Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use And Planning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Glendale council pauses Verdugo Wash master-plan contract after state ethics advice prompts recusal dispute
Summary
Council paused awarding a $5.76 million design contract while members seek to supply additional facts to the California Fair Political Practices Commission about recusals. FPPC staff advised two councilmembers to disqualify themselves; the council directed staff to submit any new evidence within 15 days and return with an update.
The Glendale City Council put a planned $5.76 million master‑planning contract for the Verdugo Wash on hold after an ethics advisory letter and heated public comment produced disagreements over recusals and the scope of the project.
At issue: whether councilmembers with property near the wash must step aside. The city attorney told the council the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) issued an advice letter concluding that two councilmembers have disqualifying conflicts of interest and should recuse themselves from decisions on the project; a third councilmember was advised he did not have a disqualifying interest under the FPPC's geographic analysis.
Council direction: staff to submit additional information to the FPPC within 15 days and request a timely response, and the council agreed to bring the matter back for further consideration once the FPPC responds.
Why it matters: The Verdugo Wash master plan is a multi-year, multi-million-dollar study funded in part by state grant money that would analyze a long north–south greenway and multiuse trail through the city—s wash corridor. The item drew an unusually large public turnout and dozens of callers and speakers — many supporting the study and many opposing it on fire‑safety, cost and neighborhood‑impact grounds — and produced a extended legal debate about whether council participation is permitted.
FPPC advice, recusal dispute, and councilroom exchange
City staff read the item into the record: a proposed professional services agreement with Michael Van Valkenburgh Associates, Inc., using grant funds to prepare the Verdugo Wash Master Plan in the amount of $5,762,370. The council previously approved issuing the RFP and the selection recommendation had been returned to the council for contract authorization.
The city attorney summarized the FPPC advice letter issued in December: the FPPC staff found that two councilmembers (Najarian and Garpetian) have disqualifying real‑property interests within the 500‑foot buffer of parts of the proposed project and recommended they not participate; staff advised the council that the members may remain in the audience but must recuse from deliberation and voting. The city attorney also explained the options for seeking reconsideration: new facts submitted to FPPC staff or a formal commission opinion in narrow circumstances. He said the formal opinion route was unlikely to be successful because the matter tracks established FPPC guidance.
Council debate and public comment
Several councilmembers pressed for additional review: Councilmember Najarian argued the FPPC's analysis relied on GIS calculations and said he could provide “clear and convincing evidence” — such as noise, light and property‑value studies and documentation of buffering features (he cited a 15‑foot block wall adjacent to his property) — to rebut the FPPC finding. "I think the FPPC is wrong here. They just did their knee‑jerk response," Najarian said on the record, urging staff and outside counsel to help compile additional evidence.
Councilmember Brotman, who had been identified by FPPC analysis as not disqualified under the "public general" exception, urged the council to move forward because the contract awards and study deadlines risk losing grant funds. Other councilmembers called for caution: some said they were willing to proceed but asked staff to submit additional documentation and seek a prompt FPPC reconsideration.
Public speakers filled the council chamber and dozens phoned in during the extended public comment period. Speakers who supported awarding the study said it was a state‑funded planning opportunity that could improve green space, habitat and active transportation citywide; speakers opposing the plan cited fire risk, cost, insurance impacts, and the potential for increased intrusion into neighborhoods adjacent to the wash. Several speakers urged the council to delay a decision until the FPPC provided a definitive reply.
Council action and next steps
Rather than award the contract that night, the council directed staff to gather any additional facts or materials that councilmembers Najarian and Garpetian wished the FPPC to consider and to submit those materials to the FPPC within 15 days. Council members also asked staff to request an FPPC response and to return to the council with any reply and recommended next steps; the city manager said staff would also ask the consultant to extend any price or scheduling assumptions as needed.
Staff said there is no immediate deadline in the grant that requires an immediate contract signature; staff will seek written confirmation from the grantor if needed and will ask the consultant to extend the proposal timeframe if the council elects to wait.
Ending
The council left the selection unresolved and will reconsider the item after FPPC staff review or when sufficient additional facts have been compiled. City staff and the city attorney offered to assist councilmembers who want to submit more detailed evidence to the FPPC; the council also left open the option of engaging outside counsel to support a submission if the council so directs later.
