Agenda packet, first session — Glendale City Council, September 17, 2024 (part 2 of 2)

driver education for autos).

Response: An e-bike and e-scooter “User Education Course” would be beneficial for our community. We have several e-bike instructors/riders at the police department and will utilize their experience to create a course for the community. The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. Implementation is anticipated by July 5, 2025 and dependent on staffing.

The recommendations in the Report and the City of Glendale official responses are set forth below.

Sincerely,

Elen Asatryan
Mayor
cc: Glendale City Council
Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Manuel Cid, Chief of Police
247 of 433

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Nomination Process for Boards and Commissions

1. Adoption of Ordinance Amending Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, Section

2.36.010 Pertaining to Terms of Members of Boards and Commissions

2. Resolution Establishing a Recruitment and Selection Process for Appointment of Individuals to Boards and Commissions

3. Resolution Establishing the Procedure to Address Complaints or Allegations of Misconduct or Poor Performance Against Members of Boards and Commissions

4. Motion Providing Direction to Staff

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Adoption of Ordinance
Approved for September 17, 2024 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On September 10, 2024, Council introduced an ordinance and provided direction to finalize the necessary legislation to reinstitute the panel nominating system for members of the boards and commissions. Staff has prepared the necessary resolutions to reconstitute the boards and commissions through councilmember panel nominations and a code amendment to provide that the terms of board members and commissioners (except Civil Service Commissioners) will be coterminous with the term of the nominating councilmember from Column One of the panel.

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council adopt the ordinance and adopt resolutions to implement the recruitment, nomination, selection and complaint procedures for boards and commissions.

ANALYSIS
Panel Pairings for Title 2 Boards and Commissions
On September 10, 2024, the Council provided direction to reinstate a panel system for nominating members of boards and commissions. Specifically, for the vacancies on the boards and commissions established under Title 2 of the Glendale Municipal Code, which vacancies, a panel of two council members shall be selected, in accordance with 248 of 433

27a
5 2
1 1
the procedure herein, to act as an interview panel. The selection of the panel will involve an alphabetic rotation of the council as follows: the first member shall be in a vertical column (Column One) which shall have the council members’ names listed alphabetically. The second member of the panel shall be in a vertical column (Column Two) with the first council member being the individual who is the second council member listed in Column One as it relates to the first Title 2 Board or Commission in alphabetical order. The next three council members will follow in alphabetical order, with the first council member in Column One being last in Column Two. Column One shall always remain alphabetical, Column Two will rotate for every board or commission in that the next board or commission will with the first council member being the individual who is the third councilmember listed in Column One and so on. The rotation process will have the council members in Column Two moving up the column with the council member at the top rotating to the bottom. The two council members who match up horizontally on the columns will constitute the panel to interview candidates who have applied to serve on a board or commission. The makeup of the panels for the initial nominations and appointments in the event the Council adopts the resolution is attached as Exhibit 1.

Each panel shall interview candidates, and make nomination selections, for a single position on a board or commission. To the extent the Council adopts an ordinance amending Section 2.36.010 regarding the term of office for board members and commissioners, the term of each board and commissioner shall be coterminous with the term of the councilmember in Column One on their nominating panel. The seats of councilmembers in Column One shall be numbered in alphabetical order.

For the initial nominations and appointments made in accordance with this Resolution after its adoption, the panel assigned a Column One seat number shall be assigned to nominate for the same numbered seat on the board and commission for which that panel is nominating, with the board and commission members being assigned seat numbers in alphabetical order, with vacant seats being assigned at the end of the order.

When a vacancy is created by a resignation or removal, the panel to fill that vacancy shall be comprised of the same panel of the original appointment, with the numbers associated with the council members who filled that position. The term of the board member or commissioner shall be coterminous with the term of the councilmember in Column One of the panel.

Civil Service Commission
For the Civil Service Commission, the assignment to nominate an individual to that Commission will rotate alphabetically but skip any individual councilmember who has nominated – either individually or as a member of a panel - a commissioner currently sitting on the Commission (and who is not up for re-appointment/replacement). In the event, however, a new councilmember begins a term that councilmember will not skip over a councilmember who has not nominated a sitting Civil Service Commissioner. 249 of 433

37a
5 2
1 1
Timing
Each panel shall bring forward a nominee within sixty (60) days after the announcement of the vacancy and notice from the City Clerk of the panel makeup. The 60-day time period will be extended for up to an additional 30 days should factors including, but not limited to, a lack of qualified candidates, exist. If an extension is required, the councilmembers comprising the panel shall, at a public council meeting state the need and reason(s) for the extension. If after expiration of the extension a nominee is not brought forward or the panel cannot agree on a candidate, the Council shall disband the panel and make a direct appointment in accordance with the Brown Act.

Additional Items for Consideration
GMC Changes: As discussed by Council, this item also includes a proposed ordinance revising Glendale Municipal Code section 2.36.010 to provide that, with the exception of the Civil Service Commission (whose members serve 4 years per the Charter), the term of each member of a board or commission will be four years but coterminous with the term of the councilmember in Column One of the panel that nominates them. Upon the commencement of a new councilmember term (whether the nominating councilmember or a successor), that board or commission spot opens up and must be filled by reappointment or replacement.

Revision to Process to Address Complaints: Per Resolution 24-129, the process for addressing complaints of misconduct or poor performance against members of boards or commissions were addressed by the individual councilmember who nominated the member. (Note that attendance issues are addressed through creation of an ad hoc committee of two councilmembers and the board/commission chairperson, per GMC section 2.36.020). As directed, the proposed resolution has been revised to include both nominating councilmembers into the process. Also, as the system is envisioned, that both councilmembers who made up the nominating panel have the opportunity to discuss performance issues or seek removal of a board member or commissioner who engages in misconduct or has performance issues. The Council retains the right to remove any board member or commissioner when it deems it in the City’s best interest to do so.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
250 of 433

47a
5 2
1 1
This activity involves organizational and administrative activities of the government related to the process for nominating and appointing members to the City’s boards and commissions, and such internal procedural, organizational activities have no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. As such, this action is not a “project” subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15378.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Council could choose not to make the proposed changes to the nomination and appointment process for the boards and commissions and maintain the nomination system providing for one nomination for each councilmember

2. Council could provide direction on an alternative not identified by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Prepared by:

Lucy Varpetian, Principal Asst. City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Nomination Panels for Initial Appointments for Title 2 Boards and Commissions

2. Strike-out/Underline Version of Ordinance Amending GMC Section 2.36.010

3. Strike-out/Underline Version of Resolution Establishing a Recruitment and Selection Process for Appointment of Individuals to Boards and Commissions

4.Strike-out/Underline Version of Resolution Establishing the Procedure to Address Complaints or Allegations of Misconduct or Poor Performance Against Members of Boards and Commissions
251 of 433

1 ORDINANCE NO. ____________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,
CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTION 2.36.010 OF THE GLENDALE
MUNICIPAL CODE, 1995, PERTAINING TO TERMS OF BOARD

MEMBERS AND COMMISSIONERS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1. Section 2.36.010 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, is hereby amended to read as follows:

Section 2.36.010 Appointment-generally; Terms of office A. No person may serve more than two four-year terms on a single board or commission. This section shall apply regardless of whether or not a commissioner's or board member's service of a term has commenced or occurred prior to the effective date of the ordinance imposing the two-term limit established by this section; provided nothing herein shall require the removal of a commissioner who has exceeded two terms by virtue of the adoption of Ordinance No. 6005 codifying this section and enacting the two-term limit set forth herein.

B. No person may serve on a board or commission under this title while concurrently serving on another board or commission under this title, the civil service commission, or the Burbank Glendale Pasadena Airport Authority. Elected officials shall not serve on any board or commission under this title, or the civil service commission, or the Burbank Glendale Pasadena Airport Authority except where an ordinance specifically permits or requires a member to be an elected official.

C. The terms of office for all voting members of boards and commissions under this title shall be four years or until their successors are appointed and qualified; provided, the term of each member shall be coterminous with the council member who was in Column One of the nomination panel that nominates that member to a board or commission regardless of when nominated and appointed. Vacancies for any unexpired 252 of 433

2 term of membership on any board or commission under this title shall be filled by appointment by majority vote of the council. An appointment to fill a vacancy of a partial term shall be coterminous with the term of the council member making the nomination.

For purposes of the limit of terms as set forth in subsection A of this section, a board member or commissioner who serves 24 months or more of a term shall be deemed to have served a full term. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, any term that is less than four (4) years as a result of a delay by the Council in nominating and appointing a board member or commissioner during a councilmember’s term (in contrast to a removal, resignation or incapacitation) shall nevertheless constitute a full term.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the _____ day of __, 2024.

_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
253 of 433

3 ) SS.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. ______ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of ____________, 2024, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

______________________________
City Clerk
254 of 433

RESOLUTION NO. ______________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,

CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING A RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION PROCESS

FOR APPOINTMENT OF INDIVIDUALS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WHEREAS, the City of Glendale has a number of boards and commissions to which individuals are appointed by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Council adopted Resolution No. 24-128 on July 16, 2024, establishing a formal policy for the recruitment, selection, and appointment of individuals to boards and commissions; and
WHEREAS, the policy set forth in Resolution No. 24-128 provided for each councilmember to nominate one member to each board and commission; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to amend the recruitment, selection, and appointment process to reinstitute an interview panel process, whereby two councilmembers are selected to nominate an individual to fill a vacancy on a board or commission similar to the process established by prior Council Resolutions Nos. 02-80 and 23-29; and
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, the Council – by motion – removed all of the members of the Boards and Commissions established under Title 2 of the Glendale Municipal Code, subject to each member being reappointed or replaced in accordance with Council Resolution No. 24-128; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to consider the rescission, repeal and replacement of Resolution No. 24-128.

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

Section 1. Resolution No. 24-128 is hereby repealed.
255 of 433

Section 2. The following procedure for recruitment, selection and appointment of individuals to boards and commissions is hereby established:

A. TITLE 2 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS - SELECTION OF INTERVIEW PANEL

TO FILL VACANCIES AS OF EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS RESOLUTION For the vacancies on the boards and commissions established under Title 2 of the Glendale Municipal Code, which vacancies exist as of the effective date of this Resolution (which includes all members of the Title 2 Boards and Commissions removed by Council on July 16, 2024), a panel of two council members shall be selected, in accordance with the procedure herein, to act as an interview panel.

The selection of the panel will involve an alphabetic rotation of the council as follows: the first member shall be in a vertical column (Column One) which shall have the council members’ names listed alphabetically. The second member of the panel shall be in a vertical column (Column Two) with the first council member being the individual who is the second council member listed in Column One as it relates to the first Title 2 Board or Commission in alphabetical order. The next three council members will follow in alphabetical order, with the first council member in Column One being last in Column Two. Column One shall always remain alphabetical, Column Two will rotate for every board or commission in that the next board or commission will with the first council member being the individual who is the third councilmember listed in Column One and so on. The rotation process will have the council members in Column Two moving up the column with the council member at the top rotating to the bottom. The two council members who match up horizontally on the columns will constitute the panel to interview candidates who have applied to serve on a board or commission. Each panel shall 256 of 433

interview candidates, and make nomination selections, for a single position on a board or commission. To the extent the Council adopts an ordinance amending Section 2.36.010 regarding the term of office for board members and commissioners, the term of each board and commissioner shall be coterminous with the term of the councilmember in Column One on their nominating panel.

The seats of councilmembers in Column One shall be numbered as follows:

Asatryan – 1
Brotman – 2
Gharpetian – 3
Kassakhian – 4
Najarian – 5
For the initial nominations and appointments made in accordance with this Resolution after its adoption, the panel assigned a Column One seat number shall be assigned to nominate for the same numbered seat on the board and commission for which that panel is nominating, with the board and commission members being assigned seat numbers in alphabetical order, with vacant seats being assigned at the end of the order.

B. TITLE 2 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS - SELECTION OF INTERVIEW PANEL

TO FILL VACANCIES CREATED BY REMOVAL OR RESIGNATION AFTER THE

as set forth in this Paragraph B. When a vacancy is created by a resignation or removal, the panel to fill that vacancy shall be comprised of the same panel of the original appointment, with the numbers associated with the council members who filled that position. If appointed by the Council, the term of the board member or commissioner nominated under this Paragraph B shall be coterminous with the term of the councilmember in Column One of the panel.

C. NOMINATING PANELS AFTER SUCCESSIVE ELECTIONS
After the 2026 general municipal election and appointment (swearing in) of councilmembers and each successive election and appointment of councilmembers thereafter, the councilmembers elected and appointed at a particular election shall be assigned to the vacant spots in Column One in alphabetical order.

Example: By way of example and without limitation, assuming the following councilmembers are serving in alphabetical order:

Councilmember A – 1
Councilmember B – 2
Councilmember C – 3
Councilmember D – 4
Councilmember E – 5
Further assume the terms of Councilmembers B, D, and E expire in 2026 and the board and commissioners nominated by panels where Councilmembers B, D, and E were the nominating councilmembers from Column One. Further assume Councilmember B is reelected while Councilmember D and E are replaced by Councilmembers F and G. By alphabetical order, Councilmember B will remain 258 of 433

in the place of Seat 2 while Councilmember F will be assigned to Seat 4 and Councilmember G will be assigned to Seat 5. Nominating panels will be assigned to fill the three seats on each Title 2 Board and Commission whose terms expired upon the 2026 election, with Councilmembers B, F, and G serving on seats 2, 4 and 5, respectively, of Column One of those panels and Column Two panelists being assigned as set forth in Paragraph A above, provided, however, if the Column One Panelist and Column Two Panelist are the same councilmember in a new rotation, the Column Two panelist assigned to the panel shall be reassigned to the next councilmember in the Column Two rotation.

D. APPLICABLE TO TITLE 2 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; SEPARATE

PROCESS FOR CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
The nomination process outlined in Paragraphs A, B, and C of this Section 2 shall apply to all boards and commissions established under Title 2 of the Glendale Municipal Code, except as set forth herein. This process shall not apply any student ex officio commissioners of Title 2 Boards and Commissions or to the Civil Service Commission. With respect to the Civil Service Commission, when there is a vacancy or commissioner whose term is expiring or has expired, the nomination for reappointment or replacement shall occur as set forth in this Paragraph E.

A single council member in alphabetic rotation (councilmember with the last name commencing with the letter ”A” or closest thereto in the alphabet being first and the rotation continuing alphabetically) shall nominate a candidate to the Civil Service Commission and that council member is the “designated” council member by rotation, unless that councilmember has already (either individually or as a member of a panel) nominated a sitting member of the Civil Service Commission 259 of 433

whose seat is not up for reappointment/replacement. In that case, the nomination shall be assigned to the next councilmember in the rotation. In the event any councilmember has not nominated any sitting member of the Civil Service Commission (other than one whose term has expired or is expiring and is up from reappointment/replacement), and a new councilmember is elected or appointed to the Council, any councilmember who has not nominated a sitting Civil Service Commission member shall have precedence over a newly elected or appointed councilmember regardless of alphabetical order. The “nominating” council member will request to have the nominee’s name placed on the agenda for consideration. No designated council member will be permitted to nominate more than one candidate to the Civil Service Commission until all council members have nominated a candidate (either individually or as part of a panel), except as set forth in Paragraph G, below.

E. VACANCY NOTICE - DISSEMINATION
The notice of vacancy or upcoming opening on a board or commission should be widely disseminated, including but not limited to, the government access channel, city web page, social media platforms, e-newsletters, city hall bulletin board and community organizations within the city of Glendale.

F. INTERVIEW PANEL - RECOMMENDATION PROCESS
Interview panels are encouraged to reach consensus on the candidate they would recommend for appointment to a board or commission. When a panel has concluded the interview process and is prepared to provide a recommendation to the full Council, the panel shall announce its recommendation at the next regular Council meeting. No action shall be taken by the Council to appoint the 260 of 433

recommended candidate at such meeting and the matter shall be placed on the following agenda, including the name of the recommended candidate, for consideration and action by the Council.

G. RECOMMENDATION PROCESS-TIME LIMIT
Each panel shall bring forward a nominee within sixty (60) days after the announcement of the vacancy and notice from the City Clerk of the panel makeup.

The 60-day time period will be extended for up to an additional 30 days should factors including, but not limited to, a lack of qualified candidates, exist. If an extension is required, the councilmembers comprising the panel shall, at a public council meeting state the need and reason(s) for the extension. If after expiration of the extension a nominee is not brought forward or the panel cannot agree on a candidate, the Council shall disband the panel and make a direct appointment in accordance with the Brown Act.

H. AGENDIZING NOMINEE
When the panel is prepared to provide a recommendation to the full Council, either the councilmember making up the panel shall announce the recommendation at the next regular Council meeting. No action shall be taken by the Council to appoint the nominated candidate at such meeting and the matter shall be placed on the following regular meeting agenda, including the name of the candidate, for consideration and action by the council.

I. AUTHORIZATION TO MODIFY PROCEDURE - APPOINTMENT

VALIDITY
The Council may, in its discretion, deviate from the procedure set forth herein in any instance for the recruitment, selection and appointment of an individual to a 261 of 433

board or commission, provide that such process does not violate Chapter 2.36 of the Glendale Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any of the procedures set forth herein shall not void or otherwise affect the validity of any appointment made by the Council.

Adopted this ______ day of ______________________, 2024. ________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)SS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, California certify that the foregoing Resolution No.__________ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a special meeting held on the __________ day of ________________, 2024, and that same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
__________________________________
City Clerk
262 of 433

RESOLUTION NO. ______________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE

PROCEDURE TO ADDRESS COMPLAINTS OR

ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT AGAINST MEMBERS

OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Glendale (“Council”) adopted Resolution 24- 129 to modify the formal procedure to address complaints or allegations of misconduct against members of boards and commissions;
WHEREAS, the Council desires to amend the procedure to address complaints and allegations to coincide with the change in the nomination process allowing for individual councilmember nominations to the Boards and Commissions

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

1.Resolution No. 24-129 is hereby repealed.

The following procedure for addressing complaints or allegations of misconduct raised against a member of certain boards and commissions is hereby approved and adopted:

A.Written Complaint: In the event a written complaint or allegation of misconduct is filed with a Department Head, a member of the City Council, the City Manager or the City Attorney, the complaint will be forwarded to and reviewed by the City Manager to initially make a threshold determination of whether same warrants an informal investigation or review by the Department Head with staffing authority over the particular board or commission or whether the matter is of such a serious nature as to require an investigation by the City 263 of 433

2 Attorney. When the City Manager receives the written complaint, notice thereof shall be provided to the Councilmembers who were part of the panel that nominated the board or commission member who is the subject of the complaint.

B. Verbal Complaint: Verbal complaints shall be addressed by the Department Head with staffing responsibility for the board or commission. If a verbal complaint is found by the Department Head to be of a serious nature or is evidence of a pattern of inappropriate conduct, the Department Head shall seek to obtain the complaint in writing. If the person lodging the complaint cannot or will not reduce the complaint to writing, the Department Head shall prepare and provide a written summary of the verbal complaint to the City Manager and Councilmembers who were part of the panel that nominated the subject of the complaint.

C.Process for Review of Complaints or Allegations of Minor Violations of Code of Conduct or other Improper Behavior: If a complaint is referred or assigned to the Department Head for review, the Department Head will conduct a review, determine the validity and severity of the complaint or allegation, and if minor or the result of a miscommunication or misunderstanding, shall meet with the subject of the complaint or allegation, discuss same and provide suggestions for avoiding the issue, miscommunication or misunderstanding in the future. The Department Head will also inform the City Manager, City Attorney, and the Councilmembers who were part of the panel that nominated the subject of the complaint of the outcome of the review and the action taken, 264 of 433

3 if any.

D.Process for Review of Complaints or Allegations of Serious or Repeated Violations of Code of Conduct or Other Improper Behavior:
(1) In the event a complaint is determined to be of sufficient severity, or the matter involves a complaint against an individual who has previously been counseled for a complaint or allegation of misconduct which was found to be true, the matter will be referred by the City Manager to the City Attorney for an investigation and report.
(2) At the conclusion of the investigation, and the receipt of a report from the City Attorney, the Councilmembers who were part of the panel that nominated the individual to the board or commission along with the City Manager, City Attorney and relevant Department Head (the review committee) shall meet with the board or commission member who is the subject of the complaint to discuss the complaint or allegations, the severity thereof and what action, if any, will be recommended to the entire Council. In lieu of the procedure outlined above, the Councilmembers who were part of the panel that nominated the individual to the board or commission may discuss the matter with the board or commission member directly, and may recommend discipline to the Council up to and including removal. The Council will be informed if no action is recommended.

E. Notice to Affected Board or Commission Member: The subject of a written complaint will be notified of the complaint during the review process at a time determined appropriate by the Department Head or City Manager. In the event 265 of 433

4 the complaint is verbal, the subject will be notified by the Department Head at a time as determined appropriate by the Department Head.

F.City Council Consideration: Should the matter be recommended to the City Council for action, the matter will be placed on the next available City Council agenda for discussion and determination by the City Council regarding the appropriate level of discipline up to and including removal.

F.Invalidity of Action–No New Rights: The process herein creates no property or other interest in a position on a board or commission. The process established by this Resolution is for administrative convenience and consistency. Appointees to Boards and Commissions serve solely at the pleasure of the Council, and the Council retains the absolute right to remove a member of a board or commission at any time, for any reason. Failure to follow the procedure(s) set forth herein in any respect shall not invalidate any action by the Council to discipline or remove a member of a board or commission.

G.Handling of Performance and Other Issues: Should issues arise which are not in the nature of a "complaint" under paragraphs A or B herein, but arise from performance issues such as non-participation in meetings, the Department Head may request the City Manager to convene the review committee [see paragraph D(2)] to meet with the member of the board or commission to discuss the issue (s). At the conclusion of the meeting the review committee may make a recommendation to the council regarding further action.

H.Rights of Council to Retain Original Jurisdiction: In any case other than 266 of 433

5 a referral to the entire City Council, any individual councilmember may at any time, publicly request that the item be agendized for discussion and action by the entire City Council, subject to the Council’s procedures for placing matters on the agenda. Nothing herein requires the City Council to agendize a request by the subject of a complaint.

I.Applicability–Generally: The procedure outlined herein shall apply to all boards and commissions created by Charter or ordinance of the City.

Adopted this ______ day of ______________________, 2024. ________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No.__________ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a special meeting held on the __________ day of ________________, 2024, and that same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
267 of 433

6 __________________________________
City Clerk
268 of 433

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________________, that with respect to the Report to Council dated September 17, 2024 pertaining to a modification to the nomination and appointment process of boards and commissions, Council hereby directs staff as follows:

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:
269 of 433

2024
Arts&Culture
1 Asatryan Brotman
2 Brotman Gharpetian
3 Gharpetian Kassakhian
4 Kassakhian Najarian
5 Najarian Asatryan
Audit
1 Asatryan Gharpetian
2 Brotman Kassakhian
3 Gharpetian Najarian
4 Kassakhian Asatryan
5 Najarian Brotman
Bld/Fire
1 Asatryan Kassakhian
2 Brotman Najarian
3 Gharpetian Asatryan
4 Kassakhian Brotman
5 Najarian Gharpetian
CSW
1 Asatryan Najarian
2 Brotman Asatryan
3 Gharpetian Brotman
4 Kassakhian Gharpetian
5 Najarian Kassakhian
CDBG
1 Asatryan Brotman
2 Brotman Gharpetian
3 Gharpetian Kassakhian
4 Kassakhian Najarian
5 Najarian Asatryan
DRB
1 Asatryan Gharpetian
2 Brotman Kassakhian
3 Gharpetian Najarian
4 Kassakhian Asatryan
5 Najarian Brotman
GWP
1 Asatryan Kassakhian
2 Brotman Najarian
270 of 433

3 Gharpetian Asatryan
4 Kassakhian Brotman
5 Najarian Gharpetian
HPC
1 Asatryan Najarian
2 Brotman Asatryan
3 Gharpetian Brotman
4 Kassakhian Gharpetian
5 Najarian Kassakhian
Parks
1 Asatryan Brotman
2 Brotman Gharpetian
3 Gharpetian Kassakhian
4 Kassakhian Najarian
5 Najarian Asatryan
Planning
1 Asatryan Gharpetian
2 Brotman Kassakhian
3 Gharpetian Najarian
4 Kassakhian Asatryan
5 Najarian Brotman
Sust.
1 Asatryan Kassakhian
2 Brotman Najarian
3 Gharpetian Asatryan
4 Kassakhian Brotman
5 Najarian Gharpetian
TPC
1 Asatryan Najarian
2 Brotman Asatryan
3 Gharpetian Brotman
4 Kassakhian Gharpetian
5 Najarian Kassakhian
2024
271 of 433

1 ORDINANCE NO. ____________

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,
CALIFORNIA AMENDING SECTION 2.36.010 OF THE GLENDALE
MUNICIPAL CODE, 1995, PERTAINING TO TERMS OF BOARD

MEMBERS AND COMMISSIONERS
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1. Section 2.36.010 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, is hereby amended to read as follows:

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the _____ day of __, 2024.

_________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
273 of 433

3 ) SS.

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

______________________________
City Clerk
274 of 433

RESOLUTION NO. ______________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,

CALIFORNIA ESTABLISHING A RECRUITMENT AND SELECTION PROCESS

FOR APPOINTMENT OF INDIVIDUALS TO BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WHEREAS, the City of Glendale has a number of boards and commissions to which individuals are appointed by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the Council adopted Resolution No. 24-128 on July 16, 2024, establishing a formal policy for the recruitment, selection, and appointment of individuals to boards and commissions; and
WHEREAS, the policy set forth in Resolution No. 24-128 provided for each councilmember to nominate one member to each board and commission; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to amend the recruitment, selection, and appointment process to reinstitute an interview panel process, whereby two councilmembers are selected to nominate an individual to fill a vacancy on a board or commission similar to the process established by prior Council Resolutions Nos. 02-80 and 23-29; and
WHEREAS, on July 16, 2024, the Council – by motion – removed all of the members of the Boards and Commissions established under Title 2 of the Glendale Municipal Code, subject to each member being reappointed or replaced in accordance with Council Resolution No. 24-128; and
WHEREAS, the Council agendized consideration ofdesires to consider the rescission and, repeal and replacement of Resolution No. 24-128.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA AS FOLLOWS:
275 of 433

Section 1. Resolution No. 24-128 is hereby repealed.

Section 2. The following procedure for recruitment, selection and appointment of individuals to boards and commissions is hereby established:

A. TITLE 2 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS - SELECTION OF INTERVIEW PANEL

Option 1.: The second member of the panel shall be in a vertical column (Column Two) with the first council member being the individual who is the second council member listed in Column One. The next three council members will follow in alphabetical order, with the first council member in Column One being last in Column Two. Column One shall always remain alphabetical, Column Two will rotate after all council members have an opportunity to serve on a panel. The rotation process will have the council members in Column Two moving up the column with the council member at the top rotating to the bottom. The two council members who match up horizontally on the columns will constitute the panel to interview candidates who have applied to serve on a board or commission. Each panel shall interview candidates, and make nomination selections, for a single 276 of 433

position on a board or commission. The panel rotation system described above shall be applied to each board and commission system separately Option2.: The second member of the panel shall be in a vertical column (Column Two) with the first council member being the individual who is the second council member listed in Column One as it relates to the first Title 2 Board or Commission in alphabetical order. The next three council members will follow in alphabetical order, with the first council member in Column One being last in Column Two. Column One shall always remain alphabetical, Column Two will rotate for every board or commission in that the next board or commission will with the first council member being the individual who is the third councilmember listed in Column One and so on. The rotation process will have the council members in Column Two moving up the column with the council member at the top rotating to the bottom. The two council members who match up horizontally on the columns will constitute the panel to interview candidates who have applied to serve on a board or commission. Each panel shall interview candidates, and make nomination selections, for a single position on a board or commission. To the extent the Council adopts an ordinance amending Section 2.36.010 regarding the term of office for board members and commissioners, the term of each board and commissioner shall be coterminous with the term of the councilmember in Column One on their nominating panel.

The seats of councilmembers in Column One shall be numbered as follows:

Asatryan – 1
Brotman – 2
Gharpetian – 3
Kassakhian – 4
277 of 433

Najarian – 5For5
For the initial nominations and appointments made in accordance with this Resolution after its adoption, the panel assigned a Column One seat number shall be assigned to nominate for the same numbered seat on the board and commission for which that panel is nominating, with the board and commission members being assigned seat numbers in alphabetical order, with vacant seats being assigned at the end of the order.

B. TITLE 2 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS - SELECTION OF INTERVIEW PANEL

TO FILL VACANCIES CREATED BY REMOVAL OR RESIGNATION AFTER THE

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS RESOLUTION
For vacancies on the boards and commissions established under Title 2 of the Glendale Municipal Code created after effective date of this Resolution (i.e. vacancies created after Council fills the Title 2 Boards and Commissions in accordance with Paragraph A of this Section 2 above), each vacancy shall be filled as set forth in this Paragraph B. When a vacancy is created by a resignation or removal, the panel to fill that vacancy shall be comprised of (i) the councilmember who was in Column One same panel of the panel that nominatedoriginal appointment, with the individual tonumbers associated with the board or commission and . . .
[Option 1: . . . the councilmember who is next in rotation for the specific board or commission.
[Option 2: a councilmember chosen at random by the City Clerk, provided the Clerk shall be authorized to skip a councilmember chosen at random if that councilmember has been a nominating councilmember from Column Two to 278 of 433

nominate a sitting board member or commissioner and at least one other councilmember has not had an opportunity to serve as a Column Two nominating councilmember of a sitting board member or commissioner have not .] council members who filled that position. If appointed by the Council, the term of the board member or commissioner nominated under this Paragraph B shall be coterminous with the term of the councilmember in Column 1One of the panel.

Example: By way of example and without limitation, assuming the following councilmembers are serving in alphabetical order:

D. APPLICABLE TO TITLE 2 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS; SEPARATE

member of a panel) nominated a sitting member of the Civil Service Commission whose seat is not up for reappointment/replacement. In that case, the nomination shall be assigned to the next councilmember in the rotation. In the event any councilmember has not nominated any sitting member of the Civil Service Commission (other than one whose term has expired or is expiring and is up from reappointment/replacement), and a new councilmember is elected or appointed to the Council, any councilmember who has not nominated a sitting Civil Service Commission member shall have precedence over a newly elected or appointed councilmember regardless of alphabetical order. The “nominating” council member will request to have the nominee’s name placed on the agenda for consideration. No designated council member will be permitted to nominate more than one candidate to the Civil Service Commission until all council members have nominated a candidate (either individually or as part of a panel), except as set forth in Paragraph G, below.

F. INTERVIEW PANEL - RECOMMENDATION PROCESS
Interview panels are encouraged to reach consensus on the candidate they would recommend for appointment to a board or commission. Should the panel be unable 281 of 433

to reach agreement on the candidate to recommend to the entire council, the panel members should determine the action necessary to resolve their differences. If the panel cannot recommend an appointment or cannot determine the appropriate procedure to resolve its differences, the panel shall report same to the Council at a public meeting. The Council may, among other things, refer the matter back to the panel for further consideration, or designate the appointment of a new panel, by replacing the councilmember who was in Column Two, to select a nominee for the board or commission.

When a panel has concluded the interview process and is prepared to provide a recommendation to the full Council, the panel shall announce its recommendation at the next regular Council meeting. No action shall be taken by the Council to appoint the recommended candidate at such meeting and the matter shall be placed on the following agenda, including the name of the recommended candidate, for consideration and action by the Council.

G. RECOMMENDATION PROCESS-TIME LIMIT
Each panel shall bring forward a nominee within sixty (60) days after the announcement of the vacancy and notice from the City Clerk of the panel makeup.

The 60-day time period maywill be extended for up to an additional 30 days should factors including, but not limited to, a lack of qualified candidates, exist. If an extension is required, the councilmembers comprising the panel shall, at a public council meeting state the need and reason(s) for the extension. If after expiration of the extension a nominee is not brought forward or the panel cannot agree on a candidate, the Council may replace Column Two shall disband the panel and make 282 of 433

a direct appointment in accordance with the alphabetic rotation set forth above, or the council may utilize any other method of nominating and voting on an appointment to the particular board or commission. Brown Act.

H. AGENDIZING NOMINEE
When the panel is prepared to provide a recommendation to the full Council, either the Councilmember in Column Onecouncilmember making up the panel shall announce the recommendation at the next regular Council meeting. No action shall be taken by the Council to appoint the nominated candidate at such meeting and the matter shall be placed on the following regular meeting agenda, including the name of the candidate, for consideration and action by the council.

I. AUTHORIZATION TO MODIFY PROCEDURE - APPOINTMENT

VALIDITY
The Council may, in its discretion, deviate from the procedure set forth herein in any instance for the recruitment, selection and appointment of an individual to a board or commission, provide that such process does not violate Chapter 2.36 of the Glendale Municipal Code. Failure to comply with any of the procedures set forth herein shall not void or otherwise affect the validity of any appointment made by the Council.

Adopted this ______ day of ______________________, 2024. ________________________________
283 of 433

Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)SS

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
__________________________________
City Clerk
284 of 433

RESOLUTION NO. ______________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE

PROCEDURE TO ADDRESS COMPLAINTS OR

ALLEGATIONS OF MISCONDUCT AGAINST MEMBERS

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

1.Resolution No. 24-129 is hereby repealed.

The following procedure for addressing complaints or allegations of misconduct raised against a member of certain boards and commissions is hereby approved and adopted:

2 Attorney. When the City Manager receives the written complaint, notice thereof shall be provided to the Councilmembers who was in Column One were part of the panel that nominated the board or commission member who is the subject of the complaint.

B. Verbal Complaint: Verbal complaints shall be addressed by the Department Head with staffing responsibility for the board or commission. If a verbal complaint is found by the Department Head to be of a serious nature or is evidence of a pattern of inappropriate conduct, the Department Head shall seek to obtain the complaint in writing. If the person lodging the complaint cannot or will not reduce the complaint to writing, the Department Head shall prepare and provide a written summary of the verbal complaint to the City Manager and Councilmembers who were part was in Column One of the panel that nominated the subject of the complaint.

C.Process for Review of Complaints or Allegations of Minor Violations of Code of Conduct or other Improper Behavior: If a complaint is referred or assigned to the Department Head for review, the Department Head will conduct a review, determine the validity and severity of the complaint or allegation, and if minor or the result of a miscommunication or misunderstanding, shall meet with the subject of the complaint or allegation, discuss same and provide suggestions for avoiding the issue, miscommunication or misunderstanding in the future. The Department Head will also inform the City Manager, City Attorney, and the Councilmembers who were part was in Column One of the panel that nominated the subject of the complaint of the outcome of the review 286 of 433

3 and the action taken, if any.

D.Process for Review of Complaints or Allegations of Serious or Repeated Violations of Code of Conduct or Other Improper Behavior:
(1) In the event a complaint is determined to be of sufficient severity, or the matter involves a complaint against an individual who has previously been counseled for a complaint or allegation of misconduct which was found to be true, the matter will be referred by the City Manager to the City Attorney for an investigation and report.
(2) At the conclusion of the investigation, and the receipt of a report from the City Attorney, the Councilmembers who was in Column One were part of the panel that nominated the individual to the board or commission along with the City Manager, City Attorney and relevant Department Head (the review committee) shall meet with the board or commission member who is the subject of the complaint to discuss the complaint or allegations, the severity thereof and what action, if any, will be recommended to the entire Council. In lieu of the procedure outlined above, the Councilmembers who were part was in Column One of the panel that nominated the individual to the board or commission may discuss the matter with the board or commission member directly, and may recommend discipline to the Council up to and including removal. The Council will be informed if no action is recommended.

4 the complaint is verbal, the subject will be notified by the Department Head at a time as determined appropriate by the Department Head.

H.Rights of Council to Retain Original Jurisdiction: In any case other than 288 of 433

I.Applicability–Generally: The procedure outlined herein shall apply to all boards and commissions created by Charter or ordinance of the City.

Adopted this ______ day of ______________________, 2024. ________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
289 of 433

6 __________________________________
City Clerk
290 of 433

24-86291 8 a

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Follow-Up Programs Related to Rental Rights Discussion Motion: Provide direction to staff regarding the development of future Housing programs.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for September 17, 2024 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On November 28, 2023, City Council (Council) was presented with several ideas aimed at enhancing tenant protections. Council discussed these preliminary ideas, and multiple members showed significant interest in exploring certain proposals further. This report introduces the selected concepts for in-depth analysis and outlines the subsequent steps for their consideration.

The proposals include:

1. Notice to City and Tenant

2. City Oversight of Permit

3. Financial Assistance Programs

4. Legal Aid and Representation

5. Additional Enforcement Provisions
In addition to the above-mentioned proposals, Council asked staff to prepare a report on the possibility of establishing a permanent Landlord/Tenant Commission. 291 of 433

24-86291 28 a
5 3
7 6

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council receive and file this report or provide further direction regarding the six program proposals presented.

ANALYSIS
Based upon Council discussion and direction at its meeting of November 28, 2023, the following proposals emerged as top priorities for further exploration. These proposals are included as attachments and provide a detailed analysis. The summary of proposals include:

1.Notice to City and Tenant: Mandates landlords to notify both the city and tenants when issuing eviction notices to ensure oversight and potentially intervene in unjust or unwarranted evictions. (Attachment 1)

2.City Oversight of Permit: Requires landlords to indicate on permits if evictions are associated with major renovations and appoints an oversight role to ensure compliance and fair practices. (Attachment 2)

3.Financial Assistance Programs: Establishes programs to provide temporary relief or rental assistance to tenants facing eviction. (Attachment 3)

4.Legal Aid and Representation: Increases access to legal support for tenants facing eviction to ensure they have proper representation in legal proceedings. (Attachment 4)

5.Additional Enforcement Provisions: Allows the City Attorney to initiate civil proceedings for damages resulting from tenant displacement. (Attachment 5) In addition to the above proposals, Council asked staff to bring a report on the possibility of establishing a permanent Landlord/Tenant Commission. The proposal on a Landlord/Tenant Commission is included as Attachment 6.

In evaluating the various programs to enhance tenant support and housing stability, staff has assessed the budgetary requirements for these proposals. The following table presents a brief overview of the estimated annual costs associated with each program.

Please note that these are very rough estimates and actual costs may vary depending on Council decisions and further refinements. This overview is to aid in understanding the financial implications of each option, detailed breakdowns are available in each report. 292 of 433

24-86291 38 a
5 3
7 6
Program Description Estimated Annual Budget
Notice to
Glendale and
Tenant
Total program costs including
marketing and operations. $175,000
City Oversight of
Permit
Costs include reallocation of
Hourly position, printed
materials, and outreach.
$50,000
Financial
Assistance
(Relocation
Formula)
Financial assistance based on
unit size and relocation formula,
with total estimated assistance
for 150 participants.
$1,554,500 - $2,914,000
Financial
Assistance (Fixed
Amount)
Fixed assistance amounts
based on household size, for
150 participants.
$675,000
Financial
Assistance (First
Month’s Rent
Assistance)
Providing assistance for first
month’s rent for 150
participants, varying by rent
level.
$350,000
Financial
Assistance
(Unpaid Rent
Assistance)
Provide assistance to tenants
with unpaid rent, for 150
participants.
$697,500
Financial
Assistance
(Owner Incentive)
Additional budget for landlord
incentives based on incentive
level, for 150 participants.
$150,000 - $450,000
Basic Legal
Advice
Legal aid agencies would
review tenant cases and
provide legal advice and
recommendations
$336,000
Limited Legal
Representation
Legal aid agencies would assist
tenants by drafting official
correspondence, such as
letters to landlords or
responses to legal notices.
$386,000
Full Legal
Representation
Full legal representation in
court proceedings related to
eviction cases, advocating for
tenants' rights and interests.
$670,000
Direct Funding
for Legal
Representation
Provide direct financial
assistance to tenants to cover
attorney fees.
$916,000
293 of 433

24-86291 48 a
5 3
7 6
Program Description Estimated Annual Budget
Landlord/Tenant
Commission
Budget for additional staff and
operating costs associated with
a permanent landlord-tenant
commission.
$160,000
Implementing multiple options simultaneously could result in cost efficiencies. For example, by aligning staff efforts across projects, costs associated with hiring additional personnel can be reduced. A shared team could handle overlapping administrative tasks.

Next Steps
If Council chooses to move forward with any of the above proposals, staff can begin implementation of some of them and, if necessary, bring back further detailed reports based on Council direction. These reports will provide comprehensive insights on implementation, marketing and outreach, final budget estimates and effective start dates among other things.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
No stakeholder outreach has been conducted for the purposes of this report. If directed, staff could conduct said outreach for those proposals identified by Council. Such outreach could entail a survey and/or meeting with the interested landlord and tenant organizations that had previously commented on the Rental Rights Program Ordinance amendment.

FISCAL IMPACT
If Council chooses to move forward with any of these proposals, staff will return to Council to request funds to be appropriated from the 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
Alternative 1: City Council may adopt a motion to receive and file a report and take no further action with regards to the proposals provided by staff. 294 of 433

24-86291 58 a
5 3
7 6
Alternative 2: City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:

Peter Zovak, Assistant Director of Community Development Sipan Zadoryan, Housing Supervisor
Lucy Varpetian, Principal Assistant City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Notice to City and Tenant Proposal

2. City Oversight of Permit Proposal

3. Financial Assistance Programs Proposal

4. Legal Aid and Representation Proposal

5. Additional Enforcement Provisions Proposal

6. Landlord/Tenant Commission Proposal
295 of 433

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:
296 of 433

Page 1 of 4 ends

Attachment 1

NOTICE TO CITY AND TENANT
This report evaluates the feasibility of implementing a policy requiring landlords to provide notice of evictions (i.e. 3-Day Notice to Perform or Quit, 3-day Notice to Quit, or 30/60 Day Notice to Quit), to the City of Glendale simultaneously when issuing them to tenants. The proposed policy aims to enable City intervention in cases of unjust evictions and ensure tenants are fully informed of their rights and options. The report outlines the policy's operational framework, potential benefits, cost implications, and implementation considerations.

Program Objectives
•Ensure tenants receive timely notices and understand their rights. •Ensure landlords provide proper notices as to not delay eviction process. •Enable City involvement in unjust eviction cases.
•Improve transparency and accountability in the eviction process. •Collect data to inform future housing policies.

Building on discussions about eviction protections and oversight of rehabilitation permits, one proposed idea is to require landlords to provide notice of evictions to the City of Glendale at the same time they issue them to tenants.

Noticing
This policy change would require that landlords submit an eviction notice to both the City and the tenant simultaneously. Housing staff would establish a dedicated mailbox/email for landlords to be able to submit the eviction notice.

Types of Evictions
Council can choose to make this requirement across the board for all eviction types or identify a subset of evictions like At-Fault evictions or No-Fault evictions. Evictions include:

At-Fault Evictions: At-Fault evictions occur when tenants are responsible for breaching the terms of their lease or engaging in behavior that violates rental agreements. The following situations may lead to eviction:

1. Non-Payment of Rent: If tenants fail to pay rent as agreed upon, landlords may initiate eviction proceedings.

2. Lease Violation: If tenants violate the terms of their lease or rental agreement and fail to rectify the issue after receiving lawful notice.

3. Nuisance: Tenants who create a nuisance or disrupt the comfort and safety of other residents may face eviction.

4. Illegal Activities: If tenants engage in illegal activities within a 1,000-foot radius of the property or permits such activities on the premises.
297 of 433

Page 2 of 4 ends

5. Unauthorized Sub-tenancy: If the tenant allows a subtenant who has not been approved by the landlord to reside in the rental unit.

6. Denial of Access: When tenants deny a landlord reasonable access to the rental unit for necessary repairs, inspections, or showing the unit to potential buyers or mortgagees.

7. Smoking in Prohibited Areas: If the tenants smoke in the rental unit or in common areas where smoking is prohibited.

No-Fault Evictions: No-Fault evictions occur when it is not the tenant's fault and they have not triggered any adverse events. Landlords may initiate eviction proceedings based on the following reasons:

1. Demolition or Major Rehabilitation: If the landlord intends to demolish the rental unit or perform significant rehabilitation that renders the unit uninhabitable for more than 45 days, eviction may be initiated.

2. Owner/Family or Resident Manager Occupancy: Landlords have the right to recover possession for themselves, their immediate family members, or resident managers.

3. Permanent Removal from the Housing Market: In cases where the rental unit is permanently removed from the housing market, eviction may be initiated. This could happen due to reasons such as the conversion of the property for non-residential use or other circumstances that result in the unit no longer being available for rent.

4. Compliance with Governmental Orders: If a governmental agency issues an order to vacate the premises, the landlord may evict tenants to comply with such an order.

5. Contractual Agreements with Governmental Entity: Landlords may seek to recover possession of the rental unit if tenants fail to comply with contractual agreements relating to tenant qualifications. These agreements include specific requirements or conditions that tenants are expected to meet throughout the tenancy, with governmental entities where the tenant is no longer qualified.

Housing Staff Role
Staff will review and track eviction notices and provide resources and guidance when necessary. In cases where there is suspicion of an unjust or unwarranted eviction, Housing staff will conduct further investigations. Staff may intervene by mediating between the landlord and tenant or referring the case to legal aid services.

Tracking and Monitoring
All eviction notices will be logged into a centralized database to monitor the frequency and reasons for such evictions.

This database will be used to identify patterns and inform on future policy.

Budgetary Impact
To better understand the budgetary impact, staff researched the number of evictions in Glendale. Data from the Los Angeles County Superior Court provided the number of Unlawful Detainers filed in the City 298 of 433

Page 3 of 4 ends

of Glendale. While this data does not capture all evictions—since tenants may leave after the initial notice without an Unlawful Detainer ever being filled—it offers a useful starting point for analysis. The data showed the following:
•2019: 573 evictions
•2020: 211 evictions
•2021: 181 evictions
•2022: 618 evictions
•2023: 711 evictions
•2024: 312 evictions (up to the date in the dataset)
Based on this data, staff anticipates requiring an additional Associate level staff member to handle the increased workload associated with tracking and managing eviction notices and outreach to the impacted landlords and tenants. The cost of a fully burdened Housing Associate starts at $110,000. This role would involve:
•Reviewing and logging eviction notices
•Communicating with tenants and landlords
•Providing tenants with information about their rights and available resources •Coordinating interventions in cases of potential unjust evictions •Generating reports.

Additionally, the changes would need to be marketed to all landlords and tenants in Glendale for at least six months before implementation. This marketing effort is essential to ensure that all parties are aware of the new requirements and processes. Staff anticipates needing roughly $100,000 for first year of marketing and outreach, which would cover:
•Development and distribution of informational materials •Community meetings and workshops
•Online advertising and social media campaigns
Additionally, staff would need roughly $15,000 to cover office expenses such as supplies and equipment.

Total program costs for the first year of implementation, staff anticipates needing $225,000. In subsequent years, with a reduced marketing costs the estimated cost to continue the program is approximately $175,000 annually.

Conclusion
The proposed policy requiring landlords to notify both the City of Glendale and tenants of evictions simultaneously represents a significant step forward in enhancing tenant protections and oversight within the rental market. By implementing this policy, the City could mitigate unjust evictions and increase transparency, thereby ensuring that tenants and landlords are well-informed and supported throughout the eviction process. However, it is important to acknowledge the potential challenges and disadvantages associated with this policy, particularly for landlords. 299 of 433

Page 4 of 4 ends

Requiring simultaneous notification could impose additional administrative burdens on landlords, potentially leading to delays in the eviction process. This additional step may necessitate increased documentation and communication efforts, which could be perceived as cumbersome or financially straining, especially for landlords managing multiple properties. Additionally, the policy might lead to concerns about privacy and the handling of sensitive information. 300 of 433

Attachment 2

CITY OVERSIGHT OF PERMIT
This report assesses the proposed process aimed at enhancing tenant protections during major renovations that may lead to evictions. During discussions of the ordinance, one of Council's concerns was the need for stronger protections and timely information related to evictions as a result of renovations to a unit. While Council redefined and increased the scope and value of renovation work to trigger an eviction, it also broached the idea of monitoring permits related to major renovation that could be tied to tenant displacement.

Under this proposal, landlords would be required to indicate on building permit applications if significant rehabilitation work would lead to tenant displacement. When a landlord marks this option on their permit, a Housing staff member would be notified and would then contact both the landlord and the tenants to inform them of their rights and responsibilities and track the number and scope of renovations taking place in multifamily properties. This would be a simple and straight forward approach to monitoring the permit process for potential tenant displacement activities related to renovations.

Program Objectives
•Require landlords to indicate tenant displacement on building permit applications. •Notify Housing staff of potential tenant displacement due to major renovations. •Inform both landlords and tenants of their rights and responsibilities. •Monitor and track the evictions due to renovations in multifamily properties. •Enhance tenant protections during major renovation projects.

Developing a Notification System
Housing staff has discussed with Information Services and Building staff the possibility of implementing an automated system to flag permits indicating potential evictions, and staff is confident that this can be achieved with minimal interruption to the permit process and little to no impact on applicants or city staff in charge of permit oversight. This new process would be integrated into the City’s existing permit application and tracking software.

Permit Application Requirement
When a landlord is pulling permits for renovation or work being performed on the unit(s), they must indicate on their permit applications if the renovations could lead to tenant displacement or eviction.

This requirement will apply to all significant rehabilitation projects that potentially impact tenants’ living conditions. The process would be as simple as answering a question such as “If your property is currently being rented: Is the permit you are applying for going to lead to the displacement of your tenant?” and selecting, Yes, No, or Does not Apply.

Notification and Review Process
Once a submission of a permit indicating potential evictions has been submitted, an automated notification system will alert Housing staff.
301 of 433

Staff will contact the landlord to discuss the permit details, ensuring they understand their obligations and the legal implications of tenant displacement. Staff will also communicate with the affected tenants, informing them of their rights, the renovation plans, and any available support or recourse. Tenants will receive a clear explanation of their rights, including any compensation or relocation assistance they are entitled to under city laws.

Staff will maintain a database of permits and associated evictions to track trends and identify potential areas for policy improvement.

This process would enhance transparency by ensuring that tenants, City authorities, and oversight personnel are informed about the eviction context associated with the renovation permits.

Budget
To assess the budgetary impact of this new process, Housing staff collaborated with the Building and Safety department to estimate the number of permits that could potentially affect tenants. In 2023, 109 permits were issued that staff believe might have impacted tenants, based on permit valuations exceeding $10,000. So far in 2024, there have been 57 such permits. If these numbers remain consistent, staff anticipates minimal to no budgetary impact.

Based on the additional work and responsibilities, there could potentially be a need to reallocate an hourly position into salary, which again would not have significant budgetary impacts, roughly of $20,000.

Additionally, this is not a process that would need extensive marketing considering that individuals needing these permits would be coming to us. Staff anticipates needing no more than $30,000 for printed material and basic outreach.

Staff does not anticipate needing more than $50,000 to incorporate these processes into the current Rental Rights Program operations.

However, it's important to note that these numbers are estimates and not guarantees. Actual permit issuance and the associated impact on tenants may vary, potentially influencing the budgetary requirements for this process.

Conclusion
The proposed City Oversight of Permit process is designed to enhance tenant protections during significant renovation projects that might lead to displacement. This policy requires landlords to disclose potential tenant displacement on building permit applications, aiming to ensure transparency and uphold tenant rights effectively.

The process benefits from its simplicity and minimal disruption to both landlords and the City's existing systems. The requirement for landlords is straightforward and does not impose significant additional burdens, as it integrates smoothly into the current permit application system.

Furthermore, the financial and operational impacts on the City are projected to be minimal, with modest budgetary allocations required for the implementation and maintenance of this process. 302 of 433

Attachment 3

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
One of the original ideas staff brought to Council was to establish a financial assistance program to help tenants facing evictions, providing temporary relief or rental assistance.

Creating a financial assistance program to aid tenants facing evictions involves establishing a process whereby staff determines if the root cause of the eviction qualifies the tenant for assistance, determines if assistance is necessary, how much is needed, and the best approach to providing it. The program could function by providing eligible tenants with direct financial support to help cover unpaid rent, additional relocation, or related expenses during evictions. If Council decides to pursue this program, there several key decisions that need to be made to shape the program.

Program Objectives
•Establish a financial assistance program for tenants facing eviction.

Program Structure - Eligibility Criteria:

Council would need to decide first who they want to serve with this type of program. By clearly defining eligibility criteria based on income levels, family size, and other relevant factors including types of evictions.

Income:

When it comes to determining eligibility based on income, staff recommends sticking to the commonly used Income Limits established by Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Council can decide which specific income levels to serve, such as Low Income, Very Low Income, and Extremely Low Income households. The chart below illustrates these income levels for clarity:

Council can choose to pick one income category or all to assist.

Family Size/Demographic
In addition to income levels, Council can establish family size or age as an eligibility criteria. For example, Council can choose to provide assistance to only low-income families or low-income seniors who are being evicted. This can be a determining factor to how large or small the program budget needs to be. For example a program serving only low income seniors would require a smaller budget than a program that serves low income individuals or families in general, the rational being that the more specific the requirements, the less number of people will qualify.

Types of Evictions
Another area of consideration would be the types of evictions eligible for assistance. Council can choose to provide assistance for any eviction occurring in Glendale or specifically target No- Fault Evictions.

Providing assistance to all types of evictions would mean that individuals evicted for non- payment of rent, causing a nuisance, or breaching a lease would all be eligible for assistance.

Targeting only No-Fault evictions would focus on those being evicted for reasons such as family move-ins, major rehabilitations, or other reasons not caused by the tenant's actions.

Staff recommends a hybrid approach. This approach would include:

No-Fault Evictions - Tenants Not Receiving Financial Assistance: Apply the policy to tenants who are not receiving relocation assistance, such as those living in single-family homes, duplexes, or 3 to 4 units facing rehab evictions.

Evictions Due to Financial Hardship: Extend the policy to individuals evicted for non- payment of rent if the non-payment was due to financial hardship.

This hybrid approach ensures that tenants who would not otherwise be receiving relocation assistance receive some sort of assistance and that those facing eviction due to financial hardship are given relief.

Program Structure – Assistance Options
City Council can adopt several approaches to determine the type and extent of assistance provided to tenants facing eviction. These approaches include Fixed Amount, Reimbursement, and Need-Based Assistance. Below are the detailed options for each approach:
304 of 433

Fixed Amount Assistance
Providing a fixed amount of assistance is the most straightforward approach. This option would allocate a predetermined sum based on the tenant's income level and family size. The fixed amount ensures that each eligible tenant receives a consistent level of support, simplifying the program's administration. Key considerations include:
•Income Level and Family Size: The fixed amount would vary depending on the tenant's income and the number of dependents. For example, lower-income households with more dependents might receive higher assistance.
•Predictability: Tenants can reliably know the assistance they will receive, aiding in their financial planning during the eviction process.

This approach would be best suited for tenants receiving No-Fault evictions who do not qualify for relocation assistance. If they were to qualify, the formula would be 3 x the greater of the amount of the current rent or Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a rental unit of similar size + $2,000.

And double for qualified tenants. The assistance based on this formula could be anywhere from $7,000 for a Studio to $20,000 for a 2 bedroom, per household. Council could choose to use this formula or provide a different fixed amount.

First Month’s Rent
This approach involves the program paying the first month's rent for tenants who have been evicted. This can set tenants on the right foot in their new housing situation and provide them time to find new sources of income while they transition to new housing. Specific details include:
•Eligibility Criteria: Tenants must demonstrate that they have been evicted and are securing new housing to qualify for this assistance.

Determining a budget for this approach can be challenging due to varying rent levels. The cost of paying the first month's rent will differ significantly. Fluctuations in rent prices and the varying needs of tenants will also impact costs.

Unpaid Rent Coverage
Covering unpaid rent for tenants facing eviction due to non-payment offers another form of support. This option can help tenants avoid eviction by settling overdue rent payments. This program could be designed to assist tenants in emergency situations similar to a temporary rental assistance program. Detailed aspects include:
•Eviction Prevention: Assists tenants in clearing overdue rent, potentially preventing eviction proceedings.
305 of 433

•Eligibility Requirements: Tenants must provide evidence of financial hardship and unpaid rent to qualify for this assistance.

This approach, similar to the one above, would also make it difficult to pin down a budget due to fluctuations in each unique situation.

Benefits for Property Owners
An additional feature that can be added to the program would be landlord incentives. To incentivize property owners to rent to recently evicted tenants or landlords who extend eviction dates, an additional bonus can be provided. This encourages landlords to offer housing to tenants who have faced eviction, creating opportunity for tenants. Key points include:
•Owner Incentives: A $1,000 bonus can be rewarded to property owners who rent to recently evicted tenants, providing financial motivation. •Conditions for Bonus: Property owners must sign a lease with an evicted tenant and maintain the tenancy for a specified period to qualify for the bonus.

Budgetary Considerations
Staff would need to determine the annual budget required for the program, considering factors such as the number of eligible tenants, average assistance amounts, and program reach.

Funds would need to be allocated for administrative costs, including staffing, application processing, and outreach efforts. Additional staffing would be needed to for processing, handling applications, eligibility verification, and aid distribution.

Staff has attempted to create cost estimates based on the type of assistance Council has to consider.

Fixed Amount Assistance Budget
For this example, we will see how much the budget would be if we were to take into consideration the relocation formula. First you will see the cost of serving a single household based on unit size, then we will take that number and use it to determine what the budget would be if we had 150 participants in the program. The participants are broken down based on bedroom size.
•Formula: 3 × max(current rent, Fair Market Rent (FMR) for a similar-sized unit) + $2,000 •Double the assistance for qualified tenants
Current Fair Market Rents (FMRs):
•Studio: $1,777
•1 Bedroom: $2,006
•2 Bedroom: $2,544
306 of 433

•3 Bedroom: $3,263
Assistance Estimates by Unit Size:

Unit Size Fair Market Rent (FMR) Fixed Amount Calculation Fixed Assistance Studio $1,777 3 × $1,777 + $2,000 $7,331
1 Bedroom $2,006 3 × $2,006 + $2,000 $8,018
2 Bedroom $2,544 3 × $2,544 + $2,000 $9,632
3 Bedroom $3,263 3 × $3,263 + $2,000 $11,789
Range of Assistance: From $7,331 for a studio to $11,789 for a 3-bedroom unit.

Maximum Estimated Assistance: Up to $23,578 for qualified tenants in 3-bedroom unit (double the assistance).

Assuming the average number of households per unit size per year:
•Studio: 25 households
•1 Bedroom: 50 households
•2 Bedroom: 50 households
•3 Bedroom: 25 households
Total Assistance Budget Calculation:

Unit Size Average Households Fixed Amount per Household Total Budget Studio 25 $7,331 $183,275
1 Bedroom 50 $8,018 $400,900
2 Bedroom 50 $9,632 $481,600
3 Bedroom 25 $11,789 $294,725
Total Estimated Assistance Budget for Non-Qualified Households: $1,360,500 Total Estimated Assistance Budget for Qualified Households: $2,720,000 307 of 433

Total Budget for Fixed Assistance Based on Relocation Formula – 150 Participants The total potential budget using relocation formula and 150 participants as basis would be roughly – $1,554,500 - $2,914,000 including staffing:

Total annual assistance budget: $1,360,500 - $2,720,000 Staffing, administrative, and other costs: $194,000
-Staff – 1 Housing Associate - $109,000
-Outreach - $50,000
-Admin/Supplies - $35,000
Total Budget – $1,554,500 - $2,914,000
Fixed assistance using predetermined amounts:

In this example the assistance will be based on a fixed dollar amount, taking into consideration household size. And again, this is based on 150 participants evenly distributed.

Fixed Assistance Amounts:
•Single Person: $3,500
•2-3 Persons: $4,500
•4 or More Persons: $5,500
Assumed Distribution of 150 Households:
•Single Person: 50 households
•2-3 Persons: 50 households
•4 or More Persons: 50 households
Total Assistance Budget Calculation:

Family Size Average Households Fixed Amount per Household Total Budget Single Person 50 $3,500 $175,000
2-3 Persons 50 $4,500 $225,000
4 or More Persons 50 $5,500 $275,000
Total Estimated Assistance Budget: $675,000
Total Budget for Fixed Assistance Based Predetermined amounts– 150 Participants The total potential budget using relocation formula and 150 participants as basis would be roughly – $869,000 including staffing:
308 of 433

Total annual assistance budget: $675,000
Staffing, administrative, and other costs: $194,000
-Staff – 1 Housing Associate - $109,000
-Outreach - $50,000
-Admin/Supplies - $35,000
Total Budget – $869,000
First Month’s Rent Assistance Budget
This section will show the budget breakdown for providing assistance of first month rent, again assuming 150 participants with rents ranging from $1,500 to $3,500.

Rent Level Number of Households Cost per
Household
Total Budget
Low Rent 50 $1,500 $75,000
Moderate Rent 50 $2,000 $100,000
High Rent 50 $3,500 $175,000
Total Estimated Assistance Budget: $350,000
Total Budget for Fixed Assistance Based First Month Rent– 150 Participants The total potential budget using relocation formula and 150 participants as basis would be roughly – $350,000 including staffing:

Total annual assistance budget: $350,00
Staffing, administrative, and other costs: $194,000
-Staff – 1 Housing Associate - $109,000
-Outreach - $50,000
-Admin/Supplies - $35,000
Total Budget – $544,000
Due to the fluctuation in tenants' needs, such as varying amounts of rent, the budget for providing assistance could fluctuate significantly. To manage this variability and ensure the program remains within budgetary constraints, the Council could implement a cap on the maximum amount of assistance a tenant can receive and/or a cap on number of participants. 309 of 433

Unpaid Rent Assistance Budget
This section will show the budget breakdown for providing assistance to tenants who have not paid rent, again assuming 150 participants with rental debut ranging from $2,000 to $8,500.

Rent Level Number of Households Amount per
Household
Total Budget
Low Rent 37 $2,000 $74,000
Moderate Rent 37 $3,500 $129,500
High Rent 38 $5,000 $190,000
Very High Rent 38 $8,000 $304,000
Total Estimated Budget: $697,500
Total Budget for Fixed Assistance Based Unpaid Rent– 150 Participants The total potential budget using relocation formula and 150 participants as basis would be roughly – $697,500 including staffing:

Total annual assistance budget: $697,500
Staffing, administrative, and other costs: $194,000
-Staff – 1 Housing Associate - $109,000
-Outreach - $50,000
-Admin/Supplies - $35,000
Total Budget – $891,500
Due to the fluctuation in tenants' needs, such as varying amounts of overdue rent or debt, the budget for providing assistance to prevent eviction could fluctuate significantly. To manage this variability and ensure the program remains within budgetary constraints, the Council could implement a cap on the maximum amount of assistance a tenant can receive. For instance, setting a limit of $10,000 per tenant would provide a clear threshold for financial support.

Owner Incentive
In addition to the assistance budget, if Council wishes to implement additional incentives for landlords who rent to evicted tenants, or extend eviction deadlines, an additional budget would be required. The following shows the additional amount needed based on 150 participants. 310 of 433

Incentive Level Incentive Amount
per Landlord
Number of
Landlords
Total Additional Budget
Low Incentive $1,000 150 $150,000
Moderate Incentive $2,000 150 $300,000
High Incentive $3,000 150 $450,000
The budget outlined here provides a rough estimation based on hypothetical numbers. The actual figures would depend on varies factors include the number of tenants in need or number of tenants Council chooses to assist, and the extent of financial support and need for additional staffing and marketing.

In addition to the options above, Council could also give a set budget of, for example, $500,000 and instruct staff to expand that based on need.

Conclusion
The proposed Financial Assistance Programs are designed to provide crucial support to tenants at risk of eviction by offering direct financial aid. The decisions before Council, such as setting income and family size thresholds, choosing between fixed and need-based assistance, and deciding on additional incentives for landlords, are crucial for tailoring the program effectively to the community's needs.

The Council has several distinct financial assistance programs to consider, each designed to address specific aspects of tenant evictions with unique budgetary requirements:

Fixed Amount Assistance Program
Provides a specific, predetermined amount of financial support based on the tenant's income level and family size. This model simplifies administration and offers predictable aid to eligible tenants.

First Month’s Rent Assistance Program
Assists evicted tenants by covering the cost of the first month’s rent in their new housing, helping to smooth the transition and stabilize their living situation.

Unpaid Rent Assistance Program
Offers financial support to cover unpaid rent, preventing evictions due to temporary financial hardships. This program targets tenants at immediate risk of eviction, providing rapid relief to preserve housing stability.
311 of 433

Ultimately, this program not only aids tenants in maintaining housing stability but also potentially reduces the long-term social and economic costs associated with evictions. 312 of 433

Attachment 4

LEGAL AID AND REPRESENTATION PROGRAM FOR LOW-

INCOME TENANTS IN GLENDALE
This report evaluates the feasibility of implementing a Legal Aid and Representation Program or tenants right to counsel program aimed at increasing access to legal aid and representation for low-income tenants facing eviction in the City of Glendale. The program intends to ensure tenants have adequate representation during eviction proceedings, enhancing their ability to navigate legal complexities. The report outlines the program's operational framework, cost estimates, staffing requirements, and various levels of involvement.

Program Objectives
• Provide legal aid and representation to low-income tenants facing eviction. • Partner with established legal aid agencies to handle cases. • Offer financial assistance to cover attorney costs for eligible tenants. • Implement a reimbursement mechanism to recover attorney fees from legal victories.

NEED FOR ATTORNEY SERVICES FOR TENANTS
Tenants facing eviction often lack the legal expertise to navigate complex legal proceedings, which significantly affects their chances of a favorable outcome. The National Coalition for a Civil Right to Counsel estimates that less than 5% of tenants facing eviction have representation nationwide. Meanwhile, about 80% of landlords use attorneys.

The lack of access to legal services for low-income tenants is a widespread issue. Many tenants cannot afford legal representation, and free legal aid resources are often overwhelmed. In cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles County, initiatives like the Tenant Right to Counsel program have been implemented to address this gap, offering free legal representation to eligible low- income renters facing eviction proceedings.

Having legal representation significantly improves tenants' chances of avoiding eviction and achieving favorable outcomes in court. Legal assistance helps tenants understand their rights, prepare necessary documents, and present their cases effectively. Programs in New York City, Kansas City, and Boston have demonstrated the positive impact of legal aid, reducing eviction rates and helping tenants stay in their homes.

Evictions in Glendale
To better understand number of evictions in Glendale, staff attempted to identify how many unlawful detainers were being processed in Glendale. Staff was able to reach out to the LA 313 of 433

County Superior Courts for data which showed the number of Unlawful Detainers filed in the City of Glendale. While this data doesn't capture all evictions—since tenants may leave after the initial notice without an Unlawful Detainer ever being filled—it offers a useful starting point for analysis. The data showed the following for Glendale:
•2019: 573 evictions
•2020: 211 evictions
•2021: 181 evictions
•2022: 618 evictions
•2023: 711 evictions
•2024: 312 evictions (up to the date in the dataset)
There was a notable decrease in the number of evictions during the COVID years and moratoriums, followed by a sharp increase in 2022 and 2023. If this trend continues, we can expect to see anywhere between 500 to 700 unlawful detainers filed this year.

RIGHT TO COUNSEL EXAMPLES
Recently in San Francisco and Los Angeles County, initiatives for tenant representation in evictions have been approved.

San Francisco
In San Francisco, voters passed the No Eviction Without Representation Act of 2018 (“Prop F”) on June 5, 2018. Prop F established that all residential tenants facing eviction have the right to full-scope legal defense. This ordinance went into effect on July 11, 2019. The resulting program, Tenant Right to Counsel (TRC), ensures that tenants receive comprehensive legal representation during eviction proceedings. This representation includes filing responsive pleadings, appearing in court on behalf of tenants, and providing legal advice. Prop F mandates that full-scope legal representation be available to a tenant thirty days after being served with an eviction notice or an unlawful detainer complaint. Legal representation must continue until the eviction notice or unlawful detainer complaint is withdrawn, the case is dismissed, or a judgment is entered.

In fiscal year 2022 to 2023, the program serviced 1,800 cases, with 84% being full-scope representation. Since 2019, more than 5,400 San Franciscans have avoided homelessness because of the TRC program. 92% of tenants who utilized the legal services remained housed, and 63% were able to stay in their original units.

San Francisco Intake Process
•All tenants receiving a termination notice or unlawful detainer paperwork are eligible for full representation.
314 of 433

•Most clients are directed to the appropriate agency through the Eviction Defense Collaborative’s (EDC) central intake system, ensuring the correct match based on client needs and agency capacity.
•Right to Counsel Coordinators conduct assessments and refer clients to one of nine agencies, including EDC’s team, using Justice Server, a modified Salesforce program.

Agencies receive referrals based on their specific criteria and must take on clients if they show capacity, unless there is a conflict of interest.
•If no external agency has capacity or the client’s needs don't align, EDC assigns one of its own attorneys to the case. Currently, 20% of cases are handled by EDC, with this number expected to rise.
•In cases of limited capacity, EDC prioritizes clients based on vulnerability, offering full representation to those most in need and limited assistance to others.

The EDC is fully funded by the city, with a total budget of $18,888,394, and a program service budget of $17,638,270. According to Ora Prochovnick, the Director of Litigation, that budget accounts for 48 attorneys as well as support staff. The non-profit also has a Shelter Client Advocacy program and a rental assistance program, which are both included in the program services budget.

San Francisco Stats for 2022-2023
Number of Evictions Served:
•1,800
•72% because of alleged inability to pay.

Type of Defense:
•84% full scope representation (1,512 tenants)
•16% limited scope representation (288 tenants)
Results:
•63% of tenants who received full-scope representation were able to remain in their unit. •30% who received full-scope representation moved out with a favorable settlement. •45% of those with limited scope were able to stay in their units. •46% with limited scope representation moved out with favorable settlement.

Los Angeles City/County
315 of 433

In Los Angeles County, the Stay Housed LA program was established to keep Los Angeles residents in their homes, similar to a program in San Francisco that serves individuals facing eviction. The program is a partnership between LA County’s Department of Business and Consumer Affairs, the City of Los Angeles Housing Department, and Legal Aid Foundation Los Angeles. The county and the city individually set grant budgets for the Stay Housed LA program.

The program’s lead contractor is the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles.

The county’s current budget for this program is $21 million. $2.1 million is reserved for administrative costs, this includes indirect costs and staffing. Roughly $13.4 million is reserved for legal costs. The remaining funds are for outreach, rental assistance, and facilities.

Los Angeles Process
•Tenants initiate intake by calling Stay Housed LA’s toll-free number, where their zip code is determined.
•Based on the zip code, tenants are assigned to the legal agency serving their region.

Tenants in unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County or high-need zip codes are prioritized for full-scope representation. (Inner City Law Center services the Glendale area; Only the 91201 zip code in Glendale is given priority to receive services). •To qualify for full-scope representation, tenants must meet income requirements and provide proof of an unlawful detainer notice or eviction court proceedings.

Los Angeles Stats for 2022-2023
Stay Housed L.A. (September 2020 – December 2023)
Number of Cases:
•Total Cases Opened: 13,548
•Full Scope Cases: 3,427
•Limited Scope Cases: 10,121
Housing Outcomes – 2020 to May 2022
Out of 1,142 closed full scope cases:
•Tenant Stayed in Home: 474 (42%) tenants remained in their homes. •Soft Landing: 361 (32%) tenants negotiated a soft landing to prevent homelessness, which can include extra time to move-out, waived back rent, moving expenses, and a sealed eviction record.
•Unknown: 171 (15%) of cases do not have a recorded outcome due to incomplete data from the early pandemic.
316 of 433

•Other: 117 (10%) of tenants received other assistance enforcing specific tenants rights. •Lost in Court: 15 (1%) tenants lost their case.
•Representation Ended: 4 (<1%) cases ended representation.

Overall, 835 (73.12%) tenants had a positive outcome through staying in their home, receiving time and money to move, or reducing/eliminating their rental debt.

Total economic benefits to tenants include:
•$3,789,552 in short term economic benefits. This includes court fee waivers, waived back rent, and relocation assistance.
•$1,962,676 in long term economic benefits. This is savings to the tenant over three years due to not moving. Calculated as the difference between the tenant’s rent and the Fair Market Rent over 36 months, plus $2,000 in relocation expenses.

Housing Outcomes – May 2022 to Present
Out of 1,866 full scope cases:
•Tenant Stayed in Home: 925 (50%) tenants remained in their homes. •Moveout/Soft Landing: 881 (47%) tenants negotiated a soft landing to prevent homelessness, which can include extra time to move-out, waived back rent, moving expenses, and a sealed eviction record.
oMedian extra time to move-out: 4.4 months
•Representation Ended: 25 (1.34%) Tenant lost contact or LSP subbed out. •Lost in Court: 35 (1.8%)
Total economic benefits to tenants include:
•$17,253,278 in short term economic benefits. This includes court fee waivers, waived back rent, and relocation assistance.
•$13,925,931 in long term economic benefits. This is savings to the tenant over three years due to not moving. Calculated as the difference between the tenant’s rent and the Fair Market Rent over 36 months, plus $2,000 in relocation expenses.

POTENTIAL PROGRAM MAKEUP FOR GLENDALE
If Council intends to establish a similar eviction defense program in Glendale, several factors must be considered. These include determining the income levels of individuals eligible for assistance, establishing funding, and deciding whether to partner with existing organizations or 317 of 433

provide direct funding to tenants. Each of these elements will play a role in shaping the program's effectiveness and scope.

Who receives services? - Income Levels
A program to support low-income residents would require first to determine the level of income to service. When establishing eligibility based on income, staff recommends adhering to the Income Limits established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).

These limits categorize households into Low Income, Very Low Income, and Extremely Low Income brackets. The Council has the discretion to select one or all income categories for assistance. The table below provides clarity on these income thresholds:

Persons
in Family
Extremely
Low Income
Limits ($)
Very Low (50%)
Income Limits
($)
Low (80%) Income
Limits ($)
1 29,150 48,550 77,700
2 33,300 55,450 88,800
3 37,450 62,400 99,900
4 41,600 69,350 110,950
5 44,950 74,900 119,850
6 48,300 80,450 128,750
7 51,600 86,000 137,600
8 54,950 91,550 146,500
Who receives services? - Zip Code
Council could strategically prioritize specific zip codes within Glendale to receive legal aid services ahead of others, based on an assessment of eviction risk levels. For instance, zip codes identified as high-risk eviction zones—those exhibiting higher rates of eviction filings or where tenants are particularly vulnerable due to socioeconomic factors—could be designated as priority areas for the rollout of legal aid services. This targeted approach ensures that resources are allocated efficiently, and that support is extended first to the areas where it can have the most immediate impact on preventing unjust evictions.

Who receives services? – Eviction Type
In implementing the right to counsel program, Council can prioritize certain types of evictions for legal aid, addressing those with the most pressing needs first. For example, the Council could prioritize legal assistance for evictions due to non-payment of rent, over less common nuisance evictions. On the other hand, Council may also consider excluding some types of evictions from the program, such as evictions due to breaches of lease terms. However, any exclusion should be approached with caution. Evictions for breaches of lease can sometimes be 318 of 433

based on unjust or misapplied accusations, such as questionable claims of lease violations.

Without careful evaluation, exclusions could inadvertently deny assistance to tenants facing unfair evictions.

As an alternative, Council could allow staff to thoroughly vet these cases for legitimacy before deciding to refer them for review or extend legal aid to the tenant. This dual approach ensures a balanced allocation of resources while safeguarding against overlooking unjust evictions.

How many households should be assisted?
Another area which requires Council input is the scope of assistance. Given that the number of annual Unlawful Detainers filed in Glendale could approach or exceed 700, providing legal aid to every affected tenant might not be financially feasible. According to Ora Prochovnick the Director of Litigation for EDC, the average per cost case is about $6,300. That means the Glendale program has the potential for costing roughly $4,410,00 for a full-service program.

To manage resources effectively, the Council could consider setting a cap on the number of cases the program handles annually, such as limiting assistance to the first 100 eviction cases each year. This could mean a budget of potentially $630,000 annually.

Additionally, Council could consider mechanisms for reviewing and possibly adjusting the cap annually based on budget availability and program effectiveness, ensuring that the most critical needs are met without exceeding financial capabilities.

When would tenant qualify? Eviction vs Unlawful Detainer Council must also decide at what stage of the eviction process assistance should be provided.

One option is to initiate assistance when a tenant receives a notice of eviction. Under this approach, once a tenant receives an eviction and contacts legal aid, staff can assist the tenant in navigating the eviction notice, potentially preventing the escalation to an unlawful detainer proceeding. This proactive strategy aims to address eviction challenges early, providing tenants with timely legal advice and support to mitigate the risk of displacement.

Alternatively, Council could opt to provide assistance only when the tenant receives a notice of unlawful detainer from the court. In this scenario, the agency would intervene after the landlord has initiated formal legal proceedings through an unlawful detainer. While this approach may streamline resource allocation by focusing assistance on cases that have progressed to a critical stage, delaying involvement until after the issuance of an unlawful detainer could result in situations where tenants face legal decisions that might have been preventable with early intervention. Early legal representation could potentially mitigate issues before they escalate to court proceedings.

Who will administer the program? Partnering with Outside Organizations 319 of 433

One approach to implementing a Legal Aid and Representation Program is to partner with established legal aid agencies. This involves identifying and collaborating with local or regional, organizations that specialize in tenant representation, such as Armenian Bar Association, Bet Tzedek, or Neighborhood Legal Services of Los Angeles County (NLSLA).

The agencies would operate on referrals from the City and could be funded to provide varying levels of legal aid services as directed by Council. These options include:

1.Case Review and Recommendations (Basic Legal Advice):
oAgencies would review tenant cases and provide legal advice and recommendations based on the circumstances.
oThis would involve providing advice; tenants would be responsible for taking necessary actions.

2.Drafting Letters on Behalf of Tenants (Limited Legal Representation):
oLegal aid agencies could assist tenants by drafting official correspondence, such as letters to landlords or responses to legal notices.

3.Representation in Court (Full Legal Representation)
oFull legal representation in court proceedings related to eviction cases, advocating for tenants' rights and interests.
oThis would involve full representation, where the attorney acts as the tenant's legal representative.

Each option presents distinct advantages and challenges that Council must consider.

Basic Legal Advice: The case review and recommendation option offer a cost-effective initial step in providing legal aid services to low-income tenants. This option allows agencies to assess tenant cases, offer legal advice, and recommend potential courses of action. However, while this service educates tenants about their rights and options, it requires tenants to take subsequent actions on their own, which could leave them at a disadvantage if they lack resources or legal knowledge to navigate complex eviction proceedings effectively.

Limited Legal Representation: Drafting letters on behalf of tenants represents a step further in tenant representation. By preparing official correspondence to landlords or responding to legal notices, this service helps tenants assert their rights formally and may encourage landlords to address issues without escalating to court. It is a relatively cost-effective measure compared to full representation in court, making it accessible for broader implementation. However, the effectiveness of drafted letters may be limited if 320 of 433

disputes proceed to court, where legal complexities often require more substantial representation and advocacy.

Full Legal Representation: Full representation in court provides the most robust support for tenants facing eviction. This option ensures dedicated legal advocacy throughout court proceedings, maximizing tenants' chances of achieving fair outcomes and defending their housing rights effectively. Despite its effectiveness, full court representation comes with higher costs, including attorney fees and administrative expenses, and does not guarantee a favorable outcome in every case due to judicial discretion and case-specific factors.

Process for Partnering with Outside Organizations
The process for partnering with an outside agency would begin with identifying potential agencies, possibly through a request for proposals (RFP). Criteria for selecting agencies may include expertise in landlord-tenant law, experience with eviction cases, commitment to providing pro bono or reduced-cost legal services, and the capacity to handle a specified caseload. Staff would recommend that agencies have local offices or satellite offices in Glendale, ensuring proximity and accessibility for tenants in need of legal assistance.

Once an organization has been selected, City of Glendale and the partner organizations negotiate and formalize a partnership agreement. The agreement would outline the scope of services, roles and responsibilities, expectations, and terms of collaboration. Key considerations include the types of cases to be handled, service delivery standards, confidentiality protocols, and reporting requirements.

Referral Mechanisms
The bulk of the work with the outside agency would be based on referrals from Rental Rights staff, following clear referral processes established in accordance with council recommendations. Staff would evaluate each case to determine if escalation to the outside agency is necessary, considering eligibility criteria such as income levels, residency status, and the nature of the eviction case (e.g., renovation, lease violations), ensuring resources are prioritized for those in greatest need.

Once the outside organization receives a referral, they conduct an intake assessment by gathering relevant information on the tenant's legal issues, reviewing notices and documents, and assessing the case's merits. Depending on the program's structure established by Council, the outside agency would then take appropriate action, whether providing advice, drafting letters, or initiating strategies for representation. The organization may also provide initial advice or letter drafting before deciding on further escalation, on a case-by-case basis. 321 of 433

The outside organization is required to maintain accurate records of active cases and regularly assess outcomes such as case resolutions, tenant housing retention, and client satisfaction. This ongoing evaluation helps identify trends, challenges, and successes in eviction defense efforts.

Glendale will monitor the partner organization's performance and evaluate outcomes, assessing the quality of legal services provided, adherence to partnership agreements, and compliance with ethical standards and legal regulations.

Who will administer the program? Attorney Fee Coverage
Another option for a Legal Aid and Representation program could involve providing direct financial assistance to tenants to cover attorney fees. This approach would establish a funding mechanism dedicated to covering legal representation costs, thereby ensuring that low-income tenants receive necessary legal support without financial burden.

Once Council defines clear eligibility criteria based on income levels, residency within Glendale, and the nature of evictions, staff would develop an application process. This process would include documentation requirements such as proof of income, tenancy, and eviction notices, along with a standardized vetting process to verify eligibility and prioritize cases based on urgency and complexity.

The financial assistance could be disbursed directly to the tenant or their attorney to cover legal costs. This option provides immediate financial relief to tenants, enabling them to secure legal representation swiftly and effectively navigate eviction proceedings. It also ensures equitable access to legal aid, potentially reducing disparities in outcomes for low-income tenants.

However, there are significant concerns with this approach. There is a risk of potential abuse by unscrupulous tenants, landlords, or attorneys, who may misrepresent income levels or exploit the financial assistance system. This could pose challenges for staff in verifying the truthfulness of applications and monitoring the quality of legal representation provided. Additionally, managing data and tracking case progress could be complicated, especially when multiple attorneys are involved.

Given these complexities and risks, staff would not recommend pursuing this option without robust safeguards and oversight mechanisms in place to ensure transparency, accountability, and the fair distribution of financial assistance.

Budget Considerations
The estimated budget for the program ranges from $100,000 to $650,000 annually. Depending on the scope and level of involvement, as well as the number of cases handled, these numbers could fluctuate. The Council could set a limit on the amount of funding or the number of participants served, which could help manage and potentially lower the impact on the budget. 322 of 433

BUDGET FOR PARTNERING WITH OUTSIDE ORGANIZATIONS – BASED ON 100 CASES A YEAR Basic Legal Advice:
•Legal Advisors: 1 legal advisor/attorney to provide case review and basic legal advice ($100,000 annually). Part-time administrative support assistant ($42,000). •Administrative Support: 1 Housing Associate to handle coordination and documentation: $109,000 Fully Burdened.
•Estimated Operational costs, outreach costs, supplies: $85,000 annually. oOutreach - $50,000
oAdmin/Supplies - $35,000
•Total Estimated Cost: $336,000 annually.

Limited Legal Representation:
•Legal Advisors: 1.5 legal advisor/attorney to provide case review and basic legal advice, ($150,000 annually). Part-time administrative support, ($42,000): $192,000 annually. •Administrative Support: 1 Housing Associate to handle coordination and documentation: $109,000 Fully Burdened.
•Estimated Operational costs, outreach costs, supplies: $85,000 annually. oOutreach - $50,000
oAdmin/Supplies - $35,000
•Total Estimated Cost: $386,000 annually.

Full Legal Representation:
•Legal Advisors: 3 legal advisor/attorney to provide case review and basic legal advice:
$300,000). 1 administrative support assistant ($84,000): $384,000 annually •Administrative Support: 1 Housing Analyst ($109,000 Fully Burdened) and 1 Housing Assistant ($92,000 Fully Burdened) to handle coordination and documentation: 201,000 annually.
•Estimated Operational costs, outreach costs, supplies: $85,000 annually. oOutreach - $50,000
oAdmin/Supplies - $35,000
•Total Estimated Cost: $670,000 annually.

DIRECT FUNDING FOR LEGAL REPRESENTATION - BASED ON 100 CASES A YEAR Fixed financial Assistant
•Total Assistance Costs - $6300 per household: $630,000 - 323 of 433

•Administrative Support: 1 Housing Analyst ($109,000 Fully Burdened) and 1 Housing Assistant ($92,000 Fully Burdened) to handle coordination and documentation: 201,000 annually.
•Estimated Operational costs, outreach costs, supplies: $85,000 annually. oOutreach - $50,000
oAdmin/Supplies - $35,000
•Total Annual Budget: $916,000
The budget outlined here provides a rough estimation based on hypothetical numbers. The actual figures would depend on various factors including the number of tenants in need or number of tenants Council chooses to assist, and the extent of financial support and need for additional staffing and marketing.

An important aspect to consider is the Request for Proposals (RFP) process, through which different agencies may submit proposals to manage or deliver the services required by the program. Each agency may offer different pricing structures, scope of services, and budget requirements based on their operational models and expertise.

Conclusion
As evidenced by the data and examples from San Francisco and Los Angeles, the presence of legal aid significantly enhances tenants abilities to secure favorable outcomes in eviction proceedings, thereby reducing homelessness and maintaining community stability.

By partnering with established legal aid agencies or potentially providing direct financial assistance for legal representation, the City can offer a structured, effective response to the challenges faced by low-income tenants.

Council's decisions on the scope of assistance, eligibility criteria, and administrative mechanisms will be crucial in tailoring the program to meet local needs while ensuring fiscal responsibility.
324 of 433

Attachment 5
Additional Enforcement Provisions
Overview
Additional Enforcement Provisions aim to strengthen tenant protections by authorizing the City Attorney to initiate civil proceedings for damages related to the displacement of tenants. This measure is designed to enhance the City’s ability to hold landlords accountable for unjust evictions and improper eviction procedures, ensuring that displaced tenants have a viable path to seek compensation.

Authority and Scope
Under these Additional Enforcement Provisions, the City Attorney would be granted the power to:

1.Initiate Civil Proceedings: The City Attorney can commence legal actions against landlords responsible for evicting unjustly or where landlords have not adhered to proper legal procedures.

2.Enforce Compliance: The provisions would enable the City Attorney to enforce compliance with tenant protection laws, ensuring that landlords adhere to legal requirements and do not exploit procedural loopholes to unjustly displace tenants.

Implementation and Considerations

1.Legal Framework: The city will need to establish clear guidelines and procedures for the City Attorney to follow when initiating civil proceedings. This includes defining the criteria for pursuing damages, determining the types of compensation available, and ensuring that the process aligns with existing laws and regulations.

2.Resource Allocation: The City Attorney’s office may require additional resources to effectively handle these cases. This could include additional staff, training, and support systems to manage the increased caseload.
325 of 433

Attachment 6

TENANT/LANDLORD COMMISSION
The Glendale City Council has expressed interest in considering the establishment of a permanent Landlord/Tenant Commission which, depending upon its responsibility and scope of work, may provide a medium through which landlords, tenants, and other interested parties can help formulate potential policy recommendations regarding issues relating to rental housing in Glendale. Such a commission would be placed in the Community Development Department and would be staffed by the Rental Rights Program.

This report examines the feasibility of establishing a Tenant Landlord Commission in the City of Glendale. The analysis includes a review of the advantages and disadvantages, a comparison with other cities in California that have similar entities. The report will also explore the potential responsibilities, goals, and decision-making powers of the proposed commission.

In conducting research for this report, staff first looked at previous activity within the City of Glendale in terms of past experience with landlord and tenant commissions and/or committees and then researched models that may exist within other public agencies.

City of Glendale Past Experiences
In the early 2000s, responding to residents' concerns about excessive rent increases, the City Council/Housing Authority tasked staff with exploring mitigation options. Staff presented several options, including rent control, eviction protections, and mediation programs. An Ad- Hoc Committee of rental housing owners, representatives, and tenant advocates was formed to discuss potential changes to the ordinance. The committee's proposed changes were adopted on January 21, 2003.

Following this, on February 18, 2003, the City Council established the Rental Housing Issues Working Committee to discuss broader rental housing issues. The committee, consisting of rental-housing property owners, tenants, and other concerned residents, formed four sub- committees: Affordability, Habitability, Outreach, and Just Cause for Eviction. The committee met bi-monthly from March to October 2003, and their recommendations, including changes to the Just Cause Eviction ordinance, an Inclusionary Zoning Policy, and Proactive Outreach and Education, were presented to the City Council on November 4, 2003. After presenting their recommendations, the committee dissolved.

From 2016 to 2019, in response to renewed concerns about rent increases, the City Council/Housing Authority held meetings and received reports on affordable housing issues.

Discussions included the potential establishment of a Landlord/Tenant Committee. Ultimately, the City Council implemented the Rental Rights Program, and no further action was taken on forming such a Committee.
326 of 433

After renewed concerns from residents due to COVID-19-related eviction restrictions being lifted, on August 24, 2021, the City Council approved the formation of a Landlord/Tenant Ad- Hoc Committee to serve as a conduit for citizen input and to analyze and recommend options regarding changes to the Rental Rights Program ordinance. The Ad-Hoc Committee recommended several improvements to the Rental Rights Program, including simplifying one- year lease requirements, enhancing protections for tenants facing no-fault evictions, revisiting the formula for calculating relocation assistance, and exploring mechanisms to track illegally constructed units. Many of the recommendations were considered by the City Council, and ultimately, on February 6, 2024, a new ordinance was adopted.

Other Agencies with Tenant/Landlord Commissions
Staff previously researched various cities with longstanding Landlord/Tenant commissions. It was noted that nearly all these boards or commissions were associated with Rent Control or Rent Stabilization programs. These programs are typically complex and require extensive regulatory frameworks to manage rent increases, tenant protections, and dispute resolutions.

Some notable examples include:

Pasadena: The Pasadena Rental Housing Board (PRHB) was established following the approval of Measure H by voters in November 2022. The board oversees rent control measures that limit annual rent increases and establish just cause eviction protections for certain rental units. The PRHB is responsible for implementing and enforcing these provisions independently from the City Council and other city departments.

Santa Monica: The Santa Monica Rent Control Board regulates rent increases and ensures tenant protections under the city's rent control law.

West Hollywood: The West Hollywood Rent Stabilization Commission oversees the city's rent control ordinance, which includes controlling rent increases and offering eviction protections.

City of Los Angeles: The Los Angeles Rent Adjustment Commission manages the city's rent control ordinance. The commission sets guidelines for allowable rent increases, oversees the registration of rental properties, and enforces other rent stabilization related rules.

San Francisco: The San Francisco Rent Board administers the city's Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Ordinance. The board handles petitions related to rent increases and tenant-landlord disputes, offering a structured framework to manage their rent stabilization program.

Berkeley: The Berkeley Rent Stabilization Board, oversees the city's rent control regulations, including the Rent Stabilization and Eviction for Good Cause Ordinance. The 327 of 433

board handles rent adjustment petitions and enacts regulations to support the city's rent control program.

As previously mentioned, nearly all cities in California that have a tenant-landlord board or commission are tied to a Rent Stabilization or Rent Control program. These programs are complex and require significant oversight to manage rent increases, provide tenant protections, and resolve disputes.

A board like those in the aforementioned cities, working in conjunction with Glendale's Rental Rights Program, would not be as effective unless the City Council grants the commission significant decision-making power. For such a commission to function effectively, it would need the authority to make changes to current policies, such as modifying the 7% relocation trigger, adjusting relocation fee amounts, and altering other areas of the law.

Additionally, the Rental Rights Program in Glendale is not as complex and layered as Rent Control or Rent Stabilization programs. These programs typically involve systems of mediation, rent adjustments, and administrative processes, which are necessary due to the comprehensive nature of rent control laws. Implementing a commission with similar oversight for Glendale’s relatively simpler Rental Rights Program would likely add unnecessary layers of oversight and complexity.

The one exception of a commission or board without a locally established ordinance was the City of Burbank and its Burbank Landlord-Tenant Commission, which was included in the previous report and will go into more detail in the next section.

Burbank Landlord-Tenant Commission
In 1979, the City of Burbank established a committee to address renter and landlord issues, which was formally changed to The Burbank Landlord-Tenant Commission (Burbank Commission) in 1985. The Commission was designed to addresses various issues such as property maintenance, repairs, lease disagreements, evictions, and rent increases, and sometimes mediates between landlords and tenants. Its powers are limited to potential violations of the Burbank Municipal Code or other local regulations. The Commission meets publicly on the first Monday of each month and its duties include recommending rent increase guidelines, mediating rent disputes, receiving complaints, facilitating information exchange, and providing tenant referrals.

Despite its long existence, the Burbank Commission has not accomplished anything noteworthy or made any significant alterations to local laws. Its powers are limited, and the Commission has no authority to enforce meaningful changes. The number of members of the public who actually attend the Commission is minimal, further indicating its limited impact.

Although the Burbank Commission was established to provide guidance on issues mentioned above, due to complexities of State laws, they are limited in the services they can provide. 328 of 433

Unlike Glendale, Burbank does not have a Rental Rights Program or a Rent Control program like other jurisdictions. Burbank's rules largely adhere to state law without offering additional protections or innovations. The Commission members are not allowed to provide legal advice, as it is illegal for them to do so, further diminishing their effectiveness.

In contrast to Burbank’s limited protections, Glendale has implemented more comprehensive and advanced regulations that have done an effective job balancing tenant and landlord relationships without unnecessary oversight and bureaucracy.

Recently, Burbank has been looking into Glendale's Rental Rights Program as an examples of what they could implement. In recent council meetings, Burbank officials have discussed the possibility of adopting measures like Glendale’s to enhance their local regulations. This interest highlights the effectiveness of Glendale’s approach and underscores the need for Burbank to make significant changes to improve its landlord-tenant relations framework.

Whatever the Burbank Landlord-Tenant Commission is currently doing is already being efficiently handled by staff in Glendale. As evidenced by the agenda from the last meeting in Burbank and minutes of July 1, 2024 meeting tenants' issues typically include no-fault evictions, security deposit questions, and rent increase concerns. These are the same types of issues that Glendale's Rental Rights Program staff addresses on a daily basis.

Burbank Landlord-Tenant Commission agenda excerpt:

6. NEW LANDLORD-TENANT FORMS
• 2024-15 Landlord Form – Commissioners Pelayo & Toth
Address: 3418 W Burbank Blvd, Burbank, CA 91505
Issue: Tenant refuses to vacate.

7. FOLLOW-UP ON PRIOR MONTH LANDLORD-TENANT FORMS
• 2024-10 Tenant Form – Commissioner Nahabedian & Smith Address: 2736 N Lamer Street, Burbank, CA 91506
Issue: Notice to vacate and tenants’ rights questions.
• 2024-11 Tenant Form – Commissioners Pelayo & Ingalsbee Address: 531 E Santa Anita Ave #H, Burbank, CA 91501
Issue: Rent increase and tenant protection questions.
• 2024-12 Tenant Form – Commissioner Smith & Toth
Address: 606 East Cypress Ave #D, Burbank, CA 91506
Issue: Notice to vacate and tenants' rights questions.
• 2024-14 Tenant Form – Commissioner Smith & Ingalsbee
329 of 433

Address: 1300 W Olive Ave #M, Burbank, CA 91506
Issue: Eviction notice and rent increase questions.

Burbank Landlord-Tenant Commission minutes excerpt:

NEW LANDLORD-TENANT FORMS
• 2024-11 Tenant Form – Commissioners Pelayo & Ingalsbee Address: 531 E Santa Anita Ave #H, Burbank, CA 91501
Issue: Rent increase and tenant protection questions.

Due to the absence of the assigned commissioners, the report of the form has been postponed to the upcoming meeting in August.
• 2024-12 Tenant Form – Commissioner Smith & Toth
Address: 606 East Cypress Ave #D, Burbank, CA 91506
Issue: Eviction notice question and tenants' rights questions.

Due to the absence of the assigned commissioners, the report of the form has been postponed to the upcoming meeting in August.
• 2024-13 Tenant Form – Commissioner Pelayo & Nahabedian Address: 1921 N Buena Vista St #404, Burbank, CA 91504
Issue: Rent increase and tenants’ rights questions.

Commissioners provided information on AB 1482 and staff provided contact information for the Building division, this case is closed.
• 2024-14 Tenant Form – Commissioner Smith & Ingalsbee
Address: 1300 W Olive Ave #M, Burbank, CA 91506
Issue: Eviction notice and rent increase questions.

Due to the absence of the assigned commissioners, the report of the form has been postponed to the upcoming meeting in August.

FOLLOW-UP ON PRIOR MONTH LANDLORD-TENANT FORMS
2024-10 Tenant Form: 2736 N. Lamer Street, Burbank, CA 91506 Commissioner Nahabedian and Commissioner Smith received an intake form regarding a No-fault eviction, rent increase, and tenants’ rights questions.

Due to the absence of the assigned commissioners, the report of the form has been postponed to the upcoming meeting in August.

Another concern with Burbank’s Landlord-Tenant Commission is that fact that sometimes Commissioners are absent, and therefor reports and answer for issues they were looking into 330 of 433

are postponed until future meetings, which adds an additional month.

In Glendale, staff are readily available to provide personalized and immediate assistance. They handle inquiries and provide guidance without the need for tenants to wait for a monthly meeting. If Glendale were to create a commission similar to Burbank's, the process would become unnecessarily cumbersome and less responsive. Tenants would be required to complete forms and wait for the commission to meet, potentially exacerbating their issues due to delays.

Additionally, when the Burbank Commission does meet, it has limited power and often ends up referring tenants to other agencies. In contrast, Glendale's RRP staff can provide more comprehensive support, and direct assistance, ensuring that tenants receive the help they need promptly.

The Burbank Commission is not a suitable example to follow. Glendale’s proactive measures, including the establishment of the Rental Rights Program, have demonstrated a more effective approach to managing landlord-tenant relations. In its short history Rental Rights staff have successfully assisted thousands of individuals, responded to countless calls and emails, and provided in-person services, often mediating disputes effectively.

In staff’s opinion, establishing a commission similar to that of Burbank’s in Glendale would be a step backward, reducing the efficiency and responsiveness of the current system. The personalized and guided experience that Glendale already offers would be compromised, leading to potential frustration and unresolved issues for tenants. Therefore, creating a similar commission is not only redundant but also counterproductive, given the effectiveness of Glendale's existing framework.

Options for Glendale
Temporary Committee/Task Force
Similar to the 2022 Landlord/Tenant Ad-Hoc Committee, the Council can establish another temporary committee and assign specific goals and tasks for the committee to complete. The primary benefit of this type of committee is its flexibility and the lack of a long-term commitment, allowing the Council to address pressing issues without being tied to a permanent structure. Such a temporary committee could study the Rental Rights Program and evaluate recommendations for any necessary changes. Additionally, it could discuss and formulate other potential policy recommendations to address emerging issues.

However, one potential drawback of continually changing the program is the risk of creating instability and confusion. Frequent adjustments to the program might lead to a lack of continuity and could hinder the effectiveness of the policies implemented. Stakeholders, including landlords and tenants, may find it challenging to keep up with the constant changes, which could undermine the program's overall stability and predictability. 331 of 433

If Council is interested in establishing a new temporary committee, staff would recommend choosing goals and tasks that would not significantly impact the current programs rules.

Permanent Landlord/Tenant Commission – Decision Making Authority Another option for consideration would be for Council to pass on the oversight of the Rental Rights Ordinance and delegate it through the creation of a permanent commission similar to those overseeing rent stabilization programs in other cities. This type of commission would be vested with the authority to make decisions regarding the Rental Rights Program and oversee its operations. Responsibilities of such a commission could include adjusting the annual rent increase trigger, modifying relocation assistance amounts, and making other policy-related decisions that directly impact tenants and landlords.

Advantages:

Efficient Decision-Making: By delegating decision-making authority to a commission, the process of adjusting and improving the RRP can be expedited. The commission would be able to respond swiftly to emerging issues without requiring Council approval for every change.

Specialized Oversight: A dedicated commission would bring focused attention to the RRP, ensuring that the program is managed by individuals with specific expertise and interest in rental rights and housing policies.

Enhanced Flexibility: The commission could be empowered to make technical adjustments to the program, ensuring that it remains effective and responsive to the needs of both tenants and landlords.

For a commission with Decision making authority, City Council would define the scope of the commission's authority. This could include setting clear boundaries on what types of changes the commission can make independently and what would require Council input. Such a framework ensures that while the commission operates with a degree of autonomy, it remains accountable to the broader objectives set by the Council.

Potential Drawbacks:

However, there are potential concerns to consider:

Complexity of the RRP: Unlike rent stabilization or rent control programs, which are often more complex and multifaceted, Glendale's Rental Rights Program may not necessitate a permanent commission with extensive powers. If the program remains relatively straightforward, a commission with limited authority might be seen as redundant or ineffective.

Resource Allocation: Establishing and maintaining a commission requires resources, including administrative support and staffing. If the commission's scope is too narrow, the benefits may not justify the costs.
332 of 433

Balancing Stability and Flexibility: While the commission would bring flexibility, frequent changes to the program might still create instability and confusion among stakeholders. It's crucial to balance the need for adaptability with the need for a stable and predictable policy environment.

Careful consideration must be given to defining the commission's scope and authority to ensure that it adds value without introducing unnecessary complexity or instability.

Permanent Landlord/Tenant Commission – No Decision Making Authority Another option under consideration is the creation of an advisory commission like Burbank's model. This type of commission would not have the authority to make changes to the Rental Rights Program or its policies. Instead, it would function as an advisory body, providing guidance to residents and at times recommendations and insights to the City Council based on its review and evaluation of the program.

Advantages:

Informed Recommendations: The commission would consist of members with expertise and interest in housing and tenant rights, ensuring that their recommendations are well-informed and relevant to the needs of the community.

Community Representation: Such a commission would provide a formal mechanism for tenants, landlords, and other stakeholders to have their voices heard, fostering greater community engagement and transparency in the decision-making process.

City Council would retain full decision-making authority, using the commission's recommendations as a valuable resource in their deliberations. This ensures that the ultimate responsibility for policy changes remains with the elected representatives.

Potential Drawbacks:

However, there are several potential concerns to consider:

Limited Impact: Without the power to make changes, the commission's influence is limited to advisory roles. This could slow down the implementation of necessary adjustments.

Resource Allocation: Similar to any commission, establishing and maintaining an advisory body requires resources, including administrative support and staffing. The benefits of the commission must justify these costs.

Redundancy with Staff Duties: If the Commission has similar responsibilities to that of Burbank, there would be a redundance with existing responsibilities of city staff. Many of the functions of an advisory commission could overlap with the tasks already being handled by staff, leading to inefficiencies.
333 of 433

A commission similar to Burbank's, lacking the authority to make changes, would primarily serve to advise residents and advise the Council. While this might ensure that stakeholders' have a venue to voice their concerns outside of council, it adds another layer to the decision- making process without guaranteeing any real impact. This could lead to redundancies with staff duties, redundances with residents approaching commission and council and create inefficiencies thought the organization, making the process more cumbersome and less effective.

Establishing a Commission
If Council chooses to establish a Landlord/Tenant Commission, they must first determine a few key points. Below, staff has outlined each consideration for establishing a Landlord/Tenant Commission and provided some analysis of each for City Council consideration.

Mission/Goals:

Council must decide what the mission/goals of a potential Commission would be.

Term:

How long would the Commission be active? Council can choose a set number of years or establish an indefinite Commission.

Work Plan:

What would the Commission responsibilities be? What does Council desire for the Commission to accomplish?
Decision Making Authority
Does Council wish to give the Commission authority to make decisions regarding the Rental Rights Program?
Number of Members:

How many members would the Commission be compromised of? Staff is recommending an odd number of members, totaling either 7 or 9 members.

Meeting Frequency:

How often would the Commission meet? Weekly, Bi-Weekly, Monthly, every other month etc.?
Membership Qualifications:
334 of 433

Who will serve on the Commission? Staff is recommending that the Commission be comprised of members who are representative of the Glendale renter and Glendale landlord population in Glendale, along with a neutral member.

Lessons Learned from the Ad-Hoc Committee
If Council wishes to establish a Commission, the consideration of past committee experiences should be taken into account. The experience of establishing and working with the Ad-Hoc Committee on Landlord/Tenant rental housing issues provided several valuable lessons that can be useful when considering future committees.

Strengths:

Inclusive and Diverse Representation: Making sure that the committee included a diverse group of stakeholders, such as large property owners, tenant advocates, managers, etc. was crucial. This inclusivity helped in capturing a broad range of perspectives and helped create a final recommendation.

Clear Objectives and Goals: Having well-defined objectives and goals for the committee was essential. This clarity helped keep discussions focused and productive, allowing the committee to address the most pressing issues effectively.

Open Communication Channels: Maintaining open lines of communication between the committee members and the public facilitated transparency and trust. Regular updates and public meetings ensured that all stakeholders were informed and given an opportunity to engage in the process.

Flexibility and Adaptability: The committee's ability to adapt to new information and changing circumstances, such as the evolving impact of COVID-19 on the rental market, was key to developing relevant and timely recommendations.

Areas of Improvement:

Limited Public Participation: While efforts were made to engage the public, participation was limited as interested parties appeared to have bypassed the review process in favor of advocating directly to the Council during their final deliberations.

Enhancing outreach strategies and utilizing digital platforms for broader engagement may help increase public involvement.

Potential Bias and Conflicts of Interest: The composition of the committee sometimes led to biases or conflicts of interest in their deliberations. Implementing stricter conflict- of-interest policies and ensuring a more balanced representation can mitigate these issues. Additionally, better vetting of candidates for the committee can help ensure that members are not only knowledgeable but also impartial and dedicated to the committee’s mission. This can involve background checks, interviews, and clear criteria for selection to ensure a balanced and unbiased committee. 335 of 433

Disruptive Members: Members who were clearly outnumbered in votes often derailed meetings with long discussions that did not contribute meaningful points. To address this, implementing rules for more structured and time-limited discussions can help keep meetings focused and productive.

Budget
Our current Rental Rights Program Budget is a total of about $335,000. Approximately $230,000 of the budget is allocated to staffing, which includes wages, insurance, medical, and retirement costs. This amount covers one Housing Supervisor and one hourly employee.

Additionally, we have just over $15,000 allocated for administrative costs, covering office supplies, equipment, training, insurance, rent, and other related expenses. Approximately $90,000 is designated for outreach and marketing, including printing, postage, and advertising.

In order to take on the responsibilities associated with a permanent Commission, staff anticipates needing an additional Associate level member at a cost of roughly $109,000 fully burdened.

The Associate would be tasked with administrative support, scheduling and organizing meetings, including preparing agendas and distributing materials, taking minutes during meetings, serving as a point of contact between the board/commission and the public, other government departments, or organizations, handling correspondence and inquiries related to the board or commission’s activities, preparing reports and updates for presentation to the board/commission and stakeholders among other things.

Additionally, staff would need a budget for marketing and other administrative costs, staff anticipates roughly $50,000 for this purpose. A total budget of $159,000 would be needed to administer the Commission.

Conclusion
Ultimately, in order to evaluate whether the City of Glendale needs a permanent tenant- landlord commission, Council must consider one fundamental question: “What would be the purpose of this commission?”. This involves delving into the unique goals that such a commission would strive to achieve. Would these goals address gaps or unmet needs within the current city structure?
Furthermore, the Council should consider the specific responsibilities, duties, and tasks that this commission would undertake. It is essential to identify how these tasks differ from or complement the existing functions of the City Council and its staff. Would the commission provide an additional function that is currently lacking? In addition, it is crucial to evaluate the potential benefits of establishing this commission.

Would it lead to more effective tenant and landlord dispute resolutions, enhanced community engagement, or improved housing policies? These benefits must then be weighed against the 336 of 433

costs associated with forming and maintaining the commission, including financial, administrative, and resource allocation considerations.

In Glendale, the Rental Rights Program aims to address more straightforward issues, such as tenant relocation due to major renovations. Without the multifaceted layers of rent control, the need for extensive mediation and administrative oversight is reduced. A commission designed for complex rent stabilization scenarios may be disproportionate to Glendale's needs.

In conclusion, while tenant/landlord boards in cities with Rent Control or Rent Stabilization have proven beneficial due to the intricate and demanding nature of these programs, a similar board in Glendale would need substantial powers to be effective. However, given the less complex nature of Glendale's Rental Rights Program, establishing such a board may not provide proportional benefits and could introduce excessive administrative burdens. The City should carefully consider whether the benefits of such a board outweigh the potential for increased bureaucracy and whether simpler, more direct solutions might be more appropriate for Glendale's specific needs.
337 of 433

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Bus Stop Improvement Program Update

1.Motion Directing Staff on Implementation of Bus Stop Improvements

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for September 17, 2024 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The recently completed Bus Stop Improvement Program (BSIP) report, attached as Exhibit 1, surveyed existing Beeline bus stops and Beeline riders to prioritize bus stop amenities. The deployment plan includes installing bus shelter, shade structures, benches, and real-time e-paper bus arrival information at Beeline bus stops. The intent of this item is to receive feedback and direction from the City Council on future bus shelter, shade structure and transit amenities.
338 of 433

28b
5 4
7 6

RECOMMENDATION
Pass a motion providing direction to procure and install the selected Tolar Bus Shelters model and return with a final cost to install up to 37 bus shelters, and to install real-time information displays at all existing and proposed City-owned bus shelters.

ANALYSIS
On September 21, 2021, City Council directed staff to survey Beeline bus stops to add shelter, shade, and other amenities at Beeline bus stops. The BSIP Request for Proposal, which issued on October 2022, included the following tasks: inventory existing Beeline bus stops, update the existing bus stop database, conduct a multilingual rider survey and host two focus groups, and compile a catalogue of commercially available bus stop amenities. Moore and Associates was the selected consultant.

Two hundred fifty-two (252) participants completed the survey with 71.6% in English,

19.1% in Spanish, and 9.3% in Armenian. Of the respondents, 75% used Beeline between three and seven days per week.

The survey participants were asked which bus stop improvements they would like to see introduced. The top six responses are below:

1. Improved availability of schedule and/or route information at bus stops

2. More shade

3. Real-time service information

4. More shelters

5. More benches

6. More signage (maps, wayfinding, no smoking)
With the feedback from Beeline riders, staff recommends that Beeline bus stops include real-time information displays, shade or shelter structures, where feasible, and benches.

The next steps include selecting a bus shelter and e-paper display and confirming the locations of the bus shelters. Also, a demonstration bus stop pole shade structure will be installed and evaluated for its effectiveness. Staff will return with the bus shelter, e-paper display, and bus stop pole (if approved) purchase report. Below are the recommended bus shelter, e-paper displays, and demonstration shade structure.

Recommendation for Shelters & E-Paper Displays
The City is a member of the California Association of Coordinated Transportation (CALACT) and uses its purchasing cooperative to purchase paratransit vans and bus shelters. The transit shelter competitive procurement provides bus shelters and bus stop amenities including real-time e-paper displays, security lighting, and benches.

Below is the recommended Tolar Sunset Flat Roof (Sunset) bus shelter. Flat roofs 339 of 433

38b
5 4
7 6
maximize shade compared to angled roof shelters. The Sunset shelter is available in three sizes: 9 feet, 13 feet, and 17 feet. The bus shelter package includes the bus shelter, security lighting, and a bench. The bus shelter and installation cost ranges from $15,000 to $18,000. The BSIP identified 37 bus stops that can accommodate a bus shelter. Exhibit 2 is the CALACT catalog, which includes the Sunset bus shelter, as well as other options the City Council may choose to consider for Glendale.

The CALACT procurement also includes Axentia 13” real-time bus information displays.

The displays include a 3-year Content Management System (CMS), SIM card, and five- year battery. The battery will allow the displays to operate at bus stops that do not have access to sunlight. The cost of each Axentia display is $7,000.

The estimated cost for installing the new bus shelters and the Axentia real-time display at existing and new bus shelters is approximately $1.68 million.

ESTIMATED COST

Currently
Installed Install Cost Total Cost
Bus Shelters* 116 37 $16,500** $610,500
Real-Time E-Paper* 0 153 $7,000 $1,071,000
$1,681,500
* From CALACT Transit Shelter Procurement
** Mid-range estimate
340 of 433

48b
5 4
7 6
The City received $1,500,000 in State of California Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program (TIRCP) grant funding with a $500,000 local match to install shelter and shade structures. Only the local match portion has been appropriated, thus far. Additional funding will be requested when the bus stop shade structure is approved and a final cost is determined.

Demonstration Shade Structure
For the remaining bus stops that cannot accommodate a bus shelter due to space and ADA access requirements, staff recommends demonstrating a Tolar-designed bus stop with shade and solar security lighting. No bus shelter manufacturer offers a surface- mounted shade structure. Tolar designed the bus stop pole to allow for the real-time display and provide shade. One shade structure will be manufactured to determine if it meets our needs.

Additionally, Public Works Transit staff will work with our bus stop maintenance contractor and in-house field services on various repairs and maintenance enhancements to improve the general condition of existing bus stops and shelters assessed in the BSIP Report.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The BSIP project included a variety of public engagement activities including a survey of current Beeline riders. The survey was conducted onboard Beeline buses across four service days and was also available online. In-field surveying was conducted on January 18, January 19, January 20, and January 23. Survey fielding covered all Beeline routes as well as day-parts. The survey was available in English, Armenian, and Spanish.

Surveyors were also available to aid riders in completing the surveys. 341 of 433

58b
5 4
7 6

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report at this time. The estimated cost for installing the new bus shelters and the Axentia real-time display at existing and new bus shelters is $1,681,500. Staff will return to Council to request funding when the bus stop shade structure is approved, and a final cost is determined.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The action being considered is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301(c) because it provides for the addition of transit improvements involving negligible or no expansion of an existing or former use. Alternatively, the action is not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15030(c)(2) because it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Provide further direction and refinement to the selection of bus stop amenities including bus shelters, bus stop shade structures, and real-time bus information displays.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Daniel Hernandez, Interim Director of Public Works
Prepared by:

Martha D’Andrea, Transit Manager
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. City of Glendale, Beeline Bus Stop Improvement Program Final Report, May 2024 by Moore & Associates

2. CALACT MBTA Catalog 21-01
342 of 433

1 2
4 4
1 MOTION
Moved by Council Member__________________________ , seconded by Council Member ______________________________, that with respect to the Report to the City Council dated September 17, 2024, pertaining to the Bus Stop Improvement Program Update, the City Council directs staff to procure and install the City Council selected Tolar Bus Shelter model and return with a final cost to install up to 37 bus shelters, and to install real-time information displays at all existing and proposed City- owned bus shelters, as recommended by staff.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain
343 of 433

Exhibit 1
344 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

1. Table of Contents

Section 1 | Executive Summary ................................................................................ 1 Section 2 | Current Bus Stop Amenities .................................................................... 2 Section 3 | Summary of Community Input ............................................................. 30 Rider survey summary ........................................................................................................... 30 Focus group summary ........................................................................................................... 38 Section 4 | Amenity Catalogue ................................................................................ 39 Seating .................................................................................................................................... 40 Shade Structures/Shelters ..................................................................................................... 45 Trees ....................................................................................................................................... 51 Mobile Phone Charging Stations ........................................................................................... 53 Ticket Vending Machines/Mobile Ticketing .......................................................................... 54 WiFi ......................................................................................................................................... 55 Section 5 | Bus stop improvement recommendations .......................................... 56 345 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

1 Section 1 | Executive Summary
In July 2023, the City of Glendale selected Moore & Associates, Inc. to prepare a Bus Stop Improvement Program. This project included f ive complementary tasks. First, an inventory of bus stop amenities located at 339 unique Glendale Beeline bus stops (a total of 469 bus stops across ten routes). Such amenities include signage, lighting, seating, shelters, shade structures, trash receptacles, and bike racks.

Second, update the City’s existing bus stop database . Third, conduct a multilingual rider survey, as well as host two focus groups. Fourth, compile a catalogue of commercially available bus stop amenities including current pricing estimates in a “kit of parts” . Fifth, bus stop improvement and maintenance recommendations to ensure all Glendale Beeline bus stop amenities are kept clean; free of debris, graffiti and vandalism; and maintained to their useful lives.

Simply put, the bus stop serves as the figurative “front door” for a community’s public transit service. Its visibility, condition, amenities, and perceived safety impact not only transit customer satisfaction, but also the overall community’s perception of the Glendale Beeline . Beyond the basic functionality of the bus stop are considerations regarding appearance, available amenities, and accessibility.

City-provided bus stop inventory database guided the assessment of the 469 Beeline bus stops. Moore & Associates utilized this database to inventory current conditions at each stop as well as identify potential deficiencies. Among the amenities assessed were a pedestrian landing pad, paved waiting area, bus stop pole and signage, red curbing (to support safe bus berthing), overall stop landscaping, pedestrian path of travel, and trip or obstruction hazards.

Moore & Associates conducted in-person assessments of each Beeline bus stop across several weeks. At least two photographs were taken of each stop/location, and the data collected was used to update the master bus stop matrix.

Moore & Associates created an MS Excel-based data collection matrix to document the conditions observed at each bus stop. In addition to the items noted above, the bus stop matrix includes the Glendale Beeline numeric stop identifiers, a description of the location (i.e., cross-streets), and geo-coordinates. A minimum of two photographs were taken of each bus stop which are included in the Appendix of this report.

346 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

2 Section 2 | Current Bus Stop Amenities
Of the 339 bus stops evaluated, one (1) does not have Glendale Beeline signage.

Stop without Glendale Beeline signage:

1. Stop ID 344, COLORADO at LOUISE

Bus stop without Glendale Beeline signage: Stop ID 344, COLORADO at LOUISE

339
1 Beeline Signage
Yes No
347 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

3 Of the 339 unique bus stops evaluated, 336 do not have real time bus information.

Bus stops with real time bus information:

Stop ID 161, CENTRAL AT AMERICANA Stop ID 164, CENTRAL AT COLORADO

336
3 Real Time Bus Information
Yes No
348 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

4 Bus stops with real time bus information: Stop ID 280, BROADWAY AT GLENDALE

349 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

5 Of the 339 bus stops, 59 stops do not have seating.

Bus stop with seating: Stop ID 131, CENTRAL AT LAUREL

280
59 Seating
Yes No
350 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

6 Bus stop with seating: Stop ID 156, BRAND AT BROADWAY

Bus stop with seating: Stop ID 302, CHEVY CHASE AT BROADWAY

351 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

7 Bus stop without seating: Stop ID 242, VERDUGO AT FERN

Bus stop without seating: Stop ID 444, LA CRESCENTA AT MONTROSE

352 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

8 Bus stop without seating: Stop ID 343, COLORADO AT CARR PARK

Integrated wall seating: Stop ID 334, COLORADO AT CHEVY CHASE

353 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

9 Integrated wall seating: Stop ID 206, GLENDALE AT BROADWAY

Of the 339 bus stops, 112 bus stops have shelters and 227 do not.

112
227
Shelter
Has shetler Has no shelter
354 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

10 Bus stop with shelter: Stop ID 425, SAN FERNANDO AT CHEVY CHASE

Bus stop with shelter: Stop ID 101, BRAND AT BROADWAY

355 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

11 Bus stop with shelter: Stop ID 476, CENTRAL AT LEXINGTON

Bus stop with shelter: Stop ID 175, FOOTHILL AT BRIGGS

356 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

12 Bus stop with shelter: Stop ID 117, CENTRAL AT COLORADO

357 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

13 Bus stop with shelter: Stop ID 203, FOOTHILL AT ROSEMONT

Bus stop with shelter: Stop ID 169, BROADWAY AT JACKSON

358 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

14 Bus stop with shelter and shade: Stop ID 432, SAN FERNANDO AT PACIFIC

Bus stop without shade: Stop ID 285, CHEVY CHASE AT BRAND

359 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

15 Bus stop without shelter but potential shade from building: Stop ID 352, BROADWAY AT SINCLAIR

Bus stop with no shelter but potential shade: Stop ID 123, CENTRAL AT MILFORD

360 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

16 Of the 339 bus stops, 24 bus stops do not include lighting. Of these, 15 have lighting nearby (defined as lighting within 100 ft away or adjacent to bus stop).

Bus stop with lighting: Stop ID 159, BRAND AT MILFORD

315
9 15
24 Lighting
Has Lighting No Lighting Potential Lighting Nearby
361 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

17 Bus stop without lighting: Stop ID 411, FLOWER AT DAVIS

Bus stop without lighting: Stop ID 394, STOCKER AT PACIFIC

362 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

18 105 bus stops do not have a trash receptacle present at or near the bus stop.

Bus stop with a trash can: Stop ID 1305, MAIN NB/MARKET NS

234
105
Trash Can
Yes No
363 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

19 Bus stop with no trash can: Stop ID 416, GRANDVIEW AT AIRWAY

364 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

20 Of the 339 bus stops, we identified 13 stops which warrant repair to the pedestrian landing pad and/or sidewalk connecting to the bus stop.

Repair sidewalk/concrete/or pedestrian pad:

1. Stop ID 121, CENTRAL AT LOS FELIZ

2. Stop ID 120, CENTRAL AT LOMITA

3. Stop ID 151, CENTRAL AT LOS FELIZ

4. Stop ID 210, GLENDALE AT LEXINGTON

5. Stop ID 220, HONOLULU AT ORANGEDALE

6. Stop ID 225, LA CRESCENTA AT MARY

7. Stop ID 184, FOOTHILL AT GOULD

8. Stop ID 259, FOOTHILL AT RINETTI

9. Stop ID 179, FOOTHILL AT COMMONWEALTH

10. Stop ID 278, BROADWAY AT CEDAR

11. Stop ID 302, CHEVY CHASE AT BROADWAY

12. Stop ID 338, COLORADO AT EVERTT

13. Stop ID 459, SAN FERNANDO AT BRAND

326
13 Sidewalk/concrete or pedestrian pad repairs
No repairs needed Repairs needed
365 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

21 Bus stop warranting concrete repair: Stop ID 338, COLORADO AT EVERETT

366 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

22 Bus stop warranting concrete repair: Stop ID 225, LA CRESCENTA AT MARY

367 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

23 Of the 339 bus stops, one stop had a non-connecting landing area to the sidewalk. Same Stop require immediate general clean up.

Bus stop with non-connecting landing area to sidewalk: Stop ID 434, SAN FERNANDO AT MILFORD

One bus stop requires general clean up: Stop ID 434, SAN FERNANDO AT MILFORD

368 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

24 Of the 339 bus stops, three bus stops do not currently include appropriate red curbing or designated bus lane in immediate proximity to the stop. One stop had a yellow curb and the other two stops had “no parking” or “no stopping any time” signage near the stop.

Bus stop with faded yellow curbing: Stop ID 219, HONOLULU AT OCEAN VIEW

336
3 Red curb vs. No red curb
Yes No
369 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

25 Bus stop with no red curbing: Stop ID 212, GLENDALE AT MONTEREY

Bus stop with no red curbing: Stop ID 443, GLENDALE AT CALIFORNIA

370 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

26 Of the 339 bus stops, ten locations were deemed to require regular tree trimming. Regular trimming or maintenance of the trees and vegetation present at or near bus stops ensures full height clearance for buses pulling in and out of a bus stop. The bus stops identified either currently have branches overhanging the street or are positioned such they will likely overhang the adjoining roadway.

1. Stop ID 131, CENTRAL AT LAUREL

2. Stop ID 121, CENTRAL AT LOS FELIZ

3. Stop ID 218, HONOLULU AT MARKET

4. Stop ID 229, LA CRESCENTA AT PIEDMONT

5. Stop ID 225, LA CRESCENTA AT MARY

6. Stop ID 183, FOOTHILL AT CROWN

7. Stop ID 397, VICTORY AT WESTERN

8. Stop ID 381, SAN FERNANDO AT ALLEN

9. Stop ID 457, GLENDALE AT SAN FERNANDO

10. Stop ID 468, GLENDALE AT LOS FELIZ

Branches overhanging the street/bus zone: Stop ID 131, CENTRAL AT LAUREL

371 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

27 Branches overhanging the street/bus zone: Stop ID 218, HONOLULU AT MARKET

372 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

28 Large shade tree at bus stop has potential for branches to overhang the street/bus zone: Stop ID 397,

VICTORY AT WESTERN

373 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

29 Of the 339 bus stops, 56 locations had vandalism present at the stop. Vandalism ranged from stickers on shelter and bus stop poles to heavy graffiti on trash cans and benches.

Vandalism on Beeline sign and info post: Stop ID 459, SAN FERNADNO AT BRAND

Vandalism on bench: Stop ID 327, STOCKER AT PACIFIC

374 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

30 Section 3 | Summary of Community Input
Rider survey summary
In Autumn 2023, the City of Glendale initiated a Bus Stop Improvement Plan project. The project included a variety of public engagement activities including a survey of current transit riders. This section presents an overview of the survey’s objectives, methodology, and top-line results.

The survey sought to gather first -hand information from current riders of the City’s Beeline fixed-route bus service in five areas: 1) typical travel behavior (i.e., most common route used, boarding point, frequency of use); 2) perceptions/opinions regarding current Beeline bus stop amenities (e.g., signage, shelters, benches, etc.); 3) desire for and preference regarding potential bus stop improvements (i.e., amenities as well as placement); 4) basic demographic information; and 5) impact which current as well as possible future bus stop amenities could have on the respondent’s use of the Beeline service.

The survey also included a question regarding possible participation in a subsequent focus group discussion specific to potential bus stop improvements.

To encourage the broadest possible participation, the survey was conducted onboard Beeline buses across four service days as well as available online. In -field surveying was conducted Thursday, January 18; Friday, January 19; Saturday, January 20; and Tuesday, January 23, 2024. This approach to data collection encouraged participation by a broad spectrum of Beeline riders. Survey fielding covered all Beeline routes as well as day-parts. Further, the survey was available in English, Spanish, and Armenian.

In addition to offering a survey form to each person riding the Beeline during the four-day survey period, the team of trained surveyors was available to assist riders complete the 19-question survey upon request.

Ultimately, a survey sample of 252 valid responses was achieved.

375 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

31 Survey language

The survey instrument was produced in English, Spanish, and Armenian. A draft of the Armenian version was submitted for review by bilingual City staff.

Twenty-eight percent of the survey participants elected to complete the survey in a language other than English. In contrast with other recent transit rider survey activities conducted by Moore & Associates, this is a significant percentage and underscores the importance of providing Beeline service (and bus stop) information in multiple languages.

Question 1: What route are you riding now?
At the time of the survey fielding, the Beeline service network included 12 routes. The survey methodology focused on coverage, rather than individual route sample targets. While completed surveys were collected on each Beeline route, six routes garnered the greatest participation: Route 5 (54 surveys), Route 3 (35), Route 8 (30), Routes 4 and 6 (29 each), and Route 12 (21).

Question 2: At which stop do you normally board the bus? At the time of the survey fielding, the Beeline route network included approximately 475 bus stops. While boarding activity was observed throughout the system, there were six “most common” boarding points for the pool of survey participants. They are (in hierarchal order) 1) Burbank Metrolink Station, 2) Broadway/Glendale, 3) Glendale Transportation Center, 4) Chevy Chase, 5) Pacific Park, and 6) Pacific/Riverdale.

English

71.6%
Spanish

19.1%
Armenian

9.3%
n = 257
376 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

32 Question 3: In a typical week, how often do you ride the Beeline?

Use of the Beeline fixed-route service is significant among survey participants.

Nearly one-fifth of respondents indicated riding six or seven days/week. Approximately 75 percent ride at least three days/week. The consultant believes the data suggests at least two conclusions. First and foremost, the Beeline provides an important mobility option for a broad spectrum of Glendale residents.

Second, although the survey did not include a question regarding vehicle ownership, the frequency of transit use data combined with rider age suggests a relatively high incidence of transit-dependency.

3.9%

21.3%

28.3% 29.1%

17.3%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
Less than once
a week
1 - 2 days each
week
3 - 4 days each
week
5 days each
week
6 - 7 days each
week
n = 254
377 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

33 Question 4: Which of the following group includes your age?

While survey participants included representation across a broad age spectrum, 54 percent reflect work- age adults (ages 25 -64). Reflecting again on relative transit -dependency, persons within the broad age cohort of 25-64 years typically include vehicle owners and/or licensed drivers.

Question 5: When riding the Beeline, do you typically use a mobility device such as a wheelchair, scooter, or walker?

Less than five percent of the surveyed riders indicated use of a mobility device (most commonly a wheelchair) to complete the surveyed trip.

17.2%

15.6%

26.8% 27.6%

12.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
Under 18 18 - 24 25 - 44 45 - 64 65 and older
n = 250
Yes

4.1%
No

95.9%
n = 245
378 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

34 Question 6: How do you typically travel to the bus stop?

Nearly all (91.5 percent) of the surveyed riders indicated “walking” as a means of accessing their typical boarding point. This suggests easy and convenient access to Beeline bus stops as well as appropriate bus stop placement throughout the fixed-route service network exists. Less than three percent of the riders surveyed cited making a bus-to-bus transfer.

Question 7: How would you rate the signage currently in place at Beeline bus stops?

When asked for their perception of current Beeline bus stop signage, half responded “excellent.” Interestingly, another 30 percent indicated “neutral” (essentially no opinion).

91.6%

0.8% 2.8% 1.6% 0.4% 2.8%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Walk Scooter Car Train Uber Tranfer from
another bus
n = 251

50.2%

29.9%

18.7%

1.2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Excellent Neutral Fair Poor
n = 251
379 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

35 Question 9: How does the availability and condition of bus stop amenities (such as benches and shelters) influence your use of the Beeline?

Beeline riders reported current bus stop amenities have a positive impact on selection of public transit as a mobility alternative. Nearly 60 percent cited “encouraged me to ride”. Perhaps more than anything , this supports the importance of the current Beeline Bus Stop Improvement Project.

Question 10: Do you feel safe waiting for the bus?

Nearly all survey respondents reported “feel safe” at current Beeline bus stops. Obviously, this is very favorable, especially when one considers the positive response (“encouraged me to ride”) revealed in Question 9.

56.7%

41.3%

2.0%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
Encourages me to ride No impact Discourages me to ride
n = 247
Yes

96.4%
No

3.6%
n = 251
380 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

36 With respect to perceived safety (while at bus stops), two improvement opportunities were revealed.

First, concerns regarding the presence of “homeless” persons at or in proximity to current bus stops.

Glendale is not alone in addressing this challenge. R ecent market research conducted by Moore & Associates for Long Beach Transit and Golden Empire Transit (Bakersfield, CA) revealed very similar concerns regarding the presence of “homeless” persons and current bus rider propensity to continue to use public transit.

Among the tactics which California transit providers have adopted are new seating/benches which discourage lying thereon as well as increased patrols by public safety officers as well as community organizations. A second improvement opportunity identified the Beeline bus stop located between JPL and La Canada, which some riders perceive as being “dangerous”.

Question 11: Is there a particular Beeline bus stop you believe needs improvement? When asked if there is a particular bus stop perceived as needing improvement, nearly 20 percent indicated “yes”.

As a follow up/corollary to the previous question, several existing Beeline bus stops were identified. These include 1) Hoover/Pacific, 2) Brand/Colorado, 3) Broad/Broadway, 4) Chevy Chase/Central, 5) Colorado/Columbus, and 6) Crestmont/Verdugo (cited by multiple riders).

The “most desired” bus stop improvement is installation of more bus shelters and benches.

Question 12: Do you feel current Beeline bus stops are too close to one another or too far apart? With respect to placement/spacing of current Beeline bus stops, 88 percent indicated being satisfied. The balance was almost evenly split between “too close” and “too far apart”.

Among survey respondents citing either “too close” or “too far apart”, several improvement opportunities were identified. Moore & Associates believes at least two warrant consideration: 1) Broadway/Brand and 2) Route 33 (add stops on Ocean View north of I-210).

381 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

37 Question 13: In general, what bus stop improvement would you like to see introduced?

Another key question pertains to “most preferred” bus stop improvement. Six responses stand out (in hierarchal order): 1) Improved availability of schedule and/or route information (at individual bus stops) (54 responses), 2) more shade (23), 3) real -time service information (21), 4) more shelters (19), 5) more benches (17), and 6) more signage (15).

Other Frequency
Coordination with Metrolink schedules. Having your
bus drivers aware that is train 204 is slightly late, they can wait up to 5 mins for 204
1 Drug free 1
Everything 1
Extended run time each day 1
Let passengers on bus when it's raining during driver's breaks. 1
More accurate tracking app like Transit. 1
Raise height of benches 1

3.3%

7.1%

3.8%

5.2%

0.9%

0.5%

10.0%

2.4%

2.8%

0.9%

2.8%

1.4%

0.5%

10.9%

8.1%

9.5%

26.1%

3.8%
0% 10% 20% 30%
Other
More signage (maps, wayfinding, "no smoking")
Charging station for electronic devices
Wi-Fi
Bike racks/bicycle storage
Multilingual service information
Real-time service information
Safe street crossings
Improved connection between bus stop and nearby…
More trash cans/recycle bins
Improved cleanliness
Wider clearance to accommodate wheelchairs and…
Elimination of sidewalk grade
More shade
More benches
More shelters
Schedule and route information
Better signage
n = 211
382 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

38 Question 14: Would you be interested in participating in the focus groups? The survey concluded with an invitation for participation is an upcoming focus group to discuss potential Beeline bus stop improvements. Slightly more than one-quarter indicated a willingness to participate.

Focus group summary
Survey participants were invited indicate their interest in participating a focus group to further discuss potential bus stop improvements. Respondents who indicated interest were contacted and invited to attend a session on March 20, 2024. The focus group w as held at Glendale Public Works building, which is served by public transit.

Six community members attended. The consultant team introduced the project and potential bus stop improvements. After this briefing, community members were invited to share their opinions.

Participants expressed concern for cars and delivery trucks blocking bus zones along stops on Honolulu and Market, as well as trash cans blocking bus stops at Verdugo and Crestmont. One participant would like to see benches or shade installed at the Flower and Grandview stop.

When asked what potential bus stop improvements they were like to see, solar lighting, benches, and real-time bus tracking were noted. Participants would like to see improved coordination between the GPS on the buses and the bus tracking app.

Key takeaways from the rider survey and the focus group include a desire for 1) predictive arrival app; 2) improved lighting ; 3) more benches , shelters, and shading; and 4) posting schedule information at individual bus stops.

383 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

39 Section 4 | Amenity Catalogue
In preparing this section, consultant staff identified and evaluated a wide array of potential bus stop amenities. In doing so, we embraced several selection criteria including 1) products that would complement the existing Glendale Beeline service network, 2 ) products that are currently available for purchase (in contra st to items which may only be in the design or development stage), 3 ) amenities perceived as being of greatest potential benefit to Beeline customers (taking in to account feedback received via the customer survey and focus group discussions), 4) ease of installation and maintenance, and 5) cost and budgetary realities.

Based on discussions with City transit staff, the City’s bus stop improvement strategy can be summed up as the “Three S’s”: signage, seating, shade. Up-to-date and appropriate signage at every Beeline bus stop is paramount. First, a clearly identified bu s stop supports efficient operations, customer safety, and service promotion. Second, availability of sufficient shade at bus stops has become a key consideration across the last year for every public transit provider in the greater Los Angeles area. City staff has indicated a preference for natural shading (i.e., trees) wherever practical. Third, transit riders have related the importance of having some form of seating at bus stops. Several Beeline routes operate on 30 -minute frequency, translating to potential wait-time for the next bus. Glendale often experiences hot summers further underscoring the importance of adequate seating and shading. Lastly, similar to other American communities, Glendale has experienced an appreciable “aging in place” trend which further confirms the importance of the proposed amenities.

384 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

40 Seating

1. https://simmeseat.com/
a. Six available styles:
i. Standard Simme-Seat (with pole) SS1

ii. Standard Simme-Seat (with divider) SS1

iii. Single Simme-Seat (with pole) SS2

385 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

41 iv. Single Simme-Seat (with divider) SS2

v. Off-set Base Simme-Seat (with pole) SS3

vi. Off-Set Base Simme-Seat (with divider) SS3

386 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

42 b. The manufacturer describes Simme-Seats as virtually indestructible, easy to install, and maintenance-free.
c. The Simme-Seat is manufactured with plate steel, then sandblasted and powder coated with a durable paint. The perforated seats minimize graffiti and allow moisture run-off. d. The seats can be customized to fit specific needs through a variety of configurations and colors. Simme-Seats can be ordered with or without the poles and/or dividers and are available in over 150 colors.
e. Simme-Seats are rated to hold up to 500 lbs. per seat and withstand winds up to 162 miles per hour.
f. Pricing: Standard pricing on all options is $700 for the base only. To add on a pole or divider is an additional $190. Price discounts are available depending on the quantity ordered (with the first price break at 24 units).

2. Belson Outdoors - located in the US
a. https://www.belson.com/Oakley-Collection-Outdoor-Benches b. Benches are constructed of durable 1/8" x 2" slatted steel that is graffiti-resistant and deters vandalism. Flat bar steel is smooth and sturdy providing a comfortable seating option. c. M4-BCH: 4’ length (48" x 34" x 24") - $1,118.00
d. M5-BCH: 5’ length (60" x 34" x 24") - $1,217.00
e. M6-BCH: 6’ length (72" x 34" x 24") - $1,283.00
f. M6-BCH-ARM: 6’ length with center arm (72" x 34" x 24") - $1,381.00 g. Benches are made to order and require a 4- to 6-week lead time. h. Benches are available in green, brown, black, textured black, and silver. i. All benches include predrilled tabs on legs and an anchoring kit.

387 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

43 3. OCC outdoors – located in the US
a. https://www.occoutdoors.com/8-foot-backless-bus-stop-bench-with-arm-rest.html b. This 8-foot-long bench is made from heavy-duty steel slats with curved arms. It features a zinc advantage super TGIC powder coated finish. Sturdy 1/8" thick by 2" wide galvanneal slats are securely welded to one-inch schedule 40 pipe at the top and bottom of the seat.

Arms and legs are constructed on 1-1/4" x 14-gauge square steel tubing. c. BLBen-V-AR-8: height 17" x width 16" x length 8’ - $1,620.00 d. The bench is available in black, bronze, green, blue, silver grey, burgundy. e. All benches arrive fully assembled and include pre-drilled mounting holes in the feet and anchoring hardware.

388 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

44 4. Pilot Rock – located in the US
a. https://www.pilotrock.com/series/benches/sign-bench-b400-series-contour-seat-your- custom-sign-is-the-backrest/
b. Sign Bench - B400 Series Contour Seat; custom sign is the backrest. c. Series B400 Sign Benches can be 4, 6 or 8 feet long. d. Frame legs are 2-3/8” OD steel pipe. Powder coat frame finish available in tan, blue, black, red, brown, yellow, green, gray, and burgundy.
e. Model B400 is portable/surface mounted (anchor bolts are not included and requires use of the Model ANC3-4 Anchor Kit). Model B401 has embedded frame posts for a permanent installation.

389 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

45 Shade Structures/Shelters

1. Handi-Hut- Located in the US
a. 5 series: https://www.handi-hut.com/products/transit-shelters/5-series/ i. 5-2: 12’4″x5′, fits 6-7 individuals, no windscreen
ii. 5-2WS: 12’4″x5′, fits 6-7 individuals, has a windscreen iii. 5-2SL: 12’4″x4′, fits 6-7 individuals, no windscreen b. Price: $15,870 per unit (as of April 2024) Note: includes freight cost. c. Available roof styles include Dome, Flat, Barrel, Sloped, Poly Hip, Poly Gable, Standing Seam Hip, Standing Seam Gable, and Historical
d. Aluminum Finishes
i. Clear Anodized
ii. Dark Bronze Anodized
e. Roof materials and colors:
i. 1/4″ Twin Wall Polycarbonate (Barrel, Poly Gable, Poly Hip & Sloped)

1. Clear; White; or Bronze Tinted
ii. Standing Seam Aluminum Decking (Standing Seam Hip, Standing Seam Gable and Historical)

1. Black or Dove Gray
iii. Endurex 300 (Flat)

1. Black or Silver
iv. ¼” Translucent Acrylic (Dome)

1. White or Bronze Tinted

390 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

46 391 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

47 2. Brasco – located in the US
a. https://www.brasco.com/products/bus-stop-shelters/eclipse/arched-2/ b. 5-foot or 7-foot depth
c. Length: 8', 10', 12', 16', 20'
d. Solar lighting, advertising box, and display case available as add-ons. e. Price: (as of April 2024)
i. $17,750: 5’ x 12’ Eclipse Series Aluminum Structure; Three-Sided; Full Rear and Side Walls with an Open Front; Solar Lighting Package with Flexible Solar Panel, Batteries, Solar Controller, Vented Enclosure, and 6-Watt LED Light; Solar Powered Dual Slot USB Port Integrated into Column of Structure; bench additional $800. ii. $16,600: 5’ x 10’ Eclipse Series Aluminum Structure; Three-Sided; Full Rear and Side Walls with an Open Front; Solar Lighting Package with Flexible Solar Panel, Batteries, Solar Controller, Vented Enclosure, and 6-Watt LED Light; Solar Powered Dual Slot USB Port Integrated into Column of Structure; bench additional $800. f. The Eclipse Series includes an arch or flat roof and features pocketed columns and a header to conceal hardware and provide structural integrity. It is available in either cantilevered or full-sided walls in a variety of wall glazing, all of which can be tailored with custom branding elements. Standard elements include powder coat painted finish and aluminum, acrylic, or structured polycarbonate roof glazing. All shelters are engineered to meet local wind, snow & seismic load requirements.
g. Powder-coat finish: 30 colors available.

392 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

48 3. USA-Shade – Located in the US
a. https://www.usa-shade.com/products/arbor
b. A single-post pyramid cantilever structure in sizes ranging from 8’ x 8’ to 20’ x 20’. c. Provides shade without column obstructions.
d. Color options: https://www.usa-shade.com/resources/colors e. Price: $7,846.65 (as of April 2024): Single Post Pyramid Cantilever 10’ x 10’ x 8’.

393 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

49 394 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

50 4. Shade Blade – Located in the US
a. http://www.outfrontjcdecaux.com/sunshade_blade/index.html b. The ShadeBlade is a vertical shade structure that rotates and easily tracks the movement of the sun throughout the day. Its primary purpose is to create maximum useful shade for transit riders waiting at their bus stops. It provides an efficient and scalable solution for a systemwide rollout. It brings shade equity closer to reality. With its opaque design and smooth rotation system, it effectively blocks out direct sunlight and creates shade exactly where the passengers need it. The ShadeBlade can accommodate dozens of transit riders at a bus stop throughout the day. It works well alone and in conjunction with a traditional bus shelter and the built environment. c. H ~9ft x W ~2ft
d. Ex. LADOT “La Sombrita.” Cost estimated from the article is $10,000 each. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-25/the-most-hated-bus-stop-on-the-internet- doesn-t-deserve-your-scorn

395 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

51 Trees
Well-chosen, strategically planted trees can provide much-needed shade from the blazing California sun.

Based on discussions with the City’s Arborist, a unit cost of $1,000 for purchase and installation of a single tree should be considered for budgeting.

Shown below are examples of trees believed to be appropriate for the Glendale environment which would provide the desired shade at individual bus stops.

• Brazilian Pepper Tree

• Camphor Tree

• Magnolia Tree

• Jacaranda Tree

• Texas Umbrella Tree

• Podocarpus Tree

396 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

52 • Mexican Sycamore Tree

• Fern Pine Tree

• Carrot Wood Tree

• Monterrey Oak Tree
397 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

53 Mobile Phone Charging Stations

1. Brasco – located in the US
a. https://www.brasco.com/products/solar-powered-solutions/solar-usb-port/ b. Pricing and sizing details provided upon quote

2. Kwikboost – located in the US
a. https://kwikboost.com/shop/standard-floor-stand-mobile-charging-station/ b. The manufacturer’s flagship product is the Standard Floor Stand charging station, which is designed for high traffic environments. It charges eight devices simultaneously, all at full speed. With the addition of wireless charging ledge, it can charge 10 devices simultaneously.

It includes a lifetime warranty and a one-year service plan. c. 5V, 2.4A per port
d. Cable configuration: 3 Apple Lightning, 3 USB Type-C, 2 Micro e. Unit dimensions: 18″ x 48″ x 15″; unit weight: 30 lbs. f. Certified: MFi, USB, FCC
g. Pricing: $499

398 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

54 Ticket Vending Machines/Mobile Ticketing

1. Olea Kiosks – located in the US
a. https://www.olea.com/product/geneva-indoor-and-outdoor/ b. Geneva Indoor and Outdoor
i. The Geneva Kiosk can be used both indoor and outdoor. It includes a flexible component cavity to accommodate the necessary technology and a 27” monitor.

1. Payment devices can be positioned below the monitor or as side components.

2. The component cavity can hold both a ticket printer and a receipt printer.

3. The kiosk is serviced from the front to allow for easy maintenance and paper changes.
c. Price available upon request

2. LA Metro’s Tap-to-Go
a. https://www.taptogo.net/articles/en_US/Website_content/TAP-App b. TAP offers a small handheld fare loading device. It is operated by the vendor or location. c. TAP App
i. Use a smartphone for contactless fare payment.
ii. Buy fare for 26 TAP transit systems (including BBB). iii. Manage TAP account including Reduced Fare cards and LIFE discounts. iv. Plan a trip.
v. View real-time bus and train arrivals.
vi. Available on the App Store and Google Play

399 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

55 3. Cubic – located in the US
a. https://www.cubic.com/solutions/transportation/fare-collection-revenue- management#paragraph-tab-671-4
b. UMO pass (mobile ticketing)
i. A fully-integrated electronic fare collection solution provided as a service that is purpose-built for online, real-time fare payment processing. Umo Pass offers online and mobile transit account management and fare product purchasing, as well as fare payment using a variety of fare media.
ii. Umo Pass collects and analyzes traveler boarding data and performs secure, real- time fare processing. It provides a rapid configuration of user interfaces and agency fare policy without the need for any new software development. iii. The Umo Pass system is easy to set-up, scalable and versatile.

WiFi

1. SOOFA Digital
a. https://soofadigital.com/research
b. LA County has smart benches designed by SOOFA. According to Soofa's website, LA is one of the early adopters of this smart bench technology. (Soofa benches have been installed in Boston, Miami, and Berlin as well.) Its benches include mobile charging spots, real-time bus info and wifi.
c. Outfront/JCDecaux is in charge of designing the shelters. http://www.outfrontjcdecaux.com/

2. Transit Wireless (BAI Communications) – located in the US a. https://transitwireless.com/our-services/transit-communications/ b. Offers public wifi, private networks, and dedicated fiber for transit c. Used by New York City Transit (NYCT)

400 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

56 Section 5 | Bus stop improvement recommendations
The purpose of this chapter is to provide a slate of recommended Glendale Beeline bus stop improvements on an individual bus stop (or location) basis.

The criteria for making these recommendations include 1) recent in -person assessment of each stop by project staff including having sufficient space to accommodate the proposed improvement; 2) field observations regarding recent boarding and alighting acti vity at individual bus stops; 3) discussions with City transit staff; 4) sensitivities as to property ownership, right -of-way, and potential impact on residences and commercial establishments within close proximity of the individual bus stop, and 5) anticipated benefit to transit customers.

The improvement and/or enhancement recommendations presented herein are divided into two broad categories. First, bus stop repairs as well as maintenance. Generally speaking, such activities are relatively low-cost and likely able to be completed in a relatively short period of time. Second, enhancements to bus stops. Locations identified for potential enhancement will require 1) purchase of appropriate amenities (e.g., bench, shelter, shade structure, etc.); 2) some engineering work to confirm site ownership, compliance with City codes, and confirm availability of the site to accommodate the proposed improvements; 3) availability of the desired amenities from the respective manufacturer/supplier; and 4) availability of sufficient funding.

At the time of this report’s preparation, the Beeline service network included 339 unique bus stops. Most of these are “Beeline only” bus stops, with a small amount being shared stops with LA Metro. Generally speaking, bus stops within Glendale city limits are controlled by the City , while shared stops may be subject to multi-jurisdictional control considerations.

Of the 339 Beeline bus stops included within this Plan, all but one features appropriate/current Glendale Beeline bus stop signage. Some form of seating – concrete benches or metal benches – are present at all but 59 bus stops. Nearly one-third of current Beeline bus stops include a shelter.

As a matter of policy, every Beeline bus stop should include a metal pole capable of displaying Glendale Beeline bus stop signage. Further, every Beeline bus stop within Glendale city limits should feature appropriate red curbing. Installation and maintenance of red curbing at Beeline bus stops outside Glendale city limits would likely require securing appropriate permission/clearanc e from the host jurisdiction. For example, the unincorporated community of La Crescenta which lies within Los Angeles County.

The list of activities included within the “Repair and Maintenance” category include installation of bus stop signage; general clean-up; repair to sidewalk/concrete/pedestrian pad; installation of red “curbing”; and tree trimming. The second category (enhancements to bus stops) covers possible installation of 401 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

57 seating/benches, shelters, shade structure or trees, and other amenities intended to enhance the transit customer experience.

Phase 1: Near term repairs and maintenance

1. Add Beeline signage:

Stop ID 344, COLORADO at LOUISE

2. General clean up:

Stop ID 434, SAN FERNANDO AT MILFORD

3. Red curbing:

Stop ID 212, GLENDALE AT MONTEREY: no red curbing.

Stop ID 219, HONOLULU AT OCEAN VIEW: faded yellow curbing.

Stop ID 443, GLENDALE AT CALIFORNIA: no red curbing:

4. Conduct tree trimming:

Stop ID 131, CENTRAL AT LAUREL
Stop ID 121, CENTRAL AT LOS FELIZ
Stop ID 218, HONOLULU AT MARKET
Stop ID 229, LA CRESCENTA AT PIEDMONT
Stop ID 225, LA CRESCENTA AT MARY
Stop ID 183, FOOTHILL AT CROWN
Stop ID 397, VICTORY AT WESTERN
Stop ID 381, SAN FERNANDO AT ALLEN
Stop ID 457, GLENDALE AT SAN FERNANDO
Stop ID 468, GLENDALE AT LOS FELIZ

5. Repair sidewalk/concrete/or pedestrian pad:

Stop ID 121, CENTRAL AT LOS FELIZ
Stop ID 120, CENTRAL AT LOMITA
Stop ID 151, CENTRAL AT LOS FELIZ
Stop ID 210, GLENDALE AT LEXINGTON
Stop ID 220, HONOLULU AT ORANGEDALE
Stop ID 225, LA CRESCENTA AT MARY
Stop ID 184, FOOTHILL AT GOULD
Stop ID 259, FOOTHILL AT RINETTI
Stop ID 179, FOOTHILL AT COMMONWEALTH
Stop ID 278, BROADWAY AT CEDAR
Stop ID 302, CHEVY CHASE AT BROADWAY
Stop ID 338, COLORADO AT EVERTT
402 of 433

moore-associates.net

City of Glendale
Bus Stop Improvement Program
Final Report
May 2024

58 Stop ID 434, SAN FERNANDO AT MILFORD
Stop ID 459, SAN FERNANDO AT BRAND

Phase 2: Bus stop enhancements

In preparing the bus stop inventory and recommendations matrix, Moore & Associates evaluated each of the 339 unique bus stops in the Beeline system.

The matrix includes recommendations regarding shelters, benches, shade trees, and red curbing; including pricing estimates for these amenities where appropriate. Although not explicitly detailed in the bus stop matrix, we recommendation installation of real-time information displays along Route 1. This route was selected given its historically higher ridership.

The matrix includes location -specific notes regarding proposed improvements. At locations where no improvement is recommended, the matrix includes the consultant’s rationale (i.e., the presence of existing amenities, space limitations, concerns regarding property ownership, potential street view blockage, etc.).

With respect to bus shelters, Beeline bus stops currently feature a variety of shelter makes and models. In addition to “standard” transit shelters, there are three different custom-designed shelters along the Beeline route network. One example is frequently found at bus stops in the northern portion of the service area in Montrose and La Canada Flintridge. The other two are custom-designed concrete shelters chiefly found in the western portion of the service area along San Fernando and Glenoaks (Routes 7 and 12).

Balancing visual conformity, planning and placement, and infrastructure maintenance, the bus stop matrix includes recommendations for two types of “standard” buts shelters: 10 ft x 6 ft and 12 ft x 5 ft. Depending on space availability, historic bus stop activity, and existing amenities, the matrix includes recommendations as to shelter size and if the shelter should be installed with a new bench or over existing seating.

It is anticipated installation of the proposed bus stop improvements will require multiple years to complete. As such, the matrix includes cost estimates for the initial group (Phase I) improvement options.

Based on discussion with City staff, the consultant believes such enhancements can accomplished using existing capital budget funding. That said, the cost estimates do not include any City staff time which may be required to address the recommendations (e.g., engineering, site preparation, permitting, etc.).

403 of 433

1 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
MBTA Catalog 21-01
Exhibit 2
404 of 433

2 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
3 19
24 27
30 Contents
Tolar Bus Stop Shelters
Sunset Shelters
Sierra Shelters
Advertising Panel
Additional Add-Ons
Urban Solar Lighting Systems
PV Stop+ and PV Stop Max
PV Stop EcoSeat
RMS Shelter System
Axentia E-Paper and LCD Displays
13” E-Paper Display
3-Row LCD Display
WaySine LED Displays
LED Pole Display
LED Shelter Display
Index
PV Stop+ | Urban Solar
Solar lighting solution for
unsheltered bus stops
405 of 433

3 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
Tolar Manufacturing Company
As North America’s most reputable leader in the design and fabrication of award-winning street furniture, Tolar delivers uniquely designed, quality-built products on time and on budget.

This does not ha ppen by accident and is the result of Tolar’s investment in purpose driven design s, 30 years ’ experience in quality material sourcing and standardized fabrication processes.

Tolar is known among industry peers for its end-to-end quality control standards and requires the same performance from its Partners in solar lighting, digital displays, and intelligence software. Any interest in the follow ing products and services should be processed through Tolar, with the primary contact below.

Patrick Merrick
Executive Vice-President
[email protected]
Direct: (951) 547-8209
Office: (951) 808-0081
406 of 433

4 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
Sunset Bus Stop Shelter
The Sunset bus stop shelter offers 4.5” round aluminum columns and a highly vandal resistant design. It has been engineered with modular components for ease of replacement parts and is available in 8 ft., 12 ft., and 16 ft. lengths.

The Sunset features a cantilevered roof for optimal coverage and a minimal footprint, in either a sloped or arched roof profile . Choose from aluminum, acrylic, or polycarbonate roof glazing for a range of light translucency.

Wall glazing options include glass, perforated metal, or no glazing, and add- ons include a bench, bike rack, trash receptacle, advertising panel, map case, and real-time displays.

Custom Sunset Shelter
Sunset bus stop shelter with
add-ons not included in this
contract. Contact Tolar for
pricing and availability on
custom extras.
407 of 433

5 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
Sunset Shelter Options
The Sunset shelter is available in two roof styles, three standard lengths, and with the add-ons listed below. All Sunset shelters and amenities are powder coated to the color of your choice.

Available Configurations
Model Size Roof Style Roof Material Wall Glazing
Sunset 8
12 16
Arched
Sloped
Aluminum
Acrylic
Polycarbonate
Perforated Metal
Glass
None
Optional Add-Ons Page
RMS Solar Lighting System 24
Advertising Panel (solar powered or non-lit) 16
13” E-Paper Display 26
3-Row LCD Display 27
LED Shelter Display 30
Bench 17
Trash Receptable 17
Map Case 17
Bike Rack 17
Arched Roof Flat Sloped Roof
408 of 433

6 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
Sunset Shelter Options
The Sunset bus stop shelter is available in the two roof styles and three lengths shown below. 409 of 433

7 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
Sunset Shelter with Arched Roof
Below is a custom Sunset shelter with an arched roof
with acrylic roof glazing. MTD selected to have no wall glazing to reduce maintenance, and m ade possible by
the mild weather in Goleta, CA.

Please contact Tolar for pricing and availability on
custom extras not included in the MBTA / CALACT base
contract.
410 of 433

8 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
Sunset Shelter with Arched Roof
Above is the Sunset shelter with an arched roof, RMS solar lighting package, 13” e-paper real-time sign (LCD and LED are also available), map case, bench, trash receptacle, bike rack and PV Stop+.

The arched roof is slightly deeper than the sloped roof Sunset model but has the same roof glazing and wall glazing options. Aluminum roof glazing is recommended for optimal shade, and acrylic or polycarbonate is recommended for light translucency.
411 of 433

9 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
Sunset Shelter with Sloped Roof
Above is the Sunset shelter with a sloped roof, RMS solar lighting package, 13” e-paper real-time sign (LCD and LED are also available), map case, bench, trash receptacle, bike rack and PV Stop+.

For bus stops with high ridership, the PV Stop + is a great solution for adding more illumination and signage without adding a second shelter. The PV Stop + has a very small footprint and requires no trenching for power.
412 of 433

10 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
Sierra Bus Stop Shelter
The Sunset bus stop shelter offers 3 ” round columns and a classic Sierra fascia. It has been engineered with modular components for ease of replacement parts, and is available in 9 ft., 13 ft., 17 ft., and 21 ft. lengths.

The Sierra features a cantilevered roof in a high peak, low peak, and dome profile with roof glazing options of aluminum, Girard tiles, or polycarbonate.

Wall glazing options include glass, perforated aluminum, or no glazing, and add-ons include a bench, bike rack, trash receptable, advertising panel, map case, and real-time displays.
413 of 433

11 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
Sierra Shelter Options
The Sierra shelter is available in three roof styles, four lengths, and with the optional add-ons listed below. All Sierra shelters and amenities are powder coated to your color of choice.

Available Configurations
Model Size Roof Style Roof Material Wall Glazing
Sierra 9
13 17
21 High Peak
Low Peak
Dome
Aluminum
Girard Tiles
Polycarbonate
Perforated Metal
Glass
None
Optional Add-Ons Page
RMS Solar Lighting System 24
Advertising Panel (solar powered or non-lit) 16
13” E-Paper Display 26
3-Row LCD Display 27
LED Shelter Display 30
Bench 17
Trash Receptable 17
Map Case 17
Bike Rack 17
Dome Roof Low Peak Roof High Peak Roof
414 of 433

12 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
Sierra Shelter Options
The Sierra bus stop shelter is available in the three roof styles and four lengths shown below. 415 of 433

13 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
Sierra Shelter with High Peak Roof
Above is the Sierra shelter with a high peak roof with Girard tiles. Ad d-ons include an RMS solar lighting package, 13” e-paper real-time sign (LCD and LED are also available), map case, bench, trash receptacle, bike rack and PV Stop+.

All amenities can be powder coated to your color of choice for optimal branding. 416 of 433

14 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
Sierra Shelter with Low Peak Roof
Above is the Sierra shelter with a low peak roof with powder coated aluminum roof glazing. Ad d-ons include an RMS solar lighting package, 13” e-paper real-time sign (LCD and LED are also available), map case, bench, trash receptacle, bike rack and PV Stop+.

All Sierra model shelters are delivered with fully assembled roofs for each of installation and have modular wall panels for easy replacement. Shown here are perforated metal wall panels, which are the most vandal resistant. 417 of 433

15 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
Sierra Shelter with Dome Roof
Above is the Sierra shelter with a dome roof with polycarbonate roof glazing. Add-ons include an RMS solar lighting package, 13” e-paper real-time sign (LCD and LED are also available), map case, bench, trash receptacle, bike rack and PV Stop+.

Acrylic and polycarbonat e roof panels a re available in different colors and allo w for s ome light translucency, while still providing shade from the sun.
418 of 433

16 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
Advertising Panel
A two-sided 4 x 6 ft. advertising panel can be
added to any bus stop shelter as a side wall. It
can be illuminated with the RMS solar lighting
package.

For added revenue streams, consider pairing
the advertising panel with an e-paper display
to promote complementary marketing
campaigns.
419 of 433

17 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
Additional Add-Ons
It’s important to get the most value out of a limited bus stop footprint with functional shelter amenities. Below are the available add-ons for the Sunset and Sierra shelters, and all can be powder coated to match the shelter.

Bus Stop Shelter Add-Ons
Trash Receptable Column mounted trash receptacle with perforated metal frame & locking lid Bike Rack Surface mounted hoop-style metal bike rack
Bench ADA compliant perforated metal bench with curved seat dividers Map Case Wall mounted metal map case with clear acrylic cover PV Stop+ Adding a PV Stop+ near a shelter can provide additional lighting and real-time info E-Paper Display E-paper can display next departure information and marketing campaigns LCD or LED Display (not shown) LCD or LED can display next departure information and is mounted to the shelter side wall Advertising Panel (not shown) 4 x 6 ft. aluminum advertising panel for shelter side wall (lit or unlit) 420 of 433

18 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
Sierra Shelter with Solar
Powered Advertising Panel
Above is a 13 ft. long Sierra shelter with solar
powered security lighting and illuminated
advertising panel, perfor ated metal bench ,
perforated metal walls and custom decals.
421 of 433

19 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
Urban Solar manufactures solar power systems and LED lighting solutions for transit, parking lots, pathway, and general illumination applications.

With more than 20,000 bus stops improved across North
America, Urban Solar delivers the highest level of solar powered LED illumination in an integrated, reliable, and customer focused design.

Urban Solar has developed more UL-Listed and Buy America compliant solar packages for North American transit
agencies than any other supplier.

Urban Solar has been partnered with Tolar Manufacturing for over 10 years and supplies all Tolar shelters with solar lighting packages.
19 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
422 of 433

20 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
PV Stop Collection
Urban Solar developed the PV Stop Collection to provide security lighting, real- time information displays, and seating at unsheltered bus stops. There are two PV Stop + sizes, the larger of which is refered to as the PV Stop Max.

The Urban Solar team will help determine which model is needed for your locations, based on annual solar exposure and the necessary power to run the security lighting and or a real-time display.

Model LED Real-Time Display Option
PV Stop+
PV Stop Max
5 W
5-15 W
13” E-Paper, LCD or LED Display
13” E-Paper, LCD or LED Display
Unlit Bus Stop
Dark bus stops can make
riders feel unsafe and often
lead to driver pass-bys.

PV Stop+
The PV Stop+ provides
5W of LED lighting from
dusk to dawn.
423 of 433

21 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
PV Stop+
Urban Solar ’s PV Stop + provides enough solar power to power LED security lighting and a real-time display.

Features and Benefits
Reduces Rider Pass-Bys
Enhances Public Safety and Deters Crime
Mounts to Standard Transit Poles, No Special Footings
UL-Listed and Buy America Compliant
Agency Branding Options, Custom Colors &Decals
10 Year Warranty
Specifications
20W Solar Panel, 42W optional (PV Stop Max)
20Ah 12.8V Battery
5+ Days of Battery Autonomy
Up to three 5W LED Downlights
-4 - 140°F Operating Temperature
Dusk to Dawn Run-time or Specific Scheduling Options
Add-Ons
Remote Management
EcoSeat
Bike Rack
Trash Receptable
21 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
424 of 433

22 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
PV Stop EcoSeat
The EcoSeat is manufactured by Tolar and provides a
compact seating solution for unsheltered bus stops.

The EcoSeat is ADA compliant and features a powder
coated aluminum frame with HDPE slats.

PV Stop+ with EcoSeat and E-paper
Display
To the left is the EcoSeat by Tolar with the PV Stop+
by Urban Solar and an e-paper display.

This combination of amenities is a great solution
for a compact bus stop location without a shelter,
and provides riders with seating , security lighting,
and real-time departure information.
425 of 433

MBTA |
RMS Shelter Lighting System
Urban Solar’s RMS Shelter System is a safe, powerful, and reliable solar powered LED lighting system designed specifically for the transit industry.

It e asily mount s to new or existing transit bus shelters, with various configurations for branding, and performance.

All solar components are housed in a self -contained aluminum enclosure mounted on the roof of any shelter. The LED fixtures are mounted inside the ceiling of the shelter with various fixture and mou nting options available.

Features and Benefits Specifications Add-Ons
UL-Listed & Buy America Compliant 100W-340W Solar Panel 13” E-Paper Display Easy Installation to New or Old Shelters 5-45 foot candle levels 3-Row LCD Display Reduces Pass-Bys and Deters Crime Dusk to Dawn Lighting with Dimming LED Shelter Display Custom Branding Available 5-10 Days Battery Autonomy Remote Monitoring Smart Remote Monitoring Controller -40 to 176° F Operating Temp Custom Branding 23 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
Austin, TX | RMS Lighting System
426 of 433

Axentia is a leading company in developing cutting edge battery- and solar-operated real-time information display systems for public transport. We create opportunities for both society and people to move forward – with cost-
effective, sustainable products and system solutions.

The low power iBus displays operate for 5 years on
battery, only takes 5 minutes to install and requires no external wiring. Text-to-speech can be included to all
displays.

Axentia’s ultra-low powered displays ensure real-time
information and customer communication can be
improved at all transit stops within the network. Axentia’s solutions do not rely on grid or solar power and therefore can be deployed where your riders will see the largest
benefit
The screen layouts and functionality can be customized to align with your needs.
427 of 433

Cost efficient
• Simple installation; No wiring required
• Long operation; 5 years between battery replace-
ments. No recharging needed.
• Uses existing mobile networks
• Low maintenance and procurement costs
Flexible
• Battery powered
• ADA COmpliant with optional text-to-speech
functionality
•
Works on all stops, also on places without sunlight
13” E-paper Display
Technical specifications overview
Physical
Colour: Colours on demand
Size (H x W x D): 12.7 x 18.0 x 4.8 inches
Weight: Approx. 24 lbs
Environmental:

Temperature: -4° F to 158° F fully operational
-13° F to 158° F reduced functionality
Humidity: 10 % – 100 %
MTBF: 80.000 hours
IP65, IK 09, UV-proof
Display & graphical information
Type: EPD 13” (E-ink)
Resolution: 1600 x 1200 (150 dpi)
Front light: LED
Active area: 10,6 x 8 inches
Single or double sided
Display Features and Benefits
Useful
• Displays real-time bus arrival information
• Improve communication with text messaging
• Make schedule changes simple; No more paper
schedules
• Manage systems through easy-to-use web portal
Practical
• Weather and vandal resistant casing
• Simple configuration and administration
• Compact display module suitable also for integration
Accessories / options
Text-To-Speech embedded module, speaker and wireless
push button, AGC optional
Accelerometer
GPS
Solar powered
Graphical Information
Fully configurable graphical area
Real-time, time tables, line maps, pictures etc.

Disruption messages and general messages
Operation
Battery: Lithium
Battery life time: 5 years
Data
communication:

Mobile communication
Antennas: Embedded
Transport for London, London (United Kingdom)
428 of 433

3 rows Monochrome LCD
Display
Technical specifications overview
Physical
Colour: Colours on demand
Size (H x W x D): 16,1 x 19,3 x 2 inches
Weight: Approx. 22 lbs
Environmental:

Temperature: -22° F to 158° F fully operational
Humidity:
10 % – 100 %
MTBF: 80.000 hours
IP65, IK 09, UV-proof
Display & graphical information
Type: LCD with backlight
Row active area: 14,4 x 1,6 inches
Row resolution: 172 x 16 pixels / row
Active area: 10,6 x 8 inches
Single sided, 3 rows
Accessories / options
Text-To-Speech embedded module, speaker and wireless
push button, AGC optional
Graphical Information
Fully configurable graphical area
Font size height up to 1,6 inches
Any characters, fonts and symbols
Number of characters for Line/Destination/Time customizable Vertical scrolling
Disruption messages up to 400 characters
Operation
Battery: Lithium
Battery life time: 5 years
Data
communication:

Mobile communication
Antennas: Embedded
De Lijn, Belgium
copyright: De Lijn
429 of 433

28 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
WaySine designs and manufactures LED real-time displays for shelters and on-bus announcement systems. WaySine manufactures all components in beautiful Aiea Hawaii, which is its headquartered office.

WaySine’s sole purpose is in the design, development, and manufacturing of solar powered public transit amenities for bus stops and shelters.

With deployments in over 40 agencies across both USA and Canada, WaySine devices are robust enough to withstand the most extreme conditions. Deployments in Quebec have seen extreme temperatures of below -40 degrees F and pole mounted installations in Florida and Texas have seen some of the most intense hurricane winds.
430 of 433

29 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
LED Pole Display
WaySine’s LED pole display is an all-in-one solar powered system that mounts to the top of any transit pole.

It includes front and rear solar panels, batteries , and integrated antenna. The compact solar package and display combination is easy to install and engineered for the harshest environments.

This display incudes built -in diagnostics to monitor power and temperature to provide early failure detection.

System Specifications
Dimensions (H x L x D) 10.9 x 26 x 7 in.

Weight 13 lbs.

Character Count 2-line, 24 characters
Operating Temperature -40 – 158° F
Text-to-Speech Motion activated or push-button
Lighting Two 1W LEDs for down lighting
Mounting Installation Top of transit pole
Communication Cellular, 4G / LTE + GPS
Environmental Rating IP65
431 of 433

30 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
LED Shelter Display
WaySine’s LED shelter display can be powered by solar or AC and mounts to the inside wall of a bus stop shelter. This display incudes built-in diagnostics to monitor power and temperature to provide early failure detection.

System Specifications
Dimensions (H x L x D) 10.35 x 25 x 3 in.

Weight 7 lbs.

Character Count 2-line, 24 characters
Operating Temperature -40 – 158° F
Text-to-Speech Push-button
Solar Package RMS Shelter System
Mounting Installation Inside bus stop shelter
Communication Cellular, 4G / LTE + GPS
Environmental Rating IP65
30 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
432 of 433

34 MBTA / CALACT Catalog 21-01
MBTA |
Index
Below is a summary of the items available for purchase through the MBTA / CALACT 21-01 contract.

Please contact Tolar with questions or to request a quote.

Item Description Page
Tolar Bus Stop Shelters
Sunset Arched Roof Bus stop shelter available in 8, 12 and 16 ft. lengths 5 Sunset Sloped Roof Bus stop shelter available in 8, 12 and 16 ft. lengths 5 Sierra High Peak Roof Bus stop shelter available in 9, 13, 17 and 21 ft. lengths 11 Sierra Low Peak Roof Bus stop shelter available in 9, 13, 17 and 21 ft. lengths 11 Sierra Dome Roof Bus stop shelter available in 9, 13, 17 and 21 ft. lengths 11 Shelter Add-Ons
Advertising Panel Optional Add-on to new or existing bus stop shelter 16 Trash Receptacle Optional Add-on to new or existing bus stop shelter 17 Bike Rack Optional Add-on to new or existing bus stop shelter 17 Bench Optional Add-on to new or existing bus stop shelter 17 Map Case Optional Add-on to new or existing bus stop shelter 17 Urban Solar Lighting Systems
PV Stop+ Pole mounted solar package with 5W LED 21
PV Stop Max Pole mounted solar package with 5W-15W LED 21 PV Stop EcoSeat Pole mounted two-seat bench for PV Stop 22 RMS Shelter System Solar package for mounting to roof of bus stop shelter 23 Axentia E-Paper and LCD Displays
E-Paper 13” Display Axentia 13” e-paper display for transit poles or shelters 25 3-Row LCD Display Axentia 3-row e-paper display for transit poles or shelters 26 WaySine LED Displays
LED Pole Display WaySine LED display for transit poles 28 LED Shelter Display WaySine LED display for bus stop shelters 29 Patrick Merrick
Executive Vice-President
[email protected]
Direct: (951) 547-8209
Office: (951) 808-0081
433 of 433

Glendale City CouncilSeptember 17, 2024

Glendale City Council
September 17, 2024