Greg Astorian

On March 6th, 2019, The Historic Preservation Ordinance came in front of the planning commission. We unanimously voted for its adoption! My thinking hasn't changed since then. I was for the adoption of the Ordinance in its entirety then, as I am now. Indeed, I suggested an addition to the Ordinance that I’ll discuss in my response to question number 3 below.

Dan Brotman*

On matters such as this where I lack personal expertise, my modus operandi is to seek out the input of experts that I trust and respect and who I believe share my values. I have friends involved with TGHS who meet those criteria and I would turn to them first (in fact, I have done this already). Once on Council, I would also spend time getting to know the chairs and members of the Historic Preservation Commission, Design Review Board and relevant City Staff, as well as other knowledgeable community members, to identify other trusted voices. My job would then be to filter this input through the lens of my own perspective on balancing the needs for housing with the objective of maintaining the character of the City that brought all of us to Glendale in the first place. As I stated above, I believe this is not an either/or proposition and that we can effectively do both.  Balancing the needs of development with historic preservation is among my numerous goals, if elected to office.

Based on what I know today, I would vote to adopt the revised Ordinance it was proposed without changes that could make it less effective.

Paula Devine*

If re-elected, I will vote to adopt the "fully revised" Ordinance.  I introduced the entire Ordinance and subsequently moved and voted to have the Demolition portion of the Ordinance approved with the understanding that the "fully revised" Ordinance, would be brought back to Council at a later date.

Vartan Gharpetian

Council gave specific directions to the staff to bring suggestions/recommendations to strengthen the illegal demolition part of the ordinance. Instead, staff revised the entire ordinance and made changes to almost every page. When the ordinance came to Council to be voted on, I was shocked to see that the entire ordinance was revised but none of the Councilmembers were briefed on what the changes were and why. Therefore, I voted for the part that was clear to me and asked to be briefed on the rest of it to find out what the changes were and why, in order to make an educated decision. I am sure this ordinance will come to Council in the near future to be voted on.

Ardy Kassakhian

I support the ordinance as it was proposed.  I believe staff put considerable amount of thought and effort into the preparation of the proposed changes to the City’s code and it is my goal that in addition to the penalties for the unpermitted demolition of historic properties, there also be measures in place to protect historic district contributors and properties eligible for historic designation. 

William Keshishyan

I will vote to adopt the fully revised ordinance.

Leonard Manoukian

No Response.

Susan Wolfson*

If I am elected to the City Council, I will definitely vote for a more complete version of the revised ordinance. Sadly, the current Council basically eviscerated this proposed Ordinance, striking nearly all of its innovative provisions. What a waste of staff expertise that went into its drafting! And since Mills Act contracts are one of very few tools left to local agencies for preserving the character of their existing communities, it would behoove the City of Glendale to swiftly strengthen our historic preservation ordinance as soon as possible. One improvement I would add to the proposed ordinance is the creation of an additional category of recognized historic architectural resources. In this new category would be historic architectural resources which might not meet the strict Mills Act requirements but still constitute precious resources for the community. This would hopefully allow the City to preserve more historic buildings and protect them from misuse as well as from demolition.