By Julie BUTCHER

Mayor Ara Najarian opened Tuesday evening’s meeting of the Glendale City Council with two “feel-good stories that often go untold.”

On Jan. 24, he shared, the Glendale police department’s homeless outreach team helped a homeless family of eight who were living in their car near Glendale Boulevard and Monterey Road. Najarian listed the steps and resources that were organized (housing, food, gift cards, baby supplies) through Family Promise of the Verdugos and the Glendale school district. The family, which includes six children under age 7, is scheduled for permanent housing intake later this week, the mayor reported, because of the cooperative work done to help address homelessness in the city.

Secondly, the mayor highlighted the work of One Glendale, an afterschool sports program aimed at supporting fourth- and fifth-grade students in local elementary schools. He announced the organization’s basketball season championship day on Friday, March 6, from 6:30 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. at the Pacific Community Center, 501 S. Pacific Ave.

Then Najarian told the council that, during his participation on the Metro board, when the issue came up of providing free public transit to LA’s neediest students, he amended the motion to also include “needy students in the GUSD.” Councilmember Paula Devine asked about including Glendale Community College students and Najarian responded that they would be included in the study and that a low-cost transit pass – the U-pass – currently exists.

The bulk of the meeting focused on the next steps in the city’s ongoing plans to transition the collection of trash and recycling from commercial and multi-family properties (buildings with more than five units) to a franchise system. Currently, 33 haulers are permitted to pick up this type of trash, leaving the city with no control over any aspect of the private businesses’ operations beyond regulations imposed by the state.

Beginning in 2017, city staff has been evaluating the feasibility of franchising with a limited number of pre-approved vendors, one for each of four geographic zones of the city. City Manager Yasmin Beers estimated more final recommendations from the process “sometime in the summer.” She noted that the city would also need to “meet and confer” (that is, bargain) with the union that represents city employees.

Councilmember Vrej Agajanian immediately objected to the notion of dealing with only one company.

“One company – one zone is so dangerous. I am [in] business. I have had this problem,” he said.

Councilmember Frank Quintero also weighed in.

“I wasn’t on the council [at the time this decision was made] but the concept of one hauler for each zone – although staff is competent – I’d prefer to see four or five or six good haulers compete; that’s the free market.”

Quintero also pushed for the process to include city workers competing for the work.

“I’ve got a lot of confidence in our city employees,” he said. “They’ve done it for many years. They know the neighborhoods. They’re motivated. I’m not going to be here to make the decision but, if I were around, I’d be voting to have the City of Glendale compete with the private haulers.”

Labor representative Brian Niehaus addressed the council on behalf of the city workers’ union and the workers who pick up the city’s trash.

“These are some of the hardest working employees in less than glamorous jobs, and there is real concern among them,” Niehaus said. “We understand that there are problems with the current system – the best option is to kick out all the vendors and do it all in-house.

“Short of that, the workers recommend separating multi-family and business customers. Currently Glendale residents have the choice and 80% of the multi-family dwellings choose city workers. We ask that you respect the choice residents have made and not take away that option.”

Niehaus noted that the suggestion that potentially displaced workers could go to work for one of the new contractors is not a viable option “jeopardizing pensions and benefits these city workers have earned through years of service to the city.”

The union representative urged the council to “do right by the residents and the workers.”

While the city received proposals from nine companies, staff found six of them the most worthy of further analysis. Representatives of the three companies not recommended addressed the council, and two of them submitted letters of protest, urging that their submissions be included in the ongoing evaluative process.

Beers echoed the union’s assessment of the “integrated waste management” employees as “among the hardest working individuals in this organization who give their hearts and soul day-in and day-out. Everyone’s trash is picked up. Their follow-up is impeccable. None of this has anything to do with city employees and I think they know it.”

She added that any “staff disruption” would be “minimal to none.”

Devine urged that costs be evaluated separately for commercial and multi-family responses. Public works staff indicated that the process allowed for that. Agajanian continued to argue for multiple vendors in numbers of zones. That motion failed. Ultimately, the council voted to move the exploration forward and to include the eight haulers deemed “responsive” to the city’s contracting procedures.

In its final business of the night, the council heard an appeal regarding the installation of a “small cell” facility near 283 Maryland Place. Councilmember Vartan Gharpetian recused himself from the deliberations because he had received a campaign contribution from one of the relevant parties. The council heard from a senior city attorney and its own scientific and legal expert, both parties to the dispute, and several members of the public before being unable to agree on any action.

The proposed wireless telecommunications device would be placed on top of a newly reinstalled light standard near the corner of Maryland and Louise and would be 4G, not 5G, requiring the excavation of an area approximately 18” x 20” to hook up to existing underground power and fiber sources.

Mayor Najarian challenged the appellant, who advocated for a different location, to explain “how this is going to interfere with development that isn’t built yet.”

“There are many more issues to build your 30-story tower than a light pole. If, in the future, you can show that it interferes, AT&T will have to move it,” Najarian said. “It’s 50 feet away from a busy freeway. That’s worse than a cell tower. You can tell them they’ll have excellent cellphone reception. I don’t have excellent reception at my home and that’s a problem.”

To his colleagues, Najarian asked, “Are you approving a 30-story development there? Because that’s what this is about. Is the council saying we can’t put a 4G facility there because we’re going to disturb his development rights? There are so many issues before this thing gets anywhere close to seeing the light of day than a 4G pole in the right-of-way that meets each and every one of our requirements under the municipal code.”

The appeal will be back at council next week absent an agreement between the parties to the dispute.

Earlier in the day, councilmembers participated in a “work boot” session, hearing from various representatives of the police department on current policies, practices and operations. Councilmembers participated in several demonstrations of the new Firearms Training Simulator (FAT) use-of-force training system, toured a new SWAT MEDCAT armored medical rescue vehicle, and watched a demonstration of the traffic bureau’s light detection and ranging (Lidar) speed enforcement tools.

  Julie BUTCHER