A G E N D A
GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
Meetings
are
broadcast
live
on
Glendale
TV,
viewable
on
Spectrum
Cable,
channel
6,
and
AT&T
U-
verse,
channel
99. Meetings
are
also
streamed
live
in
high
definition
(HD)
on
the
City
webpage,
glendaleca.gov/live
,
on
YouTube.com/myglendale
,
and
on
Apple
TV,
Roku,
Amazon
Fire,
iOS
and
Android
devices
using
a
free
app
called
Cablecast
and
choosing
"Glendale
TV"
from
the
menu.
Meetings
are
also
archived
on
the
City
Website
for
viewing
anytime
at
glendaleca.gov/agendas
.
Call
(818)
548-4013
for
program
schedules.
For
public
comments
and
questions
during
the
meeting,
call
(818)
937-8100.
Public
comments
on
a
specific
agenda
item
will
be
taken
when
that
agenda
item
is
discussed.
If
you
have
any
question
about
matters
on
the
agenda,
or
requests
for
assistance, please contact the City Clerk at (818) 548-2090 during regular business hours.
PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION In
compliance
with
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act
(ADA)
of
1990,
auxiliary
hearing
aids,
sign
language
translation,
and
Braille
transcripts
are
available
upon
request.
Assisted
listening
devices
are
available
same-day
upon
request.
The
City
Clerk’
office
should
be
notified
72 hours
(three
business
days)
or
as
soon
as
practicable
for
requests
regarding
sign
language
translation
and
Braille
transcription
services.
All
documents
related
to
open
session
items
on
this
agenda
that
are
received
less
than
72 hours
prior
to
this
meeting,
and
are
public
records,
will
be
available
for
review
in the Office of the City Clerk, 613 E. Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.
Translation
services
are
provided
for
meetings
through
the
use
of
bilingual
staff
for
speakers
who
wish
to
utilize
the
service
as
available.
Speakers
should
state
their
request
by
contacting
the
City
Clerk’s
office
at
(818)
548-2090,
at
least
72 hours
prior
to
the
scheduled
meeting
or
as
soon
as
practicable.
Please
specify
the
language
for
which
you
require
translation.
The
exclusive
use
of
City
provided
interpreters
is
not
required
and
persons
are
welcome
to
use
their
own
interpreter
or
speak
in their native language.
JANUARY 30, 2024
ROLL CALL
1. CLOSED SESSION
– 1:00 PM ( To Commence at 2:00 PM
)
a.
Conference with Labor Negotiators. The City-designated negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Michael J. Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, Paula Adams, Aymee Martin, Jason Bradford and Laura Kalty. The name of the employee organization is: Glendale Management Association
1 TYPED 1/26/2024 11:13:30 AM
01 30 24
CC
b.
Conference with Labor Negotiators. The City-designated negotiator attending the closed session is: Mayor Dan Brotman. The unrepresented employee position is:
City Attorney
c.
Conference with real property negotiators. City negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Onnig Bulanikian, Bradley Calvert, Mark Berry, Jason Bradford, Michael J. Garcia, and Gillian van Muyden. Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms for the acquisition of property Property Location No. 1: 520 & 534 N. Glendale Avenue
Negotiating Parties: Glendale 3D LLC and MCMB Glendale LLC Property Location No. 2: 115 to 123 W. Wilson Avenue
Negotiating Parties: Lillie S. Makhanian
d.
Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: Claim of Tonyan, Claim No. 23- 0231
e.
Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: Claim of Escobar, Claim No. 23-0037
f.
Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: Claim of State Farm (Whipple), Claim No. 23-0008
2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA
– 6:00 PM
Roll Call
a.
Flag Salute: Mayor Dan Brotman
b.
Invocation: Dr. Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c.
Report of the City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the January 30, 2024 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on January 25, 2024, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.
3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a.
Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, February 6, 2024 b.
Presentation by the Pasadena Humane Society on Wildlife/Coyote Management Plan
4. CONSENT ITEMS
(Including Minutes)
The following are Routine and May be Acted Upon by One Motion. Any Member of Council or the Audience Requesting Separate Consideration May do so by Making Such Request Before Motion is Proposed.
a.
City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of January 23, 2024 b.
Public Works, re:
Award of a Professional Services Agreement for the Update of the Fleet Electrification Study
1. Motion awarding a Professional Services Agreement to Center for Transportation and the Environment for $102,200 for the Update to the Glendale Fleet Electrification Study
5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)
2 TYPED 1/26/2024 11:13:30 AM
01 30 24
CC
7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
8. ACTION ITEMS
a.
Community Development, re:
Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.30 (Rental Rights
Program)
1. Ordinance for Introduction Amending Chapter 9.30 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 – Relating to the Rental Rights Program
2. Ordinance Amending the Citywide Fee Resolution and Adding Administration Citation Fine Amounts for Rental Rights Program Violations
3. Motion Directing Staff
b.
Public Works, re:
Introduction of Ordinance for Public and Private Indigenous Tree Protections
1. Ordinance amending portions of Chapter 12.40 and 12.44 of the Glendale Municipal Code to update standards and enforcement mechanisms for public and indigenous tree protection
2. Ordinance amending portions of Titles 16 and 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code regarding tree-related zoning provisions
3. Resolution establishing and modifying administrative citation fines in the Citywide Fee Schedule for enforcement of the public tree and indigenous tree ordinances
4. Resolution of Appropriation for Outreach Services
9. HEARINGS
a.
Community Development, re: Appeal of the Design Review Board (DRB) approval of Design Review Case No. PDR-000210-2022 to demolish the existing commercial stable buildings and associated structures (originally developed in 1939) and construct three new buildings with 15 surface parking spaces for a commercial stable and kennel on a 44,682 square-foot (SF) corner lot, located at 1900 Riverside Drive in the CE (Commercial Equestrian Services) Zone
1. Motion to sustain the Design Review Board’s decision to approve the Design Review Application with conditions
2. Motion to continue the matter, directing the City Attorney to draft findings reversing the Design Review Board’s decision and denying the Project
10. REPORTS - INFORMATION
11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
12. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS
a.
Mayor Brotman’s request to agendize a discussion of options to address the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal’s decision in
California Restaurant Association v. City of
Berkeley
relative to the City’s Reach Code Requirement that new buildings be constructed as “all-electric” buildings, including options for an “electric preferred” ordinance
b.
Councilmember Kassakhian’s request to agendize a Resolution condemning the ethnic cleansing and genocide of Armenians in Artsakh
13. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Each Speaker is Allowed 5 minutes.
3 TYPED 1/26/2024 11:13:30 AM
01 30 24
CC
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 1/26/2024 11:13:30 AM
01 30 24
CC
Wildlife/Coyote
Management Plan
Presented by Lauren Hamlett
5 of 561
Pasadena Humane
Wildlife Department
• We take in thousands of injured,
sick, and orphaned wild animals
every year.
• We help get wildlife healthy for
release or transfer to specialized
facilities.
• Public Education
• Wildlife Helpline (626) 344-1129
• **New** Wildlife Exclusion Program
6 of 561
What is Urban
Wildlife?
• Wild animals that have
adapted to live in
human-dominated areas
• Our neighborhoods are
their habitat. They are
born and raised here!
7 of 561
What is a Wildlife Management Plan?
- A document for humanely and effectively preventing and solving conflicts among wildlife, people and companion
animals.
- Provides guidance for city staff when dealing with wildlife in the city including tired responses. City staff can utilize this plan to provide public education to the community for topics related to human-wildlife interactions.
8 of 561
Legal standing
Guidelines and provisions of the plan would not supersede federal, state and county regulations and policies, as
applicable. Furthermore, the provisions of this plan do not apply to residents, businesses, or homeowner associations in pursuit of their legal rights in dealing with wildlife. 9 of 561
Example Wildlife Management Plans
Pasadena (Urban Wildlife)
Sierra Madre (Urban Wildlife)
SGVCOG (Coyote)
Calabasas (Coyote)
Ventura County (Coyote)Montebello (Coyote)^
Carson (Coyote)*
Davis (Coyote, Wild Turkey)
Superior, CO (Coyote)^
*HSUS Template^Project Coyote Template
10 of 561
Breakdown of Plans
1. Introduction/Executive Summary
a. Approach
b. Limitations/Difficulties
c. Legal Considerations/Regulations
d. Goals
2. Species Overview
a. Natural History
b. Local History
c. Hazing and Humane Exclusion Strategies
d. Human Impact
3. Management Strategy
a. Education and Outreach
b. Tiered Response Plan (including detailed definitions)
4. Appendices
11 of 561
Humane Society of the United States Template
This Coyote Management and
Coexistence Plan is based on
scientific research, a thorough
understanding of coyote ecology
and biology in urban settings, and
the best known management
practices and management tools.
This plan is guided by the
following basic principles:
12 of 561
Humane Society of the United States Template
1. Human safety is a priority in managing human-coyote interactions.
2. Coyotes serve an important role in ecosystems by helping to control the population of rodents, Canada geese, rabbits and other urban mammals.
3. Preventive practices such as reduction and removal of food attractants, habitat modification and responding appropriately when interacting with wildlife are key to minimizing potential interactions with coyotes.
4. Solutions for coyote conflicts must address both problematic coyote behaviors (such as aggression towards people and attacks on pets) and the problematic human behaviors (intentionally or unintentionally feeding coyotes and letting pets outside unattended) that contribute to conflicts.
5. Non-selective coyote removal programs are ineffective for reducing coyote population sizes or preventing human-coyote conflicts.
6. A community-wide program that involves residents is necessary for achieving coexistence among people, coyotes and pets.
13 of 561
Project Coyote Resources
Coyote Friendly Community™ program
- Focus on education, communication, science, and
behavior modification
- Adopted by many jurisdictions, emphasizes
consistent messaging, agency collaboration, and
community empowerment
- Project Coyote Representatives give direct assistance - Public presentations, training to law enforcement
agencies.
- Downloadable collateral in multiple languages
14 of 561
CDFW Wildlife Watch
- This program model supports local agencies, community leaders, and community groups to develop integrated
wildlife management plans and sustainable solutions to
human-wildlife conflicts.
- Training and support by Fish and Wildlife Staff and
volunteers
- Regular meetings with other local agencies and CDFW
- Provides conservation coaching on two levels—local
agencies and community groups.
15 of 561
Wildlife Watch for Local Agencies
• Identify a Wildlife Watch coordinator at the city or county level. • Develop an integrated wildlife management plan.
• Standardize policies, protocol, and procedures.
• Identify each department role to implement the plan (e.g., animal services, public safety, public works, parks and recreation departments). • Identify an appropriate outreach and education strategy to support the plan.
• The municipality agrees to have one person represented from each agency or division. The goal is for each representative to understand their role and responsibility and key aspects of the plan. 16 of 561
Questions?
17 of 561
1 4A
M I N U T E S
GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor Glendale, CA 91206
JANUARY 23, 2024
ROLL CALL – Absent: Devine, Brotman
1. CLOSED SESSION – 4:02 PM
a. Public Employee Appointment – Senior Assistant City Attorney b. Conference with Labor Negotiators. The City-designated negotiators attending the closed session are: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Michael J. Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, Paula Adams, Aymee Martin, Jason Bradford and Peter Brown. The name of the employee organization is: Glendale City Employees Association City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is anticipated on item 1a. Council recessed to closed session at 4:04 p.m.
2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:06 PM
Roll Call – Absent: Brotman
a. Flag Salute: Mayor Pro Tem Kassakhian
b. Invocation: Dr. Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c. Report of the City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the January 23, 2024 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on January 18, 2024, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.
3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, January 30, 2024 Asst. City Manager John Takhtalian provided the preview. b. Commendations for Student Exchange Delegation Visit from Sister City Boeun, South Korea
Chang Lee, Korea Glendale Sister City Association
c. Presentation by the Armenian Bar Association: The Genocide of the Artsakh People
Public Comment:
Tom O'Shaughnessy
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 4d moved to the February 6, 2024 Council Meeting.
Item 4e pulled for separate consideration.
18 of 561
2 a. City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Joint City Council and Housing Authority and Regular City Council Meetings of January 9, 2024
Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows
a.
b. Public Works, re: Award of Construction Contract for the Palmer Avenue and Green Street Rehabilitation Project
1. Motion to award a construction contract to All American Asphalt in the amount of $1,271,752, approving a 10 percent contract contingency in the amount of $127,175, and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to execute the contract Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows
b.
2. Resolution 24-10 of appropriation to transfer funds in the amount of $1,398,927 for the Palmer Avenue and Green Street Rehabilitation Project Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows
c.
c. Public Works, re: Award of Construction Contract for the Fiscal Year 2023 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Program
1. Motion awarding a construction contract to Onyx Paving Company, Inc. in the amount of $3,233,000, approving a 10 percent contract contingency in the amount of $323,300, and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to execute the contract Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows
d.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Asatryan, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian (pro tem)
None
Brotman
None
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Asatryan, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian (pro tem)
None
Brotman
None
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Asatryan, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian (pro tem)
None
Brotman
None
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Asatryan, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian (pro tem)
None
Brotman
None
19 of 561
3 2. Resolution 24-11 of appropriation to shift and appropriate funds in the amount of $3,556,300 for the Fiscal Year 2023 Slurry Seal and Crack Seal Program Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows
e.
d. Public Works, re: Summary Vacation of the First Alley Southwesterly of Riverside Drive, Northwesterly of Allen Avenue (Alley 307) for a Equestrian and Canine Kennel Project; Vacation Case No. 189V
1. Resolution Ordering the Vacation
2. Resolution Adopting Plan No. 12-244
e. Glendale Water and Power, re: Task Order with Ascend Analytics, LLC for Software, License and Support Services for Integrated Resource Planning for Glendale Water & Power
Public Comment:
Jackie Gish
Staff Comment:
Roubik Golanian, City Manager
1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a Task Order with Ascend Analytics, LLC under an Agreement with the Southern California Public Power Authority for continued Software, License and Support Services for Integrated Resource Planning for Glendale Water & Power, for a total contract not-to-exceed amount of $394,064.46 for a three-year term, with an option for the City to extend the contract for two additional one-year terms in a total amount not to exceed $279,402.64 for both years; and authorizing a one-time payment of $12,285.96 for outstanding portion of a prior annual fee
Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
f. Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Asatryan, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian (pro tem)
None
Brotman
None
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Asatryan, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian (pro tem)
None
Brotman
None
20 of 561
4 f. Public Works, re: Award of Construction Contract for the San Fernando Road Beautification Project Phase I
1. Motion awarding a construction contract to All American Asphalt in the amount of $14,115,620, approving a 10 percent contract contingency in the amount of $1,411,562, and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to execute the contract Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows
g.
2. Resolution 24-09 of appropriation to appropriate funds in the amount of $16,232,963 for the San Fernando Road Beautification Project Phase I Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows
h.
g. Glendale Water and Power, re: Appropriation of Funds from Glendale Water & Power Fund Balance
1. Resolution 24-12 of Appropriation
Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows
i.
5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Mayor Pro Tem Kassakhian asked to pass a Resolution condemning the ethnic cleansing and genocide of the Armenian people in the Republic of Artsakh. Seconded by Asatryan.
Councilmember Devine announced the groundbreaking for the replacement terminal of the Hollywood Burbank Airport.
Councilmember Asatryan commended the Library, Arts, and Culture Department for hosting the opening reception and featuring the works of Shepard Fairey: Peace is Radical. She acknowledged Ara and Anahid Oshagan for the curation of the art exhibit. The exhibit will be at the Glendale Central Library until April 14, 2024.
Councilmember Najarian announced on October 19, 2024 the city will host its 2nd CicLAvia Event, which will be funded by Metro. He stated that Metro has allocated $8M for traffic signal modification and pedestrian improvements to the Verdugo Road and North Verdugo Road.
City Manager Roubik Golanian introduced the City’s new Interim Public Works Director Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Asatryan, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian (pro tem)
None
Brotman
None
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Asatryan, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian (pro tem)
None
Brotman
None
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Asatryan, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian (pro tem)
None
Brotman
None
21 of 561
5 Daniel Hernandez.
6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)
Allan Durham
7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
a. Public Works, re: Ordinance 6020 Amending Chapters 8.44 and 8.56 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, Updating Standards for Solid Waste and Recycling Collection (Kassakhian, 01/09/24)
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Asatryan
Vote as Follows
j.
Staff Comment:
Mike Garcia, City Attorney
8. ACTION ITEMS
a. Police Department, re: Police Department Real Time Intelligence Center (RTIC) Staff Comment:
Manuel Cid, Police Chief
1. Resolution 24-13 to dispense with competitive bidding and authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into a 5-year agreement with Constant Technologies Inc. for the design, engineering, and installation of consoles, video displays, parts, related software, and maintenance for a Real Time Intelligence Center (RTIC) in the amount of $565,600 plus 10% contingency of $56,560 for a total amount not to exceed $622,160
Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
Vote as Follows
k.
2. Resolution 24-14 of appropriation
Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
Vote as Follows
l.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Asatryan, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian (pro tem)
None
Brotman
None
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Asatryan, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian (pro tem)
None
Brotman
None
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Asatryan, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian (pro tem)
None
Brotman
None
22 of 561
6 b. Public Works, re: Dispensing with Competitive Bidding and Authorizing a City- wide Furniture Professional Services Agreement Extension Staff Comment:
Roubik Golanian, City Manager
1. Resolution 24-15 dispensing with competitive bidding and Authorizing Amendments to the existing furniture services professional services agreements with J K Miklin, Inc. DBA Yamada, Archi Txture LLC DBA Catalyst, and Margaret C Pett Inc. DBA Info-Com extending duration of the contracts by two years until December 31, 2025, with no additional funds added
Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
Vote as Follows
m.
c. Glendale Water and Power, re: Authorization to enter into a Legal Services Agreements with Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP and Authorization to Enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Public Financial Management Financial Advisors, LLC
Staff Comment:
Roubik Golanian, City Manager
1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into and execute a Legal Services Agreement (LSA) with Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP (Norton) to include funds for the payment of fees for past services in the amount of $11,913 and fees for three future bond issuances in fiscal years 2024, 2025 and 2026 totaling $425,000 for a total contract amount not to exceed the amount of $436,913 Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
n.
2. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into and execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Public Financial Management Financial Advisors, LLC (PFM) to include funds for the payment of fees for past services in the amount of $25,000 and fees for three future bond issuances in fiscal years 2024, 2025 and 2026 totaling $275,000 for a total contract not-to-exceed amount of $300,000
Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
o.
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Asatryan, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian (pro tem)
None
Brotman
None
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Asatryan, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian (pro tem)
None
Brotman
None
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Asatryan, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian (pro tem)
None
Brotman
None
23 of 561
7 3. Resolution 24-16 of Appropriation
Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
p.
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.
Edmond Hagopian
Vartan Gharpetian
Ramella Eraghi
Cheryl Wales
Patrick Murphy
Diane Martin
Don
Jackie Gish
Judy Schlegel
Alan Levis
Walter Bagramyan
14. NEW BUSINESS
a. Motion to approve the City Attorney’s appointment of Aaron Israel as Senior Assistant City Attorney for the City of Glendale
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Asatryan
Vote as Follows
q.
15. ADJOURNMENT – 7:45 p.m.
Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Devine
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Asatryan, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian (pro tem)
None
Brotman
None
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
Asatryan, Devine, Najarian, Kassakhian (pro tem)
None
Brotman
None
24 of 561
4b
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Award of a Professional Services Agreement for the Update of the Fleet Electrification Study
1. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Center for Transportation and the Environment, in the amount of $102,200, for the Update to the Glendale Fleet Electrification Study
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for January 30, 2024 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In September 2022, the consulting firm Center for Transportation and the Environment (CTE) completed the Fleet Electrification Study for the City of Glendale that provides the city with a roadmap to convert its fleet of 970 diverse vehicles and equipment to zero emission. In August 2023, new analysis was finalized and incorporated into the report based on input from the City Council including adopting fuel cell electric vehicles and financial analysis of a true 100% transition by 2040.
One recommendation of the study was that it be updated every two years to account for changes in operations and vehicle technology. However, per the direction of the City Council, the plan resulting from the study will be updated more frequently. The proposed plan update will focus on a market analysis update for zero emission vehicles, vehicle daily use pattern analysis to refine power need estimates and the required infrastructure to implement the plan, and compliance with the recent California Air Resources Board’s Advanced Clean Fleet regulations. The proposed fee for the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) is $102,200.
25 of 561
24b
4 8
8 1
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a PSA with CTE for the Update to the Glendale Fleet Electrification Study for $102,200.
ANALYSIS
When the Fleet Electrification Study was completed in September 2022, it was a unique document that provided a detailed plan for transitioning a highly complex municipal fleet to zero emission. For the plan to remain effective, it needs to be regularly updated to account for changes in municipal operations as well as advances in zero emission vehicle technology and the availability of original equipment manufacturer vehicles. Further, after two years of plan implementation, staff has found other portions of the plan that warrant further analysis to be updated and improved.
Background
In September 2021, the city entered into a PSA with CTE for the development of a Fleet Electrification Study. In June 2022, CTE toured City of Glendale’s primary sites where vehicles are stored and deployed. After the site visit, data analysis, and meeting with staff, the draft Fleet Electrification Study was presented to the City Council in September 2022, and in August 2023, the final report was accepted by the city.
Due to the duration of the original study, the services extended into the current fiscal year and the cumulative amount of the original PSA and proposed PSA exceed the $150,000 annual limit. Therefore, City Council authorization is required for the new PSA.
The proposed update to the Fleet Electrification Study will encompass the entire plan with special emphasis on the following areas:
Market Analysis Update
CTE will conduct a market survey for commercial availability of each type of vehicle in the fleet. The work will be accomplished through research as well as direct contact with selected manufacturers or dealers as needed. CTE will pay extra attention to specific classes of vehicles that are challenging to transition, such as compact pickup trucks and fire engines.
Duty-Cycle Assessment by Site and Vehicle Type
The original study used annual mileage and hours to determine power needs. To refine this estimate, CTE will work closely with city staff to review the use of each type of vehicle at each location to determine a realistic use pattern. This will include an assessment of the power needs at each site based on the active units on a given day.
Infrastructure Assessment Update by Site
The electric vehicle (EV) charger needs assessment will be adjusted based on the duty- cycle assessment by site and vehicle type.
26 of 561
34b
4 8
8 1
Regulatory Reporting
CTE will review the California Air Resources Board’s Advanced Clean Fleet regulations to ensure the transition plan complies with and addresses the options for municipalities.
In addition to the emphasis areas listed above, the proposed PSA also includes $20,000 for on-call technical support for plan implementation such as grant writing for EV vehicles and infrastructure. Following their analysis, CTE will submit a final updated report to the city and the results of this analysis will be presented to the Glendale City Council.
Fleet Electrification Implementation Update
Staff continues to aggressively seek out EV replacement vehicles in compliance with the study. The table below illustrates the status of the EV procurement plan after 1.5 years:
Fiscal
Year
EVs
Planned
EVs
Budgeted
EVs
Ordered
2023 8 10 10
2024 20 31* 11
2025 35
2026 36
2027 24
2028 34
2029 54
2030 98
2031 133
*Originally 31 were budgeted for EV; however, only 20 are being pursued due to a lack of OEM vehicles in the compact pickup vehicle class. 9 more EVs need to be ordered before the end of FY 2023-24.
The primary challenges that staff experienced with implementation of the plan is EV availability. Early request for quotations for EVs were not generating bids from vendors and it appears private companies were being favored over public agencies for some vehicle classes. Additionally, EV options are still not yet widely available to public agencies for some common vehicle classes such as compact pickup trucks. EV options for many heavy duty or specialty vehicles are still in pilot or demonstration phases.
Despite these constraints, Glendale has made some significant recent strides transitioning to a zero-emission fleet. In addition to procuring numerous light-duty EVs, the city’s first EV mini-sweeper is expected to be delivered in May 2023. Full-size EV sweepers are now available and will be included in the FY 2024-25 annual budget request.
The project is underway to install eight level-two chargers at various facilities for city use only. At this time, three have been installed and are already in use. Prior to this project, the city fleet was primarily being charged with the OEM level one chargers. Additionally, 72 GWP public chargers are also available for city use. Currently, the city still lacks the 27 of 561
44b
4 8
8 1
EV charging infrastructure to support wholesale transition for many vehicles classes.
GWP upgrades to the Acacia Substation and other facilities are still needed to support full fleet electrification.
In October 2023, staff submitted a California Air Resources Board grant application to electrify a standard Public Works crew with assistance from CTE. The announcement from CARB on grant awardees is imminent. Staff will continue to pursue grants and alternative funding sources to implement the plan. Public Works staff will prepare a budget submittal for FY 2024-25 with vehicle and EV charger appropriations consistent with the plan. Lastly, Public Works will work with GWP to help them further plan for the needed electrical system infrastructure upgrades.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
As the EV vehicles and chargers that make up the Fleet Electrification Study are not for public use, no outreach is planned. However, if the California Air Resources Board grant is successful, the Public Works Department will schedule a public demonstration of this new equipment as required by the grant.
FISCAL IMPACT
The Fleet Electrification Study will cost $102,200. The Public Works Department can absorb this cost and therefore no new appropriation is being requested at this time. The funding is outlined below:
Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$102,200 43110-6010-PWD-7509-P0000 Fleet Maintenance Fund
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is considered ministerial activity and therefore, not subject to CEQA review.
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 #1, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. Do not authorize a new Professional Services Agreement with Center for Transportation and the Environment to update of the Fleet Electrification Study which will require staff to implement an outdated plan.
2. The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff. 28 of 561
54b
4 8
8 1
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Daniel Hernandez, Interim Director of Public Works
Prepared by:
Shea Eccleston-Banwer, Senior Public Works Manager
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Campaign Finance Disclosure.
29 of 561
64b
4 8
8 1
MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded
by Council Member , that the City Manager, or a
designee, is authorized to execute a professional services agreement, subject to approval by the City Attorney, for the Update to the Glendale Fleet Electrification Study, with Center for Transportation and the Environment, for an amount not-to- exceed $102,200.
Votes as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
City Clerk
30 of 561
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the City Manager or his designee is hereby authorized to execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Center for Transportation and the Environment, in the amount of $102,200, for the Update to the Glendale Fleet Electrification Study, as outlined in the Report to Council dated November January 30, 2024. Said agreement shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney.
Vote as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
31 of 561
Exhibit 1City of Glendale
DISCLOSURE - CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE
The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5744, “Campaign Finance Ordinance,” which became effective on September 9, 2011, and amended it with Ordinance No. 5768, which became effective on March 15, 2012 (“the Ordinance”). The Ordinance prohibits: (1) A contractor* (including a subcontractor**)― who has a contract with the City of Glendale (“City”), Economic Development Department (“EDD”), or the Housing Authority of the City of Glendale (“HA”) and that contract is subject to approval by the City Council, EDD, or HA― from making a contribution to a City Council member, EDD member, HA member, City Clerk, or City Treasurer; and (2) Council members, EDD members, and HA members from voting on matters concerning a contract with a person who has provided a campaign contribution.
The Ordinance applies to a contractor whose contract requires the City Council’s, EDD's, or HA’s approval. A contract with the City, EDD, or HA is known as a “City Contract.” The Ordinance also applies to a subcontractor who has a subcontract through a City Contract. The Ordinance excludes a competitively bid contract awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.
To assist members of the City Council, EDD, and HA before they vote on a matter regarding a City Contract, the Ordinance requires City staff to prepare this report which discloses certain information about: the contractor receiving the City Contract, and the subcontractor(s) working under the City Contract.
A contractor must provide the information listed below when: A subcontractor must provide the information listed below when:
• • The subcontract through a City Contract has a total anticipated or actual value of $25,000 or more; or
The City Contract has a total anticipated or actual value of $50,000 or more; or contract awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.
• A combination or series of City Contracts have a value of $50,000 or more. • A combination or series of subcontracts, for the same or different projects, have an aggregate value of $25,000 or
more. Information that must be disclosed: ● Name of the person, entity, or organization (i.e., the Contractor or Subcontractor) ● Name of the Chief Executive Officer/President
● Chief Operating Officer
● Chief Financial Officer
● Chairperson
● All members of the Board of Directors
● All persons who own more than 10% of the person, entity, or organization ● Name of any campaign committee owned or controlled by the person, entity, or organization Please complete the following disclosure form:
Contractor(s)*:
Name Address
Center for Transportation and the Evnironment, Inc. 730 Peachtree Street NE, Suite 450, Atlanta GA 30308 Full Name Title
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Business Address City State
GA
Zip
Eric Sonnichsen 730 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 450
730 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 450
Atlanta
Atlanta
St. Paul
Atlanta
Atlanta
30308
Dan Raudebaugh
Brianna Kerry
GA 30308
55114
30308
30308
550 Vandalia St. Suite 236
730 Peachtree St. NE Suite 450
730 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 450
MN
Christopher Stroumpis
John Sleconich
N/A
GA
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
GA
* “Contractor” is the person, entity, or organization that is the party, or prospective party, to the contract with the City, EDD, or HA or any member of that person’s, entity’s, or organization’s Board of Directors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization. Above please disclose these persons’ name and business address. 32 of 561
Subcontractor(s)**:
Full Name
Name Address
CityTitle Business Address State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
** “Subcontractor” is the person, entity, or organization that has entered into a contract for the performance of all or a portion of the work undertaken under an agreement with an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract, usually by a general or prime contractor. Subcontractor includes any member of that person’s, entity’s, or organization’s Board of Directors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization. Above please disclose these persons’ name and business address.
Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:
Title Business Address City State Zip
CERTIFICATION
On behalf of the above-named Contractor Subcontractor:
• I acknowledge that I have a continuing obligation to update this disclosure form if I substitute― or if I select additional― architects, design professionals, contractors, or subcontractors within ten (10) days of the selection or change; and • I hereby certify that:
I have identified all persons for which the Ordinance requires disclosure; The information in this disclosure form (and any attachment to this form) is true, accurate, correct, and complete; and I have been legally authorized to submit this disclosure form. 0In total, this disclosure form (including attachments) is pages.
January 8 24 BerkeleyExecuted on:
Signature:
, 20 , at: , California.
Dan RaudebaughPrint Full Name:
2041 Bancroft Way, Suite 210, Berkeley CA 94704
510-851-0625
Address:
[email protected] Number: E-mail Address:
Rev. 6/7/12 J:\FILES\DOCFILES\ORD\CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION\DISCLOSURE FORM – CONTRACTOR – 6-7-12.doc 33 of 561
8a
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.30 (Rental Rights Program)
1. Ordinance for Introduction Amending Chapter 9.30 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 – Relating to the Rental Rights Program.
2. Ordinance Amending the Citywide Fee Resolution and Adding Administration Citation Fine Amounts for Rental Rights Program Violations.
3. Motion Directing Staff.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for January 30, 2024 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 2022, Glendale City Council (Council) formed the Landlord/Tenant Ad-Hoc Committee (Ad-Hoc Committee) to review the Rental Rights Program ordinance. The Committee met twelve times, focusing on assessing the current ordinance, planning outreach, and exploring dispute solutions.
By August 22, 2023, reports were presented to Council highlighting strengths of the ordinance, areas to improve, and other suggested changes and/or additions. While the outreach strategy received approval, some elements of the proposed ordinance needed clarification, leading to a follow-up meeting on September 27, 2023. This resulted in additional revisions after detailed discussions among Ad-Hoc Committee members.
On November 28, 2023, a comprehensive report was presented to Council, including a revised ordinance reflecting stakeholder input, Ad-Hoc Committee discussions, and Council insights. Council provided feedback on specific areas, prompting staff to explore defining a Qualified Tenant, options for small property owners, and adjustments to the Just Cause Eviction for Renovation provision.
34 of 561
28a
4 8
5 7
In addition to the primary areas highlighted by Council, the report offers expanded discussions on potential measures related to major rehabilitation. These include longer eviction notice periods, financial assistance programs, legal aid and representation, pre- renovation assessments, appeals processes, City oversight of permits, renovation impact assessments, notices to the City and tenants, and enforcement provisions for tenant displacement.
RECOMMENDATION
•Approve Proposed Revisions: Following a discussion to determine their preferred options, the Council may choose to approve the proposed revisions to the ordinance.
•Provide Feedback on Proposed Revisions: City Council may opt to offer additional feedback on the proposed changes and request staff to refine the ordinance based on the discussions held.
ANALYSIS
Council initiated the Landlord/Tenant Ad-Hoc Committee in 2022 to review the Rental Rights Program ordinance. The Ad-Hoc Committee's purpose was to gather input and provide recommendations to Council on landlord/tenant rental housing matters. The Ad- Hoc Committee was assigned three main tasks, including reviewing the Rental Rights Program ordinance, developing education and marketing strategies, and evaluating a voluntary dispute resolution program. The Ad-Hoc Committee was originally comprised of seven but now six members, representing both renters and landlords in Glendale, and convened monthly for a total of twelve meetings.
On August 22, 2023, three detailed reports were presented by staff on the Ad-Hoc Committee's work plan. They covered the Rental Rights Program, outreach strategies, and mediation options, resulting from extensive research and collaboration.
The Rental Rights report outlined program strengths, areas for improvement, existing regulations, and recommendations for fairness. The outreach strategies explored ways to inform the community about rental rights through digital campaigns and local partnerships. Meanwhile, the mediation options report analyzed dispute resolution methods.
During the meeting, Council approved the outreach strategy. Council also acknowledged the Rental Rights ordinance recommendations but sought clarification.
Additionally, Council requested exploration of dispute resolution beyond mediation. 35 of 561
38a
4 8
5 7
On September 27, 2023, staff convened the Ad-Hoc Committee to address the feedback received from Council. While two committee members were unable to attend the meeting, the remaining four members engaged in an in-depth discussion of Council's feedback. They assessed and discussed the recommendations, subsequently voting on several issues based on thorough deliberation.
On November 28, 2023, staff presented Council with a report summarizing the Ad-Hoc Committee's discussions on the areas Council requested for review (Attachment 1).
This report included a revised ordinance, incorporating changes discussed with the Ad- Hoc Committee, stakeholders, and from Council discussions. After considering community input and deliberating, Council decided to provide feedback on specific areas within the revised ordinance. Council instructed staff to conduct a thorough review of three crucial aspects of the ordinance to provide various options for Council to consider moving forward. These areas of consideration were:
• Defining a Qualified Tenant
• Exploring carve-out options for small property owners ("Mom and Pop" establishments)
• Adjustments to Just Cause Eviction for Renovation provision In response to Council's feedback, staff has identified multiple options outlined in this report for Council's consideration, providing alternatives to the proposals presented on November 28, 2023. Alongside this report, staff has prepared a user-friendly guide, included as attachment 2, to assist Council in navigating the available options.
QUALIFIED TENANT
This category aimed to establish a comprehensive definition encompassing various criteria essential for identifying such tenants. These criteria included disability, age, individuals with low-income status, and families with school-aged children. This detailed categorization was intended to extend an added layer of protection and support for these tenant groups vulnerable to housing insecurities.
The segment of "Qualified Tenant" comprises of four distinct primary areas, each crucial in its definition and coverage:
•Defining Seniors: Outlining and clarifying the specific age parameters and conditions that classify an individual as a senior within the tenant population. •Identifying Disabled Individuals: Establishing a clear set of criteria and qualifications to recognize individuals with disabilities as part of the protected 36 of 561
48a
4 8
5 7
category of tenants.
•Addressing School-Aged Families: Detailing the conditions under which families with school-aged children qualify as part of the "Qualified Tenant" category.
•Clarifying Low-Income Individuals: Defining the parameters and conditions that categorize individuals with low-income status.
DEFINING SENIORS
In the proposed ordinance, the term "senior" was initially defined as anyone aged over
62. However, during Council's deliberation, there was consensus that setting the threshold at 62 might be perceived as unreasonable, as this age was considered relatively young and indicative of a workforce-capable demographic. Council members expressed concerns that individuals at this age could still actively participate in the workforce.
In response, staff has outlined several alternative options for Council's consideration, aiming to refine the definition of "senior" beyond the age of 62. There are several age options for Council discussion:
A. 65 year old.
B. 70 years old.
C. 75 years old.
D. 80 years old.
E. Remove Age from Qualified Tenant.
F. Any other age limit as determined by Council.
Of the options provided above, staff recommends that seniors be granted status as a Qualified Tenant and recommends the age be set no less than 65 and no more than 70 years old.
IDENTIFYING DISABLED INDIVIDUALS
In the proposed ordinance, the term "disability" is specifically defined in alignment with Title 42 United States Code Section 423, or as handicapped, as articulated in Section 37 of 561
58a
4 8
5 7
50072 of the California Health and Safety Code. This definition encompasses individuals facing limitations outlined within these legal frameworks.
When addressing the issue of defining disability for tenants, it is crucial to recognize that both state and federal governments have established specific definitions for disabled individuals. In light of this, the staff strongly advises against Council's pursuit of creating an additional or more specific definition of disability. This caution stems from the potential implications it may have on fair housing regulations and the risk of litigation.
Attempting to intricately detail what may or may not be considered a disability could lead to complications and legal challenges. It is essential to avoid opening a proverbial "can of worms" by delving into the nuanced aspects of disability definitions.
Rather than attempting to further refine the definition of disability, staff recommends two alternative approaches. One option is to completely exclude disabled individuals from the definition of qualified tenants. Another option is to refrain from explicitly defining disability and, instead, maintain the existing State and Federal definitions. The State of California Fair Housing Laws define disability as a physical or mental impairment that “limits a major life activity” (Government Code Section 12926-12926.1), here is a summary of the definitions for Mental Disability and Physical Disability:
Physical Disability
• Conditions affecting body systems (neurological, immunological, musculoskeletal, etc.) that limit major life activities, regardless of mitigating measures.
• Any health impairment requiring special education or related services. • Having a record or history of specified conditions known to the employer or entity covered.
• Being regarded or treated as having a physical condition making major life activities difficult.
• Being regarded or treated as having a condition that may become a physical disability in the future.
• Exclusions: The definition excludes certain conditions like sexual behavior disorders, compulsive gambling, and substance use disorders resulting from unlawful drug use.
Mental Disability
• Disorders like intellectual disability, organic brain syndrome, emotional or mental illness, or specific learning disabilities that limit major life activities. 38 of 561
68a
4 8
5 7
• "Limits" are determined without considering mitigating measures unless the measure itself limits a major life activity.
• A disorder or condition limits a major life activity if it makes achieving the activity difficult.
• "Major life activities" include physical, mental, social activities, and working. • Any other mental or psychological disorder or condition not specified in (1) that requires special education or related services.
• Having a record or history of a mental or psychological disorder known to the employer or covered entity.
• Being regarded or treated as having a mental condition making achievement of a major life activity difficult.
• Being regarded or treated as having had a mental or psychological disorder that may become a mental disability.
The California Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 50072 defines "handicapped" as a family where the head of the household has an orthopedic disability affecting personal mobility or a physical disability impacting employability. It also includes single individuals with such disabilities who require special care or facilities at home. The term encompasses families with a head of household having a developmental disability or mental disorder eligible for rehabilitation or social services.
Title 42 of the United States Code, Section 423 defines disability as:
Inability to engage in any substantial gainful activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or mental impairment which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months; or in the case of an individual who has attained the age of 55 and is blind (within the meaning of “blindness” as defined in section 416(i)(1) of this title), inability by reason of such blindness to engage in substantial gainful activity requiring skills or abilities comparable to those of any gainful activity in which he has previously engaged with some regularity and over a substantial period of time.
If council chooses to include disabled persons as part of the definition for Qualified Tenant, staff recommends aligning the definition of disability to that of the existing State and Federal definitions.
ADDRESSING SCHOOL-AGED FAMILIES
With regards to defining "School-Aged Families," the proposed ordinance states that any a school-aged (grades Pre-K-12) child enrolled in a school located in the public school district to which the Rental Unit is located would be considered a Qualified 39 of 561
78a
4 8
5 7
Tenant. Council expressed the concern that this section could essentially encompass the majority of tenants in Glendale, unintentionally including all residents as Qualified Tenants. To address this concern, staff focused on crafting more precise and detailed definitions specifically tailored to encapsulate the concept of school-aged families.
Staff has identified a few of options for Council's consideration, allowing for flexibility in their decision-making process. These options can be considered individually, or Council may opt to select multiple definitions, combining them to enhance the overall protective measure:
A. School-Aged Families are households that include a child under the age of 18 years with a physical or developmental disability demonstrably proven through medical evidence. The Rental Unit serves as the primary residence for school-aged child, enrolled in grades Pre-K through 12, attending a school within the public school district corresponding to the Rental Unit's assignment.
B. School-Aged Families encompass households that include a child under the age of 18 years with one or more deceased or absent parents, currently under the care of a single parent, designated caretaker, or a sole adopting parent. The Rental Unit serves as the primary residence for school-aged child, enrolled in grades Pre-K through 12, attending a school within the public school district corresponding to the Rental Unit's assignment.
C. Remove School-Aged Families as a criteria for Qualified Tenant.
D. Any other definition determined by Council.
CLARIFYING LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS
Another crucial aspect under the umbrella of a Qualified Tenant is the determination of lower income Tenant. This wasn't a focal point of discussion or concern for Council.
With regards to this discussion, the proposed ordinance uses federal definitions to describe lower income. This definition encompasses two levels of lower income including Very Low income and Extremely Low Income. The following criteria define Very Low and Extremely Low-Income Tenants:
Income Limits based on Persons in Family
1 2 3 4 5
Very Low $44,150 $50,450 $56,750 $63,050 $68,100
Extremely Low $26,500 $30,300 $34,100 $37,850 $40,900
40 of 561
88a
4 8
5 7
Based on the current proposed definition, an individual would qualify as low income if their earnings fall below $44,150. Should Council desire adjustments in this category— whether it involves raising or lowering the thresholds—staff recommends considering incremental changes of $5,000 or $10,000 to the existing defined standards. These standards change annually from HUD.
CARVE-OUT OPTIONS FOR SMALL PROPERTY OWNERS
Council requested further exploration regarding carve-out options tailored for small property owners, often referred to as "mom-and-pop" owners, defined in this context as property owners with properties that have four or fewer units. This specific definition aligns with various factors, including considerations based on loan processes and several other pertinent elements influencing small property ownership dynamics.
The definition of "four or fewer units" coincides with prevalent loan practices and lending criteria within the real estate sector. Financial institutions commonly categorize properties with up to four units under a distinct loan category, recognizing the manageable scale and different risk profiles associated with these smaller properties.
This loan categorization often involves different terms, eligibility criteria, and financing options compared to larger multifamily or commercial properties. In fact, a loan is considered a commercial loan when it involves property with five or more units.
It's crucial to emphasize that the decision made in this particular area will significantly impact a considerable number of housing units, estimated at nearly 12,000 units. This number is derived from data sourced from the American Community Survey of 2022 released annually by the United States Census Bureau.
Staff has come up with the following options as possible care-outs for smaller property owners:
A. Exempt properties where the owner resides on-site or within the same building of a property with 4 or fewer units.
B. Retain Current Carve-Out: Our current ordinance exempts properties with four or fewer units from the one-year lease requirement and requires a relocation fee of only “3 X Current Rent” as opposed to the proposed “3 X proposed Rent.” C. Retain Current Carve-Out and additional Carve-Out for areas of intentional disrepair. Landlords who resides on-site or within the same building would be 41 of 561
98a
4 8
5 7
exempt from all aspects of intentional disrepair.
D. Fully exempt all properties between two to four units. (SFH are already exempt) E. No Carve-Out for Small Property owners.
F. Any other option considered by Council.
JUST CAUSE EVICTION FOR RENOVATION
Another significant area of discussion revolved around the prerequisites for landlords undertaking major rehabilitation. Within this provision, specific aspects necessitated further exploration to offer varied options. During their discussions, Council expressed concerns that certain proposed alterations might create barriers for landlords considering major rehabilitation efforts, potentially adversely affecting the housing market.
• Uninhabitability Duration
• Qualified Tenant Multiplier
• Other options to Consider
UNINHABITABILITY DURATION
A significant point of concern centered around the duration of uninhabitability, referring to the period during which a unit, slated for major rehabilitation, must be uninhabitable for the landlord to initiate tenant eviction. In the proposed revisions, this duration is set at 90 days. Consequently, the unit would need to be rendered uninhabitable for this duration for the landlord to proceed with tenant eviction. During discussions, several stakeholders and Council members expressed reservations, contending that this 90-day requirement could pose a substantial barrier.
In response to these concerns, staff reviewed the feedback and devised several alternative options to address the perceived challenges associated with the 90-day uninhabitability threshold.
A. Revert to original ordinance: The unit would need to be uninhabitable for 30 days.
42 of 561
108a
4 8
5 7
B. 45 days: The unit would need to be uninhabitable for 45 days.
C. 60 days: The unit would need to be uninhabitable for 60 days.
D. Leave as is: The unit would need to be uninhabitable for 90 days.
E. Any other option considered by Council.
QUALIFIED TENANT MULTIPLIER
An area where the status of a Qualified Tenant becomes significant pertains to the amount of relocation assistance they might receive. The proposed ordinance suggests setting this value at twice the relocation fee. This fee hinges on two distinct types of scenarios: one for Just Cause eviction and another for relocation assistance due to rent increases exceeding 7%.
For Just Cause eviction, the proposed calculation is "3 times the greater of Fair Market Rent (FMR) or the tenant's current rent plus $2000." Meanwhile, relocation assistance for increases surpassing 7% is proposed at "3 times the proposed rent." A qualified tenant, depending on the type of relocation, would receive two times the specified calculation. For instance, in the case of an eviction, the formula would be 2 times (3 times FMR or the greater of the tenant's current rent plus $2000).
Council expressed interest in exploring alternative options regarding the treatment of qualified tenants in this realm, seeking additional perspectives or potential adjustments within the relocation assistance framework.
A. Leave as proposed: Relocation fee multiplied by 2.
B. Relocation fee multiplied set at 1.5.
C. Relocation fee plus an additional $3,500, (or other dollar amount agreed to).
D. No additional protections for Qualified Tenant, (Remove Qualified Tenant definition).
43 of 561
118a
4 8
5 7
OTHER OPTIONS TO CONSIDER
Council extensively discussed various changes, particularly focusing on Major Rehabilitation. In light of this, Council expressed an interest in further exploration, seeking additional ideas from staff to strengthen this particular area.
The initial report of November 28, 2023, provided a brief overview of a few ideas, and this section aims to delve deeper into those concepts. This expanded discussion intends to offer Council a more comprehensive understanding and evaluation of potential approaches best suited for Glendale's specific needs within the realm of Major Rehabilitation.
A. Extended Notice Periods: Require landlords to provide longer eviction notice periods, especially for long-term tenants. This gives tenants more time to find alternative housing or address issues causing the eviction.
Upon thorough review, the City Attorney’s Office maintains the position that the City is preempted in this matter. State law mandates a 30-day notice period for tenants residing in a unit for less than a year, and a 60-day notice period for those residing in the unit for over a year. Although the proposed idea would extend these notice periods, it falls within the purview of state law, which explicitly governs such matters.
Considering that state law specifically addresses this area, staff believes that Council would not have the authority to enact these changes independently.
However, if the Council is interested in pursuing such changes, legislative efforts can be directed towards amending state laws, akin to our successful efforts in implementing changes regarding extended notices for rent increases exceeding 10%.
B. Financial Assistance Programs: Create financial assistance programs to help tenants facing evictions, providing temporary relief or rental assistance.
Expanding financial assistance programs to aid tenants facing evictions involves establishing structured initiatives that offer relocation assistance. The program could function by providing eligible tenants with direct financial support, helping to pay additional relocation or related expenses during evictions.
Program Structure:
Eligibility Criteria: Clearly define eligibility criteria based on income levels, family size, and other relevant factors.
44 of 561
128a
4 8
5 7
Application Process: Establish a straightforward application process, ensuring accessibility for tenants in need.
Aid Calculation: Determine the amount of financial aid based on factors such as the tenant's income, the severity of the financial crisis, and local housing costs. Staff would recommend assistance to be anywhere between $500 to $3500 depending on scope or size of the program.
Budgetary Considerations:
Staff would need to determine the annual budget required for the program, considering factors such as the number of eligible tenants, average assistance amounts, and program reach.
Allocate funds for administrative costs, including staffing, application processing, and outreach efforts. Additional staffing would be needed to for processing, handling applications, eligibility verification, and aid distribution.
Staff has some rough estimates of what potential costs of a program like this could amount to.
• Number of eligible tenants: 100 to 200
• Average assistance per household: $500 - $3500
• Total annual assistance budget: $50,000 - $700,000
• Staffing, administrative, and other costs: $65,000 - $150,000 • Estimated total annual budget: $115,000 - $850,000
The budget outlined here provides a rough estimation based on hypothetical numbers. The actual figures would depend on varies factors include the number of tenants in need, and the extent of financial support and need for additional staffing and marketing.
C. Legal Aid and Representation: Increase access to legal aid and representation for tenants facing eviction, ensuring they have proper representation in eviction proceedings.
This initiative aims to ensure that tenants have adequate representation during eviction proceedings, enhancing their ability to navigate the legal complexities of such situations.
45 of 561
138a
4 8
5 7
Implementation Approach:
Partnering with outside Organizations: Collaborate with established legal aid agencies to handle cases for low-income tenants facing eviction.
Attorney Fee Coverage: Offer financial assistance to cover attorney costs for eligible tenants.
Reimbursement Mechanism: Create a system where any attorney fees recovered or saved due to legal victories would be reimbursed back to the City's budget, promoting a self-sustaining model.
Budget Considerations:
The budget would take into account the allocation funds for attorney fees, administrative costs, and any operational expenses incurred through partnering with external legal aid agencies. Staff estimates these costs to be anywhere from $100,000 to $250,000 annually. Further research would have to be conducted for a more accurate estimate.
D. Pre-Renovation Assessment: Mandate a comprehensive inspection of the property by certified inspectors before approving eviction for renovations. This assessment would determine the urgency and extent of renovations required, ensuring they are essential for the property's safety or habitability.
Before a landlord proceeds with evicting a tenant for major rehabilitation, they must first apply to the City for an inspection of the property. During this process, an inspector authorized by the City would conduct a thorough assessment of the property. This inspection aims to determine whether there exists a genuine necessity for renovation, specifically based on safety and habitability concerns.
An inspector would conduct a detailed inspection covering various aspects of the property, including structural integrity, safety hazards, habitability issues, and the scope of necessary renovations. Based on the determination the inspector makes, the landlord would be allowed to go through with the eviction or not.
Implementation and costs would include allocating budget for hiring certified inspectors and conducting these comprehensive pre-renovation assessments.
E. Appeals Process for Rehab Evictions: Establish a mechanism allowing tenants to appeal major rehab evictions if they believe the necessity of the remodel is misrepresented or unjustified.
46 of 561
148a
4 8
5 7
Implementing a system for tenants to appeal eviction decisions would necessitate the establishment of new procedures. Staff would need to initiate a program resembling the following structure for this to function effectively.
Establishing the Appeals Mechanism:
Designated Authority: Appoint an impartial body or panel or employee to oversee and evaluate appeals, ensuring fairness and impartiality in the decision-making process.
Grounds for Appeal:
Misrepresentation of Renovation Necessity: Allow appeals based on tenants' belief that the necessity or urgency of the proposed renovations has been misrepresented.
Unjustified Eviction: Enable appeals when tenants believe the eviction for renovation purposes is unjustified or not warranted based on the property's actual condition.
Appeal Filing and Review:
Timely Filing: Define a reasonable timeframe within which tenants can file an appeal following the eviction notice.
Thorough Review Process: Facilitate a comprehensive review of the appeal, including a reevaluation of property conditions, inspection reports, and supporting evidence provided by both parties.
Decision and Resolution:
Resolution and Tenant Protection: In case of a successful appeal, offer protections such as halting the eviction or requiring further evaluation of renovation necessity.
Implementation and costs would include allocating budget for hiring certified inspectors conducting these comprehensive pre-renovation assessments and possibly additional staff to administrative purposes.
F. City Oversight of Permit: Mandate landlords to note on permits if evictions are tied to major renovations. Appoint an oversight role to review these permits for eviction- related renovations. This person ensures compliance, informs tenants of their rights, and ensures a fair process.
47 of 561
158a
4 8
5 7
This procedure mandates landlords to indicate on their permits, during the permit application, if they intend to conduct significant rehabilitation work that could potentially lead to tenant displacement or evictions. This action will prompt a notification to Housing staff, who will then communication with the landlord and tenant, ensuring both parties understand the process and their respective rights.
This ensures a fair process for all involved.
Additionally, staff will be able to review permits that the landlord has pulled and determine based on scope of work if eviction is truly necessary.
This process would enhance transparency by ensuring that tenants, City authorities, and oversight personnel are informed about the eviction context associated with the renovation permits.
Staff anticipates minimal budgetary impact.
G. Renovation Impact Assessments: Implement a requirement for landlords to conduct impact assessments before initiating major renovations that could lead to evictions. These assessments would detail the potential effects on tenants' housing security and propose mitigating measures.
After further review, staff concluded that this provision is excessively complex and would introduce an intricate layer of bureaucracy, leading to a more subjective decision-making rather than what’s intended. Implementing this provision would impose an undue burden on landlords and necessitate the collection of potentially sensitive information from tenants. Therefore, for these reasons, this option should not be entertained by the council.
H. Notice to City and Tenant: Require landlords to provide notice to both the city and tenants when issuing renovation-based eviction notices. This measure can ensure the City is informed of evictions, allowing staff to track and potentially intervene in cases where tenants might face unjust or unwarranted eviction.
This policy mandates landlords to notify both the city and tenants when issuing eviction notices alongside their permit applications for significant rehabilitation work. This notification triggers a direct alert to Housing staff, initiating communication with both the landlord and tenant. This proactive engagement ensures clarity regarding the process and rights for all parties involved, fostering a fair and transparent process.
Implementing this process enables improved transparency, ensuring that tenants and City authorities are fully aware of the eviction linked to renovation permits. 48 of 561
168a
4 8
5 7
Notably, this measure allows City staff to track eviction instances, potentially intervening in cases where unjust or unwarranted evictions might impact tenants.
Staff recommends that if Council decides to proceed with this idea, it should be applied to all types of evictions.
The anticipated budgetary impact of implementing this measure is expected to be minimal.
I. Additional Enforcement Provisions: Provide for the ability for the City Attorney to institute a civil proceeding for damages for displacement of tenants.
Additional Enforcement Provisions would empower the City Attorney to initiate civil proceedings to seek damages on behalf of displaced tenants. This measure grants the City Attorney the authority to pursue legal action against landlords responsible for displacing tenants due to unjust evictions or improper procedures.
This enforcement mechanism serves as a deterrent, holding landlords accountable for any actions resulting in tenant displacement and ensuring that affected tenants have legal recourse to seek redress for damages incurred.
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS
Currently, the Rental Rights ordinance allows for enforcement through administrative citations, but the existing fee schedule lacks associated citations for the enforcement outlined in the ordinance. This may have been an oversight when the section was first added. Staff proposes adding these administrative citations as a measure to ensure compliance with Rental Rights Program provisions. These citations act as a structured deterrent, imposing fees based on the severity and recurrence of violations. Consistent with other penalties outlined in the current fee resolution, staff proposes that the initial penalty would be $400, with a $1000 penalty for the second offense and a $2000 fine for the third. By implementing these citations, the objective is to safeguard the rights of tenants and landlord.
Next Steps
The redline version of the ordinance has been presented to Council and the Council now has several options to consider regarding the proposed ordinance.
1.Passing as Is: Council may choose to approve the redline version of the ordinance in its current form. This action would signify acceptance of the proposed changes without any alterations.
2.Passing with Changes: Alternatively, Council might opt to approve the ordinance with specific modifications. This route allows for adjustments to 49 of 561
178a
4 8
5 7
the proposed redline version based on Council discussions, feedback, or identified areas requiring refinement.
3.Requesting a Rewrite: Should Council deem significant revisions necessary; they may request a complete reworking of the ordinance. This option entails sending the proposed redline version back for comprehensive revisions or clarifications based on Council directives.
4.Exploring Other Options: Additionally, Council retains the freedom to explore alternative courses of action. This could involve deferring the decision for further evaluation, seeking additional input from stakeholders, or initiating further discussion on specific sections before finalizing the ordinance.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
On November 14, 15 and 21, 2023, staff convened meetings with stakeholders to present the redline version of the ordinance and the anticipated modifications.
Additionally, staff extended an invitation to stakeholders for one-on-one sessions to share their concerns and feedback. Staff met with representatives from Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, California Apartment Association, Glendale Association of Realtors, Glendale Tenants Union, Neighborhood Legal Services, the Armenian Bar Association and the Housing Rights Center.
Upon analyzing stakeholders’ feedback, various points have surfaced regarding the proposed ordinance. An overarching observation made by landlord representatives points out surprise and concern regarding the ordinance’s treatment of smaller property owners, particularly those categorized as “mom and pop” operations. Stakeholders argue that these smaller-scale operations lack resources akin to larger entities and recommend keeping exemptions the same with regards to four units or fewer.
Additionally, there was a marked difference in the definition of a mom and pop owner offered by the landlord representatives to include complexes containing fewer than 20 rental units. Staff also heard feedback regarding strengthening some areas of the rehab eviction clause, the comment heard described changing the rehab project cost be 8 times the current rent or Fair Market Rent, whichever is higher for the landlord to be able to evict a tenant—a change from the existing ordinance, which specifies 8 times the current rent.
50 of 561
188a
4 8
5 7
Some stakeholders, upon reviewing the Committee's suggestion to formalize oral agreements in writing, expressed reservations. They questioned the potential benefits for both tenants and landlords, raising concerns about potential legal complexities and the possibility of conflicting with state laws in the future.
FISCAL IMPACT
Revenue could be realized from the proposed Administrative Citations. Additionally, some of the measures discussed related to major rehabilitation, such financial assistance programs and legal aid and representation could have a fiscal impact. Staff will return to Council with a more detailed program analysis based on Council’s direction.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
CEQA does not apply to projects where the lead agency determines "with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment." CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.) § 15061(b)(3). Here, the action involves noting and filing of a staff report on the 12-month performance status of the Alex Theater and providing staff direction on the proposed reservation of twelve days of Theatre use for 2024. There is no possibility that the action to note and file this report and provide direction on Theatre use may have a significant effect on the environment.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Introduce the ordinance amending Chapter 9.30 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 relating to the Rental Rights Program and Provide Direction regarding Administrative Citations.
Alternative 2: City Council may elect to consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
51 of 561
198a
4 8
5 7
Prepared by:
Peter Zovak, Assistant Director of Community Development Lucy Varpetian, Principal Assistant City Attorney
Sipan Zadoryan, Housing Analyst
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: November 28, 2023 Rental Rights Program Report Attachment 2: Guide for Rental Rights Proposed Options
52 of 561
1 ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTIONS 9.30.010, 9.30.020, 9.30.022, 9.30.025, 9.30.030, 9.30.033, AND 9.30.035, AND ADDING SECTIONS 9.30.040 AND 9.30.045, OF TITLE 9 OF THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL CODE, 1995, RELATING TO THE RENTAL RIGHTS PROGRAM BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:
SECTION 1. Section 9.30.010 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:
9.30.010 LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE.
The council finds and declares that there is an increasing demand for rental housing in the city of Glendale which has resulted in a critically low vacancy factor. In addition, an increasing number of residential rental housing units have substandard living conditions and reduced services. Tenants who have complained about substandard living conditions and/or a reduction in services have been threatened with eviction, and oftentimes have been evicted. Other tenants are fearful of eviction and, as a result, fail to complain about substandard living conditions. This circumstance is disruptive to a stable living environment and has a detrimental effect on the substantial numbers of renters in the city, particularly senior citizens, those with low or moderate incomes and persons on fixed incomes.
The council further finds and declares that there is a growing shortage of, but increasing demand for, housing in the city of Glendale. Such shortage and increased demand, coupled with increasing inflation, have placed substantial pressure on those residents of Glendale seeking rental housing, especially those tenants who are Qualified Tenants as described herein. This council finds that tenants are entitled to a contractual relationship with a landlord that offers some assurance of stability under the terms of a written lease so as to minimize displacement of tenants into a rental housing market which affords them few and expensive options.
The council further finds and declares that requiring relocation benefits for rent increases over seven (7) percent in a twelve (12) month period will help mitigate the impact to tenants who have to vacate their rental unit when they are unable to afford high rent increases.
The council further finds and declares that in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Glendale and to ensure that all residents of the city have a safe, habitable, well-maintained and stable housing environment, without the fear of reprisal, the city council enacts this chapter, and encourages property owners to provide well-maintained living units and discourage retaliatory evictions. It is vitally important that landlords provide for the care, upkeep and maintenance of residential rental units so that they meet and continue to meet minimum housing standards, particularly for those members of the community on limited or fixed incomes who are least able to protect themselves from retaliation, are least able to find 53 of 561
2 replacement housing and who will accept substandard conditions due to the fear of termination of their tenancy. (Ord. 5922 § 1, 2019; Ord. 5326, 2002) Council acknowledges the growing demand for rental housing in Glendale, a testament to the city's appeal and vibrant community. However, with this popularity comes challenges: a limited number of available rentals, some of which do not meet the desired living standards. In addition, rents in Glendale, and in many parts of Los Angeles County, continue to rise as market pressures, such as increasing real estate costs, lead to a decrease of the affordability and stability of the housing stock. As a result, it is increasingly difficult for tenants to find adequate, safe, and habitable housing at reasonable or affordable rents. As a city committed to progress, it is imperative to address these challenges to maintain our reputation as a thriving community.
Council aims to balance the rental experience by fostering positive landlord-tenant relationships. Every individual, particularly our most vulnerable population including senior citizens and those with low or fixed incomes, deserves a secure, comfortable home without any apprehension.
Recognizing the growing housing shortage and heightened demand coupled with inflation, Council emphasizes stability and aims to minimize disruptions for tenants amidst an increasingly competitive housing market. Offering relocation benefits for significant rent increases intends to support individuals who might struggle with sudden housing cost changes, ensuring continued stability.
It is imperative for landlords to prioritize the care and maintenance of residential units, meeting minimum housing standards. This is especially crucial for community members with limited resources, who are more vulnerable to housing challenges and fear retaliation, making them more likely to accept substandard conditions.
By enacting this chapter, Council is taking initiative to ensure that the City of Glendale remains a robust community focused on safeguarding the health, safety, and welfare of Glendale's residents while providing landlords an ability to receive a fair and reasonable return with respect to the operation of their property. Encouraging property owners to uphold high- quality living spaces while discouraging retaliatory actions against tenants remains paramount.
Upholding minimum housing standards fosters a community where everyone, irrespective of resources, feels secure and valued in their homes.
This initiative reaffirms Councils commitment to ensuring a safe, habitable, and stable housing environment for all residents. Council aim is to cultivate a thriving community where every individual feels valued, secure, and empowered to lead fulfilling lives. This Chapter shall be called the Rental Rights Program.
SECTION 2. Section 9.30.020 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:
9.30.020 DEFINITIONS.
54 of 561
3 Unless the context otherwise requires, the terms defined in this chapter shall have the following meanings and govern the construction of this chapter. “Base rent” means the rental amount, including any amount paid to the landlord for parking, storage, utilities, water, garbage or any other fee or charge associated with a residential property required to be paid by the tenant to the landlord on September 18, 2018, plus any lawful rent increases that were authorized by Ordinance No. 5919, entitled “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on Certain Residential Rent increases in the City of Glendale.” A tenancy which began after September 18, 2018, base rent shall be the amount of the initial monthly rent charged for that rental unit, plus any rent increase authorized by Ordinance No. 5919. On or after October 1, 2023, base rent means, for any tenancy commencing after that date, the rental amount, including any amount paid to the landlord for reoccurring charges or other fees regardless of the frequency of payment for such items as parking and storage, excluding any usage charges, such as charges for the service or applicable part of the service that are calculated by multiplying the volume of units that the Tenant used or incurred in a period, such as charges for utilities. “Eviction” means any action taken by the landlord to remove a tenant involuntarily from a rental unit and terminate the tenancy, whether pursuant to a notice to quit, or by judicial proceedings, or otherwise.
“Landlord” means any person, partnership, corporation, family trust or other business entity offering for rent or lease any residential property in this city. With respect to any tenancy, “landlord” shall also be deemed to mean any person, partnership, corporation, family trust, or other business entity that is a predecessor in interest or successor in interest to that tenancy, as applicable.
“Lease year” means the year during which the one (1) year lease is in effect. “Non-relocation rent increase” means a rent increase of seven (7) percent or less than the rent that was in place at any time during the twelve (12) month period preceding the effective date of the rent increase.
“Qualified Tenant” means:
a. Any Tenant in the Rental Unit has continuously resided in the Rental Unit for at least 10 years, and a member of Tenant’s household is either: (i) 65/70/75/80 years of age or older; or (ii) disabled as defined in Title 42 United States Code Section 423 or handicapped as defined in Section 50072 of the California Health and Safety Code; b. Any Tenant in the Rental Unit is a low-income tenant (low-income tenant means a household whose income does not exceed the qualifying limits for lower income families as established and amended from time to time pursuant to Section 8 of the United States Housing Act of 1937, or as otherwise defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5).
55 of 561
4 c. The Rental Unit is the primary residence of a school-aged (grades Pre-K-12) child enrolled in a school located in the public school district to which the Rental Unit is assigned, and the Notice of Termination requires that the Rental Unit be vacated during the current school term. OPTION A. School-Aged Families are household that include a child under the age of 18 years with a physical or developmental disability demonstrably proven through medical evidence. The Rental Unit serves as the primary residence for school-aged child, enrolled in grades Pre-K through 12, attending a school within the public school district corresponding to the Rental Unit's assignment. OPTION B.
School-Aged Families encompass households that include a child under the age of 18 years with one or more deceased or absent parents, currently under the care of a single parent, designated caretaker, or a sole adopting parent. The Rental Unit serves as the primary residence for school-aged child, enrolled in grades Pre-K through 12, attending a school within the public school district corresponding to the Rental Unit's assignment. “Rent” means a fixed periodic compensation paid by a tenant at fixed intervals to a landlord for the possession and use of residential property, including any amount paid to the landlord for parking, storage, utilities, water, garbage, or any other fee or charge associated with the tenancy. “Rent” includes excludes costs associated with a ratio utility billing system which allocates the property’s actual utility bill to the tenant based on an occupant factor, square footage factor or any other similar factors.
“Rental complex” means one (1) or more buildings used in whole or in part for residential purposes, located on a single lot, contiguous lots, or lots separated only by a street or alley.
“Rent increase” means any upward adjustment of the rent. “Rental unit” means a dwelling unit available for rent in the city of Glendale together with the land and appurtenant buildings thereto and all housing services, privileges and facilities provided in connection with the use or occupancy thereof, which unit is located in the structure or complex containing a multiple dwelling, boarding house or lodging house. Rental unit shall include units that do not have the required Certificate of Occupancy, even when they do not meet the legal definition of a dwelling unit under the Glendale Municipal Code.
The term “rental unit” shall not include the following:
(1) Rooms or accommodations in hotels (as defined in Section 4.32.020); (2) Boarding houses or lodging houses which are rented to transient guests for a period of less than thirty (30) consecutive days;
(3) Housing accommodations in a hospital, convent, monastery, church, religious facility, extended care facility, asylum, nonprofit home for the aged; 56 of 561
5 (4) Dormitories owned and operated by an institution of higher education, or a high school or elementary school;
(5) Rental units located on a parcel containing two (2) [OPTION A. four (4)] or fewer dwelling units, where the landlord occupied one of the units as the landlord’s principal place of residence at the beginning of the tenancy, so long as the landlord continues in occupancy;
(6) Rental units within a common interest development, except when the rental unit’s landlord owns fifty (50) percent or more of the units in the common interest development;
(7) Rental units owned or operated by any government agency or whose rent is subsidized by any government agency, including, but not limited to, subsidies under the federal government’s Housing Choice Voucher Program (Section 8);
(8) Rental units that require intake, case management or counseling as part of the occupation, and an occupancy agreement; or rental units subject to a covenant or agreement, such as a density bonus housing agreement, inclusionary housing agreement or an affordable housing agreement, with a government agency, including the city, the housing authority, the state of California, or the federal government, restricting the rental rate that may be charged for that unit.
“Tenant” means a person entitled by a written or oral agreement to occupy a rental unit to the exclusion of others, and actually occupy said rental unit. (Ord. 5922 § 2, 2019; Ord. 5910 § 1, 2018; Ord. 5340 § 1, 2003; Ord. 5326, 2002)
SECTION 3. Section 9.30.022 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:
9.30.022 RENT INCREASES AS OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE ORDINANCE CODIFIED IN THIS CHAPTER MAJOR REHAB RETROACTIVE DATE.
As of the effective date of the ordinance enacting this chapter, no landlord of a rental complex of five (5) or more units on a parcel may request, impose, charge or receive monthly rent for any rental unit from an existing tenant in an amount that exceeds the base rent, without providing the tenant of the rental unit a new rent increase notice and an offer of a one (1) year lease that meet the requirements of this chapter. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if the ordinance enacting this chapter becomes effective after March 1, 2019, this section shall not prohibit a landlord from imposing, charging or receiving monthly rent in its entirety that is due and owing on March 1, 2019, but it shall apply to subsequent monthly rents. As of the effective date of the ordinance enacting this chapter, no landlord of a rental complex of three (3) or more units on a parcel may request, impose, charge or receive monthly rent for any rental unit from an existing tenant in 57 of 561
6 amount that exceeds the base rent, without providing the tenant of the rental unit a new rent increase notice and the notice of relocation eligibility pursuant to this chapter. (Ord. 5922 § 3, 2019)
Requirements relating to 9.30.030 G and all other provisions relating to substantial remodel, shall apply retroactively to October 1, 2023.
SECTION 4. Section 9.30.025 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:
9.30.025 REQUIREMENT OF OFFERING ONE-YEAR WRITTEN LEASES.
A. Offer.
1. A landlord shall offer in writing a lease with a minimum term of one (1) year to:
a. Any prospective tenant.
b. Any current tenant at the first time the landlord serves a notice of rent increase following the effective date of the ordinance enacting this chapter, unless the landlord has notified the tenant that the tenant is in default under the month-to-month tenancy and offering a lease to the tenant may waive any claims the landlord has regarding the default.
2. Such offer must be made in writing and must include the monthly rate of rent to be charged for occupancy for the duration of the lease. Signing of a lease which has a minimum term of one (1) year shall be considered an offer in writing.
B. Acceptance. If the tenant or prospective tenant accepts the offer of a written lease which has a minimum term of one (1) year, this acceptance must be in writing. Signing a lease which has a minimum term of one (1) year will be considered an acceptance.
C. Rejection. If the tenant rejects the offer of a written lease or does not accept the landlord’s offer within fourteen (14) days of service of the written offer, then the offer of the written lease shall be deemed rejected. If the tenant or prospective tenant rejects the offer for a written lease which has a minimum term of one (1) year, then the landlord and tenant or prospective tenant may enter into an agreement, oral or written, that provides for a rental term of less than one (1) year.
D. Relocation Eligibility. If a lease offer includes a rent increase that exceeds a non-- relocation rent increase (subject to banking of deferred rent increases set forth in Section 9.30.033(B)), the tenant may elect to vacate the rental unit and exercise relocation 58 of 561
7 assistance pursuant to Sections 9.30.033 and 9.30.035(B). The landlord’s written lease offer must provide notice of tenant’s potential eligibility for relocation benefits.
E. Rent. If the landlord and tenant enter into a written lease which has a minimum term of one (1) year, such lease must set forth the amount of the rent, which may not be modified during the lease year.
F. Renewal of Lease. Not later than ninety (90) sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of the lease and every lease year thereafter that a written lease is in effect pursuant to this section, the landlord shall notify those tenants identified in the lease of such expiration and offer in good faith in writing to the tenants a written lease or lease renewal with a minimum term of one (1) year, provided there is no just cause for eviction pursuant to Section 9.30.030 of this chapter. Such offer must be made in writing and must include the proposed monthly rate of rent for occupancy of the rental unit, which may not be modified during the lease year.
If the lease renewal offer includes a rent increase that exceeds a non-relocation rent increase (subject to banking of deferred rent increases set forth in Section 9.30.033(B)), the tenant may elect to vacate the rental unit at the end of the term of the existing lease year and exercise relocation assistance pursuant to Sections 9.30.033 and 9.30.035(B). The landlord’s renewal offer must provide notice of tenant’s potential eligibility for relocation benefits.
Within sixty (60) thirty (30) days of receipt of such written offer, the tenant shall either notify the landlord in writing of his or her acceptance of the offer of a written lease, as set forth herein or reject the offer.
Notwithstanding the notification provision of Section 9.30.033(B), the tenant in receipt of a written lease offer shall have up to sixty (60) thirty (30) days after receipt of the written renewal offer to notify the landlord of his or her intent to vacate the rental unit at the end of the lease year and exercise relocation rights pursuant to Sections 9.30.033 and 9.30.035(B). Failure to accept the offer in writing shall be deemed a rejection. If the tenant rejects the offer of a written lease which has a minimum term of one (1) year, the landlord and tenant may then enter into an agreement, oral or written, that provides for a rental term of less than one (1) year. Failure to offer such a renewal of the lease shall render future rent increases null and void, until a landlord presents a new offer of a written lease with a minimum term of one (1) year, provided that the rental rate(s) set forth in such lease offer shall not increase for a period of ninety (90) days after the effective date of the lease.
G. Future Offers. As of the effective date of the ordinance enacting this section, the requirement to offer a future written lease renewal shall be in effect for one full year after the anniversary of the rent increase date. After such time, Aany time a tenant rejects an offer of a written lease or written lease renewal with a minimum term of one (1) year, the landlord shall not be required to subsequently offer a one (1) year lease, unless and until the Tenant requests a lease offer, in which case, the parties may negotiate the terms of a new lease, which shall be substantially similar to the terms of month-to-month offer. under the following circumstance:
59 of 561
8 upon the first date the landlord notices a rent increase after the first year anniversary of the tenant’s rejection of the prior lease or lease renewal offer.
H. Good Faith. This chapter requires the exercise of good faith, which shall mean honestly and without fraud, collusion or deceit. It shall further mean that the written lease is not being utilized as a method of circumventing any of the provisions of this chapter. An example of good faith is when the landlord offers in writing a lease which has a minimum term of one (1) year, that lease is substantially similar to the written rental agreement for a period of less than one (1) year.
I. Applicability. This section shall not apply to:
1. A rental unit occupied by a tenant who subleases that unit to another tenant for less than one (1) year; or
2. A rental unit where tenancy is an express condition of, or consideration for, employment under a written rental agreement or contract or a unit leased to a corporation; or
3. Rental units in a rental complex of four (4) units or less on a parcel. (Ord. 5922 § 4, 2019)
SECTION 5. Section 9.30.030 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:
9.30.030 EVICTIONS.
Notwithstanding California Civil Code Section 1946, a landlord may bring an action to recover possession of a rental unit as defined herein only upon one (1) of the following grounds:
A. The tenant has failed to pay the rent to which the landlord is entitled.
B. The tenant has violated a lawful obligation or covenant of the tenancy and has failed to cure such violation after having received written notice thereof from the landlord, other than a violation based on:
1. The obligation to surrender possession upon proper notice; or
2. The obligation to limit occupancy when the additional tenant who joins the occupants is a dependent child who joins the existing tenancy of a tenant of record or the sole additional adult tenant. The landlord has the right to approve or disapprove the prospective additional tenant, who is not a minor dependent child, provided that the approval is not unreasonably withheld. 60 of 561
9 C. The tenant is permitting to exist a nuisance in, or is causing damage to, the rental unit, or the appurtenances thereof, or to the common areas of the rental complex, or creating an unreasonable interference with the comfort, safety or enjoyment of any other residents of the rental complex within a one thousand (1,000) foot radius extended from the boundary line of the rental complex.
The term “nuisance” as used herein includes, but is not limited to, any gang-related crime, any documented activity commonly associated with illegal drug dealing, including complaints of noise, steady traffic day and night to a particular unit, barricaded units, sighting of weapons, drug loitering as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 11532, or other drug related circumstances brought to the attention of the landlord by other tenants, persons within the community, law enforcement agencies or prosecutorial agencies. For purposes of this subdivision, gang-related crime is any crime in which the perpetrator is a known member of a gang, or any crime motivated by gang membership in which the victim or intended victim of the crime is a known member of a gang.
The term “nuisance” as used herein includes anything which is injurious to health, is an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in the customary manner of any common area or otherwise, or creates such a continuous and serious nuisance, in terms of noise or aggressive behavior or similar activity, that the neighboring tenants are seriously affected, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.
D. The tenant is using, or permitting a rental unit, the common areas of the rental unit or rental complex containing the rental unit, or an area within a one thousand (1,000) foot radius from the boundary line of the rental complex, to be used for any illegal purpose.
The term “illegal purpose” as used herein, includes, but is not limited to violations of the provisions of Divisions 10 through 10.7 of the California Health and Safety Code.
E. A person in possession of the rental unit at the end of a lease term is a subtenant not approved by the landlord.
F. The tenant has refused the landlord reasonable access to the unit for the purposes of making repairs or improvements, or for any reasonable purpose as permitted or required by the lease or by law, or for the purpose of showing the rental unit to any prospective purchaser or mortgagee.
G. The landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession so as to:
1. Demolish the rental unit; or
61 of 561
10 2. Perform work on Substantially remodel the building or buildings housing the rental unit or units; and:
a. Such work costs not less than the product of eight (8) times the greater of the amount of the monthly rent or the fair market rent as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a rental unit of similar size in Los Angeles County amount of the monthly rent times the number of rental units upon which such work is performed.
For purposes of this section, the monthly rent shall be the average of the preceding twelve (12) month period; and
b. The work necessitates the eviction of the tenant because such work will render the rentable unit uninhabitable for a period of not less than thirty (30) ninety (90) 45/60 calendar days, except that if the landlord seeks to recover possession for the purposes of converting the rental unit into a condominium, cooperative or community apartment, the landlord must comply with the notice requirements of Government Code Section 66427.1.
c. For purposes of this section, “substantially remodel” means the replacement or substantial modification of any structural, electrical, plumbing, or mechanical system that requires a permit from a governmental agency, or the abatement of hazardous materials, including lead-based paint, mold, or asbestos, in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws, that cannot be reasonably accomplished in a safe manner with the tenant in place and that requires the tenant to vacate the residential real property for at least 90/45/60 days. Cosmetic improvements alone, including flooring, countertops replacement, painting, decorating, and minor repairs, or other work that can be performed safely without having the residential real property vacated, do not qualify as substantial rehabilitation.
H. The landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit for use and occupancy by:
1. A resident manager, provided that no alternative vacant unit is available for occupancy by a resident manager; except that where a building has an existing resident manager, the owner landlord may only evict the existing resident manager in order to replace him or her with a new manager.
2. The landlord or the landlord’s spouse, grandparents, brother, sister, father-in- law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, children, or parents provided the landlord is a natural person. However, a landlord may use this ground to recover possession for use and occupancy by the landlord, 62 of 561
11 landlord’s spouse, child, parent, in-laws or grandparents only once for that person in each rental complex of the landlord.
3. Tenants that require an occupancy agreement and intake, case management or counseling as part of the tenancy.
4. Residency Requirements for Replacement Occupant. The landlord must in good faith intend that the landlord, eligible relative, or a resident manager will occupy the rental unit within two months after the existing tenant vacates the rental unit, and that the landlord, eligible relative, or a resident manager will occupy the rental unit as a primary residence for a period of no less than one full year. Failure of the landlord, eligible relative, or a resident manager to occupy the rental unit within two months after the existing tenant vacates the unit, or failure of the landlord, eligible relative, or a resident manager to occupy the rental unit as a primary residence for a minimum period of one full year, may be evidence that the landlord acted in bad faith in recovering possession of a rental unit. It will not be evidence of bad faith if a landlord recovers possession of a rental unit for use and occupancy by a resident manager, and during the next year replaces the resident manager with a different resident manager. Except that, a landlord may not utilize this ground for evicting a qualified tenant, unless no other comparable unit is available.
5. Number of units applicable. A landlord may use this ground to recover possession for use and occupancy by the landlord, eligible relative, or a resident manager only once for that person in any rental complex of the landlord.
6. Enforcement. In addition to all other penalties authorized by law, the following penalties apply for violations of the provisions of this Section:
(a) If a landlord acts in bad faith in recovering possession of a rental unit pursuant to this Section, the landlord shall be liable to any tenant who was displaced from the property for three times the amount of actual damages, exemplary damages, equitable relief, and attorneys' fees. (b) Nothing in this paragraph precludes a tenant from pursuing any other remedy available under the law.
I. The landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession in order to remove the rental unit permanently from rental housing use pursuant to state law.
J. The landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit in order to comply with a government agency’s order to vacate, or any other order that necessitates the vacating of the building, housing or rental unit as a result of a 63 of 561
12 violation of this code or the Glendale building and safety code, or any other provision of law.
K. The landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit in order to comply with a contractual agreement relating to the qualifications of tenancy with a governmental entity, where the tenant is no longer qualified.
L. The tenant has continued to smoke, as defined in Section 8.52.030 of this code, in any one (1) or more of the following places, after the landlord’s verbal or written warning to stop smoking:
1. In a rental unit that the landlord had designated as a non-smoking unit; or
2. In a common area, as defined in Section 8.52.030 of this code, where smoking is prohibited under Section 8.52.080 of this code. (Ord. 5628 § 25, 2008; Ord. 5383, 2004; Ord. 5340 § 2, 2003; Ord. 5326, 2002) SECTION 6. Section 9.30.033 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:
9.30.033 RENT BASED TERMINATION.
A. Requirement. If a landlord issues a notice for a rent increase that will increase the rent by an amount that is greater than a non-relocation rent increase, then the tenant may elect to vacate the rental unit, and, in the case of such election, the landlord shall:
(1) pay the tenant relocation assistance in accordance with Section 9.30.035; and (2) at the tenant’s request, the landlord shall waive the statutory requirement of tenant’s notice to terminate the tenancy. Except as set forth in Section 9.30.025(F), the tenant shall exercise election of his or her right to vacate the rental unit and receive relocation assistance pursuant to this section and Section 9.30.035 within fourteen (14) days of service of the rent increase notice. Nothing herein shall prohibit the landlord from rescinding a rent increase that exceeds a non-relocation rent increase prior to the tenant’s election to vacate and receive relocation assistance, or prohibit the parties from subsequently agreeing on a rent increase amount at or below a non- relocation rent increase.
B. Banking. Notwithstanding subsection A, to the extent the landlord has not increased rent up to the amount of the non-relocation rent increase, measured as a percentage and measured at the time of the most recent rent increase, a landlord shall have the ability to apply any deferred non-relocation rent increase to future rent increases; provided, however:
64 of 561
13 (1) if the landlord increases the rent at any time in an amount that is greater than fifteen (15) percent than the rent that was in place at any time during the twelve (12) month period preceding the effective date of the noticed rent increase, then the tenant may elect to vacate the rental unit and receive relocation assistance and waived noticing rights pursuant to subsection A and Section 9.30.035;
(2) the landlord shall not be permitted to accumulate more than an amount equal to the preceding three (3) years of deferred non-relocation rent increases.
Banking of non-relocation rent increases as set forth in this subsection shall be calculated on a simple basis. For example, a deferred non-relocation rent increase from one (1) year of three (3) percent plus a deferred non-relocation rent increase from a subsequent year of three point five (3.5) percent is an allowable combined increase of six point five (6.5) percent, not six point six (6.6) percent. The maximum amount of banked or deferred non-relocation rent increases shall be twenty-one (21) percent. Calculation of banking authorized pursuant to this subsection shall commence upon the first rent increase implemented by a landlord after the effective date of the ordinance enacting this chapter, and determined by calculating the amount of any deferred non- relocation rent increase, if any, at that time. By way of example and not limitation, if, after the effective date of the ordinance enacting this chapter, the landlord is permitted to increase the rent by five (5) percent on April 1, 2019 to remain under the non-relocation rent increase amount, but only increases it by three (3) percent, the landlord may apply that deferred non-relocation rent increase to a future rent increase, provided that if a future rent increase raises the rent greater than fifteen (15) percent more than the rent that was in place at any time during the twelve (12) month period preceding the effective date of the future rent increase, the tenant may elect to vacate the rental unit and receive relocation assistance in accordance with subsection A and Section 9.30.035.
The provisions of this section shall be deemed to be covenants running with the land and shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of landlord and tenant and their respective successors and assigns and all subsequent landlords and tenants respectively hereunder.
C. This section shall not apply, and a relocation fee shall not be required to be paid pursuant to Section 9.30.035, to any rental unit that received a certificate of occupancy after February 1, 1995. (Ord. 5922 § 7, 2019)
SECTION 6. Section 9.30.035 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:
9.30.035 REQUIRED PAYMENT OF RELOCATION FEE.
A. If the termination of tenancy is based on the grounds set forth in subsection G, H, I or J of Section 9.30.030, then the landlord shall pay a relocation fee in the amount of the product of two (2) three (3) times the greater of the amount of the current rent or the fair market rent as established by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for a rental unit of 65 of 561
14 similar size of that being vacated in Los Angeles County during the year the unit is vacated, plus one two thousand dollars ($12,000.00), which amount shall be reviewed periodically not to exceed three years by the City Council and adjusted as necessary.
B. If the termination of tenancy is caused by the tenant’s election to vacate the unit in accordance with Section 9.30.033 when the landlord has imposed a rent increase that exceeds a non-relocation rent increase, the landlord shall pay a relocation fee equal to as follows:
1. For rental units located on a parcel containing three (3) or four (4) dwelling units, the product of three (3) times the amount of the actual rent;
2. For rental units located on a parcel containing five (5) or greater dwelling units:
a. If the tenant has occupied the unit for three (3) years or less, the product of three (3) times the amount of the rent after the rent increase set forth in the rent increase notice by the landlord, or: which multiplier shall be reviewed periodically not to exceed three years by the City Council and adjusted as necessary.
b. When the overall household income is equal to or less than the Area Median Income (AMI) for Los Angeles County as determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, plus thirty (30) percent of the AMI amount (i.e., one hundred thirty (130) percent of AMI or less), then:
i. If the tenant has occupied the unit for more than three (3) years but not more than four (4) years, the product of four (4) times the amount of the rent after the rent increase set forth in the rent increase notice by the landlord,
ii. If the tenant has occupied the unit for more than four (4) years but not more than five (5) years, the product of five (5) times the amount of the rent after the rent increase set forth in the rent increase notice by the landlord, or
iii. If the tenant has occupied the unit for more than five (5) years, the product of six (6) times the amount of the rent after the rent increase set forth in the rent increase notice by the landlord.
C. The relocation fee shall be paid to the tenant or tenants as follows:
1. The entire relocation fee shall be paid to a tenant who is the only tenant in a rental unit; or
2. If a rental unit is occupied by two (2) or more tenants, then each tenant of the unit shall be paid a pro-rata share of the relocation fee.
3. In the event of a Qualified Tenant, all relocation values shall OPTION A. be doubled/multiplied by 1.5% OR OPTION B. include an additional $3,500. 66 of 561
15 D. Landlord may deduct from the relocation fee payable any and all past due rent owed by tenant during the twelve (12) months prior to termination of tenancy and may deduct from the relocation fee any amounts paid by the landlord for any extraordinary wear and tear or damage cause by the tenant, cleaning, or other purposes served by a security deposit as defined by the rental agreement, to the extent the security deposit is insufficient to provide the amounts due for such costs. After taking into account any adjustments in the amount of the relocation assistance provided herein, the landlord shall pay the relocation fee as follows:
1. If the relocation fee is being paid pursuant to subsection A of this section, then the landlord shall pay one-half (1/2) of the relocation assistance no later than five (5) business days following service of the notice to a tenant of the termination and one-half (1/2) of the relocation assistance no later than five (5) business days after the tenant has vacated the rental unit.
2. If the relocation assistance is being paid pursuant to subsection B of this section, then the landlord shall pay one-half (1/2) of the relocation fee no later than five (5) business days following receipt of written notice that the tenant intends to vacate the rental unit and one-half (1/2) of the relocation fee no later than five (5) business days after the tenant has vacated the rental unit. If the tenant ultimately fails to vacate the rental unit, the tenant shall reimburse relocation fee to the landlord, unless the parties agree otherwise.
E. Subsection A of this section shall not apply in any of the following circumstances:
1. The tenant received written notice, prior to entering into a written or oral tenancy agreement, that an application to subdivide the property for condominium, stock cooperative or community apartment purposes was on file with the city or had already been approved, whichever the case may be, and that the existing building would be demolished or relocated in connection with the proposed new subdivision, and the termination of tenancy is based on the grounds set forth in subsection G or I of Section 9.30.030.
2. The tenant received written notice, prior to entering into a written or oral agreement to become a tenant, that an application to convert the building to a condominium, stock cooperative or community apartment project was on file with the city or had already been approved, whichever the case may be, and the termination of tenancy is based on the grounds set forth in subsection G or I of Section 9.30.030.
3. The landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit for use and occupancy by a resident manager, provided that the resident manager is replacing the existing resident manager in the same unit. For the purposes of this exception, a resident manager shall not include the landlord, or the landlord’s spouse, children or parents.
67 of 561
16 4. The landlord seeks in good faith to recover possession of the rental unit in order to comply with a governmental agency’s order to vacate the building housing the rental unit due to hazardous conditions caused by a natural disaster or act of God.
5. The tenant receives, as part of the eviction, relocation assistance from another government agency, and such amount is equal to or greater than the amount provided for by Section 9.30.035.
F. Subsection B of this section shall not apply, and a relocation fee shall not be required to be paid, as to any rental unit that received a certificate of occupancy after February 1, 1995.
G. The requirement to pay relocation assistance is applicable to all rental units, regardless of whether the rental unit was created or established in violation of any provision of law.
H. Nothing in this subsection relieves the landlord from the obligation to provide relocation assistance pursuant to any other provision of local, state or federal law. If a tenant is entitled to monetary relocation benefits pursuant to any other provision, of local, state or federal law, then such monetary benefits shall operate as a credit against monetary benefits required to be paid to the tenant under this subsection.
I. Where applicable, written notice of tenant’s entitlement to relocation assistance shall be provided by the landlord at the same time that the landlord provides notice of termination of tenancy from a rental unit. Where a landlord issues a notice of a proposed rent increase that will exceed the non-relocation rent increase, including as part of a written lease offer or written lease renewal offer required pursuant to Section 9.30.025, the landlord shall provide a written notice of tenant’s potential entitlement to relocation assistance at the same time that the landlord provides notice of a rent increase and, if applicable, written lease offer or lease renewal offer.
J. Text of Notice. The notice of potential eligibility to relocation assistance shall state:
“NOTICE: Under Title 9, Chapter 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code, a landlord must provide qualifying tenants this notice of the tenant’s eligibility for relocation assistance at the same time the landlord provides a notice of termination of tenancy or when a landlord provides a notice of a rent increase that will increase the rent to an amount more than seven percent (7%) during a twelve (12) month period and the tenant elects to not remain in the residential unit. Under Section 9.30.033(B), landlords are permitted to bank deferred rent increases, so a rent increase may be more than seven percent (7%) during a twelve (12) month period, but not more than fifteen percent (15%) over a twelve (12) month period, depending on the amount of prior deferred rent increases, before triggering relocation benefits. Unless part of a written lease renewal offer, tenant shall have fourteen (14) days to elect to vacate the unit and exercise relocation benefits 68 of 561
17 pursuant to Sections 9.30.033 and 9.30.035. Qualifying tenants are entitled to relocation assistance as follows:
1. For rental units located on a parcel containing three (3) or four (4) dwelling units, the product of three (3) times the amount of the actual rent;
2. For rental units located on a parcel containing five (5) or greater dwelling units:
a. If the tenant has occupied the unit for three (3) years or less, the product of three (3) times the amount of the rent after the rent increase set forth in the rent increase notice by the landlord; or:. A qualified tenant as defined in Section 9.30.020 is entitled to double the relocation value.
b. When the overall household income is equal to or less than the Area Median Income (AMI) for Los Angeles County as determined by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, plus 30% of the AMI amount (i.e., 130% of AMI or less), then:
i. If the tenant has occupied the unit for more than three (3) years but not more than four (4) years, the product of four (4) times the amount of the rent after the rent increase set forth in the rent increase notice by the landlord;
ii. If the tenant has occupied the unit for more than four (4) years but not more than five (5) years, the product of five (5) times the amount of the rent after the rent increase set forth in the rent increase notice by the landlord; or
iii. If the tenant has occupied the unit for more than five (5) years, the product of six (6) times the amount of the rent after the rent increase set forth in the rent increase notice by the landlord.”.
Under Civil Code Section 1942.5 and Glendale Municipal Code Section 9.30.060, it is illegal for a landlord to retaliate against a tenant for lawfully and peaceably exercising his or her legal rights. (Ord. 5922 § 8, 2019; Ord. 5383, 2004; Ord. 5340 § 4, 2003) SECTION 7. Section 9.30.040 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby added to read as follows:
9.30.040 INTENTIONAL DISREPAIR/DAMAGE TO RENTAL UNIT/COMPLEX In addition to the protections provided in California Civil Code section 1941.1 relating to the implied warranty of habitability and the requirements imposed by California Civil Code section 1941.2 relating to tenants’ affirmative obligations, any intentional allowance on the part of the landlord for a rental unit to fall into disrepair, a landlord will offer temporary relocation as follows:
69 of 561
18 1. If the activities will make the rental unit an untenantable dwelling, as defined in California Civil Code section 1941.1, or will expose the tenant at any time to toxic or hazardous materials including, but not limited to, lead-based paint and asbestos, the landlord shall provide tenant with the following temporary relocation benefits during the temporary displacement period:
(a) Relocation to a motel or hotel accommodation which is safe, sanitary, comparable to the tenant's sleeping arrangement, located in the City of Glendale, or if suitable accommodation is not available within the City of Glendale, then within two miles of the tenant's rental unit, and contains standard amenities such as a television; (b) Reasonable compensation for meals, if the temporary accommodation lacks cooking facilities;
(c) Reasonable compensation for laundry, if tenant's rental unit included laundry facilities inside the rental unit and the temporary accommodation does not include laundry facilities inside the unit;
(d) Reasonable accommodation for pets that were permitted in tenant's rental unit under the terms of the rental agreement or by law if the temporary accommodation does not accept pets;
(e) Any costs related to relocating the tenant to temporary housing accommodations, regardless of whether those costs exceed rent paid by the tenant for tenant's rental unit; and
(f) Any costs related to returning tenant to his/her rental unit, if applicable.
2. Unless otherwise agreed upon by landlord and tenant, the landlord shall make payment directly to the motel or hotel as required under herein. The landlord shall pay for lodging in the motel or hotel, even if the cost of such lodging is more expensive than the tenant's existing rent calculated on a daily basis. All other compensation hereunder shall be payable directly to the tenant, unless otherwise agreed upon by the landlord and tenant.
3. The landlord shall have the option, in lieu of providing tenant relocation as required herein of providing the tenant with comparable housing at any time during the period of the displacement, subject to the following:
(a) Such housing shall be comparable to the tenant's rental unit in location, size, number of bedrooms, furnishings, appliances, accessibility, type and quality of construction, proximity to services and institutions upon which the displaced tenant depends, and amenities, including the allowance for pets should the tenant have pets permitted under the rental agreement or by law.
70 of 561
19 (b) If the landlord provides comparable housing at any time during the period of displacement, the tenant shall be entitled to remain at that same comparable housing unit throughout the period of displacement.
(c) The landlord shall pay all costs associated with the temporary housing, including rent, even if the temporary housing is more expensive than the tenant's existing rental unit.
(d) If the temporary housing is unfurnished, the landlord shall provide essential furnishings and household items or pay reasonable moving costs for the tenant to move essential furniture and household items to and from the rental unit and the temporary housing.
(e) The landlord and tenant may agree that the tenant will occupy a non- comparable replacement unit provided that the tenant is compensated for any reduction in accommodations, amenities, and services.
4. A landlord and tenant may mutually agree to allow the landlord to pay the tenant a per diem amount for each day of temporary relocation in lieu of providing temporary replacement housing. The agreement shall be in writing and signed by the landlord and tenant and shall contain the tenant's acknowledgment that he/she received notice of his/her relocation rights required herein and that the tenant understands his/her rights.
5. The temporary housing required herein shall be available to tenant within 24-hours of service or posting of any order or notice to vacate. In the event the tenant is not required to immediately vacate, temporary housing shall be available to tenant as of the date the tenant actually vacates.
6. The displacement and relocation of a tenant per this section shall not terminate the tenancy of the displaced tenant. The displaced tenant shall have the right to reoccupy his or her rental unit upon the completion of the work necessary for the rental unit to comply with housing, health, building or safety laws or any governmental order and the tenant shall retain all rights of tenancy that existed prior to the displacement.
7. The tenant shall remain responsible to pay rent to the landlord that is due for the tenant's existing rental unit during the period of displacement.
8. The landlord and the tenant may mutually agree upon a housing type or benefits other than the temporary housing or benefits required herein.
9. The landlord shall provide written notice, before the tenant is temporarily displaced advising the tenant of the right to reoccupy the rental unit under the existing terms of tenancy once the work which necessitated the displacement is completed and the projected completion date of such work. Unless the landlord provides the temporary replacement housing, the tenant shall provide the landlord with the address to be used for the notifications required to be 71 of 561
20 provided by the landlord. When the date on which the rental unit will be available for reoccupancy is known, or as soon as possible thereafter, the landlord shall provide written notice to the tenant by personal delivery, or registered or certified mail. If it became necessary to temporarily relocate the tenant for over 30 days and the tenant has a separate tenancy agreement with a third party housing provider, the landlord shall give the tenant a minimum of 30 days written notice to reoccupy the rental unit. In all other cases, the landlord shall give the tenant a minimum of seven days written notice to reoccupy, unless the landlord gave the tenant written notice of the date of reoccupancy prior to the start of temporary relocation.
10. Nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing a landlord to require a tenant to vacate a unit, except as permitted under federal, state, or local law.
11. The remedies herein are cumulative and in addition to any other remedies available under federal, State, or local law.
12. Option to voluntarily terminate tenancy.
a. If the temporary untenantable conditions of a rental unit are projected to persist for 30 days or more, the tenant of that rental unit shall have the option to terminate the tenancy voluntarily pursuant to a tenant buyout agreement in accordance with the provisions of Section 9.30.035A, and the return of any security deposit that cannot be retained by the landlord under applicable law.
b. If the temporary untenantable conditions of a rental unit continue for 30 days longer than the projected completion date of the work, as set forth in the written notice to tenant, the tenant's option to terminate voluntarily the tenancy pursuant to a tenant buyout agreement in accordance with the provisions of this subchapter shall be renewed.
13. Required Notice by Tenant. The tenant shall provide written notice to the landlord of the conditions that have rendered the rental unit untenantable and allow the landlord reasonable time to address the issue, unless further occupancy in the rental unit will be unsafe for habitation under federal, state, or local law. Such notice shall not be required if the landlord has independently or through other means become aware of the untenantable conditions.
SECTION 8. Section 9.30.045 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby added to read as follows:
9.30.045 RENT REDUCTION FOR SERVICE REDUCTION
A. Reduced Services Defined.
1. For the purposes of this ordinance, "reduced services" refer to a significant and extended decrease in housing services and amenities that were included in the original rental agreement and have been provided to the tenant as part of the rental unit. 72 of 561
21 2. Examples of reduced services may include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Reduction of essential utilities (e.g., water, heat, electricity). b. Decreased maintenance or repair services.
c. Closure or significant reduction of common area amenities (e.g., fitness facilities, laundry facilities, community spaces).
d. Loss or reduction of parking availability.
e. Reduction of security services.
f. Other services that were explicitly stated in the rental agreement.
B. Conditions for Rent Decrease.
1. If a tenant experiences a significant and extended reduction in services as defined in this Chapter, the tenant may be entitled to a rent decrease.
2. The tenant shall provide written notice to the landlord of the reduction in services.
The landlord shall have a reasonable time to address the issue. If the issue is not resolved within a reasonable timeframe, the tenant may request a rent decrease.
C. Determining the Rent Decrease.
1. The amount of the rent decrease shall be determined based on the extent and duration of the reduced services. The decrease in rent shall be proportional to the reduction in services, and it shall be calculated according to best practices as dictated by the market, which may be calculated as a two to ten percent of the total monthly rent based on the type of amenity as compared to other units when considering the valuation of such amenities in establishing rent.
The parties shall engage in good faith negotiations considering factors such as the significance of the amenity in relation to the overall property value, the market value of similar units without the amenity, and when available, any documented costs or savings resulting from the removal.
SECTION 9. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of its passage.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the _______ day of ________, 2024. ______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________________
City Clerk
73 of 561
22 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS.
CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Dr. Suzie Abajian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _______ day of ________________, 2024, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
____________________________
City Clerk
74 of 561
ORDINANCE NO. ____
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA AMENDING
COMPREHENSIVE CITYWIDE FEE RESOLUTION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE
CITATION FINE AMOUNTS TO ADD VIOLATIONS SUBJECT TO FINES AND
PROCESSING FEES RELATED TO THE RENTAL RIGHTS PROGRAM VIOLATIONS WHEREAS, Chapter 1.24 of Title 1 of the Glendale Municipal Code ("GMC") authorizes City enforcement officers to issue administrative citations to responsible persons for violations of the GMC; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 1.24 of Title 1 of the GMC provides that the amount of the fine to be assessed by means of an administrative citation shall be specified by resolution of the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the fine amounts are intended to incentivize violators to correct violations of the GMC in a speedy and efficient manner, thereby conserving City code enforcement resources; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 1.24 of Title 1 of the GMC provides that due to the significant risk posed by certain violations to public health, safety and welfare, the amount of fine to be imposed for certain violations of the GMC shall be of a greater amount than others and shall be established by resolution of the City Council and thus, initial and subsequent fine amounts vary based on such severity, falling into one of three fine tiers; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 1.24 of Title 1 of the GMC provides that the City may also recover the cost of processing the administrative citation (processing fee); and WHEREAS, the Council adopted Resolution 13-96 on June 25, 2013, which established the fine schedule for the then-recently adopted administrative citation program; and
WHEREAS, the Council adopted Resolution 13-216 on December 10, 2013, which included additional GMC violations subject to administrative citation fines and included the amount the City may charge to recover its costs in processing each administrative citation via a processing fee; and
WHEREAS, the Council has, at various times since, in the past, adopted additional resolution which have added, amended or deleted GMC violations subject to administrative citation fines;
75 of 561
WHEREAS, the Council adopted Resolution 20-69 on June 2, 2020, which established certain fees and increased certain fees for various services, permits and certificates provided by the City, and adopted a comprehensive Citywide fee schedule for the fiscal year 2020-21;
WHEREAS, simultaneously with this Ordinance, the Council has adopted Ordinance No. _____ which amends Chapter 9.30 of the GMC related to the Rental Rights Program; and
WHEREAS, the City desires to include new and additional violations of the GMC related to the Rental Rights Program consistent with the ordinance, which will be subject to administrative citation fines and processing fees.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:
SECTION 1. Fine Amounts: GMC Section Reference. In addition to the violations and corresponding fine amounts to be assessed by means of an administrative citation already adopted in Resolutions 13-96 and 13-216, as well as various other resolutions related to administrative citations, the following additional violations and corresponding fine amounts related to the Rental Rights Program to be assessed by means of an administrative citation, set forth in the attached Exhibit 1, are adopted.
SECTION 2. Repeat Violations. The administrative citation fine amount for a second violation of the same GMC provision by the same responsible party within twelve (12) months from the date of the first administrative citation shall be higher than the amount for the first administrative citation, and shall vary depending on the violation cited, as set forth in the attached Exhibit 1. The administrative citation fine amount for a third and any subsequent violation of the same GMC provision by the same responsible party within twelve (12) months from the date of the first administrative citation shall be higher than the amount for the first or second violation, and shall vary depending on the violation cited, as set forth in the attached Exhibit 1.
SECTION 3. Late Payment. Payment of the administrative citation fine amount after thirty (30) days from the date of the administrative citation shall be subject to an additional late payment charge. The late payment charge shall equal ten percent (10%) of the administrative citation fine amount due the City, or ten percent (10%) of the amount remaining unpaid to the City if a portion of the fine amount was timely paid. Late payment charges shall be in addition to the amount of the administrative citation fine amount. In addition, interest shall accrue on all unpaid monies due, exclusive of late payment charges, at the rate of one half of one percent per month, pro rata, of the total 76 of 561
amount due from the date the administrative citation fine amount becomes delinquent until the date that all delinquent amounts are paid to the City.
SECTION 4. Processing Fee. Every administrative citation will be assessed a $22 administrative citation processing fee. This processing fee is in addition to the administrative citation fine amount, any applicable late fee, interest or collection costs.
SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance’s adopted fees and fines shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of its passage.
Adopted this ________ day of __________, 2024.
___________________________
Mayor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS
CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Dr. Suzie Abajian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _______ day of ________________, 2024, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
___________________________
City Clerk
77 of 561
EXHIBIT A
Schedule of Chapter 9.30 Code Violations
Code Section Code Description 1st Violation 2nd Violation* 3rd Violation**
9.30.55 Rental Rights Program $400 $1000 $2000
* Within one year of the first violation.
** Each additional violation within one year of the first violation. 78 of 561
C:\INETPUB\WWWROOT\MULTITENANT\TEMP\CC_01302024_MOTION_8A3.PDF MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the Council direct staff to take the following action regarding Glendale Municipal Code Chapter 9.30 amendments:
______________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________.
Vote as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
79 of 561
Guide for Rental Rights Proposed Options
Dec. 30, 2024
Areas of consideration based on council instruction:
•Defining a Qualified Tenant
•Exploring carve-out options for small property owners ("Mom and Pop" establishments)
•Adjustments to Just Cause Eviction for Renovation provision Qualified Tenant Definition
Defining Seniors:
1. What age should be considered a "senior" for Qualified Tenant status? A. 65 years old.
B. 70 years old.
C. 75 years old.
D. 80 years old.
E. Remove Age.
F. Any other age limit by Council.
Identifying Disabled Individuals:
2. Should disabled individuals be part of the Qualified Tenant definition? A. Exclude disabled individuals from definition of Qualified Tenant.
B. Include and use State and Federal definitions.
Addressing School-Aged Families:
3. How should "School-Aged Families" be defined for Qualified Tenant status? 80 of 561
A. School-Aged Families are households that include a child under the age of 18 years with a physical or developmental disability demonstrably proven through medical evidence. The Rental Unit serves as the primary residence for school-aged child, enrolled in grades Pre-K through 12, attending a school within the public school district corresponding to the Rental Unit's assignment.
B. School-Aged Families encompass households that include a child under the age of 18 years with one or more deceased or absent parents, currently under the care of a single parent, designated caretaker, or a sole adopting parent. The Rental Unit serves as the primary residence for school-aged child, enrolled in grades Pre-K through 12, attending a school within the public school district corresponding to the Rental Unit's assignment.
C. Remove School-Aged Families as a criteria for Qualified Tenant.
D. Any other definition determined by Council.
Carve-Out Options for Small Property Owners:
Mom-and-Pop Owners (4 or fewer units):
1. How should small property owners be treated in the ordinance? A. Exempt properties where the owner resides on-site or within the same building of a property with 4 or fewer units.
B. Retain Current Carve-Out: Our current ordinance exempts properties with 4 or fewer units from the one year lease requirement and requires a relocation fee of only “3 X Current Rent” as opposed to the proposed “3 X proposed Rent.”
C. Retain Current Carve-Out and additional Carve-Out for areas of intentional disrepair. Landlords who resides on-site or within the same building would be exempt from all aspects of intentional disrepair.
D. Fully exempt all properties between 2 to 4 units. (SFH are already exempt)
E. No Carve-Out for Small Property owners.
F. Any other option considered by Council.
81 of 561
Just Cause Eviction for Renovation:
Uninhabitability Duration:
1. What should be the duration of uninhabitability for tenant eviction during major rehabilitation?
A. Revert to original ordinance: The unit would need to be uninhabitable for 30 days.
B. 45 days: The unit would need to be uninhabitable for 45 days.
C. 60 days: The unit would need to be uninhabitable for 60 days.
D. Leave as is: The unit would need to be uninhabitable for 90 days.
E. Any other option considered by Council.
2. How should relocation assistance be calculated for Qualified Tenants? A. Leave as proposed: Relocation fee multiplied by 2.
B. Relocation fee multiplier set at 1.5.
C. Relocation fee plus an additional $3500, (or other dollar amount agreed to).
D. No additional protections for Qualified Tenant, (Remove Qualified Tenant definition).
82 of 561
8b
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Ordinance Amending Chapter 9.30 (Rental Rights Program)
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.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for November 28, 2023 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council initiated Landlord/Tenant Ad-Hoc Committee to address rental housing issues in Glendale. The Ad-Hoc Committee's purpose was to gather citizen input and provide recommendations to the Council on landlord/tenant rental housing matters. The Ad-Hoc Committee was assigned three main tasks, including reviewing the Rental Rights Program ordinance, developing education and marketing strategies, and evaluating a voluntary dispute resolution program. The Ad-Hoc Committee was originally comprised of seven but now six members, representing both renters and landlords in Glendale, and convened monthly for a total of twelve meetings.
On August 22, 2023, the Ad-Hoc Committee presented three comprehensive reports detailing the Rental Rights Program to the City Council, covering the program's status, marketing strategies, mediation options, and improvement recommendations. While the marketing strategies were well-received and approved, the proposed changes to the Rental Rights ordinance sparked discussions and requests for further clarification.
On September 27, 2023, the Ad-Hoc Committee was convened to address the feedback received from the City Council. Although two committee members were unable to attend, the meeting proceeded with the remaining four members present. The Ad-Hoc Committee engaged in a comprehensive discussion of the City Council's feedback and proceeded to clarify and vote on their recommendations.
The Ad-Hoc Committee's discussions led to the following significant decisions:
•Lease Requirements: A nuanced approach was proposed, requiring a one-year lease offer after the initial year, subject to tenant acceptance or rejection. 83 of 561
28b
4 8
0 0
•Service Reductions: Guidelines were outlined for tenants to request rent decreases in the event of significant reductions in housing services. •Banking Provisions: A motion passed to limit historical look-back periods for rent increases to three years.
•Just Cause Eviction Relocation: A revised formula for relocation payments, addressing outdated parameters, ultimately landing on three times the greater of the tenant's current monthly rent or Fair Market Rent (FMR) plus $2,000.
It is important to highlight that these decisions came about as a result of lengthy discussions, compromise on the part of the Committee Members representing both sides of the issues and a vote that approved a recommendation to the City Council for these specific amendments to the code.
The proposed changes to Chapter 9.30 aim to streamline the Rental Rights Program, enhancing communication, balancing power dynamics, and stabilizing the rental market.
Attachments providing the complete ordinance and a user-friendly guide accompany this report.
Recent concerns over Just Cause eviction prompted tailored revisions addressing City Council’s and tenants’ concerns. These revisions introduce protections for qualified tenants, refine major rehab criteria, and adjust relocation assistance formulas.
A comparative analysis with other cities—such as South Pasadena, Burbank, and California Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482)—shows that Glendale's proposed measures often exceed or supplement existing regulations. For instance, Glendale introduces stronger protections for qualified tenants and offers more substantial relocation assistance compared to AB 1482.
Regarding an emergency eviction moratorium, staff recommends prioritizing immediate enactment of the drafted ordinance over implementing a moratorium, given the ordinance's comprehensive coverage of anticipated changes. Additionally, as it relates to substantial remodel, the proposed ordinance offers a retroactive date of October 1, 2023.
The Council holds options to approve the ordinance as is, with modifications, request a rewrite, or explore alternative actions.
RECOMMENDATION
•Approve Proposed Revisions: Acknowledging the extensive collaborative efforts and deliberations undertaken by the Ad-Hoc Committee, introducing the ordinance in its current form signifies an endorsement of the proposed changes. 84 of 561
38b
4 8
0 0
•Provide Feedback on Proposed Revisions: City Council may opt to offer additional feedback on the proposed changes and request staff to refine the ordinance based on the discussions held.
ANALYSIS
On August 22, 2023, staff presented three in-depth reports that delved into the work plan assigned to the Ad-Hoc Committee. These reports covered the Rental Rights Program ordinance, marketing and outreach strategies for the program, and mediation options. They were the culmination of extensive research, analysis, and collaborative efforts by the Ad-Hoc Committee.
The Rental Rights Program report highlighted the current state of the program, including its strengths and areas in need of improvement. It provided a comprehensive review of existing regulations, tenant rights, and landlord responsibilities. Additionally, the report featured a range of recommendations aimed at enhancing the overall effectiveness and fairness of the program.
The marketing and outreach strategies report explored methods to better reach and inform our community about their rental rights and the resources available to them. It offered insights into approaches, such as digital campaigns, community events, and partnerships with local organizations, to maximize the program's impact.
The mediation options report detailed the various methods by which tenant-landlord disputes could be resolved amicably. It presented a comprehensive analysis of the benefits and drawbacks of different mediation approaches and proposed potential options for a mediation program in Glendale.
During the August 22nd meeting, City Council engaged in a thorough discussion of these reports while the marketing and outreach strategy was received positively and was approved. Regarding the proposed changes to the Rental Rights ordinance, the City Council acknowledged the merits of several recommendations put forth by the Ad-Hoc Committee. However, they sought further clarification on specific aspects of the ordinance. Furthermore, the City Council expressed a desire for the Ad-Hoc Committee to explore alternative dispute resolution methods beyond mediation.
On September 27, 2023, staff convened the Ad-Hoc Committee to address the feedback received from City Council. While two committee members were regrettably unable to attend the meeting, the remaining four members engaged in an in-depth discussion of City Council's feedback. They assessed and discussed the recommendations, subsequently voting on several issues based on thorough deliberation.
Committee Discussion
85 of 561
48b
4 8
0 0
Based on City Council comment, staff took back areas of the Rental Rights Program to the Ad-Hoc Committee for further clarification and asked the members to make specific recommendations to the City Council. The following were the areas addressed with the Ad-Hoc Committee and their subsequent decisions.
Requirement of offering a one-year written leases
The Ad-Hoc Committee was asked to clarify the changes they would like to see and after extensive discussion, the Committee recommends as follows:
Landlord is required to offer the one-year lease based on State noticing requirements, after the initial year, if the tenant accepts, they continue to offer the one-year lease, if the tenant rejects the landlord no longer has to offer the one- year lease. After rejection, it is up to mutual agreement of the parties.
Furthermore, any one year lease offer would need to be substantially similar to any month to month option provided to tenant as an alternative to a one year lease.
The committee voted 4-0 for City Council to consider this option.
To guarantee every tenant has an opportunity to opt for a one-year lease, the proposed ordinance now includes a safeguard mandating landlords to extend the one-year lease offer for a full year beyond the anniversary date of the last rent increase.
In relation to one year lease terms, the committee discussed requirements for any amendments to a lease to be made in writing. The committee ultimately agreed 4-0 to the following:
When it’s an oral arrangement, the written lease where the terms of the lease apply but the end date has passed and are on a month to month and landlord and tenant come to an oral arrangement, they must reduce it to writing. Changes can still be made with 30-day notice.
Staff incorporated this language into the ordinance, then examined it during the stakeholder meetings. Both landlord and tenant stakeholders expressed reservations about this amendment and stated that there was no discernible advantages for either party. Lawyers who frequent represent tenants stated that often times an established pattern of an activity, combined with the landlord’s tacit acceptance arguably creates a right for the tenant that can be later brought up in court. This requirement would remove the ability for tenants to raise this issue in court. Concerns arose regarding potential legal complexities prompted the removal of this recommendation from the final redline.
Reduction in Services
86 of 561
58b
4 8
0 0
The Ad-Hoc Committee also discussed options for compensation for reducing rents when a landlord reduces services. After a lengthy discussion, the Ad-Hoc Committee agreed that the ordinance should have a provision, but had no definitive suggestion on how this should be done. The Ad-Hoc Committee directed staff to provide options to the Council for consideration. Staff prepared the provisions below and discussed them with the various stakeholders, and further refined the language after receiving feedback:
'Reduced services' are defined as a significant decrease in housing services and amenities originally included in the rental agreement. Examples include disruptions or reductions in essential utilities, loss or reduction of parking availability, and other explicitly stated services in the rental agreement. If a tenant experiences a significant reduction in services, they may be entitled to a rent decrease. The tenant must provide written notice to the landlord, who has a reasonable time to address the issue. If not resolved, the tenant can request a rent decrease. The amount of the decrease is determined based on the extent and duration of reduced services, proportional to the reduction and calculated according to market best practices. For partial reductions, the decrease is prorated based on the percentage of affected services, and for permanent reductions, it may be calculated as 2 to 10 percent of the total monthly rent.
Banking
There were concerns over the complexity of the calculation of the banking provision, when allowing the carrying forward of unused rent increases indefinitely. The lack of a specific limit on the historical "look-back" period poses challenges for both tenants and landlord. To address this, the committee proposed a motion reducing the look-back period to three years and ensuring the provision transfers from the prior owner to the new one for consistency. The motion passed 4-0.
Just Cause Eviction Relocation
Considering various options, and aiming to align with current market conditions, the Ad- Hoc Committee, after extensive discussion on relocation and reviewing relocation fees in different cities, voted 3-1 for the following formula to calculate eviction relocation:
3 times the greater of the tenant's current monthly rent or Fair Market Rent (FMR) plus $2,000
This decision is a response to the outdated 2003 formula, which no longer reflects current rental trends and falls short in comparison to neighboring areas.
For reference, the HUD Fair Market Rents for Fiscal Year 2024 are:
87 of 561
68b
4 8
0 0
Fair Market Rents By Unit Bedrooms
Year Studio 1 Bed 2 Bed 3 Bed 4 Bed
2024 FY $1,777 $2,006 $2,544 $3,263 $3,600
Furthermore, the committee agreed that smaller properties ranging from 2 to 4 units should not be treated differently in the ordinance. This decision stemmed from an analysis of deliberation comments and public feedback.
The Ad-Hoc Committee's choice not to differentiate between various types of landlords in the proposed ordinance was motivated by a commitment to impartial treatment of tenants regardless of their property type. While acknowledging the differences in scale and resources between larger property management companies and smaller, individual landlords, the committee emphasized the importance of consistent standards and accountability for all.
Advocating for uniform regulations without special considerations for smaller properties aims to ensure that all landlords, regardless of property size, adhered to the same set of guidelines and obligations and does not disproportionately penalize tenants who reside there. This approach aims to minimize potential abuses or loopholes arising from differential treatment based on property ownership scale, prioritizing the upholding of tenant rights and maintaining housing standards across the entire spectrum of rental property ownership.
It's important to note that smaller properties, typically ranging from 2 to 4 units, can often be owned by corporate entities overseeing multiple properties. While these properties might fall within the bracket of smaller-scale units, they might be managed by corporate entities that own and operate various rental units.
While it's arguable that smaller landlords, particularly those overseeing only a couple of units, might lack the financial resources or infrastructure of larger property management companies, it is crucial to highlight that the proposed revisions don't significantly alter the impact on properties with 2 to 4 units. The sole addition is the requirement for a one- year lease, which shouldn't pose a substantial financial burden and, if the owners are genuinely operating on a small scale, should entail minimal administrative hassle. The adjustment in relocation assistance for increases over 7%, from 3 times the current rent to 3 times the proposed rent, represents a minor change. A notable alteration that could affect small property owners involves the inclusion of duplexes where the owner doesn’t reside in any of the units. Staff introduced this change to align with state regulations, 88 of 561
78b
4 8
0 0
concerned that failing to do so might lead to legal challenges due to the state's stricter restrictions compared to our ordinance.
During stakeholder meetings, staff inquired of landlord representatives about their definition of a “mom-and-pop” owner. Universally, the explanation by landlord groups of a mom-and-pop owner is anyone who owns fewer than 20 units. The rationale was that for a corporate owner, the investment in complexes of fewer than 20 units was not financially sound for them. This was considerably different from the city’s interpretation of mom and pop and further lent support for treating all residential offerings the same.
Relocation of increase over 7%
Currently, the relocation formula for increases over 7% follows a tiered system, allowing tenants to receive anywhere from 3 times the proposed rent up to 6 times the proposed rent based on income and the duration of their occupancy. After discussing various options, the Ad-Hoc Committee chose to simplify the formula to a uniform 3 times the proposed rent for all tenants, irrespective of income or years of occupancy and unit size.
Additionally, the Ad-Hoc Committee would like for the City Council to review the relocation calculation periodically. The Ad-Hoc Committee voted 3-1 for this change.
Other Changes Previously Discussed
In addition to the aforementioned modifications, staff also incorporated several changes that reflect the broader discussions within the committee and City Council, as well as feedback from stakeholders. These changes include:
Under Section 9.30.010, the Legislative Purpose has been updated, broadening the protective scope. Amendments to Section 9.30.020 Definitions include:
•Base Rent Definition: The revision aims to differentiate between rent and recurring charges, particularly utility costs. It refines the current definition, which considers all charges as part of a rent increase. Read together with the addition of the reduction of services section, this provision allows for reduction in the rent in the event that a landlord chooses to remove existing utility payments from the overall rental value.
•Qualified Tenant Definition: This addition establishes a clear definition for a qualified tenant, delineating criteria such as disability, age, low income, or having a school-aged child enrolled. This distinction provides an additional layer of protection for the vulnerable tenant population. •Rental Unit Definition: Expansion of the rental unit definition includes units constructed illegally, ensuring they fall under the ordinance's provisions. 89 of 561
88b
4 8
0 0
Further revisions to the definition of Rental Units involve modifications to exemptions:
•Previously exempted duplexes will only maintain exemption if the owner occupies one of the two units as their primary residence. •Section 8 tenants, previously excluded, are now included in the program, expanding coverage to this group.
Additionally, adjustments to the term 'nuisance' broadens its scope to include obstructing free passage, generating excessive noise, and displaying aggressive behavior toward neighboring tenants. Also, there are additional requirements for owner move-in evictions, mandating that landlords must place family members or resident managers within two months of a tenant vacating a unit due to an owner move-in eviction, the new tenant must remain in the unit for a minimum of one year. Finally, there is a proposal prohibiting landlords from evicting qualified tenants and restricting the use of this type of eviction to only once per family member.
Intentional Disrepair/Damage to Rental Unit/Complex
During the committee meeting, a key topic of discussion revolved around habitability concerns, specifically landlords letting their properties deteriorate and the living standards regarding illegally constructed units. To tackle these issues, staff introduced provisions aimed at addressing landlords who deliberately allow their properties to fall into disrepair or who refuse to address major concerns like mold, leaking, inadequate heating and other habitability concerns.
In addition to the existing safeguards outlined in the California Civil Code, if a rental unit is intentionally allowed to deteriorate to the point of being uninhabitable, the landlord is obligated to provide temporary relocation benefits during the displacement period.
These benefits include lodging in a secure hotel or motel, compensation for meals, and laundry services if facilities are lacking. Alternatively, the landlord may choose to offer comparable housing during the displacement period, meeting specific criteria.
Rehab Eviction Related Changes
One of the major areas of concern in the recent week’s has been major rehab evictions.
Staff has heard from stakeholders, City Council and Ad-Hoc Committee members regarding their concerns. Some stakeholders have provided options that could strengthen the requirements of the major rehab provision in our ordinance.
The changes that staff has incorporated into the ordinance include the extension of the uninhabitable period from 30 to 60 days during renovations for 'major rehab' evictions.
This proposal addresses concerns related to the eviction timeframe. It includes the 90 of 561
98b
4 8
0 0
requirement that the project cost be 8 times the current rent or Fair Market Rent, whichever is higher—a change from the existing ordinance, which specifies 8 times the current rent.
These comprehensive revisions aim to strengthen the Rental Rights Ordinance and address various concerns discussed within the Ad-Hoc Committee and City Council meetings, incorporating valuable feedback from stakeholders.
Administrative Citations
Currently, Rental Rights Ordinance allows for enforcement through administrative citations, but the existing fee schedule lacks associated citations for the enforcement outlined in the ordinance. This may have been an oversight when the section was first added. Staff proposes adding these administrative citations as a measure to ensure compliance with Rental Rights Program provisions. These citations act as a structured deterrent, imposing fees based on the severity and recurrence of violations. Consistent with other penalties outlined in the current fee resolution, staff proposes that the initial penalty would be $400, with a $1000 penalty for the second offense and a $2000 fine for the third. By implementing these citations, the objective is to safeguard the rights of tenants and landlord. If Council approves a motion to add said administrative fees, staff will bring back a resolution for approval.
Alternatives to Mediation Program
In addition to changes to the Rental Rights Program, City Council sought direction on alternatives to a mediation program. The Ad-Hoc Committee deliberated on various ideas, settling on several potential avenues for consideration. The Ad-Hoc Committee discussed funding a local agency to provide legal representation for landlords or tenants dealing with unresolved cases requiring legal action. This initiative would establish criteria for qualifying cases, ensuring targeted assistance where legal intervention is necessary.
Another discussion point was the development of a hotline escalation system within a general housing hotline. This system aims to swiftly escalate renter queries to attorneys or legal experts for immediate consultations when cases require specialized legal guidance. Lastly, the committee discussed dedicated staff to aid tenants in better understanding the ordinance. Strengthening staffing in this area would enhance community education and serve as a foundational step towards improved comprehension and engagement with the Rental Rights Program.
In summary, the proposed changes to Chapter 9.30 aim to simplify the ordinance, creating a clearer "Rental Rights Program" that both landlords and tenants can navigate easily. This includes defining qualified tenants and introducing measures to maintain 91 of 561
108b
4 8
0 0
housing standards and address service reductions. These revisions strive to improve communication, balance power dynamics, and foster a more stable rental market.
The complete ordinance is included as Attachment 1, while Attachment 2 provides a user-friendly guide that highlights the key changes in redline version for easy reference.
Recent Concerns of Just Cause Eviction
In recent City Council meetings, the issue of Just Cause eviction has taken center stage, fueled by complaints from tenants experiencing renovictions. City Council members, recognizing the gravity of the concerns raised by residents, have actively explored potential solutions. Staff has followed these discussions, aiming to stay informed about the ongoing dialogue. This section of the report will detail the proposed changes to the Rental Rights ordinance, specifically tailored to address the issues highlighted by City Council concerns and tenant complaints. Additionally, staff conducted a comparative analysis with other cities to gain insights into their approaches to similar challenges. By examining these varied strategies, staff aims to ensure that Glendale's proposed modifications not only address local concerns but also align with broader trends in tenant protections. This comprehensive exploration seeks to strike a balance between the unique needs of Glendale residents and the evolving landscape of tenant rights across different municipalities.
Glendale Proposed Revisions Addressing Evictions
Based on Ad-Hoc Committee discussion and comment, and in response to concerns raised by both Council and tenants, the proposed revisions to the rental rights ordinance should add sufficient protections for areas of concern:
•Definition of Qualified Tenant: This proposed addition to the ordinance introduces the concept of a "qualified tenant" with associated protections, specifically the doubling of any relocation fee. A "qualified tenant" is defined as an individual with either a disability, aged 62 or older, low income, or having a school-aged child enrolled in school. Additionally, City Council reserves the flexibility to consider extended noticing periods or heightened criteria for the eviction of qualified tenants. •Major Rehab Clarification: This proposed revision intricately refines the 'major rehab' section by providing a clear definition of 'substantial remodel,' both explicitly encompassing structural, electrical, plumbing, and mechanical system repairs or alterations and aligning with the State definition. Notably, the extension of the uninhabitable period from 30 to 60 days during renovations for 'major rehab' evictions addresses concerns related to the eviction timeframe. These additional requirements serve as 92 of 561
118b
4 8
0 0
a crucial layer of protection, ensuring that landlords cannot invoke 'major rehab' as a pretext for eviction based solely on cosmetic enhancements, thereby safeguarding tenants from unwarranted displacement for non- essential renovations.
•Relocation Assistance Adjustments: This proposed revision marks a significant adjustment to the existing relocation formula, transitioning from the previous calculation of 2 times Fair Market Rent (FMR) + $1000 to a more robust formula of 3 times the greater of FMR or current rent + $2000.
This amendment ensures that relocation assistance is more closely aligned with current market conditions and the economic realities faced by tenants.
Moreover, the proposal introduces a proactive approach to oversight with the mandate for periodic City Council reviews of the relocation amount. This mechanism allows for adjustments to be made in response to evolving economic factors or changes in the local housing landscape, maintaining the relevance and effectiveness of the relocation assistance program.
Additionally, a provision is introduced to specifically amplify support for qualified tenants, stipulating that any relocation assistance for this group would be doubled. •Owner Move-In Requirements: Introduces additional requirements for owner move-in evictions, mandating that landlords must place family members or resident managers within two months of a tenant vacating a unit due to an owner move-in eviction, the new tenant must remain in the unit for a minimum of one year. Also proposes prohibiting landlords from evicting qualified tenants and restricting the use of this type of eviction to only once per family member.
•Inclusion of Section 8 Tenants: Proposes the elimination of the exemption of Section 8 tenants from the program, fostering inclusivity and ensuring equal rights and protections for all tenants, regardless of housing assistance source.
Staff is of the opinion that the aforementioned changes comprehensively address many concerns raised in recent weeks. However, should City Council seek to enhance these measures further, potential avenues include adjusting the relocation fee, extending the notice period, or providing additional clarity on the definition of substantial rehab. This framework allows for additional customization and refinement, empowering City Council to tailor the ordinance to more precisely align with the unique needs and preferences of the Glendale community.
93 of 561
128b
4 8
0 0
Other Jurisdictions
As previously highlighted, staff sought a comprehensive understanding of eviction policies by examining the approaches of other municipalities in comparison to Glendale.
In this analysis, staff has considered the practices of South Pasadena, Burbank, and the broader state-level protections concerning evictions.
California Tenant Protection Act
AB 1482, also known as the California Tenant Protection Act, is a statewide rent control measure that went into effect on January 1, 2020. The law establishes rent control and just-cause eviction protections for certain residential properties not previously covered by such regulations. Under AB 1482, non-exempt rental properties are subject to rent control limitations, capping annual rent increases at 5% of the current rent plus the local rate of inflation or 10% of the current rent, whichever is lower. Additionally, the law provides protection against arbitrary evictions by requiring landlords to provide just- cause reasons for eviction.
Permissible just-cause reasons include nonpayment of rent, material breach of the lease, engagement in criminal activities on the premises, creating a significant nuisance, owner move-in, and substantial remodel.
Both AB 1482 (California Tenant Protection Act) and Glendale's Just Cause provisions share common elements in addressing arbitrary evictions and providing tenant protections. However, Glendale's Just Cause provisions, especially with the proposed changes, extend further in certain aspects.
Differences with Glendale's Proposed Changes:
Definition of Qualified Tenant: Glendale introduces the concept of a "qualified tenant," offering additional protections for disabled individuals, seniors, low- income tenants, and those with school-aged children. This goes beyond the protections provided by AB 1482.
Relocation Assistance: Glendale proposes adjustments to the relocation formula, providing more substantial relocation assistance. The proposed formula is 3 times the greater of Fair Market Rent (FMR) or current rent + $2000, with an additional provision to double the relocation assistance for “qualified tenants”. AB 1482 sets relocation at of 1 times the current rent.
Owner Move-In Protections: Glendale adds further requirements for owner move-ins, mandating that landlords must place family members or resident managers within two months of a tenant vacating a unit due to an owner move-in 94 of 561
138b
4 8
0 0
eviction. Additionally, Glendale restricts the use of this type of eviction to only once per family member, offering enhanced tenant protections.
While Glendale's Just Cause regulations offer stronger protections for tenant rights, one notable distinction has been the definition of "substantial remodel." AB 1482 has had a more specific definition that clarifies the types of remodels that qualify for eviction.
However, Glendale's proposed changes aim to bridge this gap, bringing its definition of "substantial remodel" in line with the standards set by AB 1482. By harmonizing this element, Glendale ensures that its regulations not only match but, in fact, exceed the statewide standards for determining when a remodel is significant enough to warrant an eviction.
Burbank
On September 12, 2023, the Burbank City Council implemented the Burbank Tenant Protection Urgency Ordinance, immediately enhancing safeguards for no-fault just cause evictions linked to demolitions and substantial remodels. This ordinance mandates landlords to obtain relevant permits and offer three months of relocation assistance to tenants affected by such evictions due to substantial remodels. For other no-fault just cause evictions, the relocation payment aligns with the California Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482) at one month's current rent. The ordinance establishes detailed requirements for landlords, including securing permits, and providing tenants with comprehensive details about the scope and necessity of the work.
While the Burbank Tenant Protection Urgency Ordinance shares some similarities with Glendale's current rental rights ordinance, Glendale's existing and proposed protections either match or surpass those of Burbank in several key aspects.
Required Permits: Glendale has required landlords to provide permits and work plans since 2019, a measure that Burbank has recently implemented.
Substantial Remodel: The additional protections Glendale is introducing in the revised ordinance specifically defines substantial remodels to closely mirror Burbank's and AB 1482 requirements.
Relocation Fees: Burbank's new ordinance sets it at three times the tenant's current rent, Glendale's existing formula is two times Fair Market Rent (FMR) + $1000. However, Glendale's proposed relocation formula, which stands at 3 times the greater of the tenant's current monthly rent or Fair Market Rent (FMR) plus $2,000, surpasses Burbank's standard.
While Burbank generally aligns with the state's AB 1482 protections, Glendale's proposed measures provide greater protections, offering enhanced safeguards for 95 of 561
148b
4 8
0 0
tenants. When considering both existing and proposed changes, Glendale's Rental Rights Program stands as a more comprehensive and robust framework compared to Burbank's.
South Pasadena
On May 17, 2023, the City Council of South Pasadena implemented an Urgency Ordinance, initially establishing a 45-day moratorium on no-fault just-cause evictions.
Subsequently, on June 28, 2023, the City Council extended this moratorium for an additional 6 months. This ordinance prohibits any eviction for "no-fault just cause" during this period. Such just-cause reasons include the owner's intent to occupy the property, removal of the property from the rental market, and the intent to demolish or substantially remodel the property. The primary objective of the moratorium was to afford City staff the time to research and engage with the community on issues related to substantial remodel evictions, facilitating proposed changes to the Just Cause for Eviction Ordinance.
At the City Council Meeting on November 1, 2023, South Pasadena staff introduced a proposed ordinance outlining amendments to South Pasadena's Just Cause provisions.
The key proposed changes include the removal of "substantially remodel" as a "no-fault just cause" for terminating a tenancy. Additionally, a new section titled "Tenant Protections During Temporary Untenantable Conditions Resulting from Necessary and Substantial Repairs" is proposed, defining necessary and substantial repairs, disallowing their use as a no-fault cause for termination, outlining landlord responsibilities to address temporary untenantable conditions, and providing tenants with the option to voluntarily terminate tenancy under specified circumstances through a tenant buyout agreement. South Pasadena City Council unanimously passed these new protections. Furthermore, a new section on "Tenant Buyout Agreements" was introduced to establish provisions that allow landlords to propose buyout agreements.
South Pasadena and Glendale share similarities in their Just Cause eviction policies, particularly regarding reasons for eviction. However, a notable divergence exists in the treatment of major rehab-related evictions. South Pasadena strictly prohibits landlords from evicting tenants for major rehab, while Glendale permits this action under certain limitations. Glendale's ordinance demonstrates strength, particularly in areas like relocation fees, where it offers more robust provisions. Glendale's ordinance strikes a better balance between landlord and tenant interests, whereas South Pasadena's approach appears restrictive. This strictness could pose challenges for remodels, potentially impacting housing stock negatively. The proposed ordinance also includes a provision for allowing tenants those similar rights as in South Pasadena, when a Landlord has intentionally allowed a unit to fall into disrepair. The key difference between the two types of processes being, that in the instance of disrepair, the 96 of 561
158b
4 8
0 0
habitability of the unit is comprised and the tenant has made several efforts to with the landlord to repair, vs. for major rehab, the landlord initiates the action. Additionally, in South Pasadena, it does not appear that any measures are offered for the landlord to recoup any of the costs for the added improvements in the event of a major rehab, which is typically allowed in jurisdictions that allow a right to return to the unit.
Emergency Eviction Moratorium
In recent City Council meetings, the concept of implementing an emergency eviction moratorium surfaced for discussion. An eviction moratorium is a temporary prohibition or suspension on evictions within a specified jurisdiction, usually imposed during emergencies or times of crisis. It's a measure implemented by local governments to prevent landlords from evicting tenants for a defined period, offering protection to renters facing financial hardship or other challenges.
While staff understands the basis behind some municipalities need for an eviction moratorium, there's a belief that such a measure might not be imperative now in Glendale, given the existence of a fully drafted ordinance ready for implementation.
Unlike South Pasadena's situation, where they initiated a moratorium first and then assessed the ordinance, Glendale's situation is different. The proposed changes are already embedded in the drafted versions of Glendale's ordinance. Hence, opting for a moratorium might not be the most natural next step. Instead, City Council could consider immediate enactment of the ordinance, bypassing the waiting period, as the drafted ordinance encompasses many of the changes anticipated, making the moratorium seemingly redundant at this stage.
Additionally, with regard to the “substantial remodel,” the proposed ordinance offers a retroactive effective date of October 1, 2023, which will require any efforts for eviction pursuant to Chapter 9.30.030G relating to major rehabs to meet the updated requirements imposed by this amendment. It will have not impact to any unlawful detainer cases already filed with the court, but will require issuances of new notices to vacate.
Other Ideas and Avenues
Expanding upon the discussions, several additional promising concepts emerged, broadening the spectrum of potential measures to bolster tenant protections. These additional areas for consideration may require additional staff for implementation. These include:
A.Extended Notice Periods: Require landlords to provide longer eviction notice periods, especially for long-term tenants. This gives tenants more time to find alternative housing or address issues causing the eviction. 97 of 561
168b
4 8
0 0
B.Financial Assistance Programs: Create financial assistance programs to help tenants facing evictions, providing temporary relief or rental assistance.
C.Legal Aid and Representation: Increase access to legal aid and representation for tenants facing eviction, ensuring they have proper representation in eviction proceedings.
D.Pre-Renovation Assessment: Mandate a comprehensive inspection of the property by certified inspectors before approving eviction for renovations. This assessment would determine the urgency and extent of renovations required, ensuring they are essential for the property's safety or habitability.
E.Appeals Process for Rehab Evictions: Establish a mechanism allowing tenants to appeal major rehab evictions if they believe the necessity of the remodel is misrepresented or unjustified.
F.City Oversight of Permit: Mandate landlords to note on permits if evictions are tied to major renovations. Appoint an oversight role to review these permits for eviction-related renovations. This person ensures compliance, informs tenants of their rights, and ensures a fair process.
G.Renovation Impact Assessments: Implement a requirement for landlords to conduct impact assessments before initiating major renovations that could lead to evictions. These assessments would detail the potential effects on tenants' housing security and propose mitigating measures.
H.Notice to City and Tenant: Require landlords to provide notice to both the city and tenants when issuing eviction notices. This measure can ensure the City is informed of evictions, allowing staff to track and potentially intervene in cases where tenants might face unjust or unwarranted eviction.
I.Additional Enforcement Provisions: Provide for the ability for the City Attorney to institute a civil proceeding for damages for displacement of tenants.
Next Steps
The redline version of the ordinance has been presented to the City Council, the City Council now has several options to consider regarding the proposed ordinance. 98 of 561
178b
4 8
0 0
Passing as Is: The Council may choose to approve the redline version of the ordinance in its current form. This action would signify acceptance of the proposed changes without any alterations.
Passing with Changes: Alternatively, the Council might opt to approve the ordinance with specific modifications. This route allows for adjustments to the proposed redline version based on Council discussions, feedback, or identified areas requiring refinement.
Requesting a Rewrite: Should the Council deem significant revisions necessary, they may request a complete reworking of the ordinance. This option entails sending the proposed redline version back for comprehensive revisions or clarifications based on Council directives.
Exploring Other Options: Additionally, the Council retains the freedom to explore alternative courses of action. This could involve deferring the decision for further evaluation, seeking additional input from stakeholders, or initiating further discussion on specific sections before finalizing the ordinance.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
During November 14, 15 and 21 , staff convened meetings with stakeholders to present the redline version of the ordinance and the anticipated modifications. Additionally, staff extended an invitation to stakeholders for one-on-one sessions to share their concerns and feedback. Staff met with representatives from Apartment Association of Greater Los Angeles, California Apartment Association, Glendale Association of Realtors, Glendale Tenants Union, Neighborhood Legal Services, the Armenian Bar Association and the Housing Rights Center.
Upon analyzing stakeholders’ feedback, various points have surfaced regarding the proposed ordinance. An overarching observation made by landlord representatives points out surprise and concern regarding the ordinance’s treatment of smaller property owners, particularly those categorized as “mom and pop” operations. Stakeholders argue that these smaller-scale operations lack resources akin to larger entities and recommend keeping exemptions the same with regards to 4 units or fewer. Additionally, there was a marked difference in the definition of a mom and pop owner offered by the landlord representatives to include complexes containing fewer than 20 rental units.
Staff also heard feedback regarding strengthening some areas of the rehab eviction clause, the comment heard described changing the rehab project cost be 8 times the 99 of 561
188b
4 8
0 0
current rent or Fair Market Rent, whichever is higher for the landlord to be able to evict a tenant—a change from the existing ordinance, which specifies 8 times the current rent.
Other recommendations include removal of the mandate for a one-year lease, seen as unnecessary within the proposed ordinance considering other factors in the ordinance such as strong eviction protections mitigate the need for lease requirements.
Stakeholders have also had concerns regarding the Banking provisions as it relates to Relocation assistance triggered after an increase of over 7%, deeming it overly convoluted and unnecessary.
Some stakeholders, upon reviewing the Committee's suggestion to formalize oral agreements in writing, expressed reservations. They questioned the potential benefits for both tenants and landlords, raising concerns about potential legal complexities and the possibility of conflicting with state laws in the future.
Additional individual comments focused on specific recommendations, including a change to the Legislative Purpose, removal of the Qualified Tenant designation, the proposal to implement a 12-month notification period for any changes in tenancy terms, advocating for the broadening of the nuisance definition to include sex trafficking, and suggesting the incorporation of a retroactive clause.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
CEQA does not apply to projects where the lead agency determines "with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment." CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.) § 15061(b)(3). Here, the action involves noting and filing of a staff report on the 12-month performance status of the Alex Theater and providing staff direction on the proposed reservation of twelve days of Theatre use for 2024. There is no possibility that the action to note and file this report and provide direction on Theatre use may have a significant effect on the environment.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Introduce the ordinance amending Chapter 9.30 of the Glendale Municipal 100 of 561
198b
4 8
0 0
Code, 1995 relating to the Rental Rights Program and Provide Direction regarding Administrative Citations.
Alternative 2: City Council may elect to consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:
Peter Zovak, Assistant Director of Community Development Lucy Varpetian, Principal Assistant City Attorney
Sipan Zadoryan, Housing Analyst
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Redline version of Chapter 9.30 (Rental Rights Program) Attachment 2: Guide for Redline version of Chapter 9.30 (Rental Rights Program) 101 of 561
8b
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Introduction of Ordinance for Public and Private Indigenous Tree Protections
1. Ordinance amending portions of Chapter 12.40 and 12.44 of the Glendale Municipal Code to update standards and enforcement mechanisms for public and indigenous tree protection
2. Ordinance amending portions of Titles 16 and 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code regarding tree-related zoning provisions
3. Resolution establishing and modifying administrative citation fines in the Citywide Fee Schedule for enforcement of the public tree and indigenous tree ordinances
4. Resolution of Appropriation for Outreach Services
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for January 30, 2024 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At five City Council meetings between 2021 and 2023, the Public Works Department presented information regarding the state of Glendale’s urban forest. At these meetings, the City Council expressed interest in improving Glendale Municipal Codes relating to trees. This report describes the proposed ordinances and the proposed fee structure to enforce the ordinances. The report also covers additional modifications proposed since the most recent Council discussion in March 2023, as well as feedback from the Sustainability Commission.
The city currently protects any tree within the city’s right-of-way, and six species of private indigenous trees, under its Street Tree Ordinance (GMC 12.40) and the Indigenous Tree Ordinance (GMC 12.44), both of which are administered by the Public Works Department.
Additionally, portions of Chapters 16 (Subdivisions) and 30 (Zoning) have requirements concerning protected city and private trees and give Public Works oversight over the landscape design of trees within new parking lots.
On March 28, 2023, an ordinance was presented for consideration by the City Council to modify protections for public and private trees. The ordinance was not introduced for adoption. Instead, the Council provided direction to staff on further modifications to the ordinance, additional outreach measures and further research. 102 of 561
28b
4 8
7 5
RECOMMENDATION
Introduce an Ordinance amending the Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) to revise the existing Street Tree Ordinance into a “City Tree” Ordinance and revising both Public Tree and Indigenous Tree code language to protect trees more effectively, as well as amending these tree-related codes to align with current city policy and practice. Also, that the Council introduce an Ordinance to simultaneously clean up portions of Titles 16 and 30 to match the other tree-related code modifications and update zoning and subdivision standards in line with current practice. Additionally, that the Council approve a Resolution Adding and Modifying Administrative Citation Fines in the Citywide Fee Schedule for Enforcement of the proposed Public Tree and Indigenous Tree Ordinances. The Council may approve a Resolution of Appropriation for outreach services related to the ordinance.
ANALYSIS
In early 2021, the City Council requested a report on the current state of the urban forest.
Over four City Council meetings on May 18, 2021, September 21, 2021, March 1, 2022, and September 27, 2022, staff provided information on aspects of public tree maintenance and tree protection ordinances. Staff recommended a 10-year planting program to return our public tree canopy to previous levels. The City Council gave direction to expand the tree planting program significantly to meet a new 25% citywide tree canopy goal, and allocated funding for this program, which is ongoing. Council also expressed interest in expansion of protections for public and private trees.
Public Works staff worked with the Community Development Department to review Titles 16 (Subdivisions) and 30 (Zoning) to ensure consistency with existing street and indigenous tree ordinances, inclusive of the parking lot code. Amendments to Titles 16 and 30 were presented and approved by the Planning Commission on February 1, 2023.
At the March 28, 2023 City Council meeting, Council requested that Public Works reassess portions of the proposed code for further refinement, review outreach and financial impact, and consider policies for expansion of the ordinance protections to additional trees. On October 5, 2023, Public Works also presented these refinements to the Sustainability Commission for their feedback as requested by the Council.
Commission’s feedback has been noted and incorporated into this report.
Introduction of Revised Ordinances Regulating Public and Indigenous Trees Staff identified shortcomings within existing ordinance language, and other language outdated by the advance of arboricultural science in the current city code. The aim of proposed changes is to, address inconsistencies between code chapters, and expand protections to all currently protected City and private trees. Staff has prepared proposed revisions to GMC Chapters 12.40 and 12.44 based on Council and community feedback at the March 28, 2023, meeting, and these revisions have been reviewed by the City Attorney’s office and the Sustainability Commission.
Additionally, staff previously reviewed relevant sections of Titles 16 and 30 in collaboration with the Community Development Department to correct minor discrepancies within those codes, and to improve GMC 30.32 concerning private parking 103 of 561
38b
4 8
7 5
lot trees. No further revisions to these codes are proposed beyond what Public Works previously recommended to Council in March 2023.
The proposed changes to the City’s tree protection ordinances are intended to accomplish three goals: (1) ensure consistent language across both ordinances and current city practice; (2) clarify ambiguous areas within the ordinances; and (3) add stronger protections to trees currently protected and include all city-owned trees under these protections. These modifications are intended to support and grow the urban tree canopy by preserving existing trees and increasing opportunities for requiring replacement plantings, while providing clarity to residents or their contractors in terms of what is and is not permissible.
The proposed modifications to Titles 16 and 30 are intended to accomplish two goals: (1) update language to be consistent across city ordinances related to trees, and (2) improve and expand the species to be planted within parking lots; both without increasing workload for applicants or city staff.
These ordinance amendments presented here do not reflect any proposed program changes to expand classes of protected trees to additional species or tree types, which will be discussed later in the report.
Street Tree Ordinance, GMC 12.40
Substantive changes to the street tree ordinance involve the following:
•Expands existing street tree protections to trees located within city parks, lots, open spaces, and other various city-owned properties, and renaming the code section to City Tree Ordinance to reflect these changes. These trees currently have no ordinance protections.
•Ensures definitions and word choices are consistent between both tree ordinances, and with current arboricultural language and science. •Provides specific examples for permit requirements and prohibitions and provides protections that are currently enforced but not specifically codified. •Provides an in-lieu payment option for tree replacement in cases where the city determines a tree cannot be planted in the same location, for permitted or unpermitted removals. Some Citywide Fee Schedule titles would be modified to reflect both City and Indigenous tree in lieu payment options. •Adds requirement for the applicant to post public signage when a permit is issued.
Indigenous Tree Ordinance, GMC 12.44
Modifications proposed to the indigenous tree ordinance, in addition to changes noted under GMC 12.40, include the following:
•Clarify language regarding pest infestations and the standard for treatment. •Update language to fit current arboricultural standards, including protecting a kind of scrub oak which is now considered a separate species. 104 of 561
48b
4 8
7 5
•Assert non-liability of City related to staff recommendations to property owners in line with codes from comparable municipalities.
•Set a minimum standard replacement tree size at 24” box container size and planting specifications for most situations.
•Omits codified references to dollar amount penalties, instead referencing the Citywide Fee Schedule, which can be updated regularly with Council approval. •Adds requirement for the applicant to post public signage when a permit is issued. •Refines standards for work; an arborist must supervise work that requires a permit, rather than just a licensed contractor, and an arborist report must be submitted for any proposed development project with trees on site or within 20’ inclusive of if construction access or staging is likely to impact trees.
GMC Chapter 16, Subdivisions
Changes proposed to Chapter 16 include the following:
•Corrects the incorrect minimum tree trunk diameter previously codified. In Glendale, indigenous trees are protected at 6” trunk diameter, not 8” as written in Title 16. Staff believes this 8” diameter reference was an oversight. •Inserts a reference to GMC 12.44 and the additional requirements when plans depict protected trees.
GMC Chapter 30, Zoning
There are few substantive changes proposed to zoning codes. Modifications proposed include the following:
•Enhancement and expansion of the species list for parking lot tree planting, in line with city policy on best planting practice and to ensure climate-appropriate trees are being planted. The current codified list includes species now inappropriate for Glendale’s climate and cultivars of species that are difficult to locate, thus artificially limiting the species palette. Expanding this list would be achieved by not codifying the species list as it is currently, but instead aligning it with the species found in the city’s designated street tree list, which is maintained by the Public Works Department as part of the city’s Community Forest Management Plan. This list has been established and regularly updated for the past twenty years and consists of over 100 appropriate species. The updated list will be made available on the city’s website, following conclusion of this process. All species on the city’s list are at least 25’ tall at maturity.
•Correction where diameter for protected trees was incorrectly codified as 8”. •Clarification that applicants must depict trees on plans per GMC 12.40 and 12.44. •A suggestion to change applicant consideration of preservation of existing trees from ‘should’ to ‘shall’ per the Sustainability Commission’s feedback.
Chapters 16 and 30 were presented to the Planning Commission at their February 1, 2023, meeting. The Planning Commission’s only concern related to the change from ‘should’ to ‘shall,’ as the Commission did not wish to explicitly require tree preservation, just to encourage the consideration.
105 of 561
58b
4 8
7 5
Permitted Tree Removal and Replacement Fees
Currently, there is no ability for Glendale to require payment when a street tree is approved for removal if it is determined that on-site replacement is not possible due to various factors. The proposed modifications to the street tree ordinance would rectify this.
Currently, if a tree is removed in a parkway, and there is no space to replant it, there can be no replanting requirement.
The indigenous tree ordinance does provide this ‘in-lieu’ fee option, with tree replacement to occur on city property and performed by the City or its contractor. The Citywide Fee Schedule includes five fees for varying sizes of replacement tree. These fees were recently assessed by a consultant as part of a citywide fee study and were recommended for an increase to meet cost recovery. The citywide fee study process is ongoing, and the fee amounts will be recommended for adjustment when the study is presented to Council later this fiscal year. In Table 1 below, Public Works proposes updating the language of these fees to be inclusive of both the proposed street and existing indigenous tree in lieu functions.
Table 1: Current Citywide Fee Schedule Proposed Title Changes Current Service Title Proposed Service Title
Indigenous Tree Fees in Public Works Tree
Installation Fees 15 Gallon tree
Public Works Tree Installation
Fee – 15-gallon tree
Indigenous Tree Fees in Public Works Tree
Installation Fees 24 Inch Box Tree
Public Works Tree Installation
Fee – 24-inch box tree
Indigenous Tree Fees in Public Works Tree
Installation Fees 36 Inch Box Tree (City Staff Install) Public Works Tree Installation
Fee – 36-inch box tree
Indigenous Tree Fees in Public Works Tree
Installation Fees 48 Inch Box Tree (City Staff Install) Public Works Tree Installation
Fee – 48-inch box tree
Indigenous Tree Fees in Public Works Tree
Installation Fees 60 Inch Box Tree (City Staff Install) Public Works Tree Installation
Fee – 60-inch box tree
Unpermitted Tree Damage or Destruction Fees
Both the current street and indigenous tree ordinances enable the city to pursue restitution in cases of unpermitted tree damage or destruction. In the case of the street tree ordinance, beyond restitution for the tree, a removal which occurs after the denial of a removal permit (or when city staff can prove the damage or removal was committed with the knowledge that a permit was required) could lead to civil penalties of three times the appraised value of the destroyed tree.
With the indigenous tree ordinance, the maximum civil penalty fee is $10,000 per tree removed or destroyed. In addition, the ordinance is unclear as to what other amounts may be appropriate, meaning every case must be discussed with the City Attorney’s office.
For both ordinances, the city also has the authority to issue administrative citations per violation, with $400 at the first instance, and $1,000 and $2,000 for subsequent violations.
For more egregious cases with sufficient evidence, the city can may opt to issue citations 106 of 561
68b
4 8
7 5
per violation, per day. With the current fee structure, there is no distinction between violations. For example, a person cutting the top off a large city or private indigenous tree to obtain a better view would typically be assessed a $400 administrative citation, which is the same administrative penalty for illegally removing the tree.
The current restitution process for the illegal removal of a tree is ineffective. As is, should there be any refusal to pay, the billed restitution would necessitate civil action through the City Attorney’s office. The process is not only time and resource consuming but will cost the city more than the appraised value of a tree.
As an example, a recent case saw the destruction of a 60’ tall city tree’s root system, resulting in its removal. Rather than being able to obtain restitution for the estimated value of over $20,000 for this healthy, mature tree, the city issued two small administrative citations for violations referenced in the GMC. Public Works, Code Compliance, and the City Attorney’s office work together to pursue violations to the appropriate extent, but options can be limited. Such minor consequences do little to dissuade parties motivated to destroy trees and limits the city’s ability to maintain existing tree canopy or plant enough trees to make up losses.
A solution is to set Citywide Fee Schedule citation amounts based on the appraised value of trees of certain size classes. Increased fees are set for unpermitted actions which lead to tree destruction and set amounts are listed for when the exact size of the removed tree is impossible to determine. Staff proposes that the city establish administrative citation amounts for illegal tree removal and damage resulting in removals, codified in the Citywide Fee Schedule, and enforced in tandem with Code Compliance. In turn, this will provide increased clarity for Glendale’s residents.
The intent is not to create new, excessive fines, but rather to improve enforceability of our existing ordinances and utilize the tree valuations already reflected in existing code.
Existing administrative citations of $400, $1,000, and $2,000, would instead be used for violations that don’t result in tree destruction, such as minor unpermitted pruning. Larger administrative citations would be limited to clear cases where city or private protected trees were removed or damaged to the point where removal is the only option. The existing street tree ordinance permits tripling damages in cases where the city can prove a tree removal was done with knowledge that city approval was required. Staff recommends retaining this option and extending it to the Indigenous Tree Ordinance.
Table 2 shown below, describes the methodology behind the calculation of fees in the proposed administrative citation schedule. Values were taken from the city’s tree inventory software which calculated the appraised value of each city tree based on its size, health, and location. In situations of private tree removal where staff has no recent diameter size recorded for the removed tree, evidence such as past and present site photographs can be utilized, as is done in La Cañada Flintridge. 107 of 561
78b
4 8
7 5
Table 2: Glendale Calculated Tree Replacement Values
Tree
Diameter
Range
City cost to
plant new
24”-box
tree
Appraised value of this size
range tree, assuming fair
condition and average
height
Total replacement value
0-6” $390 $700 $1,090
7-12” $390 $1,380 $1,770
13-18” $390 $3,260 $3,650
19-24” $390 $6,080 $6,470
25-30” $390 $9,830 $10,220
31-36” $390 $17,220 $17,610
36+” $390 $25,820 $26,210
Table 3 below shows a comparative analysis of San Mateo County and La Cañada Flintridge where the administrative citation is based on the size of the removed or destroyed tree. The proposed citation fee schedule in Table 2 is based on the cost to replace and establish a new tree and the calculated value of a tree in fair condition of similar size, based on established industry standards. This table has been modified and expanded to accurately reflect the appraised value of trees, based upon Council feedback at the March 2023 meeting. The Sustainability Commission also recommended that penalties for trees falling into the ‘Unknown, under 30” DBH (Diameter at Breast Height)’ class have a citation amount equal to the penalty for removed trees of the 25-30” size, or $10,220. Previously the amount was set equal to trees at 13-18”, or $3,650. The Sustainability Commission commented that this would incentivize total tree removal to obscure the size of any removed tree.
Table 3: Comparative Administrative Citation Schedule, Removal of Public or Private Protected Trees
Size Class Penalties Glendale
Existing
Glendale
Proposed
La Cañada
Flintridge
San Mateo
County
Unpermitted removal or
destruction,0-6” DBH
$400 $1,090 N/A N/A
7-12” DBH $400 $1,770 N/A N/A
13-18” DBH $400 $3,650 $1,062 $2,500
19-24” DBH $400 $6,470 $1,062 $2,500
25-30” DBH $400 $10,220 $1,062 $2,500
31-36” DBH $400 $17,610 $2,115 $2,500
36”+ DBH $400 $26,210 $2,115 $5,000
Unknown, under 30” DBH $400 $10,220 $5,400 $2,500
Unknown, over 30” DBH $400 $26,210 $10,800 $5,000
It is also important to note that the GMC allows for non-exclusive penalties, meaning illegal tree removal, destruction, or damage can additionally result in denial of construction permits, holds on development, liens, and replacement tree requirements or in-lieu fees, in addition to administrative citations. Per Council request, a comparative chart of other cities’ replacement mitigation is shown in Table 4 below. For all cities, trees 108 of 561
88b
4 8
7 5
than cannot be planted on site, as determined by staff, require an in-lieu payment.
Table 4: Comparative Mitigation, Protected Tree Replacement at 24” box City Typical Replacement Ratio Notes
Glendale 2:1, but no set quantity Per code, diameter of new trees cannot exceed diameter of removed tree
Pasadena 3 to 8:1 Quantity based on size of removed tree La Canada
Flintridge 1:1 If removed tree is larger than 24”,
larger box sizes are required
Los Angeles 4:1 Based on value, not quantity of trees
Public Works has traditionally required at least 2:1 replacement ratio for removed trees, meaning that one removed tree requires two new trees. If space is not available for all required trees, the in-lieu fee would be levied. Staff does not recommend codifying any replacement ratio standard, as this is better addressed in the City’s Community Forest Management Plan which affords flexibility on the quantity of required replacement trees based on the factors of a case.
Continuing the current program, with proposed ordinance modifications At the March 28, 2023 meeting, Council heard from a number of Glendale residents who asserted that Public Works staffing is not sufficient to administer the current protected tree programs. As stated previously, with the aforementioned modifications to the ordinances, staff believes current staffing is sufficient to administer the tree programs.
Should the direction from Council be to undertake more proactive enforcement, with more inspections, and more frequent patrols in forested areas, than staff would concur that our current resources are insufficient.
The city’s new online permit system has streamlined the permitting and plan review processes. Tree permits are not like most permit applications. With few exceptions, Public Works must inspect a tree or property prior to permit issuance. This inspection provides an important educational opportunity for the tree owner, and enables staff to determine if the pruning, removal, or other work is justified, or if important considerations were missed on the permit submittal. It also reduces instances where contractors exceed the approved scope of work. Unlike typical violations like cleaning up debris or redoing a project to code, a tree cannot be undamaged. Due to time limitations, staff are not always able to inspect following the completion of work.
In terms of plan and permit review, Community Development relies on voluntary disclosure of trees by the applicant to flag projects for our review, and other projects are flagged by Planning when protected trees are seen in site surveys. In FY 2022-2023, over 3,100 building, pool, fence, and right of way permit applications were submitted, which are the permit types which most commonly impact trees. Forestry staff was assigned to review over 100 of these – 3% of the total.
Of the remaining 97% of permit requests, some likely impacted city street trees or private indigenous trees without explicit Public Works approval or protection guidelines. Thanks to the city’s new permit portal, staff is noticing long-extant loopholes, and are closing 109 of 561
98b
4 8
7 5
them, and we are working on technical solutions to flag addresses potentially containing protected trees. The result will be more reviews for staff, but the exact quantity is unknown at this time.
Two positions in our existing staffing, the Urban Forester and the Arborist Technician, are trained to handle permits, plan reviews, and code violations, and only the Arborist Technician is dedicated fully to these tasks. Existing staffing has been sufficient to manage the program historically.
Staff estimates the Arborist Technician spends at least 1,085 hours annually reviewing plans and permit applications and plans. This is in addition to violation cases, outreach and education, informational calls, and other daily duties, which takes almost equal time.
Violation investigations are time consuming due to the need to comprehensively document damage. Trees are living, dynamic organisms where there is an extreme sense of urgency – and need – to respond to and investigate reported violations. Code Compliance Officers are rarely able to deviate from their assigned inspection schedule to immediately respond to reports of illegal tree removals or pruning. Due to the urgency to halt violations before complete destruction of a tree, this work results in the regular interruption of tightly scheduled days with inspections, appointments, and tree maintenance work. This will continue to be the reality of the current program, where we are limited by these factors without more proactive enforcement.
Based on discussions with Code Compliance, the proposed city and indigenous tree ordinances would not require additional staffing within Community Development, as Public Works handles violation documentation and referral. Since the March 2023 Council meeting, Code Compliance’s staffing has increased, and the referral process between CDD and PW has improved.
Protecting Additional Private Trees: Policy Options and Potential Impacts Council had also directed staff to review additional options to expand protection of private trees to include other non-indigenous trees. Below are three options which have previously been discussed.
Staff presented these approaches to the Sustainability Commission on October 5, 2023.
The Commission was not supportive of staff recommendations below, stating that Public Works should implement a mature shade tree protection program, to protect not just particular species of trees, but trees that provide significant shade regardless of type, and that tree owners should not be able to opt out of protection. Staff ultimately does not recommend any of the additional programs, as reflected in the analysis below.
Cities such as Pasadena and La Canada Flintridge, which protect additional species of trees, do not have Certified Arborists reviewing tree removal requests, tree protection plans, and the associated arborist reports. Planners untrained in arboriculture tend to approve any submitted arborists report, relying on the author’s expertise. These cities also maintain a list of approved arborists, where no pruning can occur unless it is performed by one of these few companies. This framework enables these cities to 110 of 561
108b
4 8
7 5
process tree removal and pruning permits using non-arborist staff. In Glendale, any proposal to prune, remove, or develop near a tree is reviewed by a city arborist, and this process provides better tree care to the city and its residents, allows for the rejection of poor arborist reports, allows for greater price competition among tree companies, and saves residents money when staff is able to waive permit fees or other requirements based on residents taking measures to protect trees. Staff would not recommend changing this framework. Glendale is able to maintain a span of control on the quality of approved tree work and tree reports which other cities cannot replicate.
Require in-lieu payment for certain non-protected tree removal An option to increase protections on private trees would be the expansion of in-lieu payments, as raised at the March 2023 Council meeting and discussed at the October 5, 2023 Sustainability Commission meeting. This program would require that all owners of private trees pay a fee to the city for the removal of their tree. The fee would be used for the replanting of a new tree on public property. However, under such a proposed system, there would be no protections beyond the fee. Staff does not recommend this approach.
The in-lieu fee may deter owners from removing the tree; however, it may also result in excessive review and approval processes and potentially disincentive residents from planting trees altogether. Public Works staff are currently tasked with assisting in the prevention of accidental or deliberate tree death through the indigenous tree program.
The review of hundreds or potentially thousands of new requests to remove trees, accidental or deliberate, will overwhelm current staffing. In addition, common reasons for tree deaths are still often the result of well-intentioned but ill-informed landscape or pruning practices rather than deliberate destruction. Issuing fines for the removal of all private trees would create a great burden on residents and may result in the decline of privately planted trees.
Tree removal in urban settings is already costly due to the difficulty of the work; adding thousands of dollars in city fees to this burden could negatively impact the city’s goal of increasing our tree canopy. Even if these fees are set aside for public tree planting, existing planting programs are operating at near capacity. There is a need to promote private tree planting to achieve a mature, diverse and well spread-out canopy.
Protect additional species or mature shade trees
Staff had raised the idea of protections that are equal to those of the indigenous tree ordinance, but for any non-indigenous species at 30” diameter or greater. The Sustainability Commission recommended implementing a form of this program. This system would protect the largest trees within the city by requiring owners to follow an ordinance modeled on the Indigenous Tree Ordinance, where owners would need to obtain permits, hire qualified arborists to maintain these trees, and preserve the trees during repairs or development. This will lead to a substantial increase in costs to private tree owners, and additional staff time across multiple departments in terms of administering such a program. A major issue with protecting trees based on their trunk size is that the trunk must be measured, which seems simple but in reality, sometimes requires professional guidance. Staff does not have data on the quantity of private trees 111 of 561
118b
4 8
7 5
of this size, but the city tree population of this size makes up 10% of our canopy. For subsequent discussion, we assume that roughly 10% of private trees may be of this mature shade tree size.
Staffing required to feasibly administer such a program in a city of our size is largely unworkable, particularly with city arborists as the administrators. The increased workload for plan review would primarily impact Public Works. While some of this would be due to the technical issues as described previously, staff anticipates a dramatic increase in plan reviews. Zoning codes already require applicants to depict trees over 8” for some projects, but this is achieved only by applicants self-reporting. With a programmatic change of this nature, Community Development will need to ensure plans correctly depict all trees and refer to Public Works for verification. Under such a program, Public Works staff may need to at least peruse all relevant permit applications – which as noted earlier, numbered 3,100 last year – to ensure trees are depicted properly. If there are trees present which require protection, over five hours of staff time are needed, on average, to review, obtain corrections, visit the location, develop permit conditions, and so on. A conservative estimate for plan review for newly protected trees amounts to 1,550 hours per year, more than the time the Arborist Technician currently devotes to Indigenous Tree related plan review. Review of plans without protected trees may still take up to half an hour each to verify the lack of protected trees – another 1,395 hours annually for plan review alone.
An alternative would be to modify city ordinance where any plan submittal would require an arborist report describing all trees on site, or a disclosure for the lack thereof, which could be a costly burden for applicants, with the cost of reports typically running from $500 to $2000. Requiring, at minimum, an arborist statement on the canopy of a given lot is a standard requirement in many municipalities, and staff would support its introduction in Glendale regardless of the level of tree protection adopted by Glendale. This will nevertheless require Public Works staff time to review these reports and has not been included in the Title 16 or 30 revisions.
In addition, staff’s ability to manage the complete program of site inspection, plan review, enforcing tree protection and construction monitoring, and violation investigations is simply not feasible. At minimum it would require four additional Certified Arborists, and a Section reorganization to effectively manage such a large workgroup involving new management level positions. Protecting any number of non-indigenous private trees is likely to lead to a commensurate increase in complaints to Community Development and Public Works, and violation cases are the most complex and time-consuming duties performed within Public Works - Forestry. While Code Compliance recently increased staffing, they still lack the flexible schedule or arboricultural qualifications required to respond to these sorts of concerns.
It is also important to consider the impact of such a policy on the public. Any tree owners (and those bordering any trees) may find themselves required to spend more on tree maintenance due to requirements with permitting and plan review, and the city could be drawn into private disputes over mature trees planted in poor locations, trees causing damage to neighboring properties, trees maintained poorly for decades, or exotic species 112 of 561
128b
4 8
7 5
no longer suitable for the area.
Finally, these protections could disincentivize the preservation of mature trees. Staff was unable to locate relevant studies on this topic, but we have long observed that when given a choice, the majority of residents will opt to not replant indigenous trees on site, to avoid city regulation of private property. The best way to avoid this outcome would be to instead protect all trees, which is a noble goal but not feasible, given the staffing required for this theoretical mature tree program alone in a vast city.
Given the administrative burden and fiscal impacts of such a program on both the city and our residents, staff does not support such a sweeping protection of private trees.
Heritage and Specimen Shade Tree Program
As discussed at the previous March 2023 Council meeting, Glendale is home to numerous large and old, private unprotected trees, which add to the character of our neighborhoods. Staff had discussed a program where notable private trees are nominated by the owner for tree protection, in line with the requirements of the Indigenous Tree Ordinance. The Sustainability Commission approved of this program but was concerned regarding the limitations of a self-nomination process, and highlighted their concern that mature shade trees would be left unprotected if the owner did not wish them to be.
However, after further analysis and consideration by staff, it was determined that the same drawbacks raised for other options apply here as well in terms of cost and staffing.
Further, any new tree protections will add significant new costs to tree owners, and likely their neighbors, and would change the way in which neighboring properties could be developed in addition to the parcel on which the tree is growing. Finally, the nomination process for a given tree in this program may be misused as a method by which reasonable development is delayed or prevented by neighbors, even in cases where the tree may be preserved. The city determining that a certain tree could be protected would require access to private property, even for those trees where the actual owner did not nominate it. If the program were to require owner opt-in, neighboring properties may nevertheless be subject to costly impacts or limits on development all the same, if the tree’s branches or roots extend across property lines.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Any of the proposed programs will have impacts citywide, particularly to properties with protected trees. The proposed modifications to the existing ordinances only add clarity and enhanced penalties to existing prohibitions and duties for these tree owners. Still, a renewed outreach effort focusing on City tree ordinances would benefit the community and the city, as existing literature is good, but dated, and will need revision.
Upon adoption of the modified and new ordinances, staff will pursue hiring a public outreach consultant to undertake a multimedia campaign to inform the community regarding proper tree care, preservation, permitting, and to highlight key points of the revised tree ordinances. Public Works recently utilized SGA Marketing for services related to Integrated Waste Management program changes, with costs of $134,000 annually. 113 of 561
138b
4 8
7 5
This media should be available in multiple languages and be both in print and online.
Concurrently, as part of its standard practice, Public Works is currently revising its Community Forest Management Plan, which describes in detail city policies, practices, and standards for tree care, and this large document will be available to the public on the city’s website and is provided to individuals and contractors for their reference when needed. The consultant would be asked to assist with synthesizing this document into simple informational literature for the general public.
City staff are also an important stakeholder in this process. Public Works will host general informational sessions for relevant departments regarding current and additional processes, and more specific training for sections within these departments which frequently interface with protected tree and Public Works Forestry personnel.
As with previous changes to tree related codes, Public Works would coordinate a meeting of local tree care professionals to review ordinance changes and city expectations.
Finally, education is the most effective way to ensure compliance, and in turn, tree preservation. While arboriculture is a science, Public Works has never expected the residents of Glendale to be tree experts. When responding to a potential violation, longstanding practice has been to educate at each step of the way in the form of a letter specific to that address and that violation. First time violations which do not result permanent disfigurement or death of a tree typically have no recommended citations associated with them. This framework is not proposed to be changed.
FISCAL IMPACT
Revenue could be realized from the proposed fee changes. Based on reviews of recent years, staff believe that revenue from citations are unlikely to exceed $50,000 annually.
At present, annual citations average around $5,000. The new proposed larger citation amounts are related to mostly infrequent violations.
If Council chooses to move forward with the ordinances, staff recommends appropriating funds now to cover the cost of the outreach consultant who will assist with public engagement on the revised ordinance. This appropriation is outlined below:
Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$134,000 25300-1010 43110-1010-PWD-
7507-P0000
General Fund
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project is exempt from CEQA review pursuant to Section 15307, as a Class 7 “Actions 114 of 561
148b
4 8
7 5
By Regulatory Agencies For Protection Of Natural Resources” exemption of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CEQA Guidelines) as the project consists of amendments to the city’s tree-related codes within Chapter 12 to assure the maintenance, restoration, or enhancement of a natural resource where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Elect to not approve any ordinances amending portions of the GMC and Citywide Fee Schedule. Existing tree protections will continue in the city.
Alternative 2: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Daniel Hernandez, Interim Director of Public Works
Prepared by:
Loren Klick, Urban Forester
Daniel Hardgrove, Assistant Director of Public Works
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
N/A
115 of 561
1 ORDINANCE NO. ____________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA AMENDING PORTIONS OF TITLE 12, CHAPTERS 12.40 AND 12.44 OF THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL CODE, 1995, TO UPDATE STANDARDS AND IMPLEMENT GREATER
ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS FOR PUBLIC AND
INDIGENOUS TREE PROTECTION
WHEREAS , the City Council of Glendale has reviewed City-owned and indigenous tree standards within the City, as codified in Chapters 12.40 and 12.44 of the Glendale Municipal code, 1995; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has set a 25% tree canopy goal across the City of Glendale, and reaching this goal requires the protection and preservation of existing City and private trees; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has directed staff to assess existing City ordinance and enhance tree protections; and
WHEREAS , the proposed amendments to Title 12 update tree protections to protect all City-owned trees, and provide additional protections to trees in line with current City policy and practice; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has considered the report dated March 28, 2023 along with the proposed amendments to Chapters 12.40 and 12.48 and by this ordinance amends Title 12 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2. Chapter 12.40 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is amended to read as follows:
Chapter 12.40 CITY-OWNED STREET TREES
12.40.005 Purpose and intent.
This chapter establishes regulations and standards to promote the benefits of a healthy urban forest. The intent of this chapter is as follows:
A. Establish and maintain to the greatest possible extent a maximum amount of street tree coverage along all public rights-of-way, public parks, city facility grounds, and other city-owned land;
116 of 561
2 B. Maintain city street trees in a healthy condition through good and current arboricultural practices;
C. Promote appropriate diversity in city street tree species and age classifications to perpetuate a sustainable urban forest; and
D. Preserve and protect city street trees from the rigors and adverse conditions of the urban environment and create favorable conditions for the protection of trees.
12.40.007 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words shall have the meanings ascribed to them unless otherwise noted:
“City tree” means any tree, where the centerline of the trunk of same lies within the public right-of-way as determined by the director, or is located upon City-owned land. “City street tree” means any tree where the centerline of the trunk of same lies within the public right-of-way.
“Community forest” or “community forestry” means the management of all of the City’s trees, plants and shrubs emphasizing practices of proven, professional and planned management standards for the benefit of the entire community. “Community forest City street tree management plan” means a plan developed and implemented by the city which sets forth city policies, procedures, standards and other relevant guidelines regarding the selection, planting, maintenance and removal of all city street trees, protected private trees, and establishes general preservation and planned management objectives to promote and perpetuate a sustainable urban forest. “Construction permit”: means any official document or official certificate, issued by the city, which is deemed by the director to potentially impact a City tree and authorizes or provides discretionary approval for:
1. Development activities, including but not limited to, grading, excavation, construction, erection, installation, enlargement, alteration, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, improvement, demolition, moving, or repair of a building or a structure on public or private property; or
2. Includes, but is not limited to: a building permit, building-combination permit, building-fence-wall permit, demolition permit, electrical permit, encroachment permit, excavation permit, grading permit, industrial waste permit, mechanical permit, parkway landscaping permit, plumbing permit, pool permit, roofing permit, sidewalk-driveway permit, or street use permit; or
3. A land use entitlement, permit, or approval, issued by the city under tTitle 16 or Title 30 of this code, which the city has discretion to approve or deny and includes, but is not limited to: a conditional use permit, parking use permit, variance, administrative exception, design review, tentative parcel or tract map, subdivision, parking reduction permit, parking exception, general plan amendment, specific plan or a specific plan amendment, change of zone or district, administrative relocation, relocation permit, historic designation, ridgeline or blue-line stream exception, setback ordinance, or special recreation zone development plan review.
“Damage” means any act or omission that substantially affects or jeopardizes the long-term health of, or causes disfigurement to, a City tree, as determined by the director.
117 of 561
3 “Designated street tree list” means a master list of specific City street tree species which have been designated by the director of public works, for each city street, or portion thereof, as the preferred species of tree to be planted and maintained within said street.
“Director” means the director of public works or the director’s authorized designee or agent.
“Dripline” means the largest outside perimeter of the canopy of a tree drawn on the ground as an imaginary line. ground area at the outside edge of the tree branches or canopy.
“Hardscape” means any permanent structure or street improvement made of concrete, asphalt, brick or other such material, located in areas including, but not limited to, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, driveways, driveway aprons and streets. “Maintain” or “maintenance” means activities such as but not limited to root pruning, trimming, thinning, spraying, watering, fertilizing, mulching, treating for disease or injury, or any other similar act which promotes growth, health, beauty and life of a tree. “Parkway” has the same meaning ascribed to the term “parkway” in Section 12.04.005 of this code.
“Open space tree” means any tree where the centerline of the trunk of same lies within city-owned land designated as open space or otherwise unmaintained land.
These trees are left in a natural condition and not maintained by the city, excepting situations where the city receives notice of an adverse condition in any tree, in line with the city’s Open Space and Conservation Element.
“Person” means an individual, company, firm, organization, association, trust, estate, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or entity however organized. “Professionally accepted standards” means those standards established by the International Society of Arboriculture, National Arborists Association or American National Standards Institute, and as such other standards as may be subsequently amended, which standards are for the care, maintenance, preservation, protection, removal and planting of trees.
“Property owner” means a person who is the record owner, as shown on the Los Angeles County Assessor’s latest secured real property assessment roll, of the real property on which or adjacent to which a city tree was planted, destroyed, removed, or damaged.
“Protected zone” means 1) that area within the dripline of a protected indigenous tree and extending to a point one foot outside the dripline; or 2) that area extending from (the outside edge of the trunk one foot per one inch of trunk diameter; whichever is larger, or more suited to the location, as determined by the director. “Pruning” also known as “trimming” or “thinning” means the reduction of the density of a tree using professionally accepted standards to control the structure and spread of a tree, lessen wind resistance, preserve its health and natural appearance, produce fuller branching and shaping, aid in disease prevention by allowing more light and air passage within the branches, or making adjustments which will increase its longevity in an urban environment.
“Qualified tree expert” means an individual who performs professional services and has met the qualifications of one (1) of the following: International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist, American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) 118 of 561
4 Registered Consulting Arborist, California State Board of Forestry Registered State Forester, or California Urban Forest Council (CaUFC) Certified Urban Forester. “Replacement tree” means the largest commonly available transplantable nursery specimen for the Southern California region of a species required by the director to replace the tree proposed for cutting, moving, encroachment upon, or removal, or of the tree actually damaged or destroyed.
“Right-of-way” means a strip of land acquired for use by the public for the right of passage and maintenance of improvements including but not limited to public streets, sidewalks and parkways.
“Topping” also known as “heading back” “stubbing” or “pollarding” means a severe type of trimming which results in the cutting back of large diameter branches to stubs.
Similar practices include “hat-rack” or “coat-rack” cuttings and are also included in this definition. Such severe practices produce undesirable results than more moderate pruning with respect to a tree’s natural form and which is generally hazardous to the overall health and stability of a tree.
“Tree” means a woody perennial plant usually having a single elongate main stem generally with few or no branches on its lower part and which attains a minimum height of eighteen (18) feet, and is not inclusive of woody perennial plants closely spaced and trained to form a barrier or hedge, or to mark the boundary of an area, such as between neighboring properties.
“Urban forest” or “urban forestry” means the management of all of the city’s trees, plants and shrubs emphasizing practices of proven, professional and planned management standards for the benefit of the entire community. “Urban forest fund” means a fund held by the city, dedicated to community forestry projects on public property, and established and administered by the director.
12.40.010 Authority.
A. The director shall have charge of, direct and supervise the planting, removal, trimming, pruning, cutting and maintenance of city street trees—and shall have charge of all work incidental thereto, and shall have the authority to grant, suspend, revoke or deny all permits for the replacement, removal, planting, cutting, pruning or trimming of city street trees.
B. The director is further authorized to do the following:
1. Determine the variety, size and spacing of city street trees that may be planted in any public right-of-way or any portion thereof, or on any city-owned land.
2. Determine the needs of the city in connection with its urban forestry program.
3. Have charge of, direct and supervise the planting, removal, trimming, pruning, root pruning, cutting and maintenance of all city street trees and all work incidental thereto;
4. Establish and revise a city street tree community forest management plan and a designated street tree list;
5. Review all landscaping, construction permit or development plans as said plans may affect city street trees;
6. Have charge of enforcing and carrying out the regulations prescribed in this chapter.
119 of 561
5 7. Prepare and keep records, maps or plans showing the species of city street trees under the director’s supervision.
12.40.020 Inspection—Infection or infestation.
It shall be the duty of the director to cause to be inspected all city street trees, excepting open space trees, and, upon discovering that if any such trees are infected with a disease, or infested with scale by insect, plant, or animal, life or growth, or any insect detrimental to the growth, health, or life of such trees, shall remove, eradicate or destroy such condition. If any such trees are so infected or infested to such a degree that such condition cannot be removed, eradicated or destroyed by the usual means and efforts employed, the director may cause the removal and destruction of any such trees, if in the director’s judgment it shall seem best.
12.40.030 Duties and prohibitions.
A. Owners, occupants or any persons having control of private property upon which one (1) or more city street trees reside, shall provide adequate water to all said city street trees.
B. Any person (including, but not limited to, an architect, engineer, contractor or developer) who applies for a construction permit shall submit an accurate plan showing the exact location of each city tree adjacent to the subject property and all city trees whose trunks or branches are located within twenty (20) feet outside the subject property line. The tree’s size, species, diameter, and dripline shall be included on this plan.
CB. It is unlawful for any owner, occupant, or person having the control or care of any lot or premises in the city to allow the following acts upon such premises or upon the sidewalk or parkway adjacent to such premises:
1. Cut, damage, carve, transplant, prune, root prune or remove any city street tree, except as permitted by permit issued pursuant to this chapter. Tree topping, heading back, stubbing and pollarding of city street trees is strictly prohibited.
2. Attach or keep attached to any city street tree or to any guard or stakes intended for the protection thereof, any rope, wire, nails, tacks, staples, advertising posters or any other device or artificial arrangement.
3. Intentionally misrepresent, mislabel, or fail to identify the location, size, species, diameter, or dripline of a city tree on an application or plan submitted to the city for a construction permit.
4. Fail to adhere to tree protection requirements, or any other requirements, imposed as a condition of approval in a construction permit with the city.
53. Cause or allow, without written permission of the director:
a. Any substances harmful to trees to lie, leak, pour, flow or drip upon, or be applied into a city tree, or into the soil within the dripline of any city street tree; b. Fire or heat to be set to any city street tree so as to injure any portion of said tree;
c. The operation of any equipment, such as mechanical weeding devices, in such a manner as to cause damage to a city street tree;
120 of 561
6 d. The use of any heavy equipment or machinery under the dripline of any city tree, outside of existing hardscape in a manner as to cause damage to a city tree, without sufficient safeguards and protections as determined by the director; e. A change of the natural grade of the land by excavation or filling-in within the dripline of any city tree;
fd. The injury to any city street tree due to neglecting to provide the necessary amount of water, as determined by the director, for said tree’s continued good health and viability;
ge. Without written permission of the director, apply or maintain The application or maintenance of any paving or storage of any materials encroachment in such a manner as to damage or interfere with the root system of any city street tree, including but not limited to: artificial turf, plastic landscape fabric, and decomposed granite with a binding compound;
hf. Pile The placement of any building material or other material about any city street tree in any manner that will in any way injure such tree, as determined by the director, inclusive of soil, rocks, and new shrub, vine, turf, or other plant installation.
D. As a condition of any permit for construction, repair, alteration, relocation or removal of any building, structure or any other type of construction permit, a permittee shall provide such sufficient safeguards and protections as determined by the director, so as to prevent injury to any affected city street trees, and shall not begin work until such determinations have been made.
12.40.050 City trees species to be plants.
No city street tree shall be planted other than the species designated by the director for the particular street, or portion of a street in accordance with the designated city street tree list and the conditions as may be set forth in a city street tree community forest management plan. No city street tree shall be planted, except by the city, unless the director issues a permit as provided in this chapter. No species of tree or trees intended to be maintained as hedges shall be planted within public rights-of-way, or other public property, except by the city, unless the director issues a permit as provided in this chapter.
12.40.060 City street tree planting in subdivisions.
When required pursuant to Section 16.36.030F of this code, and as that section may subsequently be amended, all subdividers shall plant city street trees in accordance with all provisions of this chapter and the director’s requirements.
12.40.070060 City street trees—Permit required.
A. No person shall plant, remove, relocate, or damage, as defined in this Chapter, any city tree, destroy, cut, prune, apply pesticides, disturb, deface or in any manner injure any city street tree without first obtaining a permit under this Chapter to do so from the director of public works. Additionally, no owner, occupant, or person having the control or care of any lot or premises in the city shall allow the planting, removal, relocation, or damage, as defined in this Chapter, of any city tree upon such premises or upon the sidewalk or parkway adjacent to such premises except as subject to a 121 of 561
7 permit under this Chapter. This section shall not apply to city staff performing assigned duties, or to Glendale Water and Power, the public service division or to any telephone or electric utility when trimming trees to comply with Rule 35 Overhead Line Construction, General Order No. 95, California Public Utilities Commission.
B. Permit applications and fees.
1. Applications for permits under this chapter shall be made to the public works division on forms provided by the director and shall include such information as the director deems necessary to review the application.
2. An application for any permit under this chapter shall be accompanied by a nonrefundable application fee established by resolution of the city council.
3. The director shall issue the permit if, in his or her judgment, the proposed work is desirable and the proposed method and workmanship is performed to professionally accepted standards as defined in this chapter. Any permit so issued shall contain a date of expiration and the work shall be completed in the time allowed on the permit and in the manner described therein. The permit issued for the planting of such trees shall state the variety of trees that shall be planted, the distance apart at which the same shall be planted, the location of each tree and the size thereof.
4. As a condition of a permit, the director may impose additional measures or requirements to preserve and protect the health of trees that remain, relocated trees, and/or new trees planted to replace those removed. The measures may include, but are not limited to, any of the following:
a. Erecting temporary or permanent protective fencing around the trees, so that no substantial disruption or removal occurs to the structure of the feeder roots of a city tree; b. Prohibiting mechanical activity within the dripline of a city tree; c. Prohibiting placement of fill material within the dripline of a city tree, unless an adequate drainage and aerification system is provided for the tree(s) to the director’s satisfaction.
d. Requiring the employment of qualified tree expert to perform the permitted work, or at that’s person’s expense to provide a tree report as detailed in Chapter 12.44, to provide a complete analysis of the proposed impacts to the trees, and follow recommended actions in that report, with a qualified tree expert retained to monitor impacted trees for the duration of the project.
e. Requiring the installation of irrigation systems suited to tree establishment and mature tree watering within the right of way.
54. The director may order the work to immediately cease in the event that the director determines the work or conditions set forth in the permit are in violation of this chapter.
6. Approval of a permit issued under this chapter is contingent upon full compliance with all terms and condition imposed as part of the approval. If the director determines the property owner, developer, or permit holder has violated, or failed to comply with any of the permit’s terms or conditions, the director, upon written notice to the property owner, developer, or permit holder, may suspend, revoke, or restrict the permit, or impose new or additional conditions on the permit.
12.40.080070 Permitted removals – Issuance of permit. City street tree removals. 122 of 561
8 The director shall not issue a permit for removal of a city street tree unless the director finds one of the following conditions to be present:
A. The city street tree is infected or infested to such a degree that such condition cannot be removed, eradicated or destroyed by the usual means and efforts employed; B. The city street tree is dead, or is seriously injured or damaged; C. The removal of the city street tree is necessary to provide vehicular ingress or egress to adjoining property;
D. The removal of the city street tree is necessary for street opening, widening and improvement;
E. The city street tree is of a kind determined by the director to be undesirable in parkways by reason of its habits of growth due to its invasive nature or other arboriculturally undesirable habits;
F. There are exceptional circumstances or conditions applicable to the city street tree involved or to the intended use or development of the property in front of which the city street tree is located that the director deems do not apply generally to other city street trees in the same neighborhood.
12.40.090080 Permitted removals – Replacement requirements Replacement of city street trees.
As a condition to any permit to remove or destroy any city street tree, the director may require that the permittee plant a replacement city street tree or trees in place of the one to be destroyed or removed. Whenever any such tree has been destroyed or removed pursuant to any permit, it shall be a misdemeanor It is a violation of this code for the permittee to fail, refuse or neglect to plant a replacement city street tree of the type and size specified in the a permit in place of the one destroyed or removed, within forty (40) days from the date of the issuance of the permit.
12.40.090 Permitted removals – In lieu replacement
Whenever the director determines that a replacement city tree of any type cannot be located within the adjacent right of way or city property due to lack of sufficient space, before issuance of the permit, the property owner, developer, or permit applicant may be required to pay to the City: a tree installation and establishment fee, in an amount established by resolution of the council, to plant and establish the replacement tree or trees on public property.
12.40.100 Conditional permit—Deposit.
In addition to any other requirement of law, the director may require that no permit be issued to remove, relocate or destroy a tree shall be valid unless, prior to issuance removing, relocating or destroying such tree, the permittee deposits with the director an amount equal to the value of such tree, and in the event replacement of the tree is required, such additional amount as determined by the director as sufficient to cover the cost of installation and equipment to replace such tree or trees. Such amounts deposited shall be nonrefundable except as follows:
A. Upon verification by the director that the permittee has satisfactorily complied with the provisions of such permit, the permittee shall be entitled to a return of the entire installation and equipment deposit and additionally for such amounts as the permittee 123 of 561
9 demonstrates were actually incurred for the replacement tree(s), exclusive of accessories or attachments, provided such reimbursement shall not exceed the amount of the deposit.
B. Upon determination by the director that the permittee has failed to comply with the permit, all amounts deposited by such permittee shall be forfeited to the city and may be used for any public purpose for which the city is authorized to expend public money.
C. In the case of a relocation permit, upon determination by the director that the relocated tree or trees have been successfully relocated, and have thrived for a sufficient period of time to insure their continued survival, the permittee shall be entitled to a return of the entire amount so deposited. In the event that the director determines that the tree or trees have not been successfully relocated, or are not thriving, then such deposit shall be forfeited and may be used in accordance with subsection B of this section. The determination by the director as to whether a relocation has been successful, or whether a tree is thriving, shall be final.
12.40.110. Notice Required
A. As a condition of all issued permits to prune, root prune, perform work near, or remove a city tree, the applicant must give notice in the manner as required in this section, any applicable provision of the Community Forest Management Plan, and as determined by the director when the permit is issued.
B. Notices must be posted at least 3 days prior to the scheduled date of work.
C. Notices must be posted in a format determined by the City at a prominent point on private property adjacent to the public right-of-way, so that all information is clearly displayed pertaining to:
1. A full copy of the issued permit itself, including all conditions; and if the printed permit does not include the following information;
2. Description of the protected tree inclusive of species, size, and location, and;
3. Description of the approved work to be performed.
D. Failure to give notice as required will be considered a violation of permit conditions as described in this Chapter.
12.40.130 Appeals.
Any person aggrieved by any action of the director in determining the variety of city street trees that may be planted in any street may appeal to the council within the time and in the manner provided in Chapter 2.88.
12.40.140 Removal, destruction, or damage without permit—Penalty.
A. The penalties of this chapter are non-exclusive and supplementary to existing rights and remedies. Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to prevent the city from commencing a criminal or civil action with respect to any violation of the provisions herein.
B. Any person who destroys, removes, or damages a city street tree to such a degree where the director determines the damage is irreversible and the tree must be removed; or allows destruction, removal, or irreversible damage to occur to a city tree without having a valid permit to do so, shall be liable to the city in an amount equal to 124 of 561
10 the value of the tree and such additional amounts as determined by the director to cover the administrative cost of enforcing this chapter as to such person. Such costs shall be considered restitution to the city and shall be deposited into the city’s urban forestry fund.
C. Any person who damages a city tree or causes or allows damages to a city tree, without having a valid permit to do so, shall be responsible for returning such tree to a condition acceptable to the director. Methods for remedy of the tree’s condition shall be as proscribed or required by the director, including, but not limited to, requiring any person to employ a qualified tree expert at that’s person’s expense to provide a tree report as detailed in Chapter 12.44, and follow recommended actions in that report.
D. Upon determination by the director that a replacement tree is necessary and required, an amount shall also be assessed upon such person equal to the estimated cost of installation and equipment necessary to replace and establish such tree. Such cost shall not exceed one hundred (100) percent of the value of such tree.
C. In addition to subsection A of this section, upon determination by the director that a replacement tree is necessary and required, an amount shall also be assessed upon such person equal to the estimated cost of installation and equipment necessary to replace such tree. Such cost shall not exceed one hundred (100) percent of the value of such tree pursuant to Section 12.40.170, but in no event shall it be less than one hundred dollars ($100.00).
12.40.150 Removal, destruction, or damage without permit – Enforcement.
In addition to any other penalties or remedies allowed by law or prescribed in this chapter, violation of any provision of this chapter shall constitute grounds for administrative citation under Chapter 1.24 of this code, subject to all procedures of that section.
12.40.150160 Removal when permit approval denied—Penalty.
In addition to the liability imposed by Section 12.40.140, any person who destroys, removes or damages a city street tree, or allows destruction, removal, or damage to occur on any property where such person is a property owner, after having been previously denied a permit to do so, or who does so with knowledge that such permit or City approval is required, shall be liable to the city for restitution in the form of a civil penalty in an amount equal to three (3) times the applicable fine for the underlying violation as set forth in the in the Citywide Fee Schedule. value of such tree. Such civil penalty shall be a debt owned to the city.
12.40.160170 Penalties—Not exclusive.
The forfeitures, penalties, assessments, restitutions and remedies provided for in this chapter are in addition to any other remedies provided by law.
12.40.170180 Determination of tree valuation.
Whenever this chapter requires the value of a city street tree to be determined, the director shall utilize the most recent guide for establishing values of trees published by 125 of 561
11 the International Society of Arboriculture insofar as practical, and if such guide is not practical or applicable, may use any other recognized and established method which the director or public works deems appropriate to establish such tree valuation.
SECTION 3. Chapter 12.44 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is amended to read as follows:
Chapter 12.44 INDIGENOUS TREES
12.44.010 Purpose and intent.
The indigenous oak, bay, and sycamore trees within the city are natural aesthetic resources which help define the character of the city. These trees are worthy of protection in order to preserve the natural environment and to protect the city’s native plant life heritage for the benefit of all residents. Oak, bay, and sycamore trees are unique because of their size and beauty and their relative abundance adds distinction and character to certain neighborhoods within the community. It is pertinent to the public interest, health and welfare that these trees be protected from mutilation, indiscriminate cutting, damage, destruction or removal in order to provide for conservation purposes, for counteracting air and noise pollution and minimizing soil erosion and related environmental damage, as well as for the preservation of the natural beauty which the oak, bay, and sycamore trees lend to the city. It is the intent of this ordinance to create favorable conditions for the preservation of indigenous trees in the community while respecting individual rights to develop, maintain and enjoy private property to the fullest possible extent consistent with the public interest, health and welfare.
12.44.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this chapter, the following words have the meaning ascribed to them, unless otherwise noted. Words not defined shall be given their common ordinary meaning:
“Community forest” or “community forestry” means the management of all of the City’s trees, plants and shrubs emphasizing practices of proven, professional and planned management standards for the benefit of the entire community. “Community forest City street tree management plan” means a plan developed and implemented by the city which sets forth city policies, procedures, standards and other relevant guidelines regarding the selection, planting, maintenance and removal of all city street trees, protected private trees, and establishes general preservation and planned management objectives to promote and perpetuate a sustainable urban forest.
“Construction permit”:
1. Means any official document or official certificate, issued by the city, which authorizes:
126 of 561
12 a. Construction, erection, installation, enlargement, alteration, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, improvement, demolition, moving, or repair of a building or a structure; or
b. Grading, excavation, or encroachment of real property, public or private; and
2. Includes, but is not limited to: a building permit, building-combination permit, building-fence-wall permit, demolition permit, electrical permit, encroachment permit, excavation permit, grading permit, industrial waste permit, mechanical permit, parkway landscaping permit, plumbing permit, pool permit, roofing permit, sidewalk-driveway permit, or street use permit.
“Damage” means any act or omission that substantially affects or jeopardizes the long-term health of, or causes disfigurement to, a protected indigenous tree, as determined by the director. Such action may be taken by, but is not limited to, cutting, topping, girdling, poisoning, trenching, grading or excavating within the drip line of the protected tree.
“Development activities” means activities including, but not limited to, grading, excavation, construction, erection, installation, enlargement, alteration, conversion, reconstruction, remodeling, rehabilitation, improvement, demolition, moving, or repair of a building or a structure.
“Director” means the director of public works or the director’s authorized designee or agent.
“Discretionary approval”:
1. Means a land use entitlement, permit, or approval, issued by the city under title 16 or Title 30 of this code, which the city has discretion to approve or deny; and
2. Includes, but is not limited to: a conditional use permit, parking use permit, variance, administrative exception, design review, tentative parcel or tract map, parking reduction permit, parking exception, general plan amendment, specific plan or a specific plan amendment, change of zone or district, administrative relocation, relocation permit, historic designation, ridgeline or blue-line stream exception, setback ordinance, or special recreation zone development plan review.
“Dripline” means the largest outside perimeter of the canopy of a tree drawn on the ground as an imaginary line.
“Encroach” or “encroachment” means to install, store, place, maintain or use a material, equipment, machinery, or vehicle inside the protected zone of a protected indigenous tree, except for the purpose of routine pruning. “Hat racking” means a severe act of pruning a tree by reducing the length of branches, lowering the tree height, stubbing or removing foliage so that the tree resembles a hat or coat rack.
“Lion’s tailing” means a severe act of pruning a tree by removing all the interior branches and foliage, leaving a limited amount of foliage at the end of each branch or limb so as to resemble the tail of a lion.
“Person” means an individual, company, firm, organization, association, trust, estate, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, or entity however organized. 127 of 561
13 “Property owner” mean s a person who is the record owner, as shown on the Los Angeles County Assessor’s latest secured real property assessment roll, of the real property on which a protected indigenous tree is growing or was destroyed, removed, or damaged.
“Protected indigenous tree” or “indigenous tree” or “protected tree” means any tree with a trunk which is six (6) inches or more in diameter as measured at a height of fifty- four (54) inches above the lowest point where the trunk meets the soil; or in case of a tree with more than one (1) trunk, whose combined diameter of any two (2) trunks is at least eight six (86) inches in diameter as measured at a height of fifty-four (54) inches above the lowest point where each trunk meets the soil, which is one (1) of the following Southern California native tree species, including any hybrid trees with parentage of one (1) or more species: California Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Scrub Oak (Quercus berberidifolia), San Gabriel Oak (Quercus durata var. gabrielensis), Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Mesa Oak (Quercus engelmannii), California Bay (Umbellularia californica), and the California Sycamore (Platanus racemosa).
“Protected zone” means 1) that area within the dripline of a protected indigenous tree and extending to a point one foot outside the dripline; or 2) that area extending from (the outside edge of the trunk one foot per one inch of trunk diameter; whichever is larger, or more suited to the location, as determined by the director. “Protected zone” means that area within the drip line of a protected indigenous tree and extending to a point one (1) foot outside the drip line. “Qualified tree expert” means an individual who performs professional services and has met the qualifications of one (1) of the following: International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist, American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist, California State Board of Forestry Registered State Forester, or California Urban Forest Council (CaUFC) Certified Urban Forester. “Replacement tree” or “mitigation tree” means the largest commonly available transplantable nursery specimen for the Southern California region of the same species required by the director to replace as the tree proposed for cutting, moving, encroachment upon, or removal, or of the protected tree actually damaged or destroyed, as determined from the stock available at local nurseries located within sixty (60) miles of the city of Glendale.
“Routine pruning” means the removal of any dead, dying, or diseased branches of a tree and the cutting of live interfering and weak branches not to exceed two (2) inches in diameter, performed in accordance with arboriculture industry standards. Foliage reduction cannot exceed one-quarter (1/4) of the total tree foliage. “Tree owner” means a person who is the record owner, as shown on the Los Angeles County Assessor’s latest secured real property assessment roll, of the real property on which the trunk of a protected indigenous tree is wholly located. In cases where a tree trunk is located across a property line, coterminous real property owners will be considered tree owners in common.
128 of 561
14 “Topping” (also known as “heading back,” “stubbing” or “pollarding”) means a severe type of trimming which results in the cutting back of large branches to stubs; the removal of the upper twenty (20) percent or more of a tree’s trunk or primary scaffold. “Urban forestry fund” means a fund held by the city, dedicated to community forestry projects on public property, and established and administered by the director.
12.44.030 No permit required for routine pruning.
No permit shall be required of a property owner for routine pruning of a protected indigenous tree on said property.
12.44.040 Permit required.
Except as provided in sections 12.44.030 and 12.44.060, a permit shall be required of any person who proposes to cut, remove, encroach upon, or relocate a protected indigenous tree.
12.44.050 Prohibitions.
It is unlawful for a person to do or cause to do any of the following:
A. Damage or destroy a protected indigenous tree, or that tree’s trunk, bark, foliage, limbs, branches or roots, by any means, including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Subjecting the tree to fire or heat;
2. Applying toxic substances within the tree’s protected zone;
3. Operating equipment or machinery within the tree’s protected zone;
4. Changing the natural grade of land by excavation or filling within the protected zone;
5. Hat racking, lion’s tailing, shearing, or topping;
6. Overwatering or underwatering;
B. Attach a rope, light, or lighting system in a manner that tightly binds it or permanently affixes it, attach a wire, nail, tack, staple, advertisement, poster, sign or any other object or device, or using a spike, gaff, spur or other related injurious equipment used for climbing on a protected indigenous tree; C. Maintain an attached tree stake, tree tie, guy wire, tree guard or rope to the point where a protected indigenous tree is girdled or injured; D. Allow or permit a substance that is harmful to a tree to lie, leak, pour, flow or drip upon or into the tree or the soil within the protected zone of a protected indigenous tree;
E. Install, place, operate or maintain an irrigation system for watering within three (3) feet from the base of a protected indigenous tree;
129 of 561
15 F. Without a permit from the director, install, place, store or maintain paving, ornamental rock, or any material within the protected zone of an indigenous tree; G. Place, store, pile or maintain building or other material within the protected zone of a protected indigenous tree;
H. Intentionally misrepresent, mislabel or fail to identify the location, size, species, diameter, or drip line of a protected indigenous tree on an application or plan submitted to the city for a building permit, grading permit, a land use permit under Title 30 of this code, subdivision map application under Title 16 of this code, or any other similar land development application or plan; or
I. Without a permit from the director, cut or prune a live branch that exceeds two (2) inches in diameter.
J. Install or maintain living plant materials in the protected zone of a protected indigenous tree that causes damage to the protected indigenous tree.
K. Fail to adhere to tree protection requirements, or any other requirements, imposed as a condition of approval in any permit with the city.
12.44.060 Permit—Exemptions.
The provisions of Section 12.44.070 shall not apply to:
A. Cases of emergency caused by a protected indigenous tree being in a hazardous or dangerous condition and requiring immediate action for the preservation of life or property, or being irretrievably damaged or destroyed through flood, fire, wind or lightning, as determined after visual inspection by an authorized city employee, provided that the person responsible for the cutting, moving, encroachment upon, or removal of the protected tree shall report such action to the director within five (5) working days thereafter, where lack of a report within this time frame, or lack of sufficient evidence as deemed by the director to justify the immediate action, may result in administrative actions as described in Section 12.44.120; B. Emergency or routine cleaning by a public utility necessary to protect or maintain electrical, power or communication lines or other property of a public utility; C. Routine pruning involving the removal of any dead, dying, or diseased branches of a protected indigenous tree and the cutting of live interfering and weak branches not to exceed two (2) inches in diameter, performed in accordance with industry standards, and foliage reduction not to exceed one-quarter (1/4) of the total tree foliage;
D. Protected indigenous trees held for sale by a licensed nursery; E. Any tree whose removal or trimming was specifically approved as part of an approved development plan, subdivision or other discretionary project. Any person (including, but not limited to, an architect, engineer, contractor or developer) who applies for a grading permit, building permit, land use permit under Title 30 of this code, subdivision map application under Title 16 of this code, or any other similar land development permit or entitlement, shall submit an application from a qualified tree expert including an accurate plan showing the exact location of each protected 130 of 561
16 indigenous tree on the subject property and all protected indigenous trees on adjoining properties whose trunks or branches are located twenty (20) feet outside the subject property line;
F. Employees, agents and contractors of the city acting under the authority of the director;
G. Any trimming of a protected indigenous tree performed to meet minimum clearance requirements for fire and life safety as set forth in a notice to abate fire hazard issued by the fire department;
H. Any trimming or removal of a protected indigenous tree which is required by superseding federal or state law of general application.
12.44.070 Permit—Application.
A. Except as provided in Sections 12.44.030 and 12.44.060, any person proposing work to or near cut, remove, encroach upon or move any protected indigenous tree or trees within the city must apply and obtain from the director a permit prior to the proposed work, including: tree alteration, removal, encroachment or relocation.
1. Pruning
2. Removal
3. Relocation
4. Encroachment, including development or construction projects where access to the project site and material storage may require passing within the protected zone of a protected indigenous tree B. If required by the director, when the application pertains to the removal or relocation of a protected indigenous tree, or encroachment upon the protected zone of a tree, or as a result of proposed construction or development activities, which do not require discretionary approval, a qualified tree expert shall prepare a report at the property owner’s or developer’s expense. The permit applicant shall submit the report with the permit application. In the report, the qualified tree expert shall explain the reason for the removal, relocation or encroachment. On the front page of the report, the qualified tree expert shall state the expert’s name, company name, address and telephone number. The qualified tree expert shall attach to the report a copy of the expert’s certification or registration and state license, if required by law to have one. If the property owner or developer is hiring an individual or a company to perform work on a protected indigenous tree, the permit applicant shall state on the permit application the individual’s or company’s name, address, daytime telephone number, and state contractor’s license number, if required by law to have a license.
C. The report must include:
1. On the front page of the report, the qualified tree expert shall state the expert’s name, company name, address and telephone number. The qualified tree expert shall attach to the report a copy of the expert’s certification or registration and state license, if required by law to have one. If the property owner or developer is hiring an individual or 131 of 561
17 a company to perform work on a protected indigenous tree, the permit applicant shall state on the permit application the individual’s or company’s name, address, daytime telephone number, and state contractor’s license number, if required by law to have a license;
21. A plan or map upon which each every tree on the property and within 20 feet must be identified by species, diameter measured at a height of fifty-four (54) inches above the lowest point where the trunk meets the soil, height, outline and dimensions of the canopy and drip line, and health and condition. For any protected indigenous tree, the report must provide recommendations to remedy structural, disease, or pest problems where feasible. In cases of development activity, the report shall be inclusive of each indigenous or city-owned tree on the property and within 20’ of the subject property, and it must be indicated if a Each tree is proposed to be removed, moved, or encroached upon must be so designated on the plan or map;
32. Photographs of the all protected trees on site or within 20’ of the site to be moved or encroached upon, reflecting the tree(s) position in regard to existing and future proposed structures or construction. The full canopy and a close up of the leaves, trunk, and root flare, and any identified diseases or pests impacting the health of the tree must be provided if relevant;
43. If a tree will be moved or relocated to another location on the property, the relocation site must be identified, and site preparation and relocation methods must be described;
54. The species, number, and size of any proposed replacement tree or trees must be designated;
65. The reason for the removal, relocation or encroachment of a protected indigenous tree must be described. The qualified tree expert shall state that the expert has inspected and verified the health and structure of any tree declared diseased or dying. diseased, dying, or otherwise proposed for removal, and provide sufficient evidence, based on sound arboricultural standards and including identification of disease, inspects or pest, for the director to confirm such a declaration; and;
7. If applicable, evaluation of the applicant’s construction or development proposal as it impacts each protected tree shown on the site plan, including suggested mitigation, protective measures during and after development activities, and/or future maintenance measures where required.
12.44.080 Permit—Grant or denial conditions.
A. The director shall approve, conditionally approve, or deny the application to cut, remove, encroach upon or move any protected indigenous tree or trees. The director may require the applicant to provide additional information, which does not appear on the application and may be needed for evaluating the application. The director may impose any reasonable conditions that the director deems necessary to implement the provisions of this chapter.
132 of 561
18 B. The director shall consider the following criteria, where applicable, in evaluating applications for issuance of permits required by this chapter:
1. Necessity to remove the protected indigenous tree because its continued existence at the location prevents the reasonable development of the subject property, as determined by the director;
2. The protected indigenous tree shows a substantial decline from a condition of normal health and vigor, and restoration, through appropriate and economically reasonable preservation procedures and practices, is not advisable;
3. Due to an existing and irreversible adverse condition of the tree, the protected indigenous tree is in danger of falling;
4. The presence of the protected indigenous tree interferes with, or is damaging to, utility services and roadways, walkways, foundations, drainage or other existing structures, within or without the subject property. The damage is beyond mitigation and the only reasonable alternative is the tree’s removal;
5. The topography of the land and the effect of protected indigenous tree removal on erosion, soil retention, and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters;
6. The number or location of protected indigenous trees existing on the site or in the neighborhood on surrounding property; and the effect of tree removal upon enjoyment of the residents, the general public, and on property values in the area; and
7. Good forestry practices (such as the necessity to remove diseased or dying protected indigenous trees due to overcrowded conditions), the effect of tree removal in altering the natural habitat, and the selective preservation of healthier trees.; and
8. The presence of a pest infestation in a protected indigenous tree, which cannot be treated or mitigated through appropriate, industry recommended, and economically reasonable preservation procedures and practices, and which may spread to other trees.
C. The director may require the protected indigenous tree’s relocation to another site on the property, or off-site location within city limits, in which case the applicant shall post a performance bond in an amount equal to 100% of the appraised value of relocated tree(s), calculated using the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal published by the International Society of Arboriculture, to ensure that the relocated trees are properly established and maintained for three years. that the director deems appropriate, The director’s determination to require such relocation shall only be made if:
1. The environmental conditions of the new location are favorable to the survival of the protected indigenous tree;
2. The cost is reasonable;
3. A reasonable probability exists that the tree will survive; and
4. The relocation is accomplished by qualified personnel. 133 of 561
19 D. As a condition of a permit authorizing a person to cut, remove, encroach upon or relocate any protected indigenous tree or trees, or when any protected indigenous tree dies or is destroyed as a result of permitted development activities, the director may shall require that one (1) or more trees of the same species as the tree or trees proposed to be cut, removed, encroached upon or relocated, or of the tree or trees actually destroyed, must be planted as a mitigation measure, with the species as determined by the director. Mitigation trees cannot be planted on city property, easements, or other setbacks unless permission is explicitly given by the director.
Mitigation or replacement trees shall also meet the following criteria:
1. The combined diameter of the trees proposed to be planted cannot exceed the diameter of the protected indigenous tree, or the combined diameter of the protected indigenous trees, proposed to be cut, moved, encroached upon or removed, or of the protected indigenous tree or trees actually destroyed.;
2. The container size of trees planted as a mitigation must be at least 24” box container size, unless the director determines that the nursery availability of a required species is limited, and a smaller container size may be permitted after reasonable efforts have been undertaken to locate such a tree;
3. The replacement tree or trees must be planted to the city's current tree planting standards and specifications, specific to the size of the required replanting, as provided by the director to the property owner; and
4. Tree condition monitoring during and post-project may be required for any project with affected protected indigenous trees and/or the planting to ensure that trees are properly established and maintained until tree(s) reach a size where it is protected by this chapter. Any tree planted as a condition of a permit may be required to be replaced if it dies or is destroyed before reaching such size.
E. When the director specifies in a permit issued under this chapter that a particular species of protected indigenous tree must be planted as a condition of the permit or as a mitigation measure for damaging or destroying a protected indigenous tree, the property owner, developer or permit holder shall not plant a species other than the one designated by the director for the particular site or location.
F. The director shall establish and administer an urban forestry fund, which will be used for planting and maintaining protected indigenous trees on public property. As a condition of a permit authorizing the cutting, removal, encroachment upon, or relocation of a protected indigenous tree, or when any protected indigenous tree dies or is destroyed as a result of permitted development activities and the property owner, developer or permit applicant cannot plant a replacement tree as determined by the director, the property owner, developer or permit applicant may be required to pay into the urban forestry fund to the City:
1. A tree replacement fee, as restitution and for deposit in the city’s urban forestry fund, in an amount equal to the value of the replacement tree;
2. A tree installation and establishment fee, as restitution and for deposit in the city’s urban forestry fund, in an amount equal to the city’s estimated cost, as established 134 of 561
20 by a resolution of the council, to plant, water, and maintain for three years a replacement tree on public property; and
3. An administrative enforcement fee, as established by resolution of the council, in an amount sufficient to cover the administrative cost of enforcing this chapter.
G. The director may impose additional measures or requirements to preserve and protect the health of a protected indigenous trees that remain, relocated trees, and new protected indigenous trees planted to replace those removed. The measures may include, but are not limited to, any of the following:
1. Erecting temporary or permanent protective devices around the protected indigenous trees, so that no substantial disruption or removal occurs to the structure or feeder roots of a protected indigenous tree;
2. Prohibiting mechanical activity within the protected zone of a protected indigenous tree;
3. Prohibiting placement of fill material within the protected zone of a protected indigenous tree, unless an adequate drainage and aerification system is provided for the tree(s) to the director’s satisfaction.
H. As a condition of any permit for construction, repair, alteration, relocation, or removal of any building, structure or any other type of construction, a permit holder shall provide sufficient safeguards and protections, as determined by the director, to prevent injury to a protected indigenous tree. The director has the authority to issue a stop work notice for any work, construction, activity or operation which damages, or threatens to damage, a protected indigenous tree; or when tree preservation measures have been violated; or in both situations.
I. As a condition of all issued permits to prune, root prune, perform work near, or remove an indigenous tree, the property owner or their agent must give notice in the manner as required in this section, any applicable provision of the Community Forest Management Plan, and as determined by the director when the permit is issued.
1. Notices must be posted at least 3 days prior to the scheduled date of work.
2. Notices must be posted in a format determined by the City at a prominent point on private property adjacent to the public right-of-way, so that all information is clearly displayed pertaining to:
a. A full copy of the issued permit itself, including all conditions; and if the printed permit does not include the following information;
b. Description of the protected tree inclusive of species, size, and location, and ; c. Description of the approved work to be performed.
3. Failure to give notice as required will be considered a violation of permit conditions as described in this Chapter.
IJ. Approval of a permit issued under this chapter is contingent upon full compliance with all terms and conditions imposed as part of the approval. If the director determines that the property owner, developer or permit holder has violated, or has failed to comply with any of the permit’s terms or conditions, the director, upon written 135 of 561
21 notice to the property owner, developer or permit holder, may suspend, revoke, or restrict the permit, or impose new or additional conditions on the permit.
12.44.090 Appeals of permit decisions.
A. A permit applicant, aggrieved or adversely affected by the decision of the director regarding the denial or issuance of a permit or any conditions thereof may appeal the decision to the building and fire board of appeals by filing a written appeal with the city clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of the director’s notice of decision. A statement of the appellant shall be required indicating how the appellant is aggrieved or adversely affected by the decision. Any such written request to be heard filed with the city clerk shall also be copied to the director. The written request shall specify the name and address of the person to which all subsequent notices and communications should be mailed.
B. If no appeal is filed within such time, the director shall promptly implement his or her intended decision on the permit or permit application. An appeal shall automatically stay execution of the implementation of the director’s intended decision until the appeal has been considered and decided on by the building and fire board of appeals.
C. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of the filing of a written appeal, the building and fire board of appeals shall notify each appellant and the director of the time, date and location of the scheduled hearing. The hearing date shall be set at the board’s sole discretion, except that the hearing must commence within sixty (60) calendar days of the date of the filing of the written appeal. The board may extend the 60-day period only upon good cause shown.
D. The building and fire board of appeals may, in its sole discretion, direct any named appellant and the director to submit in advance of the hearing, statements, lists of witnesses, exhibits, documents or any other information the board deems pertinent to the appeal. The board may request either party to the appeal to submit rebuttals to such information. The board may limit the length, scope or content of any such statement, list, rebuttal, document, or other requested information. The board shall set firm due dates for all written presentations.
E. All notices and writings required to be served under this section shall be delivered by personal service or United States mail in a manner ensuring written confirmation of delivery.
F. The proceedings shall be as informal as is compatible with the requirements of justice. The building and fire board of appeals need not be bound by the common law or statutory rules of evidence and procedure, but may make inquiries in the matter through all means and in a manner best calculated to make a just determination. In considering the appeal, the building and fire board of appeals shall apply the criteria set forth in section 12.44.080. The board shall render a decision on the appeal within fifteen (15) calendar days of such hearing.
12.44.100 Permit fees.
136 of 561
22 The city council shall establish and require permit fees for permits pertaining to cutting, removing, encroaching upon, or relocating a protected indigenous tree. The permit fee must not exceed the cost of administering each permit. Fees will be subject to annual revision and adjustment to reflect current administrative costs. An applicant for a permit shall pay the full fee when the applicant submits the permit application. The director shall not accept an application for a permit under this chapter, unless the applicant pays the fee in full.
12.44.110 Cumulative administrative, civil and criminal remedies.
The administrative remedies, penalties, and assessments provided for in this chapter are cumulative to each other and to the remedies, penalties, and assessments, civil and criminal, available under this code and all other laws of this state. Nothing in this chapter prevents the commencement of a criminal action, or a civil action, or both, with respect to any violation of this chapter’s provisions.
12.44.120 Administrative citation, penalty and hearing.
A. The administrative remedies provided for in this section shall be deemed to be cumulative and not mutually exclusive to the civil and criminal remedies provided for in this chapter.
B. The director may assess against any person who commits, allows, or maintains a violation of any provision of this chapter an administrative penalty in an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per violation. Each and every day during any portion of which any violation is committed, continued, or permitted shall constitute a separate offense. Where the violation has resulted in the destruction or removal of a protected indigenous tree, or where the condition of the tree is such that it requires removal as determined by the director, the penalty shall be in an amount as established or modified by resolution of the city council not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) per tree unlawfully destroyed or removed.
C. In addition to the liability imposed by Section 12.44.120B, any person who destroys, removes or damages a protected indigenous tree, or allows destruction, removal, or damage to occur on any property where such person is a property owner, after having been previously denied a permit to do so, or who does so with knowledge that such permit or City approval is required, shall be liable to the city in an amount equal to three (3) times the applicable fine for the underlying violation as set forth in the in the Citywide Fee Schedule.
CD. At his or her their sole discretion, the director may approve a compliance agreement between the city and any person who commits, allows, or maintains a violation of any provision of this chapter. This agreement may include, but is not limited to, requiring the person to post a bond and obtain the necessary permits, directing the person to provide methods of mitigation and replacement for the unauthorized alteration, removal, encroachment upon, or relocation of a protected tree, and prescribing other reasonable measures to abate a specific violation of this chapter. 137 of 561
23 ED. Upon determining that a person has committed a violation of this chapter, the director or his or her their designee shall issue an administrative citation to the responsible party may be issued using the procedures set out in this section. As used in this section, the term “responsible party” shall mean the owner of the property or the person who commits, allows, or maintains a violation of any provision of this chapter.
The administrative citation shall be served by personal service on the responsible party or by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the responsible party’s last known address. The responsible party’s refusal to accept the administrative citation shall not affect the validity of the administrative citation or any proceeding undertaken under this section.
FE. To the extent the following information is reasonably available to the director, the administrative citation shall:
1. State the date the administrative citation is issued;
2. State the responsible party’s name, current residential address, and mailing address;
3. Refer to the code section violated and describe how the responsible party violated the code section;
4. State the date the violation was discovered by the director;
5. State the amount of penalty imposed for the violation;
6. Explain how the responsible party may pay the penalty, including the location and manner, as well as the time period by which the penalty must be paid and the consequences of failure to pay the penalty;
7. Explain the procedure for obtaining an administrative hearing; specifically, notice that the responsible party must make a written request within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date the administrative citation is issued and that the responsible party will be notified by mail of the date of the hearing;
8. Include a warning that a failure to pay the penalty and/or failure to appear at a requested administrative hearing may result in the penalties described in section 12.44.130; and
9. Describe any action necessary to correct the violation and explain that failure to do so may result in the issuance of additional administrative citations and the imposition of additional penalties.
FG. Within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date the administrative citation is served on the responsible party, the responsible party must pay the penalty amount designated on the administrative citation and may also make a written request for an administrative hearing. The responsible party’s failure to pay the penalty within fifteen (15) calendar days and to correct the violation constitutes a default, upon the occurrence of which, the city may treat the penalty as an account receivable subject to the established policy for delinquent accounts receivable. The city may use all appropriate legal means to collect the penalties imposed pursuant to this chapter.
IG. Any responsible party to whom an administrative citation has been issued may contest that there was a violation of this chapter or that he or she is the responsible 138 of 561
24 party by filing a written request with the director for an administrative hearing within fifteen (15) calendar days from the date of service of the administrative citation. Such request shall be accompanied by payment of the administrative penalties. The director shall set a date for an administrative hearing before the building and fire board of appeals not less than fifteen (15) calendar days nor more than thirty (30) calendar days from the date of the request. The director shall, by certified mail, return receipt requested, or personal service, give notice to the responsible party of the time, date and location of the hearing. The director also shall provide the responsible party in advance with any materials provided to the building and fire board of appeals.
JH. The responsible party’s failure to appear at a noticed hearing shall constitute a waiver of the right to a hearing, a forfeiture of the fine(s), and a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Upon a showing of good cause by the responsible party, the building and fire board of appeals may excuse the responsible party’s failure to appear at the hearing and reschedule the hearing. Under no circumstances shall the hearing be rescheduled more than once.
IK. The administrative hearing is intended to be informal in nature. Formal evidentiary rules and discovery shall not apply, except that irrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence may be excluded at the discretion of the building and fire board of appeals. Each party shall have the opportunity to offer testimony and evidence and cross examine witnesses in support of its case. The building and fire board of appeals may continue the hearing or request additional information from either side.
LJ. Within fifteen (15) calendar days of the conclusion of the hearing, the building and fire board of appeals shall determine whether a violation has occurred and provide the responsible party with its decision in writing, also known as an administrative order.
The building and fire board of appeals shall provide the responsible party with the administrative order by personal service or by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the responsible party’s last known address. A decision in favor of the responsible party shall constitute a dismissal of the violation. The city shall promptly return any monies paid by the responsible party. If the building and fire board of appeals renders a decision in favor of the city, the responsible party must comply with the administrative order or seek judicial review of the administrative order.
MK. If an administrative order is rendered in favor of the city pursuant to this division, the responsible party may appeal any decision made by the building and fire board of appeals to the city council within the time and in the manner provided by the uniform appeal procedure of chapter 2.88 of this code. The decision of the city council shall be final.
12.44.130 Remedies for violations—Penalty.
The following remedies shall be deemed to be cumulative and not mutually exclusive:
A. Against any person:
1. Criminal Penalties. At the option of the city prosecutor, a violation of any provision of this chapter or any condition imposed upon a permit issued hereunder shall 139 of 561
25 be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or infraction depending on the severity and willfulness of the prohibited conduct and whether the conduct has been repeated. Each protected indigenous tree damaged or removed in violation of this chapter shall constitute a separate misdemeanor offense. Any person convicted of knowingly or willfully destroying or removing any protected indigenous tree shall be charged for restitution in full or in part, as deemed appropriate by the court, a monetary amount representing the value of the destroyed or removed protected indigenous tree and calculated to cover the costs of prosecution. The penalty shall be further specified as follows:
a. If charged as an infraction, the penalty upon conviction of such person shall be a fine as set forth in section 1.20.010 of this code.
b. If charged as a misdemeanor, the penalty upon conviction of such person shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or imprisonment for a term not to exceed six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, plus restitution in full or in part, as deemed appropriate by the court.
2. Civil Penalties. As a part of a civil action brought by the city, a court may assess against any person who commits, allows, or maintains a violation of any provision of this chapter a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per violation. Where the violation has resulted in the destruction or removal of a protected indigenous tree, the civil penalty shall be in an amount not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) per tree unlawfully destroyed or removed plus restitution in full or in part, as deemed appropriate by the court.
3. Restitution. As a part of a civil action brought by the city, a court may assess against any person who allows or causes the removal or destruction of a protected indigenous tree, as restitution and for deposit in the city’s urban forestry fund, (i) an amount equal to the value of the largest commonly available transplantable nursery specimen for the Southern California region of the same species required by the director to replace as the protected indigenous tree destroyed or removed, as determined from the stock available at local nurseries located within sixty (60) miles of the city of Glendale; and (ii) an amount equal to the prevailing cost, including equipment and labor costs, of planting and establishing a replacement tree on public property in the City of Glendale. Restitution shall be calculated for each tree unlawfully destroyed or removed.
4. Injunctive Relief. A civil action may be commenced to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of a violation of any provision of this chapter.
5. Costs. In any civil action brought pursuant to this chapter in which the city prevails, the court shall award to the city all costs of investigation and preparation for trial, the costs of trial, reasonable expenses including overhead and administrative costs incurred in prosecuting the action and reasonable attorneys’ fees.
B. Against tree trimming services, arborists and tree experts:
1. Any tree trimming service, arborist or tree expert violating any provision of this chapter is guilty of a crime. This crime can be charged as either an infraction or a misdemeanor. It shall be a separate violation for each protected indigenous tree damaged, removed or destroyed.
140 of 561
26 2. It shall be an infraction for any tree trimming service, arborist or tree professional to receive pay for such services within the city without a contractor’s license, if a license is required by the contractors state license board to perform aforesaid services.
C. Joint and several liability. If two (2) or more persons are responsible for any violation of the provisions of this chapter, they shall be jointly and severally liable for the penalties and remedies set forth herein.
12.44.140 Imposition of building and development moratorium on property— Penalty.
A. Construction Permit or Discretionary Approval—Withholding or Revoking.
When a person destroys, removes, or damages a protected indigenous tree on a property, the city, after having given notice and having conducted or waived a hearing under subsections (E), and (H), and (G)(2) of this section, may take any one (1) of the following actions against a person listed in subsection (C) of this section:
1. Withhold the processing and issuance of a construction permit, or withhold a discretionary approval, or withhold both, that the city otherwise might have issued for that property; or
2. Revoke a construction permit for which construction has not begun on the property, or revoke a discretionary approval, or revoke both, that the city previously had approved or had issued for that property.
B. Maximum Period. The city may take the action described in subsection (A) of this section for a period of time not to exceed ten (10) years from the date on which the city had discovered the protected indigenous tree’s destruction, removal, or damage on the property.
C. Persons Subject to Building and Development Moratorium. Subsections (A) and (B) of this section apply to any one (1) of the following persons:
1. The property owner;
2. A person who has an existing and perfected interest in the property, including a legal, equitable, financial, or leasehold interest; or
3. A person who is applying for, or who has been issued, a construction permit for the property, or a discretionary approval for the property, or both.
D. Commencement of Proceeding to Withhold or Revoke. After the neighborhood services administrator, or the director, or either one’s designee, has inspected the property and has determined that a person has destroyed, removed, or damaged one (1) or more protected indigenous trees on the property, the director, upon consideration of the factors listed under subsections (H)(4)(a) through (d) of this section:
1. May recommend that the city proceed under subsection (A) of this section;
2. Shall propose a period of time, under subsection (B) of this section, during which a permit, or a discretionary approval, or both, will be withheld, or revoked, or both; and
141 of 561
27 3. Shall prepare a written notice, in accordance with subsection (E) of this section.
E. Notice. When the director decides that the city will proceed under subsection (A) of this section, the director shall give the persons listed in subsections (F)(1)(a)(i) through (iii) of this section a written notice, which must state:
1. The street address;
2. The assessor’s parcel number or the property’s legal description;
3. The director has determined that a protected indigenous tree on the property was destroyed, removed, or damaged in violation of Chapter 12.44 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995;
4. Under Glendale Municipal Code subsection 12.44.140(A), the city intends to impose a moratorium on the property’s development, construction, or improvement by taking any one (1) or more of the following actions:
a. Withholding issuance of a construction permit, or withholding a discretionary approval, or withholding both, that the city otherwise might have issued for the property; or
b. Revoking a construction permit for which construction has not begun on the property, or revoking a discretionary approval; or revoking both, that the city previously had approved or had issued for the property;
5. The start date and end date of the period of time during which the city’s proposed action on one (1) or more permits, discretionary approvals, or both, will be in effect;
6. Within seven (7) calendar days after the date on which the director’s notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail, the city will post on the property, and deliver to the Los Angeles County Recorder to record against the property, a notice that describes the city’s intention of imposing a restriction on the property’s development, construction, or improvement for a fixed period of time;
7. Not later than forty-five (45) calendar days after the date on which the director’s notice was personally delivered or deposited in the mail, the property owner, or a person who has an existing and perfected interest in the property, including a legal, equitable, financial, or leasehold interest, may appeal the city’s proposed action on one (1) or more permits, discretionary approvals, or both, by submitting to the director a written request for a hearing with the city’s building and fire board of appeals;
8. If the person fails to request a hearing within the 45-day time period, the person will waive all rights to an administrative hearing and a determination of the matter;
9. If the person submits a timely hearing request, the building and fire board of appeals will determine the issues listed under subsections (H)(4)(a) through (d) of this section;
10. At the hearing, the director and the person may submit and refute evidence, present and cross-examine witnesses, and have an attorney or other individual act as a representative; and
142 of 561
28 11. The person may appeal the building and fire board of appeals’ decision to the city council within the time and in the manner provided in chapter 2.88 of the Glendale Municipal Code.
F. Service of Notice.
1. The director shall serve the notice described in subsection (E) of this section, a copy of chapter 12.44, and any amended or supplemental notice:
a. On:
i. The property owner;
ii. A person who has an existing and perfected interest in the property, including a legal, equitable, financial, or leasehold interest, as revealed by either a title search of the property or a Glendale Water and Power utility record; or iii. A person who is applying for, or who has been issued, a construction permit for the property, or a discretionary approval for the property, or both. b. By:
i. Personal delivery; or
ii. “Certified” United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested.
c. At the person’s address, as known by the director or as it appears on:
i. The Los Angeles County Assessor’s latest secured real property assessment roll;
ii. The title document;
iii. The Glendale Water and Power utility record; or
iv. The application for a construction permit or a discretionary approval.
2. If a person’s address is not listed on one (1) of the documents described in subsection (F)(1)(c) of this section, or is not known by the director, then the director shall mail a copy of the notice to the person, at the address of the property on which the protected indigenous tree was destroyed, removed, or damaged.
3. Notice to a person in the manner described in subsection (F)(1)(c), (F)(2), or (J)(1)(c) of this section becomes effective, and is deemed duly served, given, delivered, made, or communicated, on the date personal delivery actually occurs or, if mailed:
a. Five (5) calendar days after deposit in the United States mail, if the person’s address is within the State of California;
b. Ten (10) calendar days after deposit in the United States mail, if the person’s address is outside the State of California, but within the United States; or c. Twenty (20) calendar days after deposit in the United States mail, if the person’s address is outside the United States.
4. The city’s failure to serve a person, or to serve a person in the manner that this subsection allows, does not:
143 of 561
29 a. Invalidate, alter, postpone, delay, cancel, or extinguish any remedy, relief, penalty, hearing, proceeding, or action authorized under this section, or chapter 12.44, as to another person whom the city duly served; or
b. Relieve another person, whom the city duly served, from fully performing or fulfilling a duty or obligation imposed by this section or chapter 12.44 G. Request for Hearing.
1. Not later than forty-five (45) calendar days after the date on which the notice in subsection (E) of this section was personally delivered or deposited in the mail, the property owner, or a person who has an existing and perfected interest in the property, including a legal, equitable, financial, or leasehold interest, may dispute the city’s proposed action on one (1) or more permits, discretionary approvals, or both, by submitting to the director a written request for a hearing with the city’s building and fire board of appeals.
2. If a person fails to request a hearing within the 45-day time period, the person waives all rights to an administrative hearing and a determination of the matter.
H. Hearing—Setting Date; Issues for Determination. The building and fire board of appeals shall:
1. Set the initial hearing on a date not earlier than fourteen (14) calendar days, and not later than sixty (60) calendar days, after the date on which the notice in subsection (E) of this section was personally delivered or deposited in the mail;
2. Order a postponement or a continuance of a hearing at any time, regardless of whether evidence has been presented, when the building and fire board of appeals determines it is necessary to do so to further the interests of justice and fairness;
3. Conduct the hearing “de novo”; and
4. Determine by a preponderance of the evidence:
a. Whether one (1) or more protected indigenous trees on the property was destroyed, removed, or damaged, in violation of this chapter, by:
i. The property owner;
ii. A person who was acting: (1) On the property owner’s behalf; (2) At the property owner’s direction; or
(3) With the property owner’s knowledge, authorization, permission, or consent; or iii. The person who is applying for, or who has been issued, a construction permit for the property, or a discretionary approval for the property, or both; b. Whether the property owner, or the person who is applying for, or who has been issued, a construction permit for the property, or a discretionary approval for the property, or both, is a purchaser in good faith and for valuable consideration, who acquired title to the property:
i. After the unlawful destruction, removal, or damage of one (1) or more protected indigenous trees; and
ii. Before the posting or recording of the notice described in subsection (L)(1)(a) or (b) of this section;
144 of 561
30 c. Whether the facts or circumstances make a restriction on the property’s development, construction, or improvement for a fixed period of time an appropriate remedy for the unlawful destruction, removal, or damage of one (1) or more of the property’s protected indigenous trees. In making this determination, the building and fire board of appeals shall consider the following factors:
i. The number of protected indigenous trees destroyed, removed, or damaged; ii. The size and age of each protected indigenous tree destroyed, removed, or damaged;
iii. For one (1) or more protected indigenous trees that were not removed from the property, but were destroyed or damaged, whether partially, fully, temporarily, or otherwise:
(1) The manner or method of each protected indigenous tree’s destruction or damage; and
(2) The extent or degree of each protected indigenous tree’s destruction or damage;
iv. When the destruction, removal, or damage occurred to one (1) or more of the property’s protected indigenous trees, the property owner, or the person who is applying for, or who has been issued, a construction permit for the property, or a discretionary approval for the property, or both:
(1) Knew it was unlawful to cut, remove, prune, encroach upon, or move the protected indigenous tree or trees; or to do so without obtaining a permit from the city; or
(2) Intended to destroy, remove, or damage the protected indigenous tree or trees.
In making a determination of the person’s knowledge or intent, the building and fire board of appeals may consider any one (1) or more of the following facts or circumstances:
(3) Previously the person applied for a protected indigenous tree permit from the city;
(4) Previously the city denied the person a protected indigenous tree permit; (5) Previously the city or another individual told the person, verbally or in writing, about either the existence of a protected indigenous tree on the property, or the city’s requiring a permit to cut, remove, encroach upon, or move a protected indigenous tree; (6) Previously the person violated a law that either regulates a tree’s protection or prohibits a person from cutting, removing, encroaching upon, moving, damaging, or destroying a heritage, historic, landmark, legacy, native, or specimen tree; (7) The person’s reason or purpose for destroying, removing, or damaging one (1) or more of the protected indigenous trees;
(8) The person had a plan or scheme to destroy, remove, or damage one (1) or more of the protected indigenous trees;
(9) The person did not destroy, remove, or damage one (1) or more of the protected indigenous trees by mistake or accident; or
145 of 561
31 (10) Any other relevant fact or circumstance; and
d. The start date and end date of the period of time during which one or more permits, discretionary approvals, or both, will be withheld, or revoked, or both, if the building and fire board of appeals, under subsection (H)(4)(c) of this section, has decided to impose a restriction on the property’s development, construction, or improvement.
I. Hearing—Evidence and Testimony. At the hearing:
1. The person who requested the hearing may:
a. Submit evidence, testimony, and argument that the person deems relevant to the issues that the building and fire board of appeals will decide; b. Refute the evidence and testimony presented by the director or other city representatives; and
c. Have an attorney or other individual act as the person’s representative.
2. The director may:
a. Submit evidence, testimony, and argument that the director deems relevant to the issues that the building and fire board of appeals will decide; b. Refute the evidence and testimony presented by the person or the person’s representative; and
c. Have an attorney or other individual act as the director’s representative.
J. Decision.
1. Not later than forty-five (45) calendar days after the hearing’s conclusion, the building and fire board of appeals shall:
a. Decide the matter upon the record;
b. Prepare a written decision that contains findings of fact; and c. Serve the written decision on the person or persons who requested the hearing and on any person or persons who attended the hearing and requested to be notified of the board’s decision, by:
i. Personal delivery; or
ii. “Certified” United States mail, first class postage prepaid, return receipt requested.
2. The failure of the building and fire board of appeals to perform the acts described in subsection (J)(1) of this section shall not invalidate any decision of the board. Alternately, no person or persons who requested a hearing shall be denied the ability to appeal any final decision of the building and fire board of appeals to the city council by reason of the board’s failure to perform the acts described in subsection (J)(1) of this section.
K. Appeal.
1. The director, the person or persons who requested a hearing, or any person whose property interest may be affected by the final decision of the building and fire board of appeals and who specifically requested to be notified of the board’s decision 146 of 561
32 can appeal such final decision to the city council within the time and in the manner provided in chapter 2.88 of the Glendale Municipal Code. Timely filing of the notice of appeal is a jurisdictional requirement.
2. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6 applies to a petition for judicial review of an adjudicatory administrative decision of the city council. Unless a shorter statute of limitation is applicable, a petition for judicial review must be filed not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which the city council’s decision becomes final, which occurs on the date that the city council adopts its decision.
L. Posting and Recording of Preliminary or Permanent Notice of Restriction.
1. Within seven (7) calendar days after the date on which the notice in subsection (E) of this section was personally delivered or deposited in the mail, the director shall:
a. Post on the property a notice, which meets the requirements listed in subsection (L)(3) of this section, that describes:
i. The city’s intention of imposing a restriction on the property’s development, construction, or improvement for a fixed period of time; ii. The length of time of the proposed restriction;
iii. The persons subject to the proposed restriction; iv. The persons who may request a hearing on the proposed restriction; and v. The telephone number to obtain more information.
b. Deliver to the Los Angeles County Recorder, to record against the property, a document that:
i. Contains the information described in subsections (L)(1)(a)(i) through (v) of this section, to impart constructive notice to subsequent purchasers or subsequent lienholders of the city’s intention to impose a restriction on the property’s development, construction, or improvement; and
ii. Complies with the property identification requirements of California Government Code Section 27281.5 or any successor legislation.
2. Within seven (7) calendar days after the date on which either the building and fire board of appeals’ notice of decision becomes final and non-appealable, or the city council adopts a resolution setting forth a decision and findings of fact, the director shall:
a. Post on the property a notice, which meets the requirements listed in subsection (L)(3) of this section, that describes:
i. The city’s restriction on the property’s development, construction, or improvement for a fixed period of time;
ii. The length of time of the restriction;
iii. The persons subject to the restriction; and
iv. The telephone number to obtain more information.
b. Deliver to the Los Angeles County Recorder, to record against the property, a document that:
147 of 561
33 i. Contains the information described in subsections (L)(2)(a)(i) through (iv) of this section, to impart constructive notice to subsequent purchasers or subsequent lienholders of the city’s restriction on the property’s development, construction, or improvement; and
ii. Complies with the property identification requirements of California Government Code Section 27281.5 or any successor legislation.
3. The notice described in subsection (L)(1)(a) or (2)(a) must be:
a. Posted in a conspicuous place, clearly visible, in one (1) or more of the following locations:
i. On or in front of the property, and if the property exceeds one (1) acre in area, at intervals of not more than three hundred (300) feet along or near the property’s boundary; or
ii. At or near an entrance to a building or a structure on the property; b. Not less than fourteen (14) by twenty (20) inches in size; c. Printed in not less than 16-point type; and
d. Printed in black letters against a white or yellow background.
4. Notice to a person in the manner described in subsection (L)(3) of this section becomes effective, and is deemed duly served, given, delivered, made, or communicated, on the date posting actually occurs.
5. No person shall alter, deface, hide, destroy, remove, cancel, rescind, or withdraw a notice, document, or sign that this chapter authorizes.
M. Exemption. This subsection’s provisions do not apply to:
1. A purchaser, or to the purchaser’s agent, who, in good faith and for valuable consideration, acquired title to the property:
a. After the unlawful destruction, removal, or damage of the protected indigenous tree; and
b. Before the posting or recording of the notice described in subsection (L)(1)(a) or (b) of this section.
2. A construction permit or a discretionary approval that the city requires to:
a. Maintain the health, safety, or welfare of one (1) or more individuals occupying an existing building or structure on the property; or
b. Protect or safeguard an existing building or structure on the property from damage, destruction, or deterioration.
12.44.150 Special assessment lien against property.
The city council may pass a resolution to place a lien on the real property upon which the violation occurred to collect any unpaid administrative fine(s) as a special assessment against the real property. The resolution shall further direct that the city clerk shall file with the county auditor and the county tax assessor and tax collector certified copies of the resolution. The clerk shall direct the auditor to enter the amounts 148 of 561
34 of the fines against the real property described in the resolution as it appears on the current assessment roll. The amount of the fines shall constitute a lien against the real property against which the fines have been imposed. The tax collector shall include the amount of the fines on bills for taxes levied against the real property. Thereafter, the amount of the charges shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner and by the same person as, together with and not separately from, the general taxes for the city and shall be subject to the same penalties and interest upon delinquent payment.
For any special assessment lien imposed under this chapter, once payment in full has been received by the city, the city clerk shall either record a notice of satisfaction or provide the property owner or applicable financial institution with a notice of satisfaction so they may record such notice with the office of the Los Angeles County Recorder. The notice of satisfaction shall cancel the city’s lien.
12.44.160 Non-liability of City
Nothing in this chapter shall be deemed to impose any liability for damages or a duty of care and maintenance upon the city or upon any of its officers or employees. The person in possession of any property shall have a duty to keep the trees upon the property and under their control in a safe, healthy condition.
SECTION 5. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act.
The City Council finds and determines that this ordinance is not subject to further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because no possibility exists that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment (14 Cal.
Code Regs. (“CEQA Guidelines”) Section 15061(b)(3)), and because it qualifies under the following categorical exemptions: 1) Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations (Class 5, Section 15305 of CEQA Guidelines); 2) Actions for Protection of Natural Resources (Class 7, Section 15307 of CEQA Guidelines); 3) Actions for Protection of the Environment (Class 8, Section 15308 of CEQA Guidelines); and (4) Inspections (Class 9, Section 15309 of CEQA Guidelines).
SECTION 6. Severability.
This Ordinance’s provisions are severable. If any portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, that decision does not affect the validity of the Ordinance’s remaining portions and the Ordinance’s application to other persons and circumstances. The City Council declares that it would have passed the
SECTION 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of its passage.
149 of 561
35 Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the _______ day of ________, 2024. ______________________________
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, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _______ day of ________________, 2024, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
____________________________
City Clerk
150 of 561
1 0
3 2
8 ORDINANCE NO. _______________________
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTIONS 16.12.050, 16.24.050, AND 16.24.060 OF TITLE 16, AND SECTIONS 30.26.080, 30.32.160 AND 30.47.040 OF TITLE 30 TO THE GLENDALE MUNICIPAL CODE, 1995 RELATING GENERALLY TO PARKING
LOT TREE SPECIES AND CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING TREE ORDINANCES (ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT CASE NO. 0003-2022)
WHEREAS , the City Council directed staff to assess the City’s existing indigenous tree ordinance and enhance tree protections; and WHEREAS , the Sustainability Commission reviewed and recommended modifications to portions tree-related provisions of the Municipal Code at their February 3, 2022 meeting; and
WHEREAS , staff has followed the recommendations of the Sustainability Commission and now proposes significant updates and modifications for Chapters
12.40 and 12.44 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 (“GMC”); and WHEREAS , simultaneous, minor cleanup to zoning- and subdivision-related provisions in Titles 16 and 30 are necessary to effectuate the proposed tree protections; and
WHEREAS , the proposed amendments align Titles 16 and 30 with existing City ordinance, policy, and practices; and
WHEREAS , the Planning Commission considered, and recommended approval of, these amendments to portions of Titles 16 and 30 at their February 1, 2023 meeting; and
WHEREAS , the City Council has considered the report dated March 28, 2023 detailing the scope and rationale for the proposed changes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:
SECTION 1. The above recitals are true and correct.
SECTION 2. Section 16.12.050 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:
16.12.050 Additional required information.
151 of 561
1 0
3 2
8 The following items shall be submitted with the tentative tract map or tentative parcel map:
A. A statement of the general character of the improvements proposed for the streets in the proposed subdivision shall be filed with the tentative map. This statement of intent shall include such items as street trees, lighting system, sidewalk, curb, gutter, paving, conduits, storm drains and sewers, and all public utilities, mains and services;
B. A statement of the proposed restrictions shall be furnished with the tentative map if the proposed subdivision includes private streets or common open space or is proposed to be a condominium or other joint or co-ownership type of development; C. A statement that the applicant is the owner or is legally empowered to act for the owner of the property for which the application is filed, including property which will provide access to the proposed subdivision, and showing the names of all persons, firms or corporations whose consent is necessary to pass title to all street and other easements shown on such map;
D. A soil report shall be prepared and filed for every subdivision and shall mean a report prepared by a registered civil engineer specializing in soil mechanics and shall be based upon accepted engineering principles and adequate test borings as determined suitable by the city engineer. Soil report shall set forth sufficient engineering data to explain the proposed solution to any geological hazards that may be created by the proposed grading and any structural defects which may occur due to the presence of critically expansive soils or other soil problems. Where such soil problems are found to exist, the city engineer may require a soils investigation of each lot in the subdivision. The soil report may be waived if the city engineer determines that knowledge exists of the soil qualities of the subdivision; E. A plan for drainage and for handling stormwater;
F. A vicinity map showing all adjacent property and streets together with the zoning designations for such properties;
G. A proposed street tree planting plan;
H. A preliminary grading plan of sufficient detail to show the height, length and width of cut and fill slopes; adequate cross-sections to indicate the character of grading; street slopes; pad slopes; areas subject to protection by this code or the general plan; and a remedial plan to show how potential problem areas or slope failures could be corrected in areas proposed for cut slopes steeper than one and one-half (1½) horizontal to one (1) vertical should the need arise. Said preliminary grading plan shall be an accurate representation of a project which is capable of being implemented without substantial change subsequent to tentative tract or tentative parcel map approval;
152 of 561
1 0
3 2
8 I. A preliminary seismic study which shall include, but not be limited to, the identification of seismic hazards, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of seismic conditions on the proposed development, opinions and recommendation covering the adequacy of the site to be developed in light of seismic conditions, and design criteria to mitigate any identified seismic hazards.
This report shall be completed by a professional geologist registered with the state of California and experienced in the science of seismicity and seismic investigation; J. A preliminary hydrology report which shall estimate the quality of all runoff and debris from on-site sources and from off-site uphill watershed tributary to the project site, and which shall consider each lot or dwelling unit site in the proposed subdivision. Los Angeles County flood control district criteria shall be utilized to compute runoff and debris amounts. This report shall be completed by a registered civil engineer experienced in the science of hydrology and hydrologic investigation; K. A preliminary landscape plan which shall show the location of all existing trees with trunks over eight (8) six (6) inches in diameter located on the site and within twenty (20) feet of the site, with protected indigenous trees depicted as required per Section
12.44. The plan shall indicate which trees are to be retained or removed, and shall indicate the generalized type and extent of proposed landscaping, including a description of the provisions for ongoing maintenance and irrigation thereof. Such plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall be certified by the tract geologist that the proposed landscaping is compatible with the proposed grading plan and with the soil conditions of the site;
L. A “preliminary schematic plan” showing the architecture, location of building envelopes, and grading necessary for all proposed buildings within the proposed subdivision if the subdivision is located in the RIR or ROS zone; M. Three-dimensional scale models showing existing topography and proposed development; after review of the models, the director of community development may require a computer model of the project site prepared according to his/her specifications;
N. Certified public notice mailing labels for all owners of real property shown on the last equalized assessment roll as owning real property located within a radius of three hundred (300) feet of the exterior boundaries of the property which is the subject of the proposed tentative map and to provide a property ownership map keyed to the mailing labels.
SECTION 3. Section 16.24.050 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:
153 of 561
1 0
3 2
8 16.24.050 Tentative tract map requirements.
A. Each tentative map shall have a minimum dimension of not less than eighteen (18) inches by twenty-six (26) inches. The scale of the map shall be large enough to show clearly all details thereof, but in no case is to be smaller than one (1) inch equals one hundred (100) feet.
B. The tentative map shall show the following matters:
1. The tract number as secured from the county engineer;
2. The approximate boundaries of the property subdivided and its relation to other recorded subdivisions or recognized property lines;
3. Names and addresses of record owner and owners of property immediately abutting;
4. Name and address of the subdivider;
5. Name and address and registration number, certificate, or other acceptable evidence of professional certification;
6. Location, size and character of all existing public utility facilities in the proposed subdivision or adjacent thereto;
7. The locations, existing or recommended names, and widths of all existing or proposed streets and freeways in or adjacent to the subdivision and their approximate grades;
8. The approximate width and location of all existing and proposed easements, whether public or private, for streets, drainage, sewerage and public utilities;
9. Approximate radius of each curve;
10.Approximate lot layout and lot numbering, and approximate dimensions for each lot;
11.Area of each lot in the tract and total area of the subdivision;
12.Approximate boundaries of areas subject to inundation, stormwater overflow, and the location, width, and direction of flow of all water sources;
13.Existing use or uses of property and to scale, outline of any existing buildings not to be moved in the development of the subdivision and their relation to existing or proposed streets and lot lines;
154 of 561
1 0
3 2
8 14.Statement of present use zone and proposed use or uses of property;
15.Proposed public areas to be dedicated;
16.Location of all trees or stands or trees over eight (8) six (6) inches in diameter in the area proposed for subdivision, with protected indigenous trees depicted as required per Section 12.44;
17.Reserve strips, walls or other devices for controlling access to adjacent property;
18.Date, north arrow and scale;
19.The location of any areas designated for parks, schools or other public use.
SECTION 4. Section 16.24.060 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:
16.24.060 Additional required information.
The following items shall be submitted with the tentative tract map or tentative parcel map:
A. A statement of the general character of the improvements proposed for the streets in the proposed subdivision shall be filed with the tentative map. This statement of intent shall include such items as street trees, lighting system, sidewalk, curb, gutter, paving, conduits, storm drains and sewers, and all public utilities, mains and services;
A statement of the proposed restrictions shall be furnished with the tentative map if the proposed subdivision includes private streets or common open space or is proposed to be a condominium or other joint or co-ownership type of development; B. A statement that the applicant is the owner or is legally empowered to act for the owner of the property for which the application is filed, including property which will provide access to the proposed subdivision, and showing the names of all persons, firms or corporations whose consent is necessary to pass title to all street and other easements shown on such map;
C. A soil report shall be prepared and filed for every subdivision and shall mean a report prepared by a registered civil engineer specializing in soil mechanics and shall be based upon accepted engineering principles and adequate test borings as determined suitable by the city engineer. The soil report shall set forth sufficient engineering data to explain the proposed solution to any geological hazards that may be created by the proposed grading and any structural defects which may occur 155 of 561
1 0
3 2
8 due to the presence of critically expansive soils or other soil problems. Where such soil problems are found to exist, the city engineer may require a soils investigation of each lot in the subdivision. The soil report may be waived if the city engineer determines that knowledge exists of the soil qualities of the subdivision; D. A plan for drainage and for handling stormwater;
E. A vicinity map showing all adjacent property and streets together with the zoning designations for such properties;
F. A proposed street tree planting plan;
G. A preliminary grading plan of sufficient detail to show the height, length and width of cut and fill slopes; adequate cross-sections to indicate the character of grading; street slopes; pad slopes; and areas subject to protection by this code or the general plan. Said preliminary grading plan shall be an accurate representation of a project which is capable of being implemented without substantial change subsequent to tentative tract or tentative parcel map approval;
H. A preliminary seismic study which shall include, but not be limited to, the identification of seismic hazards, conclusions and recommendations regarding the effect of seismic conditions on the proposed development, opinions and recommendation covering the adequacy of the site to be developed in light of seismic conditions, and design criteria to mitigate any identified seismic hazards.
This report shall be completed by a professional geologist registered with the State of California and experienced in the science of seismicity and seismic investigation; I. A preliminary hydrology report which shall estimate the quality of all runoff and debris from on-site sources and from off-site uphill watershed tributary to the project site, and which shall consider each lot or dwelling unit site in the proposed subdivision. Los Angeles County flood control district criteria shall be utilized to compute runoff and debris amounts. This report shall be completed by a registered civil engineer experienced in the science of hydrology and hydrologic investigation; J. A preliminary landscape plan which shall show the location of all existing trees with trunks over eight(8) six(6) inches in diameter located on the site and within twenty (20) feet of the site, with protected indigenous trees depicted as required per Section
12.44. The plan shall indicate which trees are to be retained or removed, and shall indicate the generalized type and extent of proposed landscaping, including a description of the provisions for ongoing maintenance and irrigation thereof. Such plan shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and shall be certified by the tract geologist that the proposed landscaping is compatible with the proposed grading plan and with the soil conditions of the site;
156 of 561
1 0
3 2
8 K. A “preliminary schematic plan” showing the architecture, location of building envelopes, and grading necessary for all proposed buildings within the proposed subdivision if the subdivision is located in the R1R or ROS zone; L. Three-dimensional scale models showing existing topography and proposed development; after review of the models, the director of community development may require a computer model of the project site prepared according to his/her specifications;
M. Certified public notice mailing labels for all owners of real property shown on the last equalized assessment roll as owning real property located within a radius of five hundred (500) feet of the exterior boundaries of the property which is the subject of the proposed tentative map, and for all occupants of such properties, and to provide a property ownership and occupant map keyed to the mailing labels.
SECTION 5. Section 30.26.080 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:
30.26.080 Tree trimming.
Trees within the public rights-of-way and private property shall not be removed if required as part of any discretionary approval, and shall not be unnecessarily pruned or over pruned to allow better visibility of the signs allowed by the ASOZ. No pruning shall occur to City trees without the approval of the director of public works.
SECTION 6. Section 30.32.160 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:
30.32.160 Landscaping of parking and loading areas.
All parking and loading areas except temporary parking areas used according to the standards of Section 30.32.140 of this code shall be landscaped as follows:
A. Landscaping Adjoining Street Right-of-Way. Whenever any parking or loading area adjoins a street right-of-way, a planting strip a minimum of five (5) feet wide, exclusive of the curb, shall be established and continuously maintained and landscaped between the right-of-way and such area. Where a parking area consists of an outdoor vehicle storage or sales display area for vehicle sales, leasing and rental agencies in the CA zone, the planting strip shall only be required to be a minimum of thirty (30) inches wide. This requirement shall not apply to enclosed parking areas having no building openings directly facing a street and having a finished floor elevation above the parking area which is two (2) feet or less above grade. Any planting within the required planting strip that is within ten (10) feet of an 157 of 561
1 0
3 2
8 entry or exit driveway shall not be permitted to grow higher than thirty (30) inches.
Artificial turf shall not be permitted.
B. Interior parking Lot Landscaping.
1. Landscape area. Not less than five (5) percent of the interior parking lot area shall be landscaped, except for parking areas located in enclosed structures.
Planting along the exterior perimeter of a parking lot shall not be considered as part of the required interior landscaping. The reviewing authority may allow up to two-fifths (2/5) of the required interior landscaping to be decorative walkways which provide pedestrian paths through the parking lot. Such paths shall be constructed of permeable materials and shall be lined with trees to the satisfaction of the reviewing authority and shall be integrated into the overall design for the lot. Artificial turf shall not be permitted.
2. Trees. At least one (1) 24-inch box tree for every six (6) spaces or major fraction thereof shall be included in the development of the landscape program, unless the parking area is used solely for vehicle display and storage of vehicle inventory. At least one (1) 24-inch box tree for every twelve (12) spaces or major fraction thereof shall be included for parking areas used solely for vehicle display and storage of vehicle inventory. Trees are not required in parking areas less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet in area used solely for vehicle display and storage of vehicle inventory. Trees must be dispersed throughout the parking lot unless the parking area is used solely for vehicle display and storage of vehicle inventory. Trees required for parking areas used solely for vehicle display and storage of vehicle inventory may be planted in any location on the subject lot. Trees should not be planted in the middle of the width of parking spaces. The use of species of trees to match street trees on adjacent streets should be considered. A mix of species within parking lots is encouraged. Uplighting of trees is permitted. Planters for canopy trees as listed in Table 30.32 D must have a minimum dimension of five (5) feet interior dimension, up to two (2) feet of which dimension may be overhang beyond a wheel stop of a parking space. The overhang beyond the wheelstop may not be included in calculating required area of landscaping; however, planters for all trees with a spread at maturity of less than 25 feet may must have a minimum dimension of three (3) feet, and wheelstops must be placed so that cars do not overhang into these planters.
3. Tree species. At least seventy five (75) percent of the The trees used shall be trees with a spread at maturity of at least twenty-five (25) feet, and any tree species of combination of tree species designated in the department of public works community forest management plan master designated street tree list. Of those species with the mandated planter size listed in Table 30.32D, below.
Alternative canopy trees may be used, subject to approval of the species and the planter size by the director of public works urban forester. All trees required for parking areas used solely for vehicle display and storage of vehicle inventory may be any species that grows to a height of at least ten (10) feet at maturity. 158 of 561
1 0
3 2
8 4. Unused areas. All areas in a parking lot not used for driveways, maneuvering areas, parking stalls and walks, shall be permanently landscaped with suitable materials and maintained. Parking lot landscaping must be distributed throughout parking areas and may not be concentrated in one (1) area only.
Table 30.32-D
Specie Palette City of Glendale
Minimum
Planter
Dimension
Botanical Name Common Name Height Spread Type
5 feet Cercis canadensis Eastern Redbud 35 30 deciduous 5 feet Chitalpa tashkentensis Chitalpa 25 25 deciduous
5 feet Pyrus c. ‘Aristocrat’ Aristocrat Pear 30 40 deciduous 5 feet Pyrus c. ‘Redspire’ Redspire Pear 35 25 deciduous 5 feet Agonis flexuosa Peppermint Tree 35 35 evergreen
5 feet Albizia julibrissen Silk Tree 40 40 deciduous
5 feet Brachychiton acerfolia Flame Tree 40 30 evergreen 5 feet Brachychiton
populenum Bottle tree 50 40 evergreen
5 feet Calocedrus decurens Incensce Cedar 30 60 evergreen 5 feet Calodendron capense Cape Chestnut 40 40 semi
5 feet Geijera parvifolia Australian Willow 40 25 evergreen 5 feet Ginkgo biloba Maidenhair Tree 60 40 deciduous
5 feet Jacaranda mimosifolia Jacaranda 40 50 semi
5 feet Koelreuteria elegans Flamegold 30 30 deciduous
5 feet Koelreuteria
paniculata Goldenrain Tree 25 25 deciduous
5 feet Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Tree 80 40 deciduous 5 feet Magnolia g. ‘Samuel
Sommer’,
Samuel Sommer
Magnolia 40 30 evergreen
5 feet
Magnolia g. ‘St. Mary,
‘San Marino’, ‘Little
Gen’
St. Mary Magnolia,
San Marino
Magnolia, Little Gem
Magnolia
15 20 evergreen
5 feet Melaleuca linarifolia Flaxleaf Paperbark 30 30 evergreen 5 feet Metrosederos excelsus New Zealand
Christmas Tree 40 40 evergreen
5 feet Pinus eldarica Afghan Pine 60 50 evergreen
5 feet Pistachia chinensis Chinese Pistache 40 40 deciduous 5 feet Quercus ilex Holly Oak 50 50 evergreen
5 feet Sapium sebiferum Chinese Tallow Tree 40 35 deciduous 5 feet Tabebuia avellanedae Pink Trumpet Tree 30 30 deciduous 159 of 561
1 0
3 2
8 5 feet Ulmus p. ‘Drake’ Drake Elm 60 70 semi
5 feet Ulmus p. ‘True Green’ True Green Elm 60 70 semi
8 feet Koelreuteria bipinnata Chinese Flame Tree 50 50 deciduous 8 feet Liquidambar s.
‘Burgundy’ Burgundy Sweetgum 60 35 deciduous
8 feet Liquidambar s.
‘Festival’ Festival Sweetgum 60 35 deciduous
8 feet Liquidambar s. ‘Palo
Alto’ Palo Alto Sweetgum 60 35 deciduous
8 feet Liquidambar s.
‘Rotundiloba’
Round-Leafed
Sweetgum 60 35 deciduous
8 feet Liquidambar
styraciflua American Sweetgum 60 35 deciduous
8 feet Lophostemon confertus Brisbane Box 60 40 evergreen 8 feet Platanus acerifolia London Plane Tree 60 40 deciduous 8 feet Platanus racemosa California Sycamore 50 100 deciduous 8 feet Podocarpus gracilior Fern Pine 60 60 evergreen
8 feet Quercus agrifolia Coast Live Oak 70 80 evergreen 8 feet Quercus engelmannii Mesa Oak 60 80 evergreen
8 feet Quercus rubra Northern Red Oak 60 90 deciduous
8 feet Quercus virginiana Southern Live Oak 60 100 evergreen 8 feet Ulmus americana American Elm 80 80 deciduous
8 feet Zelkova serrata Sawleaf Zelkova 40 40 deciduous
C. Concrete Curb. All landscaped areas along the perimeter of a parking lot or structure and within the interior of parking lots shall be bordered by a concrete curb a minimum of five (5) inches high adjacent to the parking surface and the property line where there is no building or wall. Such concrete curb shall not be counted as part of any landscaped areas. All required landscape planter beds in interior parking areas shall be not less than three (3) feet wide. Continuous curbing must be provided, except for the minimum number of breaks in the curbing to accommodate storm water runoff, to the satisfaction of the director of public works.
D. Irrigation System. A permanent and automatic irrigation system shall be installed and maintained in all landscaped areas to insure proper maintenance of plant materials.
E. Materials. Landscaping shall include shrubs, trees, vines, ground cover, hedges, flowers, bark, chips, decorating cinders, gravel, or similar material which will improve the appearance of parking areas.
F. Maintenance. All landscaping shall be installed and maintained in such a manner as to not interfere with maintenance or repair of any utility, not restrict pedestrian or vehicular access, and not constitute a traffic hazard due to reduced visibility. 160 of 561
1 0
3 2
8 G. Landscaping adjacent Residential Zones. See Section 30.31.030 for requirements of landscaping when commercial or industrial zones are adjacent residential zones.
H. Additional Regulations in the PS Overlay Zone. See Section 30.31.020 for additional requirements for the PS overlay zone.
SECTION 7. Section 30.47.040 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 is hereby amended to read as follows:
30.47.040 Standards
In consideration of applications for design review, the review authority shall be guided by the intent and purpose of Section 30.47.010 and the standards set forth in this section. The design review board shall adopt written guidelines consistent with such intent, purposes, and standards, as it may deem necessary to properly exercise its powers and duties. Such guidelines shall be approved by the city council and shall be kept on file in the office of the director of community development, and a copy thereof shall be furnished to any person upon request. Within the DSP zone, all design review shall be subject to the guidelines and standards established by the downtown specific plan.
For the purposes of this section, the term “review authority” shall mean the design review board, the city council, the director of community development, the historic preservation commission, or the arts and culture commission, as applicable.
A. The review authority shall ensure that all projects are consistent with adopted community plans.
B. The following standards and criteria may be utilized by the review authority which may require changes in materials, color, general design and layout, projections in the vertical or horizontal plane or such other design changes as may be necessary.
1. In addition to the height and minimum setback requirements set forth for the zone in which the property is located, changes in material, height, projections in the vertical or horizontal plane or similar façade changes should be encouraged on visible exterior building walls. Primary attention shall be given to those sides visible from the public right-of-way.
2. The appropriateness of a new or remodeled building to the zoning and area within which it is located, surrounding architectural design, scale and streetscape appearance should be considered provided they are in keeping with the intent and purpose of this chapter. Integrated and harmonious design themes are encouraged, including the use of consistent materials, colors, textures and signs 161 of 561
1 0
3 2
8 on exposed building walls. New development or remodeling should be designed in such a way as to upgrade the appearance and quality of the area and be harmonious with existing improvements.
3. Conflicting relationships to adjacent buildings, structures, improvements and uses should be avoided as appropriate to the zone and area. For buildings in the R1, R1R or ROS zones, new development or remodeling that includes more than one (1) story in height shall continue to allow reasonable access to natural light for buildings in the R1, R1R and ROS zones, and shall not unreasonably impact the privacy of buildings and outdoor spaces in the R1, R1R and ROS zones.
Privacy shall be judged by the view from the living room, den, study, family room, great room, library, dining room or balconies (greater than twenty-five (25) square feet) of the new development into the buildings and backyard outdoor space of existing buildings. For new development and remodeling in the R 1, R1R and ROS zones, consideration shall be given to the placement of windows in the new development vis-à-vis the placement of windows in adjacent residential buildings.
4. Boundary and other walls should generally be of decorative masonry and/or wrought iron which is complementary in color, texture and material to the development as a whole, although it is recognized that these materials may not be appropriate in all situations (i.e., wood fencing in residential zones and chain link fencing in industrial zones).
5. Landscaping shall be integrated into the architectural scheme so as to accent and enhance the appearance of the development. Existing mature trees (including those regulated in Chapter 12.44 of this code pertaining to preservation and protection of indigenous trees) over eight (8) six (6) inches in diameter on the site and any tree within the parkway (as regulated in Chapter
12.40 of this code) as well as trees on adjacent property within twenty (20) feet of the common property line shouldshall be considered for preservation in the site planning.
6. Subject to any applicable height limits, rooftop equipment shall be incorporated into the design of the project in such a manner that it is completely enclosed on all sides or concealed from view by screening, roofing or parapets at least six (6) inches higher than the height of the uppermost part of such equipment.
7. Any dish antenna that is ground-mounted but attached to a building or structure, and any roof-mounted dish antenna, shall be designed in accord with the criteria in Section 30.34.050.
In evaluating any proposed ground-mounted dish antenna that is attached to a building or structure, any roof-mounted dish antenna, or any ground-mounted 162 of 561
1 0
3 2
8 dish antenna not qualifying for exemption under the criteria of Section 30.47.020 of this chapter, the review authority shall determine whether the color would be unobtrusive, whether the dish antenna can be installed in a location and in a manner which would minimize visual intrusion while maintaining practical operation, and whether the dish can be screened so that it is suitably concealed from view, in order to promote aesthetic objectives, including, but not limited to, compatibility of neighborhood properties, the preservation of views and vistas, and the overall harmonious development of property. The criteria set forth herein shall apply only insofar as such criteria do not prevent the reception of satellite delivered signals or do not impose costs on the users of such antennas that are excessive in light of the purchase and installation costs and intended use of the dish antenna.
8. Any wireless telecommunications facility shall be designed in accord with the criteria specified in Chapter 30.48 of this title. The standards outlined elsewhere in this Section 30.47.040 notwithstanding, all wireless telecommunications facilities shall be designed in accordance with Chapter 30.48 of this title.
9. In addition to paragraphs 1 through 8 of this subsection, within designated “HD” historic district overlay zones, design review standards shall be as adopted by the city council in the citywide historic district design guidelines, as may be supplemented by the city council for each district, or any guidelines for non- residential buildings for each district as adopted by the city council at the time of designation of that district. In the event of a conflict between paragraphs 1 through 8 of this subsection A, and the citywide historic district design guidelines, and as may be supplemented by the city council for each district at the time of designation of that district, or any guidelines for non-residential buildings for each district, as adopted by the city council at the time of designation of that district, the citywide historic district design guidelines and applicable supplements thereto, and any guidelines for non-residential buildings as may be adopted by the city council for that district, shall take precedence, with the final determination of whether there is a conflict to be made by the director of community development.
C. The review authority shall ensure the compatible design of all multi-unit projects that abut a single-family zone. To accomplish this goal, the review authority shall have the authority to impose more restrictive development standards than the provisions of the zone in which the project is located. The review authority shall review each multi-unit project in terms of its impact on the single-family residential neighborhood, including, but not limited to, such design elements as window location, balconies, location of recreational facilities, entryways, and garage location. Although street setbacks are not required in the IMU, IMU-R and SFMU zones, the review authority may add conditions to ensure pedestrian activity at the street edge including the location of building entrances and surface parking lots and the use of setback areas as plazas, open space, or other active uses. In the IMU, IMU-R and SFMU zones, façades on the corner cutoff areas at intersections should incorporate significant 163 of 561
1 0
3 2
8 architectural design features (e.g., a tower). The review authority may require transitional height increases in order to promote a visual transition between the single-family neighborhood and multiple-family zone and to ensure that adequate landscape buffering is provided and permanently maintained. The review authority shall also consider the multiple dwelling building façades, roof designs, and use of materials and colors to ensure compatibility with the architectural design elements generally found in the neighboring single-family zone.
D. The review authority shall ensure single-family design that is compatible with the character inherent within the surrounding neighborhood. Primary emphasis on what constitutes a neighborhood should generally be given to the existing development pattern within three hundred (300) feet of the subject property. Special attention should also be placed on ensuring a positive design relationship with the adjacent developments and developments on the block on which the proposed project is located. The director of community development shall have the discretion to consider an alternate area to be the neighborhood of primary emphasis. To accomplish compatibility, the review authority shall review each single-family residential project in terms of its specific impact on the surrounding single-family neighborhood, including, but not limited to, such design elements as massing, scale, height, setback, landscaping, impacts from average current slopes exceeding fifty (50) percent and grading of more than one thousand five hundred (1,500) cubic yards and window location. The review authority shall consider the setbacks of buildings and structures on adjacent properties and ensure that a project’s proposed height and setback promote a visual transition between the project and neighboring buildings. The review authority shall also consider garage location and design to promote compatibility with neighborhood patterns. The review authority shall also consider the single-family building façades, roof designs, and use of material and colors to ensure compatibility with the architectural design elements generally found in the surrounding single-family zone.
E. Decisions related to development in the ROS and R1R zones shall consider the hillside development review policy contained in Section 30.11.040(A).
F. The review authority shall ensure that sign programs are consistent with the following standards:
1. Signs shall be compatible with the project architecture and the surroundings including significant landscape features.
2. Signs shall not unduly compete with or obstruct other business signs, obstruct traffic signals, detract from the architectural features of the neighborhood, or create visual clutter.
3. The sign program shall exhibit a harmonious design, mounting and illumination theme for the entire lot or site.
164 of 561
1 0
3 2
8 4. The sign program shall be consistent with any applicable plans or guidelines.
G. The review authority shall ensure that murals are consistent with the following standards:
1. Murals shall not constitute any form of commercial advertisement.
2. Murals shall not contain any obscenity.
3. Murals shall not cause the removal of required landscaping.
4. Murals must be durable and capable of being well maintained.
5. Murals shall be located on existing walls.
H. The review authority shall ensure that creative signs are consistent with the following design criteria:
1. Design quality. The sign shall:
a. Constitute a substantial aesthetic improvement to the site and shall have a positive visual impact on the surrounding area;
b. Be of unique design, and exhibit a high degree of creativity, thoughtfulness, imagination, inventiveness, and spirit; and
c. Provide strong graphic and artistic character through the imaginative use of graphics, color, texture, quality materials, scale, and proportion. d. Inventive representation of the use, name, or logo of the structure or business.
2. Contextual criteria. The sign shall contain at least one (1) of the following elements:
a. Symbols or imagery relating to the entertainment, creative, or design industries;
b. Creative image reflecting current or historic character of the city or neighborhood;
c. Classic historic design style.
3. Architectural criteria. The sign shall:
a. Utilize or enhance the architectural elements of the building; and 165 of 561
1 0
3 2
8 b. Be placed in a logical and proportional location in relation to the overall composition of the building’s façade and not cover any key architectural features and details.
SECTION 8. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act.
The City Council finds and determines that this ordinance is not subject to further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) because no possibility exists that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment (14 Cal.
Code Regs. (“CEQA Guidelines”) Section15061(b)(3)), and because it qualifies under the following categorical exemptions: 1) Minor Alterations to Land Use Limitations (Class 5, Section 15305 of CEQA Guidelines); 2) Actions for Protection of Natural Resources (Class 7, Section 15307 of CEQA Guidelines); 3) Actions for Protection of the Environment (Class 8, Section 15308 of CEQA Guidelines); and (4) Inspections (Class 9, Section 15309 of CEQA Guidelines).
SECTION 9. Severability.
This Ordinance’s provisions are severable. If any portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional, that decision does not affect the validity of the Ordinance’s remaining portions and the Ordinance’s application to other persons and circumstances. The City Council declares that it would have passed the remainder of the Ordinance without the invalid or unconstitutional provision.
SECTION 10. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force thirty (30) days after the date of its passage.
166 of 561
1 0
3 2
8 Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the _______ day of ________, 2024. ______________________________
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, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _______ day of ________________, 2024, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
167 of 561
1 0
3 2
8 Abstain:
____________________________
City Clerk
168 of 561
1 0
3 2
7 RESOLUTION NO. __________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,
CALIFORNIA, AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE CITYWIDE FEE RESOLUTION REGARDING
ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION FINE AMOUNTS FOR ENFORCEMENT OF THE CITY TREE
AND INDIGENOUS TREE ORDINANCES TO AND AMENDING THE EXISTING
COMPREHENSIVE CITYWIDE FEE SCHEDULE TO ADD VIOLATIONS SUBJECT TO FINES
RELATED TO ENFORCEMENT OF THE CITY TREE AND INDIGENOUS TREE
ORDINANCES
WHEREAS, Section 12.40.150 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, authorizes the enforcement of a city tree ordinance through use of administrative citations; and WHEREAS, Section 12.44.120 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, authorizes enforcement of an indigenous tree ordinance through use of administrative citations; and WHEREAS, Section 1.24.040 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, establishes that an enforcement officer shall have the power to pursue administrative remedies, including administrative citations to enforce any and all provisions of the code; and WHEREAS, Section 1.24.220 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, authorizes the Council of the City of Glendale by resolution to establish the amount of fine to be assessed by means of an administrative citation; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that administrative remedies are an ideal enforcement tool in the management of the City’s urban forest; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds there is a need to adjust the Citywide Fee Schedule to make language consistent with existing city and indigenous tree ordinances, update fine amounts for the planting of trees by the City, and to introduce additional classes of fine amounts for tree removal and destruction.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:
SECTION 1. Fine Amounts: GMC Section Reference. In addition to the violations and corresponding fine amounts to be assessed by means of an administrative citation already adopted, the following additional violations and corresponding fine amounts are amended and adopted.
169 of 561
1 0
3 2
7 The Council hereby amends the following service titles to the City-wide Fee Schedule in Chapter II – Public Works, Section 2: Maintenance Services Fees:
Public Works Tree Installation Fee – 15 gallon tree
$102 per tree
Public Works Tree Installation Fee – 24 inch box tree
$102 per tree
Public Works Tree Installation Fee – 36 inch box tree
$1,571 per tree
Public Works Tree Installation Fee – 48 inch box tree
$2,100 per tree
Public Works Tree Installation Fee – 60 inch box tree
$2,616 per tree
The Council hereby amends the following service titles and adds the following new fees to the City-wide Fee Schedule in Chapter IV – Community Development, Section 6: Administrative Citations:
GMC.12.40.030 City tree prohibitions
$400 1st Fine; $1000 2nd Fine; $2,000 3rd Fine
GMC 12.40.050 City tree species to be planted
$100 1st Fine; $200 2nd Fine; $500 3rd Fine
GMC.12.40.060 City trees – permit required
$400 1st Fine; $1000 2nd Fine; $2,000 3rd Fine
GMC.12.40.140 City tree removal, damage, or destruction – permit required 0-6” diameter
$1,090 1st Fine; NA 2nd Fine; NA 3rd Fine
GMC.12.40.140 City tree removal, damage, or destruction – permit required 7-12” diameter
$1,770 1st Fine; NA 2nd Fine; NA 3rd Fine
GMC.12.40.140 City tree removal, damage, or destruction – permit required 13-18” diameter
$3,650 1st Fine; NA 2nd Fine; NA 3rd Fine
GMC.12.40.140 City tree removal, damage, or destruction – permit required 19-24” diameter
$6,470 1st Fine; NA 2nd Fine; NA 3rd Fine
GMC.12.40.140 City tree removal, damage, or destruction – permit required 25-30” diameter
$10,220 1st Fine; NA 2nd Fine; NA 3rd Fine
170 of 561
1 0
3 2
7 GMC.12.40.140 City tree removal, damage or destruction – permit required 31-36” diameter
$17,610 1st Fine; NA 2nd Fine; NA 3rd Fine
GMC.12.40.140 City tree removal, damage, or destruction – permit required 36+” diameter
$26,210 1st Fine; NA 2nd Fine; NA 3rd Fine
GMC.12.40.140 City tree removal, damage, or destruction – uncertain diameter under 30” $10,220 1st Fine; NA 2nd Fine; NA 3rd Fine
GMC.12.40.140 City tree removal, damage, or destruction – uncertain diameter over 30” $26,210 1st Fine; NA 2nd Fine; NA 3rd Fine
GMC.12.44.120 Indigenous tree – removal, damage, or destruction- 6” diameter $1,090 1st Fine; NA 2nd Fine; NA 3rd Fine
GMC.12.44.120 Indigenous tree – removal, damage, or destruction- 7-12” diameter $1,770 1st Fine; NA 2nd Fine; NA 3rd Fine
GMC.12.44.120 Indigenous tree – removal, damage, or destruction 13-18” diameter
$3,650 1st Fine; NA 2nd Fine; NA 3rd Fine
GMC.12.44.120 Indigenous tree – removal, damage, or destruction- 19-24” diameter $6,470 1st Fine; NA 2nd Fine; NA 3rd Fine
GMC.12.44.120 Indigenous tree – removal, damage, or destruction- 25-30” diameter $10,220 1st Fine; NA 2nd Fine; NA 3rd Fine
GMC.12.44.120 Indigenous tree – removal, damage, or destruction- 31-36” diameter $17,610 1st Fine; NA 2nd Fine; NA 3rd Fine
GMC.12.44.120 Indigenous tree – removal, damage, or destruction- 36+” diameter $26,210 1st Fine; NA 2nd Fine; NA 3rd Fine
GMC.12.44.120 Indigenous tree - removal, damage, or destruction uncertain diameter under 30”
$10,220 1st Fine; NA 2nd Fine; NA 3rd Fine
GMC.12.44.120 Indigenous tree - removal, damage, or destruction uncertain diameter over 30”
$26,210 1st Fine; NA 2nd Fine; NA 3rd Fine
SECTION 2. Late Payment. Payment of the administrative citation fine amount after thirty (30) days from the date of the administrative citation shall be subject to an additional late payment charge. The late payment charge shall equal seven percent (7%) of the administrative citation fine amount due the City, or seven percent (7%) of the amount remaining unpaid to the City if a portion of the fine amount was timely paid.
Late payment charges shall be in addition to the amount of the administrative citation 171 of 561
1 0
3 2
7 fine amount. In addition, interest shall accrue on all unpaid monies due, exclusive of late payment charges, at the rate of one half of one percent per month, pro rata, of the total amount due from the date the administrative citation fine amount becomes delinquent until the date that all delinquent amounts are paid to the City.
SECTION 3. Processing Fee. Every administrative citation will be assessed a $22 administrative citation processing fee. This processing fee is in addition to the administrative citation fine amount, any applicable late fee, interest, or collection costs.
SECTION 4. This Resolution’s adopted fees and fines take effect on the effective date of Ordinances No. _____________and ____________.
Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on this _____ day of ________, 2024.
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, 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 ______________, 2024, by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
________________________________
City Clerk
172 of 561
173 of 561
1 9a
4 8
1 4
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Appeal Case No. PAPP-002052-2023 - Appeal of the Design Review Board (DRB) approval of Design Review Case No. PDR-000210-2022 to demolish the existing commercial stable buildings and associated structures (originally developed in 1939) and construct three new buildings with 15 surface parking spaces for a commercial stable and kennel on a 44,682 square-foot (SF) corner lot, located at 1900 Riverside Drive in the CE (Commercial Equestrian Services) Zone.
1. Motion to sustain the Design Review Board’s decision to approve the Design Review Application with conditions.
2. Motion to continue the matter, directing the City Attorney to draft findings reversing the Design Review Board’s decision and denying the Project.
COUNCIL ACTION
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This hearing is to consider an appeal of the August 10, 2023, decision of the Design Review Board (DRB) to approve Design Review Case with conditions for the project site located at 1900 Riverside Drive (“DRB Decision”). The project is to demolish the existing commercial stable buildings and associated structures and construct three new buildings with 15 surface parking spaces for a commercial stable and kennel on a 44,682 square- foot (SF) corner lot located in the CE (Commercial Equestrian Services) Zone (the “Project”). The site is currently 39,985 SF; however, the project scope includes vacating the existing alley at the rear of the site for a total lot size of 44,682 SF. The DRB found that the Project is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to a Class 32 “Infill Development” exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the project meets all of the conditions for an in-fill development. Development of the Project also includes:
•A new 4,793 SF kennel building located along the easterly portion of the site with frontage on both Riverside Drive and the unimproved portion of Allen Avenue. •A new 4,224 SF barn with 16 stables located along the westerly portion of the site that extends to the rear of the property.
•An approximately 6,600 SF outdoor corral will be located in the center of the site, separating the barn and kennel buildings.
•New landscaping and a remodeled and expanded parking lot will separate the new buildings from Riverside Drive.
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved forJanuary 30, 2024 calendar
174 of 561
2 9a
4 8
1 4
•A new 630 SF accessory building (support offices) is located directly behind the corral with three additional parking spaces, as well as a 20’ wide secondary driveway to access the parking and provide necessary fire department access.
The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the DRB Decision and deny the Project. The appellant contends that by approving the Project, the DRB violated specific provisions of law, failed to fulfill its mandatory duty, refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision, and that the evidence before the board was insufficient or inadequate to support its decision. The appellant’s concerns are related to a vacation of Allen Avenue, the lack of consideration given to public comments, conflicts with kennel and equestrian uses, public health and safety, the use of the site as a horse facility, and previously submitted historic assessments.
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council sustain the DRB Decision to approve Design Review Case No. PDR- 000210-2022 with conditions based on all of the evidence, reasoning and findings of the DRB articulated at the August 10, 2023 hearing, and set forth in the DRB’s Record of Decision for the project, dated August 10, 2023 and included as Exhibit 4.
ANALYSIS
This is an appeal of the DRB’s August 10, 2023 decision to approve the Project at 1900 Riverside Drive that involves the demolition of the existing building and redevelopment of the site as a new kennel and commercial stable business.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Appellant:Hunt C. Braly, Poole Shaffery Attorneys at Law Status of Appellant:Attorney representing Legal Action Network LLC (LAN) Applicant:Tim Nagao, RED Architectural Group
Richard Dell, RED Architectural Group
Owner:Rene Karapedian, PRI Properties LLC
Requested Action:
The appellant is requesting that the City Council overturn the DRB Decision to approve Design Review Case No. PDR-000210-2022 with conditions (Exhibit 4).
Legal Description:Lots 15 thru 17, Portion of Lot 18, and a Vacated Alley, Tract No. 9792
175 of 561
3 9a
4 8
1 4
APN: 5625-031-008
Zone:CE – Commercial Equestrian Services
Land Use Element:Community Services
Site Description:
The property is an approximately 39,985 SF corner lot with frontage on Riverside Drive and Allen Avenue. Towards the rear of the project site is a 20-foot-wide alley at the terminus of Allen Avenue that abuts the Los Angeles Equestrian Center. This alley will be vacated as part of the Project. The property was originally developed in 1939 with various additions and other site improvements made over time. Currently, there are three stable buildings on-site, an existing one-story house originally built in 1942 that is currently vacant, and a one-story barn originally built in 1939 that is located toward the center of the site. As part of the proposed project, all existing buildings and structures will be demolished.
RELEVANT PROJECT HISTORY
February 26, 2018 – Design Review Case No. PDR 1804696 was submitted by the previous owner for a 21-unit multi-family development.
•The applicant was required to provide a historic resource evaluation of the site for this project. The report was prepared by Sapphos Environmental Inc. and is included as Exhibit 9 (the “Sapphos Report”). The Sapphos report determined that the property does not meet any criteria for designation at the state or local level and is not considered a historic resource, therefore, demolition of the existing buildings and structures would not result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource. •A second historic resource report was commissioned by a private individual and prepared by Jenna Snow, Historic Preservation Consulting (the “Snow Report”) in anticipation of the multi-family project moving forward. This report was not submitted to the City because this project did not move forward. It was subsequently delivered to the City by the Glendale Historical Society on September 19, 2021. A copy of this report is included as Exhibit 10. The Snow report concluded that property is individually eligible for designation at the state and local level as a historic resource, and for listing as a contributing resource to an eligible historic district of equestrian properties.
July 24, 2018 – The design review application was subsequently withdrawn, and no further action was taken.
September 1, 2021 – The current owner, Mr. Rene Karapedian, took ownership of the property at 1900 Riverside Drive.
October 31, 2022 - The project applicant submitted Design Review Case No. PDR 000210-2022 and Environmental Information Form Case No. PEIF 000280-2022 for the proposed project, detailed above.
176 of 561
4 9a
4 8
1 4
November 30, 2022 – The Director of Community Development determined that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required to review and assess the proposed project that involves demolition of the existing stable and accessory buildings on-site for the project to allow for the development of a new stable and kennel.
This determination was made based on the evidence in the record which includes the two historic resource reports.
December 1, 2022 - The property owner filed Appeal Case No. PAPP-000522-2022 regarding the Director of Community Development’s determination that an EIR is required for the proposed project.
March 7, 2023 – The Glendale City Council held a public hearing regarding Appeal Case No. PAPP-000522-2022 and voted to reverse the Director of Community Development’s determination that, pursuant to Section 15064 of the State CEQA Guidelines, preparation of an EIR would be required for demolition of the existing stable and accessory buildings.
Council determined that based on the evidence in the record, the subject property is not a historic resource under CEQA. A copy of this motion is included as Exhibit 12.
April 14, 2023 – Based on the Council’s determination, Environmental Information Case No. PEIF-000280-2022 was subsequently withdrawn.
August 10, 2023 – Design Review Board Case No. PDR-000210-2022 was presented to the DRB with a staff recommendation to approve the project with conditions. The DRB voted unanimously (5-0) to approve the project with seven conditions (Exhibit 4):
1. The applicant shall obtain approval of an Alley Vacation prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The window design shall be a simulated divided light window that features an exterior grid.
3. The window frame type and edge detail shall be identified on the window schedules with vertical and horizontal window section details provided for each window type that shows recess, sill, and frame, and external grids as applicable.
4. The parking areas and pedestrian walkways shall include decorative paving materials with consideration given to permeable paving options to help reduce stormwater runoff.
5. The applicant shall submit an exterior lighting proposal with fixtures that are consistent with the style of the development for review by staff prior to plan check submittal.
6. The applicant shall provide corner details that illustrate how the different cladding wraps the building corners.
7. The proposed vinyl cupolas shall be revised to a higher quality material such as wood or metal.
August 25, 2023 – The appellant submitted their appeal of the DRB’s approval – Case No. PAPP-002052-2023 (Exhibit 14).
177 of 561
5 9a
4 8
1 4
SUMMARY OF DRB’S DISCUSSION OF CASE NO. PDR-000210-2022 ON AUGUST 10, 2023
Generally, the DRB members were in favor of the Project and the discussion of the project was limited.
•All five DRB members were present at the August 10, 2023 meeting at which the Project was discussed.
•Board member Welch noted that he was in favor of the proposal and that overall, the project was appropriately designed and thought out well with the separation between the two on-site uses. Mr. Welch commented that the Project team appropriately was respectful of and incorporated the history of the site into the design concept, including the use of colors and building design, while also modernizing the uses on-site.
•Board member Lockareff indicated that she agreed with all of the comments made by Mr. Welch as they related to the overall Project and acknowledged the comments received in support of the Project. Ms. Lockareff commented that the thoughtful design would be a great addition to the community, that the massing was appropriate to the surrounding neighborhood, and that it would be significant improvement from the existing conditions. Ms. Lockareff also acknowledged that comments regarding noise impacts were received for the Project, but the siting of the kennels away from the residential uses is an appropriate solution.
•Board member Kaskanian indicated that he agreed with all of the comments made by Mr. Welch and Ms. Lockareff and was in full support of the Project design. Mr.
Kaskanian also noted that kennel uses are lacking in Glendale and that this Project would benefit the city.
•Board member Simonian indicated that he agreed with the other board members and was in favor of the Project. Mr. Simonian commented that the project was well-designed with superb site planning, appropriate integration of the two uses, high-quality materials, and an appropriate one-story scale. Mr. Simonian also commented that he disagreed with the staff recommended condition regarding the proposed vinyl window material being revised to a higher quality because, based on the use, vinyl windows would be more effective and durable over time. This condition was not incorporated into the final approval. •Board member Tchagayan indicated that she agreed with the other board members and was also in favor of the Project. Ms. Tchagayan commended the applicant’s attention to detail and agreed with board member Simonian’s comments regarding the condition for the material of the windows. •Following review of the staff report and attachments, including the submitted correspondence, and having heard all testimony at the public hearing, Board member Simonian made a motion to approve the project with conditions. The motion was seconded by board member Lockareff. The Record of Decision is 178 of 561
6 9a
4 8
1 4
attached as Exhibit 4.
SUMMARY OF THE APPELLANT’S BASIS FOR APPEAL AND STAFF RESPONSES In the appeal application, the appellant contends that by approving the Project, the DRB violated specific provisions of law, failed to fulfill its mandatory duty, refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision, and that the evidence before the board was insufficient or inadequate to support its decision. Below is a summary of the statements made by the appellant in their appeal application (Exhibit 14), as required by GMC 2.88.030, as well as staff’s responses to the claims.
The appellant contends that the DRB violated the law because they failed to address the health and safety impacts of the Project on neighboring uses, and they failed to consider the impact on the vacation of the easement would have on neighboring uses.
There is no specific provision of law cited by the appellant and this is a general statement with no other specific information or evidence included with the submitted appeal.
Decisions rendered by the DRB are related to the design of a project, they do not have any authority over land use or streets, alleys, or sidewalks. Since the use and the vacation are outside of their purview, the DRB did not violate the law.
The site has been developed with a commercial stable since the 1930s and the applicant’s proposal is to redevelop the site to include a commercial stable and expand the operation to include a kennel. Pursuant to GMC Section 30.01.020, the purpose of the Zoning Code is to promote and protect the public health, safety and general welfare and economic viability of the community in accordance with the comprehensive general plan. In order to achieve this, the zoning code designates, regulates, and restricts the location and use of buildings in each zone in order to encourage the most appropriate use of the land. The subject property is located in the CE (Commercial Equestrian) Zone which was designed to encourage and support the development of equestrian related activities and other related uses required or desired by the inhabitants of the community. The proposed uses on-site include commercial stables and a kennel, both of which are uses that are permitted by right in the CE Zone (Table 30.15-A, GMC Section 30.15.020). The Land Use Element of the General Plan designates the Project site as Community Services Commercial where flexibility in the range and type of services and facilities that serve the community are encouraged, such as the uses proposed for the project. The proposed use of the site is consistent with the Land Use Element and the Zoning Code, and for these reasons, there is no impact on public health or safety. Additionally, the applicant has not provided any additional information or evidence demonstrating how the permitted uses would conflict with applicable ordinances and impact public health and safety.
The subject property is a corner lot with frontage along Riverside Drive and Allen Avenue, and at the rear of the site there is an existing 20-foot-wide alley. This southerly portion of Allen Avenue is unimproved and terminates with a bridge that connects to the Los Angeles Equestrian Center. This portion of Allen Avenue is proposed to be maintained in its current condition as part of the project scope and will continue to be a public street that serves the residents and equestrian community. The 20-foot-wide alley that is located at the rear of 179 of 561
7 9a
4 8
1 4
the subject property is proposed to be vacated as part of the project scope and used as a secondary driveway to access three of the required parking spaces as well as comply with fire department requirements for access. While this area is a public alley, it does not appear to have been used as such for some time – it is currently unimproved and has been used as part of the previous stable use. The appellant has not provided any evidence or additional information and there is nothing on record to suggest that vacating this alley would have an impact on the surrounding neighborhood or public health and safety.
The appellant contends that the DRB failed to fulfill a mandatory duty when they did not address the health and safety impacts of the Project on neighboring uses, and the impact the vacation would have on neighboring uses.
This is a general statement with no other specific information or evidence included with the appeal. Staff’s response to this contention is addressed in the section above.
The appellant contends that the DRB refused to hear or consider certain facts before rendering its decision because there was no acknowledgment that the DRB had received the comment letter submitted by the appellant on August 10th or that they considered the issues presented in the letter.
This statement is not true and there is no evidence on record to support this claim. All comments received are part of the public record and are kept on file with the Planning Department. Staff received eight comment letters (Exhibit 8) for this project with six commenters in favor of the project, and two in opposition, this includes the appellant’s letter dated August 10th, 2023 that is referenced in the appeal. Two of the comment letters in support were received after 5 pm on the day of the hearing. During the public hearing portion of the meeting, there were four speakers (3 in-person, 1 call-in), all in favor of the project. While the appellant submitted a comment letter, they did not call in, nor were there any speakers present or on the phone in opposition. As part of Planning’s standard process, all written comments that are received from the public for a design review application are provided to the board members for review prior to rendering their decision. Typically, a copy of comment letters is emailed to the board members prior to the hearing, and hard copies are provided to them at the hearing. Additionally, staff’s presentation acknowledges public comments received with a summary of the main points provided to the board. Finally, as part of her questions to the applicant as well as comments during deliberation, Ms. Lockareff acknowledged the concerns regarding noise that were brought up from the public, which is one of the concerns from the appellant’s August 10th, 2023 letter.
The appellant contends that the DRB had insufficient or inadequate evidence to supports its decision because they did not consider health and safety impacts on neighboring uses and the impact the vacation would have on neighboring uses also.
This is a general statement with no other specific information or evidence included with the appeal. Staff’s response to this contention is addressed in the sections above. 180 of 561
8 9a
4 8
1 4
Under the “Statement of additional facts related to the appeal” section, the appellant references a letter, dated August 25, 2023, that was submitted as part of the appeal. Below is a summary of the letter’s main points and staff’s responses.
Vacation of Allen Avenue
The appellant contends that one of the DRB conditions of approval is that Allen Avenue be vacated in order to serve as the driveway for the business and incorrectly states that Allen Avenue is frequently referred to as the “Alley”. The appellant’s concern with the vacation of Allen Avenue is that it is used for access (horses, hikers, emergency vehicles, utility vehicles) over the channel to the Los Angeles Equestrian Center. There are no plans to vacate Allen Avenue for this project. This has been demonstrated on the project plans which shows Allen Avenue being maintained as-is and discussed in the March 7, 2023 staff report to the City Council, and the August 10, 2023 staff report to DRB, and staff has also made note of this to the appellant. The project scope includes vacating the existing alley located at the rear of the site at the terminus of Allen Avenue, as illustrated on the project plans and the two images below.
Image No. 1
The area highlighted in
red is the subject
property. Bisecting the
site is an alley that has
been vacated since the
site was developed in
1939, exact year is
unknown. The alley that is
proposed to be vacated is
highlighted in green.
Image No. 2
The area highlighted in
red is the subject
property. The alley that is
proposed to be vacated is
highlighted in green. Allen
Avenue is proposed to be
maintained as an
unimproved road. The
aerial illustrates the
current condition of the
alley area as part of the
property.
181 of 561
9 9a
4 8
1 4
Applications for the vacation of a public street or alley are filed with the Public Works Engineering Division and are subject to the provisions of GMC Chapter 12.24 and the state’s Public Streets, Highways and Service Easements Vacation Law (Streets and Highways Code Section 8300 et seq.). Typically, these applications are first heard by the Planning Commission for recommendation, and then by the City Council for the final decision. Having said that, in the case of a summary vacation, the request can go straight to City Council as a consent item. A summary vacation can occur when the public street or alley has been impassible for vehicular travel for five consecutive years, no public money has been spent on maintenance of the public street or alley during that five-year period, and no public utility facilities are in-place. This alley was never improved and meets these criteria, classifying it as a summary vacation, which will be heard by council as a consent item.
Public Comments Not Considered
The appellant contends that the public has provided comments and testimony at hearing regarding the impacts of the Project that the DRB did not consider from the August 10, 2023 hearing, as well as the comments made at the March 7, 2023 City Council meeting.
As noted in the sections above, the DRB did consider the public comments received for the August 10, 2023 hearing as they were provided with copies of all public comments received, staff acknowledged the comment letters and main points during the presentation, and Ms. Lockareff also acknowledged the noise issue in her comments.
The public comments that were made at the March 7th, 2023 City Council hearing were related to reversing the Director of Community Development’s determination that an EIR would be required for the proposed demolition and that the property is not a historic resource under CEQA. For that hearing, one public comment letter was received and provided to City Council. This letter was from The Glendale Historical Society (TGHS) and indicated their support that an EIR should be required. During the public hearing portion of the meeting there were ten speakers (6 in-person, 4 call-in), with eight in favor of the project not being required to go through the EIR process, and two in support of the EIR. These comments were considered by the City Council prior to rendering their final decision. The appellant did not submit any written comments or public testimony at this hearing.
Conflicts with Kennels and Equestrian Uses
The appellant contends that since 2019 there has been communication with the city that included evidence that kennels and equestrian uses conflict with one another. This is a general statement with no other specific information regarding the conflicts or the individual(s) or division(s) communicated with. Additionally, the referenced communications were not provided to Planning staff for review for the DRB hearing, and they were not provided with the submitted appeal. In 2022, the Director of Community Development received communications requesting a report be prepared regarding the conflict of the uses, but the request was declined because there was no evidence available to support the claim (Exhibit 13).
182 of 561
10 9a
4 8
1 4
As illustrated on the plans, the subject property is large, with approximately 145 feet of frontage along Riverside Drive. The kennel and stable uses are located on opposite sides of the property, separated by an outdoor corral that is approximately 68-feet wide and 6,604 square-feet in size. Additionally, the kennel has a separate open outdoor area at the rear of the building for the dogs. The proposed site planning provides a significant amount of separation between the two uses and there is no evidence that the two would conflict with one another.
Public Health and Safety
This is a general statement with no other specific information or evidence included with the appeal. Staff’s response to this contention is addressed in the sections above.
Use as a Horse Facility
The appellant contends that there have been claims made indicating that the use of the property as a horse facility was not possible. There is no other information or evidence included with the appeal. It is unclear what the intent of this statement is or what claims the appellant is referring to, however, the Project will retain the use of the property as a stable and will be expanding the operation to include a kennel. It is also worth noting that while developing the Project, the property owner met with members of the community, and based on their feedback, intends to maintain the stable operation.
Historical Assessments
The appellant states that there have been two historical assessments submitted to the City supporting the status of the property as a historic resource and the Project approval is prohibiting the community from pursuing historic preservation. The two historical assessments referenced in the appeal are a 2018 report prepared by Jenna Snow and a 2021 report prepared by James DeCarli. There is no additional information or evidence included with the appeal.
Under CEQA, substantial evidence includes facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts (CEQA Guidelines section 15384(a)).
As the lead agency, the city has the authority to determine if submitted documentation constitutes substantial evidence. The Secretary of the Interior defines the professional qualification standards required to perform identification evaluation, registration, and treatment activities of historic resources.
The first historic assessment mentioned in the appeal was commissioned by a private individual and prepared by Jenna Snow, Historic Preservation Consulting (“Snow Report,” Exhibit 10) in 2021. Ms. Snow meets the Secretary of the Interior’s qualification standards and determined that the property is a historic resource, meeting two criteria for listing in the Glendale and California Register of Historic Resources as well as appearing eligible as a contributing property to a potential historic district. The second document referenced in the appeal was prepared by James M. DeCarli in 2021 (“DeCarli Report,” Exhibit 11). No evidence has been provided to indicate that Mr. DeCarli meets the Secretary of the Interior’s qualification standards. The report was reviewed by staff at the time of its submission and was found not to be credible. Its finding that the property is eligible for the National Register of Historic Places is based on unsubstantiated claims 183 of 561
11 9a
4 8
1 4
and opinion that is unsupported by evidence. Its contention that the rear barn structure is an important example of a “pole barn” is not borne out by either the documentation or physical evidence at the site. Because of this, it was determined that the report does not constitute substantial evidence and no further consideration was necessary when City Council heard the owners’ initial appeal regarding whether or not an EIR would be requried. A third report, which is not mentioned in the appeal, had been prepared in 2018 for a previous property owner by Sapphos Environmental Inc. (“Sapphos Report,” Exhibit 9). The team that prepared the report also meets the Secretary of the Interior’s qualification standards and determined that the property is not a historic resource because it does not meet any criteria for listing at the local, state, or federal level. Both the Sapphos Report and the Snow Report were reviewed and discussed by council at the meeting on March 7, 2023 where the Director of Community Development’s determination that the preparation of an EIR would be required, was reversed.
SUMMARY
Based on the analysis of the appeal and the reasoning above, staff recommends that the City Council uphold the DRB decision to approve the project with conditions. The Board members took into account not only the site planning, but also the project’s massing, scale, height, setback, landscaping, window placement, use of materials and colors and other architectural design elements in determining compatibility. The Project, as conditioned, was determined by a unanimous vote (5-yes, 0-no) of the DRB to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Design Guidelines. The DRB also found that the Project is exempt from further environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.
The basis of the DRB’s decision (the Record of Decision, Exhibit 4) includes the following:
Site Planning: The proposed site planning is appropriate to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
•There are a limited number of stable and kennel uses located in the City, and the proposed stable/kennel is an appropriate re-use/redevelopment of the existing stable. The proposed site planning is driven by the operational necessities of the use, the City’s Design Guidelines for suburban commercial corridors, and the development standards for the CE zone, which unlike other commercial zones, includes a minimum 25’-0” street-front setback requirement. •The proposed building locations comply with the City’s Design Guidelines where, in suburban commercial corridors, buildings can be located near the front of the lot with parking behind (stable and accessory building), or toward the back of the lot with parking in front (kennel).
•The subject property is a corner lot with the kennel sited as near the corner as possible while still complying with the street-front setback requirement. New landscaping along Riverside Drive and the unimproved portion of Allen Avenue provides an appropriate buffer from the public right-of-way. 184 of 561
12 9a
4 8
1 4
•The project includes two surface parking areas that are appropriately screened with landscaping and have a total of 15 parking spaces. A condition of approval requires that the parking areas and pedestrian walkways include decorative paving materials. oSimilar to the existing corner condition, there is a surface parking area with 12 parking spaces that is located at the front of the site with an entrance that is accessed from Riverside Drive and exits onto Allen Avenue. oAn additional three parking spaces are located at the rear of the lot and accessed from Allen Avenue.
•New drought-tolerant landscaping is proposed along both street frontages, as well as in the rear parking lot area. At the center of the lot is a new 6,604 SF outdoor corral that will be surfaced in decomposed granite.
Mass and Scale: The proposed mass and scale is appropriate to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
•The nearby residential buildings range from one to two stories in height and, with the exception of 1820 Riverside Drive located one block to the south, the equestrian-use related buildings are primarily one-story, with multiple buildings on-site. The proposed project fits within this neighborhood massing context. •The project design is driven by the needs of the proposed use as a stable and kennel. While the design guidelines discourage long, continuous segments of building walls along the street, for this project, the elongated rectangular buildings for the animals are appropriate and consistent with the use and the surrounding neighborhood.
•All of the proposed buildings will be one-story, and range in height from 14 feet to 20 feet, which is compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. •The design incorporates building forms with varied roof heights that range from 14 to 20 feet, with cupolas appropriately incorporated into the design of the new buildings.
Design and Detailing: The proposed design and detailing is appropriate to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
•Overall, the finish materials reinforce the architectural concept of the new buildings and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
•The exterior finish materials consist of horizontal wood siding for the stable, board and batten hardie panel siding for the kennel and support building, standing seam metal roofing.
•While the design of the stable differs from the other buildings, the materials are similar, with the buildings tied together through the use of the same color palette of primarily off-white buildings, gray metal roofing, and black detailing (window trim, railings, gutters, fascia, wood posts, etc.).
185 of 561
13 9a
4 8
1 4
•Walkways are proposed within the interior of the site that appropriately connect the new buildings, with the primary entrance to the site taken from Riverside Drive.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Code requires public notice when the Council considers approval of entitlements such as design review. Staff has published all required notices and has mailed copies of the notice to all property owners and occupants within 500 feet of the project. A public notice has also been posted on-site.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project is exempt from CEQA review as a Class 32 “Infill Development” exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the project meets all of the conditions for an in-fill development as noted in Exhibit 7.
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 15, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1:Continue the matter, directing the City Attorney to draft findings, reversing the DRB decision and denying the project.
Alternative 2:Any other alternative for this appeal not proposed by staff.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:
Vista Ezzati, Senior Planner
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
186 of 561
14 9a
4 8
1 4
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Location Map
Exhibit 2: Photos of Existing Property
Exhibit 3: DRB Staff Report and Reduced Plans for Current Design Review Application (PDR-000210-2022) from August 10, 2023
Exhibit 4: DRB Record of Decision for Current Design Review Application (PDR-000210- 2022) from August 10, 2023
Exhibit 5: Neighborhood Survey
Exhibit 6: Interdepartmental Comments
Exhibit 7: Categorical Exemption Findings
Exhibit 8: Correspondence
Exhibit 9: Historical Resource Evaluation prepared by Sapphos Environmental Inc., dated May 8, 2018
Exhibit 10: Jenna Snow, Historic Resource Assessment prepared by Historic Preservation Consulting, dated August 2018
Exhibit 11: Historical Assessment of Silver Spur Stables prepared by James M. DeCarli, dated September 8, 2021
Exhibit 12: City Council Motion for Appeal Case No. PAPP-000522-2022, dated March 7, 2023
The staff report and exhibits are available online, Item 9a:
https://glendaleca.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=34470 Exhibit 13: Interdepartmental Communication, dated July 14, 2022 Exhibit 14: Notice of Appeal of DRB’s Decision to City Council Exhibit 15: Campaign Disclosure
187 of 561
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _____________________________, seconded by Council Member _________________________, that upon review and consideration of all documents, materials and exhibits relative to the appeal of the Design Review Board’s (DRB)(Appeal Case No. PAPP-002052-2023) approval of Design Review Board Case No. PDR-000210-2022, located at 1900 Riverside Drive (the “Design Review Case”), and after having conducted a public hearing on the appeal on January 30, 2024, pursuant to the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 (“GMC”), and receiving testimony, the Council of the City of Glendale, California, based upon all of the evidence in the record, hereby SUSTAINS the Design Review Board’s decision to APPROVE the Design Review Case based on the findings and conclusions set forth in the January 30, 2024, Staff Report to Council from the Director of Community Development, including any attachments thereto, and based on the following findings and amended conditions of approval:
FINDINGS
In approving the Design Review Case, the Council hereby makes the following findings: _________________________
CONDITIONS:
In approving the Design Review Case, the Council hereby amends the Design Review Board’s conditions of approval as follows: ________________________ Vote as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
188 of 561
Abstain:
189 of 561
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _____________, seconded by Council Member __________, that upon review and consideration of all materials in connection with Appeal Case No. PAPP- 002052-2023 - appeal of the Design Review Board’s (DRB) approval of Design Review Board Case No. PDR-000210-2022, located at 1900 Riverside Drive (the “Design Review Case”), and after having conducted a public hearing on the appeal on January 30, 2024, pursuant to the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995 (“GMC”), and receiving testimony, the Council of the City of Glendale, California, based upon all of the evidence in the record, hereby), as outlined in the January 30, 2024 staff report from the Director of Community Development, the City Council hereby continues the matter and directing the City Attorney to draft findings reversing the Design Review Board’s decision and denying the Project.
Vote as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Abstain:
Absent:
190 of 561
Exhibit 1
191 of 561
Exhibit 2
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N FAMILY R A N C H
PROJECT NUMBER: 558.2101.08 KARAPEDIAN FAMILY
RANCH
DATE: J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALESCALE:
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201BUILDING #: ON-SITE PHOTO S U R V E Y 192 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT NUMBER: 558.2101.08
J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALE
ON SITE P H O T 0 S U R V E Y
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY
RANCH
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201
DATE:
SCALE:
BUILDING #:
193 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT NUMBER: 558.2101.08 KARAPEDIAN FAMILY
RANCH
DATE: J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALESCALE:
ON SITE P H O T 0 S U R V E Y1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201BUILDING #:
194 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT N U M B E R : P R O J E C T N U M B E RKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH
DATE: J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALESCALE:
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201BUILDING #:
195 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT N U M B E R : P R O J E C T N U M B E RKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH
DATE: J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALESCALE:
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201BUILDING #:
196 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT N U M B E R : P R O J E C T N U M B E RKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH
DATE: J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALESCALE:
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201BUILDING #:
197 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT N U M B E R : P R O J E C T N U M B E RKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH
DATE: J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALESCALE:
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201BUILDING #: ON SITE P H O T 0 S U R V E Y 198 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT N U M B E R : P R O J E C T N U M B E RKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH
DATE: J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALESCALE:
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201BUILDING #: ON SITE P H O T 0 S U R V E Y 199 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT N U M B E R : P R O J E C T N U M B E RKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH
DATE: J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALESCALE:
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201BUILDING #: ON SITE P H O T 0 S U R V E Y 200 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT N U M B E R : P R O J E C T N U M B E RKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH
DATE: J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALESCALE:
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201BUILDING #: ON SITE P H O T 0 S U R V E Y 201 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT N U M B E R : P R O J E C T N U M B E RKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH
DATE: J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALESCALE:
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201BUILDING #: ON SITE P H O T 0 S U R V E Y 202 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT N U M B E R : P R O J E C T N U M B E RKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH
DATE: J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALESCALE:
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201BUILDING #: ON SITE P H O T 0 S U R V E Y 203 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT N U M B E R : P R O J E C T N U M B E RKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH
DATE: J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALESCALE:
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201BUILDING #: ON SITE P H O T 0 S U R V E Y 204 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT N U M B E R : P R O J E C T N U M B E RKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH
DATE: J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALESCALE:
ON SITE P H O T 0 S U R V E Y1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201BUILDING #:
205 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT N U M B E R : P R O J E C T N U M B E RKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH
DATE: J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALESCALE:
ON SITE P H O T 0 S U R V E Y1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201BUILDING #:
206 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT NUMBER: 558.2101.08
J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALE
ON SITE P H O T 0 S U R V E Y
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY
RANCH
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201
DATE:
SCALE:
BUILDING #:
207 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT NUMBER: 558.2101.08
J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALE
ON SITE P H O T 0 S U R V E Y
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY
RANCH
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201
DATE:
SCALE:
BUILDING #:
208 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT N U M B E R : P R O J E C T N U M B E RKARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH
DATE: J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALESCALE:
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201BUILDING #: ON SITE P H O T 0 S U R V E Y 209 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT NUMBER: 558.2101.08
J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALE
ON SITE P H O T 0 S U R V E Y
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY
RANCH
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201
DATE:
SCALE:
BUILDING #:
210 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT NUMBER: 558.2101.08
J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALE
ON SITE P H O T 0 S U R V E Y
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY
RANCH
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201
DATE:
SCALE:
BUILDING #:
211 of 561
PROJECT: K A R A P E D I A N F A M I L Y R A N C H
PROJECT NUMBER: 558.2101.08
J A N U A R Y 20, 2023
NOT TO SCALE
ON SITE P H O T 0 S U R V E Y
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY
RANCH
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE GLENDALE , CA 91201
DATE:
SCALE:
BUILDING #:
212 of 561
213 of 561
214 of 561
215 of 561
216 of 561
217 of 561
218 of 561
219 of 561
220 of 561
221 of 561
222 of 561
223 of 561
224 of 561
225 of 561
226 of 561
227 of 561
Exhibit 3
CITY OF GLENDALE, CA
DESIGN REVIEW STAFF REPORT – COMMERCIAL / INDUSTRIAL / MIXED USE August 10, 2023 1900 Riverside Drive
Hearing Date Address
Design Review Board (DRB) 5625-031-008
Review Type APN
PDR-000210-2022 Richard Dell, RED Architecture
Case Number Applicant
Vista Ezzati Rene Karapedian, PRI Properties, LLC
Case Planner Owner
Project Summary
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing commercial stable buildings and associated structures (originally developed in 1939) and construct three new buildings with 15 surface parking spaces for a commercial stable and kennel on a 44,682 square-foot (SF) corner lot (pending alley vacation approval), located in the CE (Commercial Equestrian) Zone. The project includes a new one-story, 4,224 SF barn with 16 stables, a one-story, 4,793 SF building to be used as a kennel, an outdoor corral, and a 630 SF accessory building. Development of the project site includes:
A new kennel located along the easterly portion of the site with frontage on both Riverside Drive and the unimproved portion of Allen Avenue. A new barn located along the westerly portion of the site that extends to the rear of the property.
An approximately 6,600 SF outdoor corral will be located in the center of the site, separating the barn and kennel buildings.
New landscaping and a remodeled and expanded parking lot will separate this building from Riverside Drive.
A 1-story accessory building (support offices) for the use is located directly behind the corral with three additional parking spaces, as well as a 20’-0” wide secondary driveway to access the parking and provide necessary fire department access.
The project site is currently 39,985 SF, however, the project scope includes a future application to vacate an existing alley located at the rear of the site. The total lot size will be 44,682 SF pending alley vacation approval.
228 of 561
Environmental Review
The project is exempt from CEQA review as a Class 32 “Infill Development” exemption pursuant to Section 15332 of the State CEQA Guidelines because the project meets all of the conditions for an in-fill development as noted in Attachment 6.
Existing Property/Background
The property is an approximately 39,985 SF corner lot with frontage on Riverside Drive and Allen Avenue. The project site is relatively flat and is located at the city’s border with Burbank to the west, and City of Los Angeles to the south, with commercial and multi- family residential uses in the immediate area. Towards the rear of the project site is a 20- foot-wide alley at the terminus of Allen Avenue that abuts the Los Angeles Equestrian Center. The property was originally developed in 1939 with various additions and other site improvements made over time. Currently, there are three stable buildings on-site, an existing one-story house (originally built in 1942) that is currently vacant, and a one-story barn originally built in 1939 that is located toward the center of the site.
On March 7, 2023, the Glendale City Council held a public hearing regarding Appeal Case No. PAPP-000522-2022 and voted to reverse the Director of Community Development’s determination that, pursuant to Section 15064 of the State CEQA Guidelines, preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required for demolition of the existing stable and accessory buildings. Council determined that based on the evidence in the record, the subject property is not a historic resource under CEQA. The property has no associations with events or people significant in history and it is not a distinct or exemplary representative of its architectural style, type, or period. The property does not appear to meet any criteria for listing on any National, State, or local register for historic resources, and is not considered a historic resource under CEQA. Accordingly, this project is exempt from CEQA as an infill development exemption (Attachment 6).
Staff Recommendation
Approve with Conditions
______________________________________________________________________________ Last Date Reviewed / Decision
First time submittal for final review.
Zone: CE - Commercial Equestrian Height District: N/A
Although this design review does not convey final zoning approval, the project has been reviewed for consistency with the applicable Codes and no inconsistencies have been identified.
Active/Pending Permits and Approvals
Development of the project site will require the existing 20-foot wide alley located at the rear of the site at the terminus of Allen Avenue to be vacated. The alley vacation application will be submitted separately.
Site Slope and Grading
Less than 50% current average slope and less than 1500 cubic yards of earth movement (cut and/or fill); no additional review required.
2 229 of 561
DESIGN ANALYSIS
_______________________________________________________________________ Site Planning
Are the following items satisfactory and compatible with the project site and surrounding area?
Building Location
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Located at or near front property line
☐ Conforms to prevailing setbacks on the street
☐ Maintains appropriate sidewalk width
Usable Open Space
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Incorporates outdoor pedestrian space
☐ Integrated with design and overall context
☐ Appropriate relationship with adjoining properties
Access and Parking
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Parking location is appropriate to the site and its neighborhood context ☐ Appropriate pedestrian and vehicle access points
☐ Appropriate service and loading locations
☐ Landscape screening for street-facing parking
☐ Techniques employed to reduce stormwater runoff
☒ Decorative or colored paving to delineate pedestrian areas The drawings indicate that the existing asphalt parking area at the front will be maintained, the new parking area at the rear will feature new stamped concrete paving, and the pedestrian walkways will be concrete. No other information is provided on the plans about these areas. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that the parking areas and pedestrian walkways be redesigned to include decorative paving materials with consideration given to permeable paving options to help reduce stormwater runoff.
Landscape Design
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Complementary to building design
☐ Appropriately sized and located
3 230 of 561
Walls, Fences, and Retaining Walls
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Minimize use whenever possible
☐ Use decorative material to complement building and/or landscape design ☐ Provide landscaping to minimize visual impact
Screening
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Mechanical equipment appropriately screened
☐ Trash bins appropriately located and screened
Determination of Compatibility: Site Planning
The proposed site planning is appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
There are a limited number of stable and kennel uses located in the City, and the proposed stable/kennel is an appropriate re-use/redevelopment of the existing stable .The proposed site planning is driven by the operationally necessities of the use, the City’s Design Guidelines for suburban commercial corridors, and the development standards for the CE zone, which unlike other commercial zones, includes a minimum 25’-0” street-front setback requirement. The proposed building locations comply with the City’s Design Guidelines where, in suburban commercial corridors, buildings can be located near the front of the lot with parking behind (stable and accessory building), or toward the back of the lot with parking in front (kennel).
The subject property is a corner lot with the kennel sited as near the corner as possible while still complying with the street-front setback requirement. New landscaping along Riverside Drive and the unimproved portion of Allen Avenue provides an appropriate buffer from the public right-of-way. The project includes two surface parking areas that are appropriately screened with landscaping and have a total of 15 parking spaces. As noted above, staff is recommending a condition of approval that the parking areas and pedestrian walkways include decorative paving materials.
o Similar to the existing corner condition, there is a surface parking area with 12 parking spaces that is located at the front of the site with an entrance that is accessed from Riverside Drive and exits onto Allen Avenue. o An additional three parking spaces are located at the rear of the lot and accessed from Allen Avenue.
New drought-tolerant landscaping is proposed along both street frontages, as well as in the rear parking lot area. At the center of the lot is a new 6,604 SF outdoor corral that will be surfaced in decomposed granite.
________________________________________________________________________ 4 231 of 561
Massing and Scale
Are the following items satisfactory and compatible with the project site and surrounding area?
Building Relates to its Surrounding Context
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Appropriate proportions and transitions
☐ Articulation, solid/void balance, and open space relate to predominant pattern Building Relates to Existing Topography
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Form and profile follow topography
☐ Alteration of existing land form minimized
☐ Retaining walls terrace with slope to minimize height Consistent Architectural Concept
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Concept governs massing and height
Scale and Proportion
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Articulation avoids overbearing forms
☐ Appropriate solid/void relationships
☐ Entry and major features well located
Massing
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Larger masses broken into separate volumes
☒ Long, unbroken street walls avoided
☐ Visual impact of larger building minimized
The project features long, continuous segments of building walls facing Allen Avenue that are not broken up in terms of massing or detailing; this treatment is discouraged in the City’s Comprehensive Design Guidelines. However, the commercial design guidelines are geared towards the more common types of commercial uses, such as office buildings and retail stores, and do not account for these more unique 5 232 of 561
circumstances. The building design and site planning is based on the proposed use as a stable and kennel where the elongated and rectangular building forms are common for these types of uses and will be consistent with similar buildings in the surrounding neighborhood.
Determination of Compatibility: Mass and Scale
The proposed massing and scale are appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
The nearby residential buildings range from one to two stories in height and, with the exception of 1820 Riverside Drive located one block to the south, the equestrian-use related buildings are primarily one-story, with multiple buildings on-site. The proposed project fits within this neighborhood massing context. The project design is driven by the needs of the proposed use as a stable and kennel. As noted above, while the design guidelines discourage long, continuous segments of building walls along the street, for this project, the elongated rectangular buildings for the animals are appropriate and consistent with the use and the surrounding neighborhood.
All of the proposed buildings will be one-story, and range in height from 14 feet to 20 feet, which is compatible to the surrounding neighborhood. The design incorporates building forms with varied roof heights that range from 14 to 20 feet, with cupolas appropriately incorporated into the design of the new buildings. ________________________________________________________________________ Design and Detailing
Are the following items satisfactory and compatible with the project site and surrounding area?
Overall Design and Detailing
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Consistent architectural concept
☐ Proportions appropriate to project and surrounding neighborhood ☐ Appropriate solid/void relationships
Entryway
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Well integrated into design
☐ Location promotes pedestrian activity
☐ Design provides appropriate focal point
Storefronts and Windows
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
6 233 of 561
☐ Maximize transparency at ground floor
☐ 12-15’ floor-to-floor height at ground-floor is encouraged ☐ Coordinate design with overall style of building
☒ Use durable materials for windows, such as aluminum or steel ☐ Locate security gates/grilles inside commercial spaces, preferably set back from storefront
This project is proposing black vinyl windows with external grids. In the past, the Board has allowed some residential projects to feature colored vinyl windows based on a case-by-case basis. Staff recommends that the window material be revised to be of a higher quality, such as fiberglass or wood, though the Board can consider allowing the window material to remain vinyl, based on past determinations for some residential projects. The frame type (e.g., block frame, nail-on) and edge details for the new windows are not identified on the window schedules and details. A staff recommended condition of approval will require the window schedules to be revised to identify the window frame type and edge details, and vertical and horizontal window section details to be provided that illustrate the installation, recess, sill, and frame for the different window types, and external grids as applicable.
Awnings and Canopies
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Integrate awnings and canopies into overall building design ☐ Avoid long treatments spanning multiple openings
☐ Back-lit awnings are not allowed
Lighting
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☒ Light fixtures are appropriate to the building design ☒ Avoid over-lit facades; consider ambient light conditions when developing lighting scheme
☒ Utilize shielded fixtures to avoid light spillover onto adjacent properties The drawings do not identify exterior lighting. A staff recommended condition of approval will require submittal of a lighting plan to include exterior lighting details for the new building with fixtures that are consistent with the style.
Finish Materials and Color
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Textures and colors reinforce design
☒ High-quality, durable materials used, especially facing the street ☐ Materials appropriately enhance articulation and façade hierarchies ☐ Wrap corners and terminate cladding appropriately
7 234 of 561
☒ Cladding is well detailed, especially at junctions between materials ☐ Foam trim, finished on site, is prohibited
As noted above, staff is recommending conditions of approval related to the window material and detailing. The drawings also identify new vinyl cupolas, where high- quality materials are encouraged by the design guidelines. As such, a staff recommended condition of approval will require this to be revised. Additionally, the drawings do not illustrate how the cladding will wrap the corners (e.g., mitered, corner board, etc.). Staff is recommending a condition of approval that corner details be provided.
Paving Materials
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☒ Decorative material at entries/driveways
☐ Permeable paving when possible
☐ Material and color related to design
As discussed in the site planning section, staff is recommending a condition of approval that the parking areas and pedestrian walkways be redesigned to include decorative paving materials with consideration given to permeable paving options to help reduce stormwater runoff.
Roof Forms
yes n/a no
If “no” select from below and explain:
☐ Configure roofline to provide visual interest and deemphasize mass ☐ Roof forms are consistent with overall design
☐ Continue roofs and parapets around building or terminate in logical manner Determination of Compatibility: Design and Detailing
The proposed design and detailing are appropriate, as modified by any proposed conditions, to the site and its surroundings for the following reasons:
Overall, the finish materials reinforce the architectural concept of the new buildings and are compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
The exterior finish materials consist of horizontal wood siding for the stable, board and batten hardie panel siding for the kennel and support building, standing seam metal roofing. As detailed above, staff is recommending a condition of approval that the window material be revised from vinyl to a higher quality material. While the design of the stable differs from the other buildings, the materials are similar, with the buildings are tied together through the use of the same color palette of primarily off-white buildings, gray metal roofing, and black detailing (window trim, railings, gutters, fascia, wood posts, etc.).
Walkways are proposed within the interior of the site that appropriately connect the new buildings, with the primary entrance to the site taken from Riverside Drive. ________________________________________________________________________ 8 235 of 561
Recommendation / Draft Record of Decision
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends Approval with Conditions. This determination is based on the implementation of the following recommended conditions:
Conditions
1. The applicant shall obtain approval of an Alley Vacation prior to the issuance of a building permit.
2. The window material shall be revised to a higher quality material such as fiberglass or wood with the window frame type identified in the schedule.
3. The window frame type and edge detail shall be identified on the window schedules with vertical and horizontal window section details provided for each window type that shows recess, sill, and frame, and external grids as applicable.
4. The parking areas and pedestrian walkways shall include decorative paving materials with consideration given to permeable paving options to help reduce stormwater runoff.
5. The applicant shall submit an exterior lighting proposal with fixtures that are consistent with the style of the development for review by staff prior to plan check submittal.
6. The applicant shall provide corner details that illustrate how the different cladding wraps the building corners.
7. The proposed vinyl cupolas shall be revised to a higher quality material such as wood or metal.
________________________________________________________________________ Attachments
1. Reduced Plans
2. Photos of Existing Property
3. Location Map
4. Neighborhood Survey
5. Interdepartmental Comments
6. Categorical Exemption Findings
7. City Council Motion for Appeal Case PAPP-000522-2022, dated March 7, 2023 The staff report and exhibits are available online, Item 9a:
https://glendaleca.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=34470 9 236 of 561
PROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY:
ADDRESS 1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, GLENDALE CA 91201
EXISTINGPROPERTY TYPE:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
APN :
STABLES
TRACT # 9792 1/2 VACALLEY ON SW
562-5031-008
24 / 24632
1939-1940 1942
CE
REGION/ CLUSTER:
BUILT:
ZONING:
GROSS LOT W/0 VACATION:
VACATIONAREA:
39,985 SF
3,190 SF (EASEMENT NEXT TOCHANNEL)
43,175 SFLOT AREA AFTERVACATION:
EXIST BUILDINGAREA:
FARALLOWED:
536 SF + 9,104 SF + 1,422 SF + 3,224 SF = 14,286 SF
NONE
FAREXISTING: 14,286 SF / 39,985 SF = 0.357
N/A (TABLE 30.15-B)LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED:
LOT COVERAGE EXISTING: 14,286 SF / 39,985 SF = 0.357 X 100%= 35.7%
PARKING
EXIST PARKINGPROVIDED 11
KEY NOTES
LEGENDS
EXISTINGPARKINGSTALLS #
NOTE: INFORMATIONONTHIS SHEET IS FOR
REFERENCE ONLY . REFERTOSURVEY
PREPAREDBY / SEABOARDENGINEERING
CO. SURVEY DATED: 12/15/2021
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCHDESIGN REVIEW A-0
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201
DATE: 1/20/2023
PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
237 of 561
238 of 561
KEY NOTESPROPOSED PROJECT SUMMARY:
ADDRESS 1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE, GLENDALE CA 91201
EXISTINGPROPERTY TYPE:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
APN :
STABLES
TRACT # 9792 1/2 VACALLEY ON SW
562-5031-008
9792TRACT NO:
REGION/ CLUSTER:
BUILT:
24 / 24632
1939-1940 1942
CEZONING:
FIRE HAZARD:
HILLSIDE:
N/A
N/A
GROSS LOT W/0 VACATION:
VACATIONAREA (ALLEY):
LOT AREA AFTERVACATION:
39,985 SF
3,190 SF (EASEMENT NEXT TOCHANNEL)
44,682 SF
5'-0"4'-0" 8'-6"
TOTAL BLDGAREA: 9997 SF
CALCULATEDFAR: 9,997/ 44,682 = 0.22
N/A (TABLE 30.15-B)
9,997/ 44,682 = 0.22 X 100%= 22%
LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED:
LOT COVERAGE CALCULATED:60'-0"
30'-0" STABLES BARN (UNDER ROOF):
STORAGE :
4223 SF
253 SF
96 SF
5'-0"
8'-6" 8'-0" 9'-0"6'-4" COVERED HAY STORAGE:
OPEN HORSE WASH:
OUTDOOR CORRAL:
KENNEL BARN:
32'-0" LEGENDS
295 SF
6604 SF
4795 SF
1600 SF
630 SF
PROPOSEDPARKINGSTALLS #
OPEN OUTDOOR AREA:
SUPPORT BUILDING:
150'-0"
62'-4"5'-0" 6'-0" 5'-0"10'-0" 12'-0" 10'-0"
8'-0"
38'-0"
1'-8" 30%
LANDSCAPE: 10%
2'-0" PARKING REQUIRED:
STABLES: 1 SPACE PER 4 HORSES (16 HORSES)
KENNEL : 2 SPACES PER 1,000 ( 4,750)
SUPPORT BLDG. :2 SPACE PER 1,000 (630)
TOTAL:
4 10
2 70%
16 STALLS
±
± PARKING REQUIRED:
PARKING PROVIDED:
16 16( 1 HC INCLUDED) + 1 STALL (FOR 5 BIKES)
BIKE PARKING REQ : 5
BIKE PARKING PROVIDED: 5(4 SHORT TERM, 1 - LONG TERM)
REQUIRED LANDSCAPE:
PROVIDED LANDSCAPE:
CE- NOT APPLICABLE (TABLE 30.31-A)
4,800 SF
EQUESTRIAN USE AREA:
KENNEL USE AREA:
70%
30%
8'-0"
10'-0" 21'-4" 1'-6" 20'-0" 4'-0" NOTE: INFORMATIONONTHIS SHEET IS FOR
REFERENCE ONLY PROVIDEDAND
PREPAREDBY : SEABOARDENGINEERING
CO. SURVEY DATED: 12/15/2021±
5'-0" 8'-6"
22'-0"
DESIGN REVIEW KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH A-1
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201
DATE:1/20/2023
PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
239 of 561
4'-0" 8'-6" 5'-0"
60'-0"
30'-0"
5'-0"
8'-6" 8'-0" 9'-0"6'-4"
32'-0"
150'-0"
62'-4"5'-0" 10'-0" 12'-0" 10'-0" 6'-0" 38'-0"
1'-8" 30%
5'-0"
8'-0" 2'-0"
70%
±
±
8'-0"
10'-0" 21'-4" 1'-6" 20'-0" 4'-0"
±
5'-0" 8'-6"
22'-0"
SITE ADJACENCY KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH VS-1
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201
DATE: 4/20/2023
PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
240 of 561
241 of 561
242 of 561
204'-0"
204'-0"
2'-0" 2'-0"
20'-0" 10'-0"
STABLE COLORED ELEVATIONS
DESIGN REVIEW KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH A-2.2
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201
DATE:1/20/2023
PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
243 of 561
1'-6" 1'-6"
124'-0" 3'-0" 5'-0"
6" 6" 6"
7'-8"
3'-10" 7'-6"
20'-0"
4'-10"6" 4'-10"
4'-0"
20'-0" 78'-10" 3'-10" 20'-0"
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCHDESIGN REVIEW A-3
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201
DATE: 1/20/2023
PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
244 of 561
T.O.R.
T.O.P.
1'-6"
5'-0"
1'-6" 1'-6"
4'-0"4'-0"
T.O.P.
1'-6"
4'-0"
1'-6"
T.O.P.
1'-6"
4'-0"
1'-6"
KENNEL ELEVATIONS
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCHDESIGN REVIEW A-3.1
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201
DATE: 1/20/23
PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
245 of 561
T.O.R.T.O.R.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
38'-0" 38'-0"
T.O.R.
T.O.P.
4'-0"
124'-0"
T.O.R.
T.O.P.
4'-0"
124'-0"
KENNEL ELEVATIONS
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCHDESIGN REVIEW A-3.2
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201
DATE: 1/20/23
PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
246 of 561
T.O.R.
29'-6" T.O.P.
15'-5" 12'-5" 4'-0" 1'-6"1'-6"
3'-6"
10'-0"
6'-0"
7'-6"
T.O.P.
4'-0" 1'-6"
T.O.R. T.O.R.
12'-0" T.O.P. T.O.P.
4'-0"1'-6" 1'-6" 1'-6"
SUPPORT BUILDING
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH A-4DESIGN REVIEW
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201
DATE: 1/20/2023
PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
247 of 561
T.O.R. T.O.R.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
4'-0"1'-6"1'-6" 1'-6"
21'-4" 29'-6"
T.O.R. T.O.R.
T.O.P. T.O.P.
1'-6" 1'-6" 1'-6"4'-0"
21'-4"29'-6"
SUPPORT BUILDING ELEVATIONS
A-4.1KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCHDESIGN REVIEW
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201
DATE: 1/20/2023
PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
248 of 561
21'-1"
19'-9"
4'-0"
TRASH AREA , TYPICAL FENCE , GATES ELEVATIONS
A-4.2KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCHDESIGN REVIEW
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201
DATE: 1/20/2023
PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
249 of 561
WINDOW AND DOOR SCHEDULES
FOR ALL BUILDNGS AND STREET VISIBLE
WINDOW PROFILE DETAIL
DESIGN REVIEW KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH A-5
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201
DATE: 1/12/2023
PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
250 of 561
251 of 561
RENDERED PERSPECTIVES
DESIGN REVIEW KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH A-7
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201
DATE:1/20/2023
PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
252 of 561
STABLES
COLOR & MATERIAL BOARD
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCHDESIGN REVIEW
DATE: 1/20/2023
A-8
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
253 of 561
KENNEL & SUPPORT BLDG
COLOR & MATERIAL BOARD
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCHDESIGN REVIEW
DATE:1/20/2023
A-8.1
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
254 of 561
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCHDESIGN REVIEW A-10
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201
DATE: 1/20/2023
PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
255 of 561
THE AVAILABLE STATIC WATER
PRESSURE AT THE 2" METER IS
100 PSI VERIFIED bBY ANI
AZOYAN FROM THE CITY OF
GLENDALE DWP ON 4/19/2023.
REGULATOR SHALL BE FACTORY
SET AT 85 PSI DOWN STREAM OF
THE BACKFLOW.
NOTE:
IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT AND
PIPING DIAGRAMMATIC SET ALL
IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT IN
PLANTERS. TYP.
SLEEVE (TYP)
ZONE 3
ZONE 2
SLEEVE (TYP) P
ZONE 4
ZONE 1
A
ZONE 1
ZONE 1
FS
ZONE 5
Q.
P ZONE 4
W M
P
ZONE 1
ZONE 6
NOTE:
THIS PLAN WILL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CITY OF GLENDALE MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE STATE WATER
EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCES. FOR MORE
INFORMATION YOU CAN EMAIL GWP:
[email protected] TO GET THEIR
REQUIREMENTS ,FORMS AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS.THE PIPE
I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND SUBMIT A
COMPLETE LANDSCAPE PACKAGE..
ZONE 7
__________ ________________________
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SIGNATURE
_____________
DATE
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APP-PDR-000210-2022
APN 562-5031-008
TRACT #9792
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201 L101DATE: 4/24/2023
PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
256 of 561
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201
L102DATE: 4/24/2023
PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
257 of 561
NOTE:
LANDSCAPE DRIPLINE TUBING:
SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND 1. CENTERVALVEBOX OVERREMOTECONTROL VALVETOFACILITATE SERVICINGVALVE.
2. SET RCV AND VALVE BOX ASSEMBLY IN GROUND COVER AND SHRUB AREA WHEREPOSSIBLE.
3. SET BOXESPARALLEL TO EACH OTHER AND PERPENDICULAR TO EDGE.
4. AVOIDHEAVILYCOMPACTINGSOIL AROUNDVALVEBOXESTOPREVENT DAMAGINGVALVEBOXES.EMITTER (PRE-INSTALLED) IN TUBING
PLANT MATERIAL 12" x 18" RECTANGULARVALVEBOXTYP.
QUICKCOUPLERVALVEBOX
9"x10" TYP.
PRESSURE COMPENSATING
IN-LINE EMITTER TUBING
EASY FIT COMPRESSION TEE
RAIN BIRD MDCFTEE
12" TYP 12" TYP.12" 12" 12"
EMITTER (PRE-INSTALLED) IN TUBING
INSTALL MINIMUM ONE(1) AIR VALVE KIT
PER PLANTER AND AN ADDITIONAL ONE
EVERY 1000 FT OF DRIPLINE TUBING.
SEE DETAIL 'I', L202.
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201 L103DATE: 4/24/2023
PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
258 of 561
MONTHLY WATERING SCHEDULE FOR THE YEAR WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE WORKSHEET FLUSH POINT-SEE "DRIPLINE FLUSH POINT" DETAIL
F
COMPRESSION ADAPTER:
RAIN BIRD 600-CF-1
NOTE: WHEN GLUING THE 600-CF-1
ADAPTER INTO THE PVC TEE, USE
AN ABS TO PVC BONDING SOLVENT
LANDSCAPE DRIPLINE TUBING:
SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND
AIR/VACUUM RELIEF VALVE: RAIN BIRD AR VALVE KIT
(INSTALL AT HIGH POINT IN LANDSCAPE SYSTEM)
A
CONTROL ZONE KIT:
SEE IRRIGATION LEGEND
MAINLINE PIPE
NOTE: SUPPLY HEADER
PVC SCH 40
ZONE 2 WHICH WATERS THE PLATANUS
RACEMOSA / CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE WILL NEED
ONE YEAR TO BE ESTABLISHED.
WITH COMPRESSION FITTINGS:
RAIN BIRD 600-CF-1
MONTHLY WATERING SCHEDULE FOR THE YEAR
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201
DATE: 4/24/2023
PROJECT NUMBER
L104
558.2101.03
259 of 561
NOTE:
THIS PLAN WILL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CITY OF GLENDALE MUNICIPAL CODE AND THE STATE WATER
EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCES. FOR MORE
INFORMATION YOU CAN EMAIL GWP:
[email protected] TO GET THEIR
REQUIREMENTS ,FORMS AND INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS.
I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE AND SUBMIT A
COMPLETE LANDSCAPE PACKAGE..
__________ ________________________
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SIGNATURE
_____________
DATE
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201 L201DATE: 4/24/2023
PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
260 of 561
KARAPEDIAN FAMILY RANCH
1900 RIVERSIDE DRIVE
GLENDALE, CA 91201
L202DATE: 4/24/2023
PROJECT NUMBER 558.2101.03
261 of 561