Special City Council - 10/21/2025

Mayor, we are ready.

>> Thank you. Good afternoon, everyone, and

welcome to the October 21st, 2025

special meeting of the Glendale City

Council. May we have roll call?

>> Council member Alidrian

>> here,

>> Rottman

>> here,

>> Carpetian

>> here,

>> Kasakian

>> here,

>> and Mayor Narian

>> here. Will you please give us your

report? The agenda for the Tuesday,

October 21st, 2025 special public

meeting of the city council was posted

on October 17, 2025 on the bulletin

board outside city hall. Thanks. What's

the first item? First item is community

development regarding presentation of

the draft mobility element during the

public comment period. A motion

accepting the presentation of the draft

mobility element. And mayor, I do have a

card for this item.

>> Thank you. Uh and just for clarification

before I go to you, Mr. Golanian. This

says that we are accepting the

presentation. Uh can we assume that's

like a note and file to receive and

file?

>> Correct. Mayor Nagarian.

>> Okay. Uh and I will turn it over to you.

>> Thank you. Uh Mayor Nar, member of the

city council, uh staff on our CDD has

recently com completed the comprehensive

update to the mobility element of the

general plan uh formerly known as the

circulation element. And this was uh

released for public comment on September

3rd of this year, 2025. In a minute,

Villia Zimatitis, our deputy director of

long range planning, will provide an

overview of the draft mobility plan. and

during her presentation, which will also

serve as an additional opportunity for

both the council and the public to

become better informed as well as to

offer feedback uh during the public

comment period. With that, I turn it

over to Miss Semititis for the

presentation.

>> Thank you, m Mr. Galanian. Uh Mayor

Narian, council, as was stated, this is

a presentation to city council on the

drop mobility element. No decision is

being made today. This is purely an

opportunity for staff to go into greater

detail regarding the various contexts

and aspects of the mobility element and

also to give the city council and the

public an opportunity to provide

comments as well. Uh this is part of a

larger project that includes a

comprehensive update to the land use

element as well as a new environmental

justice element. Um the drafts of the

land use element and the environmental

justice element were released on June

the 30th. The city council actually was

given a presentation on the land use

element and the environmental justice

element in July. So this is very

similar. We're just coming to you to

discuss the various details during the

public comment period. The environmental

justice element comment period closed on

August the 29th as scheduled. The land

use element was extended uh to correlate

with the mobility element and to give c

uh the staff or I should say the public

an additional opportunity to provide

comments as well.

These three elements are on the www.

glendlandopl.com

website. So the public is welcome to to

read those drafts on that particular

website and to provide comments as well.

Staff would also like to point out that

the public comment period for the land

use element and the mobility mobility

element will be closing in 30 days. So

comments are requested by November the

21st, 30 days from today's date.

In terms of the draft mobility element

itself, it is a comprehensive element of

the 1998 circulation element. It

establishes a city-wide framework that

supports the mobility needs of all users

and this would be walkers, bicyclists,

drivers, and transit riders and all

various abilities. The objectives of the

update include developing goals and

policies and associated actions to guide

decision-making.

Um, identifying long-term roadway

vehicular classifications and preparing

new network maps. Identifying

pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and auto

streets. Uh, identifying necessary

network improvements and routes for

emergency responses and goods movements.

Uh we would also be addressing the

requirements of California government

codes such as Senate Bill 743 and this

replaces the traditional level of

service congestion metrics with vehicle

miles traveled and also Assembly Bill 98

which addresses warehousing and

logistical facilities and their

transportation impacts. And last but not

least, uh we integrate tables, maps, and

callout boxes to make sure that the

document is much more user friendly and

accessible to the public. Um also to

point out the the draft mobility element

touches on the 2012 bicycle

transportation plan. Now the current

bicycle transportation plan um that is

being updated does not apply to this

particular draft mobility. We work on

the 2012 adopted plan and the plan uh

the mobility element also addresses the

2021 adopted citywide pedestrian plan

items.

So mobility element it features seven

main topical sections and seven goals.

These goals are generalized ideals and

these provide the sense of direction for

action. Again they're overall

statements. their um desired future

outcomes for the city. Now, the policies

are statements which further refine the

goals and guide the course of action

that the city must take to achieve the

goals in the plan. So, again, it's

important to note that the policies are

guides for decision makers. They are not

the actual decision decisions

themselves. And last but not least, the

actions or the associated implementation

actions. Now they define either a

procedure or an implementation technique

or specific pro program that the city

has to undertake to help achieve either

the specified goals or implement adopted

policies. So with that, the first the

first topical section deals with

complete streets. And this section is

rather unique because it completely

reframes Glendale's mobility network

around people throughput rather than

vehicle capacity. So the traditional

circulation elements looked on vehicular

um vehicular access, vehicle streets and

whatnot. And this looks at the totality

the multimodal operation of streets and

this aligns with the sustainability and

vision zero goals of the city. Um

policies include promoting complete

street designs

uh prioritizing safety, sustainability

and public health and then the actions

would be to create a citywide network of

multimodal streets and these would be

the new classifications and map. develop

and implement roadway design standards

that support complete streets and also

point out that the roadway design plan

is going before city council on November

4th and we have been working with the

public works staff in regards to their

roadway design plan and they have been

working with us in regards to the draft

mobility element. So

next item would be the active

transportation walking and bicycling

section. Now, this section promotes

walking and cycling as safe, convenient,

and everyday modes of travel that

support and complement land use and

housing growth. So, these would include

expanding the bikeways, improving

sidewalks, coordinating with regional

partners, and enhancing ADA compliance

and actions would be implementing the

2012 bicycle plan and the existing uh

2021 pedestrian plan improvements.

um would also include requiring new

developments to provide walking and

biking connections as part of their

development project and prioritizing

filling in those ADA network gaps for

handicapping accessibility.

Next up would be the public transit and

ride sharing car pooling section. Now

this section ties mobility directly to

Glendale's land use strategies and these

would be to support the housing and

employment near highquality transit and

enhanced transit services and amenities

and high demand areas. So again

prioritizing transit services and

amenities would be the policies

encouraging transit oriented development

locating that highdensity residential

development near uh transit lines and

then also expanding writership and

microtransit actions again would include

partnering with the metro and beline to

implement those transit priority

treatments improving first and last mile

connections developing mobility hubs uh

especially around the laran and

transportation center and BRT stations.

Uh fourth section is the existing and

future local and regional traffic

demand.

This section shows how Glendale is

modernizing mobility and managing

traffic demand to comply with the SB743.

Again, this is looking at the vehicle

miles traveled versus the level of

service while still addressing daily

operational needs. policies would ensure

that we use new technology to increase

network efficiencies,

update the transportation demand model

strategies to help reduce trips in

within the city and also plan for new

technologies such as autonomous vehicles

which we know are coming such as Whimo

and are on the streets today. um actions

monitor traffic flows, require

development projects to analyze impacts

and balance growth with sustainable

mobility.

Fifth, fifth goal, fifth section is the

environmental health and air quality

section. This ensures mobility planning

directly supports environmental

sustainability and public health. So

goal would be to reduce greenhouse gas

emissions to meet the state and regional

climate goals. Um policies require

citywide transportation demand

management. Right now there is a

transportation demand management um

application in the downtown only. So

this would be extending it citywide,

promoting alternative fuels and EV

charging citywide and encouraging land

uses that reduce trip lengths. Um

actions Implementing actions would be to

updating the city's um TDM ordinance,

integrating VMT analysis into SQA

review, and expanding low emission

vehicle infrastructure.

Now, we're getting towards the end. Two

more to go. Um number six or the goal

number six for parking. Um this section

shifts Glendale's approach from

expanding the parking supply to actively

managing parking demand in the existing

supply. So, we realize that the state

has really come down with recent state

legislation that either eliminates or

reduces the parking, but the policies

here would be to require adequate

off-street parking when possible. Um,

maximizing the efficiency of existing

supplies and engaging communities in the

decision- making regarding parking. Um

actions include implementing additional

residential parking permits and these

would be for areas that are adjacent to

commercial uses that might have that

spillover um that impacts their on

street parking. Uh looking at car share

parking um alternatives.

We would be reviewing the minimum

parking requirements to see is it up to

um best management pract practices and

planning policies at a local level and

creating a citywide parking demand or

parking management strategy.

And last but not least, uh goods

movement. So, this section directly

responds to the AB98, the recent

statewide legislation for logistic

facilities that requires local

governments to update their general plan

circulation elements to include

designated truck routes. And this would

ensure that truck routes avoid sensitive

populations and residential areas. So

policies here

would be to restrict truck traffic on

local residential streets, emphasize use

of the freeway network for truck

movement and goods movements and monitor

evolving freight technologies. So

actions again um very self-explanatory

maintaining a designated truck route

network updating it as the land use

changes and uh planning for increased

ecommerce curbside demands.

Uh, one of the key updates in this draft

mobility element is the introduction of

the multimodal priority street

framework. And this is designed to

create a connected network for both

vehicles transit pedestrians and

bicyclists. And this is reflected in the

new roadway classifications and network

map. So the map on the left hand side is

the city's current circulation element

street classification map. And you can

see the updated map on the right. The

current circulation element has seven

street classifications. Includes

freeways which are identified on the map

but not called out as a separate street

classification in our updated mobility

map. mobility element that is uh the

city currently has major arterials and

minor arterials which in the draft

mobility element are reclassified to

major mobility thoroughares and these

have three subclassifications in the new

mobility element. Uh the current

circulation map also has current I'm

sorry urban collectors, community

collectors, neighborhood collectors, and

now these are all grouped in the draft

mobility element uh under collector

streets with two subclassifications that

we're going to go into a little bit in a

minute. Um and last but not least, the

signature street overlay remains as a

distinct context driven overlay in the

mobility element as it does in the

circulation element.

So the new street classifications uh

major mo major mobility thorough

affairs. Now again these are the ma

corridors. These would be things like

brand boulevard between Glenn Oaks

Boulevard and Broadway. These carry the

highest volume of people vehicle goods

and these are the streets that are

highlighted in red on the map. There are

three subcategories. bicycle priority

thoroughares which as it states um

you're looking at vehicle lanes

alongside high quality bicycle

facilities tailored to the context uh

transit priority thoroughares these

would be streets such as Colorado east

of Pacific Avenue where the focus is on

vehicle lanes plus highquality transit

services and then bicycle and transit

priority their affairs. Now, these

combine both bicycle and transit

priorities such as on Glenn Oaks

Boulevard west of Brand. Um, and these

would be integrating vehicle lanes,

quality bicycle infrastructure and

robust transit services. Um, next

grouping, collector streets. These would

be think streets such as Chvy Chase

Drive east of Glenn Oaks Boulevard. Now,

the collector streets are the

connections between Glendale's major

mobility thorough affairs and its local

streets. So they primarily serve the

local traffic um consisting of city

residents and these are the streets that

are highlighted in green. Collector

streets that are designated as bicycle

priority such as Santa Cara Avenue. Now

these would be shown in blue and they

support local person throughput with uh

both vehicle lanes and context

appropriate highquality bicycle

facilities. Um, last sub classification

under collective streets are transit

priority streets and these would be

streets such as Columbus Avenue between

Broadway and Colorado.

Again, the focus here would be to

include both vehicle lanes and

high-quality transit services and

facilities. Um, local streets, they make

up the largest component of Glendale

Street Network in terms of mileage. And

these streets are residential streets

connecting the city's single and

multifamily housing to its collector

streets. These are not identified on the

map, but these again are the local

streets. And last but not least, the

signature streets. These are the ones

that are highlighted in magenta. And

these are you these are basically an

overlay to an existing classification.

um they focus on the context because of

the distinct streetscapes and pedestrian

focused facilities and amenities. So

these are not a standalone street

classifications. Again, they're an

overlay and these would be along

Broadway parts of Brand and Kenneth Road

and Honolulu avenues in Montrose. And

these are the again the ones that are

highlighted in magenta.

The next two slides show a summary of

the city's multimodal network street

classifications and subclassifications.

Now, a chart such as this that is

included in the drop mobility element is

also very similar to what you will see

in the roadway design policy because it

it identifies the parameters for each

street classification and the key the

key features to be assessed when

applying the city's upcoming roadway

design policy.

Um here this particular slide shows the

four types of multimodal I'm sorry the

major mobility thorough affairs. You'll

note that the the standard major

mobility thoroughare is four to six

travel lanes. Um it includes daily

vehicle volume capacities up to 36,000

for four lanes or 55,000 for six lanes

and speeds up to 40 miles per hour. um

poss you know possible features on major

mobility theafares would be on street

parking, bicycle facilities, bus stops

and buffered sidewalks. And then you

have the three different

subclassifications where those three

different subclassifications

have reduced lane numbers because you

are

prioritizing either bicycle

infrastructure,

transit infrastructure or bicycle and

transit priority uh infrastructure.

Again, because of the lane narrowing or

the number of lanes that are decreasing,

you're looking at lower volume

capacities, lower acceptable volume,

um, operational volumes, lower speeds,

and specific key facilities addressing

the different transit or bicycle or

bicycle and transit priorities.

This particular slide shows a summary of

the collector streets, the three

different types. Most of these are two

travel lanes, one in each direction,

lower traffic volumes, and lower

acceptable operation volumes, lower

speeds and key key facilities or

features such as sherrows or traffic

calming or sidewalks.

uh local streets, the the volumes drop

way down simply because these are

usually used only by residents getting

to the collector streets and these

obviously are discouraging uh cut

through traffic. And last but not least,

the signature streets. Again, it's just

an overlay, so there are no defined

travel lanes or capacities or whatnot.

Since it is context se uh sensitive and

it's definitely focusing on pedestrian

oriented features,

we presented the draft mobility element

that is in its same form as shown to you

both to uh I should to the

transportation and parking commission.

Uh last

September 15th. Um quite a bit of

discussion. We went into great details.

A number of comments were made. Some of

these are minor in nature that staff

will address in the next uh draft. And

these would include

um providing a policy and citywide plans

table so that everything is in one

section similar to a glossery or

summary. Um updating street

classifications.

um certain points like to point out that

we had a TPC member recommend the

elimination of all dimensions and to

lean on the roadway design plan or the

roadway design policy as the document

that would provide the minimum

dimensions. So to keep the draft

mobility level draft mobility element at

a very high level and not include any

dimensions but again this we're open to

comments.

Um, two clarifications. Again, the plan

at this point points to the roadway

design policy. Just to clarify that it

is proposed until it is adopted, which

again it's going to city council on

November the 4th. And also to clarify

that the bicycle transportation plan

from 2012, the current adopted one

applies until and if the bicycle

transportation plan is amended at a

future date, we will go back and look at

the mobility element and see if it needs

to be amended to reflect what would be

in a future adopted bicycle

transportation plan. And then also to

pay special attention to evacuation

routes. uh we talk or the draft mobility

element discusses um emergency routes

but there were comments made that

evacuation routes such as in the safety

element should be addressed in the

mobility element as well.

um two general comments. One would be

the level of outreach which we will get

into but there has been quite a bit of

outreach done for the land use and

mobility in general and we will provide

specifics and those are detailed

actually in your staff report um and

that the mobility element might be too

technical for the general public. It's a

it's it is a very meaty document. It is

prepared um reflecting the state

mandates. Uh it is a high level

transportation planning document. So in

and of its nature, it's it is technical.

We do have strategies for trying to

incorporate more graphics and to bring

down the vocabulary in the next draft.

And so we hope to that that will um

address that comment. But back to the

public outreach comment. Uh the public

comment period itself was promoted on

Glendale Plan on the city's main website

as a banner on GTV6. We had email blast

sent to all Glendale Plan subscribers

and asking those subscribers to then

relay it to other group to their general

groups. These were posted on social

media platforms and on um reels and

whatnot. It was published in the paper.

It was distributed via Peach Jar. I

believe that there were 25,000

um individuals on Peach Jar. That would

include the parents and teachers alike.

So, the word is out there. staff has

been doing an incredible job, at least

not to be self-promoting, but we have

worked every weekend in September and

October at all of the citywide events,

including

um National Night Out, Glendale Women's

Equality Night, uh Walk to School Day,

Montress October Fest, LA Riverwalk work

days twice, Fremont Park grand opening,

GPD openhouse touch a truck, uh event,

and the upcoming fall festival. That

does not include the various meetings

that we've had with the HOA groups, the

Montro Shopping Park association.

Obviously, those were geared more

towards the land use element itself, but

we were promoting uh the mobility

element at all of these functions. Here

you'll note a couple of great

photographs from the different events

from the Montro October Fest, from the

Fremont Park grand opening, from last

Saturday's uh Touch a Truck and Glendale

Police Department openhouse. You'll

notice uh we have long range planning

staff also at the walk to school event

and at the coffee with the cops. So with

that staff would like to point again to

the glendale plan.com website. This is

the best location to

get all of your information regarding

any of the general plan element updates.

So the draft mobility and the land use

elements are located on this website

each with its own web page. Uh you can

provide comments um either using the

online comment uh Microsoft form or

you're welcome to email comments to

glendale plan at glendaleca.gov.

It's very easy to remember because our

website is the same as our email. Uh we

are asking individuals to submit their

comments by November the 21st. Just to

give city council uh a brief overview.

As of October the 8th, we had only

received 16 comments on the mobility

element compared to the 900 plus

comments that we received on the land

use element and those were mainly

focused on the cityowned residential

overlay zone. So, we've had relatively

minor um comments on the mobility

element. Uh the number of comments have

really substantially dropped off uh this

particular month. So, we're seeing a a

great slowing down of comments. So,

again, we're still we're still going to

continue with our outreach efforts.

We're still promoting uh the two

elements and their comment period. We

are available if you call um either

818-548-2140.

you can speak to the three long range

planners. That would be myself, Terresa

Santelina, and Jackie Martinez. Uh we

staff are the staff of the long-range

planning division, the small but mighty

staff. Um

we're also happy to make any um I should

not make any, but to schedule any

meetings that groups would like to. So,

we've met with the Glen Hill Realators

Association

um and various other groups. So, we'd be

more than happy to extend that

invitation to others as well. And last

but not least, so we have the public

comment period closing on November the

21st. We are in the process of preparing

the draft DIR. Um, it is at this point

scheduled to be released in early 2026.

So, we shall see. um elements are going

to be finalized uh addressing the

comments as well and we will be

presenting those back to the city boards

and commissions to transportation and

parking sustainability planning

commission and presenting the final

drafts to city council for adoption

sometime next year.

I'd like to make note that in the

audience we have Tim Ernie from KDson

who is the subconsultant from Denovo

Consulting who has been working with

staff regarding the draft mobility

element and the various um technical

analyses. We have Pastor Kasanova as

well uh the principal traffic engineer

from public works. Fred Zordivan was the

project manager of this particular draft

mobility and um he should be available

to answer any technical questions you

may have as well. So that concludes

staff's very detailed uh presentation.

Hopefully that answers questions that

either the council or the public at home

that who are watching this or who will

be watching this at a later date um

learn something of substantive, you

know, substance in the draft mobility

element. um and submit your comments and

you're welcome to give us a call if you

have questions. So, and we're happy to

answer any questions you may have at

this point in time.

>> Thank you. Who has questions on council?

>> I do.

>> Mr. Kasaki,

>> thank you. Uh and thank you for the

presentation and the work that staff is

putting into this. So, um the last time

we did a circulation plan was when 19

>> 1998. So

>> yeah. So my question is regarding

that circulation plant and the world

which we live in today. I'm curious what

were some of the assumptions that were

made then that turned out to be

completely off that we didn't anticipate

and how are we um going to um ensure

that we're measuring success this time

moving forward? And I know you touched

upon some of the things, but I'm I'm

interested in, you know, I and I bring

this up because I remember a time when

uh when there were projects being done

around the city. This was probably about

15 maybe 20 years ago. And the the

rationale was that parking spots should

be made smaller because the assumption

was people were going to buy smaller

cars. Cars were shrinking and the

complete opposite happened, right? You

had the Hummer come on the market and

people ended up buying large SUVs and I

can tell you some of the projects in the

downtown where the striping of the

parking spots are not really made for

reality, right? It was some sort of

wishful thinking. I'm curious about

that. What were the assumptions made in

1998 by the folks back then that we

completely got wrong

that we're trying to not replicate?

Council member Garpedian um

>> Kasakian but sorry guys

>> as I look over my apologies.

>> Uh council member Kasakian um the

previous circulation element really

focused I'm not sure if it got anything

wrong per se but the focus was

definitely on level of service. So the

main aspect was making sure that cars

get through intersections and streets as

quickly and as seamlessly as possible.

Uh the focus also was on street widening

um as opposed to traffic calming and

bulbouts. So there was a definite

distinct difference. uh there was not

this multimodal complete streets focus

that we have under today's um typical

you know we're looking at what are how

are pedestrians interacting you know in

doing

>> so so the priority from what I hear you

saying uh is that it was mostly focused

on automobile um movement throughout the

city correct

>> correct

>> yeah so and I and I understand that

difference now did the um plan at that

time um anticipate the amount of growth

or population uh construction increase

or growth in the downtown.

>> That is specifically the reason why we

are updating it today. There are major

changes happening. There's major state

legislation that is requiring increased

housing densities. This is the time that

we need to address it as part of our

land use element. Um so that is the

reason why we are here today and I don't

think it I don't think it um

assumed the growth that has happened

over the last 27 years since its last

adoption.

>> Sure. Because I understand what it tried

to do back then and then we had a lot of

new construction a lot in the downtown

area where we previously didn't have

residential. Um, I don't believe that as

a city we've done a great deal and

people will argue on both sides. Both

people who are advocating for the faster

movement of cars, people who are

advocating for the multimodal movements

around the city. I don't think um either

side is necessarily happy. The one thing

I think everyone will agree on is that

there's a lot more congestion. You know,

especially now that we've kind of

complet it's what seems to be completely

having emerged out of that COVID funk,

if you will. It feels like all roads all

over California are back to where they

were before in terms of uh number of

vehicles on the road, the traffic, how

long we sit in traffic. Um my my concern

is that we ensure that as the plan moves

forward and things are brought to us and

and we consider them and move forward

with them, adopt them, maybe change them

um that the reallocation of these

multimodal uses doesn't unintentionally

then increase the congestion or h how do

we ensure that's not diverting it to cut

through traffic in residential

neighborhoods? Especially if, as you

mentioned in this report, we're looking

at some of those neighborhoods as being

primarily bike bicycle focused areas or

places where people can u move around

via bicycle. If they're not able to move

around quickly on those larger streets

and they get into there, that's where,

you know, uh, terrible things can

happen, accidents can happen. So that's

my one question um that we look into

that ask you if there's any specific

things that we're going to be doing to

ensure that. And the last question I

have is during uh the um COVID lockdowns

there was um a successful pilot project

with the you know safe streets or the

streets that were intended for um

primarily for people walking. They were

A-frames and then we um replaced the

A-frames with some more permanent um

struct uh what would you call them?

markers in the medians of streets. How

many of those are still standing? Do we

have any of them still up?

>> Council member Stockin, I believe most

of those, if not all, have been removed.

At a certain point, we had incidents

where automobiles were either damaging

them or we didn't have the funds to

replace them. Uh we could always go back

with the temporary program again with

say A-frame A-frame signs, but that also

led to some incidents.

>> Yeah, I don't know if the A-frames would

work because we saw how the A-frames

were being hit as well. And this is my

last point, Mayor. Um, but I have seen

in parts of Los Angeles, particularly I

want to say in Hancock Park, um, there

are these ballards, you would call them

these plastic, um, kind of

>> ballards that are in the middle of the

road that kind of break up um, visually

the street, narrow it a little bit at

various periods and and force drivers to

slow down, drive slower. Um, I do I did

hear as well people running into those

things which I'm not going to comment on

people's driving abilities or their

attentiveness to the road. However, I

understand even you know the best

drivers may have a bad day and have an

accident. Um, but the intention of those

wasn't to necessarily it was

specifically to make sure people were

driving carefully even if occasionally

there are some accidents that happen. I

would like us to consider those for

those residential streets. And

obviously, I'm a proponent of speed

bumps and speed humps, anything that

would help slow people down who drive in

very unsafe speeds on residential roads.

Thank you.

>> Thank you.

Other questions,

Council Member Asset.

>> Thank you and to all the staff for your

hard work on this.

When you talk about the community

engagement and outreach, I see that you

have done quite a bit um being out in

the community, but you also note that

you've gotten 16 comments. Um,

how are you documenting comments that

you receive

um from residents or business owners

that you may be speaking to at the

events uh but have not necessarily

submitted a form. Uh the reason that I

asked that is, you know, I speak to this

a lot on other items. Um, I for one do

my best to be at very diverse events in

the community. Um, and being out in

those events, whether it's the Filipino

community one day, the Korean community

the other, the Armenian community, or

any of our city or nonprofit

organizations that hold events. U, when

you're out, you're able to actually take

feedback and have your ear to the ground

on the issues that people care about and

what their positions are. I also know

that in practice most of these folks

would not be going and submitting a

form um or comments online. And so in

your interactions, because I've seen you

firsthand have these interactions, how

are you documenting the feedback that

you're receiving at these events to make

sure that as you're preparing this

report, those comments come back to

council along with any of the forms that

are submitted. And I will say that while

I

appreciate people's advocacy on, you

know, form letters and whatever, however

they choose to communicate, I know that

many of times when I've received, you

know, thousands of form letters, just

handpicking select few that I can

constituents that I respond back to

saying, well, which part of these points

are is it all of them? and then, you

know, only to learn that they actually

hadn't read most of what was on there.

Uh there they had additional points that

they wanted to make that wasn't part of

that. And so, how do we in a world

where, you know, we're living in now,

you know, how are you taking those

comments, how are you incorporating them

into the report that's going to be

coming to to council later? Because I

think that those conversations are

important and they should be documented.

Council member Sashrian. So we always

have a staff debrief after our community

engagement events. So we're able to

discuss, you know, what conversations

we've had. Um, you know, in regards to

the actual comments themselves, they've

been pretty standard there. You know,

how does the mobility element relate to

the other elements? Uh, a lot of the

conversations still focus on the land

use element and the chorus. Um, you

know, they're they're general comments

that we hear this over and what about

what about increased density? what about

you know traffic on the lanes and so it

there are sub the very similar thread

throughout all of these conversations

you're either a bike proponent or you're

a bike opponent. So when it comes to

documenting, they fall within the same

threads usually. And because we keep

hearing the same comments over and over

and only 16 responses, I think that in

general, if there was something

different, we would definitely be

recording it and providing it to city

council for review and consideration.

>> Okay. And then I think the uh other

question I have is on the pedestrian

>> uh friendly or how you're moving around

pedestrians in general. Is that going to

also be looking at like widening

sidewalks and so forth? I think and how

they're interacting with automobiles. I

think you know all of us can attest to

hearing a lot from residents who are

afraid to go walking with their

children. um being afraid that they're

going to get hit by cars.

>> Definitely. Uh the pedestrian the PED

plan from 2021 that was adopted spec

specifically looks at various segments

of our transportation c the pedestrian

corridors uh looking at accessibility,

looking at ADA access, looking at uh

safety issues. And so by addressing the

PID plan as part of the draft mobility

plan and looking at prioritizing those

particular improvements, you are

addressing the walkability of the city

in the future as well.

>> Okay.

>> Mayor Council members, if I can add to

that, if we go back to her original

statements, these are the goals, the

aspirations, the ambitions of our

mobility throughout the city. Um and to

her point, we are uh folding in that

pedestrian plan and that 2012 bicycle

plan as part of this. This mobility plan

doesn't address uh street by street

improvements. It's more along the lines

of philosophies. And then those

improvements are done through documents

like the pedestrian plan, the bicycle

transportation plan, public works with

our road design policy. Those are where

you see the the kind of rubber hits the

road, if you will.

>> Right.

So, so does it does it include

>> do you take into consideration climate

change

>> as an example for pedestrian? I mean, if

we're talking about hot summer months

and what our weather looks like now

versus, you know, what it was 20 years

ago or what uh we anticipate it will be

looking at, you know, whether we're

talking about trees being properly

planted or certain places people can

rest at. Um

>> the pedestrian plan does take that into

account. uh pedestrian comfort, if you

will, and that can be shading from

trees, that can be overall uh just

comfortability while walking down the

sidewalk, signage that directs people to

key locations and landmarks. Uh but

again, that's kind of wrapped up in that

pedestrian plan.

>> Correct. And actually the just to add to

Mr. Calbertt's um comment, the goal

number one under complete streets, it

actually has one of the main policies,

the last policy addresses street trees

and landscaping to promote shade for

pedestrians. Uh there's also the the

section on environmental um under

environmental health and air quality and

that looks towards um addressing issue

um policies and related to the CAP and

climate action adaptation plan. So we're

definitely tying all the various city uh

city plans and policies together.

>> Thank you so much.

>> Thank you. Any other questions,

>> comments? Uh, we do have a card.

>> Mayor, I have a caller and a card.

>> Okay, let's hear from the public and

then we can do comments.

>> Patrick Murphy, you have three minutes.

>> Good afternoon, council, Mr. Mayor,

Patrick Murphy, uh, Villia, Theresa, and

Jackie, I want to thank you for your

efforts. I want to thank uh the

presentation was very involved and

especially your weekends. I see you out

all the time at touch a truck. I was

going to come up and say, when do you

guys get a day off? So, thank you very

much. Uh having the meeting on a Tuesday

afternoon at 3:00 is not helpful for

public outreach.

Um these elements are coming to council

like the land use element in the middle

of the afternoon on a Tuesday. This is

as Via pointed out an extremely

technical document and it encompasses

the entire city and it needs to have

public engagement. The reason there were

900 comments on the land use element is

because the public performed the public

outreach and the public got engaged. The

mobility element is moving forward

without the updated bicycle

transportation plan or the roadway

design policy. I realize that those are

going on at the same time, the roadway

design policy. But shouldn't the

engineering of the roadway design policy

come first? After seeing the

presentation from public works on this

policy at the transportation and parking

commission meeting, it seems that they

took a very detailed street level view

review based on hard data as opposed to

a more idealistic or philosophical view

that may or may not be achievable based

on lessons learned as in the north brand

bicycle demonstration project.

I believe the mobility element should be

paused just a bit until such time as the

roadway design policy is adopted. Then

community development can incorporate

engineering into the element.

Engineering should be the driving force,

not the other way around.

It it needs to slow down. The public

needs to be engaged and educated. and

council member Kasaki. And for your

information, the population in 2000 when

this was done, I guess 1999

of Glendale was 195,000.

Today it's about 188,000. So we need we

need to slow things down. We need to

educate the public. Thank you very much.

>> Take the caller.

>> Paul Carapetan, you have three minutes.

Paul, can you hear me?

>> Yes, I can. Thank you.

>> Go ahead.

>> Uh, council, thank you for taking time

to uh uh to take my call. I just want to

point out as as regarding uh uh council

member Asian's comment on the 16 uh

comment on the mobility plan. I I think

one of the reasons why is because we we

haven't had any direct outreach strictly

on the mobility plan. Um, I'm looking at

page nine of the staff report and I

think it's at the very least it's it's

lumping land use and mobility plan

outreach together. Uh, and it's not

painting an accurate picture. I can only

speak to the two meetings that I was

involved in, the first one on August

13th. That was a meeting, if you recall,

we discussed it right after that meeting

I came to council. We were there to

discuss the civic auditorium and our

issues with the RFP process

and at the last minute the land use

element was added to the discussion and

we didn't really have a substantive this

was the check the box outreach effort.

There was no discussion on the mobility

element. The mobility element wasn't

even available then. In fact, we pointed

out at that meeting that that was one of

the problems because we were looking at

the landings element without having the

benefit of the mobility element to

review concurrently.

Regarding the meeting at on 9:20, we had

over 200 people there in p excuse me in

person and uh the mobility element

wasn't presented. It was strictly

discussion on the coro and the fla.

So I I I think the reason and the root

of the the question is is very accurate

from council member. I see all this

outreach but I don't see the a

commensurate number of comments. It's

because the outreach really wasn't

there. It's not being accurately

represented. I will say that um

Oktoberfest

uh Villia Teresa were were very

available for us. they answered a bunch

of questions um and that was really

helpful. So, one thing that I would

recommend is a an outreach and and we

could have another town hall

specifically related to mobility and I

would highlight just to try to, you

know, make it more palatable to a non uh

public transportation person

that explain the shift from level of

service to vehicle miles traveled and

basically how we're we're changing the

entire mo idea around transportation

from how do you efficiently move people

around primarily in cars to how do you

reduce the number of miles driven by

cars and and the number of miles that

people travel. So that's a big

philosophical shift that most people do

not understand about the mobility plan.

And I think the the last thing I would I

would just point out um you know if if

if you

>> Thank you Paul. Your time is up. Thank

you.

>> Okay. Any other speakers?

>> Mayor, there are no other callers or

cards.

>> Okay, we can go to comments. Mr. Garbet,

>> thank you. Um, so today's presentation

is informational presentation and you're

looking for feedback and maybe

suggestions as to what we think about

the the plan so it will be implemented

when it comes back or considered when it

comes back.

>> Council member Garedian. Yes.

>> Okay.

>> This isformational only.

>> All right. So, couple of things I'd like

to mention is

um many of these issues are neighborhood

uh related issues. Some of the

neighborhoods are being more affected

than the others. So, when we do an

outreach, I think we need to concentrate

on the neighborhoods that are going to

be uh affected more on roadway design.

Basically when that roadway design

policy is kicking in, they have to know

what's going to happen in the roadways

or to the roadways uh close to their

close to their residents. Uh as far as

elimination of dimensions on I watched

the the parking and transportation TPC's

uh comm commission meeting uh there was

a lot of talk about making the street

parkings narrower like 7 and 1/2 ft in

order to accommodate maybe bike lanes or

wider traffic lanes. I think that's very

dangerous because many people cannot

park right up against the curb. So 8

foot is minimum that we can have but I I

don't want to lower that at all. Uh this

report many portions of the report

contradicts each other. Uh on one hand

we are asking the developers to provide

off street parkings.

Uh on the other hand because of the

state laws they can provide zero

parking. And then if you're removing a

traffic lane for any reason, uh then

you're getting rid of the street

parking. So what's going to happen to

all these residential neighborhoods that

currently they already have problems uh

if all of this this this

plan all six goals are implemented. Um

also this plan talks about decreasing

private automobile use. Uh I don't know

how are you going to do that because if

people work somewhere else uh they have

to to use their cars and travel around.

You can't force them to go to grocery

stores which is far away from their

homes and by by bike or by walking or

what have you. Um,

can you uh display that that map that

shows different colors and the different

uh classification, street

classifications?

There is another one

that

Yeah, that's one that that's the one. So

here I'm I'm I couldn't really tell that

major mobility throwfare is Kenya and

Verdigo part of that or they are major

mobility

thoroughare by bicycle priority and also

it comes down to Glendel Avenue. It has

uh one block north of Broadway. I don't

know which street that is. Is it

probably California or Lexington?

Can you tell me what what

this which classification applies to

Kanyada Verdugo also Chvy Chase

because the colors are too close to each

other. One is a dark pink, the other one

is like a maroon color. I can't tell

which one is which.

>> It appears that Kinyatta and Verdugo on

this particular map are major mobility

thorough affairs. If you go up to where

Lacresa and Vigo split, those become

bicycle priority major mobility thorough

affairs.

>> Lacra Center and Verdugo split. So I

don't see it on the map.

>> Um um and I apologize it's not on your

map. It would be under figure M-1 in

your package.

>> Okay. So if you go south Glendel Avenue,

Chvy Chase, uh north of Broadway,

which

Are they are there uh

>> Glendale Avenue uh north of Broadway

appears to be a major mobility

thoroughare a non non-bicycle priority?

>> Okay.

Because when I look at this this uh

classifications uh four out of seven

have uh

some sort of a bike lane uh

infrastructure in there. Most of them

are uh is requiring a dedicated bike

lane. That that means reduction of

traffic lane. And I'm I'm I'm being very

honest today. It's better to know from

the beginning that any any part of this

plan that results in removing of a

traffic lane in the future in any shape

or form or way, I will not vote for it.

I won't be I won't be for it. So just to

just to

uh let everyone know because I don't

think that's the right way of doing it

because our uh general plan is

indicating that our population or

estimating population is growing up to

400,000 people. How are we going to have

400,000 people? Uh you can't tell me

that nobody's going to drive even if

half of them drive. It increases our our

our traffic load by 50%. And then if you

take traffic lanes away from this major

streets then it's going to create a

problem. Also the collector streets that

is green one is a dark green one is a

light green uh one has transit priority

but when I look at the the definitions

of it u

even the ones with transit priority says

bike boulevards with traffic call me. Uh

can you explain what that is?

This is one before the last item on

street classifications.

Council member Garpedian

under collector streets. I'm sorry. Are

you looking at are you looking at the

dropped element or are you looking at

Okay. So allow me to go to

>> the one in my packet. the one in your

package

>> because you have collector street

bicycle priority then you have collector

street transit priority. I had to spend

like three four hours to go through this

whole thing in order to understand which

one says what.

Okay.

And you are looking at the collector

streets transit versus bicycle priority.

Is that correct?

>> Right. Because one says uh bicycle

priority says six foot bike lanes and

the other one says bike boulevard with

traffic calming. I I want to understand

what that is.

So under collector streets bicycle

priority those are established um

bike boulevards or six-foot bike lanes

and when it talks about the collector

streets transit priority that focus is

actually on bus stops and transit

priority treatments. So at this point I

believe I would like to invite either

Pastor Kasanova from public works um

the traffic engineer who provided some

of these dimensions or to Tim Ernie from

KDson to address this qu this question.

>> Either one

>> both maybe

>> both if you'd like to tag team.

>> Good afternoon Mayor Narian and city

council. Um uh I guess the the point I

think that I could uh contribute to is

are the collector streets with traffic

calming, collector streets with bike

bike priority, uh and and collector

streets with transit. So um in the

neighborhood traffic calming program and

the let's call the previous um um

circulation element, there's three types

of collector streets um that are that

that are now going to change, right? The

three types used to be neighborhood

collectors, community collectors, and

urban collector streets. This is the old

u circulation element. So, um the

neighborhood collectors were the

collector streets that had the lower

volume, more community contacts, more

connection for the neighborhoods. The

community collectors were uh now uh

bigger collector streets that provided

more connection, may have some

commercial elements and various

elements. And then the urban collectors

were the ones that carried you know more

volume and had transit facilities uh and

commercial elements on there and

multiuse buildings. So more traffic. So

on this new u circulation element or

mobility element um the thought is to

create these collector streets. There's

still going to be collector streets

called different. There'll be one with

the bicycle priority u and one with the

clear transit. So the transit's probably

going to be more like the urban

collectors used to be that had transit.

Uh the community collectors would be

probably the best opportunity to make

them bicycle friendly because they tend

to be wider. And then the neighborhood

collectors would be just a standard

collector street that then uh public

works can can use with the neighborhood

traffic calming program to interpret if

they would be a good fit for traffic

calming.

>> So let's concentrate on the ones that we

have here because the old ones it's

being replaced by by the new ones. So,

Collector Street uh transit priority is

the light green and collector street

which is the neighborhood one basically

is the darker green which is almost

>> 60% of the of the city and the collector

street bicycle priority is the one with

blue right

>> correct

>> so and the yellow one is major mobility

thoroughare bicycle and transportation

priority So

the ones that with bicycle priority has

bicycle lanes,

bike rolls with traffic come. No, this

one

a sixoot bike lanes. Basically, it's a

it's a dedicated bike lane which is 6

foot separated.

>> Correct.

>> The streets that you have to remove

traffic lanes in order to install these

bike lanes.

>> It depends on the street. Uh but but

definitely they require a significant

portion of rideway uh to be able to fit

them in and probably the best fit would

be the uh major mobility thoroughares or

what we call now you know the major

arterials.

>> Hi good afternoon. Tim Ernie with KDson

Associates. We're the ones who prepared

uh this plan in conjunction with Villia

Pastor and the team. So just to clarify

with respect to the classifications,

they're not requiring the implementation

of bike lanes. What we wanted to do with

the major mobility thoroughares is to

identify streets where there could be

bike infrastructure implemented based on

the previous bike plan and you know as

Philly mentioned this would be updated

when the new bike plan comes online. But

basically it's streets where there are

bike plans there are bike facilities

identified in the previous plan and we

want to give the city the option to

implement them. Now, if you did put in a

bike lane and let's say we wanted to

have a nice bike lane, so a six foot

bike lane, it may require removal of

travel lanes. It may require removal of

on street parking, and that's work that

would need to be done in conjunction

with public works and the roadway design

plan as well. Um, and then on the local

streets or the collector streets, it's

the same type of a thing that we're not

requiring that bike lanes be put in.

It's just an example of the type of

facilities that we'd be looking at on

these streets and for the city to decide

how they wanted to best allocate the

street space. So the transit priority

streets, these are ones where there

already are transit operating. This

would be the beline or metro buses. And

the bike priority are streets where

there already are bike lanes today or

ones that are proposed as part of the

previous bike master plan.

>> Okay. So that's that's the point that I

was getting to because uh this is not

requiring but this is a plan. When this

plan is adopted this will become a

policy and what what happens is staff

follows this plan in order for them to

improve uh a street or uh infrastructure

on a street. Uh basic example is Rockar

Avenue because it was in the previous ma

bicycle master plan from 2012. Now a

traffic lane is being removed from each

direction and bike lanes are going to be

uh I'm not against the bike lanes but

I'm against removing traffic lanes in

order to accommodate the bike in in

major ma major thorough affairs and the

ones that I'm seeing here uh like

Glennox have Glennox Boulevard which is

in yellow uh that that includes the same

kind of a concept uh and it comes down

to where it narrows down a little bit

the color changes but the plan is the

same. And uh also on goal number four we

say maintain connectivi connectivity to

the freeways uh on major streets that

are close to the freeways. One was

Lacrasa Avenue and we are we are

changing the the the basically the

the entire street basically. So, uh,

what all I'm saying here is any any any

plan that includes removing traffic

lanes,

I I would be I would be against that

plan. That's that's all I'm trying to

>> to

>> because they're they're just

>> everywhere. And I I put I I counted

this. There are 40 different places in

this report that says bikes, bicycles,

bike lanes, and multimodal, which is all

the same thing. So I'm not again I I

want to make sure that we do not disrupt

the the traffic flow of the city

for other reasons because our our number

of people are increasing people are

driving.

>> It's it's

uh it's it's not that you can force

people not to drive. You can have VMTs

or what have you. You can tax them. You

can force them. But if they have to

drive, they will drive. It's about it.

Thank you. I I would say I would agree

with you that I think the number of

people are is rising council member

Garedian but Mr. Murphy pointed out that

according to the census our population

has decreased. So I don't know you know

how both things can be true. I know that

what I perceive and one of the questions

I'd actually like to ask staff is to

check to see perhaps our population has

gone down according to the census. I

believe there's also a undercount that

was a part of that in the last census.

Certainly some people have decided to

move to more affordable parts of either

California or even out of the state. We

certainly hear a lot about that. But I

think what is important is that both you

and I probably feel as many residents do

that um the number of cars is as many as

it's ever been in Glendale. I I can't

remember a time in my lifetime when it

felt like there were less cars. So, what

I'd like to see is can staff find out

how many cars do we have registered just

in Glendale? If that number has gone up,

I know maybe statistics are available

for LA County, but not city by city. It

would be interesting to me because the

average age according to the census has

gone up in Glendale from 36 to 41. So,

we know that families are a little

older. I believe many homes probably

like Mr. Garbedians and maybe one day

mine will have more than two cars in the

household. And that's probably also

contributing to the mobility patterns of

the city and I think that ought to be

taken into consideration. Sorry, Mayor.

>> Okay. Um, Mr. Broman.

>> Okay. Um, just comments, not questions

because I did watch the TPC meeting. So,

I heard I heard your presentation before

and I heard uh all the discussion and

I'll start off just saying thanks to

everybody that put this together. It was

a lot of work. I understand. and a

complete rewrite from 1998 when um you

know when the world was so different and

I you know I think um I think the

direction is right on this thing. I

think you're heading in the in you know

um in the right direction

because we're we're changing the

paradigm. you know, the the the way uh

we thought about mobility and

circulation

in the '9s was um

um has been has been, you know, a failed

uh approach. I think we all know that

it's been a failed approach. We know

that um we have more traffic congestion

than ever before and we have uh more

dangerous streets with more road

violence than ever before and um and the

old pattern you know created extreme car

dependency uh so that it's difficult to

be and you know a functioning person in

the city without owning a car and and I

think that's wrong uh and it's

disenfranch franchised all the people

that can't afford a car. I think we

heard and we've and I've repeated before

the census saying 14% of Glendale

households do not own a car. Um we know

that our population is getting older.

More and more people will be

uncomfortable unable to drive. All these

people are disenfranchised

uh in in this current model that that

we've been pursuing. So um

and uh and so I think you know this is

right. It moves us in the direction of a

of uh basically a circulation system to

use that word still that um uh balance

is better the interests of different

types of uses users. Um many people are

use

different types of mobility at different

times of the day and week but anyway it

balances you know those interests

better. Um, and I think it'll move us

toward, you know, a safer environment, a

more human environment, a more equitable

environment. Um,

and and you know, um, and Mr. Garpetian

talked about this number, that $400,000

not 400 400,000

population number. I don't think it's

it's a real number. It's it's kind of a

theoretical maximum if we built every

site in Glendale to its full potential,

which is not going to happen, right? So,

it's not a real number, but we do have

to realize that as we get, you know, as

we get denser, we probably will get

denser. If we have the same ratio of

cars to people that we have today, we

will be drowned in traffic. It doesn't

work. So, this is not about forcing I

keep hearing this word forcing people

out of their cars. I mean, that's that's

not real. This is about creating the

conditions so that people who want to

get around the city in a different way

have the ability to do that safely,

comfortably, and conveniently. That's

what we want. We want to try to create

an environment that people who choose to

get out of their cars can get out of

their cars. Doesn't force anybody that

has a job in, you know, on the west side

that wants to drive to their job.

They're still going to be able to drive

to their job. We're not we're not doing

anything to stop that, but we do want to

create a different dynamic in the city.

And and and we have to and I know a lot

of people, you know, want to hold on to

this failed past, but um I think we we

uh and I and I get it. you know, there's

there's always a lot of resistance to

change and it's hard to envision a

different and better world, but uh you

know, I'm confident these changes will

occur because I don't think cities of

the future can function if they continue

to operate the way they have been. And I

think um if we resist this, we just

become a less dynamic city, a city that

doesn't attract young people, a city

that doesn't attract jobs, we we we kind

of end up in the past. and and I don't

want that for this city. So, I like the

direction you're going. Um, I do want to

make one comment about this TPC

discussion on lane whis. The TPC was not

saying they want 7 1/2 foot uh parking

lanes. That's not what they said. What

they said is they don't want this to be

overly prescriptive. They want to leave

it to the engineers to decide because

there are cases where we might want a

narrower parking lane. the conditions in

a particular area might allow it. It's

not going to be our first choice, but if

it's a trade-off between having parking

and not having parking, it may be

something that, you know, the engineers

will say it can work or having a center

turn lane or not having a center turn

lane, right? We may be able to go a few

inches narrower. So, I'd rather not be

overly prescriptive and tie the hands of

public works in this document. Uh I feel

the same way with the road design

guidelines. I think we need to give

discretion to the experts and and not

kind of tie things down um because we're

not going to come back to this for very

many years, right? And conditions

change. So that's so I do strongly

support uh taking out those lane widths.

And um

let me just see um

that's about it. So, thank you.

>> Thank you. And you're referring to

taking out the the

>> the dimensions of the lane widths, not

the lane widths themselves. Correct.

>> Well, the width of the lanes or the

dimen Yeah. The dimensions of the lanes

or parking or bicycle or all of it, you

know, center turn, whatever it may be.

Just not having, you know, x number of

feet and inches as a as an absolute

floor, right? I think that that

engineers should be able to decide that.

>> Thank you, council member Shaturian.

I'm going to try not to repeat any any

of the comments that my colleagues have

made, but some of it will reflect uh I

do agree that our last census was

underounted and I think just given the

traffic flow in our city today, uh we

know that we have more drivers. If it

used to take me five minutes to get to

city hall and now it takes me 15.

Uh unless uh Mr. Hernandez and staff are

sitting behind the

screen playing with the with the lights.

Um, there's a reason why it takes us

forever to get there, but it work is not

the only place we go to, and I refer to

this all the time. Um, when you look at

Adams Hill neighborhood, um, a lot of

those, uh, residents uh, walk down from

their homes because there are things to

do in that area. Um, it's the same case

when you go to Kenneth Village and the

residents around there are doing the

same. I can speak to my neighborhood

where maybe five, six years ago, if not

longer, uh, I was probably taking the

car down um to downtown area and now I

choose to have my meetings and my

meetups in that space because I'm able

to walk over uh, a block or two. Um, one

of the areas that I have really noticed

that has been neglected, um, we have a

high density residential neighborhood

and it's not very reflective of the rest

of the city is when you're coming down

from Eagle Rock on Broadway and Colorado

uh, down to towards Gwendel High School.

Um, when you look at those streets, it

almost feels like those streets don't

haven't gotten love in a very long time.

they look different than the rest of the

city of Wendell. And I know that when

we've attempted to walk around those

areas, uh it's not very pedestrian

friendly. Uh and I'm not talking about

just the smaller streets. I know I also

get some complaints from residents um

who may be living on those smaller side

streets um noting that they're afraid to

go out with their kids and so forth

because the it's close to for example

Verdugo and Chevy Chase. Um so really

taking a look at not just the because

you have that area marked as transit

priority. Um looking at that area for

pedestrian mobility as well. uh because

they are uh highly uh dense populations

that live there and um just looking at

ways better ways that uh they can get

around not just in cars but also or

through public transportation but also

um

by walking. Um, I think the rest of the

stuff my colleagues had commented too

and

so I'm just going to keep it at that and

thank you to staff. I would encourage

that as you are continuing the outreach

that you do a summary of those debriefs

that you have that you also somehow

incorporate that into your reports. Uh,

because those are important

conversations you're having and it

shouldn't just stay in a debrief but be

part of the presentation. So, thank you.

Thank you again.

>> Thank you. I'm going to be brief. Um I I

think a lot of the discussions we're

having are very good. However, uh very

technical as well. Uh discussions that

really shouldn't be made in the absence

of some of the engineering data,

uh roadway, uh usage, uh vehicle,

uh per day, etc. The

today I think the only questions that

are relevant are

do I believe a network of aesthetically

pleasing complete streets that is

sustainable, safe and accessible for all

users is necessary. The answer is yes.

Do I believe that a safe and comfortable

walking, bicycling, and rolling

environment that provides access to

communities, destinations for users of

all ages and abilities is necessary in

Glendale? The answer is yes. Do I

believe that we should maximize use of

existing and future investments in

public transit, ride sharing, and other

alternative travel modes with increased

ridership and decreased private

automobile use? The answer to me is yes.

Do I believe that safe and efficient

accommodation of local and regional

traffic demand along with city's street

network including optimization of

existing infrastructure is necessary for

Glendale? My answer is yes. Do I believe

that we should reduce greenhouse gas

emissions and meet state and regional

climate goals? The answer is yes.

Do I believe that effective supply and

management of vehicle parking with

minimized spillover to the local

community is necessary in Glendale? My

answer is yes. Finally, do I believe

that local and regional goods movement

facilities that minimize effects on

other modes and the local community

character is necessary in Glendale? The

answer is yes. There's a lot of details

that go underneath all those answers.

details that um we really should hold

off on until we see the specific issue,

street,

um whatever, you know, parking

requirements, all the the data that that

goes in. But those seven tenants and

principles, I think for me, the answer

is yes. So, we encourage you to continue

work. Hopefully, we'll get some more

public comments that you can respond to

in the DEIR. At that point, that will be

put out for circulation. We'll have more

discussion even when adopted as a

mobility plan. Council at that future

date will have the final say on any

specific modification, whether it's

whether it's eliminating bike lanes,

adding bike lanes, adding parking,

reducing parking. that's when the

decision will made. These are just the

framework that we're dealing with today.

So, I I thank council for all their uh

their detailed comments which I'm sure

staff is taking and I I I resisted to

dive into that pool uh at this point and

I'm going to leave all that for a future

date. So, is there a motion to

accept this presentation?

Move to

>> accept or note and file accept. Okay,

>> we are accepting the presentation.

>> Okay.

>> Is there a second?

>> I'll I'll second.

>> Roll call, please.

>> Council member Alidian,

>> yes.

>> Broman,

>> yes.

>> Garpetian.

>> Uh, yes. With the with the comments.

>> Kasakian,

>> yes.

>> And Mayor Narian,

>> yes. Thank you. Thank you staff. Thank

you consultant for Thank you very much

>> for uh giving us the rundown.

>> Next item please. Next item is item

number two, public works regarding

agreement with T2 Systems Canada

Incorporated for the operation and

maintenance of digital multi-pace

parking meters. A resolution dispensing

with competitive bidding and authorizing

the city manager or his designate to

extend an existing agreement with T2

Systems Canada Incorporated for a term

of five years in the not to exceed

amount of 784,750

for continued uninterrupted system

operation maintenance of digital

multisspace parking meters.

>> Mr. Bani May, members, city council, as

it was read into the record, the intent

of this item is to request city council

to dispense with competitive bidding and

approve an extension to the existing

agreement with T2 Systems uh for a

5-year period. T2 Systems of Canada is

responsible for the maintenance and

operation of 73 digital multi-P space

parking meters in the downtown and uh

around the Glendel Community College

areas and they've been doing this for

the past 17 years. Um their their

function includes operational support

for the digital software and maintenance

of all parking meter components. Uh if

you have any questions, Tad Dumproski,

our parking manager is available.

>> Does anyone have any questions or have a

motion?

>> I'll move the item.

>> Second.

>> Any public comment?

>> No calls or cards.

>> Roll call, please.

>> Council member Acadrian,

>> yes.

>> Broman,

>> yes.

>> Garpetian,

>> yes.

>> Kasakian,

>> yes.

>> And Mayor Nour,

>> yes. So easy. That concludes our

business. Is there a motion to adjurnn?

>> So moved.

>> Second.

>> We are adjourned.