Please Turn Off Cellular Phones While Inside the Council Chamber

R E V I S E D ITEM 4E1 HAS BEEN REVISED

A G E N D A GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL COUNCIL CHAMBER, City Hall – 613 E Broadway, 2nd Floor Glendale, CA 91206 Welcome to Glendale City Hall. Meetings are broadcast live on cable channel 6 (GTV6) and rebroadcast throughout the week. Call (818) 548-4013 for program schedules. DVDs of the proceedings are available for purchase in the City Clerk’s Office. Meetings are also archived on the City Website for viewing anytime at http://www.glendaleca.gov/government/agendas-minutes. If you have any question about matters on the agenda, or requests for assistance, please contact the City Clerk at (818) 548-2090 during regular business hours. PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, auxiliary hearing aids, sign language translation, and Braille transcripts are available upon request. Assisted listening devices are available same-day upon request. At least 48 hours (or two business days) notice is required for requests regarding sign language translation and Braille transcription services. All documents related to open session items on this agenda that are received less than 72 hours prior to this meeting, and are public records, will be available for review in the Office of the City Clerk, 613 E. Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206. Translation services are provided for meetings through the use of bilingual staff for speakers who wish to utilize the service as available. Speakers should state their request by contacting the City Clerk’s office at 818-548- 2090, at least 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please specify the language for which you require translation. The exclusive use of City provided interpreters is not required and persons are welcome to use their own interpreter or speak in their native language. OCTOBER 1, 2019 ROLL CALL 1. CLOSED SESSION – 1:00 p.m. (To Commence at 3:00 p.m.) a. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: F.E.&M., Inc., Employee's Defined Contribution Plan Trust Dated July 10, 1984 v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. BS169892. b. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: Save Our Glendale v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. BS174805. c. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: Banipal v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. BC680127. d. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation – Significant Exposure to Litigation pursuant subdivision (d)(2) of Government Code Section 54956.9: One (1) potential case. 2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:00 p.m. Roll Call a. Flag Salute: Council Member Gharpetian b. Invocation: Ardashes Kassakhian, City Clerk c. Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the October 1, 2019 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on Thursday, September 26, 2019, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall. 3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, October 8, 2019 TYPED 9/23/2019 8:42 AM 10 1 19 CC 1 b. Proclamation Designating October as Walktober, Walk to School, and Pedestrian Safety Awareness 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. Minutes of the Regular City Council Meetings of September 10, 2019 and September 17, 2019 b. General Manager of Glendale Water and Power, re: Summary Vacation of a Portion of the City of Glendale’s Electrical Easement on the Property Located at 910 Palm Drive (APN: 5628-015-013) 1. Resolution Ordering the Summary Vacation c. Directors of Public Works and Community Services and Parks, re: Pacific Park Playground and Pool Shade Structure Design and Engineering Contract with RJM Design Group, Inc. 1. Motion Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Amendment to the Existing Professional Services Agreement in the Amount of $27,900 for a New Not-to-Exceed Contract Amount of $107,700 d. Police Chief, re: The County of Los Angeles Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund and the Award of Grant Funds for the Purpose of Prosecution and/or Investigation of Real Estate Fraud 1. Motion Approving the Glendale Police Department’s Participation in the Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund Program; and Authorizing the City Manager to Accept Grant Funds in the Amount of $40,000, and Executing the Necessary Agreements, Certifications, and other Documents 2. Resolution Appropriating $40,000 e. Director of Community Development, re: West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study 1. Motion Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Service Agreement with Crandall Arambula a Professional Corporation for the West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study f. City Manager, re: Designation of a Voting Delegate and Alternates for the League of California Cities Annual Conference 1. Motion Designating Council Member Agajanian as the Voting Delegate, Assistant City Manager Golanian as the First Alternate, and Council Member Gharpetian as the Second Alternate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference to be Held October 16-18, 2019

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS 6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes) 7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES 8. ACTION ITEMS a. Director of Community Services and Parks, re: Maple Park Perimeter Fencing 1. Resolution Dispensing with Competitive Bidding and Authorizing the Purchasing Administrator to Enter Into and Execute a Purchase Order/Service Authorization with The Fence Store, Inc., dba Glendale Fence Co., in an Amount Not-to-Exceed $62,115, with a 10% Contingency, for the Purchase and Installation of Perimeter Fencing at Maple Park 2. Resolution Appropriating $75,000

TYPED 9/23/2019 8:42 AM 10 1 19 CC 2 b. Director of Community Services and Parks, re: Mosaic Art Project at the Deukmejian Wilderness Park through the Glendale Parks & Open Space Foundation 1. Motion Approving the Mosaic Art Project to Enable the Glendale Parks & Open Space Foundation to Raise Funds for the Project c. Director of Public Works, re: Standardization of Automated Side Loading Refuse Truck Bodies to Amrep, Inc. (Amrep) for the Purchase of New Refuse Trucks, Parts and Maintenance Services 1. Resolution Adopting Amrep as the City-Standard for Automated Side Loading Refuse Truck Bodies, Dispensing with Competitive Bidding for the Procurement of Amrep Automated Side Loading Refuse Truck Bodies form Authorized Dealers

9. HEARINGS

10. REPORTS – INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (5-Minutes) 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.

13. NEW BUSINESS

14. ADJOURNMENT

TYPED 9/23/2019 8:42 AM 10 1 19 CC 3

M I N U T E S GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 10, 2019

ROLL CALL – All Present 1. CLOSED SESSION – 3:59 p.m. a. Conference with Labor Negotiators. The City-designated negotiators attending the closed session are: Yasmin Beers, Roubik Golanian, Mike Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, Matt Doyle, Carl Povilaitis, and Michele Flynn. The name of the employee organization is: Glendale Management Association. b. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: F.E.&M., Inc., Employee's Defined Contribution Plan Trust Dated July 10, 1984 v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. BS169892.

City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is not anticipated. Council recessed to Closed Session at 3:59 p.m.

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:02 p.m. Roll Call – All Present a. Flag Salute: Council Member Quintero b. Invocation: Pastor Todd Leonard, Glendale City Church c. Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the September 10, 2019 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on Thursday, September 5, 2019, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, September 17, 2019 Asst. City Manager Roubik Golanian provided the preview.

b. Appointment of Board and Commission Member (Gharpetian, 8/27/19) 1. Albert Abkarian, Civil Service Commission Moved: Gharpetian Seconded: Devine Vote as Follows Ayes: Agajanian, Devine, Gharpetian, Quintero, Najarian Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None

c. Mayor’s Commendation for Homenetmen Glendale Ararat Chapter- Pan-Armenian Games Recognition Armik Ebrahimian

d. Mayor’s Commendation for Glendale Tech Week Sponsors Jennifer Hiramoto, Deputy Director of Community Development

e. Presentation by Glendale Water and Power re: Rossmoyne Explosion Steve Zurn, General Manager of GWP

9 10 19 CC 1 4A

Items 4d and 4f pulled for separate consideration.

a. Minutes of the Joint Housing Authority and City Council Meeting of August 27, 2019 and Special City Council Meeting of August 27, 2019 Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Quintero Vote as Follows b. Ayes: Agajanian, Devine, Gharpetian, Quintero, Najarian c. Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None

b. General Manager of Glendale Water and Power, re: Adopt Specification No. 3824 for the Citywide Utility Street Repairs Project 1. Resolution 19-117 Adopting Specification No. 3824, and Directing the City Clerk to Advertise for Bids Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Quintero Vote as Follows d. Ayes: Agajanian, Devine, Gharpetian, Quintero, Najarian e. Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None

c. General Manager of Glendale Water and Power, re: Adopt Specification No. 3825 to Furnish TLH-21 or Compatible Load Tap Changers (LTC) for the Columbus Transformer No. 1 LTC Replacement 1. Resolution 19-118 Adopting Specification No. 3825, and Directing the City Clerk to Advertise for Bids Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Quintero Vote as Follows f. Ayes: Agajanian, Devine, Gharpetian, Quintero, Najarian Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None

d. General Manager of Glendale Water and Power, re: Glendale Water and Power (GWP) Power Source Disclosure for Calendar Year 2018

Staff Comment: Steve Zurn, General Manager

Public Comment: Burt Culver

9 10 19 CC 2

1. Motion to Note and File Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Devine Vote as Follows g. Ayes: Agajanian, Devine, Gharpetian, Quintero, Najarian Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None

e. General Manager of Glendale Water and Power and City Attorney, re: Bond and Disclosure Counsel Services for Proposed Glendale Water and Power (GWP) Water (Refunding) Revenue Bonds 2008 Series 1. Motion Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Legal Services Agreement with Norton Rose Fulbright US, LLP to Act as GWP’s Bond Counsel and Disclosure Counsel for Proposed 2008 Water (Refunding) Revenue Bonds in the Not-to-Exceed Amount of $110,000 Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Quintero Vote as Follows Ayes: Agajanian, Devine, Gharpetian, Quintero, Najarian Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None

f. Chief of Police, re: 2019-2020 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 Accepting $280,000 in Grant Funds and Authorizing Grant Participation Moved: Devine Seconded: Quintero Vote as Follows h. Ayes: Agajanian, Devine, Gharpetian, Quintero, Najarian i. Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None

2. Resolution 19-119 Appropriating $280,000 Moved: Devine Seconded: Quintero Vote as Follows j. Ayes: Agajanian, Devine, Gharpetian, Quintero, Najarian k. Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None

9 10 19 CC 3

g. City Clerk, re: Legal Advertising Contract for the City of Glendale, in Connection with Specification No. 3822 1. Resolution 19-120 Adopting Specification No. 3822, and Directing the City Clerk to Advertise for Bids Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Quintero Vote as Follows l. Ayes: Agajanian, Devine, Gharpetian, Quintero, Najarian m. Noes: None Absent: None Abstain: None

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS Council Member Devine asked staff a report on Outreach Program for the East West Community Plan. City Manager Yasmin Beers and Asst. Director of Community Development Bradley Calvert provided information. Devine congratulated Glendale Beautiful for hosting Music on the Porch Event. She attended the American University of Armenia Gala.

Council Member Gharpetian attended the following Events: Contract Cities Association in La Cañada, SCAG Meeting, Montrose Shopping Park Association, Elks Lodge Fundraising, AYSO, Montecito Block Party, Armenian American Orphans Fundraising Event and asked Council to present a Commendation for Mr. Ohannes Balian for his fundraising efforts. He spoke about the American University of Armenia. Gharpetian also attended the Royal Canyon Homeowners Event where he felt insulted. Council provided their comments.

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes) Beth Volpe Greg Astorian Ara Manoogian Angie Meserkhani Irene Vajabedian

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES 8. ACTION ITEMS a. Director of Community Services and Parks, re: Placement of a Bench with a Plaque at Deukmejian Wilderness Park in Memory of Former City of Glendale Employee Marc Stirdivant

Staff Comments: Yasmin Beers, City Manager Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services and Parks

1. Motion Authorizing Placement of Bench with a Plaque at Deukmejian Wilderness Park at Deukmejian Wilderness Park and Brand Park Trails. Moved: Devine Seconded: Gharpetian Vote as Follows n. Ayes: Agajanian, Devine, Gharpetian, Quintero, Najarian o. Noes: None Absent: None 9. HEARINGSAbstain: None

9 10 19 CC 4

a. Director of Community Development, re: Consideration of Ordinances Amending Title 4, 5, and 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, and General Plan Amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) to Prohibit Vacation Rentals, and Permit and Regulate Home-Sharing (Zoning Code Amendment Case No. PZC 1911458 and General Plan Amendment Case No. PGPA 1911459)

Staff Comments: Yasmin Beers, City Manager Carl Povilaitis, Police Chief Mike Garcia, City Attorney

Presenting: Kristen Asp, Principal Planner

Public Comments: Shawn Kelly Octavio Pedroza Aradi Mañon Derek Hof Jessica Gibson Matthew Buck Elida Tsou John Choi, Airbnb Hamid Atighi Luiz Teixeira Kathleen Cross Amelia Pitti Vahe Saradjian Herbert Molano Jason Lee Craig Messner

Items will come back to Council after 45 days.

1. Ordinance for Introduction Amending Titles 4 and 5

Ordinance Introduced by: Devine

2. Ordinance for Introduction Amending Title 30

Ordinance Introduced by: Devine

3. Ordinance for Introduction Amending the DSP

Ordinance Introduced by: Devine

4. Resolution Amending 2019-2020 Citywide Fee Schedule by Establishing Home- Sharing License Fee 5. Resolution Amending 2019-2020 Citywide Fee Schedule Regarding Administrative Citation Fine Amounts 6. Motion Directing Staff Regarding Future Amendments and Enforcement Policy

9 10 19 CC 5

10. REPORTS – INFORMATION 11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS 12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS (5-Minutes) 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.

Herbert Molano

13. NEW BUSINESS 14. ADJOURNMENT – 10:30 p.m. Moved: Quintero Seconded: Agajanian

Mayor of the City of Glendale

City Clerk of the City of Glendale

9 10 19 CC 6

M I N U T E S GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 17, 2019

ROLL CALL – Absent: Quintero 1. CLOSED SESSION – 3:19 p.m. a. Conference with Labor Negotiators. The City-designated negotiators attending the closed session are: Yasmin Beers, Roubik Golanian, Mike Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, Matt Doyle, Carl Povilaitis, and Michele Flynn. The name of the employee organization is: Glendale Management Association. b. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: F.E.&M., Inc., Employee's Defined Contribution Plan Trust Dated July 10, 1984 v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. BS169892.

City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is not anticipated. Council recessed to Closed Session at 3:20 p.m.

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:05 p.m. Roll Call – Absent: Quintero a. Flag Salute: Council Member Agajanian b. Invocation: Ardashes Kassakhian, City Clerk c. Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the September 17, 2019 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on Thursday, September 12, 2019, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, September 24, 2019 Deputy City Manager John Takhtalian provided the preview. Fire Chief Lanzas invited the public on Workboot Tuesday Meeting at 3pm which will be held in the Glendale Fire Department Training Center at 541 W. Chevy Chase.

b. Presentation: Shoseian Japanese Tea House and Friendship Garden Renovation Michael Belzer of Shoseain Tea House, Hideki Hara and Hiroko Tsuka from Japan Foundation, Japan Senator Rui Matsukawa, and Japanese Consul General Rui Matsukawa

c. Mayor’s Commendation for Sister-City Higashi-Osaka City Seal Clean-Up

9 17 19 CC 1 4A

b. General Manager of Glendale Water and Power, re: Amendment No. 3 to Transmission Services Agreement No. 10929 (Transmission of Hoover Power) 1. Motion Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 3 Extending Transmission Services Agreement No. 10929 between the Cities of Glendale and Los Angeles to Provide Continued Transmission of Hoover Power for the City of Glendale Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Devine Vote as Follows c. Ayes: Agajanian, Devine, Gharpetian, Najarian Noes: None Absent: Quintero Abstain: None

c. General Manager of Glendale Water and Power, re: Specification No. 3807 and Plan No. 6890-E for the Glorietta Park Pump Station Pump No. 2 Replacement Project 1. Resolution 19-122 Adopting Plans and Specifications, and Directing the City Clerk to Advertise for Bids Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Devine Vote as Follows d. Ayes: Agajanian, Devine, Gharpetian, Najarian Noes: None Absent: Quintero Abstain: None

d. Director of Public Works, re: Transfer of Miscellaneous Transfer Drain (MTD) No. 1773 to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for Operation and Maintenance 1. Resolution 19-123 to Transfer and Convey MTD No. 1773 to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Devine Vote as Follows e. Ayes: Agajanian, Devine, Gharpetian, Najarian Noes: None Absent: Quintero Abstain: None

e. Director of Public Works, re: Approval of the Final Map for Tract No. 73585, 27-Unit Condominium Subdivision at 625 S. Pacific Avenue 1. Resolution 19-124 Approving the Final Map of Tract No. 73585 Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Devine Vote as Follows f. Ayes: Agajanian, Devine, Gharpetian, Najarian Noes: None Absent: Quintero Abstain: None

9 17 19 CC 2

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS Council Member Devine congratulated staff on the success of Glendale Tech Week. She attended the following Events: Not on my Watch Event and Mission Armenia Fundraising. She read her statement regarding the Royal Canyon Homeowners Event issue.

Council Member Gharpetian attended the following Events: Japanese Tea Garden, Not on my Watch, and Glendale Arts and Music Festival. Gharpetian read his statement on the HOA issue. He asked staff to look into a citywide initiative on behavioral intervention.

Mayor Najarian announced that Caruso Organization issues scholarships to deserving high school students in the region. He congratulated two students from Glendale who received the award. He attended nine events this past weekend and apologized to the events he was not able to attend to. He sent his best wishes and good luck for Mission Armenia Organization.

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes) Brittney Carol Arda Tchakian Steve Hunt Nahid LaCiura Rafael Cesar Estrada Tamara Movsesyan Sharon Weisman

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES 8. ACTION ITEMS a. Director of Public Works and Fire Chief, re: Regarding the Standardization of Fire Apparatus to Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. (Pierce) for the Purchase of New Pierce Fire Engines, Parts and Apparatus Maintenance Services

Staff Comment: Yazdan Emrani, Director of Public Works

1. Resolution 19-125 Adopting Pierce as the City-Standard for Fire Apparatus and Dispensing with Competitive Bidding for the Procurement of Pierce Fire Apparatus, Pierce Fire Apparatus Parts, and Pierce Fire Apparatus Maintenance Services with South Coast Fire Equipment, Inc. (South Coast) Moved: Devine Seconded: Agajanian Vote as Follows g. Ayes: Agajanian, Devine, Gharpetian, Najarian Noes: None Absent: Quintero Abstain: None

9 17 19 CC 3

b. Director of Community Development, re: Proposed South Cumberland Heights and Casa Verdugo Historic Districts – Authorization for Funding to Conduct Historic Resource Surveys

Staff Comments: Phil Lanzafame, Director of Community Development Jay Platt, Sr. Urban Designer

Public Comments: Chris Cragnotti Bob Nicksin Derek Catao Mark Taraborelli Katherine Yamada Robin Fey Felix Fey Steve Hunt Elizabeth Chappell Mary Wallace Dan Brotman

Najarian asked staff for an update on the Glendale Historical Districts. Seconded by Devine.

1. Motion Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Professional Service Agreement with Architectural Resources Group for the South Cumberland Heights and Casa Verdugo Historic District Surveys; Said Agreement Shall Be Subject to Approval as to Form by the City Attorney Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Gharpetian Vote as Follows h. Ayes: Agajanian, Devine, Gharpetian, Najarian Noes: None Absent: Quintero Abstain: None

2. Resolution 19-126 Appropriating $69,040 Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Gharpetian Vote as Follows i. Ayes: Agajanian, Devine, Gharpetian, Najarian Noes: None Absent: Quintero Abstain: None

9. HEARINGS 10. REPORTS – INFORMATION 11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

9 17 19 CC 4

Neda Farhoumand Roobik Thorossian Herbert Molano Taline Arsenian

13. NEW BUSINESS 14. ADJOURNMENT – 7:57 p.m. Moved: Devine Seconded: Agajanian

Mayor of the City of Glendale

City Clerk of the City of Glendale

9 17 19 CC 5

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA REPORT TO THE: Joint D City Council D Housing Authority D Successor Agency El Oversight Board LI

October 1, 2019

AGENDA ITEM Report: Resolution Ordering the Summary Vacation of a Portion of the City of Glendale’s Electrical Easement on the Property Located at 910 Palm Drive (APN: 5628- 01 5-013)

1. Resolution ordering the Summary Vacation of a portion of the City of Glendale’s electrical easement on the property located at 910 Palm Drive (APN: 5628-015-01 3).

COUNCIL ACTION Public Hearing El Ordinance El Consent Calendar ~ Action Item LI Report Only El Approved for Ork~-er ‘~ ~IXI19 calendar

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Submitted by:

Stephen M. Zurn, General Manager - GWP

Prepared by:

Daniel Scorza, Chief Assistant General Manager — Electric

Approved by: Yasmin K. Beers, City Manager

Reviewed by: Roubik Golanian, Assistant City Manager

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney

Michele Flynn, Director of Finance~k~”~ I 481 RECOMMENDATION Glendale Water and Power (GWP) staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution ordering the Summary Vacation of a portion of the certain right of way and electrical easement that was granted to the City of Glendale by Grant of Easement, as

described in Exhibit 1 - Legal Description & Map, attached hereto, and authorize the City Manager, or her designee, to execute any other documentation as may be required to accomplish said summary vacation.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS California Streets and Highways Code Section 8333 allows a legislative body to summarily vacate a public service easement in either one of the following instances:

(a) The easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation. (b) The date of dedication or acquisition is less than five years, and more than one year, immediately preceding the proposed vacation, and the easement was not used continuously since that date. (c) The easement has been superseded by relocation and there are no other public facilities located within the easement.

The Summary Vacation process differs from the traditional Vacation process in that a public hearing is not required. If either one of the above circumstances are met, the City Council can adopt a Resolution to summarily vacate an easement.

The property located at 910 Palm Drive with APN: 5628-015-013 (“Property”) belongs to, Hagop Jack Baboudjian, a single man (“Owner”) per Grant Deed recorded December 2, 2015, Instrument No. 20151503230, Official Records, Los Angeles County, California. Owner has applied for the vacation of a portion of the electric easement on the property. After investigation, the City has determined that the portion of the existing electrical easement to be vacated is no longer necessary to the City, as there are no electrical facilities within that certain portion, and there are no other public facilities located within the easement which would be affected by the vacation. Therefore, the vacation qualifies for the summary vacation process, under Streets and Highways Code Section 8333(a). The said portion of the City’s electric easement proposed to be vacated is described and

shown in Exhibit 1 - Legal Description & Map.

The proposed action is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. The proposed action involves the vacation of a portion of the electrical easement where said easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated and will not cause or facilitate any physical changes that may result in environmental impacts.

FISCAL IMPACT There will be no fiscal impact on the City of Glendale as a result of this transaction.

2 ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1: The City Council may adopt the Resolution ordering Summary Vacation of the portion of the City of Glendale’s electric easements referenced herein.

Alternative 2: The City Council may choose to not adopt the Resolution ordering Summary Vacation as required herein.

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

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE Not applicable.

EXHIBIT(S) Exhibit 1: Legal description and map of electrical easement and the portion of the electrical easement proposed for summary vacation.

3 RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, ORDERING THE SUMMARY VACATION OF UTILITY EASEMENT ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 910 PALM DRIVE, IN THE CITY OF GLENDALE

WHEREAS, the City of Glendale (“City”) holds an electric service easement on the property located at 910 Palm Drive, in the City of Glendale (“Property”) currently owned by Hagop Jack Baboudjian (“Owner”); and

WHEREAS, the Owner has applied for the vacation of a certain portion of the City’s Electric Easement, which is not necessary for present or prospective electrical utility purposes; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 8333, the City Council may summarily vacate a public service easement if the easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated or acquired for five consecutive years preceding the proposed vacation or if the easement has been superseded by relocation and there are no other public facilities located within the easement;

WHEREAS, the City has determined that there is a certain portion of the existing electrical easement, granted to the City by Grant Easement as described in the Legal Description & Map attached hereto as Exhibit “1” and recorded with the Los Angeles County Recorder’s Office, State of California, which is no longer necessary to the City as the electrical facilities within that certain portion have been relocated and there are no other public facilities located within the easement which would be affected by the vacatign; and

WHEREAS, the summary vacation of the certain portion of the herein subject electric easement is categorically exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061 (b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, as the action involves the vacation of a portion of electrical easement where said portion of the easement has not been used for the purpose for which it was dedicated and will not cause or facilitate any physical changes that may result in environmental impacts.

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

Section 1. The City Council of the City of Glendale finds from all of the evidence submitted in the Report to the City Council dated October 1, 2019 by the General Manager of Glendale Water & Power Department, that the portion of the Electric Easement as described in Exhibit “1”, attached thereto, and by this reference made a part thereof, does not contain any electrical facilities as the electrical facilities have been relocated, and there are no other public facilities located within that certain portion of the easement to be vacated which would be affected by the vacation.

Section 2. The vacation is consistent with the General Plan. 481 Section 3. The City Council orders that from and after the date this Resolution is recorded, the portion of the Electric Easement depicted in Exhibit “1” is vacated and that portion no longer constitutes a public service easement.

Section 4. The City Clerk of the City of Glendale is hereby authorized and directed to certify to the passage of this Resolution. The City Clerk is further authorized to cause a certified copy of this Resolution, attested by the City Clerk and under the seal of the City, to be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of Los Angeles County, California.

Section 5. The City Manager, or her designee, is authorized to execute any other documentation as may be required to accomplish the herein ordered vacation.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on this day of ______2019.

Mayor

ATTEST:

City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) 55. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I, Ardashes Kassakhian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ______was adopted by a majority vote of the

Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the ______day

of ______, 2019, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain;

City Clerk

AP~~9 AS TO FORM

Senior Assistant cit~A~3~r Date______EXHIBIT I LEGAL DESCRIPTION & MAP

The Property

Lot 113 of Tract No. 11040, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 193, Pages 18 through 21 inclusive of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County.

Portion of Existing City Electrical Easement to be Vacated

The Easterly 5.00 feet of Lot 113 of Tract No. 11040, in the City of Glendale, County of Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 193, Pages 18 through 21 inclusive of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, except the Southerly 5.00 feet granted to the City by Grant of Easement recorded August 22, 1936, Book 14302, Page 322, Official Records, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

PALM DR

&iI

I V//A ELECTRICAL EASEMENT AREA PORTION OP ELECTRICAL TO REMAIN EASEMENTTO BE VACATED

910 PALM DRIVE APN: 5628-015-013

—1-- EXHIBIT I LEGAL DESCRIPTION & MAP

The Property

Portion of Existing City Electrical Easement to be Vacated

The Easterly 5.00 feet of Lot 113 of Tract No. 11040, in the City of Glendale, County ol Los Angeles, State of California, as per map recorded in Book 193, Pages 18 through 21 inclusive of Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County, except the Southerly 5.00 feet granted to the City by Grant of Easement recorded August 22, 1936, Book 14302, Page 322, Official Records, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

PALM DR

PORTION OF ELEO1RIC~J. EASEMENTTO BE VACATED

I ELECTRICAL EASEMENT AREA PORTION OF ELECTRICAL TO REMAIN EASEMENTTO BE VACATED

910 PALM DRIVE APN: 5628-015-013

—1— CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA REPORTTO THE:

Joint D City Council ~ Housing Authority D Successor Agency LI Oversight Board LI October 1,2019

AGENDA ITEM Report: Regarding the Pacific Park Playground and Pool Shade Structure Design and Engineering Contract with RJM Design Group, Inc. 1. Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the existing Professional Services Agreement (106901) with RJM Design Group, Inc. in the amount of $27,900 for a new not-to-exceed contract amount of $107,700. COUNCIL ACTION Public Hearing LI Ordinance LI Consent Calendar ~ Action Item LI Report Only LI

Approved for October 1, 2019 calendar

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION Signatur

Submitted by: Yazdan T. Emrani, P.E., Director of Public Works

Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services & Parks Prepared by: Shahen Begoumian, Project Manager Approved by: Yasmin K. Beers, City Manager Reviewed by: Roubik Golanian, P.E., Assistant City Manager

Kevin C. Todd, Assistant Director of Public Works

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney

Michele Flynn, Director of Finance 4~Yafll/:~ (I R:CI RECOMMENDATION Staff respectfully recommends Council approve a Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute an Amendment to the existing Professional Services Agreement (106901) with RJM Design Group, Inc., in the amount of $27,900 for a new not-to-exceed contract amount of $107,700.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The existing Pacific Park water play feature has been a welcome and fun reprieve from the heat for many children for over 15 years and is now in need of replacement. Due to its extensive use and age, the feature has significant calcium buildup, corrosion, and requires valve replacement annually to repair water leaks. The project will replace the existing water play feature, and nearly double its existing size. The new water play feature will be more sustainable by incorporating a water recycling system as required by the current local and state regulations. The larger size water play feature will increase the number of users that can take advantage of the site, and the increased number of water play activities will offer more opportunities for interaction and enjoyment.

On August 28, 2018, City Council approved a Motion authorizing a Professional Services Agreement with RJM Design Group, Inc., for professional design and engineering services for the Pacific Park Playground and Pool Shade Structure Project. To date, programming, site studies, designs, and engineering have been completed to the point of plan check review.

On August 20, 2019, the City received plan check comments from the Los Angeles County Health Department. Per the comments received, the project requires additional site elements including a new equipment enclosure, water treatment chemical room, and an outside shower, to comply with the County health code requirements for an aquatic facility. The additional contract amount is required to fund the designs, engineering, and permitting of these additional elements.

Project Schedule To minimize the impact on Pacific Park activities, these improvements are tentatively scheduled to begin in Fall of 2020 and be completed by the end of the year.

FISCAL IMPACT Funding for the design and engineering of the Pacific Park Playground and Pool Shade Structure Project has already been approved in the FY 19/20 budget and is available in the following account:

Account Number Additional Amount New Total Not-To-Exceed Amount with the Amendment 51200-401 0-CSP-0020-P0000-T0000-F0000 $27,900 $107,700 Project 52144

The preliminary estimate for the construction of the Pacific Park Playground and Pool Shade Structure Project is $800,000

2 ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1: The City Council may approve a Motion authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the existing Professional Services Agreement (106901) with RJM Design Group, Inc. in the amount of $27,900 for a new not-to-exceed contract amount of $107,700.

Alternative 2: The City Council may elect to defer all or part of the improvements. In this case extensive resources will continue to be applied toward keeping the existing water play feature in-service for as long as possible.

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

EXHIBITS N/A

3 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 and execute an amendment to the existing Professional Services Agreement (Contract No. 106901) with RJM Design Group, Inc. to provide additional site elements for the Pacific Park Playground and Pool Shade Structure Project— as outlined in the Director of Community Services and Park’s October 1, 2019 Report to the City Council— in the amount of $27,900.00. The contract price, with the amendment, must not exceed $107,700.00.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Mich el R. Grant Principal Assistant City Attorney

Date: ______IC!

J\FILES\000FJLESWACTFINDWACIFIC PARK PLAYGROUND & POOL SHADE. RJM DESIGN GROUP. PSA AMEND - MGF.DDCX CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA REPORT TO THE: Joint El City Council ~ Housing Authority El Successor Agency El Oversight Board El

October 1,2019

AGENflA ITEM Report: The County of Los Angeles Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund and the award of grant funds for the purpose of prosecution and/or investigation of real estate fraud.

1) Motion to approve the Glendale Police Department’s participation in the Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund Program, to authorize the City Manager or her designee to accept grant funds in the amount of $40,000.00, and to execute the necessary agreements, certifications, and other documents required to accept the grant funds.

2) Resolution of appropriation

CflhINflhI ACTIflN Public Hearing El Ordinance El Consent Calendar ~ Action Item El Report OnlyEl Approved for I calendar

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION Signature Submitted by: Carl Povilaitis, Chief of Police ‘6—

Prepared by: Tim Oswandel, Police Lieutenant

Approved by: Yasmin Beers, City Manager

Reviewed by: Roubik Golanian, Assistant City Manager

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney

Michelle Flynn, Director of Finance 401 RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt a motion to approve the participation of the Glendale Police Department in the Los Angeles County Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Grant Program, authorize the City Manager or her designee to accept grant funds made available in the amount of $40,000.00, and approve a resolution of appropriation.

BACKGROUNDIANALYSIS The Glendale Police Department’s Financial Crime Unit is tasked with investigating a wide variety of financial crimes. The Unit currently consists of four detectives and a supervisor. Prior to FY 2018-2019, one detective was primarily responsible for the investigation of real estate fraud under the Los Angeles County Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund. Other detectives assisted in the investigation of real estate fraud related crimes on an as needed basis. Currently real estate fraud cases are investigated by all detectives in the Financial Crimes Unit, as opposed to one detective being responsible for all real estate fraud investigations. This allows for all the detectives to gain valuable experience in the investigation of these complex cases.

Although the Glendale Police Department has been committed to investigating and prosecuting real estate fraud since 2004, we have only received the assistance of grant funding through the Los Angeles County Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund since 2009. The grant has provided the Glendale Police Department with $1,146,934.00 between FY2009-2010 and FY2019-2020.

• FY 2009-2010 Award - $33,000.00 • FY 2010-2011 Award -$150,000.00 • FY 2011-2012 Award -$189,934.00 • FY 2012-2013 Award -$200,000.00 • FY 2013-2014 Award -$189,000.00 • FY 2014-2015 Award- $120,000.00 • FY 201 5-2016 Award- $50,000.00 • FY 2016-2017 Award- $75,000.00 • FY 2017-2018 Award- $50,000~00 • FY 2018-2019 Award- $50,000.00 • FY 2019-2020 Award- $40,000.00

The Los Angeles County Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund was established to assist the District Attorney’s Office and local law enforcement by providing the necessary funding to investigate and prosecute these complex cases that take between six to eighteen months to complete.

In 1995, the Legislature enacted Chapter 942, Statutes of 1995 (SB 537, Hughes), which created the Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund Program. Initially, the program allowed counties to establish a fee of up to $2 for the filing of certain real estate documents with the county. These revenues were dedicated to support local law enforcement activities to fight real estate fraud. Beginning in 2009, counties were allowed to charge a fee of up to $3 for these purposes when these documents are filed. Counties that opt into the program are required to deposit any fee revenues into a Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund

2 for use by local police, sheriffs, and district attorneys to deter, investigate, and prosecute real estate fraud crimes. Local law enforcement agencies receive 40 percent and district attorneys receive 60 percent of program allocations from the fund.

The Glendale Police Department has had the privilege of participating in this program since 2009. The Glendale Police Department’s participation in this program allows for the investigation of real estate fraud cases within our jurisdiction. The funding allows our agency to partner with professionals in the field of real estate to create “best practices” which deter fraud and ultimately protect consumers. It also allows investigators to educate the public through town hall forums where valuable information can be shared with members of our community.

Participation in this program provides the Glendale Police Department with valuable resources necessary to forge partnerships with the community, professionals, and other law enforcement agencies to combat the crime of real estate fraud.

FISCAL IMPACT There will be no fiscal impact to the City as there is no City match required by the grant. A resolution of appropriation is requested to appropriate $40,000.00 in grant funds received, in the following accounts:

Account Number Description From To 34301-2610-GPD- I LA County Real Estate Fraud Prosecution $40,000 0020-GP000I67AG Grant

41200-2610-GPD- Overtime - LA County Real Estate Fraud $30,000 0020-GPDOOI67AG Prosecution Grant 44650-2610-GPD- Training- LA County Real Estate Fraud $5,000 0020-GPDOOI67AG Prosecution Grant 44550-2610-GPD- Travel- LA County Real Estate Fraud $5,000 0020-GPDOOI67AG Prosecution_Grant

ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1: Approve as requested by the Police Department.

Alternative 2: Rely on traditional Police Department resources to fund the investigative efforts toward real estate fraud.

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

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE

None — There are no companies or subcontractors involved with this proposal. This Trust Fund is authorized by Government Code section 27388.

EXHIBITS None

3 MOTION

Moved by Council Member ______seconded by Council Member ______that the

Glendale Police Departments participation in the County of Los Angeles Real Estate

Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund Program (“Program”) is hereby approved. The City

Manager or her designee is hereby authorized to accept grant funds from the Program in the amount of $40,000, as more particularly discussed in the report by the Chief of

Police to City Council dated October 1, 2019, and to execute the necessary agreements, certifications and other documents to accept said grant funds.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:

Genera o nsel - Police

Date: ______

\\ca2000\data\shared\rILEs\oocFILEs\FAcTFIND\ReaI Estate Fraud Grant 2019.docx ~ot RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE MAKING AN APPROPRIATION BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE: SECTION 1: That the sum of $40,000 is hereby appropriated and/or transferred from the following accounts to the following accounts: ACCOUNTS DESCRIPTION FROM TO 34301-261 0-GPD-0020- Local Grants, Police Special Grants $40,000 GPD001 67AG Fund, Police, Projects, 2019-20 Real Estate Fraud Grant 41200-261 0-GPD-0020- Overtime, Police Special Grants Fund, $30,000 GPDOO1 67AG Police, Projects, 201 9-20 Real Estate Fraud Grant 44650-261 0-GPD-0020- Training, Police Special Grants Fund, $5,000 GPDO01 67AG Police, Projects, 2019-20 Real Estate Fraud Grant 44550-26 1 0-GPD-0020- Travel, Police Special Grants Fund, $5,000 GPDOO1 67AG Police, Projects, 201 9-20 Real Estate Fraud Grant To appropriate grant funding received from the Los Angeles County Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund for the purpose of prosecution and/or investigation of real estate fraud. SECTION 2: The Director of Finance is authorized to make such other revisions, individual appropriation line-items, changes in summaries, fund totals, grand totals, and other portions of the budget document as necessary to reflect and implement the changes specified in this resolution. SECTION 3: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

Adopted this day of ______, 2019.

Mayor ATTEST: CITY OF GLENDALE DATE 09/16/2019 APPROVED AS TO FINANCIAL City Clerk PROVISION FOR $ 40,000

STATE OF CALIFORNIA)

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS L4~%L S CITY OF GLENDALE) Director of - ance I, Ardashes Kassakhian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the______day.of ______, 2019, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent; Abstain:

City Clerk 4 02 DP’TE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA REPORT TO THE: Joint fl City Council ~ Housing Authority U Successor Agency El Oversight Board fl October 1, 2019

AGENDA ITEM

Report: West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute a Professional Service Agreement with Crandall Arambula a Professional Corporation for the West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study.

COUNCIL ACTION Public Hearing El Ordinance U Consent Calendar ~ Action Item ~ Report Only ~

Approved for October 1~ .2019 calendar

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Submitted by: Philip Lanzafame, Director of Community Development

Prepared by: Fred Zohrehvand, Sr. Planner- Transportation

Approved by: Yasmin K. Beers, City Manager

Reviewed by: Roubik R. Golanian, Assistant City Manager

Bradley Calvert, Assistant Director of Community Development

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney

Michele Flynn, Director of Finance4Q4/~

RECOMMENDATION

Staff respectfully recommends the City Council: E I 1. Approve the attached Motion awarding a contract to Crandall Arambula, a Professional Corporation and authorize the City Manager or her designee to execute a Professional Service Agreement with Crandall Arambula in the amount of $419, 320 for the West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study.

BACKGROUNDIANALYSIS

SUMMARY In January 2018, Caltrans issued solicitation for the Sustainable Communities Competitive Grant. The objective of the Grant is to encourage local and regional multimodal transportation and land use planning that furthers the region’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP)/Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and contributes to the State’s greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets. Community Development Department staff submitted an application for the West Glendale Corridor Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study and was awarded $300,000 in associated grant funds. As part of the local match requirement for this project, staff also requested and received approval for $200,000 in Transportation Development Act (TDA) Article 3 funds for this project. TDA Article 3 local funds are allocated to local agencies on a per-capita basis for pedestrian and bicycle related projects and studies. This project will not use any city general funds.

Proiect Objectives The West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study will recommend multimodal enhancements and land use changes along key corridors in the West Glendale Community that support transit use, walking and bicycling; reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and GHGs; and enhance the quality of life for the West Glendale community, connecting the area’s key employment, educational, and recreational destinations to the area’s residents, employees and visitors. The Study will be community-driven through a robust multilingual community outreach process. A key component of the study will determine the feasibility of protected bicycle lanes and improved pedestrian connections along Glenoaks Boulevard. The data collected from this study will also investigate the potential to incorporate multi-modal improvements and transit- supportive land uses along corridors linking to Glenoaks Boulevard.

The West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study will be prepared within the timeframe starting in December 2019 and completion anticipated in or prior to June 2021 (Exhibit 4). Pending City Council approval, it is expected the land use and transportation recommendations from the West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study will inform future planning efforts.

The boundaries of the Study will be Glenwood Road on the north (extending to Stocker Street east of Pacific Avenue), Brand Boulevard to the east, the 134 Freeway to the south, and City of Burbank city limits to the west (Exhibit 1). This plan will allow analysis to determine potential changes to land use and the feasibility of complete streets transportation infrastructure, increasing the likelihood for policy direction in the Community Plan. This in turn will result in changes to allow for transit-supportive land uses and the installation of complete streets infrastructure for walking, bicycling and transit use, subsequently reducing VMT and GHGs.

The West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study will be conducted to coincide with ongoing and recently completed city and regional projects including, the City

2 Streetcar Feasibility Study, Citywide Pedestrian Plan, City’s programmed Complete Street projects, Pasadena- North Hollywood Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), Los Angeles — Glendale — Burbank Metrolink Feasibility Study for services expansion and Light Rail, emerging Micro- Transportation technology and California High Speed Rail. The West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study will be informed by and coordinated with these studies and will benefit from them.

West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study: Request for Proposals

In November 2018, City Council authorized staff to issue a Request for Proposals (REP) and adopted a resolution to appropriate $300,000 for the Caltrans Sustainable Transportation Grant and $200,000 from TDA- Article 3- Bicycle and Pedestrian funds to obtain the services of a well-qualified firm or team of firms, specializing in land use, environmental planning, traffic and parking analysis, and civil engineering, to study and develop West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Uses including the road and transportation network surrounding a proposed project area (Exhibit 1). This project intends to study the potential to incorporate multi- modal improvements and transit-supportive land uses along corridors linking to Glenoaks Boulevard. Key elements of the scope of work include:

• Technical Working Group The Consultant, working with the City’s Project Manager, will form a Technical Working Group. It is anticipated that this group will be composed of representatives from the City’s Community Development and Public Works Departments, and potentially representatives from Planning & Transportation & Parking Commissions.

• Public Outreach Plan The Consultant will prepare a memorandum that will clearly outline strategies employed as part of the project, including opportunities to conduct online engagement and meet in- person with City Working Groups and elected officials, as well as identify other opportunities for public outreach. The memorandum will outline dates for when these engagement methods will occur and how these events will coincide with project tasks and key milestones. Preliminary recommendations for the public outreach efforts include: forming an Advisory Committee, Community “Pop-ups, developing a website and Community Workshops.

• INFORMATION GATHERING This task involves the preliminary information gathering that forms the framework for the West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study.

• Review of Policy Framework and Planning Studies The Consultant will review and assess existing and ongoing plans and studies related to the West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study. These include, but are not limited to: West and East Glendale Community Plans, Streetcar Feasibility Study, Citywide Pedestrian Plan, North Hollywood-Pasadena BRT Study, Glendale Freeway Ramps/Space 134 Preliminary Engineering Study, Downtown Mobility Study, Downtown Specific Plan and South Glendale Community Plan. The consultant will

3 review similar efforts in adjacent communities as well as regional, statewide and Caltrans documents affecting the study area, including the upcoming Burbank Complete Streets Plan, 2016 Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and Caltrans’ Transportation Concept Reports (TCR) for State Route 134 and Interstate 5.

Existing Conditions Analysis The consultant will study and verify existing land use conditions in the West Glendale Study Area. Using city provided data; the consultant will verify existing uses, patterns of development, and opportunity sites. The consultant will identify inconsistencies with existing zoning and development patterns and provide recommendations that are consistent with the community vision and the needs of the Study Area. The consultant will also identify land use compatibility with potential sustainable transportation improvements defined in this scope of work.

The consultant will also study the existing Commercial Planned Development (CPD) zone, located on the south side of Arden Avenue, and also at the intersection of Fairmont Avenue and Faircourt Lane. This zone has been identified as potentially incompatible within its surrounding context, while also being limited in its coverage and distribution. Current dimensional and use requirements are representative of a low density, suburban style of development, within a high density urban context. The consultant will study the compatibility of this zone, current development, and its relationship to surrounding development. The consultant will provide recommendations to this zone to create greater compatibility with surrounding development patterns and community vision.

This analysis will establish the technical framework that will form the foundation for development of the study. The Consultant will gather necessary data to provide an overview of existing transportation and land use conditions in the Study Area. This will include, but not be limited to:

• Transit network (existing and proposed); • Bike and pedestrian network, utilizing information already provided through the Citywide Pedestrian Plan and Bicycle Transportation Plan with additional survey work on roadways (and sections of roadways) not assessed in these plans; • Existing traffic volumes and projections; • Collision data; • Level of stress for bicyclists and pedestrians; • Population characteristics; • Zoning and General Plan land use designations; • Existing and planned development projects within the Study Area; • Analyzing recently conducted traffic counts; and • Conducting new traffic counts at intersections and segments to ensure the feasibility of land use changes and bicycle and pedestrian improvements to be investigated as part of this study

4 • Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Concepts Based on the existing conditions analysis of the Study Area corridors and adjacent land uses, as well as input from the community, Advisory Committee, and the Technical Working Group, the Consultant will develop multi-modal concepts for Glenoaks Boulevard, as well as land use and complete street concepts for Glenoaks Boulevard and the surrounding neighborhood.

• Protected Bike Lane Concept Plans The consultant will investigate the feasibility of bicycle transportation options for Glenoaks Boulevard between Alameda Avenue and Brand Boulevard.

• Complete Street and Land Use Concepts To ensure the proposed Glenoaks Boulevard multi-modal improvements are fully integrated into the surrounding transportation network and land use context, the Consultant will conduct land use studies on Glenoaks Boulevard, as well as select a minimum of five corridors linking to Glenoaks Boulevard for the development of multi- modal mobility and land use concept alternatives. Conceptual design should incorporate multi-modal “complete street” concepts and include corridor-long and location-specific (e.g., crossing or intersection) plans, sketches, and photos.

• Implementation Strategy: Project Selection and Prioritization Based on the preferred concepts, the Consultant will develop project prioritization criteria to phase the implementation of the Glenoaks Boulevard multi-modal improvements, corresponding neighborhood land use changes, as well as other potential projects to link to Glenoaks Boulevard.

• Financial Strategy Based on the project prioritization determined, the Consultant will identify potential funding sources for implementing infrastructure projects. The Consultant will identify funding and financing strategies that include potential local, state, regional and federal funding mechanisms and sources for high priority projects. The Consultant will prepare preliminary cost estimates for infrastructure projects.

• Final Draft West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study Based on comments received from the community, City Staff, Transportation and Parking Commission, Planning Commission, Advisory Committee, Technical Working Group, and City Council and other stakeholders, the Consultant will revise the Draft Study to develop the Final West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study for the City Council adoption consideration.

5 CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS The RFP was advertised on April 16, 2019; (Exhibit 2), a mandatory pre-proposal meeting was held on May 2, 2019; and proposals were due on May 30, 2019. Nine proposals were received prior to the deadline.

A panel consisting of representatives from the Community Development and Public Works Departments scored responsive proposals and selected five proposals for further consideration as follows:

• Toole Design; • Crandall Arambula; • Nelson Nygaard; • Alta Planning+ Design; and • Gruen Associations

The recommended consultant was selected through a competitive evaluation process to conduct the study. Proposers were evaluated on written and oral submittals as detailed in the RFP and listed below.

i. Written Proposal (14 point each , 140 points total) 1. Project Understanding 2. Clarity of Proposal/Organization and Schedule 3. Thoroughness in Addressing Requirements 4. Creatively in Approach 5. Experience of Personal 6. Technical Ability to Perform 7. Overall Cost of Project 8. Community Outreach/Facilitation 9. Experience with Similar Project/ Communities 10. Technical Expertise/Experience of Sub Consultant

ii. Oral Presentation (10 points each, 60 points total) 1. Presentation 2. Organization 3. Clarity 4. Communication Skills 5. Technical Understanding 6. Responses to Questions

On August 5, 2019 the panel interviewed five firms and after careful scoring of these firms and ranked Crandall Arambula as the top candidate to conduct West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study for the following reasons:

1. As a professional land use and transportation planning firm, and in accordance with California Government Code Section 4526, Crandall Arambula was chosen primarily for its demonstrated competence and professional qualifications. While all five responsive firms that submitted proposals demonstrated the minimum qualifications and experience to undertake the tasks required for the study, the panel’s evaluation and scorin~ of the

6 proposals shows that Crandall Arambula is the firm most compatible with the defined scope of services given the ratings criteria and scoring, as shown in the table below: wtraw t~N~r~m~ ~si~rPire. r’~t~ ~r’~n~uw; ~ ~‘f~1 S% ti#~ard~ S~C ~j~ociates Jj4m~~ Proposal 500 480 499 470 495

Interview 179 187 208 175 217

Cumulative Proposal & 679 667 707 645 712 Interview

2. Crandall Arambula also provided reasonable fees for the services requested in the RFP commensurate with the proposed scope of work. The available funds for this project is $500,000, including $ 300,000 from Caltrans’ Sustainable Transportation Community Planning grant and $200,000 TDA Article 3. In an effort to better understand the true costs of this project in today’s environment, and compliance with state and federally funded project, the total budgeted amount was not initially made clear to proposers.

3. Crandall Arambula blends visionary planning, design acumen, and practical knowledge in the creation of vibrant and transformative urban places. Their integrated land use and transportation plans address the issues facing cities—climate change, affordable housing, and equitable access—and are consistently adopted and implemented.

4. The firm has developed an innovative approach to integrating transit-supportive land uses with LRT and BRT transit to create vibrant and sustainable communities.

5. The firm’s portfolio has planned for systems, corridors and stations in regions across the country and Canada including Portland, OR; Seattle, WA; Denver, Aurora, and Englewood, CC; and Edmonton.

6. Crandall Arambula a Portland, Oregon land use planning, urban design and architecture firm established in 1g98—is a recognized innovator in developing sustainable transportation and land use plans in urban and suburban environments across North America. Crandall Arambula’s principals, George Crandall and Don Arambula, have been designing and implementing national award-winning plans for more than 30 years. Their international planning and design experience are represented by more than 100 plans and studies. The firm’s recent experience creating complete street and transit- oriented development plans and implementation strategies includes projects in Edmonton, Alberta; Denver, Colorado; Portland, Oregon; Minneapolis-St. Paul Minnesota; Seattle, Washington; and Salt Lake City, Utah metro regions. All of their integrated planning efforts focus on creating compact mixed uses within a walking and

7 biking-friendly environment; they have a demonstrated track record of bridging policies and implementation tools to build thriving communities.

7. The Crandall Arambula team is enhanced by the renowned Fehr and Peers transportation engineering and planning firm located in Los Angeles. The Fehr and Peers firm provides the team with its active transportation, multidisciplinary engineering staff and local Glendale experience to provide the full range of technical traffic, transportation, infrastructure analysis services needed for the Glenoaks Boulevard protected bike lane and complete street project tasks.

8. Crandall Arambula has agreed to a base fee of $419,320 with an additional task to perform market and demographics of existing conditions which wasn’t part of the scope of the RFP. The proposed cost is based on the City’s available budget, desired scope of work and outcomes, and project schedule.

Crandall Arambula Contract $ 419,320.00 Staff Time $ 20,000.00 •totai

As part of the City’s due diligence, Staff checked Crandall Arambula’s references, and remains confident that their project team is capable of performing to the level of quality and professionalism suggested in their proposal.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no impact to the General Fund associated with the West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study. The City Council previously approved the funding for the West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study project. $300,000 is in 2160- CDD-0020-P0000-T0000-F0000-G52241, West Glendale Sustainable Transportation/Land Study, Caltrans Sustainability Grant funds. $200,000 is in 4090-PWD-0020-P0000-T0000- F0000-G52050, TDA Article 3 Funds.

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1: Approve the attached Motion awarding a contract to Crandall Arambula, and authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute a Professional Services Agreement with Crandall Arambula in the amount of $419,320 for West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study. This action will allow the study to proceed, providing analysis and information the City Council may use in considering next steps.

Alternative 2: Not to approve the attached Motion awarding contract to Crandall Arambula and authorizing the City Manager or her designee to execute a Professional Services Agreement with that company. This would require selecting another firm, conducting another RFP process, or otherwise declining the funding. Should the City Council choose to decline the grant funds, staff will inform Caltrans accordingly, and locally budgeted funds will remain in the FY 2019-20

8 Community Development Department Urban Design & Mobility budget for purposes to be determined.

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

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE

In accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance, are 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 10% interest or more in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report as applicable are included as Exhibit 3.

EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1: Project Study Area Exhibit 2: Request for Proposals Exhibit 3: Campaign Disclosure Exhibit 4: Project Schedule

9 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 and execute an Professional Services Agreement with Crandall Arambula, a Professional Corporation, for the preparation of the West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study— as outlined in the October 1, 2019 staff report from the Director of Community Development— in the amount not to exceed $439,320.00. Said Professional Services Agreement is for feasibility and planning purposes only and is exempt from California Environmental Act review pursuant to 14 California Code of Regulations Section 15262. The Professional Services Agreement shall be subject to the review and approval as to form by the City Attorney.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

j:\files\docfilesVntn\psa - crandall arabula - w glendale sustainable transportation and lu study 2019 rev.docx Exhibit Brand I-—

Park 0 Downtown Burbank Na ~t GLENDALEI N • Station i-—— ~. C — N-~çc_—— °r —-

—p.. I—

~~d9 ~C..__ - 4 0’ C

Thomas Jefferson __ ~ ~ * Elementary School —. VICINITY MAP 4, Hoover High School Pelanconi 4(c ToIIMiddIe~School& Park Keppel Elemental7SEhWÔI * CAMPUSDISNEY Franklin Elementary School AVERY DENN~HEADQUARTERS & ale Narrows DREAM WORKS ....WHOLE FOODS REGIONAL OFFICE NESTLE USA 134 RivettqalkS CAMPUS Freni≤1 ••...... •. .. . 1 34

V ~1~~1T0~]GLENDALE

2 Z n to D VICINITYAND — a DESTINATIONS Griffith Park \~\ z ~tUdY * Schools Key a Employers \~ \ \-0\ 1/4 1/2mile . . a Exhibit 2 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

0ç G164 IL

—I.

.:-‘~

City of Glendale

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

Issue Date: April 16, 2019

I City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

CONTENTS Introduction Page 4 A. Services Requested Page 4 B. Definitions Page 5 C. Term of Services and Contract Page 6 D. Insurance Page 6 E. Proposer’s Indemnification of the City Page 6 F. City’s Project Representatives Page 7 G. About the City of Glendale Project Background Page 7 RFP Process Page 9 A. Schedule of Events Page 9 B. RFP Distribution Page 9 C. Mandatory Proposer Conference Page 9 D. Proposal Deadline and Proposal Submission Page 10 E. Interim Inquiries and Responses; Interpretation or Correction of Page 10 RFP F. Addenda Page 11 III. General Requirements and Instructions Page 11 A. Examination of Documents Page 11 B. Proposer’s Representations in the Response Page 11 C. Acceptance, Withdrawal, Cancellation, or Modification of a Page 12 Proposal D. Proposal Preparation Expenses Page 13 IV. Proposal Content and Format Page 13 A. Using the Attached Proposal Forms Page 14 B. Identifying Proprietary Information; Public Records Act Page 16 C. Signature(s) Page 16 D. Proposal Retention Page 16 V. Method of Selection Page 16 A. Basis for Award and Evaluation Criteria Page 17 B. City’s Reservation of Rights Page 17 VI. Award of Contract Page 18 VII. Letter of Objection; Procedures Page 19

2 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

EXHIBIT 1—Scope of Services Page 21 EXHIBIT 2—Services Time Schedule Page 28 EXHIBIT 3—Prevailing Wage, Payroll Records, and Apprentice Page 29 Requirements EXHIBIT 4—Insurance Requirements Page 31 EXHIBIT 5—Sample Contract Page 38

3 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

I. Introduction A. Services Requested The purpose of this combined Request for Proposals (RFP) is to obtain the services of a well- qualified project team led by a single consultant/firm, or a consultant team with experienced sub-consultants who are experts in their respective fields to develop a proposal for the following project:

1. In developing the West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study.

The Contractor will perform the Services according to: • The Scope of Services which are attached as Exhibit Ito this RFP; • The Services Time Schedule, which is attached as Exhibit 2 to this RFP; • The instructions and requirements in this RFP; and • The proposed Contract.

The City requires a well-managed and financially sound individual or firm with demonstrated skills and technical ability— and high levels of customer service and satisfaction— to perform the Services and fulfill the requirements outlined in this REP.

A potential Proposer should read this document in its entirety before preparing and submitting a Proposal.

4 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

B. Definitions In this RFP, the following words and phrases have the meaning ascribed to them below:

• Agreement! Contract The entire and integrated written agreement between the City and the Contractor that takes the place of prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. • City The City of Glendale. Depending on the context in which it is used, the term City also may refer to: • The geographic area known as the City of Glendale; or • A person whom the City of Glendale employs or uses and who is authorized to represent the City of Glendale in matters concerning the Project.

• City Project Manager The City’s designated representative for all issues related to the Project. • Contractor The selected Proposer(s) to whom the City has awarded a Contract for the Project. • Project The entire Services described in this REP. Services may constitute the whole or a part of the Project. • Proposal The documents and other items that a Proposer submits in response to this RFP. • Proposer The person, entity, or organization that submits a Proposal in response to this REP. • RFP This Request for Proposals and all of its attachments, including documents and other items from the City and relevant third parties. • Services The work, labor, tasks, operations, activities, materials, supplies, equipment, deliverables, duties, and obligations: • Described in this RFP; and • Required by, and reasonably inferable from, the Contract— whether completed or partially completed. • Subcontractor A contractor, supplier, vendor, person, entity, or organization whom Contractor hires, employs, or uses on Contractor’s behalf to provide, perform, or fulfill a portion of the Services.

5 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

C. Term of Services and Contract The Services described in this RFP and in the proposed Contract are for a period of 12 months (“initial term”), beginning on July 1, 2019 and ending on July 30, 2020. The City will have the option to renew the Consultant’s Contract 2 times each renewal for a period of 6 months (“renewal term”). Exercise of the renewal option is at the sole discretion of the Director Community Development Department and requires the Director’s and City Manager’s written approval.

D. Insurance At its expense, the successful Proposer must obtain and maintain insurance, while the Contract is in effect, that fully meets the requirements of the project and contains provisions entirely consistent with all of the City’s “Insurance Requirements,” which are noted in EXHIBIT 4 (“Insurance Requirements”). Evidence of the insurance coverages will need to be in place before a Contractor starts performing the Services. A Proposer must be prepared to meet all City insurance requirements (at no cost to the City), if the Proposer is awarded a Contract. The City will require certificates of insurance and additional insured endorsements when the successful Proposer submits a signed Contract to the City,

However, before a Proposer submits a Proposal: • A Proposer must give to its insurance company, or insurance agent, the “Insurance Requirements” in this RFP and the proposed Contract; • The insurance company’s underwriter or agent then must complete the “Insurance Requirements Affidavit” (Form D) of the RFP, which states that the insurer’s underwriter or agent will furnish the City with the required insurance documents within fourteen (14) calendar days after the Proposer’s having been notified of the contract’s award; and • The Proposer must submit the “Insurance Requirements Affidavit” with its Proposal. The City may reject any Proposal made without this affidavit, or made with an incomplete affidavit form.

E. Proposer’s Indemnification of the City At its expense, a Proposer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives from and against any and all liability, suits, actions, proceedings, judgments, claims, demands, liens, losses, damages, costs, and expenses (including attorneys’ fees, litigation, arbitration, mediation, appeal expenses) if a dispute, lawsuit, or other proceeding arises out of any one or more of the following: • A Proposer’s submitting the Proposal; • The City’s accepting a Proposer’s Proposal; or • The City’s awarding a Contract to a Proposer in compliance with this RFP, or state, federal, or local laws.

6 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

F. City’s Project Representatives The City Project Manager in charge of this Project is: Fred Zohrehvand Senior Transportation Planner City of Glendale Community Development Department 633 B. Broadway, Room 300 Glendale, CA 91206 Telephone: 818-937-8333 Email: [email protected]

The executive in charge is, Director of Community Development Department.

G. About the City of Glendale Project Background The purpose of this combined Request for Proposals (RFP) is to obtain the services of a well- qualified project team led by a single consultant/firm, or a consultant team with experienced sub-consultants who are experts in their respective fields (to be referred to as “the Consultant’ throughout this RFP) to develop a proposal for the following project:

1. In developing the West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study. City of Glendale Background

The City of Glendale is located at the eastern end of the San Fernando Valley in Los Angeles CNYO4LA County, at the southern base of the Verdugo Mountains. ‘-4

Glendale is bordered to the northwest by the t4 . Tujunga neighborhood of Los Angeles, to the northeast by La Canada Flintridge and the ~“~“ unincorporated. 7

t.M ~ 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. VT? Glendale is also defined by the 210, 2, 134, and 5 freeways.

Glendale is a diverse, multilingual city of 191,719 residents (US Census Bureau 2010). Its business community, from manufacturing to financial services, employs nearly 100,000 people at more than 6,800 firms (US Census Bureau 2007).

7 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

Glendale is the fourth largest city in Los Angeles County, has a current population of approximately 196,021 people (U.S. Census Update: 2013), and spans approximately 30.6 square miles

The area’s mobility network is well-connected by public transportation, including Metrolink and Amtrak service at the Glendale Larry Zarian Transportation Center in south Glendale, by Metro Rapid and local buses and by Glendale Beeline bus service

For purposes of long-range planning, Glendale is divided into four community planning areas, as described below:

North Glendale Community Plan The community of North Glendale lies within the Crescenta Valley, which is clearly defined by the San Gabriel and Verdugo Mountains. The Crescenta Valley has a variety of neighborhood- oriented village centers and commercial districts, including the Sparr Heights Business District, Verdugo City and the suburban corridor of Foothill Boulevard. The most intense of these is the “town center’ surrounding the vibrant, popular, and highly walkable Montrose Shopping Park. The North Glendale Community Plan was adopted by City Council in November 2011; the document is provided in the Appendix.

South Glendale Community Plan South Glendale includes Downtown Glendale, which is served by three public parking structures and ten parking lots, and has experienced significant growth in — Cosim.a*y Plan Area. —~———— n, high-density mixed-use commercial and residential ~— buildings since the adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan (2006) and the Downtown Mobility Study (2007). Just south of downtown is the Brand Boulevard of Cars, which contains a regional concentration of auto dealerships, and the Tropico town site, the city’s historic industrial base and a burgeoning mixed-use and residential neighborhood around the Larry Zarian . Transportation Center. The South Glendale Community Plan was developed in early 2018. East & West Glendale Community Plan I East Glendale includes hillside residential neighborhoods and neighborhood-serving commercial areas, and features Glendale Community College; this community abuts the City of Pasadena. West Glendale includes hillside residential neighborhoods, commercial, and industrial districts; it features the Kenneth Village shopping area, the Walt Disney Company’s Grand Central Creative Campus, DreamWorks Animation studios, the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk along the Los Angeles River, and abuts the City of Burbank. Development of community plans for East and West Glendale will begin following the adoption of the South Glendale Community Plan.

8 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

II. RFP Process

A. Schedule of Events The following events will take place in this Project (See further explanations below)

Event Date Request for Proposals (REP) Issued April16, 2019 Mandatory Pre-Proposal Meeting May 2, 2019 2pm-3pm Deadline for Written Questions and Requests May 16, 2019, 5pm Responses and Addenda Issued May 23, 2019 Technical and Price Proposals Due May 30, 2019 Interview Firms (TBD based on City review of written proposal) Late June Proposed Approval of Selected Consultant(s) by City Council July —Mid August 2019 Notice to Proceed I Service Contract Begins I Kick-Off Meeting Mid August —Mid Sept. 2019 Project Completion Date (12) mos. after start of contract) August 2020

City of Glendale reserves the right to alter any of the dates shown above by written notice. Submit any inquiries via email to Mrs. Celeste Wilson. Administrative Officer at celestewiIson~glendaleca.gov. No phone calls please.

B. RFP Distribution A prospective Proposer may receive this REP by mail, e-mail, in person or online at https://www.glendaleca.govlHome/Components RFP/RFP1285812961. Distribution of the REP in no way represents the City’s acceptance of a Proposer’s qualifications, reputation, or ability to perform the Services.

C. Mandatory Proposer Conference A mandatory Proposer Conference will be held on May 2, 2019, at 2pm, at 633 E. Broadway, Room MSB 106 and Glendale, California 91206.

Attendance at this conference is mandatory. If a Proposer is unable to attend, a representative must be present. Failure to do so may result in rejection of a Proposal. Attendees or their representatives will be required to sign-in at the conference. Check in at Room MSB 106.

The purpose of this conference is to ensure that Proposers have adequate information to respond fully and comprehensively to the City’s requirements. During the conference, City staff will discuss with prospective Proposers the Services to be performed and answer questions arising from Proposers’ initial review of this REP. Before the conference takes place, Proposers should review the REP thoroughly and should be familiar with its content, as well as the City’s functional and technical requirements.

9 CUy of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

D. Proposal Deadline and Proposal Submission The City must receive the Proposal on or before 5:00 PM, May 30, 2019. A Proposal received after this date and time will be considered non-responsive and the City will return the Proposal, unopened.

A Proposal must be submitted on a format specified in the RFP (Section IV). Oral, telephonic, facsimile, or electronically transmitted (email) Proposals are invalid and the City will fiQt accept or consider them.

A Proposer must submit Ten (10) printed Proposal documents (consisting of 1 original and Nine (9) copies and Two (2) electronic copies on CD in a sealed, clearly labeled envelope (or box). A Proposal may be delivered by mail or in person.

The Proposal for the West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study must be clearly marked and addressed to:

West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study City of Glendale Community Development Department Attention: Fred Zohrehvand Senior Transportation Planner 633 E. Broadway, Room 300 Glendale, CA 91206

E. Interim Inquiries and Responses; Interpretation or Correction of RFP

A Proposer with questions may submit to the City a written Request for Clarification by email to Mrs. Celeste Wilson, Administrative Officer at [email protected] for an interpretation or clarification of, or addenda to, this RFP.

Any such request must be received by the City no later than the date and time specified in Section Il-A. Schedule of Events in this RFP.

The City will review and prepare a written response to each request made pursuant to this section. The City’s determination will be furnished to all Proposers by the date specified in Section lI-A. Schedule of Events in this REP.

If necessary, the City will make clarifications, interpretations, corrections, or changes to the REP, or the proposed Contract, or both, in writing by issuing Addenda, as described in Section F (below). A Proposer must ~ rely upon, and the City is j~ bound by, purported clarifications, interpretations, corrections, or changes to the REP and the proposed Contract, that are made verbally or in a manner other than a written advisory from the City.

10 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

F. Addenda The City will issue Addenda in writing only. The City will make reasonable efforts to deliver Addenda to all Proposers whom the City knows have received the RFP and have provided a street address for receipt of Addenda. The City cannot guarantee that all Proposers will receive all Addenda.

Proposers may also inspect the Addenda at the Community Development Department/Mobility Division located at: 633 E. Broadway, Room 300 Glendale, CA. 91206, during its business

hours, Monday - Friday 9 a.m. -4 p.m. The Addenda will be posted online at httøs /www.glendaleca.ciov/Home/Components/RFP/RFP/2858/2961. This RFP is also on file there.

At any time before the “Proposal Deadline” (Section Il-A of this REP), the City may issue Addenda withdrawing the REP or postponing the Proposal Deadline. However, if any Addenda results in a material change to this REP, or the proposed Contract, or both, the City will extend the Proposal Deadline by not less than seventy-two (72) hours.

The City will treat transmittal of Addenda to potential Proposers by U.S. mail, e-mail, posted online as sufficient notice of the changes made by the City.

III. General Requirements and Instructions A. Examination of Documents Before submitting an REP Response, a Proposer must: • Thoroughly examine the REP. A thorough review of this REP is critical to obtaining an in-depth understanding of the requirements of this REP. • Make all necessary investigations (including the location of the Services), examine documents, and understand the Scope of Services (EXHIBIT 1). • Be able to furnish the City with valid: Insurance forms (including insurance certificates and additional insured endorsements) in compliance with the Insurance Requirements described in EXHIBIT 4. B. Proposer’s Representations in the Response By submitting a Proposal, a Proposer represents that: • The REP is sufficient in scope and detail to indicate and convey reasonable understanding of all requirernents, terms, and conditions for performance of the Services required in this Project; • The Proposer has exercised all necessary due diligence in making investigations and inquiries, examining documents, and inspecting City sites and facilities for this Project;

Ii City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

• The Proposer is fully familiar with— and has fully considered— all facts, conditions, circumstances, and mailers that may affect, in any way, the Proposer’s services or costs; • The Proposal is an irrevocable offer for a period of at least ninety (90) calendar days following the City’s opening of all Proposals; and • The Proposer is, and will be, in compliance with the RFP’s requirements, terms, and conditions.

C. Acceptance, Withdrawal, Cancellation, or Modification of a Proposal Acceptance of Proposals Each proposal shall be submitted with the understanding that it is subject to the evaluation procedure set forth in this RFP, 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 reasonably 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.

Before the Proposal Deadline:

A Proposer may withdraw and then modify a Proposal, by giving written notice, signed by the Proposer. A withdrawal request must be addressed as follows and delivered to:

City of Glendale Community Development Department Attention: Fred Zohrehvand Senior Transportation Planner 633 E. Broadway, Room 300 Glendale, CA 91206

For a withdrawal to become effective, the City must receive the Proposer’s written request for withdrawal before the Proposal Deadline. The City will not accept or consider a Proposer’s verbal, telephonic, facsimile, or email request for modification or withdrawal of a Proposal.

If a Proposer withdraws its Proposal, the withdrawal will not prejudice the Proposer’s right to submit a new Proposal, if the new Proposal is submitted: (a) In accordance with the RFP’s requirements, and (b) Before the Proposal Deadline.

12 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

After the Proposal Deadline:

A Proposer must not withdraw, cancel, or modify its Proposal for a period of at least ninety (90) calendar days following the Proposals’ deadline subject to the exception described in the next paragraph below. The City may extend the 90-day period upon the City’s written request and upon the affected Proposers’ written approval.

The City may allow a Proposer to withdraw or cancel a Proposal after the proposal deadline, if the Proposer establishes, to the City’s satisfaction, that all of the following circumstances exist 1. The Proposer made a mistake in its Proposal; 2. Within five (5) days after the Proposal’s deadline, the City receives from the Proposer written notice of the mistake and the notice specifies in detail how the mistake occurred; 3. The mistake made the Proposal materially different from what the Proposer had intended it to be; and 4. The mistake was made in filling out the Proposal and was ~ due to error in judgment, or carelessness in reading the REP or the proposed Contract. D. Proposal Preparation Expenses Expenses for developing the RFP response are entirely the responsibility of the Proposer and are ~ chargeable to the City in any manner. The City is p~ liable for any pre-contractual expenses, which are defined as expenses incurred by the Proposer in: • Preparing its Proposal in response to this RFP. • Negotiating with the City any matter related to the Proposal. • Any other expense incurred by the Proposer before the date of award of the Contract for this REP. IV. Proposal Content and Format A. Response Formafling and Contents The City expects the Proposer to prepare a comprehensive proposal with recommendations, actions, and procedures to accomplish the scope of work set forth in this RFP.

The City shall provide all relevant data in its possession that pertains to this project in support of the Proposer’s services. The City assumes no responsibility whatsoever with respect to the sufficiency or accuracy of any information supplied. The Proposer shall be responsible for evaluation of all information supplied by the City.

The City of Glendale must receive two (2) CDs and ten (10) hard copies of the proposal, as well as Form H, Price and Staffing Proposal, completed in MS Excel. All documents must be submitted together by the date and time noted on the schedule of events section Il-A. Proposals should be concise and must be correctly formatted in accordance with this RFP. Each proposal must be divided into Parts I, II, and Ill as specified below, and must include all of

13 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

the required contents of each Part, in the sequence specified. Each proposal shall include a table of contents clearly referencing each Part in the proposal.

Part I — BACKGROUND, AFFIRMATIONS, CERTIFICATIONS AND STABILITY

1. Submittal Cover — Form A The proposal shall be signed by an individual authorized to bind the Proposer and shall state that the proposal is a firm offer for a 120-day period.

2. Proposer Contact Information — Form B Provide the indicated contact information for the primary contact person who will be authorized to make representations for the Proposer’s firm. Provide information for the Proposer’s secondary contact. List all sub-contractors proposed for this project including type of work to be performed. Use additional sheets as needed.

3. Statements and Agreements

This section should include the following certifications, each of which shall be fully executed:

i. Form C— Statement of Qualification

ii. Form D — Insurance Requirements Affidavit

iii. Form E — Restriction of lobbying and Contacts

iv. Form F — Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Statement

v. Form G — Hold Harmless Agreement

vi. Form H — Price Proposal and Staffing Plan vii. Form I-Public Records Exemption viii. Form J- Additional Information

4. Information Regarding Debarments, Defaults, Claims, and Related Events

Each Proposer, including its Joint Venture members and general partners (“team members”), shall submit the information set forth below regarding past performance, activities, and projects. The information shall cover the 5 year period prior to the due date of the proposal.

i. Any instance where the Proposer or a team member defaulted on a public services contract. ii. Information concerning the bankruptcy or receivership of the Proposer or a team member. iii. Information concerning all adverse claims, disputes, settlements, or lawsuits between a public agency and the Proposer or a team member (including professional liability/errors and omissions claims) in which the claim, settlement, or judgment exceeds two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000).

14 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

Part Il—QUALIFICATIONS & TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Each Proposer shall submit Part II that includes each of the materials set forth below, explaining the qualifications of the Proposer to perform the scope of work and selling forth the Proposer’s management and organizational structure, capability, experience, and proposed programs and plans to ensure successful performance of the scope of work. a. Project Team i. Proposer must submit an organizational chart identifying the titles of project team members (and subcontractors if applicable) and reporting relationships within the team. The submittal shall also include a brief description for each position identifying which functions they will be responsible to perform in relation to the Agreement including coordination of subcontractors. The chart shall indicate a “Project Manager” who will be the City’s central contact person for day-to-day mailers. The successful Proposer agrees not to change the assigned project staff without prior written consent of the City. ii. If applicable, the Proposer will submit a description of the proposed subcontractors and identify which functions they will be responsible to perform in relation to the scope of work. b. Experience, Reference, and Performance Record i. Provide contact information for five (5) current agencies for which the Proposer has provided similar work product during the past three or more years. Provide contact name, title, agency name, address, phone, email, services provided. Provide a brief scope of services provided for each contractual relationship. c. Technical Proposal i. Provide detailed Scope of Work based on tasks specified in this RFP. ~ each task, please include the following: assigned staff, estimated time or proportion of staffer’s total project time, and total proposed cost.

Part Ill -- PRICE PROPOSAL AND STAFFING PLAN

Price Proposal and Staffing Plan - Form H Each Proposer shall submit a price proposal and staffing plan using Form H. A review copy of this form is included within this document, while a submittal copy in MS Excel format is provided electronically as a separate file distributed with this RFP. All figures on Form H must be submitted as a completed spreadsheet in MS Excel format on CD and within the printed mailer as well. Proposer must submit a staffing plan that includes a comprehensive list of all key staff by name and position proposed for this Agreement. Include contract labor by count, position, and rate only, as applicable.

15 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

B. Identifying Proprietary Information; Public Records Act A Proposer must identify and list all copyrighted material, trade secrets, or other proprietary information (protectable documents”) that the Proposer included in its Proposal which the Proposer believes should be exempt from disclosure under California’s Public Records Act, Government Code Section 6250, et seq. (Form- I).

By listing the documents, the Proposer agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the City and its officers, agents, employees, and representatives from and against any action, claim, lawsuit, or proceeding, including costs and expenses, arising out of or connected with the City’s refusal to disclose the protectable documents to any party making a request for those items.

The City will treat any Proposer, who falls to identify documents that the Proposer believes should be exempt from disclosure, as having waived its right to an exemption from disclosure, as the Public Records Act provides.

C. Signature(s) The person or persons legally authorized to bind the Proposer to the REP must sign the Proposal in ink. The individuals signing the Proposal must represent that they are authorized to bind the Proposer’s legal entity. • A corporation must execute the Proposal by its duly authorized officer(s) in accordance with its corporate bylaws. • A partnership must execute the Proposal by all of its partners. After each signature, each partner must list a residential address or the firm’s address, either of which must include the state, zip code, and telephone number. • If the Proposer is a joint venture consisting of a combination of any of the above entities, each entity in the joint venture must sign the Proposal. • An individual signing a Proposal as an agent of another or others must attach to the Proposal evidence of that person’s legal authority to sign on behalf of another or others.

D. Proposal Retention All Proposals and other material submitted become the property of the City and may be returned only at the City’s option. The City reserves the right to use any ideas presented in any response to the REP. Selection or rejection of the Proposal does not affect this right.

V. Method of Selection Evaluation/Selection Criteria All Proposals must be received on time. Proposals will first be reviewed to ensure compliance with the terms of this REP. Non-compliant or non-responsive Proposals may be rejected. The City will then evaluate the Proposals in accordance with the criteria listed below.

16 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

A. Basis for Award and Evaluation Criteria

The following criteria will be used for evaluation and rank of each submitted proposal:

i. Written Proposal (14 points each, 140 points total) 1) Project Understanding 2) Clarity of Proposal/Organization and Schedule 3) Thoroughness in Addressing Requirements 4) Creativity in Approach 5) Experience of Personnel 6) Technical Ability to Perform 7) Overall Cost of Product 8) Community Outreach/Facilitation 9) Experience with Similar Projects/Communities 10) Technical Expertise/Experience of Sub consultants

ii. Oral Presentation (10 points each, 60 points total) 11) Presentation 12) Organization 13) Clarity 14) Communication Skills 15) Technical Understanding 16) Responses to Questions

The City may select all or top three Proposers from the Written Proposal section for the Oral Presentation.

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.

The City may investigate the qualifications of a Proposer under consideration, require confirmation of information furnished by the Proposer, and call upon the Proposer to provide additional information or evidence of the Proposer’s qualifications for the Services described in this RFP.

B. City’s Reservation of Rights

This RFP and the proposal evaluation process do g~: • Obligate the City to accept or select any Proposal; or • Constitute an agreement by the City that it will actually enter into a Contract with any Proposer.

When it best serves the City’s interests, the City may do any one or more of the following:

17 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

• Reject any Proposal or all Proposals at its sole discretion. • Extend the deadline for accepting Proposals. • Accelerate the pace of the REP process if only one or a handful of Proposals is received. • Waive any or all information, defects, irregularities, or informalities in a Proposal. • Accept amendments to Proposals after the Proposal Deadline. • Revise, change, or amend the REP’s evaluation or selection criteria before the Proposal Deadline. • Cancel, withdraw, revise, change, amend, or negotiate the terms of this RFP, the proposed Contract, or both. • Reissue a Request for Proposals. • Conduct one or more oral interviews. • Visit a Proposer’s business or facilities. • Examine financial records of a Proposer to the extent necessary to ensure financial stability. • Make a partial award. • Negotiate with one or more Proposers. • Award a Contract to one or more Proposers. • Require a best and final offer from one or more Proposers.

VI. Award of Contract Within ninety (90) calendar days after the City reviews all Proposals, if the City Council selects a Proposal, the City will give the selected Proposer a “Notice of Intent to Award Contract” that will specify the “start date” for performing the Services.

Once selected, the successful Proposer must enter into a written Agreement with the City within fourteen (14) calendar days following the Proposer’s receiving the City’s “Notice of Intent to Award Contract” or within any extension that the City may allow. The REP, or any part of it, and the Proposer’s responses, will be incorporated into and made a part of the Contract. A copy of the proposed Contract is provided as EXHIBIT 5.

Before any services can commence, the selected Proposer must execute the Contract, which is a standard form of agreement. To facilitate the Project’s smooth and timely implementation, a Proposer responding to this REP must review all terms and conditions of the Contract, including, but not limited to, provisions relating to insurance, indemnity, and termination.

The City’s policy is that the Contract be accepted as is. By submitting a Proposal to the City in response to this RFP, a Proposer is deemed to have provided its approval to the Contract,

18 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

accepting it without qualification. If a Proposer seeks limited modification of the Contract, then in the Proposal a Proposer must identify the proposed changes.

However, changes or qualifications to the Contract may be weighed in the evaluation of the Proposal and may cause rejection of the Proposal as non-responsive, in the City’s determination.

The City reserves the right to negotiate further the terms and conditions of the Contract. The Proposer whom the City Council selects must cooperate with the City in good faith to negotiate, sign, and deliver the final Contract. The City will draft the Contract and may require the selected Proposer to auend one or more Contract negotiation conferences to discuss possible: • Revisions to the Contract’s service-related terms, conditions, requirements (other than the insurance and the indemnity provisions), specifications, or minimum performance standards; and • Additions to the Contract, by the parties’ mutual agreement, or as a City Ordinance or Resolution, the City’s Charter or MuniciDal Code, or any other law may require. At any time and for any reason, if Contract negotiations with the selected Proposer fail to progress, to the City’s reasonable satisfaction, the City reserves the right to not only end negotiations with the selected Proposer, but also cancel the award and reject the Proposal. At its discretion, the City may then: reopen the proposal process; choose from among the remaining, if any, qualified proposers; reissue the RFP; negotiate directly with any firm for the Services; or choose not to contract for the Services.

The selected Proposer must submit to the City all of the following items: • Three (3) originals of the Contract, properly signed by the Proposer. • Insurance certificates and additional insured endorsements that fully conform to the Contract’s requirements. After the City receives the signed Contracts and insurance documents, the City Attorney’s office will review the Contract. Additionally, the City Attomey’s office or the City’s Risk and Insurance Services Manager will review the required insurance. If the selected Proposer has not changed any terms of the Contract, and if the insurance conform to the Contract’s requirements, the City will sign the Contract and return an original of the Contract to the Proposer.

VII. Letter of Objection; Procedures A Proposer, who believes that any part of this RFP is discriminatory against the Proposer or precludes the Proposer from being given reasonable consideration in the procurement process, must submit an objection in writing— by letter only— to the City. The City will llQt consider any vethal objection. The Letter of Objection must clearly state: • The specific objections; • The areas of concern; • The facts supporting the objections; and

19 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

A proposed method for resolving the objections. The Proposer, or the person who is duly authorized to represent the Proposer, must sign the correspondence.

The Proposer must deliver or mail the Letter of Objection to:

City of Glendale Community Development Department Attention: Fred Zohrehvand Senior Transportation Planner 633 E. Broadway, Room 300 Glendale, CA 91206

The City must receive the Letter of Objection before 5:00 pm, May 30, 2019.

Upon the City’s timely receipt of the objection letter, the City will review the Proposer’s contention(s). If the City decides that the RFP— whether in whole or in part— needs revision, the City will prepare Addenda, as described in Section Il-F of this RFP.

20 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

EXHIBIT I — Scope of Services In developing the West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study, the Consultant shall comply with all applicable local, State of California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and federal facility design guidelines and requirements.

The Scope of Work consists of the following tasks:

Task I — Project Management

Task 1.1 — Kickoff Meeting City of Glendale staff will host a kickoff meeting with the selected Consultant. The primary objectives will be to review scope, schedule, project goals and key issues.

Task 1.1 Deliverables: Meeting Notes and Materials for Kickoff Meeting.

Task 1.2— Project Team Coordination

The City and Consultant will coordinate with the project manager monthly project team meetings, regular phone and email check-ins, and other communications will ensure the projects listed in this REP stay on schedule and within budget.

Task 1.2 Deliverables: Monthly Meeting Notifications, Agendas, and Notes.

Task 1.3— lnvoicin9 and Contracts

Consultant invoices and quarterly reports based on procedures and expectations established at project initiation. Quarterly reports will include a summary of project progress and budget update. Consultant will provide monthly invoices to the City through the City’s newly developed MUNIS Financial system and coordinate any contracting paperwork/logistics.

Task 1.3 Deliverables: Monthly Invoices and Quarterly Reports.

TASK 1.4- Technical Working Group

The Consultant, working with the City’s Project Manager, will form a Technical Working Group. It is anticipated that this group will be composed of representatives from the City’s Community Development and Public Works Departments, and potentially representatives from Caltrans.

Task 1.4 Deliverables: Committee Meeting List, Meeting Materials, Meeting Agenda and Notes

21 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

Task 2— Public Outreach

Task 2.1 — Public Outreach Plan

After the project’s kickoff, the Consultant will prepare a memorandum that will clearly outline strategies employed as part of the project, including opportunities to conduct online engagement and meet in-person with city working groups and elected officials, as well as identify other opportunities for public outreach. The memorandum will outline dates for when these engagement methods will occur and how these events will coincide with project tasks and key milestones. The outreach plan must include a multilingual outreach program focused on using conventional and non-conventional outreach methods to ensure that broad members of the community are engaged throughout the process and that the Study reflects community needs and values. Building on Glendale’s past success conducting award-winning outreach in disadvantaged communities across the City, the outreach and participation plan will contain a mix of traditional (meetings, charrettes, open houses), with an emphasis on non-traditional programs emphasizing “going to” the community rather than having the community “come to us”, as well as online engagement. Outreach materials will be published in Armenian, English and Spanish, and the consultant will have Armenian and Spanish translators available at engagement events.

Preliminary recommendations for the public outreach efforts include:

• Advisory Committee. The Advisory Committee will be appointed by the Project Manager and will consist of representatives from stakeholder organizations and citizens active in the Glendale Community. There will be a minimum of six (6) Advisory Committee meetings at key points in the process.

• Community “Pop-ups”. The Consultant will develop materials for community “Pop-ups” at existing community events and will attend at least four events in and around West Glendale, with at least two focused on Glenoaks Boulevard. Pop up materials will include informational materials as well as interactive activities/surveys. Targeted pop-ups at everyday locations such as markets and schools will also be considered.

• Website, Interactive Mapping Exercise, Online Survey and Social Media Outreach. Working with City staff, the Consultant will develop a project webpage with project background and interactive updates.

• Community Workshops. At least six focused workshops will occur that incorporate innovative and interactive methods such as walking tours or charrettes. The number of workshops will depend on the number of corridors

22 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

chosen for concept development as well as the type of workshops chosen. The following are preliminary recommendations for the community workshops:

• Community Workshop Type A: Presentation of the Proiect and Walking/Bicycling Tour (one along Glenoaks Boulevard, one along corridors linking to Glenoaks Boulevard)

• Community Workshop Type B: Concept Alternatives Interactive Workshop during which draft Glenoaks protected bike lane concepts and corridor concepts linking to Glenoaks Boulevard will be presented, and public feedback received through interactive activities.

• Community Workshop Type C: Draft Plan Open House during which feedback will be received on the Draft West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study, in particular the draft preferred concepts for the protected bike lane, proposed land use changes, and connecting infrastructure to Glenoaks Boulevard.

Task 2.1 Deliverables: Public Outreach Plan, Website Updates, Meeting Materials, Six (6) Workshops, Six (6) Advisory Committee Meetings, Four (4) Community Pop-Up Events

TASK 3-INFORMATION GATHERING

This task involves the preliminary information gathering that forms the framework for the West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study.

Task 3.1 Review of Policy Framework and Planning Studies

The Consultant will review and assess existing and ongoing plans and studies related to the West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study. These include, but are not limited to: West and East Glendale Community Plans, Streetcar Feasibility Study (ongoing and to be conducted concurrently with the West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study), Citywide Pedestrian Plan, North Hollywood- Pasadena BRT Study, Space 134 Freeway Cap Park Vision Plan, Downtown Mobility Study, Downtown Specific Plan and South Glendale Community Plan. The consultant should also be familiar with similar efforts in adjacent communities as well as regional, statewide and Caltrans documents affecting the study area, including the upcoming Burbank Complete Streets Plan, 2016 Southern California Association of Governments Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS), and Caltrans Transportation Concept Reports (TCR) for State Route 134 and Interstate 5.

23 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

Task 3.1 Consultant Deliverables: Memorandum Qf findings

TASK 3.2- Existing Conditions Analysis

The consultant will study and verify existing land use conditions in the West Glendale Study Area. Using city provided data the consultant will verify existing uses, patterns of development, and opportunity sites. The consultant will identify inconsistencies with existing zoning and development patterns and provide recommendations that are consistent with the community vision and the needs of the Study Area. The consultant will also identify land use compatibility with potential sustainable transportation improvements defined in this scope of work.

The consultant will also study the existing Commercial Planned Development (CPD) zone, located on the south side of Arden Avenue, and also at the intersection Fairmont Avenue and Faircourt Lane. This zone has been identified as potentially incompatible within its surrounding context, while also being limited in its coverage and distribution. Current dimensional and use requirements are representative of a low density, suburban style of development, within a high density urban context. The consultant will study the compatibility of this zone, current development, and its relationship to surrounding development. This will include dimensional standards such as height and density, as well as uses. The consultant will provide recommendations to this zone to create greater compatibility with surrounding development patterns and community vision.

• Transit network (existing and proposed) • Bike and pedestrian network, utilizing information already provided through the Citywide Pedestrian Plan and Bicycle Transportation Plan with additional survey work on roadways (and sections of roadways) not assessed in these plans • Existing traffic volumes and projections • Collision data • Level of stress for bicyclists and pedestrians • Population characteristics • Zoning and General Plan land use designations • Existing and planned development projects within the Study Area • Analyzing recently conducted traffic counts • Conducting new traffic counts at intersections and segments to ensure the feasibility of land use changes and bicycle and pedestrian improvements to be investigated as part of this study

24 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

Task 3.2 Consultant Deliverables: Provide a Report Overviewing the Existing Transportation and Land Use Conditions and concepts, Existing Conditions Memo of CPD Zone and Three (3) Land Use Concepts of CPD Zone

Task 4- Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Concepts Based on the existing conditions analysis of the Study Area corridors and adjacent land uses, as well as input from the community, Advisory Committee, and the Technical Working Group, the Consultant will develop protected bike lane concepts for Glenoaks Boulevard, as well as land use and complete street concepts for Glenoaks Boulevard and the surrounding neighborhood.

Task 4.1 Protected Bike Lane Concept Plans

The consultant will investigate the feasibility of the following bicycle transportation options for Glenoaks Boulevard between Alameda Avenue and Brand Boulevard:

• Inclusion of one northbound protected bike lane and one southbound protected bike lane • Inclusion of a bi-directional multi-use path on one side of Glenoaks Boulevard • Improving the existing bike lane (may include painted buffers, widening existing lanes, etc.) • Investigate options of converting existing sharrows on Glenoaks Boulevard into standard bike lanes between Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard

At a minimum, all concept altematives need to integrate the preferred streetcar alignment as well as the no-build alternative, in conjunction with the Streetcar Feasibility Study running concurrently to this Study. Conceptual designs should include corridor- long plans, sketches, and photos, incorporating best practices in bikeway design. Alternatives produced will be presented for feedback from the community, Advisory Committee, and Technical Working Group.

Task 4.2 Complete Street and Land Use Concepts

To ensure the proposed Glenoaks Boulevard protected bike lane is fully integrated into the surrounding transportation network and land use context, the Consultant will conduct land use studies on Glenoaks Boulevard, as well as select a minimum of five corridors linking to Glenoaks Boulevard for the development of multi-modal mobility and land use concept alternatives. Conceptual design should incorporate multi-modal “complete street” concepts and include corridor-long and location-specific (e.g., crossing or intersection) plans, sketches, and photos. All land use concepts will identify and incorporate community character, with alternatives to be presented for feedback from the community, Advisory Committee, and Technical Working Group. At a minimum, concept alternatives should:

25 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

• Assess opportunities to adjust building heights and single-use zoning designations to mixed-use • Connect to priority projects discussed in the soon-to-be-adopted Citywide Pedestrian Plan • Connect to significant employment, recreational and educational destinations

Tasks 4, 4.1, and 4.2. Consultant Deliverables Task: Four (4) Protected Bike Lane Concepts on Glenoaks Boulevard and Land Use and Complete Street Concepts for Glenoaks Boulevard and 5 Corridors linking to Glenoaks Boulevard.

Task 5: Implementation Strategy

Task 5.1 Project Selection and Prioritization

Based on the preferred concepts, the Consultant will develop project prioritization criteria to phase the implementation of the Glenoaks Boulevard protected bicycle lane, corresponding neighborhood land use changes, as well as potential multi-modal projects to link to Glenoaks Boulevard. The Consultant will prepare grant-ready sheets for projects slated for near4emi implementation to increase funding chances. These sheets will be similar in format on what has been prepared for priority projects in the Citywide Pedestrian Plan.

Task 5.2 Financial Strategy

Based on the project prioritization determined in Task 5.1, the Consultant will identify potential funding sources for implementing infrastructure projects. The Consultant will identify funding and financing strategies that include potential local, state, regional and federal funding mechanisms and sources for high priority projects. The Consultant will prepare preliminary cost estimates for infrastructure projects, including the Glenoaks Boulevard protected bike lane.

Task 5.1 and 5.2 Deliverables: Phased Implementation Plan and Funding and Financing Strategy Matrix

Task 6: Draft West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

The Consultant will integrate deliverables from all previous tasks into an Administrative Draft Study to be reviewed by the Project Team including City staff, Advisory Committee and Technical Working Group (which includes Caltrans). The Consultant will incorporate comments from the Project Team and revise the Administrative Draft to create a Public Review Draft. The Public Review Draft Study will be presented at public meetings with the Transportation & Parking Commission and Planning Commission. Feedback will be incorporated into development of the Final West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study (Task 7).

26 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

The Draft Study, in addition to showing a preferred protected bike lane concept and potential land use changes for Glenoaks Boulevard, should include illustrative “vision” plans showing corridor-long and locational enhancements that will support multi-modal corridors and vibrant neighborhoods linking to Glenoaks Boulevard. Based on comments received from the project team, the consultant will revise the draft corridor plan to be presented at the final public engagement session. The following are deliverable tasks expected from the consultant as a part of this task:

• Introduction and Project Need Statement • Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Constraints

• Analysis of Future Conditions - including demographic information and traffic counts • Summary of Community Engagement Process • Preferred Protected Bike Lane, Complete Street and Land Use Concepts • Implementation and Financing Strategy

Deliverables: Administrative Draft Study, Public Review Draft Study

Task 6: Final Draft West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

Based on comments received from the community, City Staff, Transportation and Parking Commission, Planning Commission, Advisory Committee, Technical Working Group, and other stakeholders, the Consultant will revise the Draft Study to develop the Final West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study. Deliverables: final Draft Study

Task 7: Final West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study Presentation and Adoption

The Final Study will be presented to the Planning Commission, Transportation and Parking Commission, and City Council for discussion and adoption. Caltrans will be notified of when the Final Plan is released and its adoption date. Deliverables: Presentation Materials, Adopted Final Plan

27 City of Glendale West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

EXHIBIT 2— Services Time Schedule

PROJECT SCHEDULE

flflan •nflnflnl.nlna.lflflfl.flfln..n.nn.nn Inn ifl.nnnnnnnmnnnninimnnnnn.nnnnna. flfln~ us6 ns6 usa nun unn non boa nsa non sun nbs ii.nfln.m n..n •flnnnn.n. final fliflfl flails ‘inn nn.nnnnn..aa.nn mali nflnfl~nmlhf

am. man

lilianfi lass mass sna mall snas .n.n.flninn.n.nn

lnnnnimn..m..nnn.n...na anmn.nn Iflflflflulflilfliflhiifllalifllflfl5flflflflfli lain ,.nfl.n.naa.a.an..n..n...... n..n.n...nina.. ..n

28 Exhibit #3 - Campaign Finance Table West Glendale Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Study

Officers and Board Members of Crandall Arambula Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip n/a Chairperson 520 SW Yamhill St. Jessie Maran CEO/President Roof Suite 4 Portland OR 97204 n/a COO n/a CFO Don Arambula Jessie Maran Board of 520 SW Yamhill St. George Crandall Directors Roof Suite 4 Portland OR 97204 Don Arambula Jessie Maran More than 10% 520 SW Yamhill St. George Crandall interest owner Roof Suite 4 Portland OR 97204

Subcontractors of Crandall Arambula: Fehr and Peers Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip n/a Chairperson 100 Pringle Avenue Walnut Matt Henry CEO/President #600 Creek CA 94596 n/a COO 100 Pringle Avenue Walnut Marion Donnelly CFO #600 Creek CA 94596 Matt Henry, Ron Milam, Steve Brown, Jane Bierstedt, Marion Board of 100 Pringle Avenue Walnut Donnelly Directors #600 Creek CA 94596 More than 10% n/a interest owner

Subcontractors of Crandall Arambula: Torti Gallas Irull Name Title Business Address City State Zip n/a Chairperson Tom Gallas, CEO 601 W. 5th Street, John Torti, President CEO/President 600 Los Angeles CA 90071 n/a COO 601 W. 5th Street, Diane McCloskey CFO 600 Los Angeles CA 90071 John Torti, Tom Gallas, Murphy Board of 601 W. 5th Street, Antoine Directors 600 Los Angeles CA 90071 More than 10% 601 W. 5th Street, John Torti, Tom Gallas interest owner 600 Los Angeles CA 90071

Subcontractors of Crandall Arambula:_Liberate?_Language_Justice IFull Name Title Business Address City State Zip n/a Chairperson Gabriella Garcia, co-founder Elizabeth Medrano, co-founder CEO/President 2117 Norwood Street Los Angeles CA 90007 n/a COO Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip Board of n/a Directors Gabriella Garcia, co-founder More than 10% Elizabeth Medrano, co-founder interest owner 2117 Norwood Street Los Angeles CA 90007

Subcontractors of Crandall Arambula: Cupola Media ~ Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip n/a Chairperson Spencer Boomhower, Owner CEO/President 1324 SE 52nd Ave Portland OR 97215 n/a COO n/a CFO Board of n/a Directors More than 10% Spencer Boomhower, Owner interest owner 1324 SE 52nd Ave Portland OR 97215 Ex.Wbit 4 PROJECT SCHEDULE - - MONTh’ 140111112 MONTHs 140111114 H4011T115 140111116 MONTh? I MONTh m MONIIIT I MONTH 13 MONTH 14 IIONTIIIS 10 ProjectManaqement S •

kickotimeeting I ZIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIHIIHUI IIIHhIIIIIIIIIIIIflIIflhII

UPl*dlelnadlna&PrctedMseagementPIauØAP)lflI II DII DII 1 ~ - IS I ~ ID DII DIII II III I.3lneoicieqavdcookacts B 1111111 I’ Ilililili •i fl~ ifl III III’ ir ii ‘iii ‘.4 TechnicalWorkingGroup ILJHIIIIIIII T 111111 1111111 ••~•• T 11111111 111111111 III ZOPnbllcOutreact,

2i PublicOutreachrlav • t’ ~fl ~IuII~W :1: . . ~: • :7 • lIt III

30 InformatIon Gathering Z

31 RevIew ci Policy FralneWolt avd Plavning St~iaT I OATH H PREPARE & EEVELAP F RAE — ~1 32 EEiSOIT9 Couditious Avalpuis I OATh N PREPARE & rEVELEr r HAL . I 3.3 CPOZone Analysis I 04111011 PREPARE EEVELOP F RAE I

3.4 CFO Zone concepts IILn PREPARE&OEVELOPFVALL — I

40 Sostainahle Transportatlonand Land Lisa Concepts —

41 Proiededniietanecooceptplaus IlIlIllIllIll AlIEN! OP11TRS REVIEW 1111 ~ 11111 IllIllIlIllIllIll 42Cestreet.tandtseconcepts IIIIIIIIIIIII WIRE OPTjO S REVIEW FINAUZE IHIHHIIIIIIIIII!111111

5.0 lmplenientatlonStrategy • k . . . .,~ . . . . .

5.1 Project SelectIon and PflTrIHIZILIOT — IRE MIlAN? REVIEW FINAL ~1 —1

52 Finuolciug Strategy POEMMIRARY REVIEW FPNAE[

~ . . I • • . N ~ ~ tanduseStudy . . ..~ .. .1• . •~• ~1’ DrahWestGleautainahleTranpodaboTaodLaud IIIIIIIIIIIIIflhIIIInhIIIflIflhIIIIE~iIIIIIIIIIIIIIII : III

60riuID~rtw~tGIeid~isisliIFabIeWii~itinair ‘ : •~ I. • i •. .• N . - ~andLandUseStud .,- . . . ,. . . . -~ - -. - . 61 DMPlWntGleeda stainahleTranspatatouaodlaudU IIIIIIIIIIIII :~ IIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111 II RFRIFW FINAL 1111111 ~fl ~ . :~ A ~. . F LandUseM~yPresentaUonandMoptton ‘. . . fli • ~. • • . • • ~~

Rick-otiMaatin ParlicipationSessiosHl ParticipationSessionu2 ~ Parlicipationsessional Participatioolsession N4 O Q COIIImUTIIy Workshop Type A Ill ® Commouity Workshop Type B 121 muvityWork h.p ype C 2) 0 Community Workshop Typo C O Project Team CoordiuaEiou Cululmulsily Workshop lype CII) Oue-ou-Oue Stokelsolder Meetings (1: I ® COREd Presentatiool O Ouailerly RAped Outuu-One 5011401014cr MeetIsgslTBO) a Advisory Meeting (TI a Advisory MeetIngs t2) O Technical Working ~ o Advisory Ioeetiug IT) • Pop-Up Event 2) 0 Pop-Up Eveut 0)

UPR.ETCO, SEFTCI.OOV & 201’ 35 FU CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA REPORT TO THE: Joint fl City Council ~ Housing Authority fl Successor Agency ~ Oversight Board Li

October 1, 2019 AGENDA ITEM

Report: Designation of a Voting Delegate and Alternates for the League of California Cities Annual Conference

1) Motion to Designate Council Member Agajanian as the Voting Delegate, Assistant City Manager Golanian as the First Alternate, and Council Member Gharpetian as the Second Alternate for the League of California Cities Annual Conference to be held October 16-18, 2019.

COUNCIL ACTION Public Hearing fl Ordinance H Consent Calendar ~ Action Item H Report Only H

Approved for 10/01/19 calendar

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION Signature Submitted & Prepared by; Christine B. Powers, Senior Administrative Analyst

Approved by: Yasmin K. Beers, City Manager

Reviewed by; Roubik Golanian, Assistant City Manager

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney

I RECOMMENDATION Staff respectfully recommends Council’s designation of a voting delegate and two alternates from City Council to represent the City of Glendale during the 2019 League of California CitiesAnnual Conference, which will be held October16- 18, 2019, in Long Beach.

BACKGROUNDIANALYSIS The League of California Cities is an association of California city officials who work together to enhance their knowledge and skills, exchange information, and combine resources so that they may influence policy decisions that affect cities. Each year, the League organizes a conference which includes an Annual Business Meeting. During this meeting, the League’s membership considers and takes action on resolutions that establish League Policy. This year’s conference will be held at the Long Beach

Convention Center from October 16 - 18, 2019. The Annual Business meeting will be held on the last day of the conference during General Assembly on Friday, October 18, at 12:30 pm.

In order for cities to cast a vote during this Business Meeting, each city’s respective Council must designate a voting delegate. In the instance that the selected voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity, the Organization’s bylaws allow each city the opportunity to appoint up to two alternate voting delegates.

For this selection process to be binding, the appointment of the voting delegate and alternates must be through an official action of the City Council. Furthermore, the voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference, and at least one must be present at the Business Meeting and in possession of a voting card in order to cast a vote. Eligible individuals who may be selected as the City’s voting delegate include the Mayor, all City Council Members, as well as any other city official selected by the City Council to serve in this capacity.

As of September 25, 2019, four elected officials are confirmed to attend the 2019 League of California Cities Annual Conference in Long Beach: Mayor Ara Najarian, Council Member Vartan Gharpetian, Council Member Vrej Agajanian, and Council Member Frank Quintero. Additionally, City Manager Yasmin Beers and Assistant City Manager Roubik Golanian are confirmed to attend the conference.

It is recommended that City Council select Council Member Agajanian to serve as the primary voting delegate, Assistant City Manager Roubik Golanian to serve as the first voting alternate, and Council Member Gharpetian to serve as the second voting alternate. The second alternate will only be called upon to cast a vote on behalf of the City of Glendale in the absence of the designated delegate and alternate.

Included in this report are the League’s Annual Conference Voting Procedures (Exhibit 1), as well as the 2019 Annual Conference Resolutions Packet (Exhibit 2), which details what will be voted on during the General Assembly.

2 FISCAL IMPACT None

ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1: The City Council may make a motion to select Council Member Agajanian as the primary voting delegate, Assistant City Manager Golanian as the first voting alternate, and Council Member Gharpetian as the second voting alternate for the 2019 League of California Cities Annual Conference.

Alternative 2: The City Council may make a motion to select a different combination of any of the confirmed attendees, including staff, as the primary voting delegate, the first voting alternate, and the second voting alternate for the 2019 League of California Cities Annual Conference.

Alternative 3: The City Council may choose to not select any member of Council to serve as a voting delegate or alternate, and thus not have the City of Glendale represented in the Annual Business Meeting.

Alternative 4: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE Not applicable

EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Annual Conference Voting Procedures

Exhibit 2: 2019 Annual Conference Resolutions Packet

3 MOTION Moved by Council Member ______

seconded by Council Member ______, that the

Council of the City of Glendale, California hereby designates the following individuals

as the voting delegate and alternates for the League of California Cities Annual

Conference and Annual Business Meeting to be held from October16- 18, 2019, in

Long Beach, California:

VOTING DELEGATE: Council Member Vrej Agajanian

FIRST ALTERNATE: Assistant City Manager Roubik Golanian

SECOND ALTERNATE: Council Member Vartan Gharpetian

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

APPROVED AS OPORM

C~~C1TORNEY DATE ?/27/1~1’ ifi

4 EXHIBIT 1&LEAGUE L~_CITIESOF CALIFORNIA

Annual Conference Voting Procedures

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to League policy.

2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the Voting Delegate Form provided to the League Credentials Committee.

3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city’s voting card at the Voting Delegate Desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on theft name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the Business Meeting.

4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up theft city’s voting card by providing a signature to the Credentials Committee at the Voting Delegate Desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting. To cast the city’s vote, a city official must have in his or her possession the city’s voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate or alternate.

6. Voting Area at Business Meeting. At the Business Meeting, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission will be limited to those individuals with a special sticker on theft name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate.

7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the Business Meeting.

1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814-3916 I www.cacities.org I (916) 658-8200 EXHIBIT 2 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES

Annual Conference Resolutions Packet

2019 Annual Conference Resolutions

Long Beach, California

October 16 — 18, 2019 INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES

RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS PACKET: The League bylaws provide that resolutions shall be referred by the president to an appropriate policy committee for review and recommendation. Resolutions with committee recommendations shall then be considered by the General Resolutions Committee at the Annual Conference.

This year, two resolutions have been introduced for consideration at the Annual Conference and referred to League policy committees.

POLICY COMMITTEES: Two policy committees will meet at the Annual Conference to consider and take action on the resolutions referred to them. The committees are: Environmental Quality and

Transportation, Communication & Public Works. The committees will meet from 9:00 — 11:00a.m. on Wednesday, October 16, at the Hyatt Regency Long Beach. The sponsors of the resolutions have been notified of the time and location of the meeting.

GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE: This committee will meet at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 17, at the Hyatt Regency Long Beach, to consider the reports of the policy committees regarding the resolutions. This committee includes one representative from each of the League’s regional divisions, functional departments and standing policy committees, as well as other individuals appointed by the League president. Please check in at the registration desk for room location.

ANNUAL LUNCHEON/BUSINESS MEETING/GENERAL ASSEMBLY: This meeting will be held at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, October 18, at the Long Beach Convention Center.

PETITIONED RESOLUTIONS: For those issues that develop after the nomial 60-day deadline, a resolution may be introduced at the Annual Conference with a petition signed by designated voting delegates of 10 percent of all member cities (48 valid signatures required) and presented to the Voting Delegates Desk at least 24 hours prior to the time set for convening the Annual Business Meeting of the General Assembly. This year, that deadline is 12:30 p.m., Thursday, October 17. Resolutions can be viewed on the League’s Web site: www.cacities.org/resolutions.

Any questions concerning the resolutions procedures may be directed to Carly Shelby cshelby(~cacities.org 916-658-8279 or Nick Romo nromo(~cacities.org 916-658-8232 at the League office.

I GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS

Policy development is a vital and ongoing process within the League. The principal means for deciding policy on the important issues facing cities is through the League’s seven standing policy committees and the board of directors. The process allows for timely consideration of issues in a changing environment and assures city officials the opportunity to both initiate and influence policy decisions.

Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop League policy. Resolutions should adhere to the following criteria.

Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions

1. Only issues that have a direct bearing on municipal affairs should be considered or adopted at the Annual Conference.

2. The issue is not ofa purely local or regional concern.

3. The recommended policy should not simply restate existing League policy.

4. The resolution should be directed at achieving one of the following objectives:

(a) Focus public or media attention on an issue of major importance to cities.

(b) Establish a new direction for League policy by establishing general principles around which more detailed policies may be developed by policy committees and the board of directors.

(d) Amend the League bylaws (requires 2/3 vote at General Assembly).

2 LOCATION OF MEETINGS

Policy Committee Meetings

Wednesday, October 16, 9:00 — 11:00a.m. Hyatt Regency Long Beach 200 South Pine Avenue, Long Beach

The following committees will be meeting:

1. Environmental Quality 10:00 - 11:00 a.m.

2. Transportation, Communication & Public Works 9:00 - 10:00 a.m.

General Resolutions Committee Thursday, October 17, 1:00p.m. Hyatt Regency Long Beach 200 South Pine Avenue, Long Beach

Annual Business Meeting and General Assembly Luncheon Friday, October 18, 12:30p.m. Long Beach Convention Center 300 East Ocean Boulevard, Long Beach

3 KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS

Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned.

Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action

1 - Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee

2 — General Resolutions Committee

3 - General Assembly

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 1 Amendment to Rule 20A I 2 International Transboundary Pollution Flows

TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION & PUBLIC WORKS POLICY COMMITTEE

I AmendmenttoRule2OA I I 2

Information pertaining to the Annual Conference Resolutions will also be posted on each committee’s page on the League website: www.cacities.org. The entire Resolutions Packet is posted at: www.cacities.org/resolutions.

4 KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued)

Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned.

KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN

1. Policy Committee A Approve

2. General Resolutions Committee D Disapprove

3. General Assembly N No Action

R Refer to appropriate policy committee for study ACTION FOOTNOTES a Amend+

* Subject matter covered in another resolution Aa Approve as amended+

* * Existing League policy Aaa Approve with additional amendment(s)+

* * * Local authority presently exists Ra Refer as amended to appropriate policy committee for study+

Raa Additional amendments and refer+

Da Amend (for clarity or brevity) and Disapprove+

Na Amend (for clarity or brevity) and take No Action+

W Withdrawn by Sponsor

Procedural Note: The League of California Cities resolution process at the Annual Conference is guided by League Bylaws. A helpful explanation of this process can be found on the League’s website by clicking on this link: Guidelines for the Annual Conference Resolutions Process.

5 League of California Cities Resolution Process

REGULAR RESOLUTIONS General Resolutions Policy Committee Action Calendar Committee Action Approve Approve Consent Calendar’ Approve Disapprove or Refer Regular Calendar2 Disapprove or Refer Approve Regular Calendar Disapprove or Refer Disapprove or Refer Does not proceed to General Assembly

PETITION RESOLUTIONS

. . General Resolutions Policy Committee Action . . Calendar Committee Action Not Heard in Policy Committee Approve Consent Calendar Not Heard in Policy Committee Disapprove or Refer Regular Calendar Not Heard in Policy Committee Disqualified per Bylaws Art. Does not proceed to General VI Assembly

Resolutions • Submitted 60 days prior to conference Bylaws Article V1 Sec. 4(a) • Signatures of at least 5 supporting cities or city officials submitted with the proposed resolution Bylaws Article VI, Sec. 2 • Assigned to policy committee(s) by League president Bylaws Article 144 Sec. 4(b)(i) • Heard in policy committee(s) and report recommendation, if any, to GRC Bylaws Article VI, Sec. 4(b)(ii) • Heard in GRC • Approved by policy committee(s) and GRC, goes on to General Assembly on consent calendar 2006 General Assembly Resolution Sec. 2(C) - If amended/approved by all policy committee(s) to which it has been referred and disapproved by GRC, then goes on to General Assembly on the regular calendar. If not all policy committees to which it has been referred recommend amendment or approval, and the GRC disapproves or refers the resolution, the resolution does not move to the General Assembly 2006 General Assembly Resolution Sec. 2(A), (C); 1998 General Assembly Resolution, F’ Resolved Clause • If disapproved by all policy committees to which it has been referred and disapproved by the GRC, resolution does not move to the General Assembly 2006 General Assembly Resolution Sec. 2(C) • Heard in General Assembly

~ consent calendar should only be used for resolutions where there is unanimity between the policy committees and the CRC that a resolution should be approved by the General Assembly, and therefore, it can be concluded that there will be less desire to debate the resolution on the floor.

2 The regular calendar is for resolutions for which there is a difference in recommendations between the policy committees and the CRC.

6 Petitioned Resolutions • Submitted by voting delegate Bylaws Article VI, Sec. 5 (a) • Must be signed by voting delegates representing 10% of the member cities Bylaws Article VI, Sec. 5 (c) • Signatures confirmed by League staff • Submitted to the League president for confirmation 24 hours before the beginning of the General Assembly. Bylaws Article Vi; Sec. 5 (d) • Petition to be reviewed by Parliamentarian for required signatures of voting delegates and for form and substance Bylaws Article VI, Sec. 5(e) • Parliamentarian’s report is presented to chair of GRC • Will be heard at GRC for action (GRC cannot amend but may recommend by a majority vote to the GA technical or clarifying amendments) 2006 General Assembly Resolution sec. 6(A), (B) • GRC may disqualify if: • Non-germane to city issues • Identical or substantially similar in substance to a resolution already under consideration Bylaws Article Vi; Sec. 5(e), (f) • Heard in General Assembly • General Assembly will consider the resolution following the other resolutions3 Bylaws Article VI, Sec. 5&) • Substantive amendments that change the intent of the petitioned resolution may only be adopted by the GA 2006 General Assembly Resolution sec. 6(C)

Voting Procedure in the General Assembly

Consent Calendar: Resolution approved by Policy Committee(s) and GRC. Petitioned resolution approved by GRC) • GRC Chair will be asked to give the report from the GRC and will ask for adoption of the GRC’s recommendations • Ask delegates if there is a desire to call out a resolution for discussion • A voting delegate may make a motion to remove a resolution from the consent calendar for discussion • If a motion is made to pull a resolution, the General Assembly votes on whether to pull the resolution from the consent calendar. • If a majority of the General Assembly votes to pull the resolution, set “called our’ reso(s) aside. If the motion fails, the resolution remains on the consent calendar. • If reso(s) not called out, or after ‘called our’ reso is set aside, then ask for vote on remaining resos left on consent • Move on to debate on reso(s) called out • After debate, a vote is taken • Voting delegates vote on resolutions by raising their voting cards.4

Petitioned Resolutions on the Consent Calendar will be placed after all General Resolutions on the Consent Calendar. Petitioned Resolutions on the Regular Calendar will be placed after all General Resolutions on the Regular Calendar.

4Amendments to League bylaws require 2/3 vote

7 Regular Calendar: Regular resolutions approved by Policy Committee(s)5, and GRC recommends disapproval or referral; Regular resolutions disapproved or referred by Policy Committee(s)6 and GRC approves; Petitioned resolutions disapproved or referred by the GRC.

• Open the floor to determine if a voting delegate wishes to debate a resolution on the regular calendar. • If no voting delegate requests a debate on the resolution, a vote to ratio’ the recommendation of the GRC on the resolution is taken. Upon a motion by a voting delegate to debate a resolution, a debate shall be held if approved by a majority vote of the General Assembly. If a majority of the General Assembly to debate the resolution is not achieved, then a vote shall be taken on whether to ratii~’ the GRC’s recommendation. If a majority of the General Assembly approves of the motion to debate the resolution, debate will occur. After debate on the resolution, a vote is taken based upon the substitute motion that was made, if any, or on the question of ratifying the GRC ‘s recommendation. • Voting delegates vote by raising their voting cards.

Applies in the instance where the GRC recommendation of disapproval or refer is counter to the recommendations of the policy committees.

6 Applies in the instance where the CRC recommendation to approve is counter to the recommendations of the policy committees.

8 1. RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES CALLING ON THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION TO AMEND RULE 20A TO ADD PROJECTS IN VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES TO THE LIST OF ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA AND TO INCREASE FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR RULE 20A PROJECTS Source: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials Cities: City of Hidden Hills, City of La Caitada Flintridge, City of Laguna Beach, City of Lakeport, City of Malibu, City of Moorpark, City of Nevada City, City of Palos Verdes Estates, City of Rolling Hills Estates, City of Rolling Hills, City of Ventura Referred to: Envirom~ental Quality Policy Committee; Transportation, Communications, and Public Works Policy Committee

WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Commission regulates the undergrounding conversion of overhead utilities under Electric Tariff Rule 20 and;

WHEREAS, conversion projects deemed to have a public benefit are eligible to be fUnded by ratepayers under Rule 20A; and

\VHEREAS, the criteria under Rule 20A largely restricts eligible projects to those along streets with high volumes of public traffic; and

WHEREAS, the cost of undergrounding projects that do not meet Rule 20A criteria is left mostly or entirely to property owners under other parts of Rule 20; and

WHEREAS, California is experiencing fire seasons of worsening severity; and

WHEREAS, undergrounding overhead utilities that can spark brush fires is an important tool in preventing them and offers a public benefit; and

WHEREAS, brush fires are not restricted to starting near streets with high volumes of public traffic; and

WHEREAS, expanding Rule 20A criteria to include Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones would facilitate undergrounding projects that would help prevent fires; and

WHEREAS, expanding Rule 20A criteria as described above and increasing fUnding allocations for Rule 20A projects would lead to more undergrounding in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones; and now therefore let it be,

RESOLVED that the League of California Cities calls on the California Public Utilities Commission to amend Rule 20A to include projects in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones to the list of criteria for eligibility and to increase funding allocations for Rule 20A projects.

9 Background Information on Resolution No. 1

Source: City of Rancho Palos Verdes

Background: Rancho Palos Verdes is the most populated California city to have 90 percent or more of residents living in a Cal Fire-designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Over the years, the Palos Verdes Peninsula has seen numerous brush fires that were determined to be caused by electrical utility equipment.

Across the state, some of the most destructive and deadly wildfires were sparked by power equipment. But when it comes to undergrounding overhead utilities, fire safety is not taken into account when considering using ratepayer ifinds to pay for these projects under California’s Electric Tariff Rule 20 program. The program was largely intended to address visual blight when it was implemented in 1967. Under Rule 20A, utilities must allocate ratepayer fUnds to undergrounding conversion projects chosen by local governments that have a public benefit and meet one or more of the following criteria:

• Eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead lines; • Involve a street or road with a high volume of public traffic; • Benefit a civic or public recreation area or area of unusual scenic interest; and, • Be listed as an arterial street or major collector as defined in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Guidelines.

As we know, brush fires are not restricted to erupting in these limited areas. California’s fire season has worsened in severity in recent years, claiming dozens of lives and destroying tens of thousands of structures in 2018 alone.

Excluding fire safety from Rule 20A eligibility criteria puts the task of undergrounding power lines in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones squarely on property owners who are proactive, willing and able to foot the bill.

The proposed resolution calls on the California Public Utilities Commission to amend Rule 20A to include projects in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones to the list of criteria for eligibility. To facilitate more undergrounding projects in these high-risk zones, the proposed resolution also calls on the CPUC to increase funding allocations for Rule 20A projects.

If adopted, utilities will be incentivized to prioritize undergrounding projects that could potentially save millions of dollars and many lives.

10 League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1

Staff: Rony Berdugo, Legislative Representative, Derek Dolfie, Legislative Representative, Caroline Cirrincione, Legislative Policy Analyst Committees: Environmental Quality; Transportation, Communications, and Public Works

Summary: This Resolution, in response to intensifying fire seasons and hazards associated with exposed energized utility lines, proposes that the League of California Cities (League) call upon the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to amend the Rule 20A program by expanding the criteria for undergrounding overhead utilities to include projects in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (VHFHSZ). This Resolution also proposes that the League call upon the CPUC to increase utilities’ funding allocations for Rule 20A projects.

Background

California Wildfires and Utilities Over the last several years, the increasing severity and frequency of California’s wildfires have prompted state and local governments to seek urgent prevention and mitigation actions. Record breaking wildfires in Northern and Southern California in both 2017 and 2018 have caused destruction and loss of life. This severe fire trend has local officials seeking solutions to combat what is now a year-round fire season exacerbated by years of drought, intense weather patterns, untamed vegetation and global warming.

These conditions create a dangerous catalyst for wildfires caused by utilities as extreme wind and weather events make downed power lines more of a risk. In response to recent catastrophic wildfires, Governor Newsom established a Strike Force tasked with developing a “comprehensive roadmap” to address issues related to wildfires, climate change, and utilities. The Strilce Force report acknowledges that measures to harden the electrical grid are critical to wildfire risk management. A key utility hardening strategy: undergrounding lines in extreme high-fire areas.

Governor Newsom’s Wildfire Strike Force program report concludes, “It’s not a question of “if’ wildfire will strilce, but “when.”

Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones This Resolution seeks to expand the undergrounding of overhead utility lines in VHFHSZ. California Government Code Section 51178 requires the Director of the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Ca1FIRE) to identify areas in the state as VHFHSZ based on the potential fire hazard in those areas. VHFHSZ are determined based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors. These zones are in both local responsibility areas and state responsibility areas. Maps of the statewide and county by county VHFHSZ can be found here.’

severity-zones.maps/

‘11 More than 25 million acres of California wildlands are classified under very high or extreme fire threat. Approximately 25 percent of the state’s population, 11 million people, live in those high- risk areas. Additionally, over 350,000 Californians live in cities that are nearly encompassed within Cal Fire’s maps of VHFHSZ. Similar to the proponents of this Resolution, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, over 75 communities have 90 percent or more of residents living in a VHFHSZ.

CPUC Rule 20 Program The CPUC’s Rule 20 program lays out the guidelines and procedures for converting overhead electric and telecommunication facilities to underground electric facilities. Rule 20 funding and criteria is provided at four levels. Levels A, B, and C, reflect progressively diminishing ratepayer funding for undergrounding projects. Recently added Rule 20D is a relatively new program that is specific to San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), which was created in response to the destructive 2007 wildflres. Each of these levels will be discussed below:

Rule 20A The first California overhead conversion program, Rule 20A, was created in 1967 under then Governor Ronald Reagan. The program was created to provide a consistent and structured means of undergrounding utility lines throughout the state with costs covered broadly by utility ratepayers.

Each year, Investor Owned Utilities (lOUs) propose their Rule 20A allocation amounts to the CPUC during annual general rate case proceedings. In this process, lOUs propose revised utility customer rates based on expected service costs, new energy procurement and projects for the following year, including Rule 20 allocations. The CPUC then reviews, amends, and approves IOU rates. Currently, the cumulative budgeted amount for Rule 20A for Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E) totals around $95.7 million.

The funding set aside by lOUs for Rule 20A is allocated to local governments through a credit system, with each credit holding a value to be used solely for the costs of an undergrounding project. The credit system was created so that local governments and IOUs can complete undergrounding projects without municipal financing. Through Rule 20A, municipalities that have developed and received city council approval for an undergrounding plan receive annual credits from the IOU in their service area. At the last count by the CPUC, over 500 local governments (cities and counties) participate in the credit system.

While these credits have no inherent monetary value, they can be traded in or banked for the conversion of overhead lines. Municipalities can choose to accumulate their credits until their credit balance is sufficient to cover these conversion projects, or choose to borrow future undergrounding allocations for a period of up to five years. Once the cumulative balance of credits is sufficient to cover the cost of a conversion project, the municipality and the utility can move forward with the undergrounding. All of the planning, design, and construction is perfornied by the participating utility. Upon the completion of an undergrounding project, the utility is compensated through the local government’s Rule 20A credits.

12 At the outset of the program, the amount of allocated credits were determined by a formula which factored in the number of utility meters within a municipality in comparison to the utilities’ service territory. However, in recent years the formula has changed. Credit allocations for lOUs, except for PG&E, are now determined based on the allocation a city or county received in 1990 and is then adjusted for the following factors:

• 50% of the changefrom the 1990 total budgeted amount is allocated for the ratio of the number of overhead meters in any city or unincorporated area to the total system overhead meters; and • 50% of the changefrom the 1990 total budgeted amount is allocated for the ratio of the number of meters (which includes older homes that have overhead services, and newer homes with completely underground services) in any city or the unincorporated area to the total system meters.

As noted, PG&E has a different thnding formula for their Rule 20A credit allocations as they are not tied to the 1990 base allocation. Prior to 2011, PG&E was allocating approximately five to six percent of its revenue to the Rule 20A program. The CPUC decided in 2011 that PG&E’s Rule 20A allocations should be reduced by almost half in an effort to decrease the growing accumulation of credits amongst local governments. Since 2011, PG&E’s annual allocations for Rule 20A have been around $41.3 million annually, which is between two and three percent of their total revenue.

Criteria for Rule 20A Projects For an undergrounding project to quali~’ for the Rule 20A program, there are several criteria that need to be met. The project must have a public benefit and:

1. Eliminate an unusually heavy concentration of overhead lines 2. Involve a street or road with a high volume ofpublic traffic 3. Benefit a civic or public recreation area or area of unusual scenic interest, 4. Be listed as an arterial street or major collector as defined in the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) Guidelines

Notably, fire safety is excluded from the list of criteria that favors aesthetic and other public safety projects.

Rule 20A Credit System Imbalance Threatens Program Effectiveness Allocations are made by utilities each year for Rule 20A credits. These current budget allocations total $95.7 million a year. Currently, the cumulative balance of credits throughout the state totals over $1 billion dollars. The Rule 20A cumulative balances aggregated by region can be found here.2

2 Program Review, California Overhead Conversion Program, Rule 20A for Years 2011-2015, ‘The Billion Dollar Risk,” California Public Utilities Commission. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uoloadedriles/CPUC Public Website/Content/About Us/Organization/Divisions/Policy and PlanninglPpD Work Pr oducts (2014 forward)(1)IPPD Rule 20-A.pdf

13 Note: The existing credit allocation formulas do not consider a municipality’s need or plans for overhead conversion projects, resulting in large credit balances in some jurisdictions.

Cities and counties are, however, able to trade or sell unallocated Rule 20A credits if they will not be used to fund local undergrounding projects. There have been several cases where one agency has sold their unused credits, often for less than the full dollar value of the credits themselves to another agency.

Rule ZOB Rule 20B projects are those that do not fit the Rule 20A criteria, but do, however, involve both sides of the street for at least 600 feet. These projects are typically done in conjunction with larger developments and are mostly paid for by the developer or applicant. Additionally, the applicant is responsible for the installation.

Rule 20C Rule 20C projects are usually small projects that involve property owners. The majority of the cost is usually borne by the applicants. Rule 20C applies when the project does not qualify for either Rule 20A or Rule 20B.

Rule 20D--Wildfire Mitigation Undergrounding Program Rule 20D was approved by the CPUC in January of 2014 and only applies to SDG&E. The Rule 20D program was established largely in response to the destructive wildfires that occurred in San Diego in 2007 as a wildfire mitigation undergrounding program. According to SDG&E, the objective of the Rule 20D undergrounding is exclusively for fire hardening as opposed to aesthetics. The program is limited in scope and is restricted to communities in SDG&E’s Fire Threat Zone (now referred to as the High Fire Threat District or HFTD). As of this time, the program has yet to yield any projects and no projects are currently planned.

For an undergrounding project to qualify for the Rule 20D program, a minimum of three of the following criteria must be met. The project must be near, within, or impactful to:

• Critical electric infrastructure • Remaining useful life of electric infrastructure • Exposure to vegetation or tree contact • Density and proximity of fuel • Critical surrounding non-electric assets (including structures and sensitive environmental areas) • Service to public agencies • Accessibility for firefighters

Similar to Rule 20A, SDG&E must allocate funding each year through their general rate case proceedings to Rule 20D to be approved by the CPUC. This funding is separate from the allocations SDG&E makes for Rule 20A. However, the process of distributing this funding to localities is different. The amount of funding allocated to each city and county for Rule 20D is based on the ratio of the number of miles of overhead lines in SDG&E Fire Threat Zones in a city or county to the total miles of SDG&E overhead lines in the entire SDG&E fire zone. The

14 Rule 20D program is administered by the utility consistent with the existing reporting, engineering, accounting, and management practices for Rule 20A.

The Committee may want to consider whether Rule 20D should instead be expanded, adapted, or further utilized to support funding for overhead conversions within VHFHSZ throughout the state.

Fiscal Impact: The costs to the State associated with this Resolution will be related to the staff and programmatic costs to the CPUC to take the necessary measures to consider and adopt changes to Rule 20A to include projects in VHFHSZ to the list of criteria for eligibility.

This Resolution calls for an unspecified increase in fUnding for Rule 20A projects, inferring that portions of increased funds will go towards newly eligible high fire hazard zones. While the Resolution does not request a specific amount be allocated, it can be assumed that these increased costs will be supported by utility ratepayers. According to the CPUC, the annual allocations towards Rule 20A are $95.7 million.

The CPUC currently reports a cumulative credit surplus valued at roughly SI billion that in various regions, given the approval of expanded eligibility called for by this Resolution, could be used to supplement and reduce the level of new dollars needed to make a significant impact in VHFHSZ. The CPUC follows that overhead conversion projects range from $93,000 per mile for rural construction to $5 million per mile for urban construction.

The Resolution states that “California is experiencing fire seasons of worsening severity” which is supported by not only the tremendous loss of property and life from recent wildfires, but also in the rising costs associated with clean up, recovery, and other economic losses with high estimates in the hundreds of billions of dollars.

The Committee may wish to consider the costs associated with undergrounding utility lines in relation to the costs associated with past wildfires and wildfires to come.

Comments: CPUC Currently Exploring Revisions to Rule 20 In May 2017, the CPUC issued an Order Instituting Rulemaking to Consider Revisions to Electric Rule 20 and Related Matters. The CPUC will primarily focus on revisions to Rule 20A but may make conforming changes to other parts of Rule 20. The League is a party in these proceedings will provide comments.

Beyond Rule 20A: Additional Optionsfor Funding Undergrounding Projects There are various ways in which cities can generate funding for undergrounding projects that fall outside of the scope of Rule 20A. At the local level, cities can choose to forgo the Rule 20A process and opt to use their own General Fund money for undergrounding. Other options are also discussed below:

15 Rule 20D Expansion The City of Berkley in a 2018 study titled “Conceptual Study for Undergrounding Utility Wires in Berkley,” found that the city could possibly quali~’ for Rule 20D funding if they actively pursued this opportunity in partnership with PG&E and the CPUC.

One of the study’s recommendations is to advocate for release of 20D funds (now earmarked exclusively for SDG&E) to be used for more aggressive fire hardening techniques for above- ground utility poles and equipment, for undergrounding power lines, and for more aggressive utility pole and vegetation management practices in the Very High Hazard Fire Zone within Berkeley’s city limits.

As an alternative to changing the criteria for Rule 20A, the Committee may wish to consider whether there is the opportunity to advocate for the expansion of Rule 20D funding more broadly, expanding its reach to all IOU territories.

Franchise Surcharge Fees Aside from Rule 20 allocations, cities can generate funding for undergrounding through franchise fee surcharges. For example, SDG&E currently operates under a 50-year City franchise that was granted in 1970. Under the franchises approved by the San Diego City Council in December 1970, SDG&E agreed to pay a franchise fee to the City equivalent to 3% of its gross receipts from the sales of both natural gas and electricity for 30 years.

These fees were renegotiated in 2000 and in 2001 an agreement was between the City of San Diego, SDG&E, and the CPUC to extend the existing franchise fee to include revenues collected from surcharges. SDG&E requested an increase of 3.88% to its existing electric franchise fee surcharge. The bulk, 3.53% of this increase is to be used for underground conversion of overhead electric wires.

Based on SDG&E’s revenue projections, the increase would result in an additional surcharge revenue amount of approximately $36.5 million per year. SDG&E estimates that this would create a monthly increase of approximately $3.00 to a typical residential customer’s electric bill. These surcharge revenues would pay for additional undergrounding projects including those that do not meet the Rule 20A criteria. The City of Santa Barbara has also adopted a similar franchise surcharge fee.

Having this funding source allows the City of San Diego to underground significantly more miles of above ground utility lines than other municipalities. However, the surcharge is currently being challenged in court, as it is argued that the City had SDG&E impose a tax without a ballot measure.

16 Utility Bankruptcy and Undergroun ding Funding In considering this Resolution, it is important to understand that Rule 20A allocations have been more substantial in the past. As mentioned earlier, prior to 2011, PG&E was allocating approximately 5% to 6% of its revenue to the Rule 20A program. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to encourage an increase in Rule 20A allocations as history shows that utilities had the capacity to do so in the past.

However, in a time where lOUs such as PG&E are facing bankruptcy as the result of utility caused wildfires, there is the possibility that expanding rule 20A funding will generate more costs for the ratepayers.

Questions to Consider: 1) Is Rule 20A or Rule 20D the more appropriate program to advocate for such an expansion? 2) Are there any wildfire risks outside of VHFHSZ that could be mitigated by undergrounding projects?

Existing League Policy:

Public Safety: The League supports additional thnding for local agencies to recoup the costs associated with fire safety in the community and timely mutual aid reimbursement for disaster response services in other jurisdictions. (pg. 43)

The League supports the fire service mission of saving lives and protecting property through fire prevention, disaster preparedness, hazardous-materials mitigation, specialized rescue, etc., as well as cities’ authority and discretion to provide all emergency services to their communities. (pg. 43)

Transportation, Communication, and Public Works: Existing telecommunications providers and new entrants shall adhere to local city policies on public utility undergrounding. (pg. 54)

The League supports protecting the additional funding for local transportation and other critical unmet infrastructure needs. (pg. 51)

The League supports innovative strategies including public private partnerships at the state and local levels to enhance public works funding. (pg. 52)

Environmental Quality The League opposes any legislation that interferes with local utility rate setting authority and opposes any legislation that restricts the ability of a city to transfer revenue from a utility (or other enterprise activity) to the city’s general fund. (pg. 9)

17 Cities should continue to have the authority to issue franchises and any program should be at least revenue neutral relative to revenue currently received from franchises. (pg. 9)

The League is concerned about the impacts of escalating energy prices on low income residents and small businesses. The League supports energy pricing structures and other mechanisms to soften the impacts on this segment of our community. (pg. 10)

2019 Strategic Goals Improve Disaster Preparedness, Recovery and Climate Resiliency. • Provide resources to cities and expand partnerships to better prepare for and recover from wildfires, seismic events, erosion, mudslides and other disasters. • Improve community preparedness and resiliency to respond to climate-related, natural and man-made disasters.

Support: The following letters of concurrence were received: The City of Hidden Hills The City of La Caflada Flintridge The City of Laguna Beach The City of Lakeport The City of Malibu The City of Moorpark The City of Nevada City The City of Palos Verdes Estates The City of Rolling Hills Estates The City of Rolling Hills The City of Ventura

18 LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE Resolution No. 1

Amendment to Rule 20A

19 City of Hidden Hills

6165 Spring Valley Road * Hidden Hills, California 91302

(818) 888-9281 * Fax (818) 719-0083

August 14,2019

Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814

Dear President Arbuckle:

The City of Hidden Hills supports the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ effort to bring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League’s 2019 Annual Conference in Long Beach.

Undergrounding power lines is an important tool in preventing destructive wildfires that have devastated communities across our state. But California’s Rule 20A program, which allows local governments to pay for these costly projects with ratepayer fluids, does not factor in fire safety for eligibility. Unless projects meet the program’s limited eligibility criteria, they are left to be funded by property owners who are proactive, willing and able to foot the bill. We believe Rule 20A offers an important opportunity for fire prevention and that the California Public Utilities Commission should expand this program so more communities can utilize it.

The resolution is also in line with one of the League’s 2019 Strategic Goals of improving disaster preparedness, recovery and climate resiliency.

For these reasons, we concur that the resolution should go before the General Assembly.

Sincerely,

Larry G. Weber Mayor

20 • - — City Council • - Leonard Pieroni, Mayor

— Gregory C. Brown, Mayor Pro Tern

______Jonathan C. Curtis ______Michael I Oavitt TeriyM.Walker

FLINTRIDGE

August 14, 2019

Jan Arbuekle, President League of California Cities 1400 K St., Ste. 400 Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear President Arbuckle:

The City of La Canada Flintridge supports the City of Raneho Palos Verdes’ effort to bring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League’s 2019 Annual Conference in Long Beach.

Undergrounding power lines is an important tool in preventing destructive wildfires that have devastated communities across our state. But California’s Rule 20A program, which allows local governments to pay for these costly projects with ratepayer funds, does not factor in fire safety for eligibility. Unless projects meet the programs limited eligibility criteria, they are left to be funded by property owners who are proactive, willing and able to root the bill. We believe Rule 20A offers an important opportunity for fire prevention and that the Calilbrnia Public Utilities Commission should expand this program so more communities can utilize it.

IThe resolution calls on the CPUC to amend Rule 20A to include projects in Veiy High Fire Hazard Severity Zones to the list of criteria for eligibility. To facilitate more undergrounding projects in these high-risk zones, the resolution also calls on the CPUC to increase funding allocations for Rule 20A projects.

‘l’he City of La Canada Flintridge is one of the few Southern California cities in which 100% of the community within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The City, in 1987, committed 100% of its 20A allocation for forty-five years from this year for a major downtown undergrounding project. Therefore, the only way our City can directly benefit from this Resolution is if there is an additional annual increased allocation for this purpose. Due to the extreme threat the City experienced at the time of the Station Fire, the City is keenly aware of the damage a fire may potentially cause, whether from utility issues or from natural causes. The City strongly supports any effort, including this Resolution, to reduce fire danger for the City’s residents.

The resolution is also in line with one of the League’s 2019 Strategic Goals of improving disaster preparedness, recovery and climate resiliency.

For these reasons, we concur that the resolution should go before the General Assembly with the City of La Canada Flintridge in support.

Sincerely,

Leoñard Picroni Mayor

One Civic Center Drive, La Canada Flintridgê, C42101 1 • (818) 790-8880 • Fax (818) 790-7536 www.lcf±d.gov July 25, 2019

Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 K St., Ste. 400 Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear President Arbuckle:

The City of Laguna Beach supports the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ effort to bring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League’s 2019 Annual Conference in Long Beach.

Undergrounding power lines is an important tool in preventing destructive wildfires that have devastated communities across our state. Ten to the Top 20 most destructive fires in California were caused by electrical sources. The California’s Rule 20A program, which allows local governments to pay for undergrounding of utilities costly projects with ratepayer funds, does not factor in fire safety for eligibility. Unless projects meet the program’s limited eligibility criteria, they are left to be funded by property owners who are proactive, willing and able to foot the bill. We believe Rule 20A offers an important opportunity for fire prevention and that the California Public Utilities Commission should expand this program so more communities can utilize it. We also believe that this program should redirect unused Rule 20A allocations from cities who have no undergrounding projects planned to the cities in Very High Fire Hazard Severity zones.

The resolution calls on the CPUC to amend Rule 20A to include projects in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones to the list of criteria for eligibility. To facilitate more undergrounding projects in these high-risk zones, the resolution also calls on the CPUC to increase funding allocations for Rule 20A projects. The City of Laguna Beach recommends that the resolution also be amended to call on the CPUC to redirect unused Rule 20A allocations from cities who have no undergrounding projects planned to the cities in Very High Fire Hazard Severity zones.

Nearly 90% of the City of Laguna Beach land area is designated under State Law and local ordinance as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. While the City has used Rule 20A and 20B funding in the past to underground more than half of its overhead utilities, sufficient funding is not available to underground the remaining parts of the City.

The resolution is also in line with one of the League’s 2019 Strategic Goals of improving disaster preparedness, recovery and climate resiliency.

505 FOREST AVE. • LAGUNA BEACH, CA 92651 • TEL (949) 497-3311 • FAX (949) 497-0771

® REC’~C~EDPAFER July25, 2019 Page 2

For these reasons, we concur that the resolution should go before the General Assembly.

Sincerely,

Bob Whalen Mayor

23 CITY OF LAKEPORT Over 125yours u/community pridiz progress and service

August 7,2019

Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 K St., Ste. 400 Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear President Arbuclde:

The City of Lakeport supports the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ effort to bring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League’s 2019 Annual Conference in Long Beach.

Undergrounding power lines is an important tool in preventing destructive wildfires that have devastated communities across our state. But California’s Rule 20A program, which allows local governments to pay for these costly projects with ratepayer funds, does not factor in fire safety for eligibility. Unless projects meet the program’s limited eligibility criteria, they are left to be funded by property owners who are proactive, willing and able to foot the bill. We believe Rule 20A offers an important opportunity for fire prevention and that the California Public Utilities Commission should expand this program so more communities can utilize it.

Theresolution is also in line with one of the League’s 2019 Strategic Goals of improving disaster preparedness, recovery and climate resiliency.

For these reasons, we concur that the resolution should go before the General Assembly.

Sincerely,

Tim Barnes Mayor City of Lakeport

24 City of Malibu ( (i)~4) ) Jefferson Wagner, Mayor ______// 23825 Stuart Ranch Road Malibu, California• 90265-4861 Phone (310) 456-2489 Fax (310) 456-3356 www.malibucitv.org °~‘ftd M~TL113

August 15, 2019

Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 K St., Ste. 400 Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: City of Rancho Palos Verdes Proposed Resolution to Amend California Public Utilities

Commission Rule 20A — SUPPORT

Dear Ms. Arbuckle:

At its Regular meeting on August 12, 2019, the Malibu City Council unanimously voted to support the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ effort to bring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League’s 2019 Annual Conference in Long Beach.

Undergrounding power lines is an important tool in preventing destructive wildfires that have devastated communities across our state, but California’s Rule 20A program, which allows local governments to pay for these costly projects with ratepayer funds, does not factor in fire safety for eligibility. Unless projects meet the program’s limited eligibility criteria, they are left to be funded by property owners who are proactive, as well as willing and able to foot the bill. The City of Malibu agrees with Rancho Palos Verdes that Rule 20A offers an important opportunity for fire prevention and that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) should expand this program so more communities can utilize it.

The resolution calls on the CPUC to amend Rule 20A to include projects in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones to the list of criteria for eligibility. To facilitate more undergrounding projects in these high-risk zones, the resolution also calls on the CPUC to increase fimding allocations for Rule 20A projects. As a recent series of news stories on wildfire preparedness in California pointed out, there are more than 75 communities across the state with populations over 1,000, including Rancho Palos Verdes and Malibu, where at least 90 percent of residents live in a Cal Fire-designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone.

It is well-known that electric utility equipment is a common fire source, and has sparked some of the most destructive blazes in our state’s history. Moving power lines underground is, therefore, a critical tool in preventing them. Currently, Rule 20A primarily addresses visual blight, but with fire seasons worsening, it is key that fire safety also be considered when local governments pursue Rule 20A projects, and that annual funding allocations for the program be expanded.

It is worth noting that the State does have a program, Rule 20D, that factors in fire safety for funding undergrounding projects. However, this is limited to San Diego Gas & Electric Company projects in certain areas only. This needs to be expanded to include projects in all projects within designated Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. 25

M:\City Cowicil\Mayor Chror, FiIcs~2OI9~Ranche PV Lcaguc Roso to Amend Rule ZOA-Supporl_190815.doex RecycledSPaper Rancho PVLeague Resolution Amend Rule 20A August 15, 2019 Page 2 of2

The proposed resolution is also in line with one of the League’s 2019 Strategic Goals of improving disaster preparedness, recovery and climate resiliency.

For these reasons, the City of Malibu strongly concurs that the resolution should go before the General Assembly.

Sincerely,

Jefferson Wagner Mayor

Cc: Honorable Members of the Malibu City Council Reva Feldman, City Manager Megan Barnes, City of Rancho Palos Verdes, mbarnes(~.rpvca.gov

M:\Cky Council\Mayor Chron Pilcn\20l9\Raneho PV League Reso to Amend Rule 20A-Suppo,t_190815.docx 3 Recycled Paper CITY OF MOORPARK

799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021 Main City Phone Number (805) 517-6200 Fax (805) 532-2205 I [email protected]

July 24, 2019 SUBMITTED ELECTRONICALLY

Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 K St., Ste. 400 Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: SUPPORT FOR RANCHO PALOS VERDES RESOLUTION RE: POWER LINE UNDERGROUNDING

Dear President Arbuckle:

The City of Moorpark supports the City of Rancho Palos Verdes effort to bring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League’s 2019 Annual Conference in Long Beach.

Undergrounding power lines is an important tool in preventing destructive wildfires that have devastated communities across our state. But California’s Rule 20A program, which allows local governments to pay for these costly projects with ratepayer funds, does not factor in fire safety for eligibility. Unless projects meet the program’s limited eligibility criteria, they are left to be funded by property owners who are proactive, willing and able to foot the bill. We believe Rule 20A offers an important opportunity for fire prevention and that the California Public Utilities Commission should expand this program so more communities can utilize it.

All cities in Ventura County, including Moorpark, have wildfire prevention fresh in our memories following the highly destructive 2017-2018 Thomas Fire, which was caused by above-ground power lines. The 2018 Woolsey Fire similarly affected Ventura County, and lawsuits have been filed alleging it was also caused by above-ground power lines. Each of these fires caused billions of dollars in damages and highlight the importance of undergrounding power lines.

JANICE S. PARVIN CHRIS ENEGREN ROSEANN MIKOS, Ph.D. DAVID POLLOCK KEN SIMONS Mayor Councilmember Coun~9nember Councilmember Councilmember League of California Cities Page 2

The resolution is also in line with one of the League’s 2019 Strategic Goals of improving disaster preparedness, recovery and climate resiliency.

For these reasons, we concur that the resolution should go before the General Assembly.

Sincerely,

Janice Parvin Mayor cc: City Council City Manager

28 Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 K St., Ste. 400 Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear President Arbuckle:

The City of Nevada City supports the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ effort to bring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League’s 2019 Annual Conference in Long Beach.

Undergrounding power lines is an important tool in preventing destructive wildfires that have devastated communities across our state. But California’s Rule 20A program, which allows local governments to pay for these costly projects with ratepayer ifinds, does not factor in fire safety for eligibility. Unless projects meet the program’s limited eligibility criteria, they are left to be flinded by property owners who are proactive, willing and able to foot the bill. We believe Rule 20A offers an important opportunity for fire prevention and that the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) should expand this program so more communities can utilize it.

The resolution calls on the CPUC to amend Rule 20A to include projects in Very High Fire Hazard Sever ty Zones to the list of criteria for eligibility. To facilitate more undergrounding projects in these high-risk zones, the resolution also calls on the CPUC to increase ftnding allocations for Rule 20A projects.

The City of Nevada City would also like to add that the local agency be given the power to use private firms to do design, inspect and construct Rule 20A projects in local jurisdiction rather than be required to use the designated local utility. In addition, the City of Nevada City wants the CPUC to allow local jurisdictions to transfer excess finds between agencies to better serve projects in high fire hazard severity zones.

The resolution is also in line with one of the League’s 2019 Strategic Goals Of improving disaster preparedness, recovery and climate resiliency.

For these reasons, we concur that the resolution should go before the General Assembly.

Reinette Senum Mayor City of Nevada City

29 CITY OF 9aW3~&kaQ~&tau?n

INCOJtPOItXrKI) ‘MOO 04LIp~Ø~

July 25, 2019

Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 K St., Ste. 400 Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear President Arbuckle:

The City of Palos Verdes Estates supports the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ effort to bring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League’s 2019 Annual Conference in Long Beach.

Undergrounding power lines is an important tool in preventing destructive wildfires that have devastated communities across our state. But California’s current Rule 20A program, which allows local governments to pay for these costly projects with ratepayer funds, does not factor in fire safety for eligibility. Unless projects meet the program’s limited eligibility criteria, they are left to be funded by property owners who are proactive, willing and able to foot the bill. We believe Rule 20A offers an important opportunity for fire prevention and that the California Public Utilities Commission should expand this program so more communities can utilize it.

The resolution is also in line with one of the League’s 2019 Strategic Goals of improving disaster preparedness, recovery and climate resiliency.

For these reasons, we concur that the resolution should go before the General Assembly.

Mayor Kenn~th J. Kao City of Palos Verdes Estates

cc: PVE City Council PVE Interim City Manager Petru RPV City Manager Willmore

340 Pales Verdes Drive West, Palos Verdesi~rates, California 90274 310-378-0383 August 14, 2019

Jan Arbuckle, President City of Rolling Hills Estates League of California Cities 1400 K St., Ste. 400 Judith Mitchell Sacramento, CA 95814 Mayor

Velveth Schmitz Dear President Arbuckle: Mayor Pro Tern The City of Rolling Hills Estates supports the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ Britt Huff effort to bring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the Council Member League’s 2019 Annual Conference in Long Beach. Frank V. Zerunyan Council Member Undergrounding power lines is an important tool in preventing destructive wildfires that have devastated communities across our state. But California’s Steven Zuckerman Rule 20A program, which allows local governments to pay for these costly Council Member projects with ratepayer fUnds, does not factor in fire safety for eligibility. Unless projects meet the program’s limited eligibility criteria, they are left to be funded by property owners who are proactive, willing and able to foot the bill. We believe Rule 20A offers an important opportunity for fire prevention and that the California Public Utilities Commission should expand this program so more communities can utilize it.

The resolution is also in line with one of the League’s 2019 Strategic Goals of improving disaster preparedness, recovery and climate resiliency.

For these reasons, we concur that the resolution should go before the General Assembly.

Sincerely, ~Za J~zflith Mitchell Mayor

4045 Palos Verdes Dftve North. Rolling Hills Estates, CA 90274 I (aID) 377-1577 www.RHE.oity 31 ~~ity o/I~’o//en1 .....I4/LI/J INCORPORATED JANUARY 24, 1957

NO.2 PORTUGUESE BEND ROAD ROLLING HILLS, CALIR 90274 (310) 377-1521 FAX: (310) 377-7288 August 14, 2019

Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 K St., Ste. 400 Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Board of Directors:

The City of Rolling Hills supports the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ effort to bring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League’s 2019 Annual Conference in Long Beach.

Undergrounding power lines is an important tool in preventing destructive wildflres that have devastated communities across our state. But California’s Rule 20A program, which allows local governments to pay for these costly projects with ratepayer fUnds, does not factor in fire safety for eligibility. Unless projects meet the program’s limited eligibility criteria, they are left to be funded by property owners who are proactive, willing and able to foot the bill. We believe Rule 20A offers an important opportunity for fire prevention and that the California Public Utilities Commission should expand this program so more communities can utilize it.

The resolution calls on the CPUC to amend Rule 20A to include projects in Very High Fire 1-lazard Severity Zones to the list of criteria for eligibility. To facilitate more undergrounding projects in these high-risk zones, the resolution also calls on the CPUC to increase funding allocations for Rule 20A projects.

The resolution is also in line with one of the League’s 2019 Strategic Goals of improving disaster preparedness, recovery and climate resiliency.

For these reasons, we concur.that the resolution should go before the General Assembly.

Sincerely,

Leah Mirsch Mayor

32 Pflntedon Recycled Paper VENTURA

July 29, 2019

Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 K St., Ste. 400 Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear President Arbuckle:

The City of Ventura supports the City of Rancho Palos Verdes’ effort to bring a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League’s 2019 Annual Conference in Long Beach.

Undergrounding power lines is an important tool in preventing destructive wildflres that have devastated communities across our state. But California’s Rule 20A program, which allows local governments to pay for these costly projects with ratepayer funds, does not factor in fire safety for eligibility. Unless projects meet the program’s limited eligibility criteria, they are left to be fUnded by property owners who are proactive, willing and able to foot the bill. We believe Rule 20A offers an important opportunity for fire prevention and that the California Public Utilities Commission should expand this program so more communities can utilize it.

The resolution is also in line with one of the League’s 2019 Strategic Goals of improving disaster preparedness, recovery and climate resiliency.

For these reasons, we concur that the resolution should go before the General Assembly.

City Manager

501 PeN Street ‘Ventura, Cailfornia 93~l • 805-654-7800 • cftyolVentura.ca.gov PHnted cc 00% pest consumer recycled paper 2. A RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE FEDERAL AND STATE GOVERNMENTS TO ADDRESS THE DEVASTATING IMPACTS OF INTERNATIONAL TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION FLOWS INTO THE SOUTHERNMOST REGIONS OF CALIFORNIA AND THE PACIFIC OCEAN

Source: San Diego County Division Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials Cities: Calexico; Coronado; Imperial Beach; San Diego Individual City Officials: City of Brawley: Mayor Pro Tern Norrna Kastner-Jauregui; Council Members Sam Couchman, Luke Hamby, and George Nava. City of Escondido: Deputy Mayor Consuelo Martinez. City of La Mesa: Council Member Bill Baber. City of Santee: Mayor John Minto, City of Vista: Mayor Judy Rifler and Council Member Amanda Young Rigby Referred to: Environmental Quality Policy Committee

WHEREAS, international transboundary rivers that carry water across the border from Mexico into Southern California are a major source of sewage, trash, chemicals, heavy metals and toxins; and

WhEREAS, transboundary flows threaten the health of residents in the United States and Mexico, harm important estuarine land and water of international significance, force closure of beaches, damage farmland, adversely impact the South San Diego County and Imperial County economy; compromise border security, and directly affect U.S. military readiness; and

‘WHEREAS, a significant amount of untreated sewage, sediment, hazardous chemicals and trash have been entering southern California through both the Tijuana River Watershed (75 percent of which is within Mexico) and New River flowing into southern California’s coastal waterways and residential and agricultural communities in Imperial County eventually draining into the Salton Sea since the 1930s; and

WHEREAS, in February 2017, an estimated 143 million gallons of raw sewage flowed into the Tijuana River and ran downstream into the Pacific Ocean and similar cross border flows have caused beach closures at Border Field State Park that include 211 days in 2015; 162 days in 2016; 168 days in 2017; 101 days in 2018; and 187 days to date for 2019 as well as closure ofa number of other beaches along the Pacific coastline each of those years; and

WHEREAS, approximately 132 million gallons of raw sewage has discharged into the New River flowing into California through communities in Imperial County, with 122 million gallons of it discharged in a 6-day period in early 2017; and

WHEREAS, the presence of pollution on state and federal public lands is creating unsafe conditions for visitors; these lands are taxpayer supported and intended to be managed for recreation, resource conservation and the enjoyment by the public, and

WHEREAS, the current insufficient and degrading infrastructure in the border zone poses a significant risk to the public health and safety of residents and the environment on both

34 sides of the border, and places the economic stress on cities that are struggling to mitigate the negative impacts ofpollution; and

WHEREAS, the 1944 treaty between the United States and Mexico regarding Utilization of Waters ofthe Colorado and T~uana Rivers and ofthe Rio Grande allocates flows on trans border rivers between Mexico and the United States, and provides that the nations, through their respective sections of the International Boundary Water Commission shall give control of sanitation in cross border flows the highest priority; and

WHEREAS, in 1993, the United States and Mexico entered into theAgreement Between the Government ofthe United States ofAmerica and the Government ofthe United Mexican States Concerning the Establishment ofa North American Development Bank which created the North American Development Bank (NADB) to certify and fund environmental infrastructure projects in border-area communities; and

WHEREAS, public concerns in response to widespread threats to public health and safety, damage to fish and wildlife resources and degradation to California’s environment resulting from transboundary river flow pollution in the southernmost regions of the state requires urgent action by the Federal and State governments, and

WHEREAS, Congress authorized funding under the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Safe Drinking Water Act and established the State and Tribal Assistance Grants (STAG) program for the U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program (BWJP) in 1996 to provide grants for high-priority water, wastewater, and storm-water infrastructure projects within 100 kilometers of the southern border; and

WHEREAS, the EPA administers the STAG and BWIP programs, and coordinates with the North American Development Bank (NADB) to allocate BWII’ grant funds to projects in the border zone; and

WHEREAS, since its inception, the BWIP program has provided funding for projects in California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas that would not have been constructed without the grant program; and

WHEREAS, the BWIP program was initially funded at $100 million per year, but, over the last 20 years, has been continuously reduced to its cunent level of $10 million; and

WHEREAS, in its FY 2020 Budget Request, the Administration proposed to eliminate the BWTP program; and

WHEREAS, officials from EPA Region 9, covering California, have identified a multitude of BWIP-eligible projects along the southern border totaling over $300 million; and

WHEREAS, without federal partnership through the BWIP program and state support to address pollution, cities that are impacted by transboundary sewage and toxic waste flows are

35 left with limited resources to address a critical pollution and public health issue and limited legal remedies to address the problem; and

WHEREAS, the National Association of Counties, (NACo) at their Annual Conference on July 15, 2019 and the U.S. Conference of Mayors at their Annual Conference on in July 1, 2019 both enacted resolutions calling on the federal and state governments to work together to fund and address this environmental crisis; and

WHEREAS, local govermnents and the public support the State’s primary objectives in complying with environmental laws including the Clean Water Act, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and Endangered Species Act and are supported by substantial public investments at all levels of government to maintain a healthy and sustainable environment for future residents of California, and

WHEREAS, League of California Cities policy has long supported efforts to ensure water quality and oppose contamination of water resources; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED at the League General Assembly, assembled at the League Annual Conference on October 18, 2019 in Long Beach, that the League calls upon the Federal and State governments to restore and ensure proper fUnding to the U.S- Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program (BWIP) and recommit to working bi nationally to develop and implement long-term solutions to address serious water quality and contamination issues, such as discharges of untreated sewage and polluted sediment and trash- laden transboundary flows originating from Mexico, that result in significant health, environmental, and safety concerns in communities along California’s southern border impacting the state.

36 Background Information on Resolution No. 2

Source: San Diego County Division

Background: Along California’s southern border with Mexico, the New River in Imperial County and the Tijuana River in San Diego County are a major sources of raw sewage, trash, chemicals, heavy metals, and toxins that pollute local communities. Sewage contaminated flows in the Tijuana River have resulted in significant impacts to beach recreation that includes the closure of Border Field State Beach for more than 800 days over the last 5-years. Similarly, contaminated flows in the New River presents comparable hazards, impacts farm land, and contributes to the ongoing crisis in the Salton Sea. These transboundary flows threaten the health of residents in California and Mexico, harms the ecosystem, force closures at beaches, damage farm land, makes people sick, and adversely affects the economy of border communities. The root cause of this cross border pollution is from insufficient or failing water and wastewater infrastructure in the border zone and inadequate federal action to address the problem through existing border programs.

The severity of cross border pollution has continued to increase, due in part to the rapid growth of urban centers since the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). While economic growth has contributed to greater employment, the environmental infrastructure of the region has not kept pace, which is why Congress authorized the Border Water Infrastructure Program (BWIP) in 1996. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administers the BWI7P and coordinates with the North American Development Bank (NADB) to provide financing and technical support for projects on both sides of the U.S.IMexico border. Unfortunately, the current BWIP funding at $10 million per year is only a fraction of the initial program budget that shares funding with the entire 2,000 mile Mexican border with California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas. EPA officials from Region 9 have identified an immediate need for BWIP projects totaling over $300 million just for California. Without federal partnerships through the BWIP and state support to address cross border pollution, cities that are impacted by transboundary sewage and toxic waste flows are left with limited resources to address a critical pollution and public health issue.

The International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC) is another important federal stakeholder that, under the Treaty of 1944 with Mexico, must address border sanitation problems. While LBWC currently captures and treats some of the pollution generated in Mexico, it also redirects cross border flows without treatment directly into California.

Improving environmental and public health conditions for communities along the border is essential for maintaining strong border economy with Mexico. The IBWC, EPA, and NADB are the important federal partners with existing bi-national programs that are able to immediately implement solutions on cross border pollution. California is in a unique position to take the lead and work with local and federal partners to implement real solutions that will addresses the long standing and escalating water quality crisis along the border.

For those reasons, the cities of Imperial Beach and Coronado requested the San Diego County Division to propose a resolution at the 2019 League Annual Conference calling upon the federal

37 and state governments to address the devastating impacts of international transboundary pollution flows into the waterways of the southernmost regions of California, San Diego and Imperial Counties and the Pacific Ocean.

On August 12,2019 at the regularly scheduled meeting of the San Diego County Division, the membership unanimously endorsed submittal of the resolution, with close to 75% membership present and voting.

The Imperial County Division does not have a schedule meeting until after the deadline to submit proposed resolutions. However, the City of Calexico, which is most directly impacted by initial pollution flow of the New River from Mexicali, sent a letter in concurrence of this resolution as well as numerous city official from cities within Imperial County and the Imperial County Board of Supervisors. The League Imperial County Division will place a vote to support this resolution on the agenda of their September 26, 2019 meeting.

38 League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 2

Staff: Derek Dolfie, Legislative Representative Carly Shelby, Legislative and Policy Development Assistant Committees: Environmental Quality

Summary: This Resolution states that the League of California Cities should call upon the State and Federal

governments to restore and ensure proper finding for the U.S. — Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program (BWIP) and work bi-nationally to address water quality issues resulting from transboundary flows from Mexico’s Tijuana River into the United States containing untreated sewage, polluted sediment, and trash.

Background: The League of California Cities’ San Diego County Division is sponsoring this resolution to address their concerns over the contaminated flows from the Tijuana River into California that have resulted in the degradation of water quality and water recreational areas in Southern California.

The Tijuana River flows north through highly urbanized areas in Mexico before it enters the Tijuana River Estuary and eventually the Pacific Ocean via waterways in San Diego County in California. Urban growth in Tijuana has contributed to a rise in rates of upstream flows from water treatment facilities in Mexico. These treatment facilities have raised the amount of untreated sewage and waste in the Tijuana River due to faulty infrastructure and improper maintenance. The federal government refers to the river as an “impaired water body” because of the presence of pollutants in excess, which pose significant health risks to residents and visitors in communities on both sides of the border.

Federal Efforts to Address Pollution Crisis To remedy the Tijuana River’s low water quality, the United States and Mexico entered into a Treaty in 1944 entitled: Utilization of Waters ofthe Colorado River and T~uana Rivers and of

the Rio Grande — the International Boundaty and Water Commission (IBWC). The JBWC was designed to consist of a United States section and a Mexico section. Both sections were tasked with negotiating and implementing resolutions to address water pollution in the area, which includes overseeing the development of water treatment and diversion infrastructure.

After the foimation of the IBWC, the U.S. and Mexico entered into a treaty in 1993 entitled: Agreement Concerning the Establishment ofa Border Environment Cooperation Commission and a North American Development Bank This agreement established the North American Development Bank (NADB), which certifies and finds infrastructure projects located within 100 kilometers (62 miles) of the border line. The NADB supports federal programs like the Border Water Infrastructure Program (BWIP), which was initially funded at $100 million, annually.

The degradation of existing water treatment infrastructure along the border coincides with the federal government’s defianding of the BWIP, which has steadily decreased from $100 million in 1996 to $10 million today. The Federal FY 2020 Budget proposes eliminating BWIP funding

39 altogether. EPA’s regions 6 and 9 (includes U.S. states that border Mexico) have identified a number of eligible projects that address public health and environmental conditions along the border totaling $340 million.

The NADB has funded the development of water infrastructure in both the U.S. and Mexico.

Water diversion and treatment infrastructure along the U.S — Mexico border includes, but is not limited to, the following facilities: • The South Ray International Wastewater Treatment Plant (‘SRIWTP,). This facility was constructed by the U.S. in 1990 and is located on the California side of the border and is operated under the jurisdiction of the IBWC. The SBIWTP serves as a diversion and treatment sewage plant to address the flow of untreated sewage from Mexico into the United States. • Pump Station CILA. CILA was constructed by Mexico in 1991 and is located along the border in Mexico. This facility serves as the SBIWTP’s Mexican counterpart.

Both the SBIWTP and CILA facilities have had a multitude of overflows containing untreated sewage and toxic waste that spills into the Tijuana River. The cause of overflows can be attributed to flows exceeding the maximum capacity that the infrastructure can accommodate (this is exacerbated during wet and rainy seasons) and failure to properly operate and maintain the facilities. Much of the existing infrastructure has not had updates or repairs for decades, causing overflows to become more frequent and severe. The most notable overflow occuffed in February 2017, wherein 143 million gallons ofpolluting waste discharged into the Tijuana River; affecting the Tijuana Estuary, the Pacific Ocean, and Southern California’s waterways.

State Actions In response to the February 2017 overflow, the San Diego Water Board’s Executive Officer sent a letter to the U.S. and Mexican IBWC Commissioners which included recommendations on how to improve existing infrastructure and communications methods between both nations.

In September of 2018, California Attorney General Xavier Becerra submitted a lawsuit against IBWC for Violating the Clean Water Act by allowing flows containing sewage and toxic waste to flow into California’s waterways, posing a public health and ecological crisis. The cities of Imperial Beach, San Diego, Chula Vista, the Port of San Diego, and the San Diego Regional Water Quality Board have also filed suit against the IBWC. The suit is awaiting its first settlement conference on October 19, 2019. If parties are unable to reach a settlement, the case will go to trial.

Fiscal Impact: California’s economy is currently the sixth largest in the world, with tourism spending topping $140.6 billion in 2018. In the past five years, San Diego’s Border Field State Park has been closed for over 800 days because ofpollution from the Tijuana River. A decline in the State’s beach quality and reputation could carry macroeconomic effects that could ripple outside of the San Diego County region and affect coastal communities throughout California.

40 Existing League Policy The League of California Cities has extensive language on water in its Summary of Existing Policy and Guiding Principles. Fundamentally, the League recognizes that beneficial water quality is essential to the health and welfare of California and all of its citizens. Additionally, the League advocates for local, state and federal governments to work cooperatively to ensure that water quality is maintained. The following policy relates to the issue of water quality: • Surface and groundwater should be protected from contamination. • Requirements for wastewater discharge into surface water and groundwater to safeguard public health and protect beneficial uses should be supported. • When addressing contamination in a water body, water boards should place priority emphasis on clean-up strategies targeting sources of pollution, rather than in stream or end-of-pipe treatment. • Water development projects must be economically, environmentally and scientifically sound. • The viability of rivers and streams for instream uses such as fishery habitat, recreation and aesthetics must be protected. • Protection, maintenance, and restoration of fish and wildlife habitat and resources.

Click here to view the Summary of Existing Policy and Guiding Principles 2018.

Comments: I. Water quality issues are prevalent across California and have been a constant priority of the State’s legislature and residents. In 2014, California’s voters approved Proposition 1, which authorized $7.5 billion in general obligation bonds to fund water quality improvement projects. In 2019, the Legislature reached an agreement to allocate $130 million from the State’s Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) to address failing water infrastructure and bad water qualities for over one million of California’s residents in rural communities. Water quality is not an issue unique to the County of San Diego and communities along the border.

2. Tijuana River cross-border pollution has caught national attention. Members of Congress have proposed recent funding solutions to address the pollution crisis, including: • In February of 2019, California Congressional Representatives Vargas, Peters, and Davis helped secure $15 million for the EPA to use as part of its BWIP. • HR. 3895 (Vargas, Peters, 2019), The North American Development Bank Pollution Solution Act. This bill seeks to support pollution mitigation efforts along the border by increasing the NADB’s capital by $1.5 billion. • HR. 4039 (‘Levin, 2019), The Border Water Infrastructure Improvement Act. This bill proposes increasing funding to the BWIP from the existing $10 million to $150 million as a continuous appropriation until 2025. Additionally, the National Association of Counties (NACo) and the U.S. Conference of

Mayors enacted resolutions in support of increased funding for U.S. — Mexico border water infrastructure to address the environmental crisis in 2019.

41 3. The border pollution problem has sparked action from local, state, and federal actors. Should this resolution be adopted, League membership should be aware that future action will be adapted by what is explicitly stated in the resolution’s language. In current form, the resolution’s resolve clause cites the BWIP as the only program that should receive reinstated and proper funding. League staff recommends the language be modified to state: “NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED at the League General Assembly, assembled at the League Annual Conference on October 18, 2019 in Long Beach, that the League calls upon the Federal and State governments to restore and

ensure proper funding for environmental infrastructure on the U.S. — Mexico Border, including to the U.S Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program (BWIP), and recommit to working bi-nationally to develop and implement long- term solutions to address serious water quality and contamination issues, such as discharges of untreated sewage and polluted sediment and trash-laden transboundary flows originating from Mexico, that result in significant health, environmental, and safety concerns in communities along California’s southern border impacting the state.” Modi~~’ing the language would ensure enough flexibility for the League to support funding mechanisms outside of the prescribed federally-operated BWIP.

4. It remains unclear if there is an appetite in Washington to fund border-related infrastructure projects that address environmental quality. Given the high probability of another overflow containing waste and sewage from the existing infrastructure operated by the IBWC, League membership should consider the outcome if no resolution is reached to address the issue.

Support: The following letters of concurrence were received: Cities: The City of Calexico The City of Coronado The City of Imperial Beach The City of San Diego In their individual capacity: Amanda Young Rigby, City of Vista Council Member Bill Baber, City of La Mesa Council Member Consuelo Martinez, City of Escondido Deputy Mayor George A. Nava, City of Brawley Council Member John Minto, City of Santee Mayor Judy Ritter, City of Vista Mayor Luke Hamby, City of Brawley Council Member Norma Kastner-Jauregui, City of Brawley Mayor Pro-Tempore Sam Couchman, City of Brawley Council Member

42 LETTERS OF CONCURJUj~~~ Resolution No. 2

International Transboundary Pollution Flows

43 608 HeberAve. Calexico, CA 92231-2840

CITY OF (MEXICO ____

August 15, 2019

Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Environmental and Water Quality Impacts Of International Transboundary River Pollution Flow Resolution

President Arbuckle:

The city of Calexico strongly supports the San Diego County Division’s effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League’s 2019 Annual Conference in Long Beach.

The Division’s resolution calls upon the Federal and State governments to restore and ensure proper finding of the Border Water Infrastructure Program (BWIP) to address the devastating impacts of international transboundary pollution flows into the waterways of the southernmost regions of California (San Diego and Imperial Counties) and the Pacific Ocean.

Local government and the public support the State’s water and environmental quality objectives and League policy has long supported efforts to ensure water quality and oppose contamination of water resources. This resolution addresses the critical need for the federal and state governments to recommit to work bi-nationally to develop and implement long-term solutions to address serious water quality and contamination issues, such as discharges of untreated sewage and polluted sediment and trash-laden transboundary flows originating from Mexico, that result in significant heath, enviromnental and safety concerns in communities along California’s southern border impacting the state.

As members of the League, our city values the policy development process provided to the General Assembly. We appreciate your time on this issue.

%‘a eatezecof

44 If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 760/768-2110.

Sincerely,

CITY OF CALEXJCO

David Dale City Manager

Cc: Honorable Mayor Bill Hodgc

tickt &t&Z*O1

45 S CITY OF ODRONADO

1825 STRAND WAY OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CORONADO, CA 92118 (619) 522-7335 FAX (619) 522-7846 August 15, 2019

Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Environmental and Water Quality Impacts of International Transbonndary River Pollution Flows Resolution This letter is written on behalf of and with the support of the Coronado City Council. The City of Coronado wholeheartedly supports the resolution adopted by the San Diego County and Imperial County Division of the California League of Cities. The San Diego County Division’s resolution calls upon the federal and state governments to restore and ensure proper funding of the U.S.-Mexico Border Water Infrastructure Program (BWIP) to address the devastating impacts of international transboundary pollution flows into the waterways of the southernmost regions of California (San Diego and Imperial Counties) and the Pacific Ocean. The City has been working closely with the Environmental Protection Agency and other federal partners on the matter since early 2018. City leaders are committed to finding long-term, sustainable solutions to this problem. Through its advocacy and education efforts, the City of Coronado has raised national awareness of the problem among legislators, political appointees and career staff at federal agencies. These efforts have been successful. However, the City along with our coalition partners, look forward to more action to swiftly resolve this issue. Local government and the public support the state’s water and environmental quality objectives and League policy has long supported efforts to ensure water quality and oppose contamination of water resources. This resolution addresses the critical need for the federal and state governments to recommit to work bi-nationally to develop and implement long-tenn solutions to address serious water quality and contamination issues, such as discharges of untreated sewage and polluted sediment and trash-laden transboundary flows originating from Mexico, that result in significant health, environmental and safety concerns in communities along California’s southern border impacting the state.

As members of the League, Coronado values the policy development process provided to the General Assembly. We appreciate your time on this issue. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely,

Blair King Coronado City Manag cc: Coronado Mayor and City Council Bill Baber, President, San Diego County Division do Catherine Hill, Regional Public Affairs Manager, San Diego County Division dl)ill(ä~cacitiesorg

46 CIty ofImperial Beach, California

OFFiCE OF THE C!TYMAN4GE1i 825 Imperial Beach Blvd. iuiperial Beach, CA 91932 Tel: (619) 423-8303 Fax: (619) 628-1395

August 15, 2019

Jan Arbuclde, President League of California Cities 1400 K St. Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Environmental and Water Quality Impacts Of International Transboundary River Pollution Flow Resolution

President Arbuckle:

The city of Imperial Beach appreciates and supports the San Diego County Division’s effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the ifill membership of the League of California Cities.

The Division’s resolution calls on Federal and State government to address the impacts of transboundary pollution flows into the Southwestern regions of California. The pollution in these areas is an environmental disaster that threatens the health and general welfare of residents near the Mexican border in Imperial and San Diego Counties.

I encourage all voting delegates and elected officials in attendance at the 2019 Annual League of California Cities Conference in Long Beach to support this important resolution as it addresses the critical need for the federal and state government to recomnit to work bi-nationally to address the serious contamination issues and to develop and implement long-term solutions.

I am available for any questions or additional information related to this letter of support.

Sincerel

Md~ Hall City Manger

Cc: Honorable Mayor Serge Dedina Honorable Mayor Pro Tem Robert Patton Honorable Councilmember Paloma Aguirre Honorable Councilmember Ed Spriggs Honorable Councilmember Mark West

47 City ofImperial Beach, California

OFFICE OF THE ~Ji,4 YOR 825 bnperial Bead, Bird. Imperial Beach, CA 9/932 Tel: (619) 423-8303 Fax: (619) 628-1395

August 16, 2019

Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Environmental and Water Quality Impacts Of International Transboundary River Pollution Flow Resolution

President Arbuckle:

The city ofImperial Beach strongly supports the San Diego County Division’s effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League’s 2019 Annual Conference in Long Beach.

The Division’s resolution calls upon the Federal and State governments to restore and ensure proper fimding of the Border Water Infrastructure Program (BWJP) to address the devastating impacts of international transboundary pollution flows into the waterways ofthe southernmost regions ofCalifornia (San Diego and Imperial Counties) and the Pacific Ocean.

Local government and the public support the State’s water and environmental quality objectives and League policy has long supported efforts to ensure water quality and oppose contamination ofwater resources. This resolution addresses the critical need for the federal and state governments to recommit to work bi nationally to develop and implement long-term solutions to address serious water quality and contamination issues, such as discharges of untreated sewage and polluted sediment and trash-laden transboundary flows originating from Mexico, that result in significant heath, environmental and safety concerns in communities along California’s southern border impacting the state.

As members of the League, our city values the policy development process provided to the General Assembly. We appreciate your time on this issue. If you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at 619-423-8303.

Sincerely,

Jedina Mayor

48 THE CITY OF SAN DIEGO KEVIN L. FAULCONER Mayor August 15, 2019

Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Environmental and Water Quality Impacts of International Transboundary River Pollution Flow Resolution

President Arbucicle:

The City of San Diego supports the San Diego County Division in their effort to submit a resolution to the General Assembly at the League of California Cities’ 2019 Annual Conference in Long Beach.

To suppress the flow of pollution between the Mexico and Southern California’s water channels, the Division requests for the Federal and State govermnents to gve proper funding to the Border Water Infrastructure Program (BWW).

The City of San Diego and its citizens have expressed their concerns about untreated sewage, polluted sediment and trash flowing from Mexico, into California, causing health, environmental and safety concerns. The State’s water and environmental quality objectives and League policy has long supported efforts to ensure water quality and oppose contamination of water resources. With the Division’s resolution, the great need for federal and state governments to reconsider working together, will help in developing a long-term solution to address serious water quality and contamination issues.

As members of the League, our City values the policy development process provided to the General Assembly. We appreciate your time on this issue.

Please contact me at (619)453-9946 if you have any questions,

Director of International Affairs

Cc: Honorable Mayor Kevin L. Faulconer

49 202 C STREET, 11TH FLOOR • SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 AMANDA YOUNG_RIGBY

- CITY COUNCILWOMJJ.J

August 15, 2019 Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 IC Street, 4th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814

Re: Border Sewage Issues

Dear President Arbuckle;

As a Council Member in the City of Vista, and solely in my individual capacity as such, I write in support of the League of California Cities 2019 Annual Conference Resolution proposed by the San Diego County Division to address the constant sewage pollution issues at the international border with Mexico.

This Resolution requests that the federal and state governments recognize the paramount importance of this issue and address the devastating impacts that this constant contamination has on the southernmost regions of California and the Pacific coastline by requesting the necessary funding to develop and implement effective and long term solutions to the raw sewage contamination coming into San Diego and Imperial Counties from Mexico.

Although I have lived in Vista for 27 years now, I grew up in Imperial Beach and know well the severe health and environmental impact that this situation has had on our border communities for the decades.

As a member of the League, I value the League’s ability to effectively advocate on behalf of not only our cities but in effect, our citizens, and this is an important issue for our entire state. Should you have any questions or comments, please contact me at the number below. Thank you for your consideration.

Mo incerely,

Amanda Young R,~Øy 7/ ) Council Membé , Cit 0 Vista (~/

cc: Vista city Council Vista City Manager Vista City Attorney City of Imperial Beach City of Coronado City of Calexico City of San Diego

200 Civic Center Drive, Vista, Carilornia 92084-6275 I 7: (760) 64~13 I F: (760) 639-6132 I F: [email protected] I cityotvista.com CITY OF

JEWEL of the HILLS

August 16, 2019

Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 IC Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814

RE: Environmental and Water Quality Impacts Of International Transboundary River Pollution Flows Resolution

President Arbuckle:

As a Council Member for the City of La Mesa and in my individual capacity, not on behalf of the full La Mesa City Council as a body or the City, I am writing you in support of the San Diego County Division’s effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League’s 2019 Annual Conference in Long Beach.

The Division’s resolution calls upon the Federal and State governments to restore and ensure proper funding of the Border Water Infrastructure Program (BWIP) to address the devastating impacts of international transboundary pollution flows into the waterways of the southernmost regions of California (San Diego and Imperial counties) and the Pacific Ocean.

As San Diego County Division President and a member of the League, I value the policy development process provided to the General Assembly. I appreciate your time on this issue. Please feel free to contact me at 619-667-1106, should you have any questions.

Sincerely,

&4~€) 6~La-L~ BILL BABER COUNCIL MEMBER CITY OF LA MESA PRESIDENT, LEAGUE SAN DIEGO COUNTY DIVISION

51 8I3OALLISONAVENUE • LA MESA,CA 91941 • TEL: 619.667.1105 FAX: 619.462.7528 ESCONDIDO City of

Consuelo Martinez, Deputy Mayor 201 North Broadway, Escondido, CA 92025 Phone: 760-8394638

August 16, 2019

Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, 4th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear President Arbuckle: As one Council Member of the city of Escondido, and in my individual Capacity and not on behalf of the Council as a body or the City, I write in support of the League of California Cities 2019 Annual Conference Resolution proposed by the San Diego County Division to address the transboundary river flow pollution impacting cities in San Diego and Imperial Counties. This resolution calls upon the federal and state governments to address the devastating impacts of international transboundary pollution flows into the southernmost regions of California and the Pacific Ocean by requesting the necessary funding to develop solutions for pollution coming into San Diego County and Imperial County waterways through the Tijuana River and New River, respectively. The passage of the proposed resolution by the San Diego County Division would provide support for the restoration of much needed funding and development and implementation of long-term solutions to address serious water quality and contamination issues, such as discharge of untreated sewage and polluted sediment and trash-laden transboundary flows that result in significant health, environmental, and safety concerns in communities along California’s southern border impacting the state. As a member of the League, I value the policy development process provided to the General Assembly. I appreciate your time on this issue. Please feel free to contact me at [email protected] if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Consuelo inez Deputy Mayor

cc: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Jeffrey R. Epp, City Manager

Paul McNamara, Mayor Consuelo Martinez, Deputy Mayor Olga Dlaz John Masson Michael Morasco 52 ADMlNl5TgfiTlv~ OFFICES CITY OF BRAWLEY Brawle~ CA 92227 Phone: (760) 351-3048 FAX: (760) 351-3088

August 15, 2019

Jan Arbuckle, President I.eague of California Cities 1400 K Street, 4th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear President Arbuckle:

As one Council Member of the City of Brawley, and in my individual capacity and not on behalf of the Council as a body or the City, I write in support of the League of California Cities 2019 Annual Conference Resolution proposed by the San Diego County Division to address the transboundary river flow po)lution impacting cities in San Diego and Imperial Counties.

This resolution calls upon the federal and state governments to address the devastating impacts of. internation& transboundary pollution flows into the southernmost regions of California and the Pacific Ocean by requesting the necessary funding to develop solutions for pollution coming into San Diego County and Imperial County waterways through the Tijuana River and New River, respectively.

The passage of the proposed resolution by the San Diego County Division would provide support for the restoration of much needed funding and development and implementation of long-term solutions to address serious water quality and contamination issues, such as discharge of untreated sewage and polluted sediment and trash-laden transboundary flows that result insignificant health, environmental, and safety concerns in communities along California’s southern border impacting the state.

As a member of the League, I value the policy development process provided to the General Assembly. I appreciate your time on this issue. Please feel free to contact me at (City email) if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

George A. Nava City Council Member City of Brawley

53 ~IA\ OR John \\. Miii, CITY OF SANTEE CIi\ COUNCIl. Rcllili I S lephen Houl a hall Laor~i Koval Rob McNelis

August 15, 2019

Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, 4th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear President Arbuckle:

As Mayor of the city of Santee, and in my individual capacity and not on behalf of the Council as a body or the City, I write in support of the League of California Cities 2019 Annual Conference Resolution proposed by the San Diego County Division to address the transboundary river flow pollution impacting cities in San Diego and Imperial Counties.

This resolution calls upon the federal and state governments to address the devastating impacts of international transboundary pollution flows into the southernmost regions of California and the Pacific Ocean by requesting the necessary funding to develop solutions for pollution coming into San Diego County and Imperial County waterways through the Tijuana River and New River, respectively.

The passage of the proposed resolution by the San Diego County Division would provide support for the restoration of much needed funding and development and implementation of long-term solutions to address serious water quality and contamination issues, such as discharge of untreated sewage and polluted sediment and trash-laden transboundary flows that result in significant health, environmental, and safety concerns in communities along California’s southern border impacting the state.

As a member of the League, I value the policy development process provided to the General Assembly. I appreciate your time on this issue. Please feel free to contact me at ([email protected]) if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

eM INTO Mayor City of Santee

1060] Magnolia Avenue Santee, California 9~7I (619) 258-4100 www.cityofsanteeca.gov JUDY RITTER MAYOR August 16, 2019

Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, 41h Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear President Arbuckle: As Mayor of the city of Vista, and in my individual capacity and not on behalf of the Council as a body or the City, I write in support of the League of California Cities 2019 Annual Conference Resolution proposed by the San Diego County Division to address the transboundary river flow pollution impacting cities in San Diego and Imperial Counties. This resolution calls upon the federal and state governments to address the devastating impacts of international transboundary pollution flows into the southernmost regions of California and the Pacific Ocean by requesting the necessary funding to develop solutions for pollution coming into San Diego County and Imperial County waterways through the Tijuana River and New River, respectively. The passage of the proposed resolution by the San Diego County Division would provide support for the restoration of much needed funding and development and implementation of long-term solutions to address serious water quality and contamination issues, such as discharge of untreated sewage and Polluted/sediment and trash-laden transboundary flows that result in significant health, environmental, and safety concerns in communities along California’s southern border impacting the state. As a member of the League, I value the policy development process provided to the General Assembly. I appreciate your time on this issue. Please feel free to contact me at jritter~cityofvista.com if you have any questions. Sincerely,

Judy Ritter Mayor City of Vista

200 Civic Center Drive, Vista, California 92084-6275 P: (760) 639~3O I F: (760) 639-6132 I E: [email protected] I cityoMsta.co~, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES CITY OF BRAWLEY BrawIe~ CA 92227 Phone: (760) 351-3048 FAX: (760) 351-3088

August 15, 2019

Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, 42h Floor Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear President Arbuckle:

As one Council Member of the City of Brawley, and in my individual capacity and not on behalf of the Council as a body or the City, I write in support of the league of California Cities 2019 Annual Conference Resolution proposed by the San Diego County Division to address the transboundary river flow pollution impacting cities in San Diego and lmperi& Counties.

The passage of the proposed resolution by the San Diego County Division would provide support for the restoration of much needed funding and development and implementation of long-term solutions to address serious water quality and contamination issues, such as discharge of untreated sewage and polluted sediment and trash-laden transboundary flows that result in significant health, environmental, and safety concerns in communities along California’s southern border impacting the state.

Sincerely,

Luke Hamby City Council Member City of Brawley

56 CITY OF BRAWLEY ADMII~!TRATJVE OFFICES Phone: (760) 351-3048 FAX: (760) 351-3088 August 15, 2019

Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, 4111 Floor Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear President Arbuckle:

As one Council Member of the City of Brawley, and in my individual capacity and not on behalf of the Council as a body or the City, 1 write in support of the League of California Cities 2019 Annual Conference Resolution proposed by the San Diego County Division to address the transboundary river flow pollution impacting cities in San Diego and Imperial Counties.

The passage of the proposed resolution by the San Diego County Division would provide support for the restoration of much needed funding and development and implementation of long-term solutions to address serious water quality and contamination issues, such as discharge of untreated sewage and polluted sediment and trash-laden transboundary flows that result in significant health, environmental, and safety concerns in communities along California’s southern border impacting the state.

Mayor Pro-Tempore City of Brawley

57 ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES CITY OF BRAWLEY BrawIe~cA92fl7 Phone: (760) 351-3048 FAX: (760) 357-3088

August 15, 2019

Jan Arbuckle, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street 4th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear President Arbuckle:

As one Council Member of the City of Brawley, and in my individual capacity and not on behalf of the Council as a body or the City, I write in support of the League of California Cities 2019 Annual Conference Resolution proposed by the San Diego County Division to address the transboundary river flow pollution impacting cities in San Diego and Imperial Counties.

The passage of the proposed resolution by the San Diego County Division would provide support for the restoration of much needed funding and development and implementation of long-term solutions to address serious water quality and contamination issues, such as discharge of untreated sewage and polluted sediment and trash-laden transboundary flows that result in significant health, environmental, and safety concerns in communities along California’s southern border impacting the state.

As a member of the League, I value the policy development process provided to the General Assembly. I appreciate your time on this issue, Please feel free to contact me at (City email) if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Sam Couchman City Council Member City of Brawley

58 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA REPORT TO THE: Joint D City Council ~ Housing Authority fl Successor Agency DOversight Board fl

October 1,2019

AflFNflA ITFM Report: Maple Park Perimeter Fencing

1) Resolution dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the Purchasing Administrator or a designee to enter into and execute a Purchase Order/Service Authorization with The Fence Store, Inc., dba Glendale Fence Co., in an amount not-to-exceed $62,115.00, with a 10% contingency of $6,211.50, for the purchase and installation of perimeter fencing at Maple Park. 2) Resolution of Appropriation to appropriate $75,000 transferred from the General Fund Undesignated Fund balance to the Capital Improvement fund for the Maple Park Fencing Project. COUNCIL ACTION Public Hearing LI Ordinance LI Consent Calendar LI Action Item ~ Report Only LI

Approved for 0 (Yt~9{Y L1 r\,01L9 calendar

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Submitted by: Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services & Parks Prepared by: Peter Vierheilig, Project Manager Approved by: Yasmin K. Beers, City Manager

Reviewed by: Roubik R. Golanian, Assistant City Manager

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney

Michele Flynn, Director of Finance 8*1 RECOMMENDATION Staff respectfully recommends that the City Council approve the following items:

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Maple Park is located at 820 E. Maple Street, in the south east area of Glendale, and is one of the City’s oldest and most frequently used neighborhood parks. It is located in a highly dense, multi-family residential neighborhood. The park is approximately 3.8 acres in size with a number of recreational amenities, such as the recently completed all- inclusive Shane’s Inspiration children’s play structure, picnic areas, a tennis court, walking paths, and on-site parking. The community building (originally built in 1966 and fully renovated and expanded in 2011) hosts a number of recreational programs including extensive after school and educational programs, sports and arts enrichment classes, and Club Maple (a program for developmentally disabled adults.)

City staff has received urgent requests from the community for fencing at the Maple Park perimeter to prevent small children from running into the street while playing in the park and chasing balls into the surrounding streets. In response to these requests, staff is recommending fabrication and installation of low (approximately forty-two inches in height), black vinyl-coated chain-link, which will have the same function as fencing at the City’s other parks. (Exhibit 1) The fencing will be open at all paved park entries and in a few locations along Maple Street turf frontage along the sidewalk in the City right-of- way. This type of fence, lacking gates, is not meant to completely restrict movement to and from the park, but to make it easier for parents to supervise their children while at the park since there will be only a few openings from which to enter or leave the park.

Ordinarily, to bid this project under the traditional, formal bidding process, it will take four to six months to complete (i.e., drafting a formal specification and the bidding documents, waiting for responses, reviewing the submissions, selecting a contractor, and awarding the contract). Because of (1) the community’s immediate safety concerns, (2) the importance of expediting the fence’s installation, and (3) the need to avoid possible construction/installation delays that could occur due to winter weather conditions, staff believes that dispensing with the competitive bidding process, selecting a single source (vendor) for the fence materials and its installation, and having the Purchasing Administrator issue a Purchase Order/Service Authorization for the work will significantly reduce the time it will take to install the fencing.

2 To determine cost estimates for the project, staff sought price quotations from three fencing vendors and received two quotes: one for $78,523.00 and another for $62,115.00. The Fence Store, Inc. dba Glendale Fence Co. offered the lower price. Staff has extensive experience working with the Glendale Fence Co. and has utilized their services for projects in the past. They meet all City’s insurance and licensing requirements and currently hold an annual purchase order for minor fence repair I installation jobs around city parks. As such, Staff recommends that the City Council accept The Fence Store’s written offer and authorize the Purchasing Administrator to issue and execute a Purchase Order/Service Authorization with The Fence Store for the work.

FISCAL IMPACT The cost for the Maple Park Perimeter Fencing Project is estimated to be $75,000.00, which includes the vendor’s fee of $62,115.00, a 10% contingency of $6,211.50, and project management and staff costs associated with modifying the existing park irrigation system, which must be relocated in areas where fencing posts will be installed.

Staff is requesting a Resolution of Appropriation to appropriate $75,000 transferred from the General Fund Undesignated Fund balance to the Capital Improvement fund (51200- 401 0-CSP-0020-P0000-T000-F0000) for the Maple Park Fencing Project.

ALTERNATIVES The alternatives related to the proposed Resolution are as follows:

Alternative 1: Council may choose to approve the attached: • Resolution dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the Purchasing Administrator or a designee to enter into and execute a Purchase Order/Service Authorization with The Fence Store, Inc., dba Glendale Fence Co., in an amount not-to-exceed $62,115.00, with a 10% contingency of $6,211.50, for the purchase and installation of perimeter fencing at Maple Park; and • Resolution of Appropriation to appropriate $75,000.00 transferred from the General Fund Undesignated Fund balance to the Capital Improvement fund for the Maple Park Perimeter Fencing Project.

Alternative 2: Council may choose not to approve the attached Resolutions.

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

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE Not Applicable

EXHIBITS Exhibit 1

3 RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA DISPENSING WITH COMPETITIVE BIDDING; AND AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASING ADMINISTRATOR OR A DESIGNEE TO ENTER INTO AND EXECUTE A PURCHASE ORDER/SERVICE AUTHORIZATION WITH THE FENCE STORE, INC., DBA GLENDALE FENCE CO. FOR THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF PERIMETER FENCING AT MAPLE PARK.

WHEREAS, Maple Park, located in a highly dense, multi-family residential neighborhood, is one of the City’s oldest and most frequently used neighborhood parks; and

WHEREAS, Community Services & Parks Department (“Parks Department”) staff has received requests from the community for low fencing along the park’s perimeter to prevent small children, while playing in the park, from running into the street and chasing baIls into the surrounding streets; and WHEREAS, in response to these• requests, Parks Department staff is recommending fabrication and installation of low, vinyl-coated chain-link fencing; and

WHEREAS, Parks Department staff sought price quotations from three fencing vendors and two of them submitted a quote: one for $78,523.00, and another for $62,115.00. Of the two companies, The Fence Store, Inc. dba Glendale Fence Co. (“Glehdale Fence Co.”) offered the lower price; and WHEREAS, bidding the fabrication• and installation of fencing would require developing a specification, and then going through a traditional, formal bidding process, which would take an additional 4 to 6 months to complete; and

WHEREAS, the Council finds that a need exists to provide the fencing and to avoid possible installation delays that could occur due to winter weather conditions; and WHEREAS, Parks Department staff has reviewed the license, qualifications, reputation, and price proposal of Glendale Fence Co.; and

WHEREAS, Glendale Fence Co., having performed previous work for the City, has a proven track record; and

WHEREAS, Glendale Fence Co. has the ability, resources, and experience to complete the services in a shortened time-frame while minimizing impact to park patrons using the park; and

WHEREAS, proceeding with the fencing’s installation in an expedited manner is a priority and the Council finds that the Parks Department needs to have fencing installed expeditiously; and

1 SAL J:WILES\DOCFIL2S$ACTFIND\BIQ RESO PW. MAPLE PARK FENCE. MSFDOC WHEREAS, sufficient budgetary funds exist to authorize the City’s Purchasing Administratorto execute a Purchase Order/Service Authorization with Glendale Fence Co.; and

WHEREAS, Glendale City Charter, Article VI, Sec. 9 provides an exemption to competitive bidding where the Council determines it is in the best interest of the City to dispense with competitive bidding; and WHEREAS, given the extended time period necessary to competitively bid the projeât and given the need to begin the fencing installation immediately, it appears that adequate justification exits and it is in the City’s best interest— upon recommendation of the Director of Community Services and Parks—to (1) dispense with competitive bidding; and (2) authorize the Purchasing Administrator or a designee to enter into and execute a Purchase Orders/Service Authorization with The Fence Store, Inc. dba Glendale Fence Co.to provide and install fencing at Maple Park.

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

1. The foregoing facts are deemed to be true and correct, and are a basis for dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the execution of an agreement with a single source.

2. The Council hereby:

A. dispenses with competitive bidding; and

B. Authorizes the Purchasing Administrator or a designee to enter into and execute a Purchase Order/Service Authorization with The Fence Store, Inc. dba Glendale Fence Co., in an amount not-to-exceed $62,115.00, with a 10% contingency of $6,211.50, for the purchase and installation of perimeter fencing at Maple Park.

Adopted this ______day of ______, 2019

Mayor

2 J:WILES’DCCFILES\FACTFIND\BID RESO - PW - MAPLE PARK PENCE- MGF.DOC ATTEST:

City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA SS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES I, Ardashes Kassakhian, 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 ______, 2019, by the following vote: Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk

~Y ‘Mi~haeI ~. drKnt Principal Assistant City Attorney Date: 9 _2f__)c1

3 JWILES\DCCFJLE$\FACTFIND~SrD REED . PW- MAPLE PARK FENCE. MEFOOC RESOLUTION NO.

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE MAKING AN APPROPRIATION

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

SECTION 1: That the sum of $150,000 is hereby appropriated and/or transferred from the following accounts to the following accounts:

ACCOUNTS DESCRIPTION FROM TO 25300-1 01 0-NON-0000 Undesignated Fund Balance, General $75,000 Fund

. $75,000 48040-1010-NON-0050 Transfer-Capital Funds, General Fund, Transfer to Other Funds

391 00-401 0-NON-0000 Transfer General Fund, Capital $75,000 Improvement Fund

51200-401 0-CSP-0020-P0000- Other Improvements, Capital T0000-F0000-0000-0000- Improvement Fund, CSP, Projects $75,000 CSPOO1 69AN To appropriate funding for the Maple Park Fencing Project.

SECTION 2: The Director of Finance is authorized to make such other revisions, individual appropriation line-items, changes in summaries, fund totals, grand totals, and other portions of the budget document as necessary to reflect and implement the changes specified in this resolution.

SECTION 3: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

Adopted this day of .2019.

Mayor ATTEST: CITY OF GLENDALE DATE 09/24/19 APPROVED AS TO FINANCL&L City Clerk PROVISION FOR S 150,000

STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES) SS CITY OF GLENDALE) ≠4dorofIcr~ I, Ardashes Kassakhian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the______day of ______, 2019, and that the same was adopted by the following vote: Ayes: Noes: Absent: Abstain: 8A2 APPROV,çDS TO FORM ~ City Clerk r~iichabi R. Grant Principal4 Assistant City Attorney EXHIBIT 1

•1 4’

.4 1’~~ CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA REPORT TO THE: Joint El City Council ~ Housing Authority El Successor Agency El Oversight Board El

October 1,2019

AGENDA ITEM Report: Regarding the Mosaic Art Project at the Deukmejian Wilderness Park through the Glendale Parks & Open Space Foundation

1) Motion to approve the Mosaic Art Project at Deukmejian Wilderness Park to enable the Glendale Parks & Open Space Foundation to raise funds for the project. flflhINflhI ACTION Public Hearing El Ordinance El Consent Calendar El Action Item ~ Report Only El Approved for t (t019 calendar

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION Signature Submitted by: Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services & Parks

Prepared by: Arsine lsayan, Sr. Administrative Analyst

Tereza Aleksanian, Deputy Dir of Community Services & Parks

Approved by: Yasmin K. Beers, City Manager

Reviewed by: Roubik Golanian, Assistant City Manager

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney

tBI RECOMMENDATION Staff respectfully recommends that Council approve the Mosaic Art Project at Deukmejian Wilderness Park to enable the Glendale Parks & Open Space Foundation to raise funds for the project.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS Deukmejian Wilderness Park is the City’s 709-acre natural park at the foot of the San Gabriel Mountains in the northernmost portion of Glendale. The park is relatively undisturbed except for an area of about 12 acres at the southern part of the property known as the Park Center; the site of the Le Mesnager Barn (Barn). Built between 1914 and 1918, the Barn is of historical significance as it is a relatively rare example of a two-story vernacular rock structure, its association with the early development of the wine industry in southern California, and the structure’s unusual, arched roof trusses. The Barn was proposed for adaptive reuse as a nature education center as early as 1990 when environmental documents were submitted to the State of California and throughout the years as the City applied for grant funding. In fact, the initial study states that “The historic winery will be restored and converted into an environmental education center to inform the public about the local environment and the rich historical past of the area.”

Development of the park and Barn has taken place in several phases over the past twenty- eight years. The final phase of the project, which is in design development, will complete the adaptive re-use of the Barn as a nature education center and community building. The principal purpose of the Barn remains as a nature center, serving as a portal into the park, and providing valuable information on the human and natural history of the area, displays, exhibits, and other furnishings. As mentioned in grant applications throughout the years, the Barn is “intended to serve as the base and catalyst for the development of a park docent program to assist the City in providing a variety of outdoor recreational and interpretive programs to school children and park visitors.”

The Glendale Parks & Open Space Foundation (GPOSF) is a non-profit organization, established in 2009, to nurture friendly, safe, clean and well maintained parks and open spaces that enrich the entire community by inspiring creation, education and an enhanced quality of life. GPOSF has been fundraising for parks, and trails and open space programs since its establishment. Not only does GPOSF currently help fund many of the trails and open space programs offered by the City, but also the organization partners with the City to provide nature education (GO! Program) for the One Glendale After School Youth Sports Program. GPOSF has always shown interest to work with the City in establishing a docent program to operate the Nature Education Center once the Barn project is completed.

In order to depict the rich historical past of the Park, promote art in the park, and help secure funds for future docent programming at the Nature Education Center, GPOSF is proposing a custom mosaic beautification project that will provide inspiration for generations of community members.

2 Theme The proposed Mosaic Art Project depicts the Deukmejian Wilderness Park through a typical

and wondrous day - the vast 709 acres of unspoiled chaparral forest biome that houses a great diversity of plants and animals, some of which are found nowhere else on the planet. The prospective title of the mosaic work is “The Breath of a Deukmejian Day.” (Please refer to Exhibit 1 to see the proposed mosaic artwork). The work shows both diurnal and nocturnal animals in their environment as it progresses from day into evening and night.

Process: Artwork The mosaic will be stained glass mosaic that incorporates kiln-fired fused glass segments and depict plants and animals of the chaparral biome. Included are sky and stream elements that suggest running lines of turquoise as though they’re naturally appearing in a vein in the wall. The piece will fit snugly on the textured wall, fitting precisely into the nooks and crannies of the existing wall. Select elements— including the primary manzanita tree, the kit fox in the foreground and the osprey circling in the sky— will be finely detailed fused glass elements that will be mounted on thin waterproof building panels, making them very slightly raised from the rest of the mosaic. The following chaparral species, which are found at the park, can also be included:

• Birds: Wrentits, anna’s and allan’s hummingbirds, scrub jays, towhees, golden crowned sparrows, California thrashers, Cooper’s hawks, mourning doves, cactus wrens, roadrunners and great horned owls • Reptiles: Great horn lizards, red diamond rattlesnakes and southern rubber boas • Mammals: Coyotes, cougars, mule deer, black-tailed jackrabbits, kit foxes and brush rabbits • Plants: Manzanita trees, white sage, yerba santa, scrub oak, common sagebrush, silk tassel bush

Sponsorship: Names Since this project will also serve as a fundraising enterprise for GPOSF, funds collected will be used for trails and open space programs and docent programming for the Nature Education Center. Community members will have an opportunity to sponsor a tile. The sponsored tile can include a name around the mosaic mural. (See Exhibit 1). White arrows have been added to allow easy viewing of the area in question. Names would be kiln fired (fused) into glass making them permanent and subtly placed against the glass. The font size of the names would range from 1/4” high to 3/4” high. A limited number of sponsored tiles will be available for purchase.

3 The artwork and name tile creation can also include a mutually agreed upon number of community workdays where members of the local community are invited to participate in the art piece’s creation.

Staff is seeking Council approval of the Mosaic Art Project at Deukmejian Wilderness Park. Council’s approval will enable GPOSF to raise funds through sponsorships and donations received by various organization and private individuals.

Staff and GPOSF will also present this item to the Library, Arts and Culture Commission for sponsorship approval.

FISCAL IMPACT The estimated cost for this project based on the proposal received by GPOSF is $40,000.

There is no direct fiscal impact to the City. GPOSF will be fundraising for this art project through sponsorships and donations received by various organizations and private individuals.

ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1: Council may choose to approve the Mosaic Art Project to enable the Glendale Parks & Open Space Foundation to raise funds for the project.

Alternative 2: Council may choose not to approve the Mosaic Art Project.

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

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE N/A

EXHIBITS Exhibit 1: Proposed Mosaic Artwork

4 MOTION

Moved by Council Member ______, seconded by Council Merriber ______that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby approves the Mosaic Art Project at Deukmejian Wilderness Park, as more particularly described in the October 1, 2019 staff report by the Director of Community Services and Park.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

aAPEROVEAT FOR. Micha~i R. rant Principal Assistant City Attorney Date:______BB1

J:WILES\OOCFILESWACTFIND\OUEIQ~1EJIAN PARK MOSAIC ART PROJECT - MGFDOCX EXHIBIT 1

:j LN~t

4 4 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA REPORT TO THE: Joint D City Council ~ Housing Authority LI Successor Agency ~ Oversight BoardEl

October 1, 2019

AGENDA ITEM

Report: Regarding the Standardization of Automated Side Loading Refuse Truck Bodies to Amrep, Inc. (Amrep) for the Purchase of New Refuse Trucks, Parts and Maintenance Services.

1) Resolution adopting Amrep as the City-standard for Automated Side Loading Refuse Truck Bodies, dispense with competitive bidding for the procurement of Amrep automated side loading refuse truck bodies from authorized dealers; and Amrep truck parts and Amrep truck maintenance services from Amrep.

COUNCIL ACTION Public Hearing LI Ordinance LI Consent Calendar LI Action Item ~ Report Only LI

Approved for October 1, 2019 calendar

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION S ignatu r Submitted by: Yazdan T. Emrani, P.E., Director of Public Works

Prepared by: Shea Eccleston-Banwer, Sr. Public Works Manager

Approved by: Yasmin K. Beers, City Manager a Reviewed by: Roubik Golanian, P.E., Assistant City Manager

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney

Michele Flynn, Finance Director~v I Kevin C. Todd, Assistant Director of Public Works BC? RECOMMENDATION Staff respectfully requests that the City Council approve the attached Resolution authorizing standardization to Amrep for automated side loading refuse truck bodies for the next ten (10) years; to dispense with competitive bidding for the procurement of Amrep automated side loading refuse truck bodies from authorized dealers; and maintenance services and parts for Amrep automated side loading refuse truck bodies from Amrep dependent on need and within the budget amounts approved by the City Council during the annual budgeting process.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS The Public Works Department provides waste collection and disposal services to residential and commercial properties throughout the City. Automated side loading refuse trucks service 98 and 64 gallon refuse carts and are used primarily to collect trash, green waste and recyclables from single-family residential properties as well as smaller multi-family properties. Additionally, they service organics loads from the City’s commercial accounts. There are currently 27 active automated side loading refuse trucks in the City’s fleet and they are all maintained by the Public Works Department via in-house mechanics and outside vendors.

Heavy duty refuse trucks contain two main components: the chassis which includes the cab, engine, differential and wheels; and the body which includes the packer or blade, hopper and tailgate. Generally, manufacturers of the chassis differ from those that build the body. Until recently, the Public Works Department purchased all trash trucks via competitive bidding processes. As a result, the current fleet includes a wide and non standard range of trash trucks with varying chassis and body manufacturer combinations. The current fleet includes truck bodies manufactured by Heil, New Way, Wayne and Amrep and chassis manufactured by Autocar. These vehicles include different control mechanisms, diverse moving parts and varied dimensions. This variety can be challenging as City truck drivers must be trained to operate differing units and City mechanics trained to maintain these same units. Additionally, the Public Works Department must retain numerous outside vendors as the manufacturers usually only assign a single regional maintenance shop authorized to work on these vehicles.

Public Works Department staff has assessed the current market for automated side loading refuse body trash trucks and analyzed the equipment currently available. Staff has determined Amrep manufactured bodies provide a unique automated side loading refuse truck package that benefits our drivers, mechanics and Glendale residents.

Amrep features a unique trolley style arm where the lift arm does not have to be retracted to service a cart. The arm features much less protruding equipment than their competitors meaning there is less area for the cart pickup unit to accidentally strike cars or cause other damage to private property. Historically, the offset arm on the existing automated side loader trash truck fleet has been a contributing factor in numerous accidents. Glendale features several densely populated neighborhoods where carts compete with parked cars for curb space on trash collection days. The Amrep trolley style arm reduces the number of these incidents causing damage to private property.

2 The Amrep trolley style arm also features a unique design that holds the cart completely upright until it is positioned over the hopper when it dumps the contents into the truck. The offset arm on other City-owned trucks raises the cart and tips it into the hopper in one motion. This causes the cart to be tilted prior to reaching the opening to the hopper which results in more spillage than the trolley style arm. In these instances, the driver has to exit the truck and clean trash spills when they occur. Therefore, reducing spillage will improve route efficiency in addition to keeping Glendale neighborhoods clean.

Most importantly, the Amrep automated side loading refuse truck is unique in that the arm and gripper mechanism is mounted to the truck body instead of the chassis. It has been staff’s experience with chassis mounted arms and grippers that when the arm is operated up and down it causes an inordinate amount of shaking of the cab. Over the course of an entire workday this intermittent shaking affects our drivers negatively causing discomfort, fatigue, and injuries. Public Works drivers have found the cab shaking to be considerably less severe for Amrep trucks.

The refuse truck bodies for these Amrep models are manufactured and built locally in Ontario, CA, in a facility that includes a complete service and parts department. This means that replacement parts are more readily available than parts for other truck body manufacturers that are built out of state. No other refuse truck body manufacturers are located in Southern California. Additionally, Amrep offers in-house truck pickup and delivery service saving Public Works staff time and minimizing vehicle downtime.

On May 8, 2018, the City Council approved a Resolution to dispense with competitive bidding and purchase eight full-size, three-axle and two mini, two-axle automated side loading Amrep refuse trucks. All ten trucks have been received and integrated into the City’s fleet. In general, City drivers have been satisfied with the new trucks and there have been no significant unforeseen vehicle maintenance issues.

Staff proposes that Amrep be adopted as the City standard for automated side loading refuse truck bodies but no standard be established for the cab and chassis portion of the trucks at this time. As a result, the cab and chassis component of the City’s refuse trucks will still be competitively bid. This procurement approach is recommended because Public Works drivers and mechanics have limited familiarity with refuse cab and chassis truck brands other than Autocar. Therefore, staff does not have enough experience or data to make a standardization recommendation for this specific truck component. In addition, since cutting edge zero-emission, and all-electric engines are currently in development by several of these cab and chassis manufacturers, it would be premature to commit to a single manufacturer at this time.

For the aforementioned reasons, it is respectfully recommended that Council adopt Amrep as the City standard for automated side loading refuse truck bodies and Amrep as the sole-source for Amrep truck bodies, maintenance services, and parts.

The Glendale Purchasing Policy promotes the standardization of commonly used items, vehicles, and equipment. The Policy only applies to items, such as Amrep automated side loading refuse truck bodies, which have been tested and proven satisfactory on the

3 job. This process will eliminate repetitive future approvals by the City Council for similar refuse truck vehicles. Standardized items need to be reviewed by the Departments at least every five (5) years, and need to be approved by City Council at least every ten (1 0) years.

If the City Council approves the proposed Resolution adopting Amrep as the City’sstandard for automated side loading refuse trucks, and to dispense with competitive bidding, the Purchasing Administrator will be authorized to proceed with the purchase of refuse trucks included in the budget. The FY 2019-20 Budget includes funds for the replacement of assets 7405 and 7406.

The City’s recommended lifespan for heavy duty refuse trucks is eight years. Units 7405 and 7406 are both nearly twelve years old and both exceed the City’s criteria for replacement. Both vehicles have well over 100,000 miles of harsh stop-and-go service and life-to-date maintenance costs well in excess of their original vehicle purchase prices. A recent order for a similar refuse trucks took approximately ten months to be fulfilled. Therefore, staff expects the new trucks to be delivered in the summer of 2020.

FISCAL IMPACT Funding for the maintenance and procurement of automated side loading refuse trucks has already been approved by Council in the FY 2019-20 Budget in the following accounts.

The $850,000 budgeted for Capital Outlay is for the purchase of two automated side loading refuse trucks at $425,000 each to replace 12-year old assets 7405 and 7406. Equipment replacement, service, and parts will be budgeted accordingly, by the Public Works Department, each subsequent Fiscal Year.

ALTERNATIVES Alternative 1: City Council may approve the attached Resolution for the standardization of automated side loading refuse trucks to Amrep and to dispense with competitive bidding for the procurement of Amrep automated side loading refuse truck bodies from authorized dealers; and Amrep truck parts and Am rep truck maintenance services from Amrep.

Alternative 2: The City Council may elect to competitively bid refuse truck bodies from various manufactures. This alternative would adversely impact Public Works operations.

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

4 CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE In accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744, the following are 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;

Officers of Waste Equip, LLC (Company recently acquired Amrep): Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip Marty Bryant CEO 6525 Morrison BI. Charlotte NC 28211 Steven Klueg CFO 6525 Morrison BI. Charlotte NC 28211 John President, Mobile 6525 Morrison SI. Charlotte NC 28211 Defenbaugh Products Henry Retamal President, Toter 6525 Morrison SI. Charlotte NC 28211 Amy Wright 6525 Morrison SI. Charlotte NC 28211 VP, Research and Kristin Kinder Waste Stream 6525 Morrison BI. Charlotte NC 28211 Sustainability Vance Tabb Special Advisor to 6525 Morrison SI. Charlotte NC 28211

J.P. McLaughin VP~ National 6525 Morrison BI. Charlotte NC 28211 Accounts Richard Sedory General Counsel 6525 Morrison SI. Charlotte NC 28211 Nick Wiseman Chief HR Officer 6525 Morrison SI. Charlotte NC 28211 Mike Marchetti CIO 6525 Morrison SI. Charlotte NC 28211

EXHIBITS None

5 RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING STANDARDIZATION OF MANUFACTURER, DISPENSING WITH COMPETITIVE BIDDING FOR THE PURCHASE OF AMREP INC. AUTOMATED SIDE LOADING REFUSE TRUCKS FROM AUTHORIZED DEALERS AND AMREP PARTS AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES WITH AMREP INC.

WHEREAS, the Glendale Public Works Department utilizes Amrep, Inc. manufactured automated side loading refuse truck bodies sold locally by authorized dealers, and

WHEREAS, Amrep, Inc. is the only local source from which to obtain Amrep Inc. replacement parts and maintenance services; and

WHEREAS, Amrep, Inc. automated side loading refuse truck bodies feature a unique body mounted trolley style arm that fits better into tight areas, causes less trash spillage and less detrimental driver cab shaking; and

WHEREAS, the City of Glendale has a policy of competitive purchasing practices wherever practicable and the purchasing policy recognizes that in some cases, there is a need for standardization on the purchase of some specialized items; and

WHEREAS, automated side loading refuse trucks are important tools for the safe and reliable collection of refuse from residential customers and organics waste from commercial customers, and such safety and reliability is ensured by standardizing on the manufacturer of the automated side loading refuse truck bodies, automated side loading refuse truck parts and automated side loading refuse truck maintenance services.

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

1. That the City Council hereby approves the standardization of the manufacturer of automated side loading refuse truck bodies to Amrep, Inc. and procurement of Amrep automated side loading refuse truck bodies to authorized dealers; and automated side loading refuse truck parts and automated side loading refuse truck maintenance services to Amrep, Inc. to ensure safety and reliability for the next 10 years, with the understanding that reasonable effort will be made in the purchase of such equipment, parts and services to obtain competitive pricing.

2. That the foregoing facts are deemed to be true and correct and a basis for dispensing with competitive bidding and the Council hereby finds that it is in the best interests of the City to dispense with competitive bidding.

8C1 6 Adopted on this ______day of ______2019.

Mayor

ATTEST:

City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )SS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

I, Ardashes Kassakhian, 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 ______, 2019, and that same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk

AI~P~OVED AS TO FORM M~1’49%ra? CITY~~rbRNEY DATE ‘i/271i~