Vartan Gharpetian

I was on City Council when we approved Chapter 15.20 Historic Preservation-Section 15.20.086 A,B,C,D,E,F Enforcements and Penalties. I do agree to all the approved terms and I would also propose the followings for future consideration:

• No building or construction related permits shall be issued for such property for a period of FIVE years from the date of demolition (instead of three years). This modification will add additional two years to the current policy.

• Enforcing monitory fines, if and when allowed by law.

Andre Haghverdian

The city should review this closely and update the penalties. In each case, the city should use independent adjustor to access the damages and issue the penalties.

Vrej Agajanian

No response submitted

James Clarke

Glendale's municipal code sets a robust foundation for preserving our historic buildings, but as someone who cherishes the architectural legacy of cities back home in the UK, I believe we can enhance these measures. The code wisely imposes misdemeanors, civil actions, and specific remedial steps for violations, yet there's room for strengthening.

The three-year construction ban on properties with illegal demolitions is a significant deterrent. However, increasing this penalty for repeat offenders or severe violations would send a clearer message against such infractions. Additionally, requiring violators to cover the costs of investigations and legal actions is a fair approach, ensuring city resources aren't drained by irresponsible actions.

The directive for violators to reconstruct or replace demolished historic features is crucial in preserving architectural integrity. I propose incorporating an educational component into these penalties, mandating participation in heritage preservation programs. This not only punishes but also enlightens, fostering a deeper community appreciation for our historical heritage.

Enhancing our existing penalties to include these additional measures can further safeguard Glendale’s architectural legacy. This approach aligns perfectly with my campaign's ethos: "Balancing Progress with Tradition." It’s about ensuring Glendale’s growth while respectfully acknowledging and preserving our rich history, much like the cherished streets of my former home.

Ardy Kassakian

I believe the current penalties are appropriate. The purposeful demolition of a historic home without permits or the legal authority to alter a site or resource should not be accepted or tolerated by the city. I believe that the city has made significant progress in helping streamline the processes that help preserve historic structures and we continue to make progress. One area that I hope we can do more in is identifying what properties are historic and which are not. This can be done by completing the citywide historic surveys for the various parts of our city. My first term on council was a bit unique in that before we could begin addressing any issues, we were sent into the pandemic spiral where most of our operations were affected and we were triaging the impacts of the pandemic on our local businesses, community and overall city welfare. My hope is that we are now in a place where we can look at the work we wanted to do and start completing projects that were deferred.

Karen Kwak

Hmm, I don’t see any financial penalties listed in the code. We should add some fees or fines, in addition to the civil penalties already listed. Hefty fines owed to the City of Glendale for violations would signal that such offenses are taken seriously, and would act as a deterrent. Fines should increase with each offense, if earlier fines were not effective in preventing illegal modifications and demolition.

A friend who often travels to New Orleans noted that in that city, the first penalty for destroying a historically significant structure begins at $15K, plus requiring the offender to restore what he destroyed, using the same materials. The financial penalties in Glendale may not need to be as high, perhaps beginning at $5K plus restitution.

Denise Miller

The penalties are appropriate. I am open to updating if warranted; but only after a comparison and review of best practices in other cities with historic districts; live data, real evidence, and a real project before me on Council. Only then, would I support us-ing city time, staff, and resources to consider any changes to the language in the munic-ipal code. Changing language is at least a 6-month process and more likely a year. It’s time intensive and relies heavily on staff resources and stakeholder hearings. There would have to be overwhelming and compelling evidence presented to Council for me to support engaging in making changes. An easier and more affordable solution is for the language, penalties, and enforcement of protecting historic districts currently in place are relied on and enforced so that Glendale’s position on historic districts is clear to all. In other words, I have zero tolerance for loopholes and workarounds, especially the one I consider happened at 1642 S. Central Ave. There were reasonable alternatives presented to incorporating the property into the development. It is unconscionable to me that the outcome is going to be to demolish this craftsman.

Decisions about historic districts requires a comprehensive understanding of the historical, cultural, economic, and social dynamics of the community. Public engagement, careful evaluation of the significance of structures, and consideration of the potential impacts on development are all crucial aspects of the decision-making process. Balancing preservation with the evolving needs of a community requires thoughtful planning and collaboration among stakeholders, city planners, staff, and developers.