By Julie BUTCHER

The Glendale City Council met Tuesday night and most of Tuesday afternoon in a joint session with the city’s Housing Authority to take steps to move forward the development of two senior housing projects on city-owned property.

At the beginning of the evening meeting, Councilmember Dan Brotman raised concerns about a recent hit-and-run accident involving a pedestrian at Wilson and Glendale avenues and requested updated reports from city staff regarding all the various accidents involving pedestrians and bicyclists.

“As you know, I ride my bike around the city,” Brotman said. “I’m wondering if there’s more than I know about.”

Brotman also commented on the council’s response to callers into last week’s meeting on the future of the Grayson Power Plant.

“I didn’t say anything at the time but I have to clarify that what Governor Newsom has authorized is not plants but units, for two years, temporarily – 120 megawatts (MW) compared to what we’re looking at here, more than 90 MW for a city of 200,000?” he said. “I’m not excited about what the governor wants to do, but the timeline and magnitude are not comparable.”

“People do understand that we’ve done a lot. A 60% reduction in the gas being considered is big,” he added. “It would not be the case if not for pressure coming from the community. But we’re not doing enough to meet what is really an all-hands-on-deck critical climate emergency. So two things can be true: we can be doing a lot and still not doing enough. I think we can’t dismiss them, and I don’t believe people of our generation have the moral authority to ask people to be patient.”

Next the council voted to forego competitive bidding and spend $240,000 to fix the roofs at Rockhaven before seasonal rains cause more damage.

“For years we’ve been making temporary fixes to these roofs, using tarps to prevent water from entering the buildings, but that’s not sustainable and we need to move forward in removing and replacing the roof tiles in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s standards for the renovation of historic buildings,” said Public Works Director Yazdan Emrani.

Community Development director Phil Lanzafame added, “We’re responsive to concerns raised by the historical society and our outreach will include the Glendale and Crescenta Valley historical societies.”

Mayor Paula Devine agreed. “I just want to assure everyone watching who has anything to do with historic preservation that we will be keeping that in mind during this whole process of using this $8 million to renovate Rockhaven and along the way – as long as I have anything to say about it – they will be consulted.”

“We do have a budget, I caution,” she added. “Eight million and that will be it.”

Councilmember Vrej Agajanian noted, “We’re trying to preserve Rockhaven.”

Councilmember Ara Najarian urged the stakeholders to get together.

“I would encourage the interested stakeholders to come together to form a working group – not a commission, a working group – so our outreach can be unified,” Najarian said.

Next the council heard a report on the city’s draft housing element, the roadmap to addressing the city’s future housing needs. Since 1969, the state of California has required local governments to develop these housing elements and regional housing needs allocations (RHNA). As consultant Amanda Tropiano of the De Novo Planning Group explained, Glendale needs thousands of new units of housing in most categories.

Councilmember Najarian wondered where the consultant came from as “this is so at odds with what we hear on the ground.”

“Glendale is no ‘sphere of influence’ for La Crescenta. They very much appreciate their low-density housing and look at Glendale’s more moderate-density as the worst thing that could ever happen,” Najarian said. “Downtown, they’re after anyone on council who’s voted for higher density. What do they call it? The ‘concrete canyon’? As for underutilized residential spots, the last thing people want to see is an old Craftsman torn down and replaced with 16 units. Those are some hot button issues.”

“Is there a reason we couldn’t have a two-month comment period rather than just one?” asked Councilmember Brotman about the outreach.

Mayor Devine also pushed for additional outreach.

“This must go to the coordinating council so all of the homeowner groups can get it before the Nov. 15 meeting,” she insisted.

At the joint meeting of the Housing Authority and the city council on Tuesday afternoon, the body approved a relocation plan of 912 E. Broadway, a project called Harrower Village, which is 40 units of 100% affordable senior housing, and joined the California Public Finance Authority and approved the issuance of approximately $33 million in tax-exempt bonds to build Citrus Crossing, 127 units of senior housing, at 900 E. Broadway.

Of note at last week’s meeting, the council approved a contract with the Glendale Management Association (GMA), one of the city’s five bargaining units, representing the city’s executives and mid- and upper-level managers as well as its technical and professional workers. It is a group of 335, city staff reported.

HR director Matt Doyle detailed the deal points: the three-year agreement provides 7% in a combination of wage increases and decreases in the portion of a cost sharing agreement.

“Throughout the months of negotiations, the primary concern was to maintain reasonably competitive compensation, to aid in recruitment and retention of these positions, particularly in light of inflation,” said Doyle. “Early in the pandemic, GMA came forward with a proposal for a one-year contract extension with no raises and no benefit enhancements. Given the uncertainty of the time, this was definitely an appropriate strategy. This year, though, while the pandemic is still with us, we believe we have the basis of a fair agreement.”

Councilmember Brotman weighed in before the council approved the contract unanimously.

“One thing the public probably doesn’t understand is the recent history of the city’s bargaining, especially with this group and the GCEA [Glendale Employees Association], in terms of getting raises generally below the rate of inflation,” he said. “If you look back over 10 years, you would see a decrease in purchasing power. They are taking on some of the burden of our fiscal position, but I don’t think it’s fair to put the entire fiscal situation on the employees. Ultimately, I believe in a shared solution. The bargaining units have been very responsible in not making ridiculous demands.”

Doyle added numbers to Brotman’s analysis: “In the past 10 years, the rate of inflation – the cost of living – has greatly outstripped the modest adjustments our employees have received. Beginning in 2008, city employees saw year after year of nothing, including in 2010-11 when they saw a pay reduction of 1.5% towards what we’ve called ‘cost sharing.’ Some moderate adjustments of one or two percent during this time period adding up to around 6%, compared to a cost of living over 25% for the same period of time.”

Councilmember Vrej Agajanian explained his vote in favor of the agreement.

“I think this is not the right time to raise anyone’s salary,” he said. “We have budget deficits. If we hadn’t gotten money from the [federal] government – if they hadn’t helped us – we would have a serious deficit now. On the other hand, this is an average of $433 per person per month for 335 people in management; $433 a month is not much.”

Also last week, the council heard an update on several impactful pieces of state legislation concerning planning, zoning and housing, including the recently passed, controversial SB 9. Senior planner Kristen Asp provided a detailed overview of SB 8, which extends the Housing Crisis Act through 2030 (it was originally expected to sunset in 2025) that defines “affordable housing;” the legislation was enacted in 2019 to jumpstart housing production by streamlining the approval process.

SB 10 is a voluntary process the city can adopt to streamline upzoning of parcels near transit or considered urban infill for up to 10 units.

Think of SB 478 as the “floor area ratio bill,” Asp explained. It applies to multi-family and mixed-use projects only and prohibits lower limits on the density measure; it is not applicable in single-family or historic zones.

SB 9 is called the California Housing Opportunity & More Efficiency Act (HOME) and becomes effective Jan. 1, 2022 for single-family zones only. The law requires “ministerial approval” of: two-on-a-lot (that is, two units on one lot) and two lot subdivisions – urban lot splits, potentially combined allowing for four units on a previously single lot. These actions are not subject to review procedures such as CEQA and there is no discretionary design review allowed.

“It is a sad day for Glendale, a sad day for independent cities, because the state legislature has usurped our zoning and police powers by dictating to us how and when and where we’re going to permit development – and it is pretty much the end of the single-family residential neighborhood,” Councilmember Najarian bemoaned. “This is probably the most devastating series of bills to ever come out of Sacramento from the standpoint of municipal government … everything we’ve done for the past 100 years to make neighborhoods cohesive. This is very depressing to me. We can rearrange the deck chairs, but this is the worst thing I’ve seen in 16 years. I don’t see anything good about this for our city.”

Finally, last week the council considered the possibility of having a dog park in Glendale.

“I requested this item despite the fact that, notwithstanding my son’s best efforts, I do not own a dog,” Councilmember Ardy Kassakhian told his colleagues. “But I’ve been observing and I know how important and popular these are as an amenity. I understand a couple of developments have pet patios. I think it’s important for us to have a dog park in Glendale.”

Several spots have been identified as potential sites and the council approved the study of next steps.

“All the dogs will be happy,” Mayor Devine observed after the council voted to move forward. “And the dog owners.”