Agenda packet, special meeting — Glendale City Council, August 13, 2024

A G E N D A
SPECIAL MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

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

are

broadcast

live

Glendale

TV,

viewable

Spectrum

Cable,

channel

and

AT&T

U-
verse,

channel

99. Meetings

are

also

streamed

live

high

definition

(HD)

the

City

webpage,
glendaleca.gov/live
,

YouTube.com/myglendale
,

and

Apple

TV,

Roku,

Amazon

Fire,

iOS

and
Android

devices

using

free

app

called

Cablecast

and

choosing

"Glendale

TV"

from

the

menu.

Meetings

are

also

archived

the

City

Website

for

viewing

anytime

glendaleca.gov/agendas
.

Call

(818)

548-4013

for

program

schedules.

For

public

comments

and

questions

during

the
meeting,

call

(818)

937-8100.

Public

comments

specific

agenda

item

will

taken

when

that
agenda

item

discussed.

you

have

any

question

about

matters

the

agenda,

requests

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

PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION In

compliance

with

the

Americans

with

Disabilities

Act

(ADA)

1990,

auxiliary

hearing

aids,

sign
language

translation,

and

Braille

transcripts

are

available

upon

request.

Assisted

listening

devices
are

available

same-day

upon

request.

The

City

Clerk’

office

should

notified

72 hours

(three
business

days)

soon

practicable

for

requests

regarding

sign

language

translation

and
Braille

transcription

services.

All

documents

open

session

items

this

agenda

that

are
received

less

than

72 hours

prior

this

meeting,

and

are

public

records,

will

available

for

review
in the Office of the City Clerk, 613 E. Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.

Translation

services

are

provided

for

meetings

through

the

use

bilingual

staff

for

speakers

who
wish

utilize

the

service

available.

Speakers

should

state

their

request

contacting

the

City
Clerk’s

office

(818)

548-2090,

least

72 hours

prior

the

scheduled

meeting

soon

as
practicable.

Please

specify

the

language

for

which

you

require

translation.

The

exclusive

use

City
provided

interpreters

not

required

and

persons

are

welcome

use

their

own

interpreter

speak
in their native language.

AUGUST 13, 2024

ROLL CALL
-
1:00 PM
-
Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, August 13, 2024 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on August 8, 2024, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

1 TYPED 8/8/2024 2:37:21 PM
08 13 24
SP CC

SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING
of the City Council is hereby called to meet at

1:00
PM
on
Tuesday, August 13, 2024
, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway,
2 Floor,
Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;

1. Libraries, Arts, and Culture, re: City-Wide Public Art: Montrose Circular Benches a. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to enter into an Agreement for Commission of Artwork with Kassia Rico in an amount not to exceed $300,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund, to design, fabricate, and install a public art piece entitled, “Our Garden Spot,” for the Montrose Circular Benches

2. Management Services, re:

Sister City Program Follow Up
a. Motion Directing Staff on Governance Structure
b. Resolution of Appropriation for Funding an Hourly/Part-Time Senior Administrative Analyst
c. Resolution of Appropriation for Funding a Full-Time Senior Administrative Analyst d. Motion to Increase the Citywide Authorized Salaried Position Count

3. Community Development, re: Update on the General Plan’s Land Use, Mobility, and Environmental Justice Elements (Continued from July 30, 2024. Public Comment Taken on July 30, 2024; No Additional Public Comment Will Be Taken Unless the Matter Substantially Changes.)
a. Motion accepting the status report on the preparation of the Land Use, Mobility, and Environmental Justice Elements, and proposed update to the General Plan Land Use Map, subject to Council comments thereon

4. Management Services, re: Selection of Hollywood Burbank Airport Citizen’s Advisory Committee Members
a. Motion appointing three individuals to represent the City of Glendale on the Hollywood Burbank Airport Citizen’s Advisory Committee

ADJOURNMENT
nd

2 TYPED 8/8/2024 2:37:21 PM
08 13 24
SP CC

1 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: City-Wide Public Art: Montrose Circular Benches

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to enter into an Agreement for Commission of Artwork with Kassia Rico in an amount not to exceed $300,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund, to design, fabricate, and install a public art piece entitled, “Our Garden Spot,” for the Montrose Circular Benches.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for August 13, 2024 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 20, 2024, during the Regular Meeting of the Arts and Culture Commission, Staff presented four design concept proposals for the Montrose Circular Benches. The Arts and Culture Commission approved a Motion to recommend Kassia Rico for the artwork entitled, “Our Garden Spot” for this opportunity.

Staff is now presenting to the Council for consideration a recommended piece of artwork for the Montrose Circular Benches.
3 of 91

21 5
3 2
0 RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Motion authorizing the City Manager to enter into an Agreement for Commission of Artwork with Kassia Rico in an amount not to exceed $300,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund, to design, fabricate, and install a public art piece entitled, “Our Garden Spot,” for the Montrose Circular Benches.

ANALYSIS
On November 27, 2023, LeBasse Projects (public art consultant) released a City-Wide Public Art Landmarks RFQ (EXHIBIT A) via the online application collection website, Submittable. LeBasse Projects also reached out to several local and international artists regarding this opportunity. The RFQ closed on January 19, 2024, and Staff received 230 applications for consideration.

On January 18, 2024, the Library, Arts & Culture Commission appointed Commissioner Tufenkian to represent the Commission on an Artist Review & Selection Committee for reviewing applications for the City-Wide Public Art Landmarks RFQ. In February 2024, the Committee met to review applications and discussed recommendations for finalists to submit design concept proposals for four opportunities: Montrose Circular Benches, Fremont Park Columns Tile Artwork, Palmer Park Basketball Court Mural and 134 Freeway/Patterson Ave. Tunnel. From March – May 2024, LeBasse Projects worked with various artists to prepare design concept proposals for the public art opportunities. Four artists were invited to apply for the Montrose Circular Benches RFP (EXHIBIT B) At the June 20, 2024, Commission meeting, LeBasse Projects provided an overview of the four finalists, and the artists/artist teams presented their design concept proposals for the Montrose Circular Benches for review and consideration by the Commission. Staff have drafted a Guidance Criteria (EXHIBIT C) which provides an overview of the assessment process in addition to a Rubric (EXHIBIT D) which is intended as a tool for Commissioners to utilize when rating each design concept proposal presentation.

During this meeting, the Commission chose Kassia’s Rico’s “Our Garden Spot” as the First Recommendation. Below are photos of three design concepts that Ms. Rico is proposing for each circular bench:

4 of 91

31 5
3 2
0 The Commission chose Sage Vaughn’s “Wildflowers and Butterflies” as the Alternate Recommendation. Below are photos of the three design concepts that Mr. Vaughn is proposing for each circular bench:

During this meeting, GiGi Garcia, Vice-President of the Montrose Shopping Park Association and owner of It Takes A Village … Kids, made public comment in support of the First Recommendation and Alternate Recommendation.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
On March 30, 2023, Staff and LeBasse Projects met with Montrose Shopping Park Association Board Members to discuss potential opportunities for public art in Montrose, specifically on Honolulu Ave. between Ocean View Blvd. and Orangedale Ave. During the site visit various locations for public art opportunities were identified.

On April 6, 2023, the Montrose Shopping Park Association Board approved to focus on the Circular Benches as the first opportunity for public art improvement on Honolulu Ave.

City staff worked with LeBasse Projects to release a Request for Qualifications – Public Art Landmark Opportunities in November 2023 which included the Montrose Circular Benches opportunity being the Montrose-specific public art opportunity.

On March 5, 2024, Staff shared the Montrose Circular Benches – RFP with the Montrose Shopping Park Association Executive Board, and received feedback from the board to incorporate as part of the RFP.

On June 6, 2024, LeBasse Projects, Staff and Chairperson Vidor attended the Montrose Shopping Park Association Board Meeting to share the design concept proposals for the Montrose Circular Benches. The MSPA Board reviewed the designs and shared their feedback with Staff for consideration.
5 of 91

41 5
3 2
0 FISCAL IMPACT
The Montrose Circular Benches will cost $300,000, which was approved as a part of the FY 2024-25 budget. No new appropriation is being requested at this time. The City Council approved funding is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$300,000 43110-2100-LAC-0010-P4148 Urban Art Fund

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

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

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: The City Council may decline to adopt the Motion.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Lessa Pelayo-Lozada, Acting Director of Library, Arts & Culture Prepared by:

Jennifer Fukutomi-Jones, Principal Arts & Culture Administrator 6 of 91

51 5
3 2
0 Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
EXHIBIT A – Glendale City Wide Public Art – Request for Qualifications (11.27.23) EXHIBIT B – Montrose Circular Benches – Request for Proposals (3.5.24) EXHIBIT C – City-Wide Public Art Landmarks – Guidance Criteria for Commission EXHIBIT D – City-Wide Public Art Landmarks – Rubric
EXHIBIT E – Kassia Rico – Montrose Circular Benches Design Concept Proposal EXHIBIT F – ACC_061824_MOTION_Montrose Circular Benches Recommendation 7 of 91

MOTION
Moved by Council Member ______________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby authorizes the City Manager, or a designee, to enter into an Agreement for Commission of Artwork— subject to approval by the City Attorney— with Kassia Rico in an amount not to exceed $300,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Fund, to design, fabricate, and install a public art piece entitled, “Our Garden Spot,” for the Montrose Circular Benches.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
8 of 91

GLENDALE RFQ

OVERALL PROJECT OPPORTUNITY
The City of Glendale is on the path to become an arts and culture destination in the Los Angeles metropolitan region.

Reflecting on its diverse population, history and
innovation in public spaces, the City seeks to further
enrich the day-to-day experiences of the community with its emphasis on the importance of arts and culture.

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

This RFQ outlines three current art opportunities across the City of Glendale.

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

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

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

GLENDALE

EXHIBIT A
9 of 91

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

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

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

ELIGIBILITY
Artists age 18 or older may apply as an individual or as a team. The RFQ is open to all and not restricted to any geographic location but the following considerations will be strongly considered:
• Artists who can demonstrate the ability to oversee the design, fabrication and installation of public works - or who have a history of working with design/build/engineering/fabrication teams to accomplish these needs. • Artists without previous public art experience that demonstrate an ability to manage a team to accomplish the goals are still strongly encouraged to apply.
• Artists in traditionally and historically underrepresented groups are strongly encouraged to apply.
10 of 91

SELECTION PROCESS
The City of Glendale’s Arts and Culture Commission will evaluate all responses to this RFQ and present a short list for review by the Artist Review and Selection Committee for selection.

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

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

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

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

3. CULTURAL EQUITY
Based on application responses:
• Cultural and racial equity will be highly considered throughout the selection process. Cultural equity will be viewed through the lens of artist demographics as well through the perspectives showcased and represented through the artwork and experiences of the Artist or Artist Team.
11 of 91

BUDGET
The budgets for each individual project are included on pages 7-9. Budgets range based on scope of work.

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

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

APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS

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

2. Detailed Resume and CV

3. Samples of Past Projects (Up to 5): Showcase up to 5 r elevant past pr ojects.

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

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

4. References: Submit two references that include client name and contact person along with title, contact details, and specific project information associated with the listed reference. References will only be contacted if the candidate meets the qualifications to continue on in the selection process. 12 of 91

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

RFQ released: November 27th, 2023 (9am PST)
Deadline for questions: December 4th, 2023 (5pm PST)
Response to questions posted: December 8th, 2023 (5pm PST) Deadline to apply: January 19th, 2024 (5pm PST)
Shortlist Selected: February 9th, 2024
•Shortlisted Artists start on conceptual designs to present in March Shortlisted Artists present concepts at Arts and Culture Commission Meeting:

March 2024
Finalists Selected: March 2024

HOW TO APPLY
Applications will be received via Submittable:
https://lebasseprojects.submittable.com/submit
Installation deliveries estimated from Fall 2024 onward. 13 of 91

ART LOCATIONS
14 of 91

OPPORTUNITY 1 | MONTROSE

MONTROSE CIRCULAR BENCHES
Budget $300,000
The neighborhood of Montrose is located North of downtown Glendale. The neighborhood has a lot of foot traffic because of the shops and events that are often held on Honolulu Avenue. This art opportunity is to update the circular benches along Honolulu Avenue.

This location and project is calling for an Artist or Artist Team to deliver a painted or tile mosaic application to the 3 existing benches.
15 of 91

OPPORTUNITY 2 | PALMER PARK

PALMER PARK BASKETBALL MURAL
Artist Design Fee $30,000
Palmer Park is located south of downtown Glendale. The park features picnic areas, a playground, a wading pool, and a basketball court. The large basketball court at Palmer Park is an opportunity for artwork that visitors can engage with.

This location and project is calling for an Artist or Artist Team to deliver a basketball court mural at Palmer Park. This opportunity has a design fee of $30,000 that will be allocated to the artist, installation will be handled separately by the City of Glendale.
16 of 91

OPPORTUNITY 3 | PATTERSON AVE TUNNEL
PATTERSON AVE / 134 TUNNEL
Budget $300,000
Near Fremont Park is a pedestrian tunnel that extends under the 134 Freeway, from Patterson Ave to N Kenilworth Ave. As one of the few pedestrian friendly places to cross the freeway, the tunnel is frequented by the community. Currently, it is dimly lit and often needs to be repainted due to graﬃti.

This location and project is calling for an Artist or Artist Team to deliver a lighting installation that would make the tunnel a brighter and more inviting space for pedestrians to use.
17 of 91

FAQS

1. Who can apply to the Glendale Art RFQ?
The RFQ is open to artists 18+.

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

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

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

5. Will artists need to submit an application for each location? No, artists will only need to submit one application. The application will allow artists to check each location they are interested in applying for. 18 of 91

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

7. When is the deadline to apply?
The deadline to apply to the RFQ is January 19th, 2024 at 5pm PST.

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

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

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

11. How can artists submit the descriptions of the ﬁve work examples? Artists can submit five different files, one for each work example, with the description of that artwork in each of those files. Artists can also combine all work examples and descriptions into a single PDF .
19 of 91

GLENDALE | MONTROSE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

OVERALL PROJECT OPPORTUNITY
The City of Glendale is on the path to become an arts and culture destination in the Los Angeles metropolitan region.

Reflecting on its diverse population, history and innovation in public spaces, the City seeks to further enrich the day- to-day experiences of the community with its emphasis on the importance of arts and culture.

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

This RFP outlines a current art opportunity in the
neighborhood of Montrose in Glendale, CA.

This artist or artist team RFP calls for one specific project opportunity in the City of Glendale. The aim for this artwork opportunity is to create world-class a public artwork that is designed to engage the community, and showcase the cultural diversity of the City and enhance the various civic and public spaces.

We encourage Artists and Artist Teams to consider how their own practice relates to the conceptual and visual demands and how their art practice might address the stated project goals. When applying to the RFP , Artists and Artist Teams are encouraged to demonstrate creative applications to support the area and activation of a community interconnected by its public art.

GLENDALE | MONTROSE RFP

EXHIBIT B
20 of 91

Artists or Artist Teams will be asked to address the selected locations as landmark visual opportunities and to create an engaging and dynamic element inviting residents and visitors to the City to interact, connect and experience the art.

Artist and Artist Teams should take the following under consideration across each of the opportunities:
• Physical engagement with the public
• Creating multiple visual angles and approaches
• All day activation - Day and night
• Utilization of creative mediums
• Artwork sustainability and conservation

RFP REQUESTED INFORMATION
At this stage, finalist artists and artist teams are being asked to create a site specific concept for the requested location. Each artist team will be provided a stipend of $500 to be paid upon delivery of concept plan.

Please provide the Selection Committee with the following details:
• Create a site specific concept for the proposed location • Provide a narrative brief about the concept
• Detailed concept renderings and plans
• Concept material plan and approximate dimensions
• Estimated budget
• Estimated timeline for fabrication
21 of 91

RFP TIMELINE

HOW TO SUBMIT
Please email proposals to:
[email protected]
BUDGET
The budget for this art opportunity is listed on its respective page. Budgets range based on scope of work.

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

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

RFP released: March 5th, 2024 (9am PST)
Deadline to Submit: April 1st, 2024 (5pm PST)
Concepts Presented to Arts Commission for selection: April 4th, 2024 Installation deliveries estimated Spring 2025.
22 of 91

MONTROSE

This location and project is calling for an Artist or Artist Team to deliver a painted, sculptural, metal, or tile mosaic application to the 3 existing benches. Additional photos are on the following page.
23 of 91

MONTROSE CIRCULAR BENCHES
24 of 91

Ve
rsion as of 4.4.22 (J. Fukutomi-Jones)
City-Wide Public Art Landmarks
Guidance Criteria for Arts and Culture Commission
Purpose of the project:
(Excerpts taken from the Glendale City-Wide Public Art Landmarks RFQ) The aim across the various artwork opportunities is to create world-class public artwork in a diverse range of mediums that are designed to engage the community, showcase the cultural diversity of the City and enhance the various civic and public spaces. . . .

Selected artists and artist teams will be asked to demonstrate creative applications to support the building and activation of a city and community interconnected by its public art.

What has GLAC Staff done so far?
• Worked with Art Consultant (LeBasse Projects) to narrow list of submissions, and invited proposals from the short list.
• Reviewed proposals and selected artists to recommend to the Commission. • Artists have already been evaluated and determined to:
o Have a strong artistic ability based on past work.
o Be able to successfully execute a project on time and within budget. o Connect to the art project opportunity offered.
o Show a strong sense of public engagement and connectivity to the community.
o Be able to activate the work through public engagement. o Satisfy or support cultural equity goals.

What is needed from the Arts and Culture Commission?
• Consideration and assessment of how well Artist/Artist Team has met the criteria in the rubric set out below.
• Clear feedback regarding any revisions or changes the Commission feels are reasonably needed in order to warrant final design approval, keeping in mind budgetary constraints on time, scale, and materials.
• Articulated concerns regarding any possible liability or risk factors that have not previously been noted and/or considered.
• A decision as to whether the proposed projects should be recommended for City Council approval.

The Rubric: Commission to consider how well Artist/Artist Team has addressed:

EXHIBIT C
• Parameters set out in the RFP guidelines:
o Physical engagement with the public
o Creating multiple visual angles and approaches
25 of 91

Ve
rsion as of 4.4.22 (J. Fukutomi-Jones)
o All day activation - Day and night
o Utilization of creative mediums
o Artwork sustainability and conservation
• Is the artwork relevant to the City’s stated purpose for these projects? o World-class public artwork
o Designed to engage community
o Showcase cultural diversity
o Enhance civic and public spaces
• What is the expected life span of the project?
• Are the proposed materials high quality and appropriate for the project? • What maintenance requirements will need to be met by the City? o Are the maintenance requirements affordable and/or easy to implement? • Are there any liability concerns and/or is the work susceptible to theft, damage, vandalism? Such as, but not limited to:
o Sharp edges
o Surfaces susceptible to overheating
o Trip hazards
o Easy to remove
o Use of delicate materials
26 of 91

As of 4.4.22 (J. Fukutomi-Jones)
City-Wide Public Art Landmarks RFP Rubric
This Rubric is intended as a tool for Commissioners to utilize in order to accurately and consistently assess each proposal. As a recommended strategy, please apply a rating to each category during the artist/artist team’s design concept presentation proposal. If anything rates less than a “5” please include a comment for discussion.
5 – Excellent, hits all the marks
4 – Very good, could use some improvement
3 – Good, but needs more work
2 – Not great, will need substantial work to improve
1 – Not acceptable and all and needs complete revision
How well has the Artist/Artist Team addressed: Rating Comments Parameters set out in the RFP guidelines:
o Physical engagement with the public
o Creating multiple visual angles and approaches
o All day activation - Day and night
o Utilization of creative mediums
o Artwork sustainability and conservation
Is the artwork relevant to the City’s stated purpose for these projects?
o World-class public artwork
o Designed to engage community
o Showcase cultural diversity
o Enhance civic and public spaces
Expected life span of the project.

The proposed materials are high quality and
appropriate for the project.

Maintenance requirements that will need to be met by
the City are affordable and easy to implement.

Artist/Artist Team has addressed liability concerns
and/or ensured that the work is not susceptible to
theft, damage, or vandalism.

EXHIBIT D
27 of 91

5 KASSIA RICO

EXHIBIT E
28 of 91

Budget: $2900
Presenting Organization: Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority Location: Posters integrated into Metro System’s stations and buses; original artwork submitted to the Los Angeles Metro’s Private Collection Medium: Vectorized Print-Ready Art
Dimensions: N/A
Date: June 2022
In Our Hands - Public Art Poster
Honored to announce the first collaboration with the folks at the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority Arts Program to create a poster for their local artists series, SIL VER LININGS. Metro Art enriches the customer experience through innovative visual arts and programming, promoting ridership and connecting people, sites, and neighborhoods across Los Angeles County. This site-specific artwork seamlessly incorporated the expanding Metro system, enhancing the visual aesthetics of transit environments and establishing a distinct sense of place.

PAST WORK
29 of 91

Public Art Visualization for Los Angeles Metropolitan
Transportation Authority by Kassia Rico

PAST WORK
30 of 91

Los Angeles Times Collection
One selection of an illustration series covering mental health for Californians. For this editorial project, I was invited as an artist to investigate real Southern Californian stories and community voices through a series of lead artwork with The Los Angeles Times.

Budget: $500 / per graphic
Organization: The Los Angeles Times,
Art Director, Ibanez-Baldor, Martina
Location: LatinX Archives
Medium: Vectorized Art
Dimensions: Digital, N/A
Date: January 2023

PAST WORK
31 of 91

www.kassiarico.com [email protected] 626.283.1587 KR Studio HQ
Glendale, CA 91205
32 of 91

Montrose Benches, Our Garden Spot
A Journey Through Time and Art
The artistic concept was developed by Glendale-based
artist Kassia Rico. Nestled between the Verdugo Mountains and San Rafael Hills, the project themes highlight the natural beauty of Montrose and a serene vantage point overlooking the historic Glendale & Montrose Railway site. The three circular benches are a fusion of art and history - a portal - where the past is woven into the present. Crafted with smalti glass, the journey of the bench begins before the entrance, where a bespoke art application encircling each bench shines, echoing community stories and reflecting light and history in equal measure.

Upon entering, the intermediate space illuminates a legend through chroma tile and smalti inlay. As you move eastward, a tiled analog clock fashioned from a preserved railway ticket marks the founding year, surrounded by names that recall the land use.

Each element, from the smalti glass to the stainless steel edges, is carefully chosen to complement the natural beauty and cultural richness of the site. Together, they form a cohesive narrative that invites discovery, wholeness, and connection.
33 of 91

“As I walked down Honolulu Avenue, the heart of Montrose, I found inspiration in the everyday scenes and the array of locals I encountered. The murmur of conversations, the laughter of children at play, and the aroma of freshly brewed coffee from nearby cafes drew me into the city’s vibrant culture. In Village Square, an encounter with a married couple on their way to dinner highlighted the simple joys and challenges of daily life. At Moo Mia, the relaxed atmosphere, framed by lush trees and open skies, was cherished by young couples and those seeking a moment of solitude. Conversations with residents, like one near the Star Cafe bench about our shared heritages and favorite spots in Glendale and Montrose, have been invaluable.

These walks are treasured opportunities for me to connect with the city’s rich historical charm, witnessing how history and modern-day life blend in the actions and interactions of its citizens. The inspiration for my art project comes from these individuals. Their varied backgrounds and the city’s heritage are the foundations of my work—a heartfelt tribute to the people who collectively shape this city. My project seeks to capture the community’s essence, encouraging public engagement and nurturing a sense of belonging.”
-Kassia
The connections I have with the following neighborhoods range in nature from living or working there, being born there, growing up there or frequent visits.

Honolulu Avenue
A Mosaic of Community and Heritage
Honolulu Avenue is poised for a transformation, one that intertwines the threads of history with the heart of the community.

We’re introducing three handcrafted art installations that will serve as landmarks of engagement, history, and beauty.

Principal Goals

1.) History of the Site
Craft three handmade art installations that embody the spirit and history of the city, with each location serving as a unique story and weaving the street’s history into the present.

2.) Enhance Sightlines
Enhance the existing brick and cement structures with areas of emphasis, both on the street and across it, featuring visually stunning designs that invite interaction and contemplation.

3.) A Meeting Place
Generate a communal space that fosters a sense of belonging and celebrates an interconnectedness between humanity and nature.

4.) Respect for Integration
Create artworks that are bold and harmonious with the
environment, challenge our understanding of art, and inspire visitors and residents intellectually, aesthetically, and emotionally.

3.) Generate a Loop of Converging Meanings
Sloping hills, hibiscus flowers, wings of a butterfly, forget-me-not flower petals, peacock feathers, and an analog clock offer viewers many interpretations.

Our goal is to craft an immersive experience that honors the legacy of Honolulu Avenue in a single open voice while inspiring a new generation of stories and connections.
35 of 91

Moo Mia Bench Concept
Diameter: 14’7” | Smalti-Wrapped Mosaic Feature
Base Color: Softened rose
Floor Feature: Multicolor hand-cut smalti mosaic
Bench Seat Tiles: Varigated glass tile, in rose
Durability: Selected for its enduring elegance and ability to withstand the elements
Focal Point: Celebrating nature and pollinators from Sparr Heights’ historical orchards and vineyards
Outer Wall: Sealed brick with modular tile band, painted brick, plaster, or stucco
Accent: An analog clock directing attention (east) with option of typographic quote detail
Thematic Essence: An invitation for visitors to linger and experience a sense of unity and wholeness.

This is a digital representation of the concept art only, and not the final tile and wall treatment. 36 of 91

Village Square Bench Concept
Diameter: 14’5” | Smalti-Wrapped Mosaic Feature
Base Color: Softened lime
Floor Feature: Hand-cut smalti mosaic in soft citrus-hues Bench Seat Tiles: Varigated glass tile, in citrus-hues
Durability: Selected for its enduring elegance and ability to withstand the elements
Floor Palette: Calming blues and dappled greens
Accents: Centered Analog Clock (pointing eastward) with option of typographic quote detail
Outer Wall: Sealed brick with modular tile band, painted brick, plaster, or stucco
Edge Treatment: User-friendly steel delineation
Materials: Options of Stainless Steel, Nickel/Brass Plating, or Corten Steel
Thematic Representation: Homage to the Montrose peacock.

This is a digital representation of the concept art only, and not the final tile and wall treatment. 37 of 91

Star Cafe Bench Concept
Diameter: 13’11” | Smalti-Wrapped Mosaic Feature
Base Color: Stillwater blue, symbolizing the power of Jewel City’s water Floor Feature: Hand-cut smalti mosaic in stillwater blue Bench Seat Tiles: Varigated glass tile, in stillwater blue Exterior Motif: Dual Hibiscus, harmonizing with local architecture Artistic Inspiration: Tongva tribe history and movement across the two mountains, city flora, and historic railway
Outer Wall: Sealed brick with modular tile band, painted brick, plaster, or stucco
Accents: Analog Clock (east) with option of typographic quote detail Edge Detailing: Stainless Steel, Nickel/Brass Plating, or Corten Steel Thematic Representation: City’s essence,
transportation, mountains, and the cycle of time.

This is a digital representation of the concept art only, and not the final tile and wall treatment. 38 of 91

39 of 91

CUTTING
124 INCH

3.25 INCH
304
Stainless
Corten
Steel
Material:
x3
x3
x2
x2
x3
40 of 91

41 of 91

42 of 91

43 of 91

44 of 91

45 of 91

46 of 91

“They’ll wonder why they feel so good. People will gather at our garden spot, and flourish.” 47 of 91

Thank You
Please let me know if you have any questions. I’m happy to offer further details or additional comments, if needed.

Thank you and I am looking forward to hearing back from you! Artist
Kassia Rico
Smalti Fabricator and Installer
Mosaicos Venecianos De Mexico
In Alliance
Vivienne Khau, Designer & 3D Modeler
LaserBend, Steel Fabricator
Chop ‘em Down Films, Videography Consulant
Salomón Huerta, Painter, Mentor & Consultant
Studio Doff, Architect & Visual Design Consultant
Luna Ikuta, Industrial Design Consultant
Xavier Rumph, Urban Design & Industrial Design Consultant 48 of 91

MOTION
Moved by Commissioner Zadorian, seconded by Commissioner Tufenkian, that the Arts and Culture Commission hereby recommends that the City Council authorize the City Manager, or a designee, to enter into an Agreement for Commission of Artwork with an artist/artist team to design, fabricate, and install a public art piece for the Montrose Circular Benches in an amount not to exceed $300,000 dispersed from the Urban Art Program Fund, as more fully outlined in the June 20, 2024 Report by the Library, Arts & Culture's Principal Arts & Culture Administrator:

First Recommendation: Kassia Rico, for the artwork entitled, "Our Garden Spot." Alternate Recommendation: Sage Vaughn, for the artwork entitled, "Wildflowers and Butterflies."
Votes as Follows:

Ayes: Chairperson Vidor, Commissioner Tufenkian, Commissioner Zadorian
Noes:

Absent: Vice-Chair Yank
Abstain:

THE MOTION WAS ADOPTED BY THE ARTS AND CULTURE COMMISSION AT ITS REGULAR MEETING HELD ON: Thursday, June 20, 2024
A�s.b .an City Attomey
DATE� .. Of, L 2.S ! ?J-J: I

EXHIBIT F
49 of 91

5 4
0 0

AGENDA ITEM

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Report: Sister City Program Follow Up

1. Motion Directing Staff on Governance Structure

2. Resolution of Appropriation for Funding an Hourly/Part-Time Senior Administrative Analyst

3. Resolution of Appropriation for Funding a Full-Time Senior Administrative Analyst

4. Motion to Increase the Citywide Authorized Salaried Position Count

COUNCIL ACTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 25, 2024, staff presented a report to the City Council detailing the history of Glendale’s Sister City relationships, comparing governance structures of nearby cities, and seeking input on program components. Following the direction provided by Council at this meeting, staff has completed several steps, including updating records to include Friendship Cities, rejoining Sister Cities International, and reaching out to inactive sister cities and community members for engagement in a sister city committee. Staff also researched potential governance structures including: a committee, a city commission, a 501(c)(3) corporation and a partnership model. Staff is seeking Council direction on governance structure and the corresponding level of staff resources.

Item Type: Action Item
Approved for8/13/2024 calendar
50 of 91

2 RECOMMENDATION
That Council provide direction on a governance structure to oversee the sister city program and the corresponding level of staff resources.

ANALYSIS
On June 25, 2024, staff presented a report (Exhibit 1) to inform the City Council on the history of Glendale Sister City relationships, showcase governance structures of nearby cities and seek Council input on program components. This report is a follow up to the direction provided by Council at that meeting:
•Include Friendship Cities in records and outreach.
•Rejoin Sister Cities International
•Reach out to inactive sister cities to gauge their interest in reactivating relationship •Engage community members about their interest in serving on a committee •Research and present governance structures to oversee program Action Items Update
Friendship Cities Inclusion
Friendship Cities are now included in records and outreach efforts. Glendale’s four friendship cities include:

1. Kentron Administrative District, Yerevan, Armenia

2. Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, South Korea

3. Haeundae-gu, Busan, South Korea

4. Paju City, South Korea
Rejoin Sister Cities International
The city has successfully rejoined Sister Cities International as of June 26, 2024.

Tri Cities Sister Cities Convening
Glendale has initiated the Tri Cities Sister Cities Convening to discuss best practices and collaboration amongst Glendale, Burbank and Pasadena. By engaging in this Sister Cities dialogue, the cities aim to build stronger relationships and learn from each other to enhance programs.

Outreach to Inactive Cities
Staff reached out to inactive sister cities to gauge their interest in reactivating relationships and all of them indicated their desire to re-engage with Glendale.

Community Engagement re: Committee
Staff reached out to community members about their interest in serving on a sister city committee. The following community members have expressed an interest in serving on the organization to manage the sister city program:
•Edith Fuentes, Filipino community liaison
•Chang Lee, Korean community liaison
•Keiko Nakada, Shoesian Tea House (through Mike Meltzer) 51 of 91

3 •Guillermo Garcia, Glendale Latino Association and GLAC •Glendale Community College Student Representative (to be determined) Emeritus Status
Due to a lack of response from Tlaquepaque, Mexico, and the dire circumstances affecting Martuni in the Republic of Artsakh, both cities will be entered into emeritus status.

New Sister City Relationship Requests
Staff also responded to Noyemberyan’s new sister city request about Council’s direction to not add additional cities at this time. In the spirit of information exchange, staff continues to provide resources and information when asked by international cities.

Governance Structure Options
At the June 25th meeting, staff presented the governance structures for the City of Burbank and Pasadena:

The City of Burbank has a Sister City Committee that is a separate entity from the City of Burbank with a committee governance structure that includes one to two staff from the City of Burbank assisting the community-driven program, which is currently primarily focused on international student exchange programs.

The City of Pasadena has a Sister City Committee that is a separate entity from the City of Pasadena and operates with by-laws, committee governance structure, and has one staff member assigned to support the program. The Pasadena Sister City Committee serves as an umbrella 501(c)3 with each of its sister cities as subcommittees. The Committee is run by community volunteers and is the most active amongst the tri-cities, with at least one event per quarter and regularly scheduled Committee and Subcommittee meetings.

Staff has identified four options for structuring governance. These include a committee, similar to the City’s Armenian Genocide Commemoration Event Organizing Committee, a City commission, similar to the many Boards and Commissions the City currently has, a 501(c)3 corporation, similar to the model used by the Glendale Youth Alliance (GYA) and, fourth, a partnership model, where the City would partner/contract with an existing non-profit to run the program on behalf of the City. Below is a table that summarizes some of the benefits and challenges of each option:

Governance
Structure
Benefits Challenges
Committee
(Similar to Armenian
Genocide
Commemoration
Organizing
Committee)
•Easy to establish and
modify
•Flexible and quick to
assemble
•Lower administrative costs
•City oversight
•Eligible for grants
•Limited authority due to advisory
role and less formal structure
•Less structured decision-making
•Potentially less accountability due
to no audits or reporting
requirements
•Dependence on city resources
•Possible lack of continuity due to
changing membership
52 of 91

4 Commission
(Similar to
Community Services
and Parks
Commission)
•Formal authority and
recognition
•City oversight
•Access to city resources
and funding
•Greater accountability and
transparency
•Stable governance
•Eligible for grants
•More bureaucratic
•Slower decision-making
•Requires formal establishment
through City
•Higher administrative costs
•Limited fundraising capabilities due
to association as a City
Commission
•City staff resources needed for
compliance
501(c)3
Corporation
(Similar to Glendale
Youth Alliance)
•Formal authority and
recognition
•Can raise funds
independently
•Greater control over
program activities
•Flexibility in decision making
•Engage volunteers and
community
•Long-term partnerships
•Eligible for tax-exempt
status
•Eligible for grants
•Requires formal establishment with
IRS regulations.
•Ongoing compliance and reporting
requirements
•Need for dedicated Board and
management
•Potential funding challenges
•Risk of mission drift
•May require administrative and
operational support from City Legal,
Finance and HR Departments.
•Higher administrative costs (open
own bank account and hire a CPA
firm).

Partnership model
(Similar to Ascencia,
City contracts with
them to run the
homeless shelter)
•Quick implementation with
MOU. City can appropriate
funds and set guidelines in
the form of an MOU
•Leveraging mutual
resources (City & Non-profit)
•Existing community ties and
community engagement
through non-profit’s existing
volunteer base
•Independent from City but
aligned with City mission.
•Being associated with a city
can enhance the reputation
of the organization
•City may have less direct control
over program operations.
•Differences in governance and
accountability standards can create
conflicts.
•Potential for misalignment in
priorities or methods.
•Staffing resources/commitment
from non-profit.
•Changes in leadership or political
priorities can impact the partnership
The Committee and partnership model structures are the simplest and fastest to implement and would require the least City staff resources. The City Commission would require the Council’s establishment of said commission, appointment of commissioners by the Council, and the ongoing resources of the City Clerk, GTV and IT to meet Brown Act requirements and was not preferred by Council during the June 25th meeting. The 501(c)3 model would require the most amount of staff time in terms of initial set up, mainly since the City would have a relationship with said non-profit with some of the additional requirements explained below.
53 of 91

5 Non-profit corporation (independent of City vs. with relationship to City) Direct City involvement in the formation or creation of a nonprofit under city government may involve additional oversight and compliance with laws such as the Brown Act, Public Records Act, and Political Reform Act, ensuring transparency and accountability. When a city council or other elected group creates an organization to do work on their behalf, the board of that organization is considered a "legislative body" under the Brown Act (Government Code § 54952(c)). This means the board must follow the rules of the Brown Act, as well as the Public Records Act and Political Reform Act (conflict of interest law).

In contrast, independent nonprofits only need to adhere to standard state and federal regulations for nonprofit corporations.

A city-established nonprofit may also be subject to additional city oversight, including reporting requirements, aligning their activities with City policies. Independent nonprofits, governed by their own board of directors, have greater autonomy in decision-making and strategic direction, though they must still comply with nonprofit regulations. City government nonprofits may have limited operational flexibility due to the need to comply with city policies, potentially slowing decision-making. Independent nonprofits have greater flexibility, allowing for quicker responses to opportunities and challenges.

Governance Structure Tied to Staffing Resources
At the June 25th meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with the next phase of this effort with the employment of a new part-time employee position to manage the City’s sister city program.

If Council elects to form a non-profit corporation, it will require additional staffing resources in the form of a full-time salaried employee to adequately help set up the corporation and manage the ongoing Board meetings, the finances, the required administrative record keeping and to operate the programs and special events.

FISCAL IMPACT
Under both Scenarios listed below, staff recommends hiring an employee at the level of a Senior Administrative Analyst position to manage this program.

Based on prior Council direction, the hourly/part-time costs for a Senior Administrative Analyst are noted below in option one.

Alternatively, if Council desires to proceed with the establishment of a non-profit model and hire a full-time position, then it will require increasing the Citywide Authorized Salaried Position Count from 1,620 to 1,621. The costs associated with option two are below.

Based on which option is chosen, the cost associated with either scenario was not included as a part of the FY 2024-25 adopted budget. Thus, staff is seeking approval of a resolution of appropriation from the General Fund Undesignated Fund Balance. The appropriation requests are outlined below:
54 of 91

6 Option 1: Hourly/Part-Time Senior Administrative Analyst (20 Hours/Week) Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$53,000 GL: 25300-1010-000 GL: 41300-1010-
MSD-6504-P0000-
General Fund
Undesignated Fund
Balance
Option 2: Full-Time Senior Administrative Analyst (40 Hours/Week) Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$126,000 GL: 25300-1010-000 GL: 41100-1010-
MSD-6504-P0000-
General Fund
Undesignated Fund
Balance

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
N/A

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1) Council may choose to approve the non-profit model with the addition of a full-time salaried position increasing the citywide authorized position count as well as a Resolution of Appropriation.
2) Council may ask staff to conduct additional research. 3) Council may choose another alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Stephanie Mkhlian, Legislative Affairs and Communications Manager Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: 6/25/2024 Sister Cities Staff Report
55 of 91

7 56 of 91

MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by Council
Member , that with respect to a proposed governance
structure for Glendale’s Sister City Program, as discussed in the Report to the City Council dated August 13, 2024, the Council directs staff as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain
57 of 91

58 of 91

59 of 91

M O T I O N

Moved by Council Member , seconded by Council
Member , that the Council hereby approves an
increase of the Citywide Authorized Salaried Position Count from 1,620 to 1,621.

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
60 of 91

AGENDA ITEM

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Report: Sister City Program Update

1. Motion to Note and File Report, and Direct Staff

COUNCIL ACTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Sister City Program was initiated by President Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956 to foster international exchanges and goodwill. Glendale's Sister City Program, established in 1960, aims to enhance cultural, educational, and professional ties while addressing mutual challenges and promoting economic well-being.

The City of Glendale currently has eleven sister city relationships across the countries of Japan, Mexico, Armenia, the former Republic of Artsakh, South Korea, the Dominican Republic, and the Philippines. Notable projects include the "Whispering Pine Teahouse" in Glendale and vehicle donations to sister cities in Mexico.

This report is presented to inform the City Council on the history of Glendale Sister City relationships, showcase governance structures of nearby cities and seek Council input on program components, including the formalization of relationships, program focus, processes for new city partnerships, delisting inactive cities, engagement strategies, reporting, and community outreach enhancements.

Item Type: Action Item
Approved for 6/25/2024 calendar
61 of 91

2 RECOMMENDATION
That Council provide input on the program components including the formalization of relationships, program focus, processes for new city partnerships, delisting inactive cities, engagement strategies, reporting, and community outreach enhancements and direct staff to establish a separate entity, similar to Burbank and Pasadena, to manage the Sister City program.

ANALYSIS
Background
The sister city program was launched at a White House conference in 1956 when President Dwight D. Eisenhower called for massive exchanges between Americans and the peoples of other lands. Hundreds of American cities responded to that call and are continuing to carry out meaningful exchanges with their partners in 136 nations around the world.

A Sister City program facilitates partnerships between cities founded on shared cultural activities, economic similarities, and mutual interests, serving as platforms for collaboration in areas such as arts, tourism, and economic development. Partnerships may arise from business connections, travel, similar industries, diaspora communities, or shared history.

Sister city relationships aim to foster international goodwill and cooperation.

Glendale’s Sister City Program
The goals of the City of Glendale’s Sister City Program are to exchange cultural, educational, and professional programs in each city, and to share common problems and solutions to daily activities. The program also promotes interest and good will, sharing attractions and ideas about natural resources with one another. These relationships are mutually beneficial to the economic well-being of each city.

The selection of a sister city is based upon several guidelines, including similarities in cultural activities, economics, size, businesses, manufacturing, entertainment venues, and accessibility/transportation.

The objectives and guidelines of the City of Glendale’s Sister City Program are listed in (Exhibit 1) and described below. The Sister City Objectives and Guidelines is a document adopted by Council to guide the decision regarding the establishment of a new Sister City relationship.
• Formally initiate ongoing communication between the sister cities to exchange cultural, educational, and professional programs of each city. • Find solutions to common challenges faced by both cities. • Promote goodwill.
• Promote various aspects of each community, such as business and natural resources.
• In addition to establishing cultural exchange, establish relationships that benefit the economic well-being of Glendale and its sister cities.
62 of 91

3 The first step in selecting a sister city involves the formation of an organizing committee made up of community members that live, work, or attend school in Glendale. The selected committee members serve as official representatives of the Sister City Program who manage the program with the support of City staff. The committee follows the guidelines adopted by the City of Glendale when making a determination whether to engage in a new sister city relationship.

The guidelines are as follows:
• Cultural: The city should have an identified cultural organization that promotes the heritage of their city.
• Economic: The city should have a stable economy with viable sources of income. • Size: The city should be of medium size, comparable with the status of Glendale within the County of Los Angeles and the State of California. • Business: The city should have some industrial base, but must have commercial and retail businesses producing income for the city.
• Manufacturing: The city should have products being manufactured that could conceivably be exported to other countries, such as the US. • Entertainment Venues: The city should have sites where tourists and residents alike can enjoy themselves.
• Accessibility/Transportation: The city should have a modern transportation system and accessibility by road, rail, and/or air.
• Resorts/Hotels: The city should have modern hotels and/or resort locations where tourists can stay to enjoy the area.

Since the inception of the Sister City Program in Glendale in 1960 with Glendale’s first sister city, Higashiosaka, Japan, the program has fostered many collaborations. Over time, artwork has been gifted to and received from each of the sister cities, student exchange opportunities have been coordinated, and governmental officials have visited their respective sister cities to learn more about the culture and operations. One of the most notable examples of this collaboration is the "Shoseian" or "Whispering Pine Teahouse" located in the Japanese Friendship Garden at Brand Park in Glendale. This teahouse was built in 1974 through the combined efforts of the Sister Cities of Glendale and Higashiosaka. It is one of the few traditional Japanese teahouses open to the public in the US. The teahouse represents the spirit of goodwill, lasting peace, and friendship between the people of each country. It was designed by architect Hayahiko Takase to represent a unique blending of Western and Eastern design, and the spirit of cross-cultural community.

The Japanese Friendship Garden surrounding the tea house is available for weddings and other special events.

The City of Glendale has also provided a tremendous amount of resources to its two sister cities in Mexico by donating dozens of vehicles such as digger trucks, water tender trucks, flatbed trucks, buses, and police and fire vehicles for use in their municipalities. The City also worked with the Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) to donate two scoreboards to Rosarito. The City had a very active relationship with its sister cities in Mexico, and coordinated staff training exchanges on a regular basis. Unfortunately, this collaboration which had momentum for many years after the sister city relationships were established has dwindled due to leadership changes.
63 of 91

4 With Glendale’s sister city collaboration with Ghapan, Armenia, the City donated a fire paramedic vehicle that is used to transport patients to the country’s capital, Yerevan, for emergencies. GUSD and Glendale Community College both formed their own partnerships with Ghapan as well, including a fundraiser organized by GUSD to renovate school facilities in Ghapan. Representatives from Glendale Adventist Medical Center took a trip to Ghapan to explore what healthcare needs Ghapan required.

The City formed sister city relationships with the Cities of Goseong and Gimpo, both in South Korea. As a result, the City of Glendale has engaged in cultural exchanges with both cities, has hosted delegations from South Korea, and has visited the cities to gain a better understanding of Korean culture, business, and government.

In 2016, the City of Glendale entered into a sister city relationship with Santiago de los Caballeros in the Dominican Republic and in 2023, entered into a sister city relationship with Santa Rosa, Laguna in the Philippines.

Glendale’s eleven sister cities include:

In response to Council questions, staff has prepared a table (Exhibit 2) listing the sister cities, year established, representatives, and most recent activity, if any. 64 of 91

5 Sister City vs. Friendship/Friendly City
Generally, friendship cities are less formal than sister cities. In some cities, friendship city is often used as a first stage in the relationship, and after it is strengthened and the partners are sure they want a long-term relationship they will become sister cities.

The City of Glendale has received requests for and has signed agreements with cities to establish Friendly City relations. While there is no formal organization to establish Friendly City relations, past Mayors have signed Memorandum of Understandings (MOUs) with three cities in South Korea: Incheon Metropolitan, Boeun, and Hwasun. The MOUs to establish a Friendly City relation indicate that the City of Glendale agrees to exchange information to establish a friendly environment for mutual benefit and development by promoting exchange programs between citizens, students, and government officials. The Boeun friendly city status was changed to sister city in 2016.

Research on Neighboring Cities
Staff gathered information from the cities of Burbank and Pasadena on their sister city programs:

City of Burbank
Burbank has a Sister City Committee that is a separate entity from the City of Burbank with a committee governance structure that includes one to two staff from the City of Burbank assisting the community-driven program, which is currently primarily focused on international student exchange programs. The City of Burbank is currently conducting community outreach to revamp the program focus and guidelines. Early indications are that the City will be adding additional funds to enhance their program.

City of Pasadena
Pasadena has a Sister City Committee that is a separate entity from the City of Pasadena and operates with by-laws, committee governance structure, and has one staff member assigned to support the program. The Pasadena Sister City Committee serves as an umbrella 501c3 with the each of its sister cities as subcommittees. The Committee is run by community volunteers and is the most active amongst the tri-cities, with at least one event per quarter and regularly scheduled Committee and subcommittee meetings. The City of Pasadena is currently undergoing revisions to their program guidelines, informed by their Committee.
65 of 91

6 Program Comparison Chart
Below is a chart that summarizes the programs of Burbank, Pasadena and Glendale:

BURBANK PASADENA GLENDALE
GOVERNANCE Sister City Committee
Sister City Committee,
with subcommittees per
Sister City
City operated

GOVERNANCE

ESTABLISHED
Upon signing first sister
city in 1960
City Board in August
1960
Upon signing first sister
city in 1960

SISTER CITY
COUNT Five (one per country) Six (one per country) Eleven (multiple per country)

PROGRAM
FOCUS
Student Exchange
Program
Student Exchange
Program Non-specific

CITY LEAD
OFFICE Burbank Public Library Pasadena Mayor's Office City Manager's Office STAFF
SUPPORT 1-2 staff assigned 1 staff assigned ¼ staff assigned

CITY BUDGET

ALLOCATED
$14,000 annually for the 2
student exchange
programs
$2,500-$3,000 per Sister
City, $15,000-$18,000
annually
Approximately $2,000
(total)
ANNUAL
COST/DUES $25/individual or $50/family $25 per City, $10 per student N/A
SCI MEMBER Yes Yes Formerly, but not
currently
66 of 91

7 Sister Cities International (SCI)
Both Burbank and Pasadena are part of Sister Cities International (SCI), which serves as the clearinghouse for local programs nationwide, providing services such as compiling statistics, publicizing the efforts of sister city programs, projects and volunteers, recognizing young artists and international scholars, and offering various grant programs to its members each year. The cost to join this program for a city of our size is $1,030/year. One of the benefits is the ability to have the organization’s sister city relationships showcased on their website as well as one-on-one guidance to Sister City strategy. A full list of membership benefits is included here:
• Connect with foreign communities
• Access to the SCI affiliations database and SCI guidance and support during the affiliation process
• Technical assistance on building, funding, and managing a local sister city program
• International training, cross-cultural expertise, protocol advice, and development materials
• Participation in virtual global roundtables linking cities around the world, including networking with ambassadors/diplomats
• Access to municipal professionals and political leaders throughout the world • SCI publications, including SCI News, Report to the Membership, the SCI directory, and the annual convention and awards programs • Reduced registration and exhibit fees for regional, national, and international conferences
• Eligibility for innovative grant programs, from youth exchange to municipal training
• Discounted group and incentive travel programs
• Networking opportunities through state, regional, bilateral, and international SCI conferences and meetings
• Networking with other world leaders in the SCI network Exhibit 3, a Guide to Establishing Sister City Relationships prepared by the Sister Cities International (SCI) has helpful information on operating a robust sister city program. 67 of 91

8 Program Components
Staff is seeking Council input on the following seven program components:
• Type of relationship
Council has the option of deciding to focus relationships with sister cities as more formal or less formal. A more formal relationship is called a sister city and a less formal relationship is called a friendship city. a) Less formal relationship (friendship city)
Ceremonial/Information Exchange/Exploratory
b) More formal relationship (sister city)
Actionable/Programs
• Program Focus
Council has the option to narrow down to one or more categories as listed below or prefer to keep a more generic focus.

If Council chooses to be more specific on the focus area, it could be for a limited duration or indefinitely.
a) General vs. City Specific
Economic Development
Arts and Culture
Government Administration/Governance
Learning and Education (Student Exchange)
Entertainment & Tourism
Other
b) Timeframe for Focus Area(s) (limited duration vs. indefinitely) • Process for New Cities
Council may provide direction on the process for establishing new city relationships.

It should be noted that a recent request to form a sister city relationship was received from the Town of Noyemberyan in Armenia. This request is pending Council’s discussion and direction as part of this staff report. a) Initial Conversation by City Council members or staff Identify mutual area(s) of interest
b) Letter of Request and/or Formal Application
c) City Staff Review
d) Council Review & Consideration
Determine Sister vs. Friendship status
68 of 91

9 Memorializing relationship - Upon Council approval, the two cities should sign formal documents to memorialize the relationship. The agreement can range from ceremonial, with language focusing on each city’s commitment to fostering understanding, cooperation, and mutual benefit to the precise, with particular areas of interest, specific programs/activities, or more concrete goals.
• Delisting Process
Staff is seeking direction on the delisting process for inactive sister cities:
a) Number of years of inactivity before delisting
b) If delisted, Council can consider “Sister City Emeritus” status c) Ways to re-engage delisted cities
• Engagement
Council may provide direction on engagement with potential or existing sister cities:
a) Actively engage new sister cities
b) Re-engage with existing sister cities
• Reporting Back to Council
Council may provide direction for the frequency of providing status updates to Council, on an annual or more frequent basis.
• Community Outreach
Staff has identified a couple of ways that the program outreach can be enhanced, such as a dedicated city webpage and proactive social media posts based on Sister City milestone and activities. Council may provide other ideas to enhance outreach.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. The cost to join Sister Cities International (SCI) for a city of our size is $1,030/year. If Council directs staff to enhance the program, fiscal impacts may be realized commensurate with Council’s direction. Requests for additional funding (staffing and/or program costs) will be brought back for Council consideration.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This activity is exempt from CEQA as it involves governmental and quasi-governmental administrative activities for which there is no reasonable possibility it could have a significant impact on the environment.
69 of 91

1 CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1) Maintain the Sister City program as is.
2) Maintain the Sister City program as is with the addition of rejoining Sister Cities International.
3) Enhance the Sister City program by modifying the Sister City program objectives and guidelines.
4) Council may choose another alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Stephanie Mkhlian, Legislative Affairs and Communications Manager Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: City of Glendale Sister City Objectives and Guidelines Exhibit 2: City of Glendale Sister City Status Chart
Exhibit 3: Sister Cities International (SCI) Guide to Establishing Sister City Relationships 70 of 91

3 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Update on the General Plan’s Land Use, Mobility, and Environmental Justice Elements
1) Motion accepting the status report on the preparation of the Land Use, Mobility, and Environmental Justice Elements, and proposed update to the General Plan Land Use Map, subject to Council comments thereon.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Report Only
Approved for July 30, 2024 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff and the consultant, Amanda Tropiano from De Novo Planning Group, are presenting a status update on the preparation of the Land Use and associated Land Use Map, Mobility, and Environmental Justice Element. Based on Council’s feedback, staff will continue with the preparation of the draft Land Use, Mobility, and Environmental Justice Elements for public outreach and subsequent presentation to City Boards and Commissions for review and recommendation to the Council for adoption. 71 of 91

2 5
1 8
0 RECOMMENDATION
Accept the presentation and report on the Land Use, Mobility, and Environmental Justice Element and provide comments, if any.

ANALYSIS
The City is in the process of preparing comprehensive updates to the Land Use and Mobility Elements of the General Plan and a new Environmental Justice Element, led by the hired consultant, De Novo Planning Group; the last status update was presented to City Council on January 30, 2024. The following is a status update on:
1) Land Use Element, including an outline of proposed policy topic areas and proposed amendments to the Land Use Element Map;
2) Mobility Element, including an outline of proposed policy topic areas; and, 3) Environmental Justice Element, including a discussion of outreach activities and an outline of proposed policy topic areas.

LAND USE ELEMENT
The Land Use Element will include policy guidance, a definition of land use designations, a Land Use Map, and buildout projections to promote thoughtful, equitable, and accessible distribution of different land uses throughout the Planning Area.

Policy Topic Outline
The updated Land Use Element will include goals, policies, and implementation actions which provide direction regarding the City’s long-term physical growth and development.

The Element is expected to include policy direction related to the following topics:
1) Land Use Map
2) Managed Growth
3) Compatible Development
4) Urban Design
5) Economic Development
Land Use Designations
State General Plan law requires that the Land Use Element indicate the maximum densities and intensities permitted within the Land Use Map. The Land Use Designations (see Exhibit 1) in the General Plan will specify the type of allowed uses associated with each designation, as well as any applicable range of development intensity, which is expressed in density and/or floor area ratio. Zoning, specific plans, and individual development projects must be consistent with the intensities allowed under the General Plan.
72 of 91

3 5
1 8
0 Proposed revisions to the City’s land use designations include:
1) Revisions to the category definitions to better reflect the City’s current and future land use goals
2) Addition of two new residential categories (High/Very High Density Residential and Very High Density Residential allowing for up to 50 dwelling units per acre and up to 100 dwelling units per acre, respectively) to accommodate stand-alone multifamily residential uses around the future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stops along Glenoaks Boulevard and at the corner of Broadway and Glendale Avenue and between the 134 Freeway and Glenoaks Boulevard, west of Central and east of Pacific Avenues, as well as directly south of the 134 Freeway in the Pacific Avenue Gateway area
3) Division of current Mixed-Use designation into two categories: Mixed-Use Residential (which allows for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses) and Mixed-Use Nonresidential (which allows for a mix of nonresidential uses only) 4) Creation of a new “City-Owned Residential Overlay” to allow for multifamily development at City-owned properties
5) Creation of a new “Specific Plan” designation to improve administration of Specific Plan areas
Proposed Land Use Map Revisions
An essential component of the Land Use Element is the Land Use Map. Glendale’s Land Use Element, including the Land Use Map, was last comprehensively updated in 1986. However, various General Plan Amendments (text and map), Specific Plans (Town Center Specific Plan for the Americana at Brand and Downtown Specific Plan), and Community Plans have been adopted since the last comprehensive update which also guide long-term land use decisions (Current Map - Exhibit 2). Objectives of the Proposed Land Use Map (see Exhibit 3) revisions include:
1) Updates to create consistency with current zoning/built uses 2) Updates to reflect land use changes already approved through other actions (i.e., Community Plans and Specific Plans)
3) Resolving the appropriate designation of parcels with more than one designation/zone
4) Application of new land use designation and standards for areas proximate to the BRT stops and the area north of the 134 Freeway, south of Glenoaks Boulevard, west of Central Avenue and east of Pacific Avenue
5) Application of a new overlay to allow for multifamily development at City-owned properties
6) Application of a new Specific Plan designation to the Downtown and Town Center areas (as identified on the Map; no changes to the actual specific plans or boundaries)
73 of 91

4 5
1 8
0 Preparation of the Proposed Land Use Map does not reflect final policy direction or adoption of a new Land Use Map. Rather, the Proposed Land Use Map serves as a starting point for the Project’s environmental analysis. The entire Land Use Element (including the Proposed Land Use Map), Mobility Element, and Environmental Justice Element will be comprehensively analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which will evaluate and document all potential environmental impacts, identify ways to mitigate those impacts, and disclose any significant impacts associated with implementation of the Proposed Land Use Map that cannot be fully mitigated. The EIR includes preparation of detailed technical studies including a traffic impact analysis, noise analysis, and air quality/greenhouse gas emissions analysis.

Realistic Buildout Summary Projections
The “realistic” buildout summary projection represents the reasonably foreseeable development potential that could occur within the community over the coming decades (i.e., through 2045) based on the land use revisions. The “realistic” buildout summary projection is not a goal; it is simply used to help determine reasonably foreseeable private and public development that could occur, together with any additionally needed infrastructure such as roadway improvements and number of parks, all of which would be evaluated in an environmental impact report including mitigation (if any) required to offset significant environmental impacts that could occur with implementation of the General Plan. The buildout calculations are based on the total acreage of each land use category and the applicable permitted maximum density or intensity, as if the City is flat and each parcel meets the minimum lot size and developable standards. However, the development potential of each individual parcel is influenced not only by the land use designation, but by market conditions, physical site characteristics, variation in development typology, environmental constraints, infrastructure requirements, and detailed standards in the zoning code. Therefore, it is not realistic to assume that all parcels would develop to their maximum potential (end of the density or intensity range) under the implementation time frame projected for the updated Land Use Element.

The Proposed Land Use Map revisions would result in allowing for the potential of an additional 5,990 units over what is already allowed in the City’s current General Plan.

This includes modifications in the allowable number of residential units as identified in the table below by proposed land use category, and the locations of such changes are illustrated in the City map in Exhibit 4:

Proposed Land Use Category Change in Allowable Realistic Units Community Commercial Services/Centers +109
High Density Residential (1)
High/Very High Density Residential +271
Low Density Residential +13
Low/Medium Density Residential +281
74 of 91

5 5
1 8
0 Medium Density Residential +43
Mixed-Use Residential +3,400
Neighborhood Commercial +19
Public/Semi-Public (401)
City-Owned Residential Overlay +1,713
Right-of-Way (113)
Very High Density Residential +642
Very Low Density Residential +14
Total +5,990*
*Individual rows may not sum exactly due to rounding errors within designation categories.

MOBILITY ELEMENT
The Mobility Element will include policy guidance and exhibits to promote safe and efficient multimodal circulation throughout the Planning Area. he Mobility Element builds on the City’s recent transportation planning efforts such as the Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Citywide Pedestrian Plan. The Mobility Element also provides for coordination with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), which serves as the coordinating agency for transportation funding for Los Angeles County and strives to help plan a better street environment for all types of users, as exemplified by the LA Metro Complete Streets Policy.

Policy Topic Outline
The updated Mobility Element will include goals, policies, and implementation actions which provide direction regarding decisions concerning the City’s multimodal transportation system, which includes roadway, public transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and rail modes of travel, plus parking, goods movement, and recent trends in transportation services such as micromobility. The Element is expected to include policy direction related to the following topics:
1) Complete Streets
2) Walking and Bicycling
3) Public Transit, Ridesharing, and Carpooling
4) Local and Regional Traffic Demand
5) Environmental Health and Air Quality
6) Parking
7) Goods Movement

NEW ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ELEMENT
The new Environmental Justice Element will include policies to reflect efforts to ensure that all community members, regardless of race, ethnicity or income, have equal access to an inclusive, safe and healthy environment, including clean air and water, parks, and other essential resources. This effort will be closely tied to ongoing updates to other 75 of 91

6 5
1 8
0 General Plan Elements, including the Land Use, Circulation, and Safety Elements as well as other citywide plans like the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, Pedestrian Plan, and Bicycle Transportation Plan.

Policy Topic Outline
The new Environmental Justice Element will include goals, policies, and implementation actions to minimize pollution and its effects on all neighborhoods, with an emphasis on those in disadvantaged communities. The new Environmental Justice Element is expected to include policy direction related to the following topics:
1) Pollution Exposure & Air Quality
2) Public Facility Access
3) Healthy Food Access
4) Safe and Sanitary Homes
5) Physical Activity Access
6) Community Engagement
7) Improvements and Programs
8) Unique Health Risks
Environmental Justice Community Outreach
Community engagement is a key component of the City’s efforts to create a new Environmental Justice Element. Focused engagement related to this effort includes the following activities:
•Booth at Glendale Fire Service Day on May 11, 2024 (complete) •Booth at Glendale Cruise Night on July 20, 2024 (complete) •Booth at National Night Out on August 6, 2024 (upcoming) •Approximately 50,000 multilingual direct mailers delivered to residents of environmentally sensitive communities in Glendale (delivery the week of July 22) •Dedicated project website (GlendalePlan.com)
•Multi-lingual Environmental Justice survey (online and in hard copy) distributed on social media, website, newsletters, flyers, and direct mail •Project Factsheet, business cards, and other collateral material available at City Hall and other community facilities
•Interviews with key stakeholders (upcoming)

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
An extensive public outreach campaign to gather public comment is included as part of the comprehensive update of the Land Use and Mobility Elements and new Environmental Justice Elements. The outreach will include online engagement, advisory committee meetings, community events, surveys and other activities, including, but not 76 of 91

7 5
1 8
0 limited to, providing the public with a timeline for all public meetings leading to the proposed adoption of the updated Elements and new Environmental Justice Element.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report or the adoption of the Elements.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
No environmental review is required at this time. Environmental review in compliance with State and Local CEQA Guidelines will be conducted as part of the Project once the Land Use, Circulation and EJ Elements are in sufficiently final form.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: The City Council may comment and provide direction on the Land Use Element Update.

Alternative 2: The City Council may consider any other alternative proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:

Vilia Zemaitaitis, Deputy Director of Long Range Planning Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Proposed Land Use Designations

2. Current Land Use Element Map

3. Proposed Land Use Element Map

4. Map Identifying Areas of Development Potential Changes for Realistic Buildout Summary Projections
77 of 91

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member _________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the Council hereby accepts the status report on the preparation of the Land Use, Mobility, and Environmental Justice Elements, and proposed update to the General Plan Land Use Map, subject to Council comments thereon.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
78 of 91

Glendale Land Use Matrix

Page 1 of 5 ends

General Plan ID Current General Plan Deﬁnition Proposed General Plan Deﬁnition Density Range Implementing Zone(s) ID Residential Uses
Very Low Density
Residential/Open Space
Very Low Density Residential/Open Space development is
indicated as desirable in respect to Glendale's major
mountainous areas, in the Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills, and the lower slopes and canyons of the San Gabriel Mountains.

The requirements of this category include a variable density standard based upon the steepness of slope (being deﬁned as the ratio of the horizontal distance to the vertical change of the topography). On land which slopes more than 60 percent, the maximum density shall not exceed 0.45 units per acre. This density may be increased proportionately to a maximum density of three (3) units per acre with 0 percent slope. Clustering of development is encouraged to preserve natural features.

Development should respect and be sensitive to the important natural resources of the property to be developed and should provide open space. Community Plans may provide additional design guidance for hillside areas.

The Very Low Density Residential/Open Space land use designation provides for the development of residential uses in hillside areas at a variable density of up to 3 units per acre, based on the steepness of slope. This designation is generally most suitable in areas where scenic and natural resources should be protected or where natural hazards limit development potential (such as hillsides). This designation is intended to maintain overall density restrictions pursuant to the intent of the slope density formula as deﬁned in the Glendale Municipal Code. Community Plans may provide additional design guidance for hillside areas.
0-3 du/ac, based on
the site’s average
current slope
Residential Open Space (ROS)
Low Density Residential Low Density Residential development is compatible with Glendale's existing single family developed neighborhoods and vacant subdivided properties. The plan identiﬁes neighborhoods and properties for preservation and maintenance at existing levels. The requirement of this category includes a variable density standard based upon the steepness of slope and the development characteristics of existing neighborhoods. For all land which slopes (being deﬁned as the ratio of the horizontal distance to the vertical change of the topography) more than 60 percent, the maximum density shall not exceed 0.45 units per acre. This density may be increased proportionately to a maximum density of 3 units per acre with 0 percent slope.

Clustering of development is encouraged to preserve natural features. For the further division of steeply sloping property (greater than 30 percent) in existing neighborhoods, the density shall not exceed 1.5 units per acre. For gently sloping properties (less than 30 percent), the density standard shall reﬂect existing development patterns but should not exceed a density of 8 units per acre. Development should respect and be sensitive to the important natural resources of the property and provide open space. Community Plans may provide additional design guidance for hillside areas.

The Low Density Residential land use designation provides for the development of residential uses compatible with existing single family neighborhoods at a variable density of up to 8 units per acre, based on the steepness of slope and the development characteristics of adjacent uses. This designation is generally most suitable in areas where scenic and natural resources should be protected, where natural hazards limit development potential (such as hillsides), or within residential sections of the City with older homes and less topography. This designation is intended to maintain overall density restrictions pursuant to the intent of the slope density formula as deﬁned in the Glendale Municipal Code Section. Community Plans may provide additional design guidance for hillside areas. 0-8 du/ac, based on
the site’s average
current slope in the
R1R zone
Restricted Residential (R1R); Low Density
Residential (R1)
Low/Medium Density
Residential
Moderate Density Residential development areas are sparsely located in the western, southeastern, and northern portions of the City and reﬂect locations for townhouse complexes mixed with medium-sized garden apartments. These locations are ideal with respect to convenience and access to the regional
transportation network as well as functioning as buﬀer or The Low/Medium Density Residential land use designation provides for a range of housing types, such as single-family attached and detached units, townhouses, row houses, garden apartments, and similar low-rise buildings, at a density up to 14 units per acre. This designation may function as a buﬀer or transition area between lower and higher development intensity areas. Community Plans may 0-14 du/ac Moderate Density (R-3050)
Exhibit 1 - Land Use Designations
79 of 91

Glendale Land Use Matrix

Page 2 of 5 ends

transition areas between intensive development and areas designated for less intensive uses. This class maintains a relatively low density standard of 9 to 14 dwelling units to the acre.
provide additional design guidance for medium/low density residential areas.

Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential development is located mainly in the southern portions of the City, south of the Ventura Freeway.

Small pockets occur in the western and northern portions.

Intended for these areas are townhouses and smaller garden apartments at the density of 15 to 19 dwellings to the acre.

The Medium Density Residential land use designation provides for a range of housing types, such as single-family detached and attached units, townhouses, row houses, garden apartments, and similar buildings, at a density of up to a maximum of 19 units per acre for lots less than 90 feet in width, and up to 24 units per acre for lots 90 feet or greater feet in width. Community Plans may provide additional design guidance for medium density residential areas.
0-19 du/ac for lots
less than 90 feet in
width or 0-24 du/ac
for lots 90 feet or
greater in width
Medium Density (R-2250)
Medium/High Density
Residential
Medium/High Density Residential development is located
sparsely in North Glendale and Central Glendale. Intended for these areas are medium size garden apartments at a density of 20 to 26 units to the acre.

The Medium/High Density Residential land use designation provides for a range of housing types, such as condominiums, townhouses, row houses, apartments, and similar buildings, at a density up to 26 units per acre for lots less than 90 feet in width, and up to 33 units per acre for lots 90 feet or greater in width. Community Plans may provide additional design guidance for medium/high density residential areas. 0-26 du/ac for lots
less than 90 feet in
width or 0-33 du/ac
for lots 90 feet or
greater in width
Medium High Density (R-1650)
High Density Residential High Density Residential development is generally centered around the Downtown Speciﬁc Plan Area, with a relatively small pocket located in North Glendale. These locations provide ideal access to the regional freeway network as well as close-in convenience to the major shopping facilities of the Downtown.

The standards provide for relatively large multiple dwelling complexes at a density of 27 to 35 dwelling to the acre. Urban Centers and Urban Corridors may be appropriate for high density residential.

The High Density Residential land use designation provides for a range of housing types, such as condominiums, townhouses, apartments, and similar buildings, at a density up to 35 units per acre for lots less than 90 feet in width, and up to 43 units per acre for lots 90 feet or greater in width. Urban Centers and Urban Corridors may be appropriate for high density residential. Community Plans may provide additional design guidance for high density residential areas. 0-35 du/ac for lots
less than 90 feet in
width or 0-43 du/ac
for lots 90 feet or
greater in width
High Density (R-1250)
High/Very High Density
Residential
0-43 du/ac for lots
less than 90 feet in
width or 0-50 du/ac
for lots 90 feet or
greater in width
New zone (R-1000)
Very High Density Residential 0-87 du/ac for lots
less than 90 feet in
width or 0-100 du/ac
for lots 90 feet or
greater in width
New zone (R-500)
Nonresidential Uses
Neighborhood Commercial Commercial Centers and Development Districts, other than those in the Downtown area, feature a major commercial center in the Montrose Shopping Park; community serving retail and services along most major traﬃc arterials; and neighborhood
convenience shopping centers dispersed throughout the City at locations in or adjacent to the neighborhood served. The use of two colors on the land use map diﬀerentiates the distribution of the two categories of commercial use: Neighborhood and
Community/Services. The commercial uses located in the
The Neighborhood Commercial land use designation provides for a variety of low-scale local-serving commercial uses in proximity to lower density residential neighborhoods; appropriate uses include retail, service, and low-rise oﬃce uses. There is no maximum ﬂoor area ratio (FAR) for stand-alone commercial projects or for the commercial component of mixed-use projects.

This designation also allows for new housing opportunities by enabling vacant and underutilized commercial buildings to be redeveloped with residential uses. Stand-alone residential projects Commercial Uses: No
maximum FAR

Residential Uses: 1.2
FAR and 0-35 du/ac
for lots less than 90
feet in width or 0-43
du/ac for lots 90 feet
or greater in width
Neighborhood Commercial (C1)
80 of 91

Glendale Land Use Matrix

Page 3 of 5 ends

Downtown Speciﬁc Plan Area are discussed in the Downtown Speciﬁc Plan Area Land Use category.

Community Plans provide vision and urban design guidance for commercial areas within Community Plans. The intent of
providing such guidance for commercial areas is to identify the nature of desired future growth and aid in establishing appropriate general urban design criteria. The following commercial design categories are consistent with the
Neighborhood and Community/Services Commercial
designation: Town Center, Village Center, Urban Corridor, Suburban Corridor, Main Street Corridor and Campus. Urban Centers may be appropriate in mixed use development areas.

Neighborhood Centers -It is recommended that the location of convenience goods be distributed to small neighborhood
shopping centers throughout the City, and that such locations be within close proximity to the residential areas from which the daily trips for this type use originate. Design and development standards for these centers should emphasize restrictive land use controls to designate compatible types of uses, height
regulations, attractive landscaping and adequate oﬀ-street parking. Performance standards should be included which provide for adequate residential buﬀers or open space "green belts" to assure commercial-residential compatibility. These centers should be "clustered" and not permitted to "string-out" along arterials, collectors or local streets. Residential developments should not be facilitated within designated commercial centers, unless a particularly innovative plan in individual cases is presented
Community Commercial Services/Centers -This category of commercial land use contains two distinct commercial types. The types are combined in that they both serve community shopping functions. First, community commercial centers are
recommended to be very restrictive as to uses allowed, similar to the neighborhood centers but at a larger market scale. Secondly, community services should feature ﬂexibility, in the range and type of services and facilities provided.
and the residential components of mixed-use project are subject to a maximum FAR of 1.2 and a density range of up to a maximum of 35 du/ac for lots less than 90 feet and 43 du/ac for lots 90 feet or greater in width.

Community Commercial The Community Commercial land use designation provides for a variety of local- and regional-serving retail, employment-generating oﬃce, and service-oriented business activities. There is no maximum ﬂoor area ratio (FAR) for stand-alone commercial projects or for the commercial component of mixed-use projects.

This designation also allows for stand-alone residential or mixed-use projects. Stand-alone residential projects and the residential components of mixed-use project are subject to a maximum FAR of

1.2 and a density up to a maximum of 35 du/ac for lots less than 90 feet in width and up to 43 du/ac for lots 90 feet or greater in width.

Commercial Uses: No
maximum FAR

Residential Uses: 1.2
FAR and up to a
maximum of 35
du/ac for lots less
than 90 feet in width
or 43 du/ac for lots
90 feet or greater in
width.

Community Commercial (C2);
Commercial Service (C3); Commercial
Hillside (CH); Commercial Planned
Development (CPD); Commercial Auto
(CA); Commercial Retail (CR); Commercial
Equestrian (CE)

Industrial Industrial development features light manufacturing; assembly and wholesale/warehousing facilities and activities. Generally, the plan indicates manufacturing in the western section of the City between San Fernando Road and the Golden State Freeway and along San Fernando Road south of the Ventura Freeway.

Some light industrial uses, oriented to retail trade are planned for inclusion in the community commercial category and other commercial categories. Some very light industrial uses may be comparable with residential uses in mixed use areas and mixed use projects along San Fernando Road.

The Industrial designation provides for a variety of industrial and manufacturing uses, including light manufacturing, assembly, warehousing facilities, and similar uses. Other uses that are determined to be compatible with primary uses may also be allowed.

There is no maximum ﬂoor area ratio for industrial uses and massing is regulated by the maximum height standard.

No FAR maximum Industrial (IND)
81 of 91

Glendale Land Use Matrix

Page 4 of 5 ends

Mixed-Use Residential Mixed Use Development areas are generally located along the city's major arterials.

These areas generally allow for a compatible mix of commercial, industrial, and residential land uses, or just (stand alone) commercial, industrial, or residential land uses in various combinations, depending on the speciﬁc zoning district
designation. Urban Corridors, Urban Centers and Campus may be appropriate land use design categories for mixed use
development areas. Residential densities generally range from a low of 35 to a high of 100 dwelling units to the acre (du/ac), with the speciﬁc density being adjusted depending on the adjoining land use and zone district designation to help ensure
compatibility between land uses. For example, the 35 du/ac density is available to sites abutting a single-family zoning district designation; the 87 du/ac density is available to sites abutting a multi-family zoning district, while the highest allowable density of 100 du/ac is only available to sites abutting nonresidential zoning districts. Residential development (mixed use or free-standing) at even higher densities may be permitted in the downtown area and is discussed under the Downtown Speciﬁc Plan Area land use category.

The Mixed-Use Residential designation provides opportunities for a compatible mix of commercial, industrial, and residential land uses in the same building, on the same parcel of land, or within the same area. Stand-alone commercial, industrial, or residential land uses in various combinations may also be allowed, depending on the speciﬁc zoning district designation. There is no maximum ﬂoor area ratio (FAR) for stand-alone nonresidential projects or for the nonresidential component of mixed-use projects. Residential densities are deﬁned in the Glendale Municipal Code.

Nonresidential Uses:

No maximum FAR

Residential Uses: See
the Glendale
Municipal Code
Zoning Districts

SFMU, IMU-R, TOD I,
TOD II, MX I, and MX
II
Commercial/Residential Mixed Use
(SFMU); Industrial/Commercial Mixed
Use (IMU-R);
Transit Oriented Development (TOD I and
TOD II); New Mixed Use I (MX I); New
Mixed Use II (MX II)
Mixed-Use Nonresidential The Mixed-Use Nonresidential designation provides opportunities for a compatible mix of commercial and industrial land uses in the same building, on the same parcel of land, or within the same area. Stand- alone commercial and industrial land uses in various combinations may also be allowed, depending on the speciﬁc zoning district designation. There is no maximum ﬂoor area ratio (FAR).

No maximum FAR Industrial Mixed Use (IMU)
Limited Development Uses
Public/Semi-Public No deﬁnition given. Description is: land uses devoted to and utilized by the general public (such as schools, government oﬃces, recreation facilities, parking, utilities, etc.).

PUBLIC/SEMI-PUBLIC areas support uses for. the beneﬁt of the general public, such as government oﬃces and service yards, schools, parks, recreation facilities, transportation
facilities, parking, hospitals and utilities. Public/Semi-public areas frequently take the form of campuses and may include both public and private lands.

The Public/Semi-Public designation provides for uses that beneﬁt the general public, such as government oﬃces and service yards, schools, transportation facilities, parking, hospitals and utilities. Public/Semi- public areas frequently take the form of campuses and may include both public and private lands. There is no maximum ﬂoor area ratio for public/semi-public uses.

No FAR maximum Transportation (T);
Medical Services (MS)
Recreation/Open Space Recreation/Open Space is speciﬁcally shown for major public/semi-public properties in the City. The larger
concentrations are located in the Verdugo Mountains and San Rafael Hills. Other smaller areas include larger City parks, Camp Max Straus, and the Oakmont and Chevy Chase golf courses.

The Recreation/Open Space designation provides for public and private open space and recreational uses and to protect open space, natural physical features and scenic resources.

N/A Special Recreation (SR)
Cemetery Specialized Use areas are identiﬁed on the map by utilizing symbols. This category includes parks, schools, and such specialized commercial activities as medical and automotive centers. Symbols are also used to diﬀerentiate between regional, community and neighborhood commercial centers. Cemeteries The Cemetery designation is intended to address the unique requirements of cemetery uses in a manner conducive to the public health, safety, and general welfare.

Cemetery (CEM)
82 of 91

Glendale Land Use Matrix

Page 5 of 5 ends

are also included in this category in order to identify them as specialized use areas. Historic Sites of Special Signiﬁcance are also identiﬁed.

Special Uses
Speciﬁc Plan The Downtown Speciﬁc Plan (DSP) area, a mixed use development district encompassing most of the Central Glendale Redevelopment Project Area, is located in the center of the city.

It provides for a vibrant array of commercial (retail, service, oﬃce, entertainment) uses, in addition to very high density, urban housing and mixed
use developments. Residential density will be determined, in part, by the limits pertaining to individually deﬁned districts.

Very dense urban development is envisioned as high-rise projects within districts currently dominated by large oﬃce towers. Elsewhere in the DSP area, such developments are envisioned as mid-rise to low-rise projects depending on their location. The Town Center (Americana on Brand), as well as other major shopping centers; a park and network of paseos and open spaces; oﬃce towers; and historic buildings are located within the DSP area.

The Speciﬁc Plan designation provides an opportunity for the City to adopt detailed policies, standards, and criteria for the development or redevelopment of an area. As required by state law, speciﬁc plans generally consist of a land plan, circulation plan, development standards, design guidelines (standards?), and phasing plan and set forth detailed implementation programs necessary to serve the planning area.

The actual designation of each Speciﬁc Plan area will be “Speciﬁc Plan (SP)” followed by a corresponding reference (e.g., SP-Downtown, SP- Town Center). Actual land uses are illustrated in detail in the speciﬁc plan documents (zoning). Amendments to land use in the speciﬁc plan will not warrant a revision to the General Plan (General Plan Amendment).

Downtown Speciﬁc Plan (DSP); Town
Center Speciﬁc Plan; and all future
Speciﬁc Plans.

City-Owned Residential
Overlay (CORO)
- The City-Owned Residential Overlay, which applies to select sites owned by the City of Glendale, provides an opportunity for the development of stand-alone multifamily housing at a density of 20-50 units per acre. For new development, all standards related to the underlying land use designation shall continue to apply. 20-50 du/ac New City-Owned Residential Overlay

83 of 91

EChevy ChaseDr
LaCrescentaAve
S Victory Blvd
ChevyChase
Dr
E Colorado St Colorado Blvd
NSanFernandoRd
SanFernandoRd
S
Glendale
Ave
S San Fernando Blvd
N Figueroa St
N
Verdugo
Rd
Verdugo Rd
Eagle Rock Blvd
La LomaRd
Foothill Blvd
Victory Blvd
EOliveAve
N Eagle Rock Blvd
S
Verdugo
Rd
W Alameda Ave
Glendale Blvd
S
CentralAve
Western Ave
W Colorado Blvd
E BroadwayW Broadway
Canada
Blvd
S Brand Blvd
S Chevy Chase Dr
Los Feliz Blvd
W Colorado St
York Blvd
N
GlendaleAve
N Brand Blvd
2 134
2 134
134
2 210
5 5
210
210
W Glenoaks Blvd
Los Angeles River
Verdugo Wash
Verdugo Wash
B u r b a n kB u r b a n k
L a C a n a d a
F l i n t r i d g e
L a C a n a d a
F l i n t r i d g e
P a s a d e n aP a s a d e n a
U n i n c o r p o r a t e d
L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y
U n i n c o r p o r a t e d
L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y
L o s A n g e l e sL o s A n g e l e s
L o s A n g e l e sL o s A n g e l e s
1 0 1½
Miles

RESIDENTIAL
Very Low Density/Open Space
Low Density Residential
Moderate Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium High Density Residential
High Density Residential

COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Community/Services Commercial
Regional Commercial
PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public
Recreation/Open Space
OTHER
Industrial
Mixed Use
Cemetery
Specific Plan Area 1
Specific Plan Area 2
Glendale City Boundary
Glendale Sphere of Influence
Glendale Planning Area
Other Incorporated Areas

L E G E N D
Sources: City of Glendale; Los Angeles County. Map date: July 17, 2024.

CITY OF GLENDALE

GENERAL PLAN

C U R R E N T

G E N E R A L P L A N

L A N D U S E M A P
84 of 91

RESIDENTIAL
Very Low Density/Open Space
Low Density Residential
Low/Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium/High Density Residential
High Density Residential
High/Very High Density Residential
Very High Density Residential

COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
Services/Centers
PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public
Recreation/Open Space
OTHER
Industrial
Mixed-Use
Cemetery
Specific Plan: Downtown
Specific Plan: Town Center
Glendale City Boundary
Glendale Sphere of Influence
Glendale Planning Area
Other Incorporated Areas
City-Owned Residential
Overlay (CORO)
Parcel with Unit Count Change

L E G E N D
Sources: City of Glendale; Los Angeles County. Map date: July 24, 2024.

CITY OF GLENDALE

GENERAL PLAN

P R O P O S E D

G E N E R A L P L A N

L A N D U S E M A P
85 of 91

RESIDENTIAL
Very Low Density/Open Space
Low Density Residential
Low/Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
High/Very High Density Residential
Very High Density Residential

COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
Services/Centers
PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public
Recreation/Open Space
OTHER
Industrial
Mixed-Use
Glendale City Boundary
Glendale Sphere of Influence
Glendale Planning Area
Other Incorporated Areas
City-Owned Residential
Overlay (CORO)

L E G E N D
Sources: City of Glendale; Los Angeles County. Map date: July 24, 2024.

CITY OF GLENDALE

GENERAL PLAN

M A P O F

P R O P O S E D

D E V E L O P M E N T

P O T E N T I A L

C H A N G E S
(Current to Proposed)
1 86 of 91

5 3
9 9

AGENDA ITEM

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Report: Selection of Hollywood Burbank Airport Citizen’s Advisory Committee Members 1) Motion appointing three individuals to represent the City of Glendale on the Hollywood Burbank Airport Citizen’s Advisory Committee

COUNCIL ACTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 16, 2024, the Council decided to conduct an open application process to select three members for the Hollywood Burbank Airport Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC), which will consider airplane noise and assist in updating the Noise Exposure Map and Noise Compatibility Program.

Fifteen applicants have applied to serve on the CAC. Outreach efforts included emails, press releases, social media, and traditional media. To be eligible, applicants had to be Glendale residents and not elected officials or candidates. Council directed staff to recommend three applicants. The Burbank Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority Commission will appoint the CAC members at their August 19th meeting, with meetings held quarterly and terms lasting eighteen months.

Item Type: Action Item
Approved forAugust 13, 2024 calendar
87 of 91

2 RECOMMENDATION
That Council select three individuals to represent the City of Glendale on the Hollywood Burbank Airport Citizen’s Advisory Committee.

BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
On July 16, 2024, Council considered three options to select three members to serve on a newly created Hollywood Burbank Airport Citizen's Advisory Committee (CAC). The CAC will be a nine-member advisory body comprised of three members from each of the cities of Burbank, Glendale, and Pasadena. The CAC will gather public input on airplane noise issues associated with the airport, as well as assist in the update of the Authority’s Noise Exposure Map and Noise Compatibility Program. After considering three options, Council directed staff to conduct an open application process.

On July 17th, staff issued an open call for applications. During the 15-day application period, staff received fifteen applications. The short recruitment period was driven by the need to have Glendale’s CAC appointments made prior to the next Burbank-Glendale- Pasadena Airport Authority’s Board meeting, scheduled for August 19, when the Board intends to appoint the nine members.

Outreach
To reach potential applicants, the City used a diverse range of communication channels, including direct communication, traditional media, and social media platforms. When asked how they learned about the CAC opportunity, the most common method cited was email, with several mentioning they received a direct email from the City of Glendale.

Other sources included a press release from the City’s Communications Office, social media (specifically Instagram), and an article in the Glendale News Press.

Applicants
The 15 applicants are listed below in alphabetical order by last name:

1. Aurora Abracia

2. Armik Avedisian

3. James Clarke

4. Sam Engel

5. Adrian Fieda

6. Frank Gallo

7. Brenda Gant

8. Kristina Gentleman

9. Agavni Gevy

10.Ronnie Gharibian

11.Talin Kargodorian

12.Meher Kaskanian

13.Manuel Magpapian

14.Carl Povilaitis

15.Elizabeth Radley
Eligibility
To be eligible, applicants must be Glendale residents and cannot be elected officials, staff members of elected officials, and candidates for elective office. 88 of 91

3 Staff Recommendations
At the July 16th meeting, Council directed staff to present all applicants and three staff recommendations. Staff is recommending the following individuals based on their relevant experience in airport operations, aviation and/or noise mitigation:

1.Aurora Abracia, Retired Chief Administrative Analyst, City of Los Angeles. Ms.

Abracia worked in a liaison capacity with Los Angeles World Airports on various operational and administrative programs, including residential sound insulation. This direct experience with airport operations and noise mitigation efforts is directly relevant to the Citizen’s Advisory Committee's work.

2.Adrian Fieda, Associate Director, Pratt & Whitney. With an active career in aviation since 2000, Mr. Fieda brings up-to-date knowledge of aircraft engine maintenance and aviation technology. His position as Associate Director of Customer Service at Pratt & Whitney, an engine manufacturer, provides insights into the technical aspects of aircraft operations and their impact on noise.

3.Carl Povilaitis, Retired Police Chief, City of Glendale and Current Adjunct Faculty at Glendale Community College. A rated pilot with experience in both fixed-wing and helicopter operations provided Mr. Povilaitis with practical knowledge of aviation operations and regulations. Serving as a Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority Commissioner from 1999-2009 gives him the historical context and understanding of the airport's governance and operations and the issues that are important to the City of Glendale. His familiarity with Part 150 noise studies is particularly relevant to the Citizen’s Advisory Committee's focus on addressing noise concerns.

Next Steps
The members of the CAC are scheduled to be appointed by the Burbank Glendale- Pasadena Airport Authority at their next Board meeting scheduled for August 19. CAC meetings will be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act and are expected to be held on a quarterly basis. The term of the appointment is for approximately eighteen months.

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

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1) Council may choose to not accept staff’s recommendations and select their own advisory committee members.
2) Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
89 of 91

4 None
90 of 91

MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale, California hereby appoints the following individuals to the Hollywood Burbank Airport Citizen’s Advisory Committee:

1. __________________________

2. __________________________

3. __________________________

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
91 of 91

Glendale City CouncilAugust 13, 2024

Glendale City Council
August 13, 2024