Verdugo Wash master plan study delayed after conflict-of-interest advice and council requests further review

The Glendale City Council on Tuesday paused final approval of a $5,762,370 consultant contract for the Verdugo Wash master plan after a dispute over whether three council members should participate in the vote.

The item before the council was a recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute a professional services agreement with Michael Van Valkenbrae Associates Inc. to prepare a master plan funded by state grants. City Attorney Garcia told the council that the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) issued an advice letter in December concluding that Council Members Ara Najarian and (name variant) Garpetian have disqualifying conflicts of interest because they own real property within 500 feet of parts of the project; Council Member Brotman was advised he did not have a disqualifying interest under the FPPC’s public-general-rule analysis.

Why it matters: The Verdugo Wash project covers extensive stretches of the city and carries long-term land-use, design and funding implications; the FPPC guidance raised whether individual council members’ property interests require recusal and prompted questions about the scope and fairness of the FPPC’s analysis.

Council debate and motion: Council members Najarian and Garpetian asked staff and the city attorney to seek further review and to submit additional evidence to the FPPC that they said would show “clear and convincing evidence” that their properties would not be specially and disproportionately affected. City Attorney Garcia said the FPPC will reconsider advice letters only upon new facts or unique legal issues and that the commission has limited administrative review options.

Rather than award the contract at the meeting, the council directed staff to submit any additional factual material the two council members wish to provide to the FPPC within 15 days and to request that the FPPC respond as promptly as possible (staff said the FPPC’s standard window is 21 business days but that prior advice letters have taken longer). Council also instructed staff to report back on the FPPC response timeline and to continue the item as needed. Council members who have been advised to recuse may remain in the audience and speak as members of the public but were not to participate in a final vote while the FPPC matter is unresolved.

Public comment: More than a dozen speakers called or attended in person, with neighborhood groups, bicycling advocates and civic organizations divided; supporters urged moving forward with the study to evaluate feasibility, safety and design; opponents raised concerns about wildfire risk, cost and the wash’s intended role as a flood-control channel.

Contract and procedural details: The RFP called for a multi-year master planning effort; staff said the grant money is in hand and there is no immediate deadline and that the consultant proposals and fee estimates may need confirmation if the award is delayed. Management Services and Community Development staff said the award, if executed, would fund a study phase and would not itself authorize construction. Council asked staff to monitor the grant timeline and the consultants’ price validity if the award is delayed.

Ending: The council recessed the decision and asked staff to pursue FPPC follow-up, to sit down with the council members and GIS staff to review the FPPC’s geographic analysis, and to return to the council with the FPPC response and any recommended next steps.