By Julie BUTCHER

At the Tuesday night meeting of the Glendale City Council, three successive items that were originally placed on the Council’s consent calendar to be considered as routine matters were discussed at length and ultimately tabled on tied votes of 2 – 2, with Mayor Elen Asatryan out of town, highlighting how controversial discussions of bike lanes have become in the city. Consideration of these items will be added to next week’s Council agenda. 

An anonymous caller began her remarks by thanking Councilmember Vartan Gharpetian “more than anyone on that Council for being such a sound ethical person of character and a person who listens to the residents of Glendale. I am very disappointed with the Council and the city manager and the city attorney. No one seems to hear anything that the residents want. When we spoke out against bike lanes, we weren’t just talking about the ones on Brand Boulevard. We oppose it all over Glendale. Hear us very clearly. This multi-modal project is against our will. We will not be under implied consent – not by you, not by anyone. We have constitutional rights, and you need to hear us.”

Principal Traffic Engineer Pastor Casanova described the work “modernizing infrastructure to accommodate pedestrian improvements, bicycle detection, new ‘intelligent’ transportation systems and upgrading our equipment to best practices and connecting all that back to our traffic management center.” He then explained the contracts for design work being considered. 

“Typically, the request is made to the Metro board based on a project’s estimated scope and the scope of work that we anticipate taking on. A number of these projects are multi-modal, as you are aware, and encompass the full gambit of traffic signal modification, roadway improvements, and active transportation infrastructure” for which Measure R funds can be requested, he said.

According to the city’s staff report, Measure R is a half-cent sales tax assessed in Los Angeles County that finances new transportation projects and programs. In November 2008, Measure R was approved by two-thirds of the county’s voters, committing a projected $40 billion to traffic congestion relief and transportation upgrades throughout the County over its 30-year life span. The city’s share of Measure R subregional funds for highway operational improvements is approximately $98.5 million.

“When you say multi-modal, you mean bike lanes and traffic lane reductions,” Councilmember Gharpetian clarified. “It may be the industry name for it but we have to understand what we’re voting on. I want to make sure I’m not voting for something I’m going to be voting against later.”

Councilmember Gharpetian noted that the city has a draft master bicycle plan currently being reviewed environmentally. 

“In that draft, some streets have been identified by a majority of the Council – not me – for Class IV bike lanes to be studied. So the EIR may come back and say, ‘No, you can’t do it on this street, maybe on that boulevard’ – that’s why you’re doing the EIR,” he said. “Otherwise, we would have moved forward with whatever the Council wanted at that time. 

“The public has to know. Don’t call it multi-modal. Call it what it is: bike lanes and traffic lane removals.” 

Gharpetian referenced plans for the North Verdugo corridor and criticized the notice that went out in advance of construction beginning on La Crescenta Avenue in the coming months.

“I want to upgrade our roads. I want to upgrade our traffic signals – but that notice! There was not one word about losing street parking. And bike lanes, the most contentious item in this whole equation, were listed as Item 11 at the bottom of the page,” he concluded.

“You put us in a pickle,” said Councilmember Ara Najarian echoing the concern that Councilmembers are being asked to allocate funds for projects they oppose. “Take La Crescenta as an example. We’ve appropriated a lot of money for the reconstruction of La Crescenta [Avenue] and we voted on that. At some later point, there was a design and an installation of bike lanes we’ve spent months fighting about and we’re being asked to vote to fund a project I oppose. I can’t vote for Mark Thomas [the prospective consultant] to start designing bike lanes unless I know that the community wants bike lanes.”

Councilmember Dan Brotman noted this way of processing these types of contract proposals is the way it has typically been done and that it is “sad that road safety has become politicized.” He recalled hearing about speeding and reckless driving as top public priorities when he was running for office. 

“We’re trying to create safer streets and a network so that people can get around the city safely, pleasantly, outside of a car – and that helps car owners and users because we want to take traffic off the streets; it helps with pollution; it helps with safety; it helps with the wear and tear of our roads,” Councilmember Brotman said. 

Allan Durham addressed the Council noting the need “to bring a little more daylight to such a large infrastructure project.” 

“Glendale residents need to be aware of this proposed study rather than have it buried among all the other consent items,” he said. “It’s a study to evaluate alternatives for a multi-modal street project for North Verdugo Road, from the 134 to Honolulu Avenue. The proposal is to include Class IV protected bike lanes; this usually results in the loss of one or more traffic lanes. Given the failure of the recent Brand Boulevard demonstration project, Glendale really needs assurance that there is sufficient community buy-in so we don’t embark on another failed endeavor.”

“Given the recent catastrophic fires in Pacific Palisades and Eaton Canyon,” Durham continued, “sufficient emergency evacuation corridors are extremely vital going forward. Will traffic lane removals jeopardize this? It wasn’t mentioned in the staff report and that should certainly be included to be part of the study.” 

Durham added that the funding is also unclear. The first $9 million would come from Measure R funds but the sources of funding for the full $28 million estimated for the full project are not spelled out. 

He added an expression of support for Phase II of the San Fernando Road beautification project. “The first phase was extremely well done and has been very successful.”

The same anonymous caller noted earlier commented again addressing the Council. 

“I’m not in favor of the San Fernando beautification project. I’m not in favor of any beautification project. Our town is gorgeous the way it is – the ‘small-town feeling.’ People choose to come and live in Glendale because of that small-town feeling. We don’t want it to grow. We don’t want condensed housing … we don’t want illegals here. We don’t want it to be a Sanctuary City. We don’t want any of that. You want it.”

Speaking on behalf of the Northwest Glendale Homeowners Association, Durham addressed the Council again noting “this Council made a unanimous decision last week denying the developer’s appeal to require an EIR for the proposed demolition of the Glendale Garden Homes in northwest Glendale. Our association was shocked to learn that yesterday morning crews showed up at Glendale Garden Homes and began cutting down trees on the site. As you know, the EIR is a focused EIR, focused on whether Glendale Garden Homes qualifies as an historic resource.”

Durham criticized the actions of the developer as “a bad faith back door effort.” City Attorney Mike Garcia reported that the city has issued a stop work order and administrative citations to halt the tree cutting.

The Council heard extensive testimony about a proposed new two-story single-family house proposed to be built at 1000 Sandringham Drive at the intersection of Balmoral Drive, adjacent to Verdugo Park and city-owned Bachman Open Space. The city’s design review board approved the project although two members deemed it “massive;” the body determined that the prominent size was mitigated by the setback and the presence of other large homes in the neighborhood. The project was delayed until early March to give the appellants a chance to meet with the property owner to discuss possible wildlife considerations.

At a special meeting earlier on Tuesday, the Council approved tile artwork for columns at Fremont Park and authorized the expenditure of $30,000 to Cara Lynch for the artwork entitled “Belonging” and also approved spending $30,000 from the Urban Art Program Fund for a basketball court mural at Palmer Park.