope Repair and Debris Mitigation Project. GWP respectfully requests the City Council to adopt the project specifications and plans and authorize advertising for bids. This project is intended to improve the maintenance path surrounding the reservoir which is frequently used by GWP crews.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt Plans and Specification for Park Manor Slope Repair and Debris Mitigation Project and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

BACKGROUND/ ANALYSIS
Park Manor Reservoir is a 3.5-million-gallon, concrete lined, potable water reservoir, circa 1930, located near the Glendale Freeway. Due to the height and volume of the reservoir, it is not a dam, and thus not under the jurisdiction of the Department of Safety of Dams. There is a maintenance path adjacent to the reservoir to allow GWP staff to access key areas of the facilities.

The maintenance path has experienced ongoing erosion throughout the years, and it is only getting worse. Other areas of the maintenance path are accumulating debris from the adjacent hillside. Debris, such as rocks, soil and vegetation fall onto the path and cause drainage issues that clog up existing catch basins.

GWP staff determined that the ongoing erosion and excess debris will cause an unsafe 25 of 195

24b
4 3
8 8
environment and future interruptions of day-to-day maintenance of the reservoir.

The scope of work will be focused on two items:
1) Prevent further erosion and improve the existing maintenance path. 2) A Prevent debris from falling onto the existing maintenance path.

GWP Water Engineering has consulted with their owner-engineers to produce Plans, Specifications and Estimates (PS&E) that provide the design to address the issues.

Specification No. 3972 and Plan No. 6979 are completed, along with the Engineer’s opinion of the cost of construction.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Water service to GWP customers will not be interrupted. Construction will be focused on the surrounding hill side and maintenance path directly adjacent the reservoir. Park Manor Reservoir is tucked away into the canyons, where access is limited to authorized personnel only and is not near residential neighborhoods.

GWP’s Operation Section and Distribution Section maintain the Park Manor Reservoir.

GWP staff frequently use the maintenance path to ensure that the facility is working properly to provide water to the community. With the various GWP Sections (Engineering, Operations and Distribution) working together, they were able to identify the issues and determine the needs of GWP staff to provide reliable water service to GWP customers.

FISCAL IMPACT
A portion of the funds for this project has been approved in the budget process for FY 2023-24. The existing appropriation of $250,000 was appropriated from the Water Depreciation Fund. GWP Staff will come back to council to request any additional appropriation once a contract is awarded. No new appropriation is being requested at this time.

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$250,000.00 GL: 52100-5930-GWP-0020-P0000
PL: GWP01068AN
Water Depreciation Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project involves negligible or no expansion of an existing utility. The Project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review as a Class 1 Existing Facilities project for the operation, repair, maintenance or minor alteration of existing facilities pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15301.
26 of 195

34b
4 3
8 8

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Adopt Plans and Specification for the Park Manor Slope Repair and Debris Mitigation Project and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids as set forth in this Council report.

Alternative 2: Not to adopt Plans and Specification for the Park Manor Slope Repair and Debris Mitigation Project, which will result in postponement of the Project.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Richard Ruyle, Water Services Administrator
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Not applicable.
27 of 195

RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING SPECIFICATION NO. 3972 AND PLAN NO. 6979 TO

FURNISH MATERIALS, EQUIPMENT, AND LABOR FOR PARK MANOR SLOPE

REPAIR AND DEBRIS MITIGATION PROJECT AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK

TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1. The specifications and plans, on file in the Glendale Water & Power Department – Water Engineering Office, to furnish materials, equipment, and labor for Park Manor Slope Repair and Debris Mitigation Project, including the various documents incorporated therein, are hereby approved, adopted, designated and shall hereafter be known as Specification No. 3972 and Plan No. 6979.

SECTION 2. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to advertise for bids for work, equipment and materials described in Specifications No. 3972 and Plan No. 6979 adopted by this Resolution.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on this ___ day of _________, 2023. ________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Suzie Abajian PhD, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _______________ was adopted by a majority vote of the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the ______ day of ______________________, 2023, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________
City Clerk
28 of 195

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Police Department Brand Standardization with procurement provided by Axon Enterprise Inc., hardware, and software upgrades to include In-Car Video systems, Body Worn Cameras, Drones, Interview room cameras and technology to support the Real Time Intelligence Center.

2. Resolution of Appropriation

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for December 5, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Police Department currently utilizes the hardware, software, and licenses from Axon Enterprise Inc. for In-Car video, Body Worn Cameras (BWC), Drones, Interview room cameras, Tasers and Evidence.com.

In-Car Video, BWC and drones can live stream video to the future Real Time Intelligence Center (RTIC) allowing for more efficient deployment of resources, decreased response times, and enhanced capabilities to solve crime. It gives key decision makers perspective in real time, allowing for more information to be used in decision making resulting in a safer environment for our citizens and officers.
29 of 195

28a
4 8
0 1

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the attached resolution authorizing standardization to Axon Enterprise Inc. for the Police Department and dispensing with competitive bidding for procurement of In- Car Video systems, Body Worn Cameras, Drones, Interview room cameras, storage, technology, licenses, hardware, and software including related parts, maintenance, and services. Execute an amendment to the agreement with Axon Enterprise Inc., to provide camera equipment, related software, licenses, upgrades, maintenance, storage, parts, and professional services for the life of the equipment.

ANALYSIS
Approval of this request will allow the Police Department to continue to record and audit its interactions with the community, vital in fostering and preserving transparency and trust with the community. It will also allow for more informed real-time decision making and perspective through the future RTIC, likely resulting in decreased response times, increased operational effectiveness and efficiency, as well as safer and more favorable outcomes.

The Police Department requires a continuation of licenses and services, as well as upgrades to aging hardware (BWC’s and In-Car Video Cameras), both which are essential to continuing to provide uninterrupted modern public safety services. In support of the department’s initiative to operate a Real Time Intelligence Center.

In addition, the standardization to Axon Enterprise Inc. allows for the continuation of Interview room camera recording and storage, the ingestion of evidence directly from the public, unlimited third-party storage, and the use of Evidence.com to house and manage all the departments digital evidence. Evidence.com allows for digital sharing with the Los Angeles District Attorney’s office, as well as other law enforcement partners, saving staff valuable time and resources.

Upon City Council’s approval of the proposed Resolution adopting Axon as the City's standard and dispensing with competitive bidding, the City Manager or designee will be authorized to procure Axon Enterprise Inc. related hardware, software, maintenance, and services.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
N/A

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of the initial one year term of $759,274.51 plus a 15% contingency totaling $873,165.69, was not included as part of the FY 2023-24 approved budget. Therefore, staff is requesting for an appropriation of $873,166 from the General Fund Undesignated Fund balance to the Police Department IT Service Charge account, which will be used to fund the contract through the ITD Applications Fund. All future year annual costs will be budgeted during each year’s budget process. 30 of 195

38a
4 8
0 1
The appropriation request is outlined below.

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$873,166 25300-1010-000 46009-1010-GPD-
7002-P6413
General Fund
Undesignated
Fund Balance
$873,166 37150-6040-ISD 43110-6040-ISD-
0020-P0000
Project:

ISD01122AA
ITD Applications
Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Not applicable.

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 #, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Deny the Police Department’s request.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Manuel Cid, Police Chief
Prepared by:

Sean Riley, Police Lieutenant
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A – Campaign disclosures
31 of 195

Page 1 of 3 ends

RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,
CALIFORNIA ADOPTING AXON ENTERPRISE INC.’S IN-CAR VIDEO

SYSTEMS, BODY WORN CAMERAS, DRONES, INTERVIEW ROOM

CAMERAS, STORAGE, TECHNOLOGY, LICENSES, HARDWARE, AND

SOFTWARE AS THE CITY'S STANDARD FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT,

DISPENSING WITH COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND AUTHORIZING THE

PURCHASE OF RELATED HARDWARE, SOFTWARE, PARTS,
MAINTENANCE, AND SERVICES FROM AXON ENTERPRISE INC.

WHEREAS, the Glendale Police Department currently utilizes hardware, software, and licenses from Axon Enterprise Inc for In-Car video, Body Worn Cameras (BWC), Drones, Interview room cameras, Tasers and Evidence.com; WHEREAS, In-Car Video, BWC and drones can live stream video to the Real Time Intelligence Center (RTIC) allowing for more efficient deployment of resources, decreased response times, and enhanced capabilities to solve crime and give key decision makers perspective in real time, allowing for more information to be used in decision making resulting in a safer environment for our citizens and officers; WHEREAS, the Police Department staff researched hardware, software, and licensing options for In-Car video, Body Worn Cameras, Drones, Interview room cameras, Tasers and Evidence.com and determined that Axon Enterprise Inc. provided the most comprehensive services which allow for document and information sharing among regional partners and the District Attorney’s office;
WHEREAS, after conducting research, the City entered into a contract with Axon Enterprise Inc. to provide the above referenced-services; WHEREAS, over time additional new technology and products have been developed and the contract with Axon Enterprise Inc. has been amended; WHEREAS, the products and services offered by Axon Enterprise Inc. are a valuable law enforcement resource;
WHEREAS, brand standardization would allow the Police Department to keep up with the latest technology and to have a fully integrated system that utilizes one operating system; avoiding issues that could arise with having to retrain officers on other systems and integrating other products/systems into the Axon products/system; WHEREAS, Glendale City Charter, Article VI, Section 9 provides an exemption to competitive bidding when the Council determines it is in the best interest of the City to dispense with competitive bidding; and
32 of 195

Page 2 of 3 ends

WHEREAS, Axon Enterprises Inc. is the only vendor that offers all of the products/services set forth above together with one operating system and which is utilized by all regional partners and the District Attorney’s office allowing for efficient exchange of documents/information.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA THAT:

1. The Council hereby approves the standardization of Axon Enterprise Inc.’s in-car video systems, body worn cameras, drones, interview room cameras, storage, technology, licenses, hardware, and software, as well as related parts, maintenance, and services.

2. Axon Enterprise, Inc. is the only available vendor that offers all of the products and services needed by the Police Department as addressed above and the only vendor which allows for sharing/exchange of information with all regional partners and the District Attorney’s office.

3. The standardization of Axon Enterprise Inc. products/services will remain in effect as long as the Police Department elects to use said products/services.

4. 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.

5. The Deputy Director of Finance/Purchasing is hereby authorized purchase of related hardware, software, parts, maintenance, and services from Axon Enterprise Inc. as long as the budget is available.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of ________________, 2023. _________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
33 of 195

Page 3 of 3 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Suzie Abajian, PhD, 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 ____________________, 2022, and that same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________________
City Clerk
34 of 195

35 of 195

AGENDA ITEM

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Report: Direction on the Formation of Human Relations Coalition 1) Motion to Note and File Report
2) Motion Directing Staff

COUNCIL ACTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 13, 2023, the City Council requested that staff bring forward a report on a Human Relations Coalition with the goal of bringing the community together.

Staff has researched the City’s past human relations efforts and gathered information from surrounding agencies for Council discussion and consideration.

The report includes three main sections:

Part I: History of Glendale Human Relations Efforts
Part II: Surrounding Agencies Research:
•County of Los Angeles Human Relations Commission
•LA vs. Hate Initiative
•City of Los Angeles Human Relations Commission
•City of Burbank Human Relations Council
•City of Pasadena Human Relations Commission
•Department of Justice, Community Relations Service
Part III: Options for Glendale
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for12/5/2023 calendar
36 of 195

2 RECOMMENDATION
Provide direction on Council’s preferred format for bringing the community together.

Options include launching a public outreach campaign, forming a volunteer Coalition, establishing a formal City commission or adding human relations to an existing City Commission’s purview.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Part I: History of Glendale Human Relations Efforts
The Glendale Human Relations Council (GHRC) emerged in 1963, responding to President John F. Kennedy's call for community organizations promoting racial harmony.

GHRC focused on improving relations between Whites and Blacks. GHRC organized seminars, provided emergency assistance during the 1965 Watts riots, mediated housing issues, and established the interracial Calico Nursery School, influencing the Head Start Program. (See Exhibit 1)
In the early 1970s, GHRC expanded its efforts, sponsoring anti-drug programs and assisting families displaced by the Pacific Park expansion. The mid-1970s marked significant demographic changes in Glendale, and GHRC played a pivotal role in the Glendale Unified School District's bilingual-multicultural education plan, which persists today.

GHRC's involvement waned from 1980 to 1986 but rekindled in response to a well- publicized incident of harassment in 1986. In 1987, the City formed a Human Relations Committee (HRC) within the Police Department, addressing discrimination and harassment. The HRC, composed of volunteers with a city liaison, aimed to maintain a discriminatory-free work environment, achieving milestones like a new employee orientation program and handling discrimination issues.

In 1994, former Mayor Eileen Givens established the Human Relations Coalition to help the Police Department form hate-crime guidelines and to address incidents of racial tension in the community. That same year, the Human Relations Mutual Assistance Consortium (HRMAC) was formed as part of the LA County Human Relations Commission to organize the county’s system to provide coordinated planning and service delivery when there was a need. It began with 10 cities–including Glendale–grew to 25 cities.

The year 2000 saw heightened community tensions after a stabbing incident involving 12th grade Hoover Hight School student. The Human Relations Coalition, initially with 40 members, dwindled to 12 by 2004, leading to its disbandment.

In 2008, the City Council considered re-establishing human relations efforts, opting for facilitated community discussions over a formal Coalition after a roundtable discussion hosted by the Mayor. See Exhibit 2 for Glendale News Press articles titled, “Council aims to nix tensions” dated July 5, 2008 and “Drayman changes course on relations” dated November 1, 2008.

Exhibit 3 is a timeline of the past 60 years related to Glendale human relations efforts. 37 of 195

3 Part II: Surrounding Agencies Research
Staff has researched, contacted, and reviewed information from the County of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, City of Burbank, City of Pasadena, and U.S. Department of Justice to have a better understanding of the various Coalition structures and programs.

The following is a summary of each agency’s Human Relations effort:

County of Los Angeles Human Relations Commission
Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission has been in existence for 75 years.

Each County Supervisor appoints three Commissioners who serve multi-year terms. The 15-member Commission meets monthly. A designated team in the County’s Department of Workforce Development, Ageing, and Community Services executes the Commission’s work. One of the Commission’s signature projects is the annual Hate Crime Report. The 2022 report will be made public later this month.

The Los Angeles County Human Relations Commission is dedicated to promoting positive human relations in a diverse, multicultural county. The Commission works to develop programs that proactively address racism, homophobia, religious prejudice, linguistic bias, anti-immigrant sentiment, and other divisive attitudes that can lead to intercultural tension, hate crimes, and related violence. Partnering with law enforcement, schools, cities, community-based organizations, youth, academics, policy makers, businesses, and other leaders, the Commission brings key players together to resolve immediate intercultural conflicts and to work toward the longer term aim of eradicating bias and prejudice.

The Commission has a three-year strategic plan with specific goals such as:

1. Responding to emerging human relations issues and cultural shifts.

2. Increasing equity and justice in LA County’s criminal justice system.

3. Documenting, preventing, and responding to hate.

4. Engaging internal and external stakeholders with a comprehensive communications strategy.

5. Build capacity of La County agencies, cities, and organizations to advance equity and promote positive human relations.

LA vs. Hate Initiative
In 2018, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors created the anti-hate campaign that has become the LA vs. Hate program, which is under the Los Angeles County Commission on Human Relations. The LA vs. Hate program is a collaboration among County and community organizations to support residents of the County with a focus on developing programming and a system to reduce and prevent hate crimes and incidents, including bullying, harassment, and verbal abuse. By tracking and reporting hate incidents, this program ensures that resources are allocated effectively and that those targeted by hate receive the support they need. Anyone can report an act of hate and receive free and confidential support by calling 2-1-1, or by filing a report online at www.LAvsHate.org. The program:
38 of 195

4 - Promotes positive messaging on the importance of building inclusion and respect for all County residents and the need to report hate.
- Created and manages a reporting infrastructure through 211LA for reporting hate acts.
- Supports persons targeted by hate with case management services and resources. - Targets community responses based on where and with whom hate acts are being reported geographically and by social sector.

Exhibit 4 summarizes ways local governments can get involved in the LA vs. Hate initiative:

City of Los Angeles Human Relations Commission
The City of Los Angeles Human Relations Commission is a mayor-appointed advisory board, promoting intergroup peacebuilding, equity, and human rights in the City of Los Angeles. It was established in 1966 following the Watts Civil Unrest and created a pathway for communication of local community concerns to be expressed to city leadership. The Commission meets on a monthly basis and consists of eight members including a president and vice president and is overseen by an Executive Director.

The commission was brought under the organizational structure of the recently formed Civil + Human Rights Equity Department (LA City Rights) focused on reducing bias and injustice. The department’s work is focused on equity and empowerment, racial equity, hate prevention, upward mobility programming and youth programming. The Commission sees itself as a bridge between the community and the City when dealing with conflict.

Some of their programs include:
- LA Civil Rights Civil Rights Enforcement: Investigates discrimination in the private sector areas of commerce, education, employment and housing and issues penalties to violators.
- LA Civil Rights LA For All Campaign: Citywide anti-hate campaign Public Service Announcement and programming.
- LA Civil Rights L.A. REPAIR Participatory Budgeting
- LA Civil Rights Peace & Healing Centers
Exhibit 5 includes a summary of the Department’s programs and initiatives.

City of Burbank Human Relations Council
The Burbank Human Relations Council (BHRC) was founded in 1958 as a community- based organization seeking to eliminate barriers that separate people from each other and build bridges of understanding. BHRC is not funded by the City of Burbank and is an all-volunteer, fully independent non-profit with 60 members. The membership fee is $20 per year.
39 of 195

5 BHRC partners with the LA County Human Relations Commission, Burbank Police Department and Family Service Agency of Burbank to track hate crimes and incidents and offers assistance to victims. BHRC also works with Burbank Unified School District and the City of Burbank and the community to investigate and moderate intergroup conflict.

BHRC’s goals are: 1) To create an attitude and environment that is open and accepting of every person without regard to race, religion, ethnicity, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or age, 2) To promote understanding and cooperation among diverse groups that compose the community, and 3) To study and seek ways to moderate or eliminate intergroup tension.

City of Pasadena Human Relations Commission
The City of Pasadena Human Relations Commission’s purpose is to aid the City in achieving better human relations in City government, and to provide assistance to private persons and groups in promoting good will and better relations among all people. The Commission consists of 9 members which are nominated by 7 council members and the Mayor. The remaining one at-large member can be appointed by any council member or the Mayor. Commission terms are for three years, limited to two consecutive terms and all nominations are subject to ratification by the full City Council.

Commission objectives are to advise and engage City Council, inform and engage the public, collaborate with private persons and groups and improve effectiveness of the Human Relations Commission. The Commission meets once a month and has a staff representative and a recording secretary to assist with the commission meetings.

One of the Commission’s initiatives is the “Pasadena United Against Hate” campaign that takes place each November. This campaign resulted from Pasadena’s collaboration with LA vs. Hate. It is intended to be a community-driven approach to empower people to unite against, report, and resist hate.

Department of Justice, Community Relations Service (CRS) Established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and expanded in 2009 by the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the Department of Justice's Community Relations Service (CRS) acts as "America’s Peacemaker" for communities facing tension based on differences. CRS services aim to empower local communities to independently prevent and resolve conflicts through problem solving, increased knowledge, and improved communication.

CRS offers facilitation, mediation, training, and consultation services to enhance community problem-solving abilities, build capacity to address conflict, tension, and hate crimes. Programs strengthen community-law enforcement partnerships and improve conflict resolution among student leaders. CRS aims to foster understanding, share resources and best practices, and support communities in implementing solutions. The programs offered by CRS are included in Exhibit 6.

A summary table listing the different organizational structures of the surrounding agencies is shown in Exhibit 7.
40 of 195

6 Part III: Options for Glendale
Council may consider one of the following six options:

A. Launch a public outreach campaign aimed at bringing the community together without forming a Coalition or commission.

B. Create an all-volunteer based Coalition comprised of community members with no city staff/liaison (similar to Burbank)
C. Create a formal Coalition with a specified scope and a designated timeframe (similar to the Blue Ribbon Pension Review Coalition)
D. Create a formal Commission/Coalition with members appointed by the City Council and subject to the Brown Act with a dedicated City staff (similar to the City’s existing Boards/Commissions)
E. Same as option D with additional seats available for community stakeholders such as the Glendale Unified School District, Glendale Community College, nonprofit and social service agencies.

F.Add Human Relations scope to an existing City Board/Commission. Options include the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission or the Commission on the Status of Women.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Staff contacted the following agencies for information: County of Los Angeles, City of Los Angeles, City of Burbank, City of Pasadena, Department of Justice and the YMCA of Glendale, given their specific interest in this topic.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no cost associated with this report. If Council desires to launch a campaign or form a Coalition or commission with dedicated staff support, then fiscal impacts will be realized and will be presented to Council at that time.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
N/A

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Note and file this report.

Alternative 2: Direct staff to conduct additional research and/or outreach.

Alternative 3: Direct staff on the preferred option as listed above in the “Part III, Options for Glendale” Section.

Alternative 4: Council may choose another alternative not proposed by staff. 41 of 195

7 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Armineh Hoonanian, Principal Administrative Officer
Elena Bolbolian, Chief Innovation Officer
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
•Exhibit 1: History of Glendale’s Human Relations Efforts •Exhibit 2: Glendale News Press articles, “Council aims to nix tensions” - 7/5/2008 and “Drayman changes course on relations” - 11/1/2008
•Exhibit 3: Timeline of Glendale Human Relations Efforts, 1963 to 2023 •Exhibit 4: LA vs. Hate – Opportunities for Local Government to Get Involved •Exhibit 5: City of Los Angeles Civil + Human Rights and Equity Department Programs •Exhibit 6: US Department of Justice – Community Relations Service Programs •Exhibit 7: Human Relations Efforts of Surrounding Agencies Summary Table 42 of 195

9 3
9 1
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _________________________________, seconded by Council Member _____________________________, that the City Council hereby note and file the December 5, 2023 report from the City Manager’s Office and Chief Innovation Officer regarding Council direction on the Formation of a Human Relations Coalition.

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk
43 of 195

9 3
9 1
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _________________________________, seconded by Council Member _____________________________, that the City Council hereby provides the following direction to staff as it pertains to the formation of a Human Relations Coalition as described in the December 5, 2023 staff report from the City Manager: _______________________________________________.

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk
44 of 195

45 of 195

46 of 195

47 of 195

48 of 195

49 of 195

50 of 195

51 of 195

52 of 195

53 of 195

54 of 195

55 of 195

56 of 195

Exhibit 3

Glendale Human Relations Efforts

Timeline

1963 to 2023

- 1963: GHRC is established in response to President John F. Kennedy's call for community organizations promoting racial harmony.

- Early 1970s: GHRC expands efforts, sponsors anti-drug programs, and assists families displaced by the Pacific Park expansion.

- Mid-1970s: Significant demographic changes in Glendale. GHRC plays a pivotal role in the Glendale Unified School District's bilingual-multicultural education plan, which continues to exist.

- 1980-1986: GHRC's involvement wanes.

- 1986: GHRC revives in response to a well-publicized incident of harassment.

- 1987: The City forms a Human Relations Committee (HRC) within the Police Department, addressing discrimination and harassment.

- 1994: Former Mayor Eileen Givens establishes the Human Relations Coalition to address hate crimes and racial tensions. The Human Relations Mutual Assistance Consortium (HRMAC) is formed as part of the LA County Human Relations Commission, involving Glendale among 25 cities.

- 2000: Community tensions rise after a stabbing incident involving Hoover High School student Raul Aguirre.

- 2004: The Human Relations Coalition, initially with 40 members, dwindles to 12, leading to its disbandment.

- 2008: The City Council considers re-establishing human relations efforts, opting for facilitated community discussions over a formal committee after a roundtable discussion hosted by the Mayor.

- 2023: City Council requests a report on Human Relations Committee.

57 of 195

58 of 195

59 of 195

60 of 195

61 of 195

62 of 195

63 of 195

64 of 195

65 of 195

66 of 195

67 of 195

68 of 195

69 of 195

70 of 195

71 of 195

72 of 195

73 of 195

74 of 195

75 of 195

76 of 195

77 of 195

78 of 195

79 of 195

80 of 195

Exhibit 7
City of Burbank City of Pasadena City of Los Angeles County of Los Angeles
Number of
Commissioners 60 9 8 15
Term None 2 Three Year Terms Multi-Year Terms Multi-Year Terms Appoimtment
Process
Non-Profit
Volunteer
Organization ( $20
annual fee to
become a member)
Mayor and council
appoint one
commissioner. The
remaining seat is at
large and can be
appointed by any
council member or
the Mayor.

Mayor appointed County Supervisor
appointed
Meeting
Frequency Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly
Staff None
2 staff members
(Deputy Director
and Secretary)
Executive Director
and team
County Department
Staff
Human Relations Efforts of Surrounding Agencies
81 of 195

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Discussion of Potential Ballot Measures Amending City Charter

1. Resolution of the Council Authorizing Placing on the Ballot Questions of Amending the Charter of the City of Glendale to Allow for Alternate Locations for Council Meetings, for the Council to Prescribe the Standards and Procedures for Awarding City Contracts, for Certain Urgency Ordinances for the Immediate Preservation of Public Health, Safety or Welfare to Be Introduced and Adopted at the Same Meeting, and to Make Other Miscellaneous Changes to the Charter; Directing City Attorney to Prepare Impartial Analysis

2. Motion Directing Staff Regarding Potential Charter Amendments

3. Resolution Calling for Arguments for and Against the Ballot Measures

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action
Approved for December 5, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 7, 2023, the Council directed staff to prepare the necessary resolutions to place measures on the March 2024 general municipal election ballot that would amend the Charter to address the location of Council meetings, the City’s contract procurement process, adoption of urgency ordinances and other miscellaneous cleanups. Proposed resolutions have been prepared for Council to place these measures on the ballot. The Council also directed staff at the November 7, 2023 meeting to attempt to satisfy the legal and procedural requirements to place a measure on the ballot that would amend the Charter pertaining to the civil service system. However, since the City’s employee associations have, as expected, requested to meet and confer on the proposed measure, the City cannot place the measure on the ballot for March 2024. It can be considered for the November 2024 election, as appropriate. 82 of 195

28c
4 7
5 2

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council consider adoption of (i) a resolution placing measures on the ballot that would amend the City Charter to address the City’s procurement process, location of Council meetings, the introduction and adoption of urgency ordinances at the same meeting, and other miscellaneous changes to the City Charter and (ii) a resolution calling for arguments for and against the ballot measures.

ANALYSIS
Since May 2023, the Council has been considering a process to transition from its at- large election system to a by-district election system, including a directly elected mayor and an expanded Council. Because the directly elected mayor position and expanded Council would require amendments to the City Charter, the Council considered other possible amendments to the Charter at the same time. While the Council has decided not to move forward with the district transition charter amendments for consideration for the March 2024 election, it directed staff on November 7, 2023 to prepare the necessary resolutions to place other amendments to the Charter on the March 2024 ballot.

Potential Charter Amendments
The proposed amendments are set forth in the proposed resolution and are summarized below.

Location of Council meetings.

The Charter currently requires Council meetings to take place in Council chambers unless there is an emergency and it is unsafe to meet in chambers. There is another exception that allows meetings off-site to take testimony but any formal action of the Council must take place in the chambers. Staff proposes a revision that would allow Council to meet in chambers or any other place prescribed by ordinance or resolution, or if the Council is compelled to meet elsewhere due by reason of emergency or “temporary unavailability of the regular meeting place.” (Article VI, Section 2)
Contracts
Staff is proposing a revision to Article VI, Section 9 that would allow the Council to adopt the standards and procedures for awarding contracts in light of best practices in contracting procurement and provide more flexibility to utilize contract delivery systems that are alternative to traditional design-bid-build, lowest-responsible-bid contracts, such as design-build and construction manager at risk methodologies. In that regard, the existing provision would be amended to provide: “The council shall by ordinance establish standards, procedures, rules or regulations relating to all aspects of the award and performance of contracts, including contracts for the construction of public improvements, including, but not limited to, compensation paid for performance of such work.”
83 of 195

38c
4 7
5 2
Urgency Ordinances.

The Charter requires ordinances to be introduced at one meeting and adopted at a subsequent meeting in which at least five days have elapsed. The Charter provides an exception where in the cases of an “extraordinary epidemic of disaster” the Council may introduce and adopt an emergency ordinance at the same meeting. Staff is proposing another exception for “urgency” ordinances where there is “a current and immediate threat to the public peace, health, safety or welfare.” The most common urgency ordinance is a moratorium which most cities adopt on the same night as it is introduced, and which is permitted by state law. Creating this additional exception would permit the Council to enact these moratoria at one and the same meeting for the immediate preservation of public peace, health, safety or welfare.

Other Miscellaneous Changes
•Obsolete References. The Charter calls for the establishment of a Maintenance Services Administrator and the Building Official to be officers of the City and to be established in the Department of Public Works. The Maintenance Services Administrator is not a job classification in the City any longer and the Building Official is not a part of the Public Works Department, instead housed in the Community Development Department. Staff proposes removing these obsolete references. (Article IV, Section 1 and Article XXI, Sections 1, 3 and 4). •Councilmembers Holding Other Offices During or Within two Years After Council Service. The Charter prohibits members of council from being employed by the City or from holding any other office while on Council or for two years after stepping off of Council. Staff proposes a change in language to confirm that the prohibition on serving in office or employment for two years after stepping off Council applies to appointed offices or employment only, and not to an office that is an elected position, such as Council, Clerk or Treasurer, regardless of whether an individual is elected or appointed (in the case of a vacancy) to such a position. This issue has been the subject of disputes (and even litigated) in the past and this confirmation is declaratory of the position the City has historically taken and that was upheld by the Attorney General and the courts. (Article VI, Section 12).

Future Consideration of Amendments to Charter Language on Civil Service System At the November 7, 2023 Council meeting the Council also directed staff to attempt to meet the procedural and legal requirements to place a measure on the ballot that would revise the Charter’s language pertaining the Civil Service System. The City Charter establishes and, along with Civil Service Rules and Regulations (“Rules”), governs the City’s civil service system, which is overseen by the Civil Service Commission (“Commission”). The Council has inquired about updating the civil service system to provide more flexibility in the available methods for recruitment, hiring and promotions, among other potential revisions to the civil service system. Currently, the Charter provides that the Rules can be revised if approved by both the Council and the Commission. However, some requirements of the civil service system are also 84 of 195

48c
4 7
5 2
requirements imposed by the City Charter, meaning those requirements cannot be amended except by also amending the Charter, which requires approval by the voters.

Generally, amendments to Charter provisions and Rules governing hiring and promotional procedures and other civil service requirements are deemed to affect terms and conditions of employment subject to bargaining (“meet and confer”) under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, Government Code sec. 3500 et. seq. As such, prior to submitting any charter amendments affecting the civil service system to the voters, the City will need to engage in the meet and confer process with the employee associations.

One suggestion that has been made is to propose a change to the Charter that would replace the existing extensive Charter provisions with a provision that provides that the Civil Service System will be governed by Council ordinance and that the existing Rules would remain in place until the City has followed the legal procedures to adopt an ordinance including the meet and confer process. For example, Burbank’s City Charter simply provides: “The Council shall provide for the establishment of a Civil Service System in the City of Burbank based on merit and suitability.” Nevertheless, revising the Charter in the manner described above also requires bargaining, which requires the City to negotiate in good faith with all of the recognized bargaining units and utilize state-mandated impasse procedures if the parties cannot agree on a proposal to submit to the voters. As directed on November 7, 2023, staff contacted each bargaining unit regarding this proposed change and all have requested to meet and confer on a proposed ballot measure. Staff has commenced the meet and confer process with each association. Because the process is only beginning, this item cannot be placed on the ballot for March 2024. Staff recommends incorporating this discussion into any discussion involving Charter amendments for the November 2024 ballot.

Next Steps
If the Council adopts a resolution calling for the placement of Charter amendment on the ballot, a resolution calling for arguments for and against the proposed charter amendment, must also be adopted.

The following procedures must be followed:

City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis: Elections Code §9280 provides that whenever city measures are placed on the ballot, the City Attorney, upon direction of the City Council must prepare an impartial analysis of the measures showing the effect of each measure on existing law and how each measure will operate.

Call for Arguments For or Against Proposed Charter Amendments: Pursuant to Section

1.08.060 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, (“GMC”), arguments for and against the proposed Charter amendments must be submitted by specific dates. The GMC requires 85 of 195

58c
4 7
5 2
the Council give preference for writing arguments in the following order:

1. Officers of the City elected by the people.

2. Appointive officers of the City.

3. Bona fide associations of citizens.

4. Individual voters.

Should a majority of the Council choose to write the arguments in favor of the proposed ballot measures, the City Attorney is prepared to draft such arguments or, in the alternative, the Council may write its own arguments. Any dissenting Councilmember may write an argument against the proposed ballot measure pursuant to the above specified order of preference.

Other Pertinent Elections Dates:

A person must request to write arguments at least 85 days prior to election. (December 11, 2023)
The City Council must appoint a person or persons to write arguments at least 75 days prior to election. (December 19, 2023)
Arguments must be submitted to the City Clerk at least 65 days prior to election. (December 29, 2023)
A 10 day review period of arguments prior to submitting materials for printing.

A sample ballot must be mailed to residents at least 21 days prior to the election.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
N/A.

FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated cost of placing these matters on the ballot is $42,127.41. The City Clerk’s budget can absorb this cost.

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. 86 of 195

68c
4 7
5 2

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. The Council can adopt the proposed resolution placing these charter amendments on the ballot and the resolution calling for ballot arguments for and against the measures.

2. The Council can modify and adopt the proposed resolution placing these charter amendments on the ballot and adopt the resolution calling for ballot arguments for and against the measures

3. The Council can choose not to place the charter amendments on the ballot and provide alternative direction.

3. The Council can choose an alternative not identified to staff

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Prepared by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Click or tap here to enter text.
87 of 195

RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA,

AUTHORIZING PLACING ON THE BALLOT THE QUESTIONS OF AMENDING THE

CHARTER OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE TO ALLOW FOR AN ALTERNATE LOCATION

FOR COUNCIL MEETINGS, FOR THE COUNCIL TO PRESCRIBE THE STANDARDS AND

PROCEDURES FOR AWARDING CITY CONTRACTS, FOR CERTAIN URGENCY

ORDINANCES TO BE INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED AT THE SAME MEETING AND TO

MAKE OTHER MISCELLENEOUS CHANGES TO THE CHARTER
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, that it does hereby authorize placing on the ballot for submission to the City electorate the following charter amendments, the full text of such amendments set forth herein:

YESCHARTER AMENDMENT NO. __ Shall City Charter be amended to allow for the location of council meetings to be held in the City Hall council chamber or as established by ordinance or resolution, unless impossible to do so because of unavailability of the location by reason of fire, flood, earthquake reconstruction, or other emergency or the temporary unavailability of the regular meeting place?
NO
Article VI, Sec. 2
Sec. 2. Council meetings.

The council shall hold regular meetings at such times as it shall fix by ordinance or resolution. If a regular meeting falls on a holiday such meeting shall be held on the next business day.

Special council meetings may be called at any time by the mayor, or by three (3) members of the council, acting in accordance with State law.

Any regular, adjourned regular, special, or adjourned special meeting may be adjourned to a time and place specified in the order of adjournment. Any adjourned regular meeting is a regular meeting for all purposes.

All council meetings shall be held in the council chamber of the City Hall, or other place prescribed by ordinance or resolution unless the Council is compelled to meet elsewhere in a place to which any meeting may be adjourned for the purpose of taking evidence or holding hearings. Final deliberation and actual voting by the council shall take place in the City Hall council chamber. Provided, however, if by reason of fire, flood, earthquake reconstruction, or other emergency or the temporary unavailability of the regular meeting place. it shall be unsafe to meet in the council chamber, the meetings shall be held for the duration of the reconstruction or emergency at a place designated by the mayor or by three (3) members of the council. 88 of 195

YESCHARTER AMENDMENT NO. __ Shall City Charter be amended to allow in cases of a current and immediate threat to the public peace, health, safety or welfare, an emergency or urgency ordinance to be introduced and passed, at a regular or special meeting, without the intervention of time between introduction and final passage? NO
Article VI, Sec. 6
Sec. 6. Ordinances generally.

The enacting clause of every ordinance passed by the council shall be: “Be it ordained by the council of the City of Glendale.” The enacting clause of every ordinance initiated by the people shall be: “Be it ordained by the people of the City of Glendale.” At least five (5) days must elapse between the introduction and the final passage of any ordinance; provided, that amendment germane to the subject of any proposed ordinance may be made when it is brought up for final passage; and provided further, that in case of an extraordinary epidemic or any disaster, such as flood, fire or earthquake, requiring immediate action on the part of any public authorities, or in the case of a current and immediate threat to the public peace, health, safety or welfare, an emergency or urgency ordinance may be introduced and passed at either a regular or special meeting without any intervention of time between introduction and final passage.

Other than as set forth in the preceding sentence, Aa final vote on any ordinance or any vote on any appropriation must be taken only at a regular or adjourned regular meeting. Every ordinance must be signed by the mayor and attested by the clerk. Notice thereof shall be published once in a newspaper of general circulation. Any ordinance granting any franchise or privilege shall be published at the expense of the applicant therefor.

In the publication of every ordinance the advertisement shall contain a statement of the title, number and date of the ordinance, a brief statement of the nature of the ordinance, and a reference to a copy of the ordinance which shall be on file and available for public inspection at all reasonable times in the office of the city clerk.

YESCHARTER AMENDMENT NO. __ Shall City Charter be amended to allow the council to establish by ordinance the standards, procedures, rules or regulations relating to all aspects of the award and performance of contracts, including contracts for the construction of public improvements, such as compensation paid for performance of such work? NO
Article VI, Sec. 9
Sec 9. Contracts requiring competitive bids.

The council shall by ordinance establish standards, procedures, rules or regulations relating to all aspects of the award and performance of contracts, including contracts for the construction of public improvements, including, but not limited to, compensation paid for performance of such work. The council shall provide by ordinance a complete procedure to ensure the integrity of awarding all contracts. Except as otherwise 89 of 195

required in this Charter, no contract for supplies, material, labor, or other valuable consideration, or for the construction, improvement, repair, or maintenance of public works shall be authorized by the council except to the lowest responsible bidder after competitive bidding. The council may reject any and all bids. Competitive bidding shall not be required for:
(a) Labor or services rendered by any city officer or employee; (b) Labor, material, supplies, or services furnished by one (1) city department to another city department;
(c) Contracts for labor, material, supplies or services which are available from only one vendor;
(d) Contracts for labor, material, supplies or services or for the construction, improvement, repair, or maintenance of public works involving the expenditure of an amount not exceeding the limit established by ordinance of the city council; (e) Contracts relating to the acquisition of real property; (f) Contracts for professional or unique services;
(g) Contracts for labor, material, supplies and services for actual emergency work;
(h) Contracts with other governmental entities, or their contractors, for labor, materials, supplies or services.

The council, after rejecting bids, or if no bids are received, may readvertise for bids, or may have the work done by city forces if it determines that city forces can economically do the work, or it may have the contract negotiated without further bidding.

Upon recommendation of the city manager, the council may dispense with competitive bidding for any contract when it determines that it is in the best interests of the city so to do and acts by resolution setting forth the reason for such action.

YESCHARTER AMENDMENT NO. __ Shall City Charter be updated to remove the obsolete title of maintenance services administrator and remove the reference to the duties and functions of the building official from the public works department? NO
Article IV. Officers and Employees Generally.

Sec. 1. Generally.

The officers of the City of Glendale shall be five (5) members of the council, a city assessor, a city tax collector, a city manager, a director of administrative services, a city clerk, a city 90 of 195

treasurer, a city attorney, a director of public works, a city engineer, a maintenance services administrator, a building official, a chief of police and a fire chief. The council may also provide by ordinance for additional offices and for the duties thereof, and for additional duties of offices herein provided for, but in no such manner as to encroach upon the duties of any officer as provided for by this Charter. The council may also provide by ordinance for such subordinate officers, assistants, deputies, clerks, and employees in the several offices and departments as they deem necessary. The members of the council, the city treasurer and the city clerk shall be elected from the city at large, as provided in this Charter. All other officers, assistants, deputies, clerks and employees shall be appointed as provided in this Charter, or as the council may provide by ordinance in case no provision for their appointment is herein made, and shall hold their respective offices or positions at the pleasure of the appointing power. Where the appointment of any of said officers, assistants, deputies, clerks or employees is vested in the council or any commission, such appointment and any removal must be made by a three-fifths (3/5) vote of the members of the appointing power. (1921; 1947; 1953; 1957.) (Res. No. 04-238 § 1, 2004; Res. No. 18-10 § 1, 2018)
Article XXI. Public Works Department.

Sec. 1. Generally.

The public works department shall have charge of general engineering, traffic engineering, flood control, street and sewer construction and maintenance, assessments, building inspection, inspection and care of public buildings, collection and disposal of refuse, and installation, maintenance and removal of parkway trees and parkways.

Sec. 3. Duties of maintenance services administrator.

The maintenance services administrator shall have the general care and supervision of streets and of the maintenance and repair thereof and the care of and custody of tools and implements belonging to the City of Glendale and used for street construction and repair.

Sec. 4. Building official.

The building official shall have charge of the issuing of building permits and shall see that no permit is issued unless the building plans show conformity to all state laws and all ordinances of the city applicable thereto. He shall see that the laws and ordinances regulating the construction of buildings are enforced. He shall perform all duties that are imposed by existing ordinances of the city on the building inspector, the plumbing inspector and the inspector of electric wiring. (Res. No. 04- 238 § 1, 2004)
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Attorney is hereby directed to prepare an impartial analysis of the measure showing the effect of the measure on existing law and how the measure will operate; and
91 of 195

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby directed to take such steps as may deemed necessary to place the matter on the ballot for the General Municipal Election to be held on March 5, 2024.

Adopted this _____ day of __________, 2023.

________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
________________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Dr. Suzie Abajian, City 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 the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:
________________________________
City Clerk
92 of 195

C:\INETPUB\WWWROOT\MULTITENANT\TEMP\CC_12052023_MOTION_8C2.PDF MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the Council direct staff to take the following action regarding City Charter amendments: _________________________ _____________________________________________________________________.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

93 of 195

RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA,

CALLING FOR ARGUMENTS FOR OR AGAINST

PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS FOR THE BALLOT
FOR THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION ON TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 2024 WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XI of the California Constitution, Title 4, Division 2, Chapter 2 of the Government Code and Division 9, Chapter 3, Article 3 (commencing at §9255) of the Elections Code of the State of California, the City Council of the City of Glendale desires to submit to the voters certain proposed charter amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council is authorized and directed by statute to submit the proposed charter amendments to the voters; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1.08.060A of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, persons or associations desiring to write arguments for or against the adoption of any measure or proposition shall write a written request with the City Clerk.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,
Section 1: That the City Council hereby calls to persons or associations desiring to write arguments for or against the adoption of the proposed Charter Amendment for the General Municipal Election on March 5, 2024. Written requests to write arguments shall be submitted to the City Clerk no later than December 11, 2023, appointments shall be made on December 19, 2023, and arguments shall be due by no later than December 29, 2023. Such arguments shall not exceed 300 words.

Section 2: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution.

Adopted this day of , 2023. ___________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Dr. Suzie Abajian, City 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 the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:
___________________________
City Clerk
94 of 195

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Dog Park Feasibility Study

1. Motion approving the draft Dog Park Feasibility Study report.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for December 5, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
RJM Design Group has completed the evaluation of the feasibility of developing a dog park at three additional, potential locations, which include:
•North Glendale, Brand Park - South of the Tea House
•South Glendale, Palmer Park - Community Garden
•South Glendale, Glendale Community College - Garfield Campus The Dog Park Feasibility Report consists of five elements; 1) Dog Park Minimum Qualifications based on size, accessibility, availability of utilities, parking, and transportation, 2) Existing Conditions, 3) Community Outreach campaign that included an online community survey, in-person workshops, an open-ended online feedback survey, numerous public announcements, 4) Site Assessment for suitability of a new dog park based on the minimum qualifying elements as well as the community’s input, and 5) Recommendation that due to the constraints of the three sites, no one site will be suitable to serve the overall demand of the community.

At their September 18, 2023, the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission, approved the feasibility study, and recommended that the City Council move forward with developing either Lot 11 or the Glendale Community College –Garfield Campus site as a dog park, and opposed the development of a dog park at Brand Park and Palmer Park.
95 of 195

28d
4 6
3 4

RECOMMENDATION
That that the City Council adopt a motion approving the draft Dog Park Feasibility Study report and approving a location(s) for a new dog park(s) and direct staff to request proposals from consultants to prepare design alternatives and cost estimates for the approved dog park location(s).

BACKGROUND
On May 13, 2021, City Council asked Community Services & Parks (CSP) staff to explore the possibility of providing a dog park in one of the existing City parks or city owned open space areas.

On October 26, 2021, staff presented three city-owned properties as potential sites for a future dog park, namely Pelanconi Park, Brand Park and City Parking Lot 11. Upon reviewing the report, City Council removed Brand Park from the list for consideration and asked staff to conduct a community outreach for feedback on the following three sites for the development of a new dog park: Pelanconi Park, City Parking Lot 11, or Glendale Community College – South Campus (GCC), a temporary option that could be used until the college constructs a parking garage on the site.

On January 19, 2022, CSP staff held a virtual community outreach meeting, attended by thirty-two community members. Attendees were invited to offer their comments and concerns about each of the three alternative locations and dog parks in general. The vast majority of the comments were positive, expressing enthusiasm and support for a new dog park. Attendee feedback on location options preferred City Parking Lot 11 (25 votes), then Pelanconi Park (3 votes), and GCC Garfield Campus (0 votes).

On February 28, 2022, PRCS Commission provided staff direction to return to Council to ask for approval of a location for a new dog park development, with the recommendation for City’s Parking Lot 11 site, as well as funding to engage the services of a consultant to prepare design alternatives and cost estimates for subsequent Commission and Council consideration at the preferred new dog park location.

On April 5, 2022, City Council approved City Parking Lot 11 as the location for a dog park and directed staff to engage the services of a design consultant to prepare design alternative and cost estimates.

On October 25, 2022, City Council asked staff to provide a report to utilize small unused portions of Palmer Park community garden and Brand Park to be used as dog parks.

GCC - Garfield campus was also viewed as a potential dog park site since the College had expressed interest in developing a park on their site in partnership with the City.

On December 21, 2022, a Request for Proposal (RFP) was released inviting consulting firms to submit a proposal to provide landscape architectural professional services for the preparation of design and construction documents for a dog park at Parking Lot 11 and a 96 of 195

38d
4 6
3 4
Feasibility Study of a Dog Park at the other three locations. A total of four proposals were received by the submission date.

On March 7, 2023, Council approved the hiring of a consultant, RJM Design Group, to evaluate the feasibility of developing a dog park at three additional potential locations and to held off on approving a contract to design Parking Lot 11 until the Dog Park Feasibility Study is completed. In May 2023, staff kicked off the Dog Park Feasibility Study.

On September 18, 2023, the draft Dog Park Feasibility Study was presented to PRCS Commission, with a recommendation to approve the Dog Park Feasibility Study and make recommendations on their preferred dog park locations based on the study and previous motions. The PRCS commission motioned to 1) approve the feasibility study, and 2) recommend that City Council moves forward with developing Lot 11 as a dog park and the GCC–Garfield Campus site as a dog park and opposing the development of a dog park at Brand Park and Palmer Park.

ANALYSIS_____________________________________________________________ Dog parks are a unique recreation opportunity that serve community members and their pets, at times capitalizing on underutilized parkland and open space. Currently, the City of Glendale has limited available open space for the development of a new recreation site. Therefore, without significant land acquisition, the City will have to explore the viability of whether an existing park site can be developed for the inclusion of a dog park and/or pursue development through a Joint Use Agreement.

Dog Park Design Elements
The purpose of a dog park is to provide open space for dogs to exercise and play while off leash in a controlled environment under the supervision of their owners. While these parks are focused on accommodating dog play and interaction, it is equally important to develop comfortable and inviting areas for dog owners to gather and socialize.

For a site to be selected for a dog park, the design must first fit within the immediate surroundings of the community and ensure the safety and enjoyment of their users.

Qualifying elements for a dog park include:
•Size: Dog parks should be large enough to house separately fenced dog areas for first-timers, small dogs, and large dogs. Separation of user-types promotes safe socialized play while minimizing potential for aggressive behavior and confrontations between pets. The general consensus is that a dog park should be at least one acre in size, but local dog parks range in size. •Site Infrastructure and Utilities: According to RJM, dog parks should have at least twelve to fifteen parking stalls per acre (including ADA parking). This is on- site parking (non-street) which serves the community that live outside of the 1/2- mile service area radius who may be driving to the site, rather than walking from their home. Dog parks should have access to utility infrastructure to support functional amenities like restrooms, drinking fountains, bottle filling stations, and 97 of 195

48d
4 6
3 4
security lighting. Utilities to support critical environmental issues such as odor control, water quality, and hydrological management.
•Site Support Elements: Several site support elements should be present in the park site or included in the design to promote the overall success and functionality of the space. Dog parks should be fenced, at least six-feet high, from the rest of the park with neighborhood access and site circulation. A double gated entry/ exit vestibule leading to the separately fenced dog type areas can provide a transition zone used for staging and events. Seating and shade throughout the park can offer opportunities for socialization and respite, while dog waste stations, trash and recycling receptacles may assuage potential maintenance concerns. Security lighting and signage should also be of consideration. There are several surfacing options as well, including grass, engineered wood fiber mulch, gravel, artificial turf, and decomposed granite, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. •Location: When developing new dog parks, it is important to maximize the availability of such facilities by filling in service gaps. Dog parks are often referred to as regional destinations, and as our community engagement reflects, are most often used when located within a 2-mile distance from a community member’s home. All three proposed dog park locations being evaluated as part of this study fall just outside of an existing service area and would help expand the availability of dog parks to residents.
oActive Dog Licenses as of July 2023 showed a total of 5,089 and reflect that the majority of registered dogs are located in north and east Glendale.

Note that much of north Glendale is within a 2-mile distance from Crescenta Valley Dog Park.

Opportunities and Constraints of Each Potential Dog Park Site North Glendale, Brand Park – South of the Tea House
•Opportunities:
oApproximately 0.9 acres or 39,205 square feet of available open space. oExisting on-site parking lot with entry and exit points. oDirect pedestrian access from neighborhood.
oExisting restroom building.
oFenced property between residential and park area.
•Constraints:
oParking lot adjacent to site and will require crossing an interior park road. oHigh potential for noise disturbance to surrounding houses, and tea garden without any available noise buffer.
oLoss of the open turf amenity where the dog park would be located. oParking on-site is completely built-out, and often fully utilized by park users. •Mitigation:
oIncrease project area to increase suitability for a dog park. oDevelop visual barriers and noise buffers from adjacent uses. oAdding shade structures and/or shade canopy trees.
•Overall Rating:
oGiven the size of the opportunity site (less than 1 acre) and limitation of no 98 of 195

58d
4 6
3 4
new parking; formally adding an additional highly demanded recreational amenity in the park, increase in traffic and park visitation, the Brand site is less than suitable for the development of a new dog park. A dog park can be designed to fit within the limitations of the site; however, it alone will not be suitable enough to meet the potential demand of the community.

South Glendale, Palmer Park
•Opportunities:
oExisting lockable fencing.
oOn-site available parking lot.
oDirect pedestrian access from neighborhood.
oRestroom building with shelter/community space.
oExisting utility availability.
•Constraints:
oVery small site approximately 0.1 acres or 4,356 square feet of occupied park space.
oVariety of existing active recreation amenities and features (playground, full and half-court basketball, skate park, multi-purpose fields, exercise stations) proximity to passive recreation elements. If the existing parking is to be utilized, there is a significant impact to the park interface with a patron getting to the dog park as it would be far away from the available parking. oInclusion of a dog park could cause displacement of community gardens.

Furthermore, the dog park could be a conflicting adjacent use to a community garden since food grown for human consumption could be contaminated by animal waste, increasing the risk of foodborne illnesses. oControlled access will need to be modified for new dog park amenity. oHigh potential for noise disturbance to surrounding houses, and very little space to develop adequate noise buffers.
oSignificant underground and overhead utilities in the area. •Mitigation:
oIncrease project area, which would require removal of existing amenities, (for example relocating the community garden and garden resources to another park).
oSome sound buffering options are available, such as terracing and increased vegetation, but will have limited effect because of small space. oWith significant underground and overhead utilities in the area, relocation of utilities could help avoid impacts to development of a dog park. •Overall Rating:
oGiven the size of the opportunity site (less than 1 acre), the limitation of no new parking, the distance one must travel through the park with a dog past non compatible recreational amenities, formally adding an additional highly demanded recreational amenity in the park in a very small area, as well as an increase in traffic and park visitation the Palmer Park site is NOT suitable for the development of a new dog park.
99 of 195

68d
4 6
3 4
South Glendale, Glendale Community College – Garfield Campus •Opportunities:
oOn-site available parking lot.
oDirect pedestrian access from neighborhood.
oNon developed park land or park land designation (could increase park acreage).
oRestroom availability (dependent on negotiation with college campus). •Constraints:
oLess than adequate available open space 0.5 acres or 21,780 square feet. oParking is shared with college campus students.
oAccess possibly restricted to college hours of operations. oHigh potential for noise disturbance to surrounding houses without any available noise buffer.
oSite development would require negotiations and approval from GCC’s Board of Trustees for lease and future use.
oAdjacent to a childcare center.
•Mitigation:
oIncrease project area, which will be limited because of the built-out campus. oDevelop visual barriers and noise buffers from adjacent land uses, noting that these buffers will reduce the overall size available for dog park use. oEnsure access to campus’ water fountains and restrooms. oSeek dedicated parking on GCC Garfield Campus for the dog park. oAdding shade structures and/or shade canopy trees.
•Overall Rating:
oGiven the size of the opportunity site (less than 1 acre) and limitation of no new parking; formally adding an additional highly demanded recreational amenity, increase in traffic and parking utilization, the Garfield Campus site is less than suitable for the development of a new dog park. A dog park can be designed to fit within the limitations of the site; however, it alone will not be suitable enough to meet the potential demand of the community.

Community Outreach
In pursuit of conducting the site evaluations and their suitability for a new dog park, staff and RJM launched an extensive community outreach campaign to solicit community input. As part of the outreach process, City staff launched a project website and shared information about the project’s background in City newsletters as well as how participants could get involved in the process. An online survey, two in-person workshops, and a feedback survey were developed to solicit community views on the potential sites. A total of 268 completed surveys were collected, including 187 online and 81 from two in-person workshops (some potentially duplicated). Open-ended feedback surveys were also available for participants to submit online at any point during the process. There was a total of 216 Feedback Surveys submitted during the outreach campaign.

Workshop #1 on July 31, 2023, at Pacific Community Center focused on Palmer Park and Glendale Community College – Garfield Campus opportunity sites in South Glendale. 100 of 195

78d
4 6
3 4
Workshop #2 on August 2, 2023, at Brand Library focused on Brand Park - South of the Tea House opportunity site in North Glendale.

The following are the results from the outreach efforts:
•There is an equal split of large and small dog owners among participants. This would support having a dog park designed with both large and small dog areas. •In comparison to the reasons most participants visit a dog park (to let their dog run/ socialize), Griffith Park Dog Park offers a large open space to accommodate this desire and should be considered in the development of a new dog park in Glendale.
•There is approximately a monthly dog park visitation of 243 trips a month from the City of Glendale.
•Griffith Park Dog Park is the most visited dog park. This facility is approximately

1.25 acres or 53,775 square feet in size with available parking facilities, temporary restrooms, areas for both large and small dogs, seating, shade, and a DG/Sandy/ earthen base material.
•Responses to the question - Would you support a dog park located in:
•Participants are more willing to travel to a dog park if it were closer to their home, especially less than 1 mile.
•Among the top-most important items at a dog park were cleanliness/maintenance (184), shaded areas (97), separate small dog areas (85), size (66), and location (65).
•Many of the participants were supportive of a dog park development on one of the studied sites. A small group of participants were supportive of a dog park development, however at a different location (other than the three sites studied), as well as another small group identifying they do not support the development of a new dog park.

As of August 23, 2023, 105 Feedback Comments were submitted online. An additional 111 comments were received by the September 18, 2023, PRCS Commission meeting 101 of 195

88d
4 6
3 4
date, for a total of 216 comments. The feedback survey was designed to be an open- ended opportunity for participants to share their thoughts and ideas outside of a regular survey format.

The following represents the summarization of the comments we received online:
•Request for an Alternate Location: Concerns about the chosen location prompted calls for exploring alternative sites. Discussions encompass location decisions (Who makes them, Where other locations may exist), inclusivity in design and decision making, and environmental concerns at existing locations. •Safety Concerns: prevailing apprehension centers on the potential for recurring dog fights from careless dog owners or attacks from coyotes. Some concerned about the possibility of dogs attacking humans. Some concerned about infected dogs spreading infectious parasites to parasite-free dogs. •Noise Concerns: Comments reflect concerns about noise disruption due to dog park establishment. Some discuss the potential impact on the tranquility of some of the proposed dog park area(s).
•Support for the Development of a Dog Park: responses exhibit a consistent pattern of support for the establishment of a dog park in the City of Glendale.

Advocates emphasize the advantages of providing secure spaces for dogs, promoting positive socialization, and addressing the lack of available dog park resources in the city. Comments received indicate an understanding for potential locations, such as Brand Park and South Glendale, aim to ensure fair accessibility across neighborhoods.
•Opposition for Dog Park Development: a notable counter-narrative also surfaced, reflecting concerns and reservations about various proposed locations.

These viewpoints highlight safety anxieties, including potential conflicts and the spread of diseases. Noise disturbances, increased traffic, and parking difficulties are additional apprehensions expressed by those opposed to dog park development. Furthermore, there’s an emphasis on the need to preserve existing spaces and activities, underscoring the intricate balance between accommodating dogs and maintaining the multifunctionality of public areas.

The additional responses received after the initial survey analysis revolved largely 102 of 195

98d
4 6
3 4
around concerns with the proposal of a dog park at Brand Park.

Conclusion
The City of Glendale has more than 5,000 active dog licenses. With the limited availability of dog parks in the City, dog owners must seek out alternative locations for recreational activities with their dogs, especially in southeast and west Glendale. While several dog parks are available within the region, they fall outside of the average desired travel distance a dog owner is willing to drive (based on participant data).

An overall analysis indicates commonalities in participant responses:
•There is an even split of large and small dogs owned by the participants. •The majority of participants visit Griffith Park Dog Park when visiting a dog park. •The majority of participants identify the top reason for visiting a dog park is to let their dog run and to socialize.
•More participants will visit a dog park more frequently if it is closer to their home.

There is a clear need for the city to develop additional dog park resources for the community. Due to the site constraints of the three sites evaluated, no one site will be suitable to serve the overall demand of the community. Under-developing can create a significant traffic and maintenance constraint reducing the ability for any one park site to manage the recreational demand. For reference, a typical one-acre dog park has a general capacity to hold 360 to 720 monthly visits. Based on the participant data there is an approximate monthly visitation of 1,097 (all survey data combined). This is above the general monthly capacity for a 1-acre dog park.

RJM’s and Staff’s recommendation is to develop at least two dog parks in the city to help meet and balance the overall demand for dog park resources since no single site that was evaluated can satisfy all the needs. Two dog parks would mitigate the potential maintenance drawbacks from developing just one site because the lack of available square footage at any of the three opportunity sites by itself may cause intense use and increased maintenance demands on that site which would be better balanced by developing multiple dog parks. The City could also continue to look for additional opportunity sites to meet community needs.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
In May 2023, Staff kicked off the Dog Park Feasibility Study with RJM Design Group. An extensive community outreach campaign was undertaken to solicit input on the suitability for each site. In summary, a total of 268 completed surveys were collected, plus an additional 216 open-ended feedback comments, and 185 stakeholder contacts signed-up for ongoing updates on the project.

The extensive community outreach campaign included an online community survey, two in-person workshops, an open-ended feedback survey, numerous public announcements in City newsletters and notices including 2,355 mailers sent to residents within 500 ft of 103 of 195

108d
4 6
3 4
potential dog park locations, as well as a table/booth to distribute information at Cruise Night and the Summer Concert Series events.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact related to this report at this time.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Appropriate environmental review will be conducted once project plans are prepared.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
N/A

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Adopt a Motion approving the draft Dog Park Feasibility Study report and approving a location(s) for a new dog park(s) and direct staff to request proposals from consultants to prepare design and cost alternatives for the approved dog park location(s) for subsequent Council consideration.

Alternative 2: Adopt a Motion approving the draft Dog Park Feasibility Study report and recommend staff to seek additional potential dog park locations for evaluation and to not seek dog park design and cost proposals at this time.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Joseph Gonzalez, Park Planner, Community Services & Parks Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services & Parks Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
1) Exhibit 1 – Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report
104 of 195

8 2
2 0
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ,
seconded by Council Member , that the Council of
the City of Glendale hereby approves the draft Dog Park Feasibility Study report, as detailed in the November 14, 2023 Staff Report.

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF:
_____________________________.
105 of 195

8 2
2 0
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ,
seconded by Council Member , that the Council of
the City of Glendale hereby approves, as detailed in the November 14, 2023 Staff Report, a dog park(s) at ___________________ (location #1), ___________________ (location #2), and ___________________ (location #3) and directs CSP staff to request proposals from design consultants to prepare design alternatives and cost estimates for the approved dog park location(s) for subsequent Council considerations.

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF:
_____________________________.
106 of 195

HHHH eeee llll pppp uuuu ssss bbbb uuuu iiii llll dddd dddd oooo gggg pppp aaaa rrrr kkkk ssss iiii nnnn GGGG llll eeee nnnn dddd aaaa llll eeee

JOIN US FOR A COMMUNITY WORKSHOP
Monday, July 31 • 6:00 pm • Pacific Community Center
501 S. Pacific Ave., Glendale, CA 91204
Potential Dog Park locations being studied in South Glendale include:

Palmer Park • Community Garden and Glendale Community College • Garfield Campus Wednesday, August 2 • 6:00 pm • Brand Library
1601 W. Mountain St., Glendale, CA 91201
Potential Dog Park location being studied in North Glendale include:

Brand Park • South of the Tea House
Scan here for more information:

Escanea aquí para más información:

I-scan dito para sa karagdagang impormasyon:

ՍՍկկաաննաավվոորրեեքք աայյսստտեեղղ լլրրաացցոոււցցիիչչ տտեեղղեեկկոոււթթյյոոււննննեերրիի հհաամմաարր:
자자세세한한 내내용용은은 여여기기를를 스스캔캔하하십십시시오오.

For more information and to take the survey, go to GlendaleCA.gov/DogPark @MyGlendaleParks
Raffle give aways @ each workshop!
City of Glendale
Dog Park Feasibility Studies
2023
Prepared for:

Prepared by:

Exhibit 1
107 of 195

Dog Parks are a unique recreation opportunity that serve community members and their pets, at times capitalizing on underutilized parkland and open space. Dog Parks function at the neighborhood and community park level and can be developed as an amenity at an existing park site or as a new park entirely.

Currently, the City of Glendale has limited available open space for the development of a new recreation site. Therefore, without significant land acquisition the City will have to explore the viability of whether an existing park site can be developed for the inclusion of a Dog Park and/or pursue development through a Joint Use Agreement.

On March 3, 2023, Glendale City Council approved hiring RJM Design Group to evaluate the feasibility of developing a dog park at three potential locations:

1. North Glendale,
Brand Park - South of the Tea House

2. South Glendale,
Palmer Park - Community Garden

3. South Glendale,
Glendale Community College - Garfield Campus
In pursuit of conducting the site evaluations and their suitability for a new dog park, RJM in concert with
City staff launched an extensive community outreach
campaign to solicit community input on the suitability for each site to host a new dog park. Two separate in-
person workshops were held as well as an online video
presentation and online surveys. The following illustrates the professional analysis for developing a dog park,
the results of the community outreach, and each site’s
suitability to host a new dog park.

Dog Park Design Elements
The purpose of a Dog Park is to provide open space for dogs to exercise and play while off leash in a controlled environment under the supervision of their owners. While these parks are focused on accommodating dog play and interaction, it is equally important to develop comfortable and inviting areas for dog owners to gather and socialize. This dual design element further extends the use and function of these spaces.

Dog Park design is subjective. When Dog Parks are constructed, a key goal is to ensure a defined sense of place. For a site to be selected, the design of a Dog Park must first fit within the immediate surroundings of the community at a desired location. Due to the nature of Dog Parks, there is a possibility that local influences, adjacent land uses, and environmental factors may conflict with the day-to-day use of such facilities and limit the opportunity for a Dog Park. In addition to these design constraints, there are several recommended minimum qualifications for an existing site to be selected for inclusion of such a facility.

Exhibit 1.1 (Potential Locations)
Introduction
2 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
108 of 195

Qualifying Elements
• To accommodate owners and their pets, Dog Parks should be large enough to house separately fenced dog areas for first-timers, small dogs, and large dogs. Separation of user-types promotes safe socialized play while minimizing potential for aggressive behavior and confrontations between pets. Typically, these spaces are divided with 4-rail lodge-pole fencing and steel mesh to provide separation and visibility. Inside, dogs can run freely on large, flat, open expanses of turf or be led by their owners on decomposed granite (DG) walking paths.
•
Dog Parks should have at least twelve to fifteen (12-15) parking stalls per acre (including ADA) On-site parking (non-street) serves community members that live outside of the 1/2 mile service area radius who may be driving to the site, rather than walking from their home. Parking promotes an opportunity for special events and City programming, while providing equal access to all visitors. •
Dog Parks should have access to utilities. Utility access and associated infrastructure support the functionality of amenities like drinking fountains, bottle filling stations, and security lighting. Supporting amenity infrastructure to consider include restroom facilities. The utilities also support critical environmental issues such as: odor control, water quality and hydrology management. Provisions for drainage and water treatment help maintain the aesthetics of a Dog Park while addressing associated health and environmental challenges.

Site Support Elements
If a site meets the aforementioned minimum qualifications for a Dog Park, a number of site support elements should be present in the park site or included in the design to promote the overall success and functionality of the space. Dog Parks should be fenced from the rest of the park with neighborhood access and site circulation. A double gated entry/ exit vestibule leading to the separately fenced dog type areas can provide a transition zone used for staging and events. Seating and shade throughout the park can offer opportunities for socialization and respite, while dog waste stations, trash and recycling receptacles may assuage potential maintenance concerns. Security lighting and signage should also be of consideration.

Specialty Elements
Other amenities not specifically required in the design of a Dog Park are specialty elements like water play/therapy areas, agility training courses, special event spaces, and community spaces. Though dependent on the selected park site and city available funding, these amenities add value and programming opportunities and can be used on a temporary or seasonal basis.

City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 3 Exhibit 1
109 of 195

Additional Considerations/Design Constraints
Design attention should also be given to the local influences, land uses, and other environmental factors including health, safety and welfare of community members utilizing the selected park site. Issues including noise, site grade, traffic/parking, and adjacent land use are important to address and will dictate how the design responds to such opportunities and challenges.

Furthermore, to ensure the longevity of a Dog Park, a prescriptive maintenance program should be developed. Regular care and rehabilitation will help extend the life of the design, amenities and materials. When areas of heavy use are in need of repair, closure to a specific zone should not affect other dog areas that remain open and in use. Such periods of maintenance and scheduled closures should also be considered in conjunction with specialty amenities and regular park maintenance.

Materials
Worth mentioning is also the variety of material types that can be used in a Dog Park, each with their own advantages and disadvantages. Such materials include turf, synthetic turf, bark mulch, and decomposed granite. The use of these materials within the different dog areas (first-timer, small dogs and large dogs) may indicate zones of importance or special use, solve environmental issues and provide the best maintenance option. The prescriptive maintenance program should accommodate all materials, as there is no better or preferred option.

MATERIAL TYPES
Turf
Pro Most commonly used material. Soft surface. Seed or Sod options.

Con All turf can be subject to heavy use causing damage. This leads to requiring seasonal use to accommodate maintenance and repair needs. Therefore, dog parks with turf need more area to allow for closure for maintenance while maintaining operations. Depending on the type of turf, irrigation needs will also vary.

Synthetic Turf
Pro Does not need to be irrigated. Option for cooling/cleaning system. Options for antimicrobial backing to prevent odors, high flow through for drainage. Easy to clean. Year round usage.

Con High initial cost. Subject to areas of wear, turf fabric may need to be replaced. High heat retention material compared to natural grass.

Bark Mulch
Pro ADA accessible. Helps reduce mud puddles, craters, dust and dirt. Does not need to be irrigated.

Con Mulch can cause splinters. Also, some dogs will eat mulch, so a mulch that is not toxic to dogs is recommended, like cypress mulch. Moves easily, needs to be replenished with age, limited color options and difficult to remove debris and waste.

Decomposed Granite
Pro Very durable, can be stabilized, ADA accessible. Minimal maintenance involved.

Con Hard surface. Replenishment or repair needed with age. Even if stabilized, decomposed granite can form ruts if challenged by heavy rain or concentrated stream of water. 4 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
110 of 195

Existing Dog Parks
Dog parks are often
referred to as regional
destinations. This is due
primarily to the lack
of available facilities.

As more facilities are
developed there will
become greater service
areas for dog owners to
utilize dog parks. When
developing new dog
parks, it is important to
maximize the availability
of such facilities by filling
in service gaps first. Exhibit

1.2a (Vicinity Dog Parks)
illustrates the existing
dog parks in and around
the City of Glendale. All
three of the proposed
dog park locations being
evaluated as part of this
study fall just outside of an
existing service area and
would help expand the
availability of dog parks to
residents.

The following pages
identify the specific
sites being considered
for a new dog park as
well as their potential
opportunities and
constraints.

Exhibit 1.2-a (Vicinity Dog Parks)
Existing Conditions
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 5 Exhibit 1
111 of 195

Existing Registered Dog Licenses
This map represents the approximate location of the number of licensed dogs in the City of Glendale.The number of registered dogs does not necessarily reflect all of the dogs in the city and only those registered with the Pasadena Humane Society as of 7/17/2023.

Exhibit 1.2b (Registered Dog Owners)
6 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
112 of 195

North Glendale, Brand Park - South of the Tea House
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 7 Exhibit 1
113 of 195

Opportunities
• Approximately 0.9 acres or 39,205
square
feet of available open space ,
• Existing on-site parking lot with entry and
exit points,
• Direct pedestrian access from
neighborhood,
•
Existing restroom building,
• Fenced property between residential
and park area

Constraints
• Parking lot adjacent to site and will
require crossing an interior park road,
•
High potential for noise disturbance to
surrounding houses, and tea garden
without any available noise buffer.
•
Loss of the open turf amenity where the
dog park would be located.
8 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
114 of 195

South Glendale, Palmer Park – Community Garden
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 9 Exhibit 1
115 of 195

Opportunities
• Existing lockable fencing,
• On-site available parking lot,
• Direct pedestrian access from
neighborhood,
• Restroom building with shelter/
community space,
•
Existing utility availability.

Constraints
• Very small site approximately 0.1 acres
or 4,356 square feet of occupied park
space,
•
Variety of existing active recreation
amenities and features (playground, full
and half-court basketball, skate park,
multi-purpose fields, exercise stations)
proximity to passive recreation elements.

If the existing parking is to be utilized,
there is a significant impact to the park
interface with a patron getting to the
Dog Park as it would be far away from
the available parking,
•
Inclusion of a Dog Park could cause
displacement of community gardens;
the dog park could also be a conflicting
adjacent use to a community
garden, since food grown for human
consumption would be near animal
waste.
•
Controlled access will need to be
modified for new dog park amenity,
•
High potential for noise disturbance to
surrounding houses, and very little space
to develop adequate noise buffers.
10 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
116 of 195

South Glendale, Glendale Community College - Garfield Campus City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 11 Exhibit 1
117 of 195

Opportunities
• On-site available parking lot,
• Direct pedestrian access from
neighborhood,
• Non develop park land or park land
designation (could increase park
acreage),
•
Restroom availability (dependent on
negotiation with college campus).

• Water fountain and Restrooms will be
available during hours of operation (7
a.m. - 9:30 p.m.)

Constraints
• Less than adequate available open
space 0.5 acres or 21,780 square feet,
•
Parking is shared with college campus
students,
•
Access restricted to college hours of
operations (7 a.m. - 9:30 p.m.)
•
High potential for noise disturbance
to surrounding houses without any
available noise buffer.
12 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
118 of 195

Community Participation
In pursuit of conducting the site
evaluations and their suitability for a
new dog park, RJM in concert with
City staff, launched an extensive
community outreach campaign
to solicit community input on the
suitability for each site to host a
new dog park. RJM Design Group,
in collaboration with City Staff,
launched a project website and
shared information about the
project’s background as well as how
participants could get involved in
the process. An online survey, two in-
person workshops, and a feedback
survey were developed to solicit
community views on the potential
sites. A total of 268 completed
surveys were collected Including 187
online, and 81 from two in-person
workshops. As illustrated in exhibit

1.3 (All Surveys) there was a good
distribution of surveys collected
throughout the community. Open-
ended feedback surveys were
also available for participants to
submit online at any point during
the process. There was a total of 105
Feedback Surveys submitted during
the outreach campaign.

Residents of the City of Glendale were invited to two in-person community workshops to learn about the Glendale Dog Park Feasibility Study process, and to participate in the survey.

Workshop #1 commenced on July 31, 2023, at Pacific Community Center (501 S. Pacific Ave., Glendale, CA 91204) in the Sycamore Room, from 6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. This workshop focused on Palmer Park and Glendale Community College – Garfield Campus opportunity sites in south Glendale.

Workshop #2 commenced on August 2, 2023 at Brand Library (1601 W. Mountain St., Glendale, CA 91201) in the Recital Hall, from 6:00 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. This workshop focused on Brand Park - South of the Tea House
The following are the results from the outreach efforts.

Exhibit 1.3 (All Surveys)
Community Outreach
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 13 Exhibit 1
119 of 195

Community Announcements
The survey methodology is qualitative in nature seeking input from participants who chose to be part of the process. In efforts to make the survey available to as many people as possible numerous public announcements and notices were sent out to the community. Exhibit -A- (table of participation announcements) illustrates the outreach efforts undertaken to inform the public of the project. The following are the results from the outreach efforts.

Exhibit -A- (table of participation announcements)
No. Meeting/Activity Meeting/ Activity
Description
Meeting/
Activity Date
Engagement
Approaches
1 City Council Approving the Dog Park
Study contract and scope 3/7/2023
Concurrent
Participatory
Engagement (CPE)
2 CSP webpage for
Measure A funded
project, with community
survey, and translated
workshop flyers (English,
Spanish, Armenian,
Korean, Tagalog)
Information on Measure A
funded project N/A Information Sharing
(IS)
3 Poster about upcoming
workshops
Outreach for upcoming
workshops posted at three
park locations
7/14/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
4 Cruise Night Outreach for upcoming
workshops 7/15/2023
Concurrent
Participatory
Engagement (CPE)
5 Instagram post for
workshop
Outreach for Community
Workshop 7/17/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
6 Dog Park Postcard/
Mailer
2,355 mailers sent to
residents within 500 ft
of potential dog park
locations
7/19/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
7 Summer Concerts - Todd
Stanford Country Band
Outreach for upcoming
workshops 7/19/2023
Concurrent
Participatory
Engagement (CPE)
8 Facebook post for
workshop
Outreach for Community
Workshop 7/21/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
9 Summer Concert Series -
Dark Desert Highway
Outreach for upcoming
workshops 7/26/2023
Concurrent
Participatory
Engagement (CPE)
14 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
120 of 195

Exhibit -A- (table of participation announcements)
No. Meeting/Activity Meeting/ Activity
Description
Meeting/
Activity Date
Engagement
Approaches
10 Verdugo Swing Society Outreach for upcoming
workshops 7/27/2023
Concurrent
Participatory
Engagement (CPE)
11 Film Under the Stars Outreach for upcoming
workshops 7/29/2023
Concurrent
Participatory
Engagement (CPE)
12 Instagram post for
workshop
Outreach for Community
Workshop 7/26/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
13 Facebook post for
workshop
Outreach for Community
Workshop 7/26/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
14 Dog Park Workshop #1
at Pacific Park
Community workshop
to discuss dog park
opportunities
7/31/2023
Dedicated
Participatory
Engagement (DPE)
15 CSP newsletter for
workshop
Outreach for Community
Workshop 7/26/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
16 Instagram post for
workshop
Outreach for Community
Workshop 7/31/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
17 Facebook post for
workshop
Outreach for Community
Workshop 7/31/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
18 Instagram post for
workshop
Outreach for Community
Workshop 8/2/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
19 Facebook post for
workshop
Outreach for Community
Workshop 8/2/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
20 Dog Park Workshop #2
at Brand Park
Community workshop
to discuss dog park
opportunities
8/2/2023
Dedicated
Participatory
Engagement (DPE)
21 Instagram post for
workshop
Update after Community
Workshop 8/8/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
22 Facebook post for
workshop
Update after Community
Workshop 8/8/2023 Information Sharing
(IS)
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 15 Exhibit 1
121 of 195

Fourteen (14) attendees participated
in the evening workshop. RJM and
city staff shared an overview of the
Glendale Dog Park Feasibility Study
process, specifically focusing on
Palmer Park and Glendale Community
College – Garfield Campus opportunity
sites. Zachary Mueting from RJM
conducted the presentation outlining
what a dog park is, existing dog park
locations in the region, typical dog
park design elements, as well as
site-specific information such as the
opportunities and constraints of each
site. Workshop participants were then
split into groups to complete both an
individual survey and a group exercise
evaluating the opportunity sites based
on their unique viewpoints. The results
of the 7/31/23 workshop activities were
as follows:

Workshop 1
Exhibit 1.4 (Workshop 1)
16 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
122 of 195

How far and how often would you drive to
a dog park
Less than 1/4 2 - More than
1/4 of a mile 1 mile 5 miles 5 miles
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Yearly
Never
Top 5 visited parks Frequency Reasons
Griffith Park Dog Park
None
Other
Eagle Rock
Rec Center
CrescentaValley Park
Daily
Multiple times a week
Once a month
A few times a year
I do not use dog parks
To let my dog run
My dog likes to socialize
Location
Other
Training
• Many of the participants have lived in the city for several years and have large dogs (more than 25 lbs.)
• According to the participants, the top reason to visit a dog park is to let their dog run and socialize.
•
To assess how many people might visit the dog park, participants were surveyed on how often they currently go to dog parks. Based on the frequency reported by participants of this workshop, there is approximately a monthly dog park visitation of 72 trips a month.
•
Most of the participants visit dog parks beyond those closest to the city, with Griffith Park and Eagle Rock’s Dog Parks being the next most popular. •
Participants are more willing to go to a dog park if it were closer to their home.

Average years living in Glendale Owners with large and small dogs Survey Summary
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 17 Exhibit 1
123 of 195

Most important items at a
dog park (top 10)
Would you support a dog park located in
• Among the topmost important items at a
dog park were Cleanliness / maintenance
(7), size (7), separate small dog areas (6) and
Location (5).
•
Many of the participants were supportive
of a dog park development on one of the
studied sites. A small group of participants
were supportive of a dog park development,
however at a different location (other than
the three sites being studied).
18 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
124 of 195

Group Site Feasibility
Summary:

The following graphic
represents the collaborative
(combined groups) effort
summarizing the participants
views of whether the
opportunity site was feasible
for the development of a new
dog park or not based on their
own views of the standard
dog park design elements
presented earlier.

Yes
No
Chart
Legend
Community Parks
Brand Park
GCC - Garfield
Campus
Palmer Park
Park Site
Selection Elements
Acreage
Available
Access-
Neighborhood
Displaced
amenities
Noise
buffer
Restrooms
Parking
Shade
(Shelters
or Trees)
Site Grade
(Flat)
Existing Site
Dog Park
Suitability
Matrix
City of Glendale
Community Parks
Brand Park
GCC - Garfield
Campus
Palmer Park
Park Site
Selection Elements
Acreage
Available
Access-
Neighborhood
Displaced
amenities
Noise
buffer
Restrooms
Parking
Shade
(Shelters
or Trees)
Site Grade
(Flat)
Existing Site
Dog Park
Suitability
Matrix
City of Glendale
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 19 Exhibit 1
125 of 195

Sixty-seven (67) attendees
participated in the evening
workshop. RJM and city
staff shared an overview
of the Glendale Dog Park
Feasibility Study process
specifically focusing on
Brand Park - South of the
Tea House opportunity
site. Zachary Mueting
conducted a presentation
outlining what a dog
park is, existing dog park
locations in the region,
typical dog park design
elements, as well as site-
specific information such
as the opportunities and
constraints of the site.

Workshop participants
were then split into groups
to complete both an
individual survey and a
group exercise evaluating
the opportunity sites based
on their unique viewpoints.

The results of the 7/31/23
workshop activities were as
follows:

Workshop 2
Exhibit 1.5 (Workshop 2)
20 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
126 of 195

How far and how often would you drive to
a dog park
< ¼ mile, ¼ - 1 mile, 2-5 miles, >5 miles
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Yearly
Never
Top 5 visited parks Frequency Reasons
• Many of the participants have lived in the city for several years and have an equal mix of large and small dogs.
• According to the participants, the top reason to visit a dog park is to let their dog run and socialize.
•
To assess how many people might visit the dog park, participants were surveyed on how often they currently go to dog parks. Based on the frequency reported by participants of this workshop, there is approximately a monthly dog park visitation of 351 trips a month.
•
Most people do not go to dog parkes because either they do not live near a dog park, and because the already go to Brand park to unoficially recreate their dogs.

Griffith Dog park is the most often visited dog park (located outside the southwest border of Glendale)
•
Participants are more willing to go to a dog park if it were closer to their home.

Average years living in Glendale Owners with large and small dogs Griffith Park Dog Park
None
Other
Eagle Rock
Rec Center
CrescentaValley Park
Daily
Multiple times a week
Once a month
A few times a year
I do not use dog parks
To let my dog run
My dog likes to socialize
Location
Other
Training
Survey Summary
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 21 Exhibit 1
127 of 195

Most important items at a
dog park (top 10)
Would you support a dog park located in
• Among the utmost important items at a dog
park were Cleanliness / maintenance (36),
shaded areas (20), size (19),Location (16),
parking (15).
•
Many of the participants were supportive
of a dog park development on one of the
studied sites. A small group of participants
were supportive of a dog park development,
however at a different location (other than the
three sites being studied), as well as another
small group identifying they do not support the
development of a new dog park.
22 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
128 of 195

Group Site Feasibility
Summary:

The following graphic
represents the collaborative
(combined groups) effort
summarizing the participants
views of whether the
opportunity site is feasible for
the development of a new
dog park or not based on their
own views of the standard
dog park design elements
presented earlier.

One hundred
eighty-seven (187)
online surveys were
collected during
the online survey
window. The online
survey was made
available to the
community from July
16th to August 13th,
2023. To supplement
the online survey, a
video presentation
was made available
on the project
website. The video
presentation largely
followed the same
presentation of the
workshops outlining
what a dog park
is, existing dog
park locations in
the region, typical
dog park design
elements, as well
as site specific
information such as
the opportunities
and constraints for
all three project sites.

The results of the
online survey are as
follows:

Online Survey
Exhibit 1.5 (Online Survey)
24 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
130 of 195

How far and how often would you drive to
a dog park
Less than 1/4 2 - More than
1/4 of a mile 1 mile 5 miles 5 miles
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Yearly
Never
Top 5 visited parks Frequency Reasons
• Many of the participants have lived in the city for several years with a few participants identifying they do not live within the city. The majority of participants own small
dogs (under 25 lbs.).
• According to the participants, the top reason to visit a dog park is to let their dog run and socialize.
•
To assess how many people might visit the dog park, participants were surveyed on how often they currently go to dog parks. Based on the frequency reported by participants
of this workshop, there is approximately a monthly dog park visitation of 673 trips a month.
• Griffith Dog park is the
most often visited dog park (located outside the southwest border of Glendale)
• Participants are more willing to go to a dog park if it were closer to their home.

Most important items at a dog
park (top 10)
Would you support a dog park located in
• Among the utmost important items at a dog
park were Cleanliness / maintenance (141),
shaded areas (74), separate small
dog areas
(67), Location (44), and size (40).
• Many of the participants were supportive
of a dog park development on one of the
studied sites. A small group of
participants
were supportive of a dog park development,
however at a different location (other than the
three sites being studied), as well as another
small group identifying they do not support the
development of a new dog park.
26 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
132 of 195

Group Site
Feasibility
Summary:

The following
graphic
represents the
collaborative
(combined
groups) effort
summarizing the
participants views
of whether the
opportunity site
is feasible for the
development of
a new dog park
or not, based on
their own views
of the standard
dog park
design elements
presented earlier.

Evaluating the survey data individually
and collectively allows for a deeper
analysis. The following results illustrate
commonalities among many
participants observed from participant
location data, responses to individual
survey questions, and group responses
regarding suitability for a new dog park
at the identified study sites.

Survey Summary
All Surveys
Exhibit 1.1 (All surveys)
• There is an equal split of large
and small dog owners among
participants. This would support
having a dog park designed with
both large and small dog areas.
•
In comparison to the reasons most
participants visit a dog park (to
let their dog run / to socialize),
Griffith Dog Park offers a large open
space to accommodate this desire
and should be considered in the
development of a new dog park in
the city of Glendale.
•
To assess how many people might
visit the dog park, participants
were surveyed on how often they
currently go to dog parks. Based
on the frequency reported by
participants of this workshop, there
is approximately a monthly dog
park visitation of 1097 trips a month.

Average years living in Glendale
Owners with large and small dogs

OUTREACH SUMMARY
28 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
134 of 195

Would you support a dog park located in
Top 5 visited parks Frequency
Griffith Park Dog Park
None
Other
Eagle Rock
Rec Center
CrescentaValley Park
Daily
Multiple times a week
Once a month
A few times a year
I do not use dog parks
To let my dog run
My dog likes to socialize
Location
Other
Training
Reasons
• Griffith Dog Park is the most visited dog park. This facility is approximately 1.25 acres or 53,775 square feet in size with available parking facilities, temporary restrooms, areas for both large and small dogs, seating, shade, and a DG/ Sandy / earthen base material.

City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 29 Exhibit 1
135 of 195

Most important items at a
dog park (top 5)
How far and how often would you drive to a dog park
Less than 1/4 2 - More than
1/4 of a mile 1 mile 5 miles 5 miles
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Yearly
Never
• Participants are more willing to drive to a dog
park if it were closer to their home. Exhibit 1.6 (1
mile visitors) illustrates a 1 mile radius from the
participants identified location. Developing a dog
park in this area would be optimal in response to
the respondent results.
•
Among the topmost important items at a dog park
were Cleanliness / maintenance (184), shaded
areas (97), separate small dog areas (85), size (66),
and Location (65).
•
Many of the participants were supportive of a dog
park development on one of the studied sites. A
small group of participants were supportive of a
dog park development, however at a different
location (other than the three sites being studied),
as well as another small group identifying they do
not support the development of a new dog park
Exhibit 1.6 (1 mile visitors)
30 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
136 of 195

Group Site
Feasibility
Summary:

The following
graphic
represents the
collaborative
(all surveys
and workshops
combined) effort
summarizing the
participants views
of whether the
opportunity site
is feasible for the
development of
a new dog park
or not, based on
their own views
of the standard
dog park
design elements
presented earlier.

One hundred five (105) Feedback
Comments were submitted
online from the community. The
feedback survey was designed to
be an open-ended opportunity
for participants to share their
thoughts and ideas outside of a
regular survey format. The following
represents the summarization
of the comments we received
online. It is important to note
that participants can comment
multiple times for the feedback
survey, and the 105 comments
received does not translate to 105
individuals submitting comments.

The following are some of the most
commented categories out of all
of the comments received.

Feedback Comments
Exhibit 1.7 (Feedback)
32 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
138 of 195

General Feedback Comments
Request of an Alternate Location: Some responses received present a nuanced perspective on dog park establishment. Concerns about the chosen location prompted calls for exploring alternative sites. Discussions encompass location decisions (Who makes them, Where other locations may exist), inclusivity in design and decision making, and environmental concerns on existing locations.

Safety concerns: Among the array of concerns articulated, a clear theme revolves around the safety and well-being of small dogs, particularly in light of the elevated presence of coyotes in the hills. A prevailing apprehension centers on the potential for recurring dog fights from careless dog owners. Some concerned about the possibility of dogs attacking humans. Some concerned about infected dogs spreading infectious parasites to parasite-free dogs.

Noise concerns: Comments reflect concerns about noise disruption due to dog park establishment. Some discuss the potential impact on the tranquility of the area, with worries about barking dogs and their effect on the peaceful environment. While recognizing the benefits of dog parks, opposition arises from concerns of noise disturbance and its implications for various park sites’ locations atmosphere. This emphasizes the balance required when integrating dog-friendly spaces within existing public areas.

Support for the development of a dog park
Responses exhibit a consistent pattern of support for the establishment of a dog park in the City of Glendale. Advocates emphasize the advantages of providing secure spaces for dogs, promoting positive socialization, and addressing the lack of available dog park resources in the city. Comments received indicate an understanding for potential locations, such as Brand Park and South Glendale, aim to ensure fair accessibility across neighborhoods. The emphasis on facilitating dogs’ natural behaviors and the eagerness for progress updates in development discussions are prevalent in many of the received responses. The comments gathered distinctly highlight a strong endorsement for the creation of dog parks across Glendale. This overarching sentiment stems from the recognition of a shortage of appropriate areas for dogs to engage in recreational activities and social interactions. This collective viewpoint emphasizes the necessity to establish dedicated spaces that cater to dogs off-leash needs and encourage positive engagement. This support is palpably evident in suggested sites like Brand Park and Palmer Park, both emerging as potential options to fulfill this purpose. Supporters underscore the diverse benefits that dog parks offer, including the cultivation of responsible pet ownership, the strengthening of community ties, and the provision of controlled settings for dogs to thrive.

Opposition for Dog Park Development:

Amid the comments submitted, a notable counter-narrative also surfaced, reflecting concerns and reservations about various proposed locations. These viewpoints highlight safety anxieties, including potential conflicts and the spread of diseases. Noise disturbances, increased traffic, and parking difficulties are additional apprehensions expressed by those opposed to dog park development. Furthermore, there’s an emphasis on the need to preserve existing spaces and activities, underscoring the intricate balance between accommodating dogs and maintaining the multifunctionality of public areas.

This oppositional perspective underlines the intricate considerations involved in shaping dog-friendly spaces that harmoniously coexist with their surroundings. These concerns emphasize the importance of a comprehensive and inclusive decision-making process that weighs both the benefits and potential drawbacks of creating dedicated dog- friendly areas.

City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 33 Exhibit 1
139 of 195

Since the analysis was completed, and the presentation made to commission on September 18, 2023, an additional 111 comments were received. A total of 216 comments were submitted by the end of this report. Stakeholders participants consist of 185 contacts.

The additional responses received after the initial survey analysis had been conducted revolve largely around concerns with the proposal of a dog park at Brand Park. There are a minor number of comments received in favor of a dog park at Brand Park, expressing a desire for a dedicated space for their dogs to play off-leash. Feedback comments identify that a local dog park would be convenient for local dog owners and promote socialization among dogs and their owners. The majority of the comments reference concerns and opposition to the development of a dog park at Brand Park. They state that Brand Park is already heavily utilized for various activities such as picnics, soccer, family gatherings, and reading. The addition of a dog park at Brand Park would detract from these activities. Concerns are also noted by participants about the impact on local wildlife and the proximity of the proposed dog park to residential areas and historic sites like the Doctors’ House and the Tea House.

Additional feedback included some more general comments. Some emphasize that there are other nearby parks, like Griffith Park Dog Park, according to the comments submitted online, that can serve the needs of dog owners. Other general dog park comments express concerns about potential noise, congestion, and cleanliness issues associated with dog parks.

Additional Feedback Comments
34 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
140 of 195

Design Constraints of Qualified Opportunity Sites based on RJM Site Evaluation The following site assessments for suitability of a new dog park were developed based on the required qualifying elements identified earlier as well as the community’s input on their desires and recreation patterns for visiting a dog park.

North Glendale, Brand Park - South of the Tea House
Design
Criteria
Comments Suitability Mitigation
Available
Acreage

0.9 acres (39,205 SF). This
site barely meets the
minimum for a dog park.

Less than
suitable
Increasing the project
site will increase the
suitability for a dog park
at this location.

Access to Local residential access
exists via walkways offering
alternative transportation
modes other than
vehicular.

Suitable No mitigation necessary
Displaced
Amenities
Currently the site is a
large open turf field.

Considerations should
be given to existing
programming on this
site as well as adjacent
programming elements at
the Japanese Tea House.

Consideration should be
given to noise and parking
availability.

Suitable No mitigation necessary
Noise Buffer There are adjacent homes
that back up to the site
where the potential dog
park will be designed.

There is a fence with
vegetation, however
additional vegetation
and set back distance
will need to be added
to reduce noise from the
dog park. Additional noise
buffers should also be
considered between the
Japanese Tea House and
the potential dog park site.

Less than
suitable
Mitigation measures
would possibly include
developing visual
barriers and noise
buffers to the dog park
from these adjacent
land uses.

REPORT ASSESMENT
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 35 Exhibit 1
141 of 195

Design
Criteria
Comments Suitability Mitigation
Community desires: While the majority of feedback supported development of a dog park at Brand, numerous local residents did express that they did not feel that a dog park at Brand was appropriate considering the park setting, adjacent uses, and limited open space.

Overall rating: The Brank Park site, a popular regional park, has various recreational amenities and multiple adjacent programming environments (baseball, Japanese Tea House, and immediate adjacent residential area). These elements create a diverse passive and active park. Given the size of the opportunity site (less than 1 acre) and limitation of no new parking; formally adding an additional highly demanded recreational amenity in the park, increase in traffic and park visitation, the Brand site is less than suitable for the development of a new dog park. A dog park can be designed to fit within the limitations of the site however it alone will not be suitable enough to meet the potential demand of the community.

Restrooms There are adjacent
available public restrooms.

Suitable No mitigation necessary
Parking There is adjacent off
street available parking. It
should be noted a parking
analysis based on existing
parking demands and
program levels have not
been conducted. It is
safe to assume additional
vehicular traffic will impact
the parking availability.

Suitable Expanding available
parking will help
mitigate the potential
increase in parking
demand.

Shade There is currently limited
shade. Additional shade
structures or vegetation
should be added to the
design.

Neutral Adding shade
structures and or shade
canopy trees can
mitigate the lack of
potential shade.

Site Grade
(Topography)
The site is relatively flat
with a constant grade. No
dramatic slopes or valleys
exist on site.

Suitable No mitigation necessary
36 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
142 of 195

South Glendale, Palmer Park - Community Garden
Design
Criteria
Comments Suitability Mitigation
Available
Acreage

0.1 acres (4,356 SF). This
site does not meet the
minimum for a dog park.

NOT suitable This site is built out with
recreation amenities.

Increasing the site will
require removal of some
of the existing elements.

Access to
Neighborhood
Local residential access
exists via walkways
offering alternative
transportation modes
other than vehicular.

Suitable No mitigation necessary
Displaced
Amenities
Currently the site is the
home of a community
garden area. Shade
shelter, picnic tables,
garden plots, and a
garden shed occupy
the site. There is also a
controlled access gate.

The site is accessible only
to city selected members
(those with keys).

NOT suitable Mitigation for displaced
amenities includes
relocating the
community garden and
garden resources to
another park.

Noise Buffer There are adjacent homes
that back up to the site
on two sides with the
furthest distance being
100’ between homes.

This distance does not
allow enough room to
adequately add in noise
buffers.

NOT suitable The potential site is
roughly 100’ at its
widest point. Noise
mitigation includes site
terracing and increased
vegetation to buffer
sound. The distance
required to effectively
reduce the sound is not
sufficient in this area.

City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 37 Exhibit 1
143 of 195

Design
Criteria
Comments Suitability Mitigation
Community desires: The community responses to development and desire for a dog park at the Palmer Park site were favorable. Some community comments received were to limit the dog park to small dogs only creating a smaller than normal dog park.

Overall rating: The Palmer Park site, a popular community park, has various recreational amenities and multiple adjacent programming environments (skate park, basketball, multi-use field, exercise stations, and a playground). These elements create a diverse passive and active park site. Given the size of the opportunity site (less than 1 acre), the limitation of no new parking, the distance one must travel through the park with a dog past non compatible recreational amenities, formally adding an additional highly demanded recreational amenity in the park in a very small area, as well as an increase in traffic and park visitation the Palmer Park site is NOT suitable for the development of a new dog park. An individual dog run may be possible to be designed in this area however will require the relocation or removal of existing community garden pots to accommodate the new facility. It should also be noted that growing food for human consumption may not be viewed favorably adjacent to a site that will have animal waste because of increased risk of foodborne illnesses.

Restrooms There are adjacent
available public
restrooms.

Suitable No mitigation necessary
Parking There is adjacent off street
available parking.

Suitable No mitigation necessary
Shade There are currently large
mature trees as well as
shade structures on site.

Suitable No mitigation necessary
Site Grade
(Topography)
The site is relatively flat
with a constant grade. No
dramatic slopes or valleys
exist on site. There are
significant underground
and overhead utilities
that may impact the
development of a dog
park.

Less than
suitable
Mitigation would
include relocation of
utilities / easements.
38 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
144 of 195

South Glendale, Glendale Community College - Garfield Campus Design
Criteria
Comments Suitability Mitigation
Available
Acreage

0.5 acres (21,780 SF). This
site does not meet the
minimum for a dog park.

Less than
suitable
This site is located in a
newly built out parcel. It
is not possible to expand
the footprint beyond
the size it is now. No
mitigation possible.

Access to
Neighborhood
Local residential access
exists via walkways offering
alternative transportation
modes other than
vehicular.

Suitable No mitigation necessary
Displaced
Amenities
Currently the site is a large
open undeveloped field.

Considerations should
be given to existing
programming on this
site as well as adjacent
programming elements
at the adjacent child
development center.

Suitable No mitigation necessary
Noise Buffer There are adjacent
homes that sit across
Acacia Avenue. There is
a tubular steel fence with
low vegetation, however
additional vegetation
will need to be added
to reduce noise from the
dog park. Additional noise
buffers should also be
considered between the
child development center
and the potential dog park
site.

Less than
suitable
Mitigation measures
would possibly include
developing visual
barriers and noise buffers
to the dog park from
these adjacent land
uses. These mitigation
measures will reduce the
overall size available for
dog park use.

Restrooms There are adjacent
restrooms as part of the
college campus.

Neutral Negotiations with the
use of the restroom will
need to be formalized
with GCC
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 39 Exhibit 1
145 of 195

Community desires: The community responses to development and desire for a dog park at the Garfield Campus site were favorable.

Overall rating: The Garfield Campus site has various multiple institutional elements including a college buildings and a child development center. These existing elements do not adversely impact a recreational environment. Given the size of the opportunity site (less than 1 acre) and limitation of no new parking; formally adding an additional highly demanded recreational amenity, increase in traffic and parking utilization the Garfield Campus site is less than suitable for the development of a new dog park. A dog park can be designed to fit within the limitations of the site however it alone will not be suitable enough to meet the potential demand of the community.

Design
Criteria
Comments Suitability Mitigation
Parking There is adjacent on and
off-street available parking.

Parking would be shared
with student parking during
class hours.

Less than
suitable
Expanding available
parking will help mitigate
the potential increase in
parking demand.

Shade There is currently no
significant shade.

Additional shade
structured or vegetation
should be added to the
design.

Neutral Adding shade structures
and or shade canopy
trees can mitigate the
lack of potential shade.

Site Grade
(Topography)
The site is relatively flat with
a constant grade. Not
dramatic slopes or valleys
exist on site.

Suitable No mitigation necessary
40 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
146 of 195

The City of Glendale has more than 5,000 active dog licenses. With the limited availability of dog parks in the City of Glendale, dog owners must seek out alternative locations to recreate with their dog(s). While several dog parks are available within the region, they fall outside of the average desired travel distance a dog owner is willing to drive (based on participant data).

An overall analysis indicates commonalities in participant responses. •
There is an even split of large and small dogs owned by the participants. • The majority of participants visit Griffith Park Dog Park the most when visiting a dog park.
•
The majority of participants identify the top reason for visiting a dog park is to let their dog run and to socialize.
•
More participants will visit a dog park more frequently if it is closer to their home.

The below chart identifies the adjacent dog parks and their available square footage in relation to the opportunity sites evaluated in this report.

Final Recommendations
Adjacent Dog Park Facilities:

Proposed Opportunity Sites:

Name Address Area
(SF)
Large Dog
Area (SF)
Small Dog
Area (SF)
Griffith Park
Dog Park
4730 Crystal Springs Dr
Los Angeles, CA 90027

58,501

44,867

13,634
Eagle Rock
Rec Center
1100 Eagle Vista Dr Los
Angeles, CA 90041

37,897 37,897

Crescenta
Valley Park
3901 Dunsmore Ave
La Crescenta-Mon-
trose, CA 91214

47,044 31,276

15,768
South
Pawsadena
Dog Park
650 Stoney Dr South
Pasadena, CA 91030 22,432

16,378

6,054
Silver Lake
Dog Park
1873 Silver Lake Blvd
Los Angeles, CA 90026 57,499
47,916

9,583
Name Address Area (SF)
Brand Park 1601 W Mountain St, Glendale,
CA 91201 39,205
Palmer Park 620 E Palmer Ave, Glendale, CA
91205 4,356
GCC-Garfield
Campus
1122 E Garfield Ave, Glendale,
CA 91205 21,780
City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report | 41 Exhibit 1
147 of 195

There is a clear need for the city
to develop additional dog park
resources for the community. Due
to the site constraints of the three
sites evaluated no one site will
be suitable to serve the overall
demand of the community. A
typical one acre dog park has
a general capacity to hold 360
to 720 monthly visits. Based on
the participant data there is an
approximate monthly visitation of
1,097 (all survey data combined).

This is above the general monthly
capacity for a 1 acre dog
park. Under-developing can
create a significant traffic and
maintenance constraint reducing
the ability for any one park site
to manage the recreational
demand. The city should continue
to look for additional opportunity
sites that may meet the
community demand. Alternatively,
the city may pursue developing
multiple dog parks to meet the
overall demand. This option
also has potential maintenance
drawbacks but may balance the
overall load on any one dog park.

Mitigation measures have
been identified in the RJM site
evaluation. Implementing these
measures may improve the site’s
overall suitability. However, due
to their (all three opportunity
sites) lack of available square
footage, intense use at any
one of these sites will create an
increased maintenance demand.

Maintenance costs can vary
widely based on size, materials,
and usage, however basic
estimation of park maintenance
can be assumed at $1,500 to
$2,000 per acre per month.

Exhibit 1.6 (1 mile visitors)
42 | City of Glendale • Dog Park Feasibility Studies Report Exhibit 1
148 of 195

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: 1326 N. Maryland Avenue: Consideration of Glendale Register Nomination and Request for a Mills Act Historic Property Contract.

2. Motion to deny the request of the property owner to designate the residential property at 1326 N. Maryland Avenue as a historic resource in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for December 5, 2023 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owner of 1326 N. Maryland Avenue requests that the City Council designate/list the property in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and authorize a Mills Act historical property contract. The one-story, single-family residence was built in 1913 and is an excellent example of Craftsman style architecture. It was designed by Alfred Priest, probably the most important architect in the city’s early decades, and appears to be his earliest known commissions in the city that still stands.

On October 19, 2023, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the nomination and voted unanimously (3-0; Cragnotti recused) to recommend to the City Council that the property at 1326 N. Maryland Avenue be listed in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources as the “Wyman House,” and that the City Manager be authorized to enter into a Mills Act historic property contract with the property owner, including the work conditions approved by the commission, under Section 15.20.070A of the Glendale Municipal Code.
149 of 195

29a
2 9
9 2

RECOMMENDATION
That City Council list the property in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act historic property contract, with the conditions approved by HPC, between the City and the property owner under Section

15.20.070A of the Glendale Municipal Code.

BACKGROUND
Historical Background
1326 N. Maryland Avenue is a one-story, single-family residence constructed in 1913. It is an excellent example of the Craftsman style of architecture and was designed by prominent architect Alfred F. Priest. Priest worked in a range of styles over his 17-year career, with a large amount of his worked located in Glendale where he designed over forty residential, commercial, and institutional buildings during the 1920s, an important period for the growth for Glendale. Priest often employed the classic Period Revial residential styles and the “commercial classic” favored by his more conservative clients, but he was also flexible in his skills, designing the Glendale Public Service Building in the Moderne style. With so much of his work located in Glendale, buildings such as the Tuesday Afternoon Club, Security Trust and Savings Bank, Seeley’s Furniture, the Glendale Public Service Building, and the Glendale Theater, his work helped shape the look and feel of the quickly evolving downtown.

One of Priest’s earliest residential commissions in the city was 1326 N. Maryland Avenue. The property was identified in a Los Angeles Times article from August 1912 as a home “to be erected for Mrs. Elliot B. Wyman on Putnam Street between Mountain and Randolph Streets in Casa Verdugo.” It was originally designed as a two-story Swiss Chalet style residence, though not built that way. The first owners of the property were Elliot and Marie Wyman. Mr. Wyman was an employee of the Union Lime Co. The Wymans lived at the property at least until 1958. By 1971, Roy R. Lake, a sign writer, owned the residence and in 1979 Joel Gary Rutberg purchased it. The current owner purchased the property in 2022. None of the identified owners or occupants of the building appear to have made significant contributions to the history of the nation, state, region, or city and, therefore, the property does not appear eligible under Criterion 2. In addition, it does not appear to be individually associated with important events in national, state, or city history, or to exemplify significant contributions to the broad cultural, political, economic, social, tribal, or historic heritage of the nation, state, or city and therefore does not appear eligible under Criterion 1. The property is a contributor to the Casa Verdugo Historic District.

Based on the information in the nomination, attached to this report as Exhibit 1 and incorporated by reference, staff believes the property is eligible for listing in the Glendale Register under Criterion 3 as detailed in the “Findings of Eligibility” section below. Staff recommends the house be listed as the “Wyman House” after its original owners.
150 of 195

39a
2 9
9 2
Architectural Description
The residence is located on a rectangular lot on the east side of N. Maryland Avenue, a linear north/south street that gently slopes north towards the foothills. Due to this topography, the lot is set slightly higher than street level and a low, stucco and brick retaining wall runs along the property line with brick steps near the north end and a brick walkway leading to the entrance porch.

The one-story building is asymmetrical, clad in wood shingles, and has a low-pitched cross gable roof with wide eaves and exposed roof beams which have a notched/cut out detailing on each. There are also prominent wood vents in the gables on all facades. A partial width brick and concrete entrance porch is the focal point of the primary façade and projects at the south end with a gable roof covering. Square, thick, brick columns support the gable roof in each corner and the brick walls enclose the porch on the south and west as well as run along the north facing steps. These walls step down as they move away from the columns. The concrete floor and steps are scored in a uniformed square pattern and the porch ceiling is clad in beadboard. The large wood entrance door with divided light pattern at the top is flanked by wide single-pane side lights. Wood single-pane casement and fixed windows are visible along the façade with non-original awning covers to the north.

On the south façade a portion of the building projects out with a nested gable roof and a ribbon of single-pane wood casement windows. A secondary, uncovered, brick and concrete entrance porch with an additional door is in the northwest corner of the projection. The wood door with large central light is covered by a metal screen door with intricate pattern. A pair of wood single-pane casement windows sit to the west.

The rear of the building is simple with single-pane wood casement windows in ribbons and pairs and a narrow brick walkway along the base of the building. Three small additions occurred at the rear of the property. In 1997, an approximately 175-square- foot rear porch at the southeast corner was infilled as living space, including the insertion of a non-original vinyl window, squaring off this corner of the building. After this, a step in of the building near the center of the facade was infilled and non-original sliding doors were added. A larger addition with horizontal wood siding and vinyl sliding windows was added projecting to the east.

The north façade is asymmetrical as well. A larger projection to the east has a gable roof and the only two wood, single-light hung windows on the building. Further east a small projection with shed roof and ribbon of leaded casement windows correlates to the dining room and built in buffet on the interior. Non-original louvered windows can be seen near the center of the façade. An asphalt driveway leads from the street along the southern end of the property to the detached garage in the southeast corner of the lot.

The garage, in poor condition, has a gable roof with exposed roof beams, shingle exterior cladding, and a lift wood garage door, with paneled wood pedestrian door on the west façade.
151 of 195

49a
2 9
9 2
Notable character-defining features of 1326 N. Maryland Avenue include:
•Asymmetrical footprint
•Asymmetrical primary façade
•Exterior shingle cladding (altered with sprayed texture-coat) •One-story massing
•Low-pitched cross gable roof
•Notched/cut out roof beams
•Gable vents
•Brick and concrete entrance porch and beadboard ceiling •Wood entrance door with flanking side lights
•Wood single-pane casement, fixed, and hung windows
•Detached garage with shingle cladding and gable roof
Alterations and Integrity
The residence at 1326 N. Maryland Avenue retains a high degree of integrity with some alterations over the years and some condition issues. The main character-defining features of the building including the entrance porch, wood entrance door with side lights, and exposed roof beams, have all been maintained with little alterations. At an unknown date, a textured coating was sprayed over the shingles at all exterior walls.

Based on several contractor assessments and Planning staff’s opinion, the shingles cannot be salvaged and will need to be replaced. At the rear, three additions occurred, removing an original porch, but mostly with little impact to the overall design and workmanship of the original building. The largest of the three additions at the northeast corner stands out with horizontal siding and vinyl sliders, but these features along with its location and compatible roof form and massing allow it to read as an addition without deterring from the original building. Inappropriate louvered windows replaced original windows on the north façade and these along with the vinyl sliding window at the southeast corner and the vinyl sliding doors on the rear façade should be replaced with more compatible designs and materials. At the entrance porch, some of the brick requires repointing and an exposed notched beam is missing below the gable roof.

Additionally, the garage appears to have structural issues and the roofing is in very poor condition that requires replacement.

None of the listed alterations or condition issues deter from the building’s overall integrity of materials, design, or workmanship. The significant character-defining features of the building that convey its architectural style, Priest’s design sensibility, and the early construction date have been retained and remain unaltered. The building’s integrity of location is retained as the building has not been moved. The integrity of feeling and setting is also retained as the neighborhood, the Casa Verdugo Historic District, retains a high level of integrity as an early residential development in the city.

Though all of the shingle cladding requires replacement, the owner has identified a source to provide matching shingles and, given the existing condition, this work will conform with the rehabilitation standards.
152 of 195

59a
2 9
9 2
HPC recommended the following Mills Act conditions:

1. Replace the exterior shingles with new wood shingles of the same size and pattern as the existing.

2. Replace the non-original louver windows on the north façade and the non-original vinyl window in the southeast corner with single-pane casement or hung wood windows.

3. Replace the vinyl sliding door on the east façade with a more appropriate door.

4. Repoint the brick on the entrance porch where needed.

5. Owner to consult with structural engineer to determine if the garage is structurally sound. If not, correct any structural deficiencies in consultation with the engineer and city staff to ensure the historic appearance of the garage is retained.

6. Replace the garage roof cladding with new asphalt shingle to match those to be used for the main house.

7. Repair garage door or replace with new wood door to match.

8. Replace the missing beam under the porch gable and repair any wood rot on all the exposed roof beams.

9. Remove non-original awnings.

ANALYSIS
Finding of Eligibility
After reviewing the nomination submitted by the owner and its supporting documentation, as well as visiting the site, Planning Division staff concludes that the property appears to meet eligibility Criterion 3 for listing in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.

Architectural Significance [Criterion 3]
To meet Criterion 3, a property must “embody the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of an architectural style, architectural type, period, or method of construction; or represent a notable work of a master designer, builder or architect whose genius influenced his or her profession; or possess high artistic values and retains historic integrity.”
1326 N. Maryland Avenue is a simple, yet prominent example of an early, architect-designed, Craftsman-style residence in Glendale. The Craftsman-style grew out of the Arts and Crafts movement as a reaction against industrialization and the excess of the Victorian era. The Craftsman-style stressed the simplicity of design, handcraftsmanship, and the use of natural materials. The style is mainly characterized by low-pitched gabled roofs with wide eave overhangs, partial or full width porches, a horizonal massing, exterior cladding such as wood shingles or clapboard, and extensive use of natural materials. As residential neighborhoods pushed north in the first few decades of the 20th century, many of the homes were designed in the Craftsman style. A good portion of these homes were contractor designed, but some of the larger scale homes were designed by architects, like 1326 N. Maryland. Alfred Priest was a prominent architect in the city who helped visually shape Glendale from a small town to a city in its most 153 of 195

69a
2 9
9 2
formative years. 1326 N. Maryland Avenue was one of the first residential commissions for this master architect and one of the earliest known examples of his work in the city. Therefore, the subject property is eligible for listing in the Glendale Register under Criterion 3.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
There are no stakeholders other than the property owner.

FISCAL IMPACT
Listing historic properties in the Glendale Register has no fiscal impact. However, future property tax savings to private owners of listed historic properties under Mills Act contracts will slightly reduce City property tax revenues from the general County tax levy received from each Mills Act property.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project is exempt from CEQA as a Class 8 “Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment” exemption and a Class 31 “Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation” exemption pursuant to Sections 15308 and 15331 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it involves the designation and protection/preservation of a historic resource.

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 4, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Reject designation/listing of 1326 N. Maryland Avenue on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, finding that the property does not meet Criterion 3 or any other criteria.

Alternative 2: Any other alternative chosen by City Council. 154 of 195

79a
2 9
9 2

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Jay Platt, Principal Planner
Reviewed by:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Glendale Register Nomination
Exhibit 2: Photographs
Exhibit 3: Mills Act Application
Exhibit 4: Campaign Disclosure
155 of 195

RESOLUTION NO. _______

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA DESIGNATING THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT 1326 N. MARYLAND AVENUE

AS A HISTORIC RESOURCE TO BE ADDED TO THE GLENDALE REGISTER OF

HISTORIC RESOURCES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER

INTO A MILLS ACT HISTORICAL PROPERTY CONTRACT WITH THE OWNER WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.20.060 of the Glendale Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the property owner of record of the property at 1326 N. Maryland Avenue (the “Property”) has given consent to the designation, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.20.060 of the Glendale Municipal Code, and has requested that the Property be designated as a historic resource in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources (“Glendale Register”) and considered for a Mills Act contract; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission, at a regularly scheduled meeting on October 19, 2023, recommended designation of the Property to the Glendale Register and recommended consideration under the Mills Act; and WHEREAS, in order to meet Criterion 3 for listing in the Glendale Register, a property must “embody the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of an architectural style, architectural type, period, or method of construction; or represent a notable work of a master designer, builder or architect whose genius influenced his or her profession; or possess high artistic values and retains historic integrity,” and; WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Glendale, pursuant to Sections 15.20.050 and 15.20.060 of the Glendale Historic Preservation Ordinance, finds that the Property meets Criterion 3 for listing in the Glendale Register based on the following:
1326 N. Maryland Avenue is a simple, yet prominent example of an early, architect-designed, Craftsman-style residence in Glendale. The Craftsman-style grew out of the Arts and Crafts movement as a reaction against industrialization and the excess of the Victorian era. The Craftsman-style stressed the simplicity of design, handcraftsmanship, and the use of natural materials. The style is mainly characterized by low- pitched gabled roofs with wide eave overhangs, partial or full width porches, a horizonal massing, exterior cladding such as wood shingles or clapboard, and extensive use of natural materials. As residential neighborhoods pushed north in the first few decades of the 20th century, many of the homes were designed in the Craftsman style. A good portion of these homes were contractor designed, but some of the larger scale homes were designed by architects, like 1326 N. Maryland. Alfred Priest was a prominent architect in the city who helped visually shape Glendale from a small town to a city in its most formative years. 1326 N. Maryland Avenue was one of the first residential commissions for this master architect and one of the earliest known examples of his work in the city; and
156 of 195

WHEREAS, the Property qualifies for inclusion in the Glendale Register based on information in the record including but not limited the Report to Council dated December 5, 2023 (including attachments) and all testimony and documentary evidence entered into the record on the public hearing held on such date; and WHEREAS, the designation and Mills Act contract is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 CCR Section 15331 (preservation of historic resources).

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. That the property located at 1326 N. Maryland Avenue is hereby designated as a historic resource in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, to be known as the “Wyman House.”
Section 2. That the City Manager is authorized to enter into a Mills Act historical property contract with the property owner of 1326 N. Maryland Avenue.

Section 3. That the Mills Act historical property contract shall contain the following condition, as recommended by the Historic Preservation Commission, with times for performance to be established by the Director of Community Development:

1. Replace the exterior shingles with new wood shingles of the same size and pattern as the existing.

2. Replace the non-original louver windows on the north façade and the non-original vinyl window in the southeast corner with single-pane casement or hung wood windows.

3. Replace the vinyl sliding door on the east façade with a more appropriate door.

4. Repoint the brick on the entrance porch where needed.

6. Replace the garage roof cladding with new asphalt shingle to match those to be used for the main house.

7. Repair garage door or replace with new wood door to match.

8. Replace the missing beam under the porch gable and repair any wood rot on all the exposed roof beams.

9. Remove non-original awnings.

Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately after the date of adoption.
157 of 195

Adopted this ______ day of _____________________________, 2023. _____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, SUZIE ABAJIAN, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, do hereby 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
158 of 195

MOTION
Moved by Council Member and seconded by Council Member that upon review and consideration of the request by the owner of the property of 1326 N. Maryland Avenue to list said property on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and authorize a Mills Act Contract between the Owner and the City, the Council hereby denies said request.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
159 of 195

160 of 195

161 of 195

162 of 195

163 of 195

164 of 195

165 of 195

166 of 195

167 of 195

168 of 195

169 of 195

170 of 195

171 of 195

172 of 195

173 of 195

174 of 195

175 of 195

176 of 195

177 of 195

178 of 195

179 of 195

180 of 195

181 of 195

182 of 195

183 of 195

1 Tatum House, built c. 1908
Primary Façade, view southeast
184 of 195

Primary Façade, view northeast
185 of 195

Primary Façade, view northeast and south
186 of 195

Front Door Detail
187 of 195

South Façade, view northeast and north
188 of 195

East Façade, view northwest
189 of 195

East Façade, view northwest
190 of 195

Northeast addition detail, view west
191 of 195

North Façade, view south
192 of 195

Detached Garage, view northeast
193 of 195

194 of 195

195 of 195

Glendale City CouncilDecember 5, 2023

Glendale City Council
December 5, 2023