Agenda packet, first session — Glendale City Council, September 17, 2024 (part 1 of 2)

A G E N D A

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

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

are

broadcast

live

Glendale

TV,

viewable

Spectrum

Cable,

channel

and

AT&T

U-
verse,

channel

99. Meetings

are

also

streamed

live

high

definition

(HD)

the

City

webpage,
glendaleca.gov/live
,

YouTube.com/myglendale
,

and

Apple

TV,

Roku,

Amazon

Fire,

iOS

and
Android

devices

using

free

app

called

Cablecast

and

choosing

"Glendale

TV"

from

the

menu.

Meetings

are

also

archived

the

City

Website

for

viewing

anytime

glendaleca.gov/agendas
.

Call

(818)

548-4013

for

program

schedules.

For

public

comments

and

questions

during

the
meeting,

call

(818)

937-8100.

Public

comments

specific

agenda

item

will

taken

when

that
agenda

item

discussed.

you

have

any

question

about

matters

the

agenda,

requests

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

PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION In

compliance

with

the

Americans

with

Disabilities

Act

(ADA)

1990,

auxiliary

hearing

aids,

sign
language

translation,

and

Braille

transcripts

are

available

upon

request.

Assisted

listening

devices
are

available

same-day

upon

request.

The

City

Clerk’

office

should

notified

72 hours

(three
business

days)

soon

practicable

for

requests

regarding

sign

language

translation

and
Braille

transcription

services.

All

documents

open

session

items

this

agenda

that

are
received

less

than

72 hours

prior

this

meeting,

and

are

public

records,

will

available

for

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

Translation

services

are

provided

for

meetings

through

the

use

bilingual

staff

for

speakers

who
wish

utilize

the

service

available.

Speakers

should

state

their

request

contacting

the

City
Clerk’s

office

(818)

548-2090,

least

72 hours

prior

the

scheduled

meeting

soon

as
practicable.

Please

specify

the

language

for

which

you

require

translation.

The

exclusive

use

City
provided

interpreters

not

required

and

persons

are

welcome

use

their

own

interpreter

speak
in their native language.

SEPTEMBER 17, 2024

ROLL CALL

1. CLOSED SESSION
– 1:00 PM ( To Commence at 3:00 PM
)
a.

Conference with Legal Counsel. Anticipated Litigation - Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9:

Two potential cases

1 TYPED 9/13/2024 10:31:19 AM
09 17 24
CC

b. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation: Najarian v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. 24STCP02101
c. Conference with Real Property Negotiators: City-designated negotiators: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Onnig Bulanikian, Michael J. Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, Michele Flynn, Bradley Calvert and Mark Berry. Property Location: 440 and 444 W.

Cypress St., 1275, 1291-1295, and 1295A Los Angeles St., and 448 Fernando Ct.

Negotiating Parties: CPD Los Angeles LLC. Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms of payment for the acquisition of property

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:00 PM
Roll Call
a. Flag Salute: Mayor Elen Asatryan
b. Invocation: Dr. Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c. Report of the City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the September 17, 2024 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on September 13, 2024, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, September 24, 2024 b. Proclamation Designating September 27, 2024, as Native American Day c. Proclamation Designating September 15 to October 15, 2024, as Hispanic Heritage Month

4. CONSENT ITEMS (Including Minutes)
The following are Routine and May be Acted Upon by One Motion. Any Member of Council or the Audience Requesting Separate Consideration May do so by Making Such Request Before Motion is Proposed.
a. City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Special City Council and Regular City Council Meetings of September 10, 2024
b. Glendale Water and Power, re: Approval of participation in the American Public Power Association (APPA) Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER) Cooperative Agreement, Appropriation of Funds Received from the APPA Subaward, and Amendment to the City’s Agreement with Insight Public Sector Inc. (Insight)

1. Motion approving participation in the American Public Power Association (APPA) Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER) Cooperative Agreement DE-CR0000015, and authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to accept a Subaward for the Federal funding approved by the DOE in the amount of $820,644 for Glendale Water and Power (GWP), and enter into a Cooperative Agreement with APPA for the implementation of the Subaward

2. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into and execute Amendment No. 1 to the City’s existing Professional Service Agreement, Contract No. 8001795 with Insight Public Sector Inc. (Insight) for services related to cybersecurity solutions, hardware, and implementation, pursuant to the requirements of the Subaward and Cooperative Agreement by the APPA, in the not-to-exceed amount of $820,644, for a new total not-to-exceed contract amount of $6,961,844 2 TYPED 9/13/2024 10:31:19 AM
09 17 24
CC

3. Resolution of Appropriation appropriating $820,644 subaward received by the American Public Power Association (APPA) Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER) to be dispensed by APPA, and $82,065 for the non-reimbursable administrative cost share for a total of $902,709 c.

Public Works, re:

Elevator Renovation at Former Police Building

1. Resolution adopting Plans and Specification No. 3988 for the Elevator Renovation at the Former Police Building project and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids d.

City Attorney, re: Request for Conflict of interest Waiver in Legal Representation by Best Best & Krieger LLP

1. Motion Authorizing the City Attorney to Execute Conflict of Interest Waiver e.

Public Works, re:

Award PSA for Public Outreach Regulatory Compliance

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with CV Strategies for consulting services for public outreach regulatory compliance to educate residents and businesses on proper waste sorting and mandatory recycling, in compliance with local and state regulations, including initiatives for composting and edible food recovery f.

Management Services, re: Modification to City Council Regular Meeting Schedule for 2024-25 Fiscal Year

1. Motion Modifying the City Council Regular Meeting Schedule for 2024-25 Fiscal Year g.

Community Services and Parks, re:

Amendment Four for FY 2024-2025 Los Angeles
County Aging and Disabilities (AD) Modernizing Older Californians Act (MOCA) funding allocation of $64,200 for the Supportive Services Program (SSP)

1. Motion to accept $64,200 in MOCA funding from Los Angeles County Aging and Disabilities Department for FY 2024-2025 Supportive Services Program; and authorize the City Manager or a designee to execute Amendment Four in the SSP232404 Subaward period July 2024 – July 2025 to accept and implement funding

2. Resolution of Appropriation to appropriate $64,200 in MOCA funding for SSP senior case management
h.

Community Development, re:

Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with
Architectural Resources Group to Prepare the East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey, North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey, and Survey for the Proposed Cleveland Knoll Historic District

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Architectural Resources Group for preparation of the East- West Glendale historic context and survey, the North Glendale historic context update and survey, and surveys for the proposed Cleveland Knoll historic district for a not-to- exceed amount of $323,470

2. Resolution of appropriation in the amount of $48,470 for the East-West and North Glendale historic contexts and surveys, along with the Cleveland Knoll historic district survey
i.

Community Development, re:

Professional Services Agreement with Architectural
Resources Group for preparation of a Historic District Survey for the proposed Verdugo Woodlands historic district

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Architectural Resources Group for a historic district survey for the proposed Verdugo Woodlands historic district for a not-to-exceed contract amount of $85,260

3 TYPED 9/13/2024 10:31:19 AM
09 17 24
CC

2. Resolution of appropriation in the amount of $85,260 for the Verdugo Woodlands historic district survey
j.

Police Department, re:

City of Glendale’s Response to 2023-2024 Report by the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury re: Micromobility Devices

1. Resolution Approving City of Glendale’s Proposed Response Letter to the 2023-2024 Report by the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury re: Micromobility Devices

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes; 5-Speaker Limit) Per Mayor Policy, This Item Also Permits Speakers Wishing to Speak Under General Oral Communications, Subject to the Three Minute Time Limit. Discussion is Limited to Matters Not on the Agenda.

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
a.

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 (Kassakhian, 09/10/24)

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

8. ACTION ITEMS
a.

Community Development, re:

Follow-Up Programs Related to Rental Rights
Discussion

1. Motion to Provide direction to staff regarding the development of future Housing programs
b.

Public Works, re:

Bus Stop Improvement Program Update

1. Motion Directing Staff on Implementation of Bus Stop Improvements

9. HEARINGS

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS

13. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Each Speaker is Allowed 5 minutes.

Council May Question or Respond to The Speaker But There Will be no Debate or Decision.

The City Manager May Refer the Matter to the Appropriate Department for Investigation and Report.

14. NEW BUSINESS

15. ADJOURNMENT

4 TYPED 9/13/2024 10:31:19 AM
09 17 24
CC

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

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
SEPTEMBER 10, 2024
The Special Public Meeting of the Glendale City Council convened in the City Hall Council Chambers, in said City, at 3:02 p.m. on the above date, pursuant to a call for such meeting signed by the City Clerk of the City Council, and on file with the City Clerk, a copy of which is as follows:

September 5, 2024
Date
A SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING of the City Council is hereby called to meet at 3:00 PM on Tuesday, September 10, 2024, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;

1.City Attorney, re: Nomination Process for Boards and Commissions a.Resolution Establishing a Recruitment and Selection Process for Appointment of Individuals to Boards and Commissions
b.Resolution Establishing the Procedure to Address Complaints or Allegations of Misconduct or Poor Performance Against Members of Boards and Commissions c.Introduction of Ordinance Amending Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, Section 2.36.010 Pertaining to Terms of Members of Boards and Commissions d.Motion Providing Direction to Staff
Written Notice of said meeting was given, which Notice consisted of a copy of the foregoing Call, and was served on each Member of the Council not joining in the Call, and upon the in said City not less than 24 hours before the time fixed in said Call for said meeting, as follows:

Upon Dan Brotman at 5:00 p.m. September 5, 2024 Glendale, CA Upon Vartan Gharpetian at 5:00 p.m. September 5, 2024 Glendale, CA Upon Ardy Kassakhian at 5:00 p.m. September 5, 2024 Glendale, CA Upon Ara Najarian at 5:00 p.m. September 5, 2024 Glendale, CA Upon Elen Asatryan at 5:00 p.m. September 5, 2024 Glendale, CA Mayor Asatryan called the meeting to order at 3:02 p.m.

ROLL CALL
- 3:00 PM
- Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, September 10, 2024, Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on September 5, 2024, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

1.City Attorney, re: Nomination Process for Boards and Commissions Presenting:

Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Lucy Varpetian, Principal Asst. City Attorney
4A
5 of 433

2 Staff Comment:

Dr. Sophia Armen, Administrative Analyst
Public Comment:

Herbert Molano
a.Resolution Establishing a Recruitment and Selection Process for Appointment of Individuals to Boards and Commissions
b.Resolution Establishing the Procedure to Address Complaints or Allegations of Misconduct or Poor Performance Against Members of Boards and Commissions c.Introduction of Ordinance Amending Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, Section 2.36.010 Pertaining to Terms of Members of Boards and Commissions Introduced by: Kassakhian
d.Motion Providing Direction to Staff to revise Resolutions Moved: Kassakhian Seconded: Brotman
Vote as Follows
ADJOURNMENT – 4:50 p.m.

Moved: Brotman Seconded: Kassakhian
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Brotman, Kassakhian, Asatryan
Gharpetian, Najarian
None
None
6 of 433

1 M I N U T E S

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor Glendale, CA 91206
SEPTEMBER 10, 2024
ROLL CALL – All Present

1. CLOSED SESSION – 4:50 p.m.
a. Conference with Legal Counsel. Anticipated Litigation - Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9:

Two potential cases
b. Conference with Legal Counsel. Pending Litigation - Claim of Virginian Homeowner’s Ass’n, Claim No. 24-0161
c. Conference with Real Property Negotiators: City-designated negotiator: Bradley Calvert. Negotiating Party: Erik Khojoyan. Property: 1401 N. Verdugo Road.

Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms of payment for the lease of City-owned property
d. Conference with Real Property Negotiators: City-designated negotiator: Bradley Calvert. Negotiating Party: American Film Society. Property: 116-118 California Street. Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms of payment for the lease of City-owned property
City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is not anticipated. Council recessed to closed session at 4:52 p.m.

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:06 PM
Roll Call – All Present
a. Flag Salute: Mayor Elen Asatryan
b. Invocation: Dr. Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c. Report of the City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the September 10, 2024, Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on September 5, 2024, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, September 17, 2024 Asst. City Manager John Takhtalian provided the preview.

Items 3b, 3c, 3d, and 3e taken off the agenda.
b. Reappointment/Appointment to the Boards and Commissions (Brotman, 07/30/24) (Carried over from 08/13/2024 Council meeting)
•Chris Lowery, GWP Commission
•Alejandro Parajon, Audit Committee
•Daniel Paul, Historic Preservation Commission
•Stefan Chraghchian, Planning Commission
•Regina Joy Alcazar, Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commission •Erasto Ongkeko Jr., Building and Fire Board of Appeals c. Reappointment/Appointment to the Boards and Commissions (Gharpetian, 07/30/24) (Carried over from 08/13/2024 Council meeting) •Hrand Avanessian, GWP Commission
4A
7 of 433

2 •Andre Ordubegian, Transportation and Parking Commission d. Reappointment to the Boards and Commissions (Brotman, 08/13/24) •Diane Lambillotte, Commission on the Status of Women
•Arlene Vidor, Arts and Culture Commission
e. Reappointment to the Boards and Commissions (Najarian, 08/13/24) •Edwin Belen, Audit Committee
•Zaven Hanessian, Building and Fire Appeals Board
•Ronnie Gharibian, Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee •Nina Jazmadarian, Glendale Water and Power Commission
•Chris Cragnotti, Historical Preservation Commission
•Talin Shahbazian, Planning Commission
•Haig Kartounian, Sustainability Commission
•Zareh Amirian, Transportation and Planning Commission
f. Proclamation Designating the month of September 2024, as Suicide Prevention Month and Designating the week of September 8-14, 2024, as Suicide Prevention Week
Reg Clarkinia, Operations Manager from NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness) g. Proclamation Designating the month of September 2024, as Library Card Sign-up Month
Assistant Director of Library, Arts & Culture Lessa Pelayo-Lozada

Item 4b pulled for separate consideration.
a. City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Special City Council Meeting of August 22 and Regular City Council Meetings of August 20 and August 27, 2024
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
b. Community Development, re: City of Glendale Open Street Event May 31st, 2025 (Moved from August 27, 2024)
Public Comments:

Mike Mohill
Herbert Molano
Cathy Jones

1.Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute Funding Agreements to receive grant funding for Be Street Smart Glendale Ave Open Street event (“Be Street Smart Event”) from the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LA Metro) Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Brotman, Gharpetian, Kassakhian, Najarian, Asatryan
None
None
None
8 of 433

3 Moved: Najarian Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows

2.Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Community Art Resources (CARS) for the implementation and management of the Be Street Smart event on May 31, 2025
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
c. Community Services and Parks, re: Approval of the Proposed Sub-recipient Funding Awards for the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention (HHAP) Program Round 4

1. Motion to approve the Homeless Housing, Assistance, and Prevention (HHAP) Program Round 4 proposed Sub-recipient funding awards, as recommended by the Continuum of Care (CoC) Board; and authorize the City Manager or a designee to execute all agreements, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funding
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
d. Fire Department, re: Fire Department annual presentation of the status of state mandated fire inspections

1. Resolution 24-143 recognizing the Glendale Fire Department’s level of compliance with California Health and Safety Code Sections 13146.2 and 13146.3 Moved: Brotman Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
e. Fire Department, re: Amendment No.2 to the Professional Services Agreement with Citygate Associates LLC to develop and provide a Strategic Plan for the Fire Department, that addresses multiyear strategic planning

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment No.2 to the Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Citygate Associates LLC (Contract Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Brotman, Gharpetian, Kassakhian, Najarian, Asatryan
None
None
None
9 of 433

4 8002167) for developing and providing a Strategic Plan, increasing the contract amount by $49,905 to the new total not-to-exceed amount of $273,382 Moved: Brotman Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
f. Glendale Water and Power, re: Revised Specifications for Vault Dewatering, Hazardous Waste Disposal and Emergency Response Clean-Up

1. Resolution 24-144 adopting revised Specification No. 3982R to furnish materials, equipment and labor for vault dewatering, hazardous waste disposal and emergency response clean-up for Glendale Water & Power (GWP) and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
g. Police Department, re: 2024-25 Grant from the State of California Office of Traffic Safety, Selective Traffic Enforcement Program, for distracted driving, Vehicle Code, bicycle, pedestrian, and driving under the influence violations

1.Motion to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept grant funds in the amount of $364,000 from the California Office of Traffic Safety, Selective Traffic Enforcement Program
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows

2.Resolution 24-145 of Appropriation
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
h. Police Department, re: 2024-25 Grant from the State of California Office of Traffic Safety, for the Motorcycle Safety Education and Training Program

1.Motion to authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to accept grant funds in the amount of $40,000 from the State of California Office of Traffic Safety, Motorcycle Safety Education and Training Program
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Brotman, Gharpetian, Kassakhian, Najarian, Asatryan
None
None
None
10 of 433

5 Moved: Brotman Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows

2.Resolution 24-146 of Appropriation
Moved: Brotman Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
i. City Attorney, re: Request for Conflict of Interest Waiver in Legal Representation by Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP Related to Representation of Burbank-Glendale- Pasadena Regional Housing Trust

1. Motion Authorizing the City Attorney to Execute Conflict of Interest Waiver Moved: Brotman Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Councilmember Gharpetian commended Police Chief Manny Cid for a successful community event held last week where staff discussed safety and security in the community.

He stated that meetings like this bring the community together. Gharpetian reminded City Clerk Dr. Abajian to invite people of faith to do the invocations every other council meeting.

Abajian indicated that staff has reached out to religious groups but were not available to attend the past few meetings. However, several other invocators including herself were able to provide invocations.

Councilmember Kassakhian reminded everyone that tomorrow marks the 23rd year Anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack and invited the public to attend the commemoration event in front of the Glendale Police Station at 7:15 a.m. Kassakhian asked staff to look into funding to bring back Drivers Education to high schools.

Councilmember Najarian, along with Mayor Asatryan and City Manager Roubik Golanian, attended the California Contract Cities Association Seminar on Educational Sessions, Collaboration, and Advocacy at Oceanside, CA last weekend.

Councilmember Brotman commended Armen and Mary Karaoghlanian for organizing the Armenian Film Festival, which celebrates Armenian stories. Brotman acknowledged and apologized to the Glendale residents who suffered numerous power outages during the heat wave. City Manager Roubik Golanian provided his comments and gave kudos to the GWP crew who worked tirelessly to restore power. Asst. General Manager Scott Mellon provided a quick update on the power outages that happened.

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Brotman, Gharpetian, Kassakhian, Najarian, Asatryan
None
None
None
11 of 433

6 6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes; 5-Speaker Limit) Per Mayor Policy, This Item Also Permits Speakers Wishing to Speak Under General Oral Communications, Subject to the Three Minute Time Limit. Discussion is Limited to Matters Not on the Agenda.

Mike Mohill
Kenneth Senstad
Herbert Molano

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

8. ACTION ITEMS
a. Community Development, re: Al Fresco On-Site Dining in Private Parking Areas Staff Comment:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Presenting:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Public Comment:

Shane Lee

1. Motion to provide direction regarding the Al Fresco program – Alternative 1 Moved: Brotman Seconded: Gharpetian
Vote as Follows
b. Police Department, re: Dispense with Competitive Bidding and issue Purchase Orders with The Genesis Group

1.Resolution 24-147 to dispense with competitive bidding and authorize the Deputy Director of Finance to issue a purchase order with The Genesis Group for a software solution for the radio system redundancy project in an amount not-to-exceed $102,197
Moved: Kassakhian Seconded: Gharpetian
Vote as Follows

2.Resolution 24-148 to dispense with competitive bidding and authorize the Deputy Director of finance to issue a purchase order with The Genesis Group for on-going software maintenance for the life of the product with the FY24-25 amount not to exceed $25,000
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Gharpetian, Kassakhian, Najarian, Asatryan
None
Brotman
None
12 of 433

7 Moved: Kassakhian Seconded: Gharpetian
Vote as Follows
Items 8c and 8d read together.
c. Police Department, re: Dispense with Competitive Bidding and Issue a Purchase Order Contract for Police Helicopter Parts with Helicopter Engine Repair Overhaul Services (H.E.R.O.S.)
Staff Comment:

Manny Cid, Police Chief

1. Resolution 24-149 to dispense with competitive bidding and authorize the Deputy Director of Finance to issue a purchase order contract with Helicopter Engine Repair Overhaul Services (H.E.R.O.S). for a term of 3 years in an amount not-to-exceed $1,200,000
Moved: Kassakhian Seconded: Gharpetian
Vote as Follows
d. Police Department, re: Dispensing with Competitive Bidding and issuing a Purchase Order Contract for Police Helicopter Parts with Heli-Mart, Inc.

1. Resolution 24-150 to dispense with competitive bidding and authorize the Deputy Director of Finance to issue a purchase order contract with Heli-Mart Inc. for a term of 3 years in an amount not-to-exceed $500,000
Moved: Kassakhian Seconded: Gharpetian
Vote as Follows
The council recessed at 7:40 p.m. and reconvened thereafter. e. Community Development, re: Verdugo Wash Master Plan
Staff Comments:

Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

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

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Brotman, Gharpetian, Kassakhian, Najarian, Asatryan
None
None
None
13 of 433

8 1. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a Professional Service Agreement with Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Inc. in the amount of $5,762,370, using grant funds, for the preparation of the Verdugo Wash Master Plan Motion to continue the item at a later date without further notice.

Moved: Gharpetian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows

9. HEARINGS

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS
a. Mayor Asatryan's Request for a Report on a Partnership with the International Kids Festival for Two Events
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Gharpetian
Vote as Follows
Staff Comment:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager

13. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Each Speaker is Allowed 5 minutes.

Council May Question or Respond to The Speaker But There Will be no Debate or Decision.

The City Manager May Refer the Matter to the Appropriate Department for Investigation and Report.

Corey Decola
Allan Durham
Bebe Rose

14. NEW BUSINESS

15. ADJOURNMENT – 8:45 p.m.

Moved: Brotman Seconded: Kassakhian
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Brotman, Gharpetian, Kassakhian, Najarian, Asatryan
None
None
None
Gharpetian, Kassakhian, Najarian, Asatryan
Brotman
None
None
14 of 433

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Approval of participation in the American Public Power Association (APPA) Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER) Cooperative Agreement, Appropriation of Funds Received from the APPA Subaward, and Amendment to the City’s Agreement with Insight Public Sector Inc. (Insight).
1) Motion approving participation in the American Public Power Association (APPA) Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER) Cooperative Agreement DE-CR0000015, and authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to accept a Subaward for the Federal funding approved by the DOE in the amount of $820,644 for Glendale Water and Power (GWP), and enter into a Cooperative Agreement with APPA for the implementation of the Subaward.
2) Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into and execute Amendment No. 1 to the City’s existing Professional Service Agreement, Contract No. 8001795 with Insight Public Sector Inc. (Insight) for services related to cybersecurity solutions, hardware, and implementation, pursuant to the requirements of the Subaward and Cooperative Agreement by the APPA, in the not-to-exceed amount of $820,644, for a new total not-to-exceed contract amount of $6,961,844. 3) Resolution of Appropriation appropriating $820,644 subaward received by the American Public Power Association (APPA) Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER) to be dispensed by APPA, and $82,065 for the non-reimbursable administrative cost share for a total of $902,709

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The DOE CESER signed a $6 million cooperative agreement with the APPA, dated September 28, 2022, to facilitate the rapid adoption and deployment of Industrial Control Systems (ICS) for Distribution and Municipal Utilities to develop and demonstrate cyber- physical solutions for public power.
15 of 433

24b
5 4
1 9
GWP participated in the APPA/DOE Cybersecurity Cooperative Agreement and has been working with APPA to determine cyber security initiatives as it relates to GWP’s ICS for Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) systems and Grayson and Scholl Canyon Power Plants. GWP has qualified to receive a subaward from the DOE through working with APPA in the amount of $820,644. Under the conditions and requirements of the grant, GWP can utilize only vendors pre-approved by APPA for the implementation. GWP will be reimbursed by APPA after it provides written confirmation of work completed or equipment received and configured.

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to accept the Subaward from the APPA DOE CESER cooperative Agreement to facilitate the Rapid Adoption and Deployment of ICS Cybersecurity Technologies for GWP and enter into a Cooperative Agreement with APPA for the implementation of said grant; and to adopt a Resolution of Appropriation for the Subaward granted to GWP in the amount of $820,644.

Also authorize the City Manager to enter into and execute an amendment to the City’s existing Professional Service Agreement (PSA) with Insight in the not to exceed amount of $820,644 to implement the grant project. Insight is preapproved by the APPA DOE.

ANALYSIS
The DOE Office of CESER signed a $6 million cooperative agreement with the APPA, dated September 28, 2022, to facilitate the rapid adoption and deployment of ICS for Distribution and Municipal Utilities to develop and demonstrate cyber-physical solutions for public power (“Subaward”).

APPA contracts with utilities, through this Subaward, to help utilities address and overcome key cybersecurity challenges and maximize the long-term robustness and overall effectiveness of deployed solutions for the benefit of the whole electric industry.

This Cooperative Agreement helps smaller utilities acquire and implement hardware, firmware, and software to detect and respond to adversarial activity through information sharing, provide advanced analytics for pinpointing when and where a system was compromised, and employ autonomous defense at remote endpoints. The Cooperative Agreement is focused on helping public power utilities understand and improve their cybersecurity maturity. The objectives of the Cooperative Agreement are the following:
•Implement measures or technologies that enhance utility’s detection, mitigation, and forensic capabilities.
•Identify and deploy technologies and systems that enable near real time situational awareness and response capabilities in critical ICS and Operational Technology (OT) networks.
•Reinforce and enhance the cybersecurity posture of critical infrastructure Information Technology (IT) networks.
•Deploy technologies to increase visibility of threats in ICS and OT systems. 16 of 433

34b
5 4
1 9
GWP participated in the APPA/DOE Cybersecurity Cooperative Agreement and has been working with APPA to determine cyber security initiatives as it relates to GWP’s ICS. GWP is qualified to receive a Subaward from the DOE through working with APPA in the amount of $820,644.

Below is the scope of work identified and approved by the DOE for this Subaward:

Scope of Work Applicable Costs
OT Network/Information Technology Infrastructure (OT-IT) $548,826 OT Cybersecurity Applications (OT-SEC) $164,055
Deployment Services $ 57,491
Training $ 15,788
Other $ 34,484
TOTAL Subaward $820,644
GWP is requesting to take advantage of the Subaward and enter into a Cooperative Agreement with APPA which is subject to DOE standard terms and conditions. One of the grant’s conditions is that the utility use DOE preapproved vendors. The DOE preapproves vendors prior to grant approval and award. Insight is a preapproved vendor and will provide the technology, hardware, applications, and deployment services for this project. Insight has an existing PSA with the City which was awarded by the City Council pursuant to a Request for Proposal process. GWP intends to contract with Insight for the Subaward services by executing an amendment to Insight’s existing PSA.

The proposed Amendment will include the Scope of Work for the Subaward containing a description of the services to be provided, and/or the equipment to be purchased pursuant to vendor agreements. GWP must review all vendor invoices and confirm in writing to APPA that the invoices are accurate, and that the vendor has completed all portions of the work. APPA will then reimburse GWP after payment to vendor has been satisfied.

GWP considers the benefits of the cybersecurity Subaward offered by the APPA as highly advantageous to the security posture of GWP’s ICS environment. Some of these benefits include:
•Benefit 1 - To enable near real time situational awareness and response capabilities in critical ICS and OT networks, reinforce and enhance the cybersecurity posture of critical infrastructure IT networks, and enhance detection and mitigation capabilities.
17 of 433

44b
5 4
1 9
•Benefit 2 - Intrusion Detection System (IDS) and Intrusion Protection System (IPS) functionality with Industrial Internet of Things (IoT) subscription functionality goes beyond firewall deny-by-default packet filtering to inspect, alert, and block malicious communications detected in network communications. •Benefit 3 - In addition to monitoring network traffic crossing the firewalls, the IDS/IPS with Industrial IoT subscription function as an internal network security monitoring (INSM) sensor, inspecting and alerting on network communications mirrored from remote locations in the OT environment and forwarded to the firewalls. The IDS/IPS function will be monitored and administered centrally through the firewall management software.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
GWP has been awarded a Subaward, through APPA, in the amount of $820,644 in reimbursable costs to assist with GWP’s ICS cybersecurity posture. In addition, GWP will bear the non-reimbursable 10% administrative cost share in the amount of $82,065.

As the amount was not included as a part of the FY 2024-25 approved budget, staff is requesting an appropriation of $820,644 from Federal Grant Revenue, and $82,065 from the Electric Fund Balance The appropriation request is outlined below:

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account String) To (Account String) Funding Source $820,644 31240-5830-GWP 51000-5830-GWP-
0020;
PL: GWP01301AG
Electric Depreciation
Fund
$82,065 27900-5810-GWP 41100-5830-GWP-
0020;
PL: GWP01301BN
Net Position, Electric
Fund Balance

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The action herein is not a project and as such the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is not applicable.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report are attached in Exhibit 1, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.
18 of 433

54b
5 4
1 9

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Not to approve the proposed action, which will result in not accepting Federal funding to assist GWP with cybersecurity initiatives and posture.

Alternative 2: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Manuel Robledo, Acting General Manager - Glendale Water and Power Prepared by:

Scott K. Mellon, Assistant General Manager - Power Management Michelle Nall, Utility Business System Support Administrator Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Campaign Finance Disclosure for Insight Public Sector Inc. (Insight) 19 of 433

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________________________, that the City Council hereby approves the City of Glendale’s participation in the American Public Power Association (APPA) Department of Energy (DOE) Energy Security, and Emergency Response (CESER) Cooperative Agreement DE-CR0000015 and authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to accept a Subaward for the Federal funding approved by the DOE in the amount of $820,644 for Glendale Water and Power (GWP) to implement cybersecurity initiatives. The City Manager, or his designee, is further authorized to enter into and execute a Cooperative Agreement with APPA for the implementation of the Subaward, as well as any document(s) necessary for the receipt and implementation of said Subaward funding, subject to approval by the City Attorney.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
20 of 433

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________________________, that the City Manager, or his designee, is hereby authorized to enter into and execute Amendment No. 1 to the City’s existing Professional Services Agreement, contract number 8001795, with Insight Public Sector Inc. for services related to cybersecurity solutions, hardware, and implementation pursuant to the requirements of the Subaward and Cooperative Agreement by the American Public Power Association (APPA), in the not to exceed amount of $820,644, for a new contract not to exceed amount of $6,961,844. The form of said amendment shall be subject to the approval of the City Attorney.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
21 of 433

22 of 433

23 of 433

24 of 433

25 of 433

26 of 433

4c
24-86479

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Elevator Renovation at Former Police Building
1) Resolution adopting Plans and Specification No. 3988 for the Elevator Renovation at the Former Police Building project and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There are two elevators at the former police building; one passenger elevator is completely out of service and one freight/passenger elevator is frequently out of service due to its age and condition. This project will completely rebuild solely the freight elevator including completely new mechanical and electronic systems. The project outcome will be one functional and reliable elevator, to support current building use which includes filming.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the resolution adopting Plans and Specification No. 3988 for the Elevator Renovation at the Former Police Building project and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids

ANALYSIS
The Public Works Department is responsible for the upkeep of 50 elevators citywide. This includes ongoing maintenance and permitting as well as the management of construction projects to replace large old and outdated elevator components. Plans and Specification have been prepared to replace a freight/passenger elevator at the Old Police Building that is outdated and unreliable.

This project involves extensive upgrade to the freight elevator. The building’s passenger elevator and dumb waiter that are both non-operational and out of service but are not 27 of 433

4c2
24-86479
5 4
5 7
included in the project scope and will remain out of service until future plans for the building are made. Since parts for the old obsolete freight elevator are not widely available, staff routinely salvages old parts from the two inoperable elevators to keep it working. The city’s elevator maintenance contractors of past and present have a very difficult time keeping the elevator in-service due to its exceeding its useful service life.

Safety concerns have been brought up and addressed, but options for future repairs are no longer viable.

The freight elevator continues to be regularly used by city staff and film production companies. As such, it is important to have at least one fully functional and reliable elevator at this facility. With the upgrade of this elevator, there will be significant technological and regulatory advances incorporated that will improve safety, reliability, accessibility, functionality and reduce operational costs.

The elevator renovation is tentatively scheduled to be completed within one year of Notice to Proceed. The actual on-site work is typically completed in 6-8 weeks, the 1-year is due to time for permitting and parts procurement.

On July 10, 2024, an amendment to a Professional Services Agreement was executed with HKA Elevator Consulting, Inc., (HKA) to create technical specifications for the renovation of the Former Police Building freight elevator. The specifications incorporated the most cost effective and efficient means of improvement.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Old Police Building is currently not open to the public. The Public Works Department staff will coordinate with city management to minimize the disruption to the facility operations

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. The engineer’s estimate for the construction of the project is $200,000 which was not included as a part of the FY 2024- 25 budget. Therefore, staff will request for an appropriation during contract award from the Building Maintenance Fund (6070).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This project is Categorically Exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines as a Class 1 Exemption pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15301

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
28 of 433

4c3
24-86479
5 4
5 7
Alternative 1: Don’t approve the resolution. Public Works will continue to service the aged elevator until it is no longer serviceable due to the unavailability of replacement parts.

Alternative 2: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Daniel Hernandez, Interim Director of Public Works
Prepared by:

Eddie Kulukian, Assistant Project Manager
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
29 of 433

4c
RESOLUTION NO. __________

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

ADOPTING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATION FOR THE

ELEVATOR RENOVATION AT THE FORMER POLICE BUILDING PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 3988, AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1.The Plans and Specification on file in the City Clerk’s office for the Elevator Renovation at the Former Police Building project, including the various documents incorporated therein, are hereby approved, adopted, designated and shall hereafter be known as Specification No. 3988.

SECTION 2.The City Clerk is hereby directed to advertise for bids for the work, equipment and materials described in these Plans and Specification adopted by this Resolution.

Adopted this _____ day of ____________, 2024.
____________________________
Mayor, City of Glendale
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _____________ was Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of _________________, 2024, the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________________
City Clerk
30 of 433

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Request for Conflict of interest Waiver in Legal Representation by Best Best & Krieger LLP.

1.Motion Authorizing the City Attorney to Execute Conflict of Interest Waiver.

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Council’s authorization is being sought for the City Attorney, or his designee, to enter into and execute a Conflict of Interest Waiver letter with Best Best & Krieger LLP (“BBK”) for the representation of the City in matters, including the ongoing representation of the City on matters involving the Biogas Renewable Generation Project (“Biogas Project”). The Conflict of Interest Waiver is for BBK to assist the City with legal representation relating to permitting options for the potential installation of a trim flare at the Scholl Canyon Landfill (“Trim Flare Matter”). 31 of 433

24d
4 7
4 7

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Attorney to waive the conflict set forth herein.

ANALYSIS
The City has a legal retainer agreement with BBK to assist with environmental and permitting matters related to the Biogas Project. BBK also represented the City in the litigation challenging the Biogas Project before that matter settled. The City is considering its options relating to the installation of a trim flare at the Scholl Canyon Landfill and would like BBK to provide legal representation with permitting options in the Trim Flare Matter.

BBK has attorneys who represent the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts on matters other than the Biogas Project and Trim Flare Matter. Rule 1.7 of the State Bar of California’s Rules of Professional Conduct (“Rule 1.7”) imposes an ethical duty upon BBK to inform the City that the firm also represents a client (in this case the Los Angeles County Sanitation District) which may have interests which are adverse to the City and obtain the City’s informed consent to continue representation of both parties.

Rule 1.7 permits attorneys to represent multiple clients with current or future adverse interests only after receiving informed written consent of each client, provided the attorney: (1) reasonably believes that the attorney will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) the representation is not prohibited by law; and (3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the attorney in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal.

BBK has submitted a proposed “Conflict Waiver Letter” (Exhibit 1) that complies with Rule 1.7 and seeks the City’s informed consent. The Conflict Waiver letter notifies the City that in addition to representing the City, BBK currently represents the Los Angeles Sanitation District as their special counsel in various matters including, but not limited to, federal advocacy and public finance. As noted, all of the matters in which BBK provides legal representation to the Los Angeles Sanitation District are unrelated to the Trim Flare Matter or any of the legal representation provided thus far and to be provided by BBK to the City.

Based on its review of the Conflict Waiver Letter and its knowledge of the Biogas Project and Trim Flare Matter, the City Attorney’s Office is of the opinion that BBK’s representation of Los Angeles County Sanitation District will not compromise by BBK’s representation of the City in the Trim Flare Matter, as BBK’s representation of the two entities is unrelated to one another. Additionally, BBK has explicitly warranted that it will maintain an ethical wall between the attorneys representing the two parties and not disclose any confidential information by and between the parties. BBK has advised that should a future scenario arise that would compromise their independent judgment or loyalty to the City, BBK would not represent either the Los Angeles Sanitation District or the City in any adverse proceedings and would terminate their representation with both parties.
32 of 433

34d
4 7
4 7
For the reasons stated above, it is the position of the City Attorney’s Office that BBK’s representation of the Los Angeles Sanitation District will not compromise the firm’s representation of the City and the City may provide the informed conflict waiver as requested by BBK.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the execution of the Conflict Waiver for continued representation of the City by BBK in the Trim Flare Matter.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The action requested herein has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and as such is not a project subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15378

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not applicable.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Not authorize the execution of the Conflict of Interest Waiver as requested herein.

2. Council’s consideration of any other alternatives not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Prepared by:

Dorine Martirosian, Principal Assistant City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1 – Conflict Waiver Letter (Los Angeles County Sanitation District) Dated August 15, 2024
33 of 433

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________________________, that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Attorney to execute a Waiver of Conflict of Interest for Representation letter on behalf of the City of Glendale (City), consenting to the law firm of Best Best & Krieger LLP’s (BBK) concurrent legal representation of the City with respect to the Biogas Renewable Generation Project and Trim Flare Matter, as described in the Report Dated September 17, 2024 by the City Attorney, and legal representation of the Los Angeles County Sanitation District with respect to unrelated matters as described in the September 17, 2024 Report.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
34 of 433

65329.00005\42454061.2
Charity B. Schiller
Partner
(951) 826-8223
[email protected]
Best Best & Krieger LLP | 3390 University Avenue, 5th Floor, P.O. Box 1028, Riverside, California 92502 Phone: (951) 686-1450 | Fax: (951) 686-3083 | bbklaw.com August 15, 2024
VIA E-MAIL TO [email protected]
Michael Garcia
City Attorney
City of Glendale - Office of the City Attorney
613 East Broadway, Room 220
Glendale, CA 91206
Re: Conflict Waiver Letter (Los Angeles County Sanitation District) Dear Mr. Garcia:

You have asked Best Best & Krieger, LLP (“BBK”) to continue providing special counsel services to the City of Glendale (the “City”) on various permitting, litigation, and California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) matters, including the ongoing representation of the City on matters involving the biogas renewable energy project at the Scholl Canyon Landfill. Recently, we were asked to assist the City in evaluating CEQA and permitting options for the potential installation of a “trim flare” at the Landfill (the “Trim Flare Matter”). We understand that the Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts (“LACSD”) may, through its own legal counsel, be similarly evaluating CEQA and other issues related to the trim flare, in part based on the joint powers agreement that governs operation of the Landfill.

As you know, we represent LACSD as their Special Counsel in various matters including, but not limited to federal advocacy services and public finance matters (the “LACSD Matters”).

All of the LACSD Matters are unrelated to the above work for the City. BBK will not represent LACSD on the Trim Flare Matter. However, we are writing to you because there is a possibility that the City’s and LACSD’s views may differ with regard to how to proceed in the Trim Flare Matter. The California Rules of Professional Conduct prohibit us from representing two current clients with potentially adverse interests, even if they are adverse in separate unrelated matters, without your informed written consent. Therefore, we write to advise the City of the potential conflict of interest, the impact of our representation, and to obtain the City’s informed written consent to our work for LACSD on the LACSD Matters while we concurrently represent the City on the Trim Flare Matter. We are concurrently asking the same of LACSD.

RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Rule 1.7 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct provides in pertinent part:
35 of 433

65329.00005\42454061.2
Michael Garcia
August 15, 2024

Page 2 ends

Best Best & Krieger LLP
(a) A lawyer shall not, without informed written consent* from each client and compliance with paragraph (d), represent a client if the representation is directly adverse to another client in the same or a separate matter. (b) A lawyer shall not, without informed written consent from each affected client and compliance with paragraph (d), represent a client if there is a significant risk the lawyer’s representation of the client will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to or relationships with another client, a former client or a third person, or by the lawyer’s own interests. . . .
(d) Representation is permitted under this rule only if the lawyer complies with paragraphs (a), (b), . . . and:
(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client; (2) the representation is not prohibited by law; and
(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal.

SCOPE OF REPRESENTATION & DISCLOSURES
Our representation of the City in this follow-up work is not prohibited, but requires your consent. We do not believe our representation of LACSD will impair our competency, diligence or loyalty to the City nor will it otherwise materially limit our representation of the City or impair our independent professional judgment in any way. For example, we do not believe we will be tempted to favor the interests of one client over the other, nor do we think the relationship will create any appearance of impropriety. However, these are all things you should consider before entering into this attorney-client relationship.

In the event that circumstances change or we become aware of new information that requires client consent or new notice, each client will be notified of that fact immediately, and continued representation will be subject to that notice and the informed written consent of each client will be obtained as necessary. Should an actual conflict of interest develop in the future or if the relationship should materially limit our representation of either client, we may be required to terminate our representation, which could impact your attorney’s fees and costs should you need to hire new counsel at that time.
36 of 433

65329.00005\42454061.2
Michael Garcia
August 15, 2024

Page 3 ends

Best Best & Krieger LLP

ETHICAL SCREEN
We have identified BBK lawyers that are currently working on LACSD Matters and those that are proposed to work on the Trim Flare Matter. The BBK lawyers who represent the City on the Trim Flare Matter will not work on the LACSD Matters for LACSD, and vice versa. We will establish an ethical screen so that the lawyers and staff representing LACSD on the LACSD Matters will not have access to any confidential information, including electronic and physical files, regarding the Trim Flare Matter for the City and vice versa. The lawyers and staff representing the City on the Trim Flare Matter will not discuss any substantive communications about the Trim Flare Matter with the lawyers and staff representing LACSD and vice versa.

THE CITY’S CONSENT
If the City agrees to the above, we need an authorized representative of the City to sign this consent letter. This consent will not waive any protection that the City may have with regard to attorney-client communications with us in the Trim Flare Matter in which BBK represents the City. Those communications will remain confidential and will not be disclosed to any third party without the City’s consent.

Please consider this matter carefully, and do not hesitate to contact us if you have any questions or concerns. You may wish to confer with independent legal counsel regarding this disclosure and your consent, and you should feel free to do so.

The City’s execution of this consent form will constitute an acknowledgment of full disclosure in compliance with the requirements of Rule 1.7 of the California Rules of Professional Conduct previously quoted in this letter, and the City’s consent to our representation of LACSD on the LACSD Matters while we concurrently represent the City on the Trim Flare Matter.

Sincerely,
Charity B. Schiller
of BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
CBS:smr

CONSENT
By this letter, Best Best & Krieger LLP has explained the existing and/or reasonably foreseeable potential risks and conflict(s) of interest in the above referenced matter, and has informed me of the possible consequences of this representation and these conflicts. I understand that I have the right to and have been encouraged to consult with independent counsel before signing this consent, 37 of 433

65329.00005\42454061.2
Michael Garcia
August 15, 2024

Page 4 ends

Best Best & Krieger LLP
and I acknowledge that I have been given sufficient time to do so. Notwithstanding the foregoing, I hereby consent and agree to be represented by Best Best & Krieger LLP.

By:

Dated:
38 of 433

4e
24-86543

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Award PSA for Public Outreach Regulatory Compliance

1.Motion authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to execute a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with CV Strategies for consulting services for public outreach regulatory compliance to educate residents and businesses on proper waste sorting and mandatory recycling, in compliance with local and state regulations, including initiatives for composting and edible food recovery.

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To ensure compliance with local and state regulations as it relates to proper sorting methods, mandatory recycling and composting, and edible food recovery initiatives, it is imperative that the city create an outreach and education program appropriately designed for our residents and businesses. The Public Works Department (PWD) posted a “Request for Proposal” (RFP) inviting qualified firms to present a proposal to partner with us in achieving this goal. The Department received three bids; with the highest scoring and lowest cost coming in from CV Strategies.

The proposed PSA with CV Strategies is for three years and $125,000. CV Strategies possesses relevant experience in working with local municipalities on environmental initiatives and has a proven track record in public outreach and regulatory compliance success.
39 of 433

4e2
24-86543
5 4
8 8

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a motion authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to enter into and execute a professional services agreement (PSA) with CV Strategies for consulting services for public outreach regulatory compliance for a total amount of $125,000 for three years

ANALYSIS
Stringent state legislation now requires California cities to substantially reduce organic waste and disposal of this material while meeting targeted diversion goals. Local municipalities are tasked with ensuring that residents and businesses are provided with the necessary information and resources to achieve compliance. To better provide these mandated services, PWD issued an RFP on June 26, 2024, seeking consultant services for public outreach related to regulatory compliance.

Three consultant firms (CV Strategies, ReCreate Collaborative LLC, and Stephen Groner and Associates) submitted proposals by the City’s RFP deadline of July 22, 2024. The proposals were evaluated by IWM staff on the following criteria:

CRITERIA Weight
Team Expertise and Qualifications 25%
Quality, Clarity, and Responsiveness 20%
Proposal Action/Workplan 20%
Relevant Project Experience 20%
Cost Proposal 15%
The result of RFP evaluation is as follows:

Consultants Overall Score Placement
CV Strategies 91 1
SGA 79 2
ReCreate 74 3
Upon review of the submitted proposals, PWD found that the proposal submitted by CV Strategies to be the highest ranked of the three proposals received. The proposal from CV Strategies demonstrated their extensive experience and qualifications with environmental initiates and public outreach and it was also the lowest cost proposal received.

City Council approval of this proposed PSA is required because of another Public Works Department PSA currently in place with CV Strategies for three years and $105,000 related to an urban forestry initiative.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The intent of the proposed PSA with CV Strategies is to implement a comprehensive outreach strategy designed to educate, engage, and empower our community on the importance of proper waste disposal and compliance with state environmental regulations 40 of 433

4e3
24-86543
5 4
8 8
including recycling, composting, and organic waste reduction. Our target audiences include single-family and multi-family residents, businesses, property managers, and schools. Outreach will consist of a multi-faceted approach that includes digital campaigns, educational workshops, community events, and direct mailings. Social media platforms, email newsletters, and a dedicated website will also be used to ensure widespread access to information. Additionally, we intend to collaborate with these targeted groups to tailor our messaging and outreach efforts, ensuring all stakeholders are well informed, engaged, and motivated to participate in sustainable waste management practices.

FISCAL IMPACT
The public outreach regulatory compliances three-year PSA with CV Strategies will cost $125,000, in which the first year cost of $54,405 was approved as a part of the FY 2024-25 budget. No new appropriation is being requested at this time. The City Council approved funding is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$54,405 43110-5300-PWD-7523-P0000 Refuse Disposal Fund
The funding for the remaining two years will be requested as a part of the annual budget process.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of the CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a) as it has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company are attached in Exhibit 1, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Do not move forward with the PSA with CV Strategies and staff will seek out other methods to reduce waste and achieve regulatory compliance.

Alternative 2: The City Council may direct staff to enter into an agreement with one of the other two proposers.

Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff. 41 of 433

4e4
24-86543
5 4
8 8

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Daniel Hernandez, Interim Director of Public Works
Prepared by:

Hourik Hayrapetian, Senior Administrative Analyst
Orlando Urquidez, Senior Public Works Management Analyst Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Campaign Finance Disclosure Form
42 of 433

4e
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _____________________________________, seconded by Council Member _____________________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby authorizes the City Manager or a designee to enter into a three- year Professional Services Agreement with CV Strategies for the not to exceed amount of One Hundred Twenty-Five thousand dollars ($125,000), subject to approval to form by the City Attorney.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
43 of 433

44 of 433

45 of 433

AGENDA ITEM

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Report: Modification to City Council Regular Meeting Schedule for 2024-25 Fiscal Year

1. Motion Modifying the City Council Regular Meeting Schedule for 2024-25 Fiscal Year

COUNCIL ACTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the meeting on May 21, 2024, the City Council approved a regular meeting schedule for FY 2024-25. Staff proposes the following adjustments to the previously adopted 2024- 25 meeting schedule: cancel meetings on October 1 and October 22, and add meetings on October 15 and October 29. These changes accommodate the Mayor’s updated schedule.

Item Type: Consent Item
Approved forSeptember 17, 2024 calendar
46 of 433

2 RECOMMENDATION
That Council adopt the modified Council meeting schedule for the 2024-25 fiscal year.

ANALYSIS
At the City Council meeting on May 21, 2024, a regular meeting schedule was adopted for the 2024-25 fiscal year. Due to changes to the Mayor’s schedule, there is a need to modify the previously established meeting schedule. The following adjustments to the City Council meetings are proposed:
•Cancel October 1
•Add October 15
•Cancel October 22
•Add October 29

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

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1) Council can choose to not accept the modified schedule for FY 2024-25. 2) Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Roubik R. Golanian, City Manager
Prepared by:

Mariam Hagopian, Communications Assistant
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Modified Council meeting schedule for FY 2024-25 47 of 433

MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________________ that the City Council hereby modifies its regular meeting schedule for the 2024-25 fiscal year to include every Tuesday at 6 p.m., except on those dates set forth below (“Excepted Dates”):
2024
July 2
July 23
August 6
September 24
October 1
October 22
November 26
December 24
December 31
2025
January 21
February 18
March 25
April 8
April 22
May 27
June 17
The regular meetings on the Excepted Dates are hereby cancelled.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
48 of 433

49 of 433

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Amendment Four for FY 2024-2025 Los Angeles County Aging and Disabilities (AD) Modernizing Older Californians Act (MOCA) funding allocation of $64,200 for the Supportive Services Program (SSP).

1.Motion to accept $64,200 in MOCA funding from Los Angeles County Aging and Disabilities Department for FY 2024-2025 Supportive Services Program; and authorize the City Manager or a designee to execute Amendment Four in the SSP232404 Subaward period July 2024 – July 2025 to accept and implement funding.

2.Resolution of Appropriation to appropriate $64,200 in MOCA funding for SSP senior case management.

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Los Angeles County Aging and Disabilities Department (AD) is providing grant funds in the amount of $64,200 in Modernizing Older Californians Act (MOCA) funding for FY 2024-25 to provide senior case management services under the Community Services & Parks (CSP) Department.

Los Angeles County AD MOCA grant funding will allow the Supportive Services Program (SSP) to hire one part-time, Armenian-speaking case manager to provide case management services to seniors 60 years of age and older in the SSP. The SSP provides annual assistance for up to 80 unduplicated seniors, including: initial intake, in-home assessment, care plan, information and referral services, purchase of goods/services, annual reassessments, and well-being checkups.
50 of 433

24g
5 4
9 3

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council pass a motion accepting $64,200 in MOCA funding from Los Angeles County AD for the FY 2024-25 SSP and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to execute Amendment Four in the SSP232404 Subaward period July 2024 – July 2025 to accept and implement funding; and adopt a resolution appropriating the funds for senior case management services.

ANALYSIS
CSP has been providing the Supportive Services Program (SSP), better known as senior case management, since 1992. SSP provides comprehensive, long-term services to seniors 60 years of age and older, that utilize a case manager’s professional skills and competence to serve senior clients and link them to a full range of appropriate services including service coordination, care planning, purchase of goods/services, benefits enrollment, and referral services. The primary goal is to assist the elderly in maintaining their independence and living in their own home. The SSP is operated through the Senior Services Unit, which also provides long-term services that include the Elderly Nutrition Program, Emergency Meals, and Telephone Reassurance Program.

Los Angeles County AD originally awarded CSP an SSP subaward through a noncompetitive process whereby the City enters into a subaward agreement for a one- year term, commencing July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025, with three additional options to renew annually for an anticipated total subaward term of four years. Baseline funding for the program requires a 15% cash match. Amendment Four is part of year two of the four-year subaward term and commences July 1, 2024, through June 30,2025. No cash match is required for MOCA funding.

SSP MOCA funds are allocated from the State of California and will help to hire one part- time, Armenian-speaking case manager. This position will provide assistance in the daily operations of the Program including home visits, case planning, monitoring, contract compliance, invoicing, purchase of goods/service, and data tracking and direct assistance to seniors for case management services. Examples of direct assistance include payment of a utility bill, purchase of small appliances, home cleaning, clothing, respite, medical equipment/supplies, etc.

SSP assists up to 80 unduplicated seniors sixty years of age and older each fiscal year, with the following senior case management services: initial intake screening, in-home assessment, service authorization, care plan, and connecting to other services. Service areas for SSP include Glendale, La Crescenta, Montrose, and Verdugo City.

The period that MOCA funding is available for use is from July 1, 2024, through February 28, 2025.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Supportive Services Program (SSP) is part of the Senior Services Unit, which operates out of the Adult Recreation Center. Program services are advertised quarterly in the CSP Leisure Guide, CSP Newsletter, on the Department website and social media, 51 of 433

34g
5 4
9 3
and outreach is conducted with other community agencies to ensure the public is aware of the available services.

FISCAL IMPACT
The SSP MOCA grant award of $64,200 was not appropriated as part of the FY 2024-2025 budget process and does not require a cash match. Therefore, staff is requesting for an appropriation from grant revenue.

The appropriation request is outlined below:

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$59,200 32610-2700-CSP-
0020-P0000
CSP01304AG
41300-2700-CSP-
0020-P0000
CSP01304AG
Nutritional Meals
Grant Fund
$5,000 32610-2700-CSP-
0020-P0000
CSP01304AG
45350-2700-CSP-
0020-P0000
CSP01304AG
Nutritional Meals
Grant Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(4) as it creates a government funding mechanism or constitutes other government fiscal activities which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment; thus, it is not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15060(c)(3).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Do not approve acceptance of $64,200 in MOCA funding from Los Angeles County AD for FY 2024-25 SSP, which will result in less direct assistance to seniors in the Supportive Services Program.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services & Parks 52 of 433

44g
5 4
9 3
Prepared by:

Maggie Kavarian, Community Services Manager
Aylin Isayan, Community Services Supervisor
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None
53 of 433

1 MOTION
Moved by Council Member __________________________________________, seconded by Council Member ________________________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby accepts $64,200 in Modernizing Older Californians Act funding from Los Angeles County Aging and Disabilities Department for FY 2024-2025 Supportive Services Program; and authorizes the City Manager or a designee to execute Amendment Four to the SSP232404 Subaward period July 2024 – June 2025 to accept and implement funding, as outlined in the Report to Council dated October 1, 2024.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
54 of 433

55 of 433

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Professional Services Agreement (PSA) with Architectural Resources Group to Prepare the East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey, North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey, and Survey for the Proposed Cleveland Knoll Historic District.

2. Resolution of appropriation in the amount of $48,470 for the East-West and North Glendale historic contexts and surveys, along with the Cleveland Knoll historic district survey.

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The completion of historic contexts and surveys for East-West and North Glendale will further the City’s historic preservation goals as laid out in the Historic Preservation Element of the General Plan. This work will augment the 2019 South Glendale Historic Resource Survey and 2014 South Glendale Historic Context to create the first citywide overview of historic resources. Staff recommends that City Council authorize a contract with Architectural Resources Group, working as a team with subconsultant Historic Resources Group, to prepare historic contexts and surveys for East-West Glendale and North Glendale. As research and field survey is required for this work, there are efficiencies in authorizing additional services from the consultant to concurrently produce the historic district survey for the proposed Cleveland Knoll historic district for which an application is pending before the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on October 17, 2024.
56 of 433

24h
5 5
1 0

RECOMMENDATION
City Council authorize a Professional Services Agreement with Architectural Resources Group for preparation of the East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey the North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey and approve a Resolution of Appropriation for the East-West and North Glendale contexts and surveys, along with the historic district survey for the proposed Cleveland Knoll historic district.

ANALYSIS
Background
Policy Objective 2-2 of the Glendale Historic Preservation Element (1977/1997) establishes a goal to “survey all potential historic resources in Glendale.” The 2019 South Glendale Historic Resource Survey was a step toward fulfilling that goal. Prior to that time, a number of small-scale surveys had been made, mostly focused on South Glendale, but no comprehensive overview of any larger areas had occurred. The proposed East-West Historic Context and Historic Resource Survey and North Glendale Historic Context Update and Historic Resource Survey will, if implemented, fulfill this longstanding goal and provide Glendale with information about it potential historic resources throughout the entire city.

Historic resource contexts and surveys are important tools for guiding the development of cities. They provide information about potentially historic properties that can help direct future development and let property owners, decision makers, staff, community groups, and the general public know in advance when a site may, or may not, have potential environmental review constraints. Historic contexts study the history and development patterns of an area and identify specific contexts and themes that provide a framework for understanding how what we see on the ground today came to pass.

The document then focuses on the property types associated with each context/theme and identifies what features and levels of integrity are necessary for a property to be considered historic. A historic survey then looks closely at every property within a specified area and assesses each against the framework developed in the context – this is how individual properties are determined to be either historic or not historic under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). These surveys also identify potential historic districts, which may ultimately be nominated for district status by local residents.

The South Glendale Historic Context was prepared in 2014 as part of the South Glendale Community Plan. It was followed by the South Glendale Historic Resource Survey, which was completed in 2019. These documents assessed the entire portion of the city south of the 134 Freeway and have been invaluable in CDD’s work in this area.

In FY 22-23, Council appropriated $275,000 for CDD to retain a consultant to prepare a context and survey focused on the east and west portions of the area between the freeway and the Glendale portion of the Crescenta Valley. This project funding has carried over to FY 24-25. In March 2024, staff issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to historic preservation consulting firms based in Southern California. In the hope that a survey of the entire city, including the North Glendale area in the Crescenta Valley, 57 of 433

34h
5 5
1 0
could be completed, the RFP asked for two bids: 1) to prepare a historic context and historic resources survey for the east and west areas; and 2) to update the 2011 North Glendale Historic Context and conduct a historic resource survey for North Glendale.

Historic Contexts and Surveys
The RFP was issued to sixteen qualified consulting firms on March 20, 2024. Two proposals were received by the April 29, 2024 closing date: Architectural Resources Group (ARG), with Historic Resources Group (HRG) as sub-consultant, and Environmental Science Associates (ESA). The proposals were reviewed by three CDD staff members with historic preservation experience and each proposal was rated in terms of bid price, schedule, content, firm experience, staffing, and references. ARG received 36 out of 42 points, and ESA received 26.5.

The price and schedule for the two firm’s proposals for the combined East-West and North Glendale contexts/surveys are as follow:

Both Surveys East-West only North only
ARG $281,170
17 months
$156,700
9 months
$124,470
8 months
ESA $219,999
11 months
$149,999
6 months
$70,000
5 months
Staff selected the ARG/HRG team as the preferred bidder because of its greater experience and expertise in conducting surveys as compared to ESA. Both ARG and HRG have experience working on projects for the City of Glendale that is directly applicable to the proposed work. ARG most recently completed the historic district surveys for the South Cumberland Heights and Casa Verdugo Historic Districts in 2021 and is currently involved with the museum and accessibility project at Rockhaven. HRG prepared both the 2014 historic context and 2019 historic resource survey for South Glendale. Both firms were leads in SurveyLA, the largest historic resource survey ever conducted in the United States, and they have successfully worked as a team to prepare contexts and surveys for other municipalities in Southern California.

The ESA proposal did not indicate the firm had any experience with large-scale historic resource surveys, though it has completed some contexts and site-specific surveys.

Staff also had concerns about aspects of ESA’s proposed methodology, staffing, and schedule. The ESA bid includes using contract labor, along with its professional staff, to be trained by the firm in how to survey properties, whereas the ARG/HRG proposal utilizes existing staff who have strong previous survey experience, including in Glendale. A large-scale survey is quite complex and has many moving parts. Working with a less experienced firm like ESA may possibly reduce the quality of the final product. One of the key reasons that HRG’s presence will be valuable is because the firm developed the survey methodology for the South Glendale survey. Working with the same firm, which has retained many of the same staff, will help ensure consistency between the previous survey and the proposed survey.
58 of 433

44h
5 5
1 0
CDD staff believes that despite the $60,000 cost difference and somewhat longer timeline, the ARG/HRG team will deliver a superior product that will retain the same qualities as the South Glendale context and survey. If the East-West and North Glendale surveys are completed, the City will have a high-quality, complete survey of all of its properties, which City Council has indicated to be one of its historic preservation goals over the years.

Grant Funding
In June 2024, CDD staff filed an application for a 2024/25 Certified Local Government (CLG) Grant with the State Office of Historic Preservation (SHPO). Glendale has been a CLG member since 1988 and therefore qualifies to receive CLG grants, which consist of federal funds passed through to qualified municipalities by the state.

On September 10, 2024, staff was pleased to receive confirmation that Glendale’s request for the maximum grant amount of $40,000 was approved. Staff will return for Council’s approval for the execution of the grant and appropriation of grant funding once the agreement is available. The grant is intended for the East-West Historic Context and Survey. Staff intends to apply for a 2025/26 CLG grant to offset costs for the North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey if project timing aligns with the next grant cycle, as is expected.

Cleveland Knoll Historic District Survey
Historic district surveys are different than historic resource surveys. Their focus is on determining the overall character of a specific area and identifying the properties that contribute to that character and those that do not. District surveys also assess a proposed district against a set of thresholds and criteria established in the Glendale Municipal Code. The City has begun processing a new district applications for Cleveland Knoll, a neighborhood to the south of Cumberland Heights would include 238 properties.

HPC is scheduled to review the Cleveland Knoll nomination at its October 17, 2024 hearing. Under the new district designation streamlining process, the next step will be for staff to issue an RFP for a consultant to prepare a historic district survey. If HPC finds that the area appears to meet the thresholds and criteria for district designation at its October hearing, and does not require a petition through which area property owners would request a survey, staff requests that City Council authorize retaining ARG for the Cleveland Knoll survey.

Because the Cleveland Knoll neighborhood is in the East-West Glendale study area, staff asked ARG to provide a supplemental bid for conducting the survey to take advantage of the efficiencies of having researchers and field surveyors already looking, in part, at the area. ARG proposes to produce the Cleveland Knoll survey for $42,300.

This fee works out to about $178 per property for the 238 houses within the proposed boundary.
59 of 433

54h
5 5
1 0

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Historic Contexts and Surveys
Separate community outreach meetings conducted by city staff and the consultants will be held for each of the projects included in the contract:
•East-West Glendale Historic Context
•East-West Glendale Survey
•North Glendale Historic Context Update
•North Glendale Historic Survey
Additional information gathering will be conducted through an interactive webpage that will allow community members to share information about places that are meaningful to them and that may also be historically important. This information will be shared with the consultant for further research and analysis, and it will also be publicly available.

These outreach efforts will be promoted with the assistance of the City Manager’s communications team and CDD outreach staff. Staff will conduct outreach to reach as broad a spectrum of the community as possible, with notices about meetings and the website shared with business, neighborhood, religious, cultural, and community groups.

Staff members will also be available to meet with individuals and groups.

Proposed Historic District
Outreach for proposed historic districts is built into the Glendale Municipal Code. The first required community forum and HPC hearing for the proposed Cleveland Knoll historic district is scheduled for October 17, 2024. Notices of this and all subsequent meetings will be mailed to owners and residents of properties in each proposed district and within a 500-foot radius of the boundary. There will also a community forum and HPC hearing held after the draft survey documents are submitted to the City.

FISCAL IMPACT
The East-West and North surveys will cost $281,170. The Cleveland Knoll district survey will cost $42,300. The combined project will cost $323,470. $275,000 of this amount was appropriated in FY 22-23 and has carried over to the FY 24-25 budget, funding a large majority of this work. Staff is requesting an appropriation of $48,470 from the City’s fund balance to fund the remainder of the contract. The appropriation request is outlined below:
60 of 433

64h
5 5
1 0

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project is exempt from CEQA as a Class 8 “Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment” exemption pursuant to Section 15308 of the State CEQA Guidelines because historic contexts and surveys provide information and guidance that will help protect the city’s historic built environment.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report are attached in Exhibit #1, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Authorize a Professional Services Agreement with Architectural Resources Group for preparation of the East-West Glendale historic context and survey, the North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey and Adopt a Resolution of Appropriation for $48,470.

Alternative 2: Any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:

Jay Platt, Principal Planner
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$275,000 43110-1010-CDD-2502-P8017 General Fund
Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$48,470 25300-1010-000 43110-1010-CDD-
2502-P0000
Undesignated
Fund Balance
61 of 433

74h
5 5
1 0

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Campaign Disclosure Form
Exhibit 2: ARG Proposal for E/W/N Surveys
Exhibit 3: ARG Revised E/W Proposal Including Cleveland Knoll Survey Exhibit 4: RFP
Exhibit 5: Study Area Maps
Exhibit 6: Cleveland Knoll historic district application 62 of 433

MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute a professional services agreement with Architectural Resources Group (ARG) for preparation of the East-West Glendale historic context and survey, the North Glendale historic context update and survey, and surveys for the proposed Cleveland Knoll historic district for a not to exceed amount of $323,470. The agreement shall be in a form approved by the city attorney.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
63 of 433

64 of 433

65 of 433

City of Glendale

DISCLOSURE - CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE
The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5744, “Campaign Finance Ordinance,” which became effective on September 9, 2011, and amended it with Ordinance No. 5768, which became effective on March 15, 2012 (“the Ordinance”). The Ordinance prohibits: (1) A contractor* (including a subcontractor**)― who has a contract with the City of Glendale (“City”), Economic Development Department (“EDD”), or the Housing Authority of the City of Glendale (“HA”) and that contract is subject to approval by the City Council, EDD, or HA― from making a contribution to a City Council member, EDD member, HA member, City Clerk, or City Treasurer; and (2) Council members, EDD members, and HA members from voting on matters concerning a contract with a person who has provided a campaign contribution.

The Ordinance applies to a contractor whose contract requires the City Council’s, EDD's, or HA’s approval. A contract with the City, EDD, or HA is known as a “City Contract.” The Ordinance also applies to a subcontractor who has a subcontract through a City Contract. The Ordinance excludes a competitively bid contract awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.

To assist members of the City Council, EDD, and HA before they vote on a matter regarding a City Contract, the Ordinance requires City staff to prepare this report which discloses certain information about: the contractor receiving the City Contract, and the subcontractor(s) working under the City Contract.

A contractor must provide the information listed below when: A subcontractor must provide the information listed below when:
• • The subcontract through a City Contract has a total anticipated or actual value of $25,000 or more; or
The City Contract has a total anticipated or actual value of $50,000 or more; or contract awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.
• A combination or series of City Contracts have a value of $50,000 or more. • A combination or series of subcontracts, for the same or different projects, have an aggregate value of $25,000 or
more. Information that must be disclosed: ● Name of the person, entity, or organization (i.e., the Contractor or Subcontractor) ● Name of the Chief Executive Officer/President
● Chief Operating Officer
● Chief Financial Officer
● Chairperson
● All members of the Board of Directors
● All persons who own more than 10% of the person, entity, or organization ● Name of any campaign committee owned or controlled by the person, entity, or organization Please complete the following disclosure form:

Contractor(s)*:

Name Address
Architectural Resources Group, Inc Pier 9, The Embarcadero, #107, San Francisco, CA 94111 Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairpersonn/a
Naomi Miroglio Chief Executive Officer / President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Pier 9, The Embarcadero, #107 San Francisco CA 94111
n/a
n/a
Katie Horak, Naomi Miroglio, Lisa Yergovich Board of Directors More than 10% interest owner
Pier 9, The Embarcadero, #107
Pier 9, The Embarcadero, #107
San Francisco
San Francisco
CA
CA
94111
94111Katie Horak, Naomi Miroglio, Debbie Cooper, Catherine Vieth, Lisa Yergovich, Maya Foty * “Contractor” is the person, entity, or organization that is the party, or prospective party, to the contract with the City, EDD, or HA or any member of that person’s, entity’s, or organization’s Board of Directors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization. Above please disclose these persons’ name and business address. 66 of 433

Subcontractor(s)**:

Name Address
Historic Resources Group, LLC 12 S Fair Oaks Ave, Suite 200, Pasadena, CA 91105-3816 Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
n/a - - - -
-
-
-
-
n/a - - -
-n/a - -
n/a - - -
n/a - - -
More than 10% interest ownerAndrea Humberger, Christine Lazzaretto, Paul Travis 12 S Fair Oaks Ave, Suite 200 Pasadena CA 91105-3816 ** “Subcontractor” is the person, entity, or organization that has entered into a contract for the performance of all or a portion of the work undertaken under an agreement with an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract, usually by a general or prime contractor. Subcontractor includes any member of that person’s, entity’s, or organization’s Board of Directors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization. Above please disclose these persons’ name and business address.

Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:

Title Business Address City State Zip

CERTIFICATION
On behalf of the above-named Contractor Subcontractor:
• I acknowledge that I have a continuing obligation to update this disclosure form if I substitute― or if I select additional― architects, design professionals, contractors, or subcontractors within ten (10) days of the selection or change; and • I hereby certify that:

I have identified all persons for which the Ordinance requires disclosure; The information in this disclosure form (and any attachment to this form) is true, accurate, correct, and complete; and I have been legally authorized to submit this disclosure form. 2In total, this disclosure form (including attachments) is pages.

August 14 24 360 E. 2nd Street, #225, Los AngelesExecuted on:

Signature:
, 20 , at: , California.

Katie HorakPrint Full Name:
360 E. 2nd Street, #225, Los Angeles, CA 90012
626-583-1401 x103
Address:
[email protected] Number: E-mail Address:

Rev. 6/7/12 J:\FILES\DOCFILES\ORD\CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION\DISCLOSURE FORM – CONTRACTOR – 6-7-12.doc 67 of 433

Architecture
Planning
Conservation

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
East-West Glendale Historic Context and
Historic Resource Survey & North Glendale
Historic Context Update and Historic Resource Survey
City of Glendale | April 29, 2024
68 of 433

360 E. 2nd Street, Suite 225
Los Angeles, California 90012 ARGcreate.com
Jay Platt, Principal Planner
City of Glendale
633 E. Broadway, Room 300
Glendale, CA 91206-4386

Subject: Request for Proposals, East-West Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Survey & North Glendale Historic Context Update and Historic Resource Survey
Dear Mr. Platt:

Architectural Resources Group (ARG) is pleased to submit this proposal to prepare a Historic Context and Historic Resources Survey of East-West Glendale, and to prepare a Historic Context Update and Historic Resources Survey of North Glendale, in response to a Request for Proposals dated March 20, 2024. We look forward to the opportunity to work with the City on this project.

To complete this project, we have assembled a team with experience preparing historic contexts and surveys, and experience working in Glendale. ARG will serve as lead consultant and will preside over a project team that also includes Historic Resources Group (HRG). ARG and HRG have worked together on numerous projects, and we believe that our collaborative approach and decades of combined experience will provide the City with the best possible outcome.

Enclosed are ARG and HRG’s firm and staff qualifications. Pursuant to the RFP , we have prepared two separate scope and fee proposals: one for the East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey, and a second for the North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey. We are also providing a third fee estimate and timeline reflecting the concurrent completion of both projects.

Thank you for considering ARG and HRG to complete this project. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions about the contents of our proposal.

Sincerely,
Katie E. Horak Andrew Goodrich, AICP
Principal Senior Associate
626.583.1401 x103 626.583.1401 x104
[email protected] [email protected]
This cover letter and proposal is signed by Katie Horak, who is authorized to negotiate and execute contracts on behalf of the Architectural Resources Group.
69 of 433

Table of Contents
Cover Letter
Introduction ........................................................................................................................................1 Request for Proposals:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Survey ..................................................8 Timeline
Technical Approach
Time/Staff Breakdown & Cost Estimate
Request for Proposals:

North Glendale Historic Context Update and Historic Resource Survey ..........................................14 Timeline
Technical Approach
Time/Staff Breakdown & Cost Estimate
Cost-/Time-Saving Methods .............................................................................................................20 Insurance ...........................................................................................................................................22 References.........................................................................................................................................23 Resumes ............................................................................................................................................24 Previous Work ...................................................................................................................................35 70 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 1 Introduction

UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROJECT
The ARG and HRG project team understands the scope
of work to include the preparation of two separate, but related deliverables to support the City of Glendale’s
historic preservation efforts in East-West Glendale. The first deliverable, an East-West Glendale Historic Context, will identify and discuss significant contexts and themes in the developmental history of the study area, and will establish registration requirements for evaluating properties and districts for eligibility at the local, state, and/or federal level.

The second deliverable, a Historic Resources Survey, will develop a survey methodology aligned with the information presented in the Historic Context, and will identify and document individual properties and districts in the study area constructed before 2000 that appear eligible for
designation.

We understand that the City would like the East-West
Glendale Historic Context to be formatted and structured in the same manner as the existing South Glendale Historic Context, and have developed our technical approach
accordingly.

In addition, we understand that the City would like a
separate proposal for a similar scope of work in North
Glendale. The scope of work for that project would involve the preparation of a North Glendale Historic Context
Update, which will entail augmentation and reformatting of the existing historic context narrative in the North Glendale Community Plan so that it is consistent with
the format and structure of the South Glendale Historic Context. It will also entail a Historic Resource Survey, which will develop a survey methodology, and will identify and document individual properties and districts in the study area constructed before 2000 that appear eligible for
designation.

Our team understands that the North Glendale Historic
Context Update and Historic Resource Survey may be
deferred based on the availability of funding. Our technical approach therefore includes two separate scope and
fee proposals, as if the two projects will be completed sequentially and without any overlap. We are also providing a third timeline and cost estimate to reflect the concurrent preparation of all documents in both areas.

All work will be performed in accordance with the
Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Preservation
Planning, Identification, Evaluation and Registration;
Historic Preservation in Planning: A Handbook for Local Communities; National Register Bulletin No. 24, Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning;
National Register Bulletins No. 14, 15, 16A, and 16B; the California Office of Historic Preservation’s Instructions for Recording Historical Resources; and the Glendale Municipal Code.

Brand Airfield, El Miradero, 1921
71 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 2 Introduction

INTRODUCTION
Architectural Resources Group is committed to enhancing the vitality of historic buildings and places, spanning preservation, adaptive reuse, and new context-sensitive additions. Our work is robustly informed by our expertise in preservation policy and standards, our technical
conservation capacities, and our passion for realizing
creative design solutions in historic environments.

Rooted in History
ARG was founded in 1980 as one of the first architectural firms focused on preserving the West Coast’s rich built heritage. Our practice is guided by a dialogue between
historic places, contemporary design, and conservation
approaches to create spaces that are both engaging and
memorable.

A Balanced Approach
ARG brings a deep understanding of balancing existing
conditions and desired outcomes. Drawing on the wide-
ranging potential of preservation, we design to respect cultural resources and respond to current needs in ways that align stewardship and client aspirations.

City of Beverly Hills Historic Resources Survey
Sustainability Through Preservation
Reuse of existing structures is a powerful strategy to retain embodied carbon. ARG builds on this by identifying project- specific sustainability opportunities, with an emphasis on restoring inherently climate-responsive building features and enhancing them with highly efficient mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems. ARG has realized LEED-certified
projects at all levels, up to and including Platinum.

A Multidisciplinary Team
ARG’s multidisciplinary staff includes architects, planners, historians, and conservators working in our offices in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Portland.

ARCHITECTURE - ARG’s twenty-four registered Architects
are a diverse group brought together by strengths in
preserving and enhancing existing places, from modest
vernacular structures to iconic showpieces. We work at all scales and in any situation that calls for giving new life to heritage buildings and environments.

PLANNING AND RESEARCH - ARG provides strategic
guidance on historic resource management for property
owners, preservation organizations, and government
entities. Our planners deploy their expertise in research and regulatory environments to offer effective direction on stewardship and development of historically significant places.

MATERIALS CONSERVATION - ARG’s architectural
conservators develop and implement customized treatments for historic buildings on a project-by-project basis. Our trained staff gather specific data on material properties and conditions from on-site investigations and research optimal repair strategies in ARG’s in-house laboratory.

Awards and Recognition
ARG’s work is widely recognized as exemplary and has
been honored with over 150 awards from organizations
including the American Institute of Architects, the California Preservation Foundation, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. In 2006, ARG was named Firm of the Year by the AIA’s California Council, which cited our consistently distinguished design and multidisciplinary expertise.
72 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 3 Introduction
City of Glendale Experience
ARG brings familiarity and knowledge of the City of Glendale through recent survey work for several neighborhoods. Our combined work in Glendale has included:
▪ 223 N Jackson St. Peer Review
▪ 900 E. Broadway Historical Resource Assessment
▪ Casa Verdugo Historic District, Historic Resources
Survey
▪ Glendale City Hall West Wing Office Renovations
▪ Glendale Design Guidelines
▪ Glendale Le Mesnager Center
▪ Glendale Municipal Services Building, Historic
Structure Report
▪ Glendale Stone Houses Survey Update
▪ Glendale Train Station Rehabilitation
▪ Harrower Village Standards Compliance
Memorandum
▪ Niodrara Drive Historic District, Historic Resources
Survey
▪ South Cumberland Heights Historic District, Historic
Resources Survey
City of Santa Monica Historic Resources Inventory Update Planning & History Group
A core element of ARG’s practice is preservation planning.

ARG’s Planning & History Group comprises planners,
historians, and architects who meet The Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in multiple disciplines. The group has varied interests and areas of specialization in the fields of history, architectural history, historic preservation, cultural resource management,
cultural landscapes, city planning, architecture,
environmental compliance, and urban design.

This breadth of professional experience enables the
group to provide a diverse array of planning, research, and design services to public and private clients. The
group brings relevant work experience on a wide range
of projects in historic and cultural resource management and preservation planning throughout the Western States, including California, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Arizona, Hawaii, and Alaska.

Services provided include:
▪ Historic significance assessments and alternatives
analyses for environmental review documents
▪ Historical research and documentation
▪ Historic resources surveys
▪ Historic structure reports
▪ Preservation plans
▪ Historic preservation ordinances
▪ Design guidelines
▪ Design review
▪ National, state, and local register nominations
▪ HABS / HAER / HALS Documentation
▪ Historic Preservation Tax Credit consultation
▪ Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program
Applications and Administration
73 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 4 ARG utilizes a large toolbox of digital documentation tools to facilitate their historic preservation and existing building projects. We use 360 degree panoramic photography and
a Matterport camera to capture photographs that can be
stitched together in specialized software to create virtual tours. These virtual tours are utilized in many different ways, either by providing remote access to a jobsite or by providing equivalent facilitation interpretive tours for tourism purposes. In addition to the virtual tours, the Matterport camera ARG uses for site documentation
can also produce 3-dimensional point cloud data. When
a project requires 3-dimensional documentation, ARG
will use this point cloud data to assist in the creation of as-built drawings. ARG also works closely with
trusted consultants to complete detailed and accurate
3-dimensional documentation by ways of Laser Scanning or Photogrammetry. These advanced documentation methods
also produce 3-dimensional point cloud data, which ARG
uses to assist in the development of drawings.

In addition to digital methods, ARG has extensive
experience producing required film based imagery for
HABS/HAER documentation utilizing in house large format 4x5 equipment. In addition, ARG has experience with
completing and filing all required documents with City, State, and Federal agencies to successfully complete HABS/ HAER submissions.

ARG’s conservation group utilizes and maintains specialized equipment and has staff expertise in their use and the
interpretation of results. These include borescopes,
pachometers, and resistographs. ARG also utilizes a FLIR infrared camera for non destructive detection for such
things as water infiltration and to locate anchors in cladding systems.

In addition to these field tools, ARG’s conservation group maintains a full conservation lab complete with Olympus BX51 Research Microscope, drying kiln, and a large
inventory of mortar, paint, and various other samples for comparative analysis and use.

Introduction

IN-HOUSE RESOURCES
Equipment and Technical Resources
ARG is a primarily a Windows based firm, deploying
hardware from Dell for everything from our server
backend to staff workstations. Workstations utilized by technical staff for both Revit and Autocad are Dell Precision class, ISV Certified equipment. Our mobile workstation
fleet comprises of Lenovo Thinkpads in a variety of
configurations which include convertible tablets for use in field surveys and other situations where a mobile solution is needed.

Convertible Thinkpad tablet PC’s are used for field surveys utilizing ArcGIS based templates sponsored and developed by the City of Los Angeles with guidance and input from ARG. ARG has also developed its own Microsoft Access
based survey system to conduct historic resource surveys and generate DPR 523A forms required by the State Office of Historic Preservation.

Staff conducting field survey
74 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 5 Financial Resources
ARG has been in business for 44 years and grown to over 50 employees across three offices. ARG has the capacity to address cash flow needs, and maintain service levels and deliverable schedules with payment cycles 60 to 90 days behind performance of service. Our operating capital is supplemented by a $1,300,000 Line of Credit to address any short-term, timing issues that arise.

Debarment
ARG certifies that no principals or individuals associated with our work has been debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency.

Staffing Resources
ARG’s multidisciplinary team of 54 includes architects, planners, historians, and conservators working in our
offices in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Portland. Staff’s work adhere to best practices by the Secretary of Interiors Standards and the American Institute for Conservation of Historic and Artistic Works, which ensures that historic resources will be treated with the highest respect for its cultural and material integrity.

The firm’s staff resources include:
▪ 21 Registered Architects
▪ 13 Architectural Historians
▪ 8 Architectural Conservators
▪ 9 Technical Staff Designers
▪ 9 LEED Accredited Professionals
▪ 2 AICP Planners
The depth and quality of our entire staff ensures our
firm’s capacity to respond on short notice to address any necessary services under this contract to meet the projects’ deliverables, deadlines.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Equal Opportunity Employer
ARG is committed to a policy of equal employment
opportunity for applicants and employees. We do not
discriminate against qualified applicants or employees with respect to any terms or conditions of employment based
on legally protected characteristics. ARG’s commitment
to equal opportunity employment applies to all persons
involved in our operation and prohibits unlawful
discrimination by any employee, including supervisors and coworkers.

Introduction
Staff conducting field survey
75 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 6 Areas of Expertise
HRG is a certified Women-Owned Business Enterprise, Small Business Enterprise, and Local Small Business Enterprise. ▪ Architectural Consultation
▪ Building Condition Assessments
▪ Compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards
▪ Comprehensive Preservation Planning
▪ Cultural Landscape Reports
▪ Design and Construction Monitoring
▪ Environmental Review: CEQA, NEPA, and Section
106
▪ Feasibility Studies
▪ Federal Historic Tax Credit Certification
▪ Historic Resource Evaluations
▪ Historic Resources Surveys & Historic Context
Statements
▪ Historic Structure Reports
▪ Nominations for Historic Designation
▪ Mills Act Property Tax Reduction
Introduction

INTRODUCTION
Historic Resources Group (HRG) was established in 1989
and is a leading firm devoted solely to historic preservation planning, historic architecture consulting, and development services for historic resources in California. HRG’s staff includes historic architects, architectural historians, historians, and planners, all of whom meet or exceed
the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in Architecture, Historic Architecture,
Architectural History, Historic Preservation, History and/or Historic Preservation Planning.

Our clients include developers, real estate professionals, architects, non-profit organizations, community groups, and municipal, county, regional, state, and federal
government agencies. Our services include conducting
historic resources surveys; environmental review of cultural resources; advising clients during all phases of rehabilitation projects on compliance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards; identifying, evaluating, and nominating historic resources at the local, state, and national levels; and supporting planning efforts for municipalities and other public agencies. City of Glendale
HRG copious experience with survey work in Southern
California as well as other similar projects specifically in Glendale.
▪ South Glendale, Historic Context Statement
▪ South Glendale, Historic Resources Survey
▪ Niodrara Drive Historic District, Historic Context
Statement and Survey
▪ Glendale Civic Auditorium, California Register
Nomination
▪ Grand Central Air Terminal Rehabilitation
▪ City of Glendale, South Glendale Survey
Niodrara Drive Historic District
76 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 7 ARG + HRG COLLABORATION
Since 2008, ARG and HRG has successfully collaborated on many historic projects and survey work. We have worked
together in a similar capacity for the SurveyLA project and are currently teaming together for the Pasadena Citywide Historic Resources Survey project. Following are projects we have worked on together over the years.
▪ 333 S. San Vicente Blvd, Los Angeles, CA
▪ 808 Woodacres Rd, Landmark Nomination, Santa
Monica, CA
▪ African Americans in California, Multiple Property
Documentation Form, State of California
▪ Alhambra Citywide Historic Resources Survey,
Alhambra, CA
▪ Beverly Hills Citywide Historic Resources Survey,
Beverly Hills, CA
▪ Beverly Hills Multifamily Survey, Beverly Hills, CA
▪ City of Santa Monica Citywide Historic Resources
Inventory Update, Santa Monica, CA
▪ CRA/LA Hollywood Survey Update, Hollywood, CA
▪ Los Angeles Union Station, On-Call Architectural
Services, Los Anegles, CA
▪ Pasadena Citywide Historic Resources Survey,
Pasadena, CA (On-Going)
▪ Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District,
Historic Preservation Consulting, Santa Monica/
Malibu, CA
▪ SurveyLA: Groups 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9; Survey LA Asian American Historic Context Statement
Introduction
Los Angeles Union Station
SurveyLA
77 of 433

Architecture
Planning
Conservation

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
East-West Glendale Historic Context
and Historic Resource Survey
City of Glendale | April 29, 2024
Aerial of North Glendale, 1927 (Los Angeles Public Library) 78 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 9 Timeline

TIMELINE
We propose a 9-month project schedule for the East-West Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Survey, delineated in the timeline below.

Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr
Task 1. Meetings and Project Administration
1a. Kickoff Meeting
1b. Monthly Progress Meetings
Task 2. Historic Context Statement
2a. Background Research
2b. Initial Reconaissance Survey
2c. Community Meeting
2d. Draft Historic Context Statement
2e. Historic Preservation Commission
2f. Final Historic Context Statement
Task 3. Historic Resource Survey
3a. Background Review
3b. Reconnaissance Survey
3c. Property-Specific Research
3d. Intensive Survey
3e. Draft Survey Report
3f. Community Meeting
3g. Historic Preservation Commission
3h. Final Survey Report
Ongoing work
Submittals and Presentations
Client Review
2024 2025
Timeline | East-West Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Survey 79 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 10 Technical Approach

TECHNICAL APPROACH
East-West Glendale Historic Context and Historic
Resource Survey
Based on our understanding of the goals of the City of
Glendale for a historic context statement and historic
survey for the East-West Glendale project area, ARG has developed the following technical approach. It is broken down by task, and notes proposed deliverables where
applicable.

The Technical Approach is rooted in the following
understandings and assumptions:
▪ The project area comprises approximately 22,026
developed parcels and reflects a diverse mix of
property types
▪ East-West Glendale does not have an existing HCS or
survey findings
▪ The HCS and Survey Report developed in this project
will be organized and formatted in accordance with
the 2014 South Glendale HCS and Historic Resource
Survey
▪ All properties constructed prior to 2000 will be
surveyed
▪ Deliverables will be digital, in the appropriate native formats, except for final HCS and Survey Report
document hard copies as noted below
▪ The City will be responsible for all scheduling,
noticing, and publicizing of public meetings
Task 1. Meetings and Project Administration
1a. Kickoff Meeting
ARG will kick off the project with an in-person project initiation meeting with City staff. At this time, project goals, scope, timeline, and key deliverables will be finalized, and pertinent background information will be retrieved.
1b. Monthly Progress Meetings
ARG will participate in monthly progress meetings with City Staff.

Task 2. Historic Context Statement
2a. Background Research
Review background materials including the South Glendale HCS for structure and format, federal and state technical bulletins, and other pertinent planning documents. Conduct additional primary and secondary source research about
the survey area.

Brand Library
80 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 11 Technical Approach
2b. Initial Reconnaissance Survey
Conduct initial reconnaissance survey to confirm locations of resources that research suggests may represent
significant themes.
2c. Community Meeting
Participate in one (1) community meeting to gather public input.

Deliverables:
▪ Presentation (.ppt/.pdf) and attendance
2d. Draft Historic Context Statement
Prepare draft HCS using information obtained from
research, reconnaissance, and public input and including the following sections: Introduction, Guidelines for Evaluation, Historic Narrative, Contexts and Themes, Property Types and Registration Requirements, and Preservation Goals and Priorities. Submit to City staff for review.

Deliverables:
▪ Draft Historic Context Statement (.docx)
2e. Historic Preservation Commission
Present draft HCS at one (1) public hearing of the Historic Preservation Commission.

Deliverables:
▪ Presentation (.ppt/.pdf) and attendance
2f. Final Historic Context Statement
Revise HCS to address feedback received; submit final HCS to City staff.

Deliverables:
▪ Final Historic Context Statement (.docx, .pdf, and 3
hard copies)
Task 3. Historic Resource Survey
3a. Background Review
Review background materials including National Register Bulletin Nos. 15, 16A, 16B, and 24; the California
OHP’s Instructions for Recording Historical Resources;
the Glendale Municipal Code; and previous historic
documentation of the survey area.
3b. Reconnaissance Survey
Conduct reconnaissance survey of properties within the
survey area built before 2000, taking note of properties and districts that appear to merit further study. Prepare GIS maps to guide fieldwork.
3c. Property-Specific Research
Perform property-specific research as needed to gather
information (e.g. architect, builder, owner) and enable evaluation of resources.

Grand View Ave leading to El Miradero, c.1950 (Glendale Public Library)
81 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 12 Deliverables:
▪ Final Historic Resources Survey Report (.docx, .pdf,
and 3 hard copies)
▪ Final appendices:
▪ Surveyed Property Table (.xlsx, fields to be
provided by City)
▪ Post-1999 Property Table (.xlsx)
▪ Photographs (.jpg – 3 photos per property
with Status Codes 1-5 and 6L and/or in
districts)
3d. Intensive Survey
Conduct intensive survey. Document eligible individual
properties and districts using a GIS-based mobile
documentation app (Fulcrum). Apply HCS themes and
registration requirements to evaluate resources against local, state, and federal eligibility criteria.
3e. Draft Survey Report
Prepare draft Survey Report and appendices including DPR 523A and B forms for individual properties, DPR 523D forms for districts, photographs, and spreadsheets. Submit to City staff for review.

Deliverables:
▪ Draft Historic Resources Survey Report (.docx)
▪ Draft appendices:
▪ Surveyed Property Table (.xlsx, fields to be
provided by City)
▪ Post-1999 Property Table (.xlsx)
▪ DPR 523 Forms (.docx)
3f. Community Meeting
Participate in one (1) community meeting to discuss draft survey findings.

Deliverables:
▪ Presentation (.ppt/.pdf) and attendance
3g. Historic Preservation Commission
Present draft survey findings at one (1) public hearing of the Historic Preservation Commission.

Deliverables:
▪ Presentation (.ppt/.pdf) and attendance
3h. Final Survey Report
Revise Survey Report and appendices to incorporate
feedback received; submit final Survey Report and
appendices to City staff.

Technical Approach
Residence in Verdugo Woodland (Los Angeles Public Library) 82 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 13 Notes
This proposal is a firm offer for 90-days.

All work shall be performed at a price “not to exceed” contract price, which will become the fixed price upon completion of contract negotiations.

Time/Staff Breakdown & Cost Estimate
East-West Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Survey PIC PM/Sr Hist Hist Intern PIC PM/Sr Hist Hist Intern Total Cost

1. Meetings and Project Administration
Participate in one (1) kickoff meeting with City staff to confirm project scope, schedule and deliverables. 1 1 1 1 4 $870
Participate in monthly progress meetings with City staff. 20 12 32 $5,600

2. Historic Context
Review background materials including the South Glendale HCS for structure and format, federal and state technical bulletins, and other pertinent planning documents. 8 8 16 $2,640 Conduct additional primary and secondary source research about the survey area. 24 32 12 68 $9,820 Conduct initial reconnaissance survey to confirm locations of resources that research suggests may represent significant themes. 8 8 4 8 28 $5,500 Participate in one (1) community meeting to gather public input. 8 4 4 16 $2,720 Prepare draft HCS using information obtained from research, reconnaissance, and public input and including the following sections: Introduction, Guidelines for Evaluation, Historic Narrative, Contexts and Themes, Property Types and Registration Requirements, and Preservation Goals and Priorities. Submit to City staff for review. 4 80 40 8 132 $22,640
Present draft HCS at one (1) public hearing of the Historic Preservation Commission. 8 4 4 16 $2,720 Revise HCS to address feedback received; submit final HCS to City staff. 4 16 2 22 $4,190

3. Historic Resource Survey
Review background materials including National Register Bulletin Nos. 15, 16A, 16B, and 24; the California OHP's Instructions for Recording Historical Resources; the Glendale Municipal Code; and previous historic documentation of the survey area. 8 8 $2,640
Conduct reconnaissance survey of properties within the survey area built before 2000, taking note of properties and districts that appear to merit further study. Prepare GIS maps to guide fieldwork. Produce list of properties that appear eligible or merit further study. 16 16 16 16 16 $14,720
Perform property-specific research as needed to gather information (e.g. architect, builder, owner) and enable evaluation of resources. 60 60 $18,600 Conduct intensive survey. Document eligible individual properties and districts using a GIS- based mobile documentation app (Fulcrum). Apply HCS themes and registration requirements to evaluate resources against local, state, and federal eligibility criteria. 8 40 40 40 40 $23,000
Prepare draft Survey Report and appendices including DPR 523A and B forms for individual properties, DPR 523D forms for districts, photographs, and spreadsheets. Submit to City staff for review.
40 60 8 20 60 20 $32,280
Participate in one (1) community meeting to discuss draft survey findings. 4 8 4 $2,720 Present draft survey findings at one (1) public hearing of the Historic Preservation Commission. 4 8 4 $2,720
Revise Survey Report and appendices to incorporate feedback received; submit final Survey Report and appendices to City staff. 8 2 8 $3,320
Total Hours 17 253 268 52 27 147 192 20 976 $156,700
Hourly Rates $260 $175 $155 $55 $260 $175 $155 $55
Subtotal (per person) $4,420 $44,275 $41,540 $2,860 $7,020 $25,725 $29,760 $1,100 Subtotal Labor $156,700
Reimbursable allowance (estimated) $1,500
TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED FEE $158,200
ARG $93,095 HRG $63,605

ARG HRG
1 /1

TIME/STAFF BREAKDOWN & COST ESTIMATE
83 of 433

Architecture
Planning
Conservation

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
North Glendale Historic Context Update
and Historic Resource Survey
City of Glendale | April 29, 2024
Sparr Heights in Glendale, 1925 (Los Angeles Public Library) 84 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 15 Timeline

TIMELINE
We propose a 9-month project schedule for the North Glendale Historic Context Update and Historic Resource Survey, delineated in the timeline below.

May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Task 1. Meetings and Project Administration
1a. Kickoff Meeting
1b. Monthly Progress Meetings
Task 2. Historic Context Update
2a. Background Research
2b. Initial Reconaissance Survey
2c. Community Meeting
2d. Draft Historic Context Statement
2e. Historic Preservation Commission
2f. Final Historic Context Statement
Task 3. Historic Resource Survey
3a. Background Review
3b. Reconnaissance Survey
3c. Property-Specific Research
3d. Intensive Survey
3e. Draft Survey Report
3f. Community Meeting
3g. Historic Preservation Commission
3h. Final Survey Report
Ongoing work
Submittals and Presentations
Client Review
2025
Timeline | North Glendale Historic Context Update and Historic Resource Survey 85 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 16 Technical Approach

TECHNICAL APPROACH
North Glendale Historic Context Update and
Historic Resource Survey
Based on our understanding of the goals of the City of
Glendale for a historic context statement update and
historic survey for the North Glendale project area, ARG has developed the following technical approach. It is broken down by task, and notes proposed deliverables where
applicable.

The Technical Approach is rooted in the following
understandings and assumptions:
▪ The project area comprises approximately 7,722
developed parcels and reflects a mix of property
types, with residential predominating
▪ North Glendale has an existing HCS (2011) and no
existing survey findings
▪ The HCS and Survey Report developed in this
project will be organized and formatted in general
accordance with the 2014 South Glendale HCS and
Historic Resource Survey
▪ The updated HCS will augment and edit the 2011
information as needed, in close consultation with
the City
▪ All properties constructed prior to 2000 will be
surveyed
▪ Deliverables will be digital, in the appropriate native formats, except for final HCS and Survey Report
document hard copies as noted below
▪ The City will be responsible for all scheduling,
noticing, and publicizing of public meetings
Task 1. Meetings and Project Administration
1a. Kickoff Meeting
ARG will kick off the project with an in-person project initiation meeting with City staff. At this time, project goals, scope, timeline, and key deliverables will be finalized, and pertinent background information will be retrieved.
1b. Monthly Progress Meetings
ARG will participate in monthly progress meetings with City Staff.

Task 2. Historic Context Statement
2a. Background Research
Review background materials including the 2011 North
Glendale HCS, the South Glendale HCS for structure and
format, federal and state technical bulletins, and other pertinent planning documents. Conduct additional primary and secondary source research about the survey area.
2b. Initial Reconnaissance Survey
Conduct initial reconnaissance survey to confirm locations of resources that research suggests may represent
significant themes.
2c. Community Meeting
Participate in one (1) community meeting to gather public input.

Deliverables:
▪ Presentation (.ppt/.pdf) and attendance
Sparr Heights Community Center
86 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 17 3c. Property-Specific Research
Perform property-specific research as needed to gather
information (e.g. architect, builder, owner) and enable evaluation of resources.
3d. Intensive Survey
Conduct intensive survey. Document eligible individual
properties and districts using a GIS-based mobile
documentation app (Fulcrum). Apply HCS themes and
registration requirements to evaluate resources against local, state, and federal eligibility criteria.
3e. Draft Survey Report
Prepare draft Survey Report and appendices including DPR 523A and B forms for individual properties, DPR 523D forms for districts, photographs, and spreadsheets. Submit to City staff for review.

Technical Approach
2d. Draft Historic Context Statement Update
Update the 2011 HCS using information obtained from
research, reconnaissance, and public input and including the following sections: Introduction, Guidelines for Evaluation, Historic Narrative, Contexts and Themes, Property Types and Registration Requirements, and Preservation Goals and Priorities. Consult with City regarding specific content and formatting, particularly in Chapters 2 and 4 of the 2011 HCS.

Submit to City staff for review.

Deliverables:
▪ Draft Historic Context Statement Update (.docx)
2e. Historic Preservation Commission
Present draft HCS update at one (1) public hearing of the Historic Preservation Commission.

Deliverables:
▪ Presentation (.ppt/.pdf) and attendance
2f. Final Historic Context Statement Update
Revise HCS update to address feedback received; submit
final HCS update to City staff.

Deliverables:
▪ Final Historic Context Statement Update (.docx, .pdf, and 3 hard copies)
Task 3. Historic Resource Survey
3a. Background Review
Review background materials including National Register Bulletin Nos. 15, 16A, 16B, and 24; the California
OHP’s Instructions for Recording Historical Resources;
the Glendale Municipal Code; and previous historic
documentation of the survey area.
3b. Reconnaissance Survey
Conduct reconnaissance survey of properties within the
survey area built before 2000, taking note of properties and districts that appear to merit further study. Prepare GIS maps to guide fieldwork.
325 E. Randolph Street, Casa Verdugo
87 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 18 Technical Approach
Deliverables:
▪ Draft Historic Resources Survey Report (.docx)
▪ Draft appendices:
▪ Surveyed Property Table (.xlsx, fields to be
provided by City)
▪ Post-1999 Property Table (.xlsx)
▪ DPR 523 Forms (.docx)
3f. Community Meeting
Participate in one (1) community meeting to discuss draft survey findings.

Deliverables:
▪ Presentation (.ppt/.pdf) and attendance
3g. Historic Preservation Commission
Present draft survey findings at one (1) public hearing of the Historic Preservation Commission.

Deliverables:
▪ Final Historic Resources Survey Report (.docx, .pdf,
and 3 hard copies)
▪ Final appendices:
▪ Surveyed Property Table (.xlsx, fields to be
provided by City)
▪ Post-1999 Property Table (.xlsx)
▪ DPR 523 Forms (.docx)
Photographs (.jpg – 3 photos per property with
Status Codes 1-5 and 6L and/or in districts)
Bridge Out Sign after flood in North Glendale near La Crescenta, ca 1938 (Los Angeles Public Library)
Horseback riding at Hindenburg Park, La Crescenta (Los Angeles Public Library)
88 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 19 Notes:

This proposal is a firm offer for 90-days.

All work shall be performed at a price “not to exceed” contract price, which will become the fixed price upon completion of contract negotiations.

Time/Staff Breakdown & Cost Estimate

TIME/STAFF BREAKDOWN & COST ESTIMATE
North Glendale Historic Context Update and Historic Resource Survey PIC PM/Sr Hist Hist Intern PIC PM/Sr Hist Hist Intern Total Cost

2. Historic Context Update
Review background materials including the 2011 North Glendale Historic Context, the South Glendale HCS for format and structure, federal and state technical bulletins, and other pertinent planning documents.
16 16 32 $5,280
Conduct supplemental primary and secondary source research to augment the HCS. 16 16 16 48 $6,160 Conduct initial reconnaissance survey to confirm locations of resources that research suggests may represent significant themes. 8 8 4 8 28 $5,500 Participate in one (1) community meeting to gather public input. 8 4 4 16 $2,720 Edit, reformat, and augment the North Glendale Historic Context. The HCS update will include the following sections: Introduction, Guidelines for Evaluation, Historic Narrative, Contexts and Themes, Property Types and Registration Requirements, and Preservation Goals and Priorities. Submit to City staff for review.
4 60 32 8 104 $17,900
Present draft HCS update at one (1) public hearing of the Historic Preservation Commission. 8 4 4 16 $2,720 Revise HCS update to address feedback received; submit final HCS to City staff. 4 16 2 22 $4,190

3. Historic Resource Survey
Review background materials including National Register Bulletin Nos. 15, 16A, 16B, and 24; the California OHP's Instructions for Recording Historical Resources; the Glendale Municipal Code; and previous historic documentation of the survey area. 16 16 $5,280
Conduct reconnaissance survey of properties within the survey area built before 2000, taking note of properties and districts that appear to merit further study. Prepare GIS maps to guide fieldwork. Produce list of properties that appear eligible or merit further study. 8 8 8 16 $7,360
Perform property-specific research as needed to gather information (e.g. architect, builder, owner) and enable evaluation of resources. 20 40 40 $11,500 Conduct intensive survey. Document eligible individual properties and districts using a GIS- based mobile documentation app (Fulcrum). Apply HCS themes and registration requirements to evaluate resources against local, state, and federal eligibility criteria. 4 20 20 20 20 40 $13,700
Prepare draft Survey Report and appendices including DPR 523A and B forms for individual properties, DPR 523D forms for districts, photographs, and spreadsheets. Submit to City staff for review.
20 40 8 40 40 40 $27,180
Participate in one (1) community meeting to discuss draft survey findings. 4 8 4 $2,720 Present draft survey findings at one (1) public hearing of the Historic Preservation Commission. 4 8 4 $2,720
Revise Survey Report and appendices to incorporate feedback received; submit final Survey Report and appendices to City staff. 2 2 12 $2,970
Total Hours 17 191 156 36 19 147 140 120 826 $122,970
Hourly Rates $260 $175 $155 $55 $260 $175 $155 $55
Subtotal (per person) $4,420 $33,425 $24,180 $1,980 $4,940 $25,725 $21,700 $6,600 Subtotal Labor $122,970
Reimbursable allowance (estimated) $1,500.00
TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED FEE $124,470
ARG $64,005 HRG $58,965

ARG HRG
1 /1
89 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 20 Cost-/Time-Saving Methods

COST-/TIME-SAVING METHODS
Historic context statements and historic resource surveys are valuable tools but are often cost prohibitive for
City budgets. Understanding the value of detailed and
comprehensive surveys, over the past decade ARG has
successfully developed and applied new documentation
techniques to streamline survey work. We have also
adapted, tested, and refined new tools developed by
others, including cloud-based mobile documentation apps which facilitate GIS based data collection and dissemination.

One of the most time consuming (and thus expensive)
components of a historic resources survey is the use of DPR forms to record survey results. In order to more efficiently complete the building description section of the DPR
523a form, ARG has worked with the California Office of Historic Preservation to develop a non-narrative building description format. These bullet-point descriptions can be completed quickly and accurately in the field, eliminating the time needed to draft narrative descriptions. Building features, alterations, and character-defining features are identified by the surveyor, creating a description that is easily read and understood.

For this project, we propose to utilize Fulcrum, a mobile documentation app that we have customized for historic
resource surveys and have successfully used in other
surveys. Fulcrum provides our team with the ability to
generate full DPR 523 forms as well as GIS maps and Excel spreadsheets containing all property information. The data collected using these apps are searchable and sortable
by multiple fields and are easily integrated with City GIS systems.

If the East-West Glendale and North Glendale contexts and surveys are completed concurrently, there may be some
efficiencies of scale, such as the consolidation of client meetings to address both areas and the consolidation of time needed to conduct reconnaissance surveys. There
may also be the potential for an abbreviated schedule,
as reflected in the timelines included in this proposal.

However, since each area has a distinctive development
history and will require its own set of deliverables
that are similar, but not identical to, one another, it is anticipated that the time and cost savings associated with 1545 Cleveland Road, South Cumberland Heights
90 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 21 Cost-/Time-Saving Methods

TIMELINE
Below is the proposed project schedule for the both the East-West Glendale and North Glendale contexts and surveys are completed concurrently.

Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Task 1. Meetings and Project Administration
1a. Kickoff Meeting
1b. Monthly Progress Meetings
Task 2. Historic Context Statement
2a. Background Research
2b. Initial Reconaissance Survey
2c. Community Meeting
2d. Draft Historic Context Statement
2e. Historic Preservation Commission
2f. Final Historic Context Statement
Task 3. Historic Resource Survey
3a. Background Review
3b. Reconnaissance Survey
3c. Property-Specific Research
3d. Intensive Survey
3e. Draft Survey Report
3f. Community Meeting
3g. Historic Preservation Commission
3h. Final Survey Report
Ongoing work
Submittals and Presentations
Client Review
2024 2025
Timeline | East-West Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Survey and North Glendale Historic Context Update and Historic Resource Survey 91 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 22 Insurance
ARG has read the Insurance Requirements and Sample Professional Services Agreement (Attachment 4 and 5 of the RFP) and confirm we can meet the City’s insurance requirements. A sample certificate is included below.

SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE

THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS.

INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE
INSURER F :

INSURER E :

INSURER D :

INSURER C :

INSURER B :

INSURER A :

NAIC #
NAME:

CONTACT
(A/C, No):

FAX
E-MAIL
ADDRESS:

PRODUCER
(A/C, No, Ext):

PHONE

INSURED
REVISION NUMBER:CERTIFICATE NUMBER:COVERAGES
IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed.

If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s).

THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS

CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER.

OTHER:
(Per accident)
(Ea accident)
$
$
N / A
SUBR
WVD
ADDL
INSD

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS

CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. $
$
$
$PROPERTY DAMAGE
BODILY INJURY (Per accident)
BODILY INJURY (Per person)

COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT

AUTOS ONLY

AUTOSAUTOS ONLY

NON-OWNED

SCHEDULEDOWNED

ANY AUTO

AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY
Y / N

WORKERS COMPENSATION

AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY
OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED?
(Mandatory in NH)
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below
If yes, describe under

ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE
$
$
$
E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMIT
E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE
E.L. EACH ACCIDENT
ER
OTH-

STATUTE
PER

LIMITS(MM/DD/YYYY)

POLICY EXP
(MM/DD/YYYY)

POLICY EFF

POLICY NUMBERTYPE OF INSURANCELTR
INSR
DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required)

EXCESS LIAB
UMBRELLA LIAB $EACH OCCURRENCE
$AGGREGATE
$
OCCUR

CLAIMS-MADE
DED RETENTION $
$PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGG
$GENERAL AGGREGATE
$PERSONAL & ADV INJURY
$MED EXP (Any one person)
$EACH OCCURRENCE

DAMAGE TO RENTED
$PREMISES (Ea occurrence)

COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY

CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR
GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:

POLICY PRO-

JECT LOC

CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE

DATE (MM/DD/YYYY)

CANCELLATION

AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE
ACORD 25 (2016/03)
© 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.

CERTIFICATE HOLDER
The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD
HIRED

AUTOS ONLY
8/21/2023
AssuredPartners Design Professionals Insurance Services, LLC 3697 Mt. Diablo Blvd., Suite 230
Lafayette CA 94549
Evan Brown
510-272-1403
[email protected]
License#: 6003745 XL Speciality Insurance Company 37885 ARCHRES-04 Travelers Property Casualty Company of America 25674 Architectural Resources Group, Inc.

Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 107
San Francisco CA 94111
The Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut 25682
HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY 38288
1847580323
C X 2,000,000
X 1,000,000
X Contractual Liab 10,000
Included 2,000,000
4,000,000
X
Y Y 6802H186591 9/1/2023 9/1/2024
4,000,000
C 1,000,000
X X
X NoOwned Auto
Y Y BA1S985277 9/1/2023 9/1/2024
B X X 5,000,000Y CUP7150Y042 9/1/2023Y 9/1/2024
5,000,000
X 0
D XY 57WEGLP7625 9/1/2023 9/1/2024
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
A Professional Liability &
Contractors Pollution Legal
Liability
DPR5017487 9/1/2023 9/1/2024 Per Claim/$2,000,000
Included
$2,000,000/Aggr.

Umbrella Liability policy is a follow-form underlying General Liability/Auto Liability/Employers Liability. Insured owns no company vehicles; therefore, hired/non-owned auto is the maximum coverage that applies.

FOR USE ON PROPOSALS. An Actual certificate will be issued at the request of the Named Insured. 30 Day Notice of Cancellation
* * S A M P L E * *
92 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 23 Insurance
ARG has read and can meet the City’s insurance requirements per information provided in Attachment 5 and in the sample Professional Services Agreement included as Attachment 6. 1555 Cleveland Road, South Cumberland Heights
93 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 24 City of Los Angeles
Ken Bernstein, AICP , Principal City Planner/Office of Historic Resources Manager
213.847.3652 | [email protected]
Scope: City of Los Angeles, SurveyLA
Project Duration: 2009 - 2019
References
City of Glendale
Community Development Department
Jay Platt, Principal Planne
[email protected] | 818.937.8155
Scope: Casa Verdugo and South Cumberland Heights HIstoric District Surveys*
Project Duration: 2019-2021
City of San Gabriel
Community Development Department
Samantha Tewasart, Planning Manager
[email protected] | 626.308.2806
Scope: San Gabriel Citywide Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Survey*
Project Duration: 2020-Present
City of Beverly Hills
Mark Odell, Urban Designer, Community Development
Department
310.285.1116 | [email protected]
Scope: City of Beverly Hills, Citywide Historic Resources Survey and Historic Context Statement Update; Multi-Family Residential Survey Update (in progress)
Project Duration: 2012 - Present

City of La Cañada Flintridge
Community Development Department
Emily Stadnicki, Principal Planner (now at City of Culver City) [email protected] | 310.253.5710
Scope: La Cañada Flintridge Historic Resources Inventory Update*
Project Duration: 2019-2021
*Sample report excerpts provided separately. Full report provided as PDF on the flash drive.
94 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 25 completing the final report and DPR forms. She specializes in data and mapping analysis, with particular interests in cultural heritage and representation. Morgan has
participated in many historic resources surveys, including those for the City of Tustin and Ventura, and the Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area. She is currently involved survey work for the the of Pasadena.

Katie Horak will serve as Principal-in-Charge, overseeing all work done on the Historic Resource Survey and Survey Update for South Cumberland Heights and Casa Verdugo.

Katie is a principal in ARG’s Los Angeles office, with more than fifteen years of experience managing complex
preservation projects throughout California. Katie has
Resumes

CITY OF GLENDALE
ARG
Andrew Goodrich, AICP
Project Manager
ARG
Katie E. Horak
Principal-in-Charge
ARG
Brannon Smithwick
Architectural Historian /
Preservation Planner
Morgan Quirk
Architectural Historian &
GIS Specialist

PROJECT TEAM
Architectural Resources Group
We have compiled an expert team to complete historic
context statements and historic resource surveys/survey updates for the proposed areas: East-West Glendale and
North Glendale. The team will be led by ARG Project
Manager Andrew Goodrich, Senior Associate. Project
support will be provided by ARG Architectural Historians/ Preservation Planners Brannon Smithwick and Morgan
Quirk, Associate. ARG Principal Katie Horak will provide project oversight and quality assurance. All members
of the project team meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards in architectural history.

As Project Manager, Andrew Goodrich will provide
day-to-day contact with City staff and ensure all work is being conducted to the highest possible standard. His
responsibilities will also include doing the surveys, reviewing all material for clarity and accuracy, completing the final reports and DPR forms, creating GIS maps, and presenting findings. Andrew’s most recent survey experience includes a survey update for several historic districts in Glendale:

South Cumberland Heights, Casa Verdugo, and Niodrara
Drive. He has also managed context studies and survey
work for the cities of Los Angeles (SurveyLA), West
Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Redlands, and Santa Monica.

Andrew is currently managing the San Gabriel Citywide
Historic Resources Survey project.

Project team member Brannon Smithwick will be
responsible for doing the surveys, reviewing all material for clarity and accuracy, and completing the final report and DPR forms. Brannon is a recent graduate of the University of Southern California and her professional experience
includes historic research, site documentation, drafting historic context statements, and collecting oral histories in the preservation field. Her most recent survey experience includes historic resources surveys for the City of San Gabriel and the Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area.

Project team member Morgan Quirk, will be responsible
for doing the surveys, conducting background research, and HRG
Christine Lazzaretto
Principal in Charge
Kari Fowler
Senior Preservation Planner
Alexandra Perlman
Senior Architectural
Historian
Robby Aranguren
GIS/Technical Specialist
Mariana Ruiz
Architectural Historian
95 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 26 work on historic resources surveys and historic context statements has won awards from the Los Angeles
Conservancy, the California Preservation Foundation, and the American Planning Association.

Project team member Alexandra Perlman will be
responsible for conducting research and assisting with all project deliverables. Alexandra has worked in the field since 2016 and joined HRG in 2021. She has copious experience with historic context statements and survey projects
throughout Southern California, including Pasadena,
Riverside, Alhambra, Pomona, and Ventura. She previously served as an extension of staff Preservation Planner for the City of South Pasadena where she assisted with project review for historically significant properties. She currently provides on-call services for project review for the City of Ventura and serves on the board of the Jefferson Park HPOZ.

Project team member Robby Aranguren will be responsible for assisting with research and fieldwork as well as
providing technical assistance and database management
throughout the project. Robby has 14 years of experience in the historic preservation field and joined HRG’s staff in 2009. He specializes in the use of GIS applications such as ESRI ArcGIS, Google Earth, and Fulcrum to help identify and evaluate historic resources and has used this skillset on numerous historic resources surveys, including for the City of Azusa, Beverly Hills, Glendale, Los Angeles (SurveyLA), Palm Springs, Riverside, Ventura, and South Pasadena. He also conducted fieldwork and participated in the evaluation of potentially significant properties.

Project team member Mariana Ruiz will primarily assist
with research and conducting fieldwork. Mariana has 10
years of experience in the historic preservation field and joined HRG in 2023. She specializes in historic assessments, historic resources surveys, and research. She is currently working on the City of Pasadena Historic Context Statement and Survey Update.

Resumes
professional experience in both the private and public
sectors, making her particularly sensitive to the needs and concerns of local municipalities as related to their historic preservation programs. A recognized expert in the field, Katie regularly speaks on preservation topics at local, state, and national conferences and is an adjunct lecturer at the University of Southern California (USC), where
she teaches two Historic Site Documentation courses to
graduate students in the School of Architecture’s Heritage Conservation program.

Historic Resources Group
For this project, we propose a collaborative effort with Historic Resources Group.

Christine Lazzaretto will serve as Principal-in-Charge
overseeing the HRG team. She will help guide the activities of the project and review all team project work. Christine has 21 years of experience in the historic preservation field, joining HRG in 2008 and acting as Managing Principal since 2017. Christine specializes in environmental review, policy development, historic resources surveys, historic context statements, and federal tax credit projects. She worked on numerous large-scale historic resources surveys and
has authored a wide range of historic context statements.

She is a leading expert in cultural resources analysis for environmental review in California and a frequent lecturer for the Heritage Conservation summer program at the
University of Southern California.

Project team member Kari Fowler will be responsible for assisting with HRG team management, conducting survey
work, completing project deliverables, and helping with review and development of the final report. With 23 years of experience in the field of historic preservation, Kari has managed numerous large-scale historic resources surveys throughout California, including the cities of Bakersfield, Ventura, San Clemente, Paso Robles, Temple City, Santa
Monica, San Diego, and Azusa. She served as a Project
Manager for SurveyLA, Los Angeles’ citywide historic
resources survey, through all phases of the project. Her 96 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 27 KATIE E. HORAK
Principal | Architectural Historian & Preservation Planner Katie is a Los Angeles-area native and Principal in ARG’s Los Angeles office. She has more than twenty of years experience in the field of historic resource management in both the public and private sectors. Katie is a recognized leader in the industry, bringing creative and innovative solutions to complex issues related to historic site documentation, management, and adaptive re-use. Katie brings additional experience with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance documentation, historic structure reports, determinations of eligibility, design review, and Mills Act Property Tax Abatement Program administration.

Relevant Project Experience
▪ South Cumberland Heights Historic District, Survey, Evaluation Report and Historic Context Statement, Glendale, CA
▪ Casa Verdugo Historic District, Survey, Evaluation Report and Historic Context Statement, Glendale, CA
▪ Niodrara Drive Historic District Evaluation, Glendale, CA ▪ Rockhaven Sanitarium, Historic Resource and Conditions Assessment, Glendale, CA ▪ SurveyLA, Los Angeles Citywide Historic Resources Survey: Citywide Historic Context Statement (The Ranch House and Los Angeles Modernism), Pilot Survey, Groups 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 Surveys
▪ City of San Marino, Citywide Historic Resources Survey, San Marino, CA ▪ City of Arcadia, Citywide Historic Resources Survey, Arcadia, CA ▪ City of Beverly Hills, Citywide Historic Resource Survey, Beverly Hills, CA ▪ City of Dana Point, Citywide Historic Resources Inventory Update, Dana Point, CA ▪ City of Redlands, Historic Context Statement, Redlands, CA ▪ City of La Cañada Flintridge, Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Inventory Update, La Cañada Flintridge, CA
▪ Beverly Fairfax Historic District Historic Resources Survey and National Register Nomination, Los Angeles, CA
▪ City of Pasadena, Citywide Historic Resources Survey, Pasadena, CA (Ongoing) Selected Lectures
▪ “Lessons from Los Angeles: Documentation, Promotion, and Protection of Moderism,” Hablemos de Arquitecture Moderna, Havana, Cuba. March 2024. ▪ “Implementing Heritage Surveys and Digital Inventories,” National Trust for Canada Conference, Fredericton, New Brunswick, Oct. 2018
Years of Experience
22 years
Education
Master of Heritage Conservation,
University of Southern California,
Los Angeles
University of Oregon, Eugene
Historic Preservation Field School
in Canova, Italy
Bachelor of Arts, Art (Painting/
Drawing), Whitworth College,
Spokane, Washington
Meets the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards in
Architectural History and History
Memberships
Board of Directors, Docomomo US
Founding President, Docomomo
US, Southern California Chapter
Los Angeles Conservancy
National Trust for Historic
Preservation
Society of Architectural Historians,
Southern California Chapter
Academic Involvement
Adjunct Lecturer, University of
Southern California.

Current courses taught:

Introduction to Historic Site
Documentation, and Advanced
Documentation: Historic Resources
Surveys
Resumes
97 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 28 Resumes

ANDREW GOODRICH
Associate | AICP | Architectural Historian & Preservation Planner Andrew is an Architectural Historian and Preservation Planner in ARG’s Los Angeles office, with a joint background in city planning and historic preservation and formal training in both fields. His academic and professional pursuits have led him to develop an interest in how public policy can be used to enliven the historic built environment. He also brings an understanding of urban landscapes and is versed in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software. A Los Angeles-area native with a keen interest in the region and its history, Andrew has been practicing in the preservation planning field since 2008 and worked for various public and not-for-profit agencies prior to joining ARG. At ARG, he has managed and contributed to numerous historic resource surveys and historic context statements that have ranged in scale from entire cities, to college campuses, and down to individual neighborhoods. His experience also includes landmark nominations, historic property assessments, and rehabilitation incentives. Andrew is a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners (AICP), and sits on the Programs Committee for the American Planning Association (APA)’s Los Angeles chapter.

Relevant Project Experience
▪ South Cumberland Heights Historic District, Historic Resources Survey, Glendale, CA ▪ Casa Verdugo Historic District, Historic Resources Survey, Glendale, CA ▪ Niodrara Drive Historic District, Historic Resources Survey, Glendale, CA ▪ 119 and 127-29 N. Kenwood Street, CEQA Review and Reconnaissance Survey, Glendale, CA ▪ San Gabriel Citywide Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Survey, San Gabriel, CA
▪ Culver City, Historical Context Study, Culver City, CA ▪ City of West Hollywood, Historical Context Study, West Hollywood, CA ▪ City of Beverly Hills, Citywide Historic Resource Survey, Beverly Hills, CA ▪ City of Redlands, Historic Context Statement, Redlands, CA ▪ SurveyLA, Los Angeles Citywide Historic Resources Survey: Group 6 Surveys (Arleta- Pacoima, Mission Hills-Panorama City-North Hills Community Plan Area); Group 7 Surveys (Boyle Heights, Wilshire Community Plan Areas); Group 8 Surveys (Chatsworth-Porter Ranch, Northridge Community Plan Areas); Group 10 Survey (Central City Community Plan Area)
▪ SurveyLA, Los Angeles Historic Context Statement (The Ranch House, L.A. Modernism) ▪ Santa Monica Citywide Historical Resources Inventory Update, Santa Monica, CA ▪ La Cañada Flintridge Historic Resources Inventory Update, La Cañada Flintridge, CA Years of Experience
16 years
Education
Master of Heritage Conservation,
University of Southern California
Master of Planning, Concentration
in Economic Development,
University of Southern California
Bachelor of Arts, Urban Studies
and Planning, University of
California, San Diego
Meets the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards in
Architectural History and History
Memberships
American Institute of Certified
Planners (AICP)
American Planning Association
Los Angeles Conservancy
Honors
Tau Sigma Delta, Honors Society
for Architecture and Allied Arts
Pi Alpha Alpha, Honors Society for
Public Affairs and Administration
Greta and Dean Wilkinson Fellow,
School of Architecture, University
of Southern California
Dean’s Merit Scholar, Sol Price
School of Public Policy, University
of Southern California
98 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 29 Resumes

BRANNON SMITHWICK
Architectural Historian & Preservation Planner
Brannon is a recent graduate of the University of Southern California and her professional experience includes historic research, site documentation, drafting historic context statements, and collecting oral histories in the preservation field. Her academic experience includes all areas of heritage planning, preservation, and sustainable conservation.

Her interests in the field include cultural resource management and heritage planning, historic site documentation and survey work, conducting historic conditions reports, interior rehabilitation design and development consulting, and heritage policy drafting.

In her graduate studies, she studied the effects of urban design and heritage tourism on both tangible and intangible cultural heritage, analyzing the importance of place-based collective memory through oral history data collection, specifically pertaining to that of underrepresented communities.

Relevant Project Experience
▪ Santa Rosa Downtown Station Area Historic Resource Survey, Santa Rosa, CA ▪ San Gabriel Historic Resources Survey, San Gabriel, CA ▪ Desert Lanai 1 Historic District Local Register Nomination, Palm Springs, CA ▪ Yount Property, California Register and HABS Documentation, Redlands, CA ▪ Los Angeles City Hall, National Register Nomination, Los Angeles, CA ▪ Heritage Planning & Development, Kosovo Council for Cultural Heritage, World Heritage USA/ICOMOS, 2023 IEP , Prizren, Kosovo*
▪ Historic Site Documentation and Outreach, Adams-Normandie HPOZ, Los Angeles, CA* ▪ Planning/Architecture Historian Graduate Internship, ARG, Los Angeles, CA ▪ Oral Histories, Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences Oral Histories Program, Los Angeles, CA*
Awards and Honors
▪ CPF 2023 Conference, Speaker, “Educating Generations: The Legacy and Future of the Allen-White Rosenwald School”
▪ Phi Kappa Phi, 2023 Graduate Thesis Research Grant Recipient ▪ VAF 2022 Conference, Speaker, “Flooded Kampungs of Jakarta: Community Resilience and the Threat of Eviction”
▪ Pamela H. Simpson Presenter’s Fellowship, Vernacular Architecture Forum, January 2022-May 2022
Years of Experience
10 years
Education
Master of Heritage Conservation,
USC Graduate School of
Architecture
Master of Urban Planning,
Concentration in Design of the
Built Environment, USC Sol Price
Graduate School of Public Policy
Interior Architecture Associates
Certificate, UCLA
BA Visual & Media Arts Production,
History Minor, Emerson College
Meets the Secretary of the
Interior’s Professional Qualification
Standards in Architectural History
and History
Memberships
Vernacular Architecture Forum,
Future Vision Committee Member
National Trust for Historic
Preservation, Member
ICOMOS/USA World Heritage,
Member
Society of Architectural Historians,
Member
American Society of Interior
Designers, Member
*work performed prior to joining ARG
99 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 30 Resumes
Years of Experience
5 years
Education
M.S. Historic Preservation,
University of Texas at Austin
B.S. Policy, Planning, and
Development (Urban Planning),
University of Southern California
Meets the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards in
Architectural History
Memberships
American Planning Association
National Trust for Historic
Preservation
Docomomo US
Architectural Heritage Center
Society of Architectural Historians,
Pacific Northwest Chapter
Urban and Regional Information
Systems Association, Oregon and
Southwest Washington Chapter
Society for Conservation GIS
MORGAN E. QUIRK
Associate | Architectural Historian & GIS Specialist
Morgan specializes in data and mapping analysis, with particular interests in cultural heritage and representation. She graduated from the University of Southern California with a B.S. in Urban Planning prior to obtaining her M.S. in Historic Preservation from the University of Texas at Austin. She has since worked as an Architectural Historian and Preservation Planner on cultural resource documentation and evaluation, preservation planning, and environmental review projects. Her expertise in GIS includes field data apps; data analysis; geodatabase management; historic resource inventories; georeferencing and digitization of historic data; StoryMaps; and web mapping services. In addition to geospatial analysis, her planning experience includes Determinations of Eligibility and Historic Structure Reports; local and National Register Nominations; Historic Resource Evaluation reports; HABS documentation; historic contexts; and historic resource surveys. She brings five years of experience in preservation consulting and has worked on projects in California, Oregon, Alaska, Washington, Utah, Hawaii, and Texas.

Project Experience
▪ City of Pasadena, Citywide Historic Resources Survey, Data Collection and Inventory, Pasadena, CA (Ongoing)
▪ Santa Rosa Downtown Station, Historic Resources Survey, Santa Rosa, CA ▪ City of Tustin, Historic Resources Survey, Tustin, CA ▪ City of Ventura, Historic Context and Historic Resources Survey, Ventura, CA* ▪ City of Los Angeles, Historical Housing and Land Use Study Storymap, Los Angeles, CA ▪ African Americans in California, Multiple Property Documentation Form, Various, CA ▪ Pacific Dining Car, Historic-Cultural Monument Nomination, Los Angeles, CA ▪ Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area, Environmental Assessments, CA ▪ Hoffman Candy Company, Historic-Cultural Monument Nomination, Los Angeles, CA ▪ Silberberg Building, Historic-Cultural Monument Nomination, Los Angeles, CA ▪ Miracle Mile Apartments National Register Historic District Nomination, Los Angeles, CA ▪ Oregon Department of Transportation, Determinations of Eligibility and Survey Documentation, Various Locations, OR
▪ Interstate Bridge Replacement Program, Cultural Resources Sub-Consultant, Various Locations, WA and OR (Ongoing)
*work performed prior to joining ARG
100 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 31 Resumes
Years of Experience
21 years
Education
Master of Heritage Conservation,
University of Southern California,
Los Angeles
Bachelor of Arts Degree w/
High Distinction, Art History,
Pennsylvania State University,
State College
Phi Beta Kappa
Meets the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards in History
and Architectural History
Memberships
California Preservation Foundation
Board of Trustees, President
Emeritus
DOCOMOMO Southern California,
Founding Vice President
Los Angeles Conservancy
National Trust for Historic
Preservation
Society of Architectural Historians

CHRISTINE LAZZARETTO
Managing Principal
Christine Lazzaretto has worked in historic preservation in Southern California since 2003.

She joined HRG in 2008 and has served as Managing Principal since 2017. At HRG, Christine works on environmental review, policy development, historic resources surveys, historic context statements, and federal tax credit projects. She has worked on numerous large-scale historic resources surveys and has authored a wide range of historic context statements and successful National Register nominations. Christine also manages teams of professional colleagues on large-scale planning projects. She is a leading expert in cultural resources analysis for environmental review in California. She is a lecturer in the Heritage Conservation summer program at the University of Southern California.

Project Experience
▪ CBS Columbia Square, Adaptive Reuse, Los Angeles. CA
▪ Climate Pledge Arena, Historic Tax Credits, Seattle, WA ▪ City of Glendale, South Glendale Historic Context and Survey, Glendale, CA ▪ City of Goleta, Comprehensive Preservation Planning, Goleta, CA ▪ City of Los Angeles, Citywide Historic Resources Survey (SurveyLA), Los Angeles, CA ▪ City of Santa Monica, Historic Context Statement and Survey Update, Santa Monica, CA ▪ Forum Rehabilitation and Historic Tax Credits, Los Angeles, CA ▪ Modernism in Riverside, Historic Resources Survey, Riverside, CA ▪ Paramount Pictures Master Plan, Los Angeles, CA
▪ University of Southern California, Master Plan, Los Angeles, CA Speaking Engagements
▪ California Preservation Foundation, Seminar Speaker
▪ University of Southern California, Lecturer
101 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 32 Resumes
Years of Experience
23 years
Education
Master of Arts in Urban Planning,
University of California, Los
Angeles
Bachelor of Arts, English, Magna
Cum Laude Latin Honors,
University of California, Los
Angeles
Meets the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards in Historic
Preservation Planning and History
Memberships
American Planning Association,
Urban Design & Preservation
Division
American Planning Association, Los
Angeles Chapter
Los Angeles Conservancy
California Preservation Foundation
National Trust for Historic
Preservation

KARI MICHELE FOWLER
Senior Preservation Planner
Kari has been with HRG since 2001 and specializes in master planning, CEQA, NEPA and Section 106 environmental review, and historic resources assessments. At HRG, Kari’s responsibilities include supervising and conducting historic resources surveys, including developing survey methodologies, conducting fieldwork, data management and analysis, and historical research. She specializes in historic context statements and generating environmental documents relating to historic resources, including CEQA, NEPA, and Section 106 review. Kari has evaluated and documented historic resources at the local, state, and national levels, including the preparation of local landmark applications, nominations and determinations of eligibility for the California and National Registers, and National Historic Landmark nominations. Shr has managed several large-scale historic resources surveys throughout California. Kari served as HRG’s Project Manager for SurveyLA, Los Angeles’ citywide historic resources survey, from 2010 to 2018. She developed a field survey and data collection methodology that allowed for large and complex geographical areas to be surveyed effectively and efficiently.

Project Experience
▪ City of Los Angeles, Citywide Historic Resources Survey (SurveyLA); Multi-Family Residential Historic Sub-Context Statement; and Chinese American Historic Context Statement, Los Angeles, CA
▪ City of Lompoc Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Survey, Lompoc, CA ▪ City of Pasadena Resources of the Recent Past Historic Context Statement, Pasadena, CA ▪ City of San Clemente Survey Update and Historic Context, San Clemente, CA ▪ City of Temple City Context and Historic Resource Survey, Temple City, CA ▪ City of Ventura Downtown Historic Context and Survey Update, Ventura, CA 102 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 33 Resumes
Years of Experience
9 years
Education
Master of Art History, University of
Texas, Austin
Bachelor of Arts, History, Minor
in Archaeology and Spanish, Saint
Anselm College
Geotech Certificate (GIS),
Pasadena City College
Meets the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards in in
History, Architectural History, and
Archaeology
Registrations
Register of Professional
Archaeologists (RPA) No. 4612
Memberships
Archaeological Institute of America
California Preservation Foundation
Highland Park Heritage Trust
Los Angeles Conservancy
National Trust for Historic
Preservation

US/ICOMOS

ALEXANDRA ISABEL PERLMAN
Senior Architectural Historian
Alexandra has been working as an architectural historian in the historic preservation field since 2016 and joined HRG in 2021. Her areas of focus at HRG include historic context statements, preparing documentation in support of NEPA, Section 106, CEQA, and local ordinances. Alexandra is also a Registered Professional Archeologist (RPA) and has assisted in archaeological surveying and monitoring. She has worked on a variety of projects involving historic buildings and structures in Southern California, including the LA Conservancy Preservation Award-winning Cultural Resource Assessment for the LA County Dept. of Parks and Rec, in which she evaluated over 20 parks and golf courses. Other projects include the Central Terrace Section 106 HUD Study in Oxnard, Caltrans State Route 55 HSPR and HRER in Orange County, and the National Register nomination for Descanso Gardens.

Project Experience
▪ City of Pomona, Pomona Historic Context Statement, Pomona, CA ▪ City of Riverside, Riverside LGBTQ+ Historic Context Statement, Riverside, CA ▪ City of Alhambra, Alhambra Historic Context Statement, Alhambra, CA ▪ City of San Buenaventura, Ventura Historic Context Statement, Ventura, CA ▪ California State University, Fullerton, Historic Context, Survey & Evaluation, Fullerton, CA ▪ University of California, Riverside, Historic Context, Survey & Evaluation, Riverside, CA ▪ Mechicano Art Center and Centro de Arte Publico, City of Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monument Nominations, Los Angeles, CA
103 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 34 Years of Experience
14 years
Education
Bachelor of Arts, Interdisciplinary
Studies: Architecture, Urban
Planning and Business (Real
Estate), University of Texas,
Arlington
Meets the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards in History
and Architectural History
Memberships
Los Angeles Conservancy
Los Angeles GIS Portal
California Preservation Foundation

ROBBY ARANGUREN
GIS/Technical Specialist
Robby has been with HRG since 2009 and specializes in GIS cartography, database creation and management, data analysis, historic resource surveys, and research for historic resource assessments. At HRG, Robby works on small- and large-scale citywide surveys throughout Southern California. He implemented the use of GIS applications such as ESRI ArcGIS, Google Earth, and Fulcrum to help identify and evaluate historic resources. He also manages the data and utilizes it to identify historic resources in the vicinity of a project site and conduct other comparative analyses. Additionally, Robby assists with character-defining features inventories, conditions studies, paint analysis, and graphics. He also collaborates on state and federal historic tax credit applications, National Register nominations, Historic Structures Reports, Historic American Building Survey (HABS) documentation reports, and feasibility studies.

Project Experience
▪ City of Glendale, South Glendale Historic Context Statement and Historic Resources Survey, Glendale, CA
▪ Chapman University, VPOA Window Survey, Orange, CA
▪ City of Alhambra, Citywide Survey, Alhambra, CA
▪ City of Beverly Hills, Multi-family Residential Survey, Beverly Hills CA ▪ City of Palm Springs, Citywide Survey, Palm Springs, CA ▪ City of South Pasadena, Citywide Survey Update, Pasadena, CA ▪ LA River Bike Path Technical Study, Los Angeles, CA
▪ Lincoln Place Apartments, Historic Tax Credit, Los Angeles, CA ▪ Pasadena Unified School District, Design Guidelines, Pasadena, CA ▪ City of Los Angeles, Citywide Historic Resources Survey (SurveyLA), Los Angeles, CA ▪ UC Riverside Citrus Experiment Station CDF Inventory, Riverside, CA ▪ Wallis Annenberg Center for the Performing Arts, Adaptive Reuse and Historic Tax Credit, Beverly Hills, CA
Resumes
104 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 35 Years of Experience
10 years
Education
Bachelor of Arts, Fine Art, Mount
St. Mary’s College
Meets the Secretary of
the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards in
Architectural History

MARIANA RUIZ
Preservation Planner
Mariana has been with HRG since 2023. She holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in Fine Art with a minor in Mathematics from Mount St. Mary’s College in Los Angeles, CA. At HRG, Mariana specializes in historic assessments, historic resource surveys, and research. She is fluent in Spanish. Mariana is co-owner of DBA Studios LLC, a multidisciplinary studio focused on art collections management, cultural resource management, and creative art services in the Southwestern United States. Her experience includes conducting historic resource surveys, archival research, compiling nominations for the National Register of Historic Places, and producing photo and GIS documentation. Her expertise also includes developing historic context statements, performing site inspections, providing maintenance plans, compiling historic resource evaluations, and consulting on preservation planning. Her first major preservation project was the Watts Towers Conservation Project in Los Angeles where she was involved in materials conservation, treatment and stabilization recommendations, and project documentation and research.

Project Experience
▪ City of Pasadena, Citywide Historic Context Statement and Survey Update, Pasadena, CA ▪ City of Los Angeles, Mills Act Contract Inspections, Los Angeles, CA ▪ Kansas City Historic District, National Register Nomination, Kansas, MO* ▪ Boulder City, Historic Preservation Plan, Boulder, CO* ▪ Battle Mountain Grammar School, State Register Nomination, Edwards, CO* ▪ El Rancho Hotel, National Register of Historic Places Nomination, Portland, OR* ▪ Paradise Palms II, Historic Neighborhood Designation, Las Vegas, NV* *work performed prior to joining HRG
Resumes
105 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 36 Client: City of Glendale, Community Development
Department
Project Duration: 2019-2021
Key Staff: Katie Horak, Principal; Andrew Goodrich,
Project Manager
Previous Work

CASA VERDUGO AND SOUTH CUMBERLAND

HEIGHTS HISTORIC DISTRICT SURVEYS
Glendale, California
In 2019, the City of Glendale selected ARG to document and evaluate two potential historic districts: Casa Verdugo and South Cumberland Heights.

Located just north of downtown Glendale, Casa Verdugo
is an early suburban neighborhood whose origins are
associated with the extension of streetcar service to the Verdugo foothills in 1905. The neighborhood takes its
name from a restaurant, also called Casa Verdugo, which was a popular tourist attraction and early anchor of the neighborhood. Located about two miles to the north and
west is South Cumberland Heights, another early suburban neighborhood that developed beginning in the 1920s and
comprises continuous blocks of Period Revival style houses.

For each potential district, ARG performed extensive
background research, prepared a narrative identifying
applicable historic contexts and themes, evaluated its
eligibility for designation, and surveyed each property within the proposed district boundaries. Deliverables
included a Historic Resources Report and DPR 523 series forms for each district. Both Casa Verdugo and South
Cumberland Heights were found to be locally eligible, and were subsequently designated as City of Glendale historic districts.

South Cumberland Heights Residence
Maryland Ave, Casa Verdugo, n.d. (Los Angeles Public Library) x Casa Verdugo Streetscape
Sample report excerpts provided separately. Full report provided as PDF on the flash drive.
106 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 37 Previous Work

SAN GABRIEL CITYWIDE HISTORIC CONTEXT

STATEMENT AND HISTORIC RESOURCES
SURVEY
San Gabriel, California
Since 2020, ARG has been working withthe City of San
Gabriel to modernize its historic preservation program. To this end, ARG first prepared a citywide Historic Context Statement from 2020-2021, and since 2022 has been
conducting San Gabriel’s first-ever comprehensive, citywide Historic Resources Survey.

San Gabriel is one of the oldest communities in Southern California. Its modern development dates to the founding of the Mission San Gabriel in the eighteenth century. San Gabriel was one of the first townships to be founded in Los Angeles County in the 1850s, incorporated as a city in 1913, and witnessed substantial growth between the 1920s and 1960s. The city has become a vibrant hub of Chinese American culture and heritage in recent decades.

The Historic Context Statement prepared by ARG offers an authoritative account of San Gabriel’s history, and identifies significant contexts and themes that are represented
in the city’s built environment. It includes registration requirements and integrity considerations to enable the evaluation of historic properties. The Historic Resource Survey, which is in progress, entails the identification and documentation of historically significant properties and districts in the city.

Client: City of San Gabriel, Community Development
Department
Project Duration: 2020-Present
Key staff: Katie Horak, Principal; Andrew Goodrich,
Project Manager; Mary Ringhoff, Architectural
Historian and Preservation Planner; Brannon
Smithwick, Architectural Historian and Preservation
Planner
Sample report excerpts provided separately. Full report provided as PDF on the flash drive.

Map of San Gabriel, 1893 (Los Angeles Public Library)
Residence in San GabrielSan Gabriel City Hall
107 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 38 referenced by City staff and decisionmakers, property owners, and others seeking information about the City’s collection of historically significant properties.

Previous Work
LA CAÑADA FLINTRIDGE HISTORIC

RESOURCES INVENTORY UPDATE
La Cañada Flintridge, California
In 2019, ARG was selected by the City of La Cañada
Flintridge to complete an update of the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (HRI).

La Cañada Flintridge is a small suburban enclave at the base of the San Gabriel Mountains, notable for its semi-rural character and verdant setting. The city incorporated in 1976 as an amalgamation of two existing unincorporated
communities: La Canada and Flintridge, each with roots
dating to the turn-of-the-twentieth century. The city
contains a notable collection of high-style, architecturally distinctive residences designed by some of Southern
California’s most acclaimed architects of the early twentieth century including Myron Hunt, Wallace Neff, John Byers, and Paul Williams.

ARG’s scope included extensive research about the
community’s developmental and architectural history,
preparation of a citywide historic context narrative and eligibility standards to inform field evaluations, and an evaluation of each property on the HRI against local
designation criteria and integrity thresholds. A total of 68 properties were evaluated and documented. ARG’s
work was synthesized into a narrative report that can be Flintridge Hotel Gainsburg Residence (Los Angeles Conservancy) Riggs Residence, 1919 (Calisphere)
Sample report excerpts provided separately. Full report provided as PDF on the flash drive.

Client: City of La Cañada Flintridge, Community
Development Department
Project Duration: 2019-2021
Key Staff: Katie Horak, Principal; Andrew Goodrich,
Project Manager
108 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 39 The intensive-level documentation was preceded by a
reconnaissance-level survey of all parcels in the city, during which surveyors also examined properties identified
in previous, less comprehensive surveys. Community
outreach efforts helped to inform the public about the
survey effort, increase communication between the
community and the City, and create support for and
understanding of the project.

HRG is currently working on the multi-family residential survey update.

Previous Work

BEVERLY HILLS HISTORIC CONTEXT

STATEMENT AND SURVEY UPDATE
Beverly Hills, California
Historic Resources Group assisted with an updated
citywide historic resources survey and historic context statement for the City of Beverly Hills. Beginning in 2012 with the final work product completed in 2015, HRG was
the prime consultant for the project and served as the
liaison with the City.

The City of Beverly Hills project included the first
comprehensive survey update since 1985 as well as the
creation of a context statement spanning all periods of development, with specific registration requirements that address the city’s extant resources. The intensive-level survey included the identification of historic resources within Beverly Hills city limits and the evaluation of
properties against National Register, California Register, and local eligibility criteria.

Historic Beverly Hills Streetscape
Client: City of Beverly Hills
Project Duration: 2012 - Present
Key Staff: Robby Aranguren, GIS/Technical Specialist
109 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 40 More specifically, HRG conducted the surveys for
Hollywood, West Adams, Sunland/Tujunga, Harbor City,
Wilmington, significant portions of the San Fernando Valley, West Los Angeles, San Pedro, Bel Air, Brentwood, Pacific Palisades, Westlake, Westwood, and Venice. HRG also led the effort in the preparation of the Historic Context Report for the City of Los Angeles’s citywide survey, preparing a chronologically-based Overview Historic Context to
complement the associated themes and property types, as well as the context statements for multi-family residential housing and the Hollywood area, and more specialized
contexts such as the Entertainment Context and Asian-
American Context.

Previous Work

SURVEYLA
Los Angeles, California
This project was the first comprehensive program to
identify potentially significant historic resources throughout the City of Los Angeles. Covering over 880,000 land parcels distributed over wide-ranging and varied geographies,
this City-led effort required the development of historic contexts, extensive public outreach, multiple field teams, expert peer review, and the production of proprietary
software for the recordation of field data. Project work spanned from 2009 to 2019.

HRG was involved as part of the larger project team for all phases of the SurveyLA effort, taking responsibility for portions of the historic context that provided the basis for the survey, and developing eligibility standards to aid in the evaluation of properties. HRG conducted pilot surveys to test the field guide methodology and proprietary
technology, and spearheaded public outreach efforts that included the development of a web-based guide to public participation.

Downtown Los Angeles
Client: City of Los Angeles
Project Duration: 2009 - 2019
Key Staff: Christine Lazzaretto, Principal; Kari Fowler, Senior Preservation Planner; Robby Aranguren, GIS/
Technical Specialist
110 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 41 Previous Work

HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEYS & CONTEXT

STATEMENTS
Historic resources surveys and context statements
are key informational and planning tools that enable
municipalities and the public to make informed land-use decisions regarding identified historic resources. ARG’s context statements clearly and concisely integrate
the varied historic themes, patterns, and trends that
substantiate the significance of a specific event, property, site, or community. In conducting the historic resources survey, ARG evaluates the properties in a given location with respect to the historic themes, patterns, and trends identified in the context statement. Working with city/ county staff, local commissions, historic preservation
advocacy groups, and private citizens, ARG has successfully completed an extensive number of historic resources
surveys and context statements.

Niodrara Drive Historic Context Statement and Survey
111 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 42 ▪ Citywide Historic Preservation Plan, Historic Context Statement, City of Anaheim, CA
▪ Country Club Park, Historic Context Statement and
Survey, Los Angeles, CA
▪ Downtown Berkeley, Historic Resources Survey and
Context Statement, Berkeley, CA
▪ Downtown Pleasanton, Limited Historic Resources
Survey, Pleasanton, CA
▪ Figueroa Corridor, Historic Context Statement, Los
Angeles, CA
▪ Fisherman’s Wharf, Fish Alley Historic Resources Survey, San Francisco, CA
▪ Foothill College Campus, Historic Resources Survey and Context Statement, Los Altos, CA
Previous Work
▪ SurveyLA, Los Angeles Citywide Historic Resources
Survey: Pilot Survey (Boyle Heights); Group 1 Survey
(West Adams, Baldwin Hills, Leimert); Group 2 Survey
(South and Southeast Los Angeles); and Group 4 Survey
(South San Fernando Valley Community Plan Areas),
Group 5 Survey (Westchester, Playa Del Rey), Group 6
Survey (North San Fernando Valley Community Plan
Areas), Group 7 Survey (Wilshire, Boyle Heights), Group 8 Survey (North and Central San Fernando Valley
Community Plan Areas), Group 9 Survey (Industrial
Properties, Northeast Los Angeles), Group 10 Survey
(Central City) Los Angeles, CA
▪ Contributions to the Los Angeles Citywide Historic
Context Statement for SurveyLA, including Los Angeles
Modernism
▪ Alta Heights Neighborhood, Historic Context Statement and Survey, Napa, CA
▪ Balboa Highlands, Historic Context Statement and Survey, Los Angeles, CA
▪ Beverly Fairfax Historic Resources Survey and Context Statement, Los Angeles, CA
▪ Cannery Row, Historic Resources Survey and Context
Statement, Monterey, CA
▪ City of Carmel-by-the-Sea, Historic Context Statement, Carmel, CA
▪ Chinatown and Germantown, Historic Resources Surveys
and Context Statements, Fresno, CA
▪ City of Arcadia, Historic Resources Survey and Context Statement, Arcadia, CA
▪ City of Beverly Hills, Citywide Historic Resources Survey, Beverly Hills, CA
▪ City of Burbank, Historic Sign Survey, Burbank, CA
▪ City of Dana Point, Historic Resources Survey and Context Statement, Dana Point, CA
▪ City of San Marino, Historic Resources Survey, San
Marino, CA
City of Redlands, Historic Context Statement
112 of 433

Architectural Resources Group | East-West Glendale & North Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Surveys 43 ▪ Garden Apartments of Los Angeles County, Historic
Context Statement, Los Angeles, CA
▪ Garvanza, Historic Resources Survey and Context
Statement, Los Angeles, CA
▪ Hoskins District, Historic Resources Survey and Context Statement, Anaheim, CA
▪ Jefferson Park, Historic Resources Survey, Los Angeles, CA ▪ Miracle Mile, Historic Resources Survey and Context
Statement, Los Angeles, CA
▪ Monterey Old Town National Historic Landmark District, Historic Resources Survey and Context Statement,
Monterey, CA
▪ New Monterey, Historic Resources Survey and Context
Statement, Monterey, CA
▪ Niodrara Drive, Historic Context Statement and Survey, Glendale, CA
▪ Oxford Square, Historic Resources Survey and Context
Statement, Los Angeles, CA
▪ Presidio of San Francisco, Cultural Resources Surveys, CA ▪ City of Redlands, Historic Context Statement, Redlands, CA ▪ City of San Marino, Citywide Historic Resource Survey, San Marino, CA
▪ City of Santa Monica, Citywide Historic Resource
Inventory, Santa Monica, CA
▪ State of Oregon, State Parks Historic Resources Survey and Context Statement, OR
▪ University of California, San Diego, Historic Resources Survey, San Diego, CA
▪ University of Southern California, Historic Context
Statement, Los Angeles, CA
▪ University of Southern California, University Park Campus Historic Resources Survey and Context Statement, Los
Angeles, CA
▪ City of West Hollywood, Historic Context Statement, City of West Hollywood, CA
▪ Windsor Village, Historic Resources Survey and Context Statement, Los Angeles, CA
Previous Work

HISTORIC RESOURCES SURVEYS & CONTEXT

STATEMENTS
▪ African Americans in California, Multiple Property
Determination Forms, State of California
▪ City of Azusa, Historic Context and Survey, Azusa, CA ▪ City of Beverly Hills, Historic Context and Survey Update, Beverly Hills, CA
▪ City of Beverly Hills, Multi-Family Residential Survey, Beverly Hills, CA (in progress)
▪ Fresno Fulton Corridor, Historic Resource Survey, Fresno, CA
▪ City of Long Beach, Suburbanization and Race Historic Context, Long Beach, CA
▪ City of Palm Springs, Historic Context and Citywide
Survey, Palm Springs, CA
▪ City of Pasadena, Resources of the Recent Past Historic Context, Pasadena, CA
▪ City of Paso Robles, Historic Context and Survey, Paso Robles, CA
▪ City of Pomona, Citywide Historic Context Statement,
Pomona, CA
▪ City of Riverside, Citywide Modernism Intensive Survey, Riverside, CA
▪ City of San Clemente, Survey Update and Historic Context Statement, San Clemente, CA
▪ City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Context Statement, San Luis Obispo, CA
▪ City of South Pasadena, Historic Context Statement and Survey Update, South Pasadena, CA
▪ City of Temple City, Context and Historic Resource
Survey, Temple City, CA
▪ City of Ventura Citywide Historic Resources Surveys,
Ventura, CA
113 of 433

SAN FRANCISCO
Pier 9, The Embarcadero, Suite 107
San Francisco, California 94111
T: 415.421.1680
F: 415.421.0127
ARGcreate.com

LOS ANGELES
360 E. 2nd Street, Suite 225
Los Angeles, CA 90012
T: 626.583.1401
F: 626.583.1414

PORTLAND
720 SW Washington Street, Suite 300
Portland, Oregon 97205
T: 971.256.5324
114 of 433

East‐West Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Survey PIC PM/Sr Hist Hist Intern PIC PM/Sr Hist Hist Intern Total Cost

2. Historic Context
Review background materials including the South Glendale HCS for structure and format, federal and state technical bulletins, and other pertinent planning documents. 88 16 $2,640 Conduct additional primary and secondary source research about the survey area. 24 32 12 68 $9,820 Conduct initial reconnaissance survey to confirm locations of resources that research suggests may represent significant themes. 8 8 4 8 28 $5,500 Participate in one (1) community meeting to gather public input. 8 4 4 16 $2,720 Prepare draft HCS using information obtained from research, reconnaissance, and public input and including the following sections: Introduction, Guidelines for Evaluation, Historic Narrative, Contexts and Themes, Property Types and Registration Requirements, and Preservation Goals and Priorities. Submit to City staff for review. 4 80 40 8 132 $22,640
Present draft HCS at one (1) public hearing of the Historic Preservation Commission. 8 4 4 16 $2,720 Revise HCS to address feedback received; submit final HCS to City staff. 4 16 2 22 $4,190

3. Historic Resource Survey
Review background materials including National Register Bulletin Nos. 15, 16A, 16B, and 24; the California OHP's Instructions for Recording Historical Resources; the Glendale Municipal Code; and previous historic documentation of the survey area. 8 8 16 $2,640
Conduct reconnaissance survey of properties within the survey area built before 2000, taking note of properties and districts that appear to merit further study. Prepare GIS maps to guide fieldwork. Produce list of properties that appear eligible or merit further study. 16 16 16 16 16 80 $14,720
Perform property‐specific research as needed to gather information (e.g. architect, builder, owner) and enable evaluation of resources. 60 60 120 $18,600 Conduct intensive survey. Document eligible individual properties and districts using a GIS‐ based mobile documentation app (Fulcrum). Apply HCS themes and registration requirements to evaluate resources against local, state, and federal eligibility criteria. 8 40 40 40 40 168 $23,000
Prepare draft Survey Report and appendices including DPR 523A and B forms for individual properties, DPR 523D forms for districts, photographs, and spreadsheets. Submit to City staff for review.
40 60 8 20 60 20 208 $32,280
Participate in one (1) community meeting to discuss draft survey findings. 4 8 4 16 $2,720 Present draft survey findings at one (1) public hearing of the Historic Preservation Commission. 4 8 4 16 $2,720
Revise Survey Report and appendices to incorporate feedback received; submit final Survey Report and appendices to City staff. 8 2 8 18 $3,320

4. Historic District Survey: Cleveland Knoll Historic District Complete historic district survey for the proposed Cleveland Knoll Historic District. 6 140 92 36 274 $42,300

5. Historic District Survey: Cleveland Knoll Historic District Complete historic district survey for the proposed Selvas de Verdugo Historic District. 6 284 208 32 530 $85,260 Total Hours 23 393 360 88 33 431 400 52 1780 $284,260
Hourly Rates $260 $175 $155 $55 $260 $175 $155 $55 Subtotal (per person) $5,980 $68,775 $55,800 $4,840 $8,580 $75,425 $62,000 $2,860 Subtotal Labor $284,260
Reimbursable allowance (estimated ‐ Tasks 1‐3) $1,500
Reimbursable allowance (estimated ‐ Task 4) $2,500
Reimbursable allowance (estimated ‐ Task 5) $2,500
T
OTAL NOT‐TO‐EXCEED FEE $285,760
ARG $135,395 HRG $148,865

ARG HRG
115 of 433

Supplemental Fee Proposal: Cleveland Knoll Historic District Survey PIC PM/Sr Hist Hist Intern Total Cost

1. Meetings and Project Administration
Participate in ongoing meetings and correspondence with City staff, as needed, for the duration of the project. 2 8 10 $1,920

2. Background Review and Historic Context
Review background materials obtained during the kickoff meeting; conduct additional primary and secondary source research as necessary. 8 16 16 40 $4,760 Prepare a historic context statement and eligibility standards specific to the proposed historic district, for inclusion in the survey report. 32 16 48 $8,080

3. Field Survey
Conduct field survey of the proposed historic district using a custom mobile documentation app (Fulcrum); data will include a list of architectural features, visible alterations, and three (3) high‐res photos of each property.
40 20 20 80 $11,200
Draft DPR 523a and 523d forms; organize and name photos per City of Glendale conventions; generate property spreadsheet. 16 16 32 $5,280
Produce GIS maps for inclusion in the survey report. 4 4 $620

4. Historic Resources Report (Draft)
Prepare draft Historic Resources Report with the following sections: project description and methodology, historic context, physical character, evaluation of eligibility, and DPR forms.

Submit for City review and comment.
2 24 20 46 $7,820

5. Meetings
Attend two (2) public meetings, including one (1) public meeting and one (1) Historic Preservation Commission meeting; present draft Historic Resources Report and survey findings. 4 4 $700

6. Historic Resources Report (Final)
Revise draft deliverables based on City and community feedback; submit final Historic Resources Report and DPR forms. 2 8 10 $1,920
Total Hours 6 140 92 36 274 $42,300
Hourly Rates $260 $175 $155 $55
Subtotal (per person) $1,560 $24,500 $14,260 $1,980
Subtotal Labor $42,300
Reimbursable allowance (estimated) $2,500
TOTAL NOT‐TO‐EXCEED FEE $44,800
116 of 433

Supplemental Fee Proposal: Selvas de Verdugo Historic District Survey PIC PM/Sr Hist Hist Intern Total Cost

1. Meetings and Project Administration
Participate in ongoing meetings and correspondence with City staff, as needed, for the duration of the project. 2 8 10 $1,920

2. Background Review and Historic Context
Review background materials obtained during the kickoff meeting; conduct additional primary and secondary source research as necessary. Confirm district boundary identified in the nomination.
8 16 16 40 $4,760
Prepare a historic context statement and eligibility standards specific to the proposed historic district, for inclusion in the survey report. 48 16 64 $10,880

3. Field Survey
Conduct field survey of the proposed historic district using a custom mobile documentation app (Fulcrum); data will include a list of architectural features, visible alterations, and three (3) high‐res photos of each property.
132 132 264 $43,560
Draft DPR 523a and 523d forms; organize and name photos per City of Glendale conventions; generate property spreadsheet. 40 16 16 72 $10,360
Produce GIS maps for inclusion in the survey report. 8 8 $1,240

Submit for City review and comment.
2 36 20 58 $9,920

6. Historic Resources Report (Final)
Revise draft deliverables based on City and community feedback; submit final Historic Resources Report and DPR forms. 2 8 10 $1,920
Total Hours 6 284 208 32 530 $85,260
Hourly Rates $260 $175 $155 $55
Subtotal (per person) $1,560 $49,700 $32,240 $1,760
Subtotal Labor $85,260
Reimbursable allowance (estimated) $2,500
TOTAL NOT‐TO‐EXCEED FEE $87,760
117 of 433

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
Community Development Department
Planning Division

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

• East-West Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Survey • North Glendale Historic Context Update and Historic Resource Survey

Issuance Date: March 20, 2024

Closing Date: April 29, 2024

Responses to the Request for Proposal are to be submitted to:

Jay Platt
Principal Planner
City of Glendale
633 E. Broadway, Room 300
Glendale, CA 91206

Proposals must be received by 5:00 p.m. PDT on April 22, 2024. Provide one (1) digital copy and four (4) bound paper copies. Late submissions will not be considered.

118 of 433

City of Glendale RFP:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey; North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey

Page 2 of 20 ends

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. Schedule of Events ............................................................................................ 3

2. Explanation of the Study ................................................................................... 3

3. Background ........................................................................................................ 5

4. Project Scope & Deliverables ............................................................................ 6

5. Proposal Requirements ................................................................................... 15

6. Evaluation & Selection ..................................................................................... 20

7. Submittal Deadline ........................................................................................... 20

8. Rejection of Proposals ..................................................................................... 20

9. Attachments ..................................................................................................... 20

119 of 433

City of Glendale RFP:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey; North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey

Page 3 of 20 ends

1. SCHEDULE OF EVENTS

Event

Date
Request for Proposals (RFP) Issued March 20, 2024
Deadline for Receipt of Written Questions and Requests March 29, 2024, 5:00pm City Responses and/or Addenda Issued by April 4, 2024
Technical and Price Proposals Due April 29, 2024, 5:00pm Interview Firms (if needed based on City review of written proposals) Week of May 13, 2024 Proposed Approval of Professional Services Agreement by City Council June/July 2024 (estimated)
Service Contract Begins July/August 2024 (estimated)

City of Glendale reserves the right to alter any of the dates shown above by written notice.

Submit any inquiries via email to Jay Platt, Principal Planner, at [email protected].

No phone calls please.

2. EXPLANATION OF STUDY

The Planning Division of the Glendale Community Development Department seeks proposals from qualified cultural resource consulting firms (which may partner with sub-consultants) to provide an East-West Glendale Historic Context and East-West Glendale Historic Resource Survey. In addition, we request a separate proposal for a North Glendale Historic Context Update and North Glendale Historic Resource Survey. All bidders must provide the two separate proposals as described below; any bid failing to do so will be considered “non- responsive” and not be considered. Both surveys will employ a hybrid reconnaissance/intensive-level field survey of the study area to identify potential individually eligible historic resources, as discussed below, and utilize the registration requirements and integrity thresholds established in the respective historic contexts.

East-West Glendale Context and Survey (Proposal 1a and 1b) East and West Glendale encompass the portions of the city that lie north of the 134 Freeway and south of North Glendale (see map, Attachment 1). The Verdugo Woodlands and Oakmont neighborhoods, along with the Oakmont Country Club, mark the northernmost extent of the study area (see neighborhood map, Attachment 3). The study area contains approximately 22,026 developed parcels. The Consultant will prepare two separate but related, documents and the proposal should identify how the timelines for their production might overlap to allow their preparation in as timely a manner as possible.

The East-West Glendale Historic Context (“EWG Context”) will identify and thoroughly discuss the significant contexts and themes associated with the history and development of the study area with a focus on its extant buildings, structures, objects, streetscapes, and neighborhoods. It will also identify property types associated with the contexts and themes and establish registration requirements for evaluating properties for eligibility at the local, state, and/or federal level. The EWG Context will be organized and formatted to reflect the 2014 South Glendale Historic Context to ensure consistency with the earlier document, and, when appropriate, also incorporate, amend, or augment relevant content (Attachment 6a).

120 of 433

City of Glendale RFP:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey; North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey

Page 4 of 20 ends

The East-West Glendale Historic Resource Survey (“EWG Survey”) will develop a survey methodology to identify properties and districts that appear to be eligible for designation based on the registration requirements developed in the EWG Context and the designation criteria identified in Subsection 15.20.050 of the Glendale Municipal Code. The survey will consider all parcels developed before the year 2000. For individual properties identified as potentially eligible, some further research, utilizing sources such as building permits, Sanborn maps, photographs, city directories, newspapers and periodicals, and genealogy websites, as appropriate, will be conducted as needed to confirm construction dates and alterations, and identify potential associations with significant people or events. DPR 523 A and B forms will be used to record each individually eligible property. In addition, the Consultant will reference the South Glendale Historic Resource Survey (Attachment 6b) to ensure consistency between the documents in terms of organization and formatting.

North Glendale Context Update and Survey (Proposal 2a and 2b) North Glendale consists of the portion of the city located in the Crescenta Valley. The Sparr Heights and Montecito Park neighborhoods establish the southern boundary, and the city borders define the east, west, and north extents of the study area (see map, Attachment 2).

The study area contains approximately 7,722 developed parcels. The Consultant will prepare two separate but related, documents and the proposal should identify how the timelines for their production might overlap to allow their preparation in as timely a manner as possible.

A separate bid is requested to assist the City in determining whether the North Glendale Historic Context Update (“NG Context Update”) and North Glendale Historic Resource Survey (“NG Survey”) will be conducted by the Consultant in conjunction with the EWG Context and Survey. Depending on funding availability, the North Glendale projects may be deferred to a future date, at which point all bidders will be given the opportunity to submit revised timelines, time/staff breakdowns, and cost estimates.

The 2011 North Glendale Historic Context was prepared as part of the North Glendale Community Plan. The document’s historical narrative and identification of contexts covering the area’s developmental history are sound, but its structure deviates significantly from that of the South Glendale Historic Context (Attachment 6a) and the chapter covering property types and registration requirements is not as robust as the corresponding sections of the South Glendale document. The Consultant will edit and reformat this document to reflect the structure and level of detail found in the South Glendale Historic Context. In addition, any updates necessitated by the findings of the accompanying historic resource survey will be incorporated.

The North Glendale Historic Resource Survey will develop a survey methodology to identify properties and districts that appear to be eligible for designation based on the registration requirements developed in the NG Context Update and the designation criteria identified in Subsection 15.20.050 of the Glendale Municipal Code. The survey will consider all parcels developed before the year 2000. For individual properties identified as potentially eligible, some further research, utilizing sources such as building permits, Sanborn maps, photographs, city directories, newspapers and periodicals, and genealogy websites, as appropriate, will be conducted as needed to confirm construction dates and alterations, and identify potential associations with significant people or events. DPR 523 A and B forms will be used to record each individually eligible property. In addition, the Consultant will reference the South Glendale Historic Resource Survey (Attachment 6b) to ensure consistency between the documents in terms of organization and formatting. 121 of 433

City of Glendale RFP:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey; North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey

Page 5 of 20 ends

All work for the East-West and North Glendale documents shall be performed, and deliverables produced, in accordance with Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Preservation Planning, Identification, Evaluation and Registration when such standards are applicable, the National Register Bulletin #24 - Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning, and the California Office of Historic Preservation’s Preferred Format for Historic Context Statements. As noted above, the Consultant will also reference the South Glendale Historic Context (2014) and South Glendale Historic Resource Survey (2019) to ensure consistency between the older documents and the new contexts and surveys in terms of organization and formatting.

The historic contexts and surveys are intended to serve as informational documents for the Community Development Department, the public, and those making policy and legislative decisions in the City of Glendale. The documents for East-West Glendale will also be included as appendices to the East-West Glendale Community Plan, which will also directly incorporate their major findings. Preparation of this Community Plan is expected to begin in 2024. The North Glendale documents will be appended to the 2011 North Glendale Community Plan, with the new context replacing the former one and, if necessary, the community plan being amended by the City.

3. BACKGROUND

The City of Glendale is located at the eastern end of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. It is bordered to the northwest by the Tujunga neighborhood of Los Angeles, to the northeast by La Canada Flintridge and the unincorporated area of La Crescenta, to the west by Burbank, to the east by Pasadena, and to the south and southeast by the City of Los Angeles.

It was founded in 1887 amid the regional real estate and population boom of the era, and officially incorporated in 1906. This event triggered exponential growth and the population grew from 1,186 in 1906 to 13,576 in 1920. By the following year, there were 25,720 residents due to both people moving to the city and the annexation of several adjoining unincorporated areas, including the nearby township of Tropico. Close proximity to downtown Los Angeles, public transportation via the regional streetcar network, and the automobile made Glendale an attractive place for suburban development and, as a result, many new subdivisions were laid out over formerly agricultural land in both the East-West and North Glendale study areas. The construction boom lasted for most of the 1920s, including in the Chevy Chase, Glenoaks, and Verdugo Canyon areas, and development continued at a somewhat reduced rate during the Depression. Almost all construction stopped during World War II, but the postwar years saw yet another boom, with significant infill construction in existing neighborhoods. In addition, the steep upper slopes of the Verdugo Mountains were carved with new streets and subdivisions and housing tracts were developed in the Crescenta Highlands portion of North Glendale.

The East-West study area features a broad mix of single- and multi-family residential, commercial, institutional, and industrial land uses. It is home to Glendale Community College, the Glendale Adventist Medical Center, and the creative campuses of the Walt Disney Company and DreamWorks Animation. The Disney creative campus is built in part on land that was occupied by Grand Central Airport, one of the first and most important in the Los Angeles region. The area is particularly rich in residential neighborhoods, with eight of the city’s nine designated historic districts located close to the base of the Verdugo Mountains and three additional districts in various stages of review.

122 of 433

City of Glendale RFP:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey; North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey

Page 6 of 20 ends

The North Glendale study area is more residential in character but still features a distinctive mix of uses. It tells the story of the gradual transformation from wilderness to ranchland to farmland and, finally, to residential suburb. The Crescenta Valley’s setting between two mountain ranges is important to many residents and construction and hardscape features using native stone from the Verdugo and San Gabriel mountains are highly valued. Pre- and post-war residential subdivisions predominate, served by several commercial corridors and nodes. The Sparr Heights neighborhood at the south end of the study area was annexed in 1925 and features many homes from the era. The remainder of the study area was part of unincorporated Los Angeles County until after the war, when numerous annexations established what is now the current city boundary. These areas feature a greater range of construction dates because they hadn’t been built out as densely as the older parts of Glendale. The USC Verdugo Hills Hospital is one of the area’s major businesses.

4. PROJECT SCOPE & DELIVERABLES

This project, to be supervised by the City’s Principal Planner, will provide accurate and detailed documents that will help guide City programs, land use planning, and CEQA review in the East- West and North Glendale Community Plan areas. City staff will assist the Consultant in the collection of public information, including previous studies, building records, and other information, and assist with map preparation. All principal project personnel employed by the selected consultant, or any sub-consultant, shall meet the professional qualification standards for historian or architectural historian as set forth in 36 CFR part 61, Appendix A.

Proposal 1a:

East-West Glendale Historic Context

Scope of Work:

The Consultant will perform the following work:

▪ Conduct all research and fieldwork required to prepare the East-West Glendale Historic Context in accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation’s Format for Historic Context Statements and structured to follow the basic outline and format of the South Glendale Historic Context, including:

1. Introduction: provide an executive summary; a statement of purpose; information about the project team; a general overview of historic district context statements; an explanation of the project methodology; an overview of the community outreach process; information about the project team and administration; and the record collections and repositories used in developing the context. In addition, briefly discuss and provide a map and chart of the previously identified historic resources within the study area.

2. Guidelines for Evaluation: summary of the National Register, California Register, and local designation criteria for individual and district resources, along with a discussion regarding the aspects of integrity.

123 of 433

City of Glendale RFP:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey; North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey

Page 7 of 20 ends

3. Historic Narrative: provide a narrative overview of the history, development, and demographics of the study area, including relevant maps, illustrations, and photographs. As part of this narrative and in support of the City’s ongoing reckoning with racist aspects of its past, the historic context should include a section providing insight into how racist and discriminatory policies and practices impacted the study area. This research should include the use of restrictive covenants, how such restrictions were potentially conveyed in marketing materials, racial and ethnic demographics in the study area derived from census data, the area’s inclusion and descriptions in Home Owners’ Loan Corporation maps and publications, and any other information found relevant to the topic. Further discussion may be included in the development of the contexts and themes.

4. Contexts and Themes: identification and analysis of the contexts and themes associated with the area’s history and reflected in its extant built environment, including historical patterns, significant events or activities, environmental, social, political, technological and cultural influences, and significant individuals and groups relevant to the context themes.

5. Property Types and Registration Requirements (for each context/theme): identify important property types and their historical significance associated with the theme.

Emphasis should be on describing extant property types, the general location and likely condition of each property type, identifying eligibility criteria, and establishing integrity thresholds for each property type.

6. Preservation Goals and Priorities: outline and prioritization of recommended preservation activities and methods for identifying, evaluating, and treating the property types identified as significant within each theme or context. This section will be completed in consultation with City staff.

▪ Participate in monthly progress meetings via videoconference with City staff to evaluate progress and receive direction.

▪ Participate in one community outreach meeting, covering both the East and West Glendale study areas, to share the goals and requirements associated with the historic context document and gather information from attendees that will assist in developing its contexts and themes. Additional community feedback obtained by the City through other means of outreach will be provided to the Consultant in a timely manner.

▪ Prepare and submit Draft EWG Context to City.

▪ Present the findings of the draft historic context to the Historic Preservation Commission at one public hearing. City staff may require that comments, additional information, and/or corrections recommended by the Commission or members of the public be incorporated into the document.
▪ Consultant will make any corrections, additions and/or deletions to the draft historic context and survey results as requested by the City prior to the submission being deemed final.
▪ Submit Final EWG Context to the City.

124 of 433

City of Glendale RFP:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey; North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey

Page 8 of 20 ends

Deliverables
The Consultant will deliver the following:

1. Meeting Attendance
Consultant will participate in two public meetings: a) Community Meeting toward the beginning of the project to explain its goals and gather information from the public in the East and West Glendale study areas; and b) Historic Preservation Commission meeting to formally present the findings of the Draft Historic Context. Additionally, Consultant will participate in monthly progress meetings by videoconference with City staff through the completion of the final report.

2. Draft East-West Glendale Historic Context
Consultant will provide a digital copy of the complete draft historic context in Microsoft Word format for review by City staff. Further revision of the initial draft submission may be required and will be completed by the Consultant to the satisfaction of City staff prior to public review.

3. Final East-West Glendale Historic Context
The final context shall consist of the Draft Context, edited to address any questions, concerns, and/or corrections. Consultant will deliver three hard copies and two digital copies (one each in Microsoft Word and PDF formats) of the final historic context, formatted for 8½ x 11 (letter) size printing. Digital files containing any scans and/or photographs used in the document and not previously provided by the City will also be included with the digital copy of the context.

Proposal 1b:

East-West Glendale Historic Resource Survey

Scope of Work:

The Consultant will perform the following work:

▪ Conduct all research and fieldwork necessary to prepare the East-West Glendale Historic Resource Survey, which will include all parcels in the study area developed before the year 2000, in accordance with the Secretary of the Interiors’ Standards for Preservation Planning, Identification, Evaluation and Registration; National Register Bulletin No. 24: Guidelines for Local Surveys; National Register Bulletin Nos. 15, 16A, and 16B; California Office of Historic Resources: Instructions for Recording Historical Resources; and the Glendale Municipal Code.

The draft and final survey documents will be structured to follow the basic outline and format of the South Glendale Historic Resource Survey, including:

1. Introduction: overview of the survey goals and study area, as well as a map of the study area and a chart of previously designated properties and historic districts.

125 of 433

City of Glendale RFP:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey; North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey

Page 9 of 20 ends

3. Survey Methodology: discuss the overall survey methodology and research process, as well as the relationship between the survey and the registration requirements identified in the EWG Context.

4. Survey Findings: this section will contain two subsections: “Individually Eligible Historic Resources” and “Potential Historic Districts.”

The individually-eligible subsection will be broken down by property types, developmental eras, and any other categories deemed necessary by the Consultant and/or City staff. For each, the specific methodology employed to determine eligibility will be stated and discussed.

The potential district subsection will provide an overview of each area, including: a description of the area and a brief discussion of its history, its period of significance, a boundary justification, the total number of properties, the numbers of likely contributors and non-contributors and a map depicting their distribution within the boundary, and a few representative photographs.

5. Appendices: DPR 523A and 523B forms for all properties assigned California Historic Resource Status Codes 1-5 and 6L; DPR 523D forms for all potential historic districts (Status Code 5D3); and separate tables (containing information fields to be provided by City staff) for Status Codes 1-5, 6L, and 6Z. In addition, a table listing all parcels developed in or after the year 2000 will be included.

▪ Participate in monthly progress meetings via videoconference with City staff to evaluate progress and receive direction.

▪ Prepare and submit Draft EWG Survey to City, including draft DPR 523A/B and 523D forms. Consultant will make any corrections, additions and/or deletions to the draft historic survey and or DPR forms as requested by City staff prior to subsequent public review. DPR forms to be submitted as individual .doc and .pdf files using file naming conventions provided by City staff.

▪ Participate in two community outreach meetings, to be organized by the City. The first will introduce the project to the public and solicit information that may guide the research, to share the preliminary findings of the Draft EWG Survey and obtain feedback from community members. Additional community feedback obtained by the City through other means of outreach will be provided to the Consultant in a timely manner.

▪ Present the findings of the Draft EWG Survey to the Historic Preservation Commission at a public hearing. City staff may require that comments, additional information, and/or corrections recommended by the Commission or members of the public be incorporated into the document prior to it being deemed final.

▪ Submit final EWG Historic Resource Survey to the City.

126 of 433

City of Glendale RFP:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey; North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey

Page 10 of 20 ends

Deliverables
The Consultant will perform the following:

1. Draft East-West Glendale Historic Resource Survey
Consultant will provide a digital copy of the complete Draft EWG Survey, including draft DPR forms, in Microsoft Word format for review by City staff. Further revision of the initial draft submission may be required and will be completed by the Consultant to the satisfaction of City staff prior to public review.

2. Meeting Attendance
Consultant will participate in two public meetings: 1) Community Meeting to present the findings of the Draft EWG Survey (upon City staff’s satisfaction that the terms of the project have been met and the product is ready for public review); and 2) Historic Preservation Commission meeting to present the findings of the Draft EWG Survey (upon City staff’s satisfaction that the Consultant has incorporated all revisions/corrections necessitated by information provided at the community meeting). Additionally, Consultant will participate in monthly progress meetings by videoconference with City staff through the completion of the final report.

3. Final East-West Glendale Historic Resource Survey
Consultant will deliver three hard copies and two digital copies (one each in Microsoft Word and PDF formats) of the final survey, formatted for 8½ x 11 (letter) size printing.

4. Photographs
Consultant will provide three (3) high resolution photographs (.jpg format,1M or higher) for each property assigned Status Codes 1-5 and 6L and for each property in a potential historic district. The photographs will be taken at angles to maximize visibility of all portions of each property that can be seen from the adjoining or nearby sidewalk. Additional photographs may be required to capture corner properties, detached garages or outbuildings, or significant architectural details that are visible from the public right-of-way.

5. Spreadsheets
All data required to prepare the required tables included in the Appendix will be provided to the City as a Microsoft Excel document, with all necessary fields provide to the Consultant by City staff.

2a) North Glendale Historic Context Update

Scope of Work:

The Consultant will perform the following work:

▪ Edit, reformat, and augment the 2011 North Glendale Historic Context to prepare the North Glendale Historic Context Update in accordance with the California Office of Historic Preservation’s Format for Historic Context Statements and structured to follow the basic outline and format of the South Glendale Historic Context.

127 of 433

City of Glendale RFP:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey; North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey

Page 11 of 20 ends

▪ City staff will actively assist the Consultant in the editing and reformatting process to allow the updated context to retain relevant information from the 2011 document, particularly from Chapter 2, even though this may lead to some deviation from the structure and format of the South Glendale context.

The Consultant’s primary focus will be on Chapter 4 of the 2011 context in order to provide the level of detail and specificity found in the South Glendale Context’s evaluation and identification of contexts, themes, property types, and registration requirements. To accomplish this, the Consultant will need to conduct all necessary research and field work. In addition, the Consultant will incorporate any updates or revisions necessitated by the findings of the accompanying historic resource survey.

▪ While acknowledging the potential deviations noted above, the updated North Glendale Context will still largely follow the basic outline and format of the South Glendale Historic Context, including:

128 of 433

City of Glendale RFP:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey; North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey

Page 12 of 20 ends

5. Property Types and Registration Requirements (for each context/theme): identify important property types and their historical significance associated with the theme.

▪ Participate in monthly progress meetings via videoconference with City staff to evaluate progress and receive direction.

▪ Participate in one community outreach meeting, to be organized by the City, to share the goals and requirements associated with the historic context document and gather information from attendees that will assist in developing its contexts and themes.

Additional community feedback obtained by the City through other means of outreach will be provided to the Consultant in a timely manner.

▪ Prepare and submit Draft NG Context Update to City.

▪ Present the findings of the draft historic context to the Historic Preservation Commission at a public hearing. City staff may require that comments, additional information, and/or corrections recommended by the Commission or members of the public be incorporated into the document.
▪ Consultant will make any corrections, additions and/or deletions to the draft historic context and survey results as requested by the City prior to the submission being deemed final.
▪ Submit final NG Context Update to the City.

Deliverables
The Consultant will deliver the following:

1. Draft North Glendale Historic Context Update
Consultant will provide a digital copy of the complete draft historic context in Microsoft Word format for review by City staff. Further revision of the initial draft submission may be required and will be completed by the Consultant to the satisfaction of City staff prior to public review.

2. Meeting Attendance
Consultant will participate in two public meetings: 1) Community Meeting toward the beginning of the project to explain its goals and gather information; and 2) Historic Preservation Commission meeting to present the findings of the draft historic context (upon City staff’s satisfaction that the terms of the project have been met, public input is appropriately incorporated, and the product is ready for public review). [Please note that the community and preservation commission meetings will be held separately from those for the EWG Context and cannot be combined to achieve greater project efficiency.] Additionally, Consultant will participate in monthly progress meetings by videoconference with City staff through the completion of the final report.
129 of 433

City of Glendale RFP:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey; North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey

Page 13 of 20 ends

3. Final North Glendale Historic Context Update
Consultant will deliver three hard copies and two digital copies (one each in Microsoft Word and PDF formats) of the final historic context, formatted for 8½ x 11 (letter) size printing.

Digital files containing any scans and/or photographs used in the document and not previously provided by the City will also be included with the digital copy of the context.

2b) North Glendale Historic Resource Survey

Scope of Work:

The Consultant will perform the following work:

▪ Conduct all research and fieldwork necessary to prepare the North Glendale Historic Resource Survey, which will include all parcels in the study area developed before the year 2000, in accordance with the Secretary of the Interiors’ Standards for Preservation Planning, Identification, Evaluation and Registration; National Register Bulletin No. 24:

Guidelines for Local Surveys; National Register Bulletin Nos. 15, 16A, and 16B; California Office of Historic Resources: Instructions for Recording Historical Resources; and the Glendale Municipal Code.

The draft and final survey documents will be structured to follow the basic outline and format of the South Glendale Historic Resource Survey, including:

1. Introduction: overview of the survey goals and study area, as well as a map of the study area and a chart of previously designated properties and historic districts.

3. Survey Methodology: discuss the overall survey methodology and research process, as well as the relationship between the survey and the registration requirements identified in the North Glendale Historic Context.

4. Survey Findings: this section will contain two subsections: “Individually Eligible Historic Resources” and “Potential Historic Districts.”

130 of 433

City of Glendale RFP:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey; North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey

Page 14 of 20 ends

▪ Participate in monthly progress meetings via videoconference with City staff to evaluate progress and receive direction.

▪ Prepare and submit Draft North Glendale Historic Resource Survey to City, including draft DPR 523A/B and 523D forms. Consultant will make any corrections, additions and/or deletions to the draft historic survey and or DPR forms as requested by City staff prior to subsequent public review. DPR forms to be submitted as individual .doc and .pdf files using file naming conventions provided by City staff.

▪ Participate in one community outreach meeting, to be organized by the City, to share the preliminary findings of the Draft Historic Resource Survey and obtain feedback from community members.

▪ Present the findings of the Draft Historic Resource Survey to the Historic Preservation Commission at a public hearing. City staff may require that comments, additional information, and/or corrections recommended by the Commission or members of the public be incorporated into the document prior to it being deemed final.

▪ Submit final North Glendale Historic Resource Survey to the City.

Deliverables
The Consultant will perform the following:

1. Draft North Glendale Historic Resource Survey
Consultant will provide a digital copy of the complete Draft Historic Resource Survey, including draft DPR forms, in Microsoft Word format for review by City staff. Further revision of the initial draft submission may be required and will be completed by the Consultant to the satisfaction of City staff prior to public review.

2. Meeting Attendance
Consultant will participate in two public meetings: 1) Community Meeting after City acceptance of the Draft Historic Resource Survey to present the findings of the report (upon City staff’s satisfaction that terms of the project have been met and the product is ready for public review); and 2) Historic Preservation Commission meeting to present the findings of the draft historic context (upon City staff’s satisfaction that the Consultant has incorporated all revisions/corrections necessitated by information provided at the community meeting). [Please note that the community and preservation commission meetings will be held separately from those for the North Glendale Historic Context Update and cannot be combined to achieve greater project efficiency.] Additionally, Consultant will participate in monthly progress meetings by videoconference with City staff through the completion of the final report.

131 of 433

City of Glendale RFP:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey; North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey

Page 15 of 20 ends

3. Final North Glendale Historic Resource Survey
Consultant will deliver three hard copies and two digital copies (one each in Microsoft Word and PDF formats) of the final historic resource survey, formatted for 8½ x 11 (letter) size printing.

5. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS

A. Criteria for Proposal Acceptance

The contract will be awarded only to a qualified historic preservation Consultant. In order to qualify, a Consultant must, in the opinion of the Director of Community Development Department, meet the following standards as they relate to this RFP. ▪ Have adequate equipment, technical, and financial resources for performance, or have the ability to obtain such resources.
▪ Have the necessary experience, organization, technical qualifications, skills, and facilities, or have the ability to obtain them (including any subcontractor arrangements) and must meet the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualification standards set forth in 36 CFR Part 61, Appendix A
▪ Have a satisfactory performance of record in other similar consulting work. ▪ Be an Equal Opportunity Employer.
▪ Demonstrate an adequate understanding of the project. ▪ Propose an expeditious, realistic schedule.
▪ Propose a budget demonstrating efficient use of resources. ▪ Be otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations, including necessary insurance as required by the City. ▪ The Consultant shall certify that neither the principals nor any other individuals associated with the Consultant work are presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from covered transactions by any Federal department or agency.

132 of 433

City of Glendale RFP:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey; North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey

Page 16 of 20 ends

B. Organization
▪ Introduction: The introduction should convey the Consultant’s understanding of the project’s objectives, scope, and requirements, and the Consultant’s ability to complete the project in a timely manner.
▪ Timelines: Submit three timelines: 1) EWG Context and Survey and 2) NG Context Update and Survey, as if they are conducted sequentially, without any overlap; and 3) a timeline for the concurrent preparation of these documents to reflect any resultant time savings. Each timeline will provide a thorough explanation of the course of action with a timeline outlining major milestones.
▪ Technical Approach: A description of the techniques and methodology that the Consultant will employ.
▪ Time/Staff Breakdown: Number of hours estimated per staff person and/or task for each phase of the project, including the fee schedule for all staff members or positions proposed for the project. Provide this breakdown for each of the two bids (it is not necessary to provide one for the concurrent preparation of the two). ▪ Cost Estimates: The final “not to exceed” contract price and payment schedule will be negotiated with the successful Consultant. All applicable costs can be charged to the contract within the negotiable “not to exceed” limit, including travel, overhead, materials, and subcontractors. Although, it should be noted that selection will not necessarily be based on costs, please provide an estimate of what your total cost of accomplishing the project will be. As with the timeline, provide three separate cost estimates to reflect sequential or concurrent document preparation.
▪ Cost-/Time-Saving Methods: Identify any cost- and/or time-saving methods that are proposed for this project. Summarize any efficiencies resulting from concurrent preparation of the East-West and North Glendale documents. ▪ Insurance: Acknowledge that bidder has read and can meet City insurance requirements and has reviewed the sample Professional Services Agreement, both included as attachments to this RFP.
▪ References: The names, addresses, telephone numbers, and e-mail addresses of at least three (3) former clients who have contracted with the Consultant for services similar to those described in this RFP.
▪ Resumes: Key personnel who will be assigned to the project should be named. Include resumes citing the individuals’ education, qualifications, and experience. ▪ Signature: The proposal must be signed by a person who is authorized to negotiate and execute contracts on behalf of the Consultant.
▪ Previous Work: Examples of historic contexts and historic resource surveys of similar scope to the current proposal, preferably conducted within the last five years.

133 of 433

City of Glendale RFP:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey; North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey

Page 17 of 20 ends

C. Proposal Responses
Proposals and modifications thereof received at the office designated in the RFP after the exact hour and date specified will not be considered unless either (1) they are sent via certified mail for which an official, dated post office stamp on the original receipt for certified mail has been obtained, and it is determined by the City that the late receipt was due solely to the delay in the mail, for which the bidder was not responsible; or (2) if submitted by mail, it is determined by the City after receipt at the Planning Division office that timely receipt at such office is established upon examination of an appropriate date/time stamp for the Planning Department.

Proposals are to be mailed or delivered to:

Jay Platt
Principal Planner
City of Glendale Planning Division
633 E. Broadway, Room 300
Glendale, CA 91206-4386

▪ Elaborate proposal format, bindings, color plates, glossy brochures, films or exhibits other than the proposal are not necessary.
▪ No proposal costs will be reimbursed under this contract. ▪ The proposal shall be signed by an individual authorized to bind the Consultant and shall contain a statement to the effect that the proposal is a firm offer for at least a 90-day period. The proposal shall contain a statement that all work shall be performed at a price “not to exceed” contract price, which will become the fixed price upon completion of contract negotiations.
▪ The proposal shall also provide the following information: Name, title, address, and telephone number of the individual(s) with authority to negotiate, and contractually bind the Consultant, and who may be contracted during the period of proposal evaluation.

D. Limitations
▪ All reports and pertinent data or materials shall be the sole property of the City of Glendale and may not be used or reproduced in any form without the explicit written permission of the City.
▪ The Consultant should expect to have access only to the public records and public files of local government agencies in preparing the proposal reports. No compilation, tabulation, or analysis of data, definition or opinion, etc., should be anticipated by the Consultant from the agencies, unless volunteered by a responsible official of those agencies. Good business practices such as formal letters of request and making appointments should be followed. Violations of these practices may disqualify the proposal.
▪ This RFP does not commit the City to award a contract, to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of the proposal to this request, or to procure or contract for services or supplies. The City also reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result of this request, to negotiate with any qualified source, or to cancel in part or in its entirety, this RFP, if it is in the best interest of the City to do so. The City may require the proposer selected to participate in negotiations, and to submit such proposals as may result from negotiations.
134 of 433

City of Glendale RFP:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey; North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey

Page 18 of 20 ends

▪ The City has the authority to terminate its contract upon written notice to the Consultant at any time during the period of the study if the City finds that the Consultant’s performance is not satisfactory.
▪ Contract payments will be made on the basis of satisfactory performance by the Consultant as determined by the City. Final payment to the Consultant will only be made when the City finds the work performed by the Consultant to be satisfactory and accepts the documents required.
▪ Responses to this RFP should contain a statement as to what contractual arrangements – if any – exist or have at any time in the past existed between the responding firm and the City.

E. Agreement
The Contractor to whom the Agreement is awarded shall be required to enter into a written Agreement with the City of Glendale in a form approved by the City Attorney. A Sample Professional Services Agreement is included as an attachment. The agreement specifies the terms and conditions of the contract and the required insurance provisions. The RFP, or any part thereof, and the Proposer's responses, may be incorporated into and made a part of the final Agreement; however, City reserves the right to further negotiate the terms and conditions of the Agreement with the selected Proposer. If the Proposer has any questions about or objections to any provision in the City’s Professional Services Agreement, such questions or objects must be set forth in detail in the Proposal. If a Proposer in unable to comply with the terms and conditions of the City’s Professional Services Agreement, such inability may be, in the City’s sole discretion, grounds for rejection of a proposal.

Neither the Agreement nor any interest herein nor claim hereunder may be assigned by Contractor, either voluntarily or by operation of law, nor may all or substantially all of the Agreement be further subcontracted by Proposer without the prior written consent of City.

Penalty or possible termination may result for failing to procure written approval from the City. No such consent shall be deemed to relieve Proposer of its obligations to comply fully with the requirements hereof.

F. Insurance Requirements
The City has substantial insurance requirements. Please make consideration of the insurance coverages and the subrogation endorsements required. Insurance is required for the following coverages:

▪ Professional Liability Insurance
▪ Workers’ Compensation Insurance
▪ Commercial General Liability or Business Owners’ Liability Insurance ▪ Business Automobile Liability Insurance

Detailed insurance requirements are included as an attachment.

135 of 433

City of Glendale RFP:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey; North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey

Page 19 of 20 ends

G. Requests for Clarification
A Proposer may submit to the City a written request by email to Jay Platt at [email protected] for an interpretation or clarification of, or addenda to, this RFP. Any such written request must be received by the City no later than the date designated in this RFP. The City will review and prepare a written response to each request made pursuant to this section. The City’s written determination will be emailed or otherwise furnished to all prospective Proposers by the date designated in this RFP.

The City reserves the right to make modifications or issue addenda to this RFP. If the City determines it is appropriate to revise any portion of this RFP, either at the request of a Proposer or upon the City’s own initiative, the City will issue, and make available to all prospective Proposers, a written addendum setting forth this revision. Proposer shall acknowledge receipt of addenda by written notice thereof returned to the City. Where addenda require changes in the work to be performed under the Agreement, the date set for receipt of proposals may be postponed by such number of days as the City determines appropriate in order to enable prospective Proposers to revise proposals.

The City is not bound by any oral interpretations, clarifications, or changes made to this RFP by any City staff member. Any clarification or change to the RFP must be provided in writing pursuant to this section.

H. Acceptance of Proposals
Each proposal shall be submitted with the understanding that it is subject to the evaluation procedure set forth in Section 6 (Evaluation & Selection) and to negotiation at the option of the City. Upon acceptance in writing by the City of the final offer to furnish any and all of the services described herein, the parties shall promptly execute the final contract documents.

The written Agreement shall bind the Proposer to furnish, deliver, maintain, operate or compensate in accordance with conditions of said accepted proposal and this Request for Proposals, as negotiated. The City reserves the right to make the award under this RFP based upon the initial proposals submitted. The City has the right to reject any and all proposals and to waive any informality in any proposal.

I. Restrictions on Lobbying and Contacts
During the period beginning on the date of the issuance of the RFP and ending on the date of selection of the Proposer, no person (or entity) submitting a proposal in response to this RFP, nor any officer, employee, representative, agent, or Consultant representing such a person (or entity) shall contact through any means or engage in any discussion concerning the award of the Contract with any member of the City Council of the City of Glendale or his or her personal staff. Any such contact shall be grounds for the disqualification of the proposal.

During the period beginning on the date of the issuance of this RFP and ending on the date of selection of the Proposer, each person or entity described in the previous paragraph shall limit his or her communication with City staff to the written clarification and amendment process described in Section 5G, and interviews or discussions pursuant to evaluation and selection process described in Section 6. At no time may any Proposer have any communication with a member of the City’s Evaluation Committee, other than communication initiated by such member during interviews or discussions.

136 of 433

City of Glendale RFP:

East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey; North Glendale Historic Context Update and Survey

Page 20 of 20 ends

6. EVALUATION & SELECTION
Written proposals will be reviewed by a selection committee made up of members of the City staff. Complete proposals will be evaluated on the basis of the following submission information:
▪ Clarity and thoroughness of proposal
▪ Project cost
▪ Proposed timeline
▪ Previous experience and products of the Consultant and key personnel ▪ Favorable responses from references regarding the Consultant’s performance ▪ Other criteria to be determined by City staff as necessary This evaluation will allow the City’s selection committee to identify the most qualified Consultant(s), who may, at the City’s discretion, be invited for an interview.

The City reserves the right to reject the proposal of any Proposer who has previously failed to perform properly, or complete on time, contracts of a similar nature, or to reject the proposal of a Proposer who is not in a position to perform such a contract satisfactorily. The City expressly reserves the right to reject the proposal of any Proposer who is in default of the payment of taxes, Agreements, or other monies due to the City of Glendale.

7. SUBMITTAL DEADLINE
The signed original and three (3) copies of the proposal must be received by the City of Glendale Planning Department by the close of business at 5:00 p.m., Monday, April 29, 2024.

The Planning Division is located at 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 300, Glendale, CA 91206-4386. The Planning Division’s phone number is (818) 548-2140; Jay Platt can be contacted at [email protected].

8. REJECTION OF PROPOSALS
The City of Glendale reserves the right to reject any and all proposals and to solicit new proposals with modified terms and conditions. It also reserves the right to waive any informalities in connection with proposals.

9. ATTACHMENTS

1. East-West Glendale Study Area Map

2. North Glendale Study Area Map

3. Glendale Neighborhood Map

4. City Insurance Requirements and Information

5. Sample Professional Services Agreement

6. Relevant Previous Studies (distributed digitally)
a. South Glendale Historic Context (2014)
b. South Glendale Historic Resource Survey Report (2019) c. South Glendale Historic Resource Survey Sample DPR 523A/B and 523D Forms d. North Glendale Historic Context (2011)
137 of 433

ðL ða ð ðC ða ðn ða ðd ða ð
ðF ðl ði ðn ðt ðr ði ðd ðg ðe
ðP ða ðs ða ðd ðe ðn ða
ðB ðu ðr ðb ða ðn ðk
ðL ðo ðs ð ðA ðn ðg ðe ðl ðe ðs
ðL ðo ðs ð ðA ðn ðg ðe ðl ðe ðs

KENNETH

GLENOAKS
WILSON
BRAND
ALLEN

PACIFIC
ZOO

CENTRAL

GLENDALE
SONORA

MOUNTAIN
LIDA

VERDUGO
ADAMS
OLIVE

MONTROSE

LEXINGTON

STOCKER

WESTERN

GRIFFITH PARK

BERKSHIRE

GRANDVIEW
CROWN

RIVERSIDE

HIGHLANDMAGNOLIA

GLENWOOD

SUNSET CANYON
WALNUT
5TH

DESCANSO

COUNTRY CLUB
BRIGGS

FIGUEROA

COLORADOVALLE

CUMBERLAND
MAIN
FRONT

ALAMEDA

EAGLE VISTA

ROSELAWN
DORAN

ROSSMOYNE

MOUNTAIN

HIGHLAND
DORAN

COLORADO

GLENOAKS

FOOTHILL

SAN FERNANDO

BROADWAY

VERDUGO
CANADA

HONOLULU

VICTORY

ALAMEDA

CHEVY CHASE

LA CRESCENTA

OCEAN VIEW
OLIVE

WESTERN

VERDUGO
East-West Glendale Study Area
L
Legend

E-W GLENDALE STUDY AREA

CITY BOUNDARY

STREETS
ðCðiðtðyð ðoðfð ðGðlðeðnðdðaðlðe
([KLELW5
138 of 433

ðL ða ð ðC ða ðn ða ðd ða ð
ðF ðl ði ðn ðt ðr ði ðd ðg ðe
ðL ðo ðs ð ðA ðn ðg ðe ðl ðe ðs
ðU ðn ði ðc ðo ðr ðp ðo ðr ða ðt ðe ðd ð
ðL ðo ðs ð ðA ðn ðg ðe ðl ðe ðs ð ðC ðo ðu ðn ðt ðy
DAY

ROSEMONT
BRIGGS
LOWELL

MONTROSE
BOSTON

OCEAN VIEW

DUNSMORE

PENNSYLVANIA

NEW YORK

LA CRESCENTA

COUNTRY CLUB

TUJUNGA CANYON SANTA CARLOTTA

DESCANSO

VERDUGO

ROSELAWN
ORANGE

ROCKDELL

ALTA CANYADA
BRIGGS
ORANGE

FOOTHILL

VERDUGO

HONOLULU

LA CRESCENTA

OCEAN VIEW
CANADA

LA TUNA CANYON

PENNSYLVANIA

HONOLULU
North Glendale
Study Area
L
Legend

CITY BOUNDARY
NthGlnStudyArea

STREETS
ðCðiðtðyð ðoðfð ðGðlðeðnðdðaðlðe
([KLELW5
139 of 433

140 of 433

141 of 433

142 of 433

143 of 433

144 of 433

145 of 433

146 of 433

147 of 433

148 of 433

149 of 433

150 of 433

151 of 433

152 of 433

153 of 433

154 of 433

155 of 433

156 of 433

157 of 433

158 of 433

159 of 433

160 of 433

161 of 433

162 of 433

163 of 433

164 of 433

165 of 433

166 of 433

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Professional Services Agreement with Architectural Resources Group for preparation of a Historic District Survey for the proposed Verdugo Woodlands historic district.

2. Resolution of appropriation in the amount of $85,260 for the Verdugo Woodlands historic district survey.

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The preparation of a historic district survey is a required step in the Glendale district designation process. On August 15, 2024, the Historic Preservation Commission reviewed an application for a proposed Verdugo Woodlands historic district. After considering public testimony and sitting in on the community forum held just before the hearing, the Commission found that the application contained sufficient information to suggest the proposed area may meet the City’s thresholds and criteria for district designation. This vote moved the application forward to the next step in the designation process, which is conducting a historic district survey. If City Council votes to authorize a contract with Architectural Resources Group (ARG) to conduct the East-West Glendale Historic Context and Survey, there will be efficiencies in including the Verdugo Woodlands district survey with the larger survey since the consulting team will already be researching and conducting field survey in the area and is already familiar with the history of its development.
167 of 433

24i
5 5
1 1

RECOMMENDATION
City Council authorize a Professional Services Agreement with Architectural Resources Group to conduct a historic district survey for the proposed Verdugo Woodlands historic district and approve a Resolution of Appropriation for $85,260.

ANALYSIS
Background
The proposed district consists of the portion of the Verdugo Woodlands neighborhood located to the west of Canada Boulevard, which serves as the eastern boundary. The south side of San Gabriel Avenue is suggested as the northern boundary and Verdugo Park is included at the south. The west boundary is irregular but generally conforms to the areas of relatively early development at the lower elevations of the Verdugo Mountains. The proposed district will surround the Niodrara Drive Historic District, which was designated in 2016. The proposal includes 788 properties, but includes the previously designated Niodrara Drive Historic District, containing thirty-two homes. For this reason, the exact number of properties is uncertain pending a decision by the City about whether Niodrara Drive will remain a standalone district or if it will be subsumed into a new, larger district.

The area features a number of early residences, including the Catalina Verdugo Adobe (GR No. 1, c. 1860) and the 1912 home of the Woodland’s initial developer, John Pirtle.

Several Craftsman-style homes from the 1910s and 1920s remain, but much of the area’s development reflects the Revival styles popular in the 1920s and 1930s, along with the Minimal Traditional style that came to prominence in the years prior to World War II. Numerous Ranch and Modern style properties were built on undeveloped lots in the 1940s and 1950s, with the neighborhood being largely built about by the mid-1960s.

True to its name, the area is notable for the number of mature trees on both private and public property, including the many oaks and sycamores that dominate its streetscapes.

The district application was reviewed by HPC on August 15, 2024. This is the first proposed district to be reviewed under the streamlined designation process approved by City Council in 2023. The Commission made a preliminary finding that the proposed district appears likely to meet the thresholds and criteria requirements established in the Historic Preservation Ordinance (GMC 30.25) and voted to authorize staff to begin the process for retaining a historic preservation consulting firm to conduct a survey of the area. This decision also shifted the proposed area’s status from “proposed district” to “pending district,” meaning that design review authority shifted from DRB and the Citywide Design Guidelines to HPC and the Historic District Design Guidelines.

At the hearing and the preceding community forum, most speakers and callers indicated support for the district, though several others expressed concern or opposition. Under the streamlining process, the Commission chose not to invoke the option to require a petition requiring the owners of over 25% of the properties in the area to request that the City conduct the survey. At the present hearing, Council has the same option if it 168 of 433

34i
5 5
1 1
desires to better gauge the level of support before deciding whether to authorize the survey.

Historic District Survey
Historic district surveys are different than historic resource surveys. Their focus is on determining the overall character of a specific area and identifying the properties that contribute to that character and those that do not. District surveys also assess a proposed district against the set of thresholds and criteria established in the Glendale Municipal Code. Because the Verdugo Woodlands neighborhood is in the East-West Glendale study area, staff asked the preferred bidder for that project to provide a supplemental bid for conducting the Verdugo Woodlands historic district survey.

ARG proposes to produce the Verdugo Woodlands survey for $85,260. This fee works out to about $108 per property for the approximately 750 houses within the proposed boundary. The per property cost is in keeping with those for other recent district surveys.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Outreach for proposed historic districts is built into the Glendale Municipal Code. The first required community forum and HPC hearing for the pending Verdugo Woodlands historic district was held on August 15, 2024. Notice of this meeting was mailed to owners and residents of properties inside the proposed boundary and within a 500-foot radius. A notice indicating the outcome of the HPC meeting was subsequently mailed to the same group. This notice explained that the Commission’s vote led to the change of the area within the proposed boundary to the status of “pending historic district” and shifted the design review authority for projects proposed during the period the district remains under consideration. It also announced the purpose and date and time of tonight’s City Council hearing.

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost for the Verdugo Woodlands Historic District Survey is $85,260, which was not included as a part of the FY 24-25 budget. Staff is requesting an appropriation of $85,260 from the City’s fund balance. The appropriation request is outlined below:

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$85,260 25300-1010-000 43110-1010-CDD-
2502-P0000
Undesignated
Fund Balance
169 of 433

44i
5 5
1 1

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report are attached in Exhibit #1, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Authorize a Professional Services Agreement with Architectural Resources Group for preparation of the Verdugo Woodlands historic resource survey and adopt a Resolution of Appropriation for $85,260.

Alternative 2: Any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted
by:

Bradley
Calvert,
Director of
Community
Development
Prepared by:

Jay Platt, Principal Planner
Approved
by:

Roubik R.

Golanian,
P.E., City
Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Campaign Disclosure Form
Exhibit 2: ARG Revised E/W Proposal Including Verdugo Woodlands Survey Exhibit 3: Verdugo Woodlands historic district application 170 of 433

54i
5 5
1 1
171 of 433

MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the City Manager or his designee is authorized to execute a professional services agreement with Architectural Resources Group (ARG) for a historic district survey for the proposed Verdugo Woodlands historic district survey for a not to exceed amount of $85,260. The agreement shall be in a form approved by the city attorney.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
172 of 433

173 of 433

City of Glendale

Contractor(s)*:

Subcontractor(s)**:

Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:

Title Business Address City State Zip

August 14 24 360 E. 2nd Street, #225, Los AngelesExecuted on:

Signature:
, 20 , at: , California.

Katie HorakPrint Full Name:
360 E. 2nd Street, #225, Los Angeles, CA 90012
626-583-1401 x103
Address:
[email protected] Number: E-mail Address:

Rev. 6/7/12 J:\FILES\DOCFILES\ORD\CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION\DISCLOSURE FORM – CONTRACTOR – 6-7-12.doc 175 of 433

East‐West Glendale Historic Context and Historic Resource Survey PIC PM/Sr Hist Hist Intern PIC PM/Sr Hist Hist Intern Total Cost

2. Historic Context
Review background materials including the South Glendale HCS for structure and format, federal and state technical bulletins, and other pertinent planning documents. 88 16 $2,640 Conduct additional primary and secondary source research about the survey area. 24 32 12 68 $9,820 Conduct initial reconnaissance survey to confirm locations of resources that research suggests may represent significant themes. 8 8 4 8 28 $5,500 Participate in one (1) community meeting to gather public input. 8 4 4 16 $2,720 Prepare draft HCS using information obtained from research, reconnaissance, and public input and including the following sections: Introduction, Guidelines for Evaluation, Historic Narrative, Contexts and Themes, Property Types and Registration Requirements, and Preservation Goals and Priorities. Submit to City staff for review. 4 80 40 8 132 $22,640
Present draft HCS at one (1) public hearing of the Historic Preservation Commission. 8 4 4 16 $2,720 Revise HCS to address feedback received; submit final HCS to City staff. 4 16 2 22 $4,190

3. Historic Resource Survey
Review background materials including National Register Bulletin Nos. 15, 16A, 16B, and 24; the California OHP's Instructions for Recording Historical Resources; the Glendale Municipal Code; and previous historic documentation of the survey area. 8 8 16 $2,640
Conduct reconnaissance survey of properties within the survey area built before 2000, taking note of properties and districts that appear to merit further study. Prepare GIS maps to guide fieldwork. Produce list of properties that appear eligible or merit further study. 16 16 16 16 16 80 $14,720
Perform property‐specific research as needed to gather information (e.g. architect, builder, owner) and enable evaluation of resources. 60 60 120 $18,600 Conduct intensive survey. Document eligible individual properties and districts using a GIS‐ based mobile documentation app (Fulcrum). Apply HCS themes and registration requirements to evaluate resources against local, state, and federal eligibility criteria. 8 40 40 40 40 168 $23,000
Prepare draft Survey Report and appendices including DPR 523A and B forms for individual properties, DPR 523D forms for districts, photographs, and spreadsheets. Submit to City staff for review.
40 60 8 20 60 20 208 $32,280
Participate in one (1) community meeting to discuss draft survey findings. 4 8 4 16 $2,720 Present draft survey findings at one (1) public hearing of the Historic Preservation Commission. 4 8 4 16 $2,720
Revise Survey Report and appendices to incorporate feedback received; submit final Survey Report and appendices to City staff. 8 2 8 18 $3,320

4. Historic District Survey: Cleveland Knoll Historic District Complete historic district survey for the proposed Cleveland Knoll Historic District. 6 140 92 36 274 $42,300

ARG HRG
176 of 433

Supplemental Fee Proposal: Cleveland Knoll Historic District Survey PIC PM/Sr Hist Hist Intern Total Cost

1. Meetings and Project Administration
Participate in ongoing meetings and correspondence with City staff, as needed, for the duration of the project. 2 8 10 $1,920

Submit for City review and comment.
2 24 20 46 $7,820

Supplemental Fee Proposal: Selvas de Verdugo Historic District Survey PIC PM/Sr Hist Hist Intern Total Cost

1. Meetings and Project Administration
Participate in ongoing meetings and correspondence with City staff, as needed, for the duration of the project. 2 8 10 $1,920

2. Background Review and Historic Context
Review background materials obtained during the kickoff meeting; conduct additional primary and secondary source research as necessary. Confirm district boundary identified in the nomination.
8 16 16 40 $4,760
Prepare a historic context statement and eligibility standards specific to the proposed historic district, for inclusion in the survey report. 48 16 64 $10,880

3. Field Survey
Conduct field survey of the proposed historic district using a custom mobile documentation app (Fulcrum); data will include a list of architectural features, visible alterations, and three (3) high‐res photos of each property.
132 132 264 $43,560
Draft DPR 523a and 523d forms; organize and name photos per City of Glendale conventions; generate property spreadsheet. 40 16 16 72 $10,360
Produce GIS maps for inclusion in the survey report. 8 8 $1,240

Submit for City review and comment.
2 36 20 58 $9,920

6. Historic Resources Report (Final)
Revise draft deliverables based on City and community feedback; submit final Historic Resources Report and DPR forms. 2 8 10 $1,920
Total Hours 6 284 208 32 530 $85,260
Hourly Rates $260 $175 $155 $55
Subtotal (per person) $1,560 $49,700 $32,240 $1,760
Subtotal Labor $85,260
Reimbursable allowance (estimated) $2,500
TOTAL NOT‐TO‐EXCEED FEE $87,760
178 of 433

179 of 433

180 of 433

Supporting Materials

Proposed Selvas de Verdugo Historic District

April 1, 2022
181 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

2 Figure 1. Map of boundaries of proposed Selvas de Verdugo Historic District. (Exclusions include the small commercial district and multi-family properties from 2425 Cañada Blvd. to 1654 Don Carlos Ave., 1400 - 1444 Hillside Drive, a tract resubdivided and developed in 1968, and an extension of San Luis Rey through Via Saldivar.)
182 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

3 Historic District Context Statement
Development History

The Verdugos, John Pirtle, and the Verdugo Canyon Land Company

The proposed Selvas de Verdugo historic district comprises a significant portion of the 3,300 acres allotted to Catalina Verdugo, the daughter of the original Mexican owner of the vast Rancho San Rafael, and her nephew Teodoro in the Great Partition of 1871. The proposed district includes the Catalina Verdugo adobe (built by Teodoro, 2211 Bonita Drive), a neighborhood landmark and important material reminder of the area’s rich Spanish and Mexican history. Another landmark on the property was the now deceased Oak of Peace, significant as the site of negotiations in 1847 that ultimately led to the end of the Mexican-American War.1

Efforts to develop the Verdugos’ property followed Teodoro’s death in 1904, and in 1906 the Forest Grove Land Company came into possession of Tract 250. There were plans to subdivide the land for residences; these failed, likely due to the lack of frequent, reliable public transportation. The local press at the time noted broken promises to build an electric railway from Los Angeles. Until 1910, the only public transportation adjacent to the property was the Salt Lake Railway, which served it infrequently. 2 In 1909 Tract 250 was acquired by the Verdugo Canyon Land Company, whose President John A. Pirtle had been involved with the Forest Grove Land Company. The boundaries of the renamed “Verdugo Canyon Tract” extended from the fork at Verdugo Road and Cañada Blvd. (south) to Glorietta Avenue (north), and from the foothills (west) to Verdugo Road (east). It included Verdugo Park, a favorite regional picnicking spot since at least the 1890s, which remained informal open space until the City of Glendale began acquiring land there for an official park in 1944 (see figure 2).3

Development of the tract was facilitated by the extension of the Glendale-Eagle Rock Railway line (a private line, opened in 1909) into the Verdugo Canyon in July 1910.

Pirtle provided the necessary right-of-way and subscribed $20,000 to guarantee its construction. To accommodate the railway tracks, Pirtle laid out Cañada Blvd. in a straight line, in contrast with the winding curves of nearby Verdugo Cañon Road (later renamed Verdugo Road).
4 1 Details of the history of the Verdugos’ property ownership and sales are found in “A Historical and Architectural Assessment of the Verdugo Adobe,” Glendale, California, prepared by Chambers Group, Inc. (August 1993), 5, Glendale Public Library, Special Collections (hereafter GPL-SC), Verdugo Adobe/Verdugo Family binder. For the Selvas de Verdugo historic district application, the applicants are indebted to the research of Architectural Resources Group on the Niodrara Drive Historic District historic context statement and Catherine Jurca for the Niodrara Drive Historic District application. 2 “The Verdugo Ranch,” Glendale News, October 2, 1909, GPL-SC, Verdugo Woodlands folders. See also “Verdugo Park to Be Cut Up,” Los Angeles Times, August 28, 1906, proquest. 3 See E. Caswell Perry and Carroll W. Parcher, Glendale Area History, 2nd ed. (Glendale, CA, 1981), 22, 167.
4 See “Road to Verdugo Park,” Glendale News, April 22, 1910; and “Extended to Verdugo Park,” Glendale News, July 8, 1910, GPL-SC, Verdugo Woodlands folders.
183 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

4 Pirtle’s name dominated Verdugo Canyon Tract advertising. He was called “the moving spirit” of the project, and he aimed for a high-class clientele. (figure 3).5 He worked hard

Figure 3. Postcard advertising the Verdugo
Canyon Tract, with John Pirtle’s name,
1910. Glendale Public Library, Special
Collections, Panoramas, Mountains,
Canyons binder.

to ensure that the subdivision preserved the area’s remarkable natural features. He hired noted San Francisco horticulturalist John McLaren, “the father of Golden Gate Park,” to

5 “Transformation of Big Ranch,” Los Angeles Times, September 28, 1909, proquest.

Figure 2. Members of the
Concordia Club, Los Angeles,
picnicking in Verdugo Park,
1908. Los Angeles Public
Library Photo Collection.
184 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

5 lay out the streets in keeping with the natural contours of the land and to ensure that no coast live oaks or sycamores would have to be removed.6

An ad in the Los Angeles Times described lots “one-half acre to three acres, rolling grounds, live oaks, sycamore trees, running water and parks.” 7 In May 1910 the
company advertised the creation of “the most beautiful and artistic illustrated booklet of its kind ever published in Los Angeles” (figures 4 and 5).8 This expensive brochure likewise touted “large villa lots, trees, running water” but primarily told its story in pictures, including photographs of Verdugo Park, a wonderful asset to potential homeowners. Pirtle’s brochure also included a photo of the lot on which he proposed to build a house, which he did in 1912 (2101 Cañada Blvd.), the oldest house within the proposed district.9

Figure 4. “Lover’s Bridge” in Verdugo Park.
“Verdugo Canyon Tract,” pamphlet, n.d.
(circa 1910), Huntington Library.

6 See ibid.
7 Ad for Verdugo Canyon Tract, Los Angeles Time, October 27, 1909, proquest. 8 Ad for Verdugo Canyon Tract, Los Angeles Times, May 12, 1910, proquest. 9 “Verdugo Canyon Tract,” n.d. (circa 1910), Huntington Library.

Figure 5. Future homesite of
developer John Pirtle.
“Verdugo Canyon Tract.”

185 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

6 The Verdugo Canyon Tract focused on development on the west side of Cañada, and the layout of streets closely resembles the present configuration. Ten east-west streets from Colina Drive to Glorietta Avenue (“Avenue F”), along with the north-south streets of Niodrara Drive, Bonita Drive, and Cañada, were mapped and over 200 lots created. By contrast, the east side of Cañada was divided as six giant lots with a single street— Opechee—running east-west.

Despite Pirtle’s ambitions, only a few houses were built in the 1910s. Nonetheless, the Verdugo Canyon territory, including Pirtle’s subdivision, was annexed to Glendale in 1912, only the second area to join the city following its incorporation in 1906. The annexation enabled the city to exert control over important water rights linked to the abundant natural streams.
10 Frederick Pennington Newport and Selvas de Verdugo

The pace of development picked up with the involvement of Frederick Pennington (F. P.) Newport, whose eponymous company purchased and re-subdivided much of the Verdugo Canyon Tract beginning in 1917. Newport re-named the area Selvas de Verdugo, later anglicized to Verdugo Woodlands, a name that eventually described a much larger area than that owned by Newport, extending as far as the 2 freeway (some properties on the far eastern edge of which were demolished to make way for it). Newport formally “opened” Selvas de Verdugo in June 1917, with a fiesta in Verdugo Park featuring Spanish music and dancing as well as lectures on California history by Charles F.

Lummis and former State Senator Reginaldo Francisco del Valle. 11 The Selvas de Verdugo tract was expansive and irregular, its boundaries shaped by prior land sales; from the west side of Cañada it included not only streets platted in 1909 but also several new streets that extended up into the foothills, as well as the highly picturesque Hermosita Drive, which curves north along the base of the hills. Selvas de Verdugo expanded through the mid-1920s; in 1922 it was extended north from Glorietta to Santa Maria Avenue, and again in 1924 to the south side of San Gabriel Avenue.

Newport also incrementally added property on the east side of Cañada Blvd., from the northern intersection of Cañada and Verdugo to the north side of El Rito. In addition, Newport owned and developed smaller tracts within the proposed historic district, including Fernbrook Place and other lots within the Niodrara Drive Historic District (designated 2016).

A brief biography of Newport in John Steven McGroarty’s Los Angeles from the Mountains to the Sea: With Selected Biography of Actors and Witnesses to the Period of Growth and Achievement (1921) specifically mentioned his “pioneering” development of “surpassingly beautiful home sites” in the “fertile foothill and valley lands in historic Verdugo Canyon.”
12 Like Pirtle, Newport emphasized the sylvan setting and touted

10 See “Vexatious Water Problem,” Los Angeles Times, October 19, 1912, proquest. 11 “Grand Spanish Fiesta Program is Announced,” Glendale News, June 7, 1917. GPL-SC, Verdugo Woodlands folders. Similar articles/promotions ran on June 8 and June 9 as well. 12 John Steven McGroarty, Los Angeles from the Mountains to the Sea: With Selected Biography of Actors and Witnesses to the Period of Growth and Achievement (Chicago: American Historical Society, 1921), 900.
186 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

7 natural features: references to mature trees and flowing streams were ubiquitous in his advertisements. An ad in the Glendale Evening News from 1924, for example, refers simultaneously to its history as the “estate of the distinguished Verdugo family” and the area’s “early hacienda days,” while also claiming its affinities with “the Riviera, Switzerland, and the rustic lanes of the English countryside” (figure 6). Newport created an extravagant pamphlet of his own, which urged that “Verdugo Woodlands is like a

touch of old Switzerland,” with “[c]hattering brooks of sparkling mountain water—clear vistas of rugged mountains…laurel-covered foothills—great gnarled sycamores— evergreen live-oaks, clusters of alders.”13 Native oaks and sycamores are still prominent features of the proposed historic district.

Newport promised potential buyers a “high class” environment of single-family homes-- “Restrictions on the property protect it against the encroachment of commercial, tenement, apartment house, bungalow court” and other “undesirable feature[s]”--which could serve as a code for discouraging lower-income groups and racial minorities, who might find development conditions more difficult to satisfy. Despite these promises, Newport focused on smaller lots more scaled to 1920s suburban development, in contrast with the large “villa” properties favored by his predecessor. 14 13 “The Story of Verdugo Woodlands told in pictures,” n.d. (1920s), GPL-SC, Sparr Heights/Verdugo Woodlands binder.
14 “Restrictions Aid Tract’s Development,” Glendale Evening News, January 29, 1927, GPL-SC, Verdugo Woodlands folders.

Figure 6. Ad for “Verdugo Woodlands,”
Glendale Evening News, October 31,
1924, GPL-SC, Verdugo Woodlands
folders.
187 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

8 The proposed historic district had other developers, but Newport was by far the most prominent and active, bringing to fruition the vision for a sylvan suburban setting first formulated by John Pirtle. Newport remained the driving force until 1935, when the F. P.

Newport Company declared bankruptcy, one of many developer-victims of the Great Depression. The area was built out by the 1960s; later waves of development took place in areas beyond the proposed historic district boundaries, on streets that climbed higher into the foothills.

Relationship of District to Glendale Development Patterns, Events, and Persons.

Development Patterns

The neighborhood developed gradually at first and then steadily over decades, in keeping with patterns of development in other single-family neighborhoods in north Glendale.

Development was made possible with the opening of the Glendale-Eagle Rock Railway line in 1910, but it only truly flourished with the ascendance of the private automobile, which made the extension of sidewalk-less streets into the western foothills of Selvas de Verdugo desirable.

As in other older Glendale neighborhoods that developed over time, with contributions from architects and builders who gave their individual stamp to properties built one at a time, the style of architecture is eclectic rather than homogeneous. The Craftsman style is represented, while Period Revival and Minimal Traditional homes predominate among properties developed before World War II. During the post-war period undeveloped lots were filled in, typically with Ranch-style homes as well as with some fine examples of Mid-century Modern.

The proposed historic district “is united historically [and] aesthetically by plan or physical development” (GMC 30.25.015). The same themes that applied to the Niodrara Drive Historic District (designated 2016), apply to the larger Selvas de Verdugo historic district, which is unsurprising given the outsized influence of F. P. Newport on both.

Thus we propose the former be included within the larger historic district’s boundaries.

Niodrara Drive was designated primarily for its association with trends in residential development, subdivision design, and community planning, in particular those associated with a picturesque, sylvan ideal that sought to marry proximity to the city with a rejuvenating life in nature. Pirtle’s and Newport’s larger development activities were unique within Glendale in their consistent embrace of, and deference to, the natural environment, signaled by the initial hiring of San Franciscan horticulturalist John McLaren to lay out the streets so as to maximize natural features. This commitment is reflected in the river rock enclosures that protect trees in the middle of two streets, Niodrara Dr. and Selvas Place. While the landscaping along Niodrara is particularly striking, a similarly bucolic atmosphere pervades the rest of the proposed historic district.

The commitment to preserving and enhancing natural amenities, evoked accurately by the “Selvas/Woodlands” name, resulted in a cohesive streetscape characterized by curvilinear, intersecting streets that embrace the contours of the hillside terrain, use of native stone, mature trees with an emphasis on natives, a lack of sidewalks, and historic streetlamps.
188 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

9 Not only is this area different in character from other neighborhoods in Glendale, but it is different from the east side of Cañada. The sliver of land between it and Verdugo Road is level. Streets are more linear and most dead-end at the Verdugo Wash, which forms a natural barrier. We believe that it would be possible in future to propose a second phase to the Selvas de Verdugo historic district from Cañada to the Wash. The development on the east side of Verdugo Road, only part of which is considered part of the Verdugo Woodlands, was not part of either the Verdugo Canyon or Selvas de Verdugo Tracts.

Events

The proposed historic district is the site of an important event in American history, the place, formerly memorialized by the Oak of Peace (figure 7), where the terms to end the Mexican-American War were negotiated in 1847, leading to the signing of the Treaty of Cahuenga. The former location of the oak is commemorated in the Catalina Verdugo Adobe park.

Persons

The proposed historic district is associated with several notable individuals who played an important role in the history and development of this area. Catalina and Teodoro Verdugo, daughter and grandson of the original Mexican owner Jose Verdugo, owned the land as part of the holdings allotted to them in the Great Partition of 1871 and resided in the adobe that gives the neighborhood and city park its name.

Developer John Pirtle was not only was president of the Verdugo Canyon Land Company, but as president of Glendale Consolidated Water Company he was a player in Glendale’s water wars, along with other such prominent figures as C. E. Thom and Figure 7. The Oak of Peace, n.d.

Los Angeles Public Library
Photo Collection.
189 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

10 Erskine Ross.15 The water rights to the canyon had been divided up as carefully as the land in the Great Partition of 1871. This precious commodity, which enabled the development of Glendale by providing most water for domestic use, belonged proportionately to the various claimants based on the percentage of land they had been awarded.16 For decades much of Glendale’s water was thus controlled by a small number of prominent figures, with Glendale Consolidated controlling roughly 13 percent of the canyon’s water in 1912, according to the Los Angeles Times. 17 Pirtle was an original
resident of the Verdugo Canyon Tract as owner of a “villa lot” on Cañada, which originally spanned from Wabasso Way to Camulos. The property’s river rock wall and original house are extant.

F. P. Newport spurred development of Selvas de Verdugo/Verdugo Woodlands from 1917 until he lost his company to bankruptcy in 1935. He carried out Pirtle’s original vision for a residential development that married proximity to the city with all the amenities that a forested, water-rich natural environment afforded. He also helped to ensure the preservation of the historic Catalina Verdugo adobe.

Period of Significance

The suggested period of significance for the proposed historic district is 1909 – 1965.

This period aligns closely with the 1909 – 1962 period of significance for the Niodrara Drive Historic District. Apart from the adobe, which falls outside the period of significance, there are no buildings constructed before 1912; however, 1909 is appropriate as the date when the Verdugo Canyon Tract had been platted and open for inspection and when John McLaren made his notable contribution to the street plan and vision of this sylvan suburban neighborhood. There is still significant in-fill development into the mid-1960s. By 1966 there is a notable difference in the style of house, with a boxier massing that has more in common with development outside the proposed boundaries in 1968 and later than with the historic development within them.

Profile of Historic Resource Types

The Niodrara Drive Historic District, including its 32 properties and landscaping, is a historic resource within the boundaries of the proposed historic district.

Five properties in the proposed district are on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. Several other properties are historically significant beyond their architectural merits. The list is by no means exhaustive, and further research will no doubt turn up other important properties.

15 See “The Verdugo Ranch,” Glendale News, October 2, 1909, GPL-SC, Verdugo Woodlands folders; “The Beautiful Verdugo Canyon,” Los Angeles Herald, April 17, 1910, California Digital Newspaper Collection; “Royal Boulevard Historic Resources Survey,” prepared by Historic Resources Group, City of Glendale, March 2008, 12; and “Vexatious Water Problem.” 16 John Calvin Sherer, History of Glendale and Vicinity (Glendale: Glendale History Publishing Company, 1922), 116. Sherer would know: he helped to organize the Verdugo Canyon Water Company and was president, secretary, and treasurer at various times as well as a stockholder. As such he was an internenor in an 1893 lawsuit over rights to the stream.
17 “Vexatious Water Problem,” Los Angeles Times, October 19, 1912, proquest. 190 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

11 Catalina Verdugo Adobe, 2211 Bonita Drive

Built by Catalina’s nephew Teodoro (dates are variously cited as 1828 and 1860s or 1870s), the adobe is listed on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources (#1) and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Nearby was the Oak of Peace, also listed on the National Register, but the tree has since died of natural causes. The adobe— and plans for its preservation—was prominently mentioned in advertisements from both the Verdugo Canyon Land Co. and F. P. Newport.
18 The adobe falls outside the period of
significance. The adobe and its surroundings were purchased by the City of Glendale in 1989 and are now a city park.

Verdugo Park, 1621 Cañada Blvd.

Figure 9. Site Plan for Verdugo Park, Glendale, [1945], Ralph D. Cornell Papers, UCLA Library, Special Collections.

18 See, for example, “The Verdugo Ranch,” Glendale Evening News Real Estate, October 2, 1909, and “Beauties of Nature Are Carefully Preserved,” Glendale Evening News, October 31, 1924, p. 16, GPL-SC, Verdugo Woodlands folders.
191 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

12 Verdugo Park was a major selling point for all iterations of development within the general Verdugo Woodlands area. It was never subdivided and remained informal open space before Glendale acquired it for a city park in 1944. The park was designed by celebrated landscape architect Ruth Shelhorn, working for Ralph Cornell. Shelhorn designed many important public landscaping projects in southern California including Disneyland and Bullocks Pasadena as well as other branches of the iconic department store.

Pirtle House, 2101 Cañada Blvd.

Side view of the 1912 Craftsman-influenced property built for John Pirtle, who created the initial subdivision as part of the Verdugo Canyon Land Company. Master architect and Glendale resident Alfred Priest designed the house. An octagonal roof-top dome is just visible through the foliage.

1616 Wabasso Way

192 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

13 An outstanding example of Prairie Style/Foursquare architecture, neither of which is common in Glendale,1616 Wabasso Way was built in 1914 (corrected from 1912 in the Niodrara Dr. survey) by master architect and Glendale resident Alfred Priest. The house was used frequently to advertise Selvas de Verdugo. In addition, between 1924 – 1931 it was owned by the heavyweight boxing champion Jess Willard. It is a contributor to the Niodrara Dr. Historic District.

1360 San Luis Rey

This Mediterranean Revival was designed by master architect and Glendale resident Alfred Priest in 1924.

Dick House, 1639 Santa Barbara Ave.

This Spanish Colonial Revival residence was designed in 1926 by the famous, prolific theater architect S. Charles Lee, the year before he got his first theater commission, to 193 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

14 design the Tower Theatre in downtown LA for H. L. Gumbiner. This property was recently listed on the Glendale Register.

Willard House, 2312 Blanchard St.

Willard House is number 113 on the Glendale Register and built in 1929. An English Revival with storybook elements, it was the residence of boxer Jess Willard after he moved from 1616 Wabasso Way.

Joy House, 1539 El Rito Ave.

Joy House is number 125 on the Glendale Register. It is one of a handful of Monterrey Colonial Revival properties in the Woodlands neighborhood, designed by noted architect Edward Mayberry in 1932.
194 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

15 Austin House, 1427 Andenes Dr.

Austin House is number 129 on the Glendale Register. It is an unusual Swiss chalet-style residence built in 1937.

Rodriguez House, 1845 Niodrara Dr.

Rodriguez House is number 24 on the Glendale Register. It is a modern wood frame, stucco, stone, and glass house designed by one of southern California’s most important and innovative architects, Rudolf Schindler, an Austrian émigré. It is located within the Niodrara Dr. Historic District and individually eligible for the National Register.

195 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

16 1900 Niodrara Dr.

This 1950 Rustic Ranch was designed by notable southern California architect, Robert Byrd, whose other works include the ranch house on actor Robert Taylor’s estate in Mandeville Canyon; a “tree house” on Laurel Canyon Blvd., where Frank Zappa lived; and the demolished Cielo House in Benedict Canyon, built for French actress Michele Morgan but best known as the house in which Sharon Tate and other victims of the Manson clan were murdered. Byrd, who was active from the 1930s through the 1960s, was known for working in an off-beat rustic style in which elements were combined somewhat higgeldly piggeldy: hence the nickname “Byrd House” for his works. It is a contributor to the Niodrara Dr. Historic District.

McKentley House, 2223 Bonita Dr.

This 1951 Mid-century Modern was designed in 1951 by noted architect Boyd Georgi.

Figure 20. McKentley House,
2223 Bonita Dr.

196 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

17 Markwith House, 1350 Andenes Dr.

This 1965 Mid-century Modern was designed by the husband/wife, USC-trained, architecture team Denver and Marjorie Markwith for their family.

197 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

18 Architectural Styles within the Proposed District

The following photographs are by no means a comprehensive survey of architectural styles but rather are designed to serve as an introduction to the range of styles.

American Colonial Revival

1555 Hillside Dr.

1627 Don Carlos Ave.

2300 Blanchard Dr.

198 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

19 Craftsman

1601 Hillside Dr.

1601 Hillside Dr. can be seen on the north-east corner of Bonita and Hillside in this undated historic photo.

1643 Wabasso Way

199 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

20 Dutch Colonial

1625 Opechee Way

1640 Santa Maria Ave.

200 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

21 English Revival

1601 Wabasso

1638 Capistrano Ave.
201 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

22 2401 Bonita Dr.
2407 Bonita Dr.
202 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

23 Foursquare

1648 Del Valle Ave.

203 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

24 French Revival

2301 Bonita Ave.

1347 San Luis Rey Dr.

204 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

25 Mediterranean Revival

1608 El Rito Ave.

1676 San Gabriel Ave.

2307 Blanchard Dr.

205 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

26 Mid-century Modern

1307 Opechee Way

1350 Capistrano Ave.

2400 Hermosita Ave.

206 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

27 Minimal Traditional

1400 Andenes Dr.

1615 Ramona Ave.

1664 Santa Barbara Ave.

207 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

28 Mission Revival

2511 Hermosita Dr.

2207 Canada Blvd.

208 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

29 Monterey Colonial Revival

1383 Opechee Way

1658 San Gabriel Ave.

1602 Santa Rosa Ave.

209 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

30 Ranch

1326 Opechee Way

1604 Hillside Dr.

2900 Hermosita Dr.

210 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

31 Spanish Colonial Revival

1533 Opechee Way

2313 Andenes Dr.

2410 Hermosita Dr.

211 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

32 Storybook

1632 Don Carlos

212 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

33 Tudor Revival

1614 Ramona Ave.

1626 Country Club Dr.

2411 Bonita Dr.

213 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

34 Historic Streetlamps

214 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

35 215 of 433

Selvas de Verdugo Application

36 216 of 433

4j
24-86462

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: City of Glendale’s Response to 2023-2024 Report by the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury re: Micromobility Devices

1. Resolution Approving City of Glendale’s Proposed Response Letter to the 2023- 2024 Report by the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury re: Micromobility Devices.

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council is being presented with the proposed response to the 2023-2024 Report by the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury re: Micromobility Devices. 217 of 433

5 5
2 0

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the proposed response, authorize the Mayor to sign, and direct staff to submit the attached letter to the Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court, in response to the report entitled “Micromobility Devices” issued by the 2023-2024 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury.

ANALYSIS
The 2023-2024 Civil Grand Jury conducted a study of micromobility devices, i.e. electric scooters and electric bikes. They looked at how vendors were permitted to operate within the City of Los Angeles, what the California DMV laws were that pertain to operating these devices, the use of private e-bikes and e-scooters, State legislation, community reactions and injuries or deaths caused by the careless riding of these instruments. The investigation found that following certain recommendations for using e-scooters and e- bikes would contribute to the United States’ Long-Term Strategy of lower emissions in the environment.

The report, entitled “Micromobility Devices: Pay Now or Pay Later”, was issued on June 28, 2024 (“Report”). The Report is attached as Exhibit 1. The Report made the following findings and recommendations:

Findings:
“2.1 Serious injuries and fatalities connected with micromobility devices are steadily rising.

2.2 Some communities are rejecting vendors.

2.3 Some electric scooter manufacturers offer liability insurance and some do not.

2.4 There is limited enforcement on violators riding on sidewalks, going in the wrong direction on streets, or exceeding the electric scooter speed limits.

2.5 There is no warning to pedestrians when an individual riding an e-scooter or e-bike is approaching people on the sidewalk.

2.6 Costs associated with micromobility device-related injuries create an economic burden on cities and businesses.

2.7 Most riders of e-bikes and e-scooters are not wearing helmets.

2.8 There is no official (internet, television, periodicals, social media, etc.) campaign associated with electric scooter or electric bike safety for operators and pedestrians provided by (add who you think should be providing this) (error in original Report).

2.9 There is inconsistency among the primary sellers of electric scooters as to the availability of liability insurance.

2.10 Senate Bill 381 requires the Mineta Transportation Institute to study injuries caused by e-bikes and how to improve rider safety.”
Recommendations:
“R2.1 Ensure LAPD, LBPD, other local municipal law enforcement agencies and campus police agencies and other local law enforcement agencies enforce electric scooters 218 of 433

5 5
2 0
prohibition against riding on sidewalk, helmet requirements, and speed limits.

R2.2 Municipal governments should update permit agreements to require electric scooter manufacturers to offer liability insurance.

R2.3 Local Agencies should create local ordinances to make mandatory the use of helmets while riding any of the e-bikes or e-scooters.

R2.4 Law enforcement agencies (LAPD, LBPD, Community College Campus Police) should create a campaign to educate pedestrians and operators to use safety equipment, e.g., helmets.

R2.5 Law enforcement agencies (LAPD, LBPD, and Community College Campus Police) should create e-bike and e-scooter User Education Course (similar to driver education for autos).

R2.6 Municipal governments should update permit agreements to require electric scooter and electric bike manufacturers to add some type of warning signal on their devices such as a horn or buzzer.

R2.7 LA County Board of Supervisors, Los Angeles County CEO, and Los Angeles City Mayor and City Council, and other major local city governments should support the passage of AB 381.”
The City of Glendale was asked to respond to recommendations R2.1, R2.4 and R2.5 in the Report.

Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the City must now submit an official response to the published Report indicating whether the City accepts the statements and recommendations. In its response, the City must either agree or disagree with the statements and state whether the recommendation has been implemented, has not yet been implemented, or will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation therefor. Below are the specific recommendations in the Report and the City of Glendale’s proposed responses.

Recommendation R2.1: Ensure LAPD, LBPD, other local municipal law enforcement agencies and campus police agencies and other local law enforcement agencies enforce electric scooters prohibition against riding on sidewalk, helmet requirements, and speed limits.

Response: The Police Department currently enforces laws pertaining to micromobility devices. The recommendation has been implemented. Officers issue citations for violations of law.

Recommendation R2.4: Law enforcement agencies (LAPD, LBPD, Community College Campus Police) should create a campaign to educate pedestrians and operators to use safety equipment, e.g., helmets.

Response: The Police Department will collaborate with other City of Glendale departments to create a campaign to educate the community regarding safety equipment for micromobility devices. The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. Implementation is anticipated by April 15, 2025. 219 of 433

5 5
2 0
Recommendation R2.5: Law enforcement agencies (LAPD, LBPD, and Community College Campus Police) should create e-bike and e-scooter User Education Course (similar to driver education for autos).

Response: An e-bike and e-scooter “User Education Course” would be beneficial for our community. The City has 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 proposed letter to the Presiding Judge is attached as Exhibit 2 to this report.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
N/A

FISCAL IMPACT
It is anticipated that the enforcement, education and outreach programs contemplated by this report fall within existing programs and can be absorbed by the Department’s budget.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: The Council may choose not to adopt the proposed response, but then will be out of compliance with state law which requires a response.

Alternative 2: Council may modify the proposed response to the Micromobility Report by the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury and adopt any such amended response.

Alternative 3: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Manuel Cid, Police Chief
220 of 433

5 5
2 0
Prepared by:

Ann Maurer, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Report by the 2023-2024 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury: “Micromobility Devices: Pay Now or Pay Later”
Exhibit 2: City’s Proposed Letter Response to Grand Jury Report 221 of 433

1 RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE RESPONSE TO THE 2023-2024 LOS ANGELES COUNTY CIVIL

GRAND JURY FINAL REPORT ON MICROBILITY DEVICES AND DIRECTING THE

CITY MANAGER TO TRANSMIT SAID RESPONSE TO THE PRESIDING JUDGE OF

THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
WHEREAS, California Penal Code section 919(b) provides: “The grand jury shall inquire into the condition and management of the public prisons within the county[.]”;; WHEREAS, on or about June 28, 2024, the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury released to the public its report entitled “Micromobility Devices: Pay Now or Pay Later” (“Micromobility Devices Report”) in its 2023-2024 Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury Final Report and said report contains recommendations;
WHEREAS, California Penal Code sections 933(c) and 933.05 require a public agency to provide a written response to recommendations contained in a final report of the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury;
WHEREAS, staff has reviewed the Micromobility Devices Report contained in the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury’s Final Report and has prepared proposed responses to the recommendations contained therein; and WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed and considered the proposed responses, as set forth in the Report to the City Council by the Chief of Police dated September 17, 2024, to the recommendations by the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury in the Micromobility Devices Report.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,
CALIFORNIA DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The proposed responses, as set forth in the report by the Chief of Police to the City Council dated September 17, 2024, to the recommendations contained in the Micromobility Devices Report are hereby approved as the City of Glendale’s official 222 of 433

2 response.

SECTION 2. The City Council does hereby authorize the Mayor to sign a letter containing the City of Glendale’s official response and authorizes and directs City Manager, or his designee, to transmit said letter forthwith to the Presiding Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

Adopted this _____ day of ______________, 2024.

By:

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

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

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk
223 of 433

224 of 433

225 of 433

226 of 433

227 of 433

228 of 433

229 of 433

230 of 433

231 of 433

232 of 433

233 of 433

234 of 433

235 of 433

236 of 433

237 of 433

238 of 433

239 of 433

240 of 433

241 of 433

242 of 433

243 of 433

244 of 433

245 of 433

September 17, 2024
The Honorable Samantha P. Jessner, Presiding Judge
Superior Court of California, Los Angeles County
Clara Shortridge Foltz Criminal Justice Center
210 West Temple Street, 13th Floor, Room 13-303
Los Angeles, CA 90012
RE: City of Glendale Response to the 2023-2024 Los Angeles County Grand Jury Report entitled “Detention
To the Honorable Samantha P. Jessner:

On June 28, 2024, the Los Angeles County Civil Grand Jury requested the City of Glendale respond to certain recommendations made in its report on Micromobility Devices.

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

Response: The police department currently enforces laws pertaining micromobility devices. The recommendation has been implemented. Officers issue citations for violations of law.

Recommendation R2.4: Law enforcement agencies (LAPD, LBPD, Community College Campus Police) should create a campaign to educate pedestrians and operators to use safety equipment, e.g., helmets.

Response: The police department will collaborate with other City of Glendale departments to create a campaign to educate the community regarding safety equipment for micromobility devices. The recommendation has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future. Implementation is anticipated by April 15, 2025.

Recommendation R2.5: Law enforcement agencies (LAPD, LBPD, and Community College Campus Police) should create e-bike and e-scooter User Education Course (like 246 of 433

The Honorable Samantha P. Jessner, Presiding Judge
September 17, 2024

Page 2 ends

Glendale City CouncilSeptember 17, 2024

Glendale City Council
September 17, 2024