By Julie BUTCHER

Glendalians could soon see more delivery robots scuttling along the city’s streets. On Tuesday night the Glendale City Council adopted a one-year pilot program permitting two “personal delivery device” operators to field 30 delivery robots each, after they reach agreements establishing the rules for their deployment.

The agreements would be able to be canceled for cause or for “convenience,” with 30 days’ notice.

According to a representative of one of the companies, demand in Glendale is twice that of Miami, given the number of restaurants and the short distances, conducive to robotic deliveries. 

Councilmember Elen Asatryan sought to ensure the companies respond more quickly to delivery devices [breaking] down and urged the council to adopt shorter time constraints.

“I love these robots. I’m all for innovation. I want them in our city. I just want there to be additional investments made to ensure that our sidewalks and crosswalks and residents are safe,” she said before the vote, which passed with Councilmember Vartan Gharpetian and Mayor Ardy Kassakhian voting “no.”

Also on Tuesday night, the Glendale City Council voted to move forward with an extensive street improvement project in West Glendale. Estimated to cost $14.5 million, the project includes upgrades to the street surfaces, pavement resurfacing, traffic striping and signage improvements, intersection alignments, curb extensions, and bicycle facilities in the Pelanconi neighborhood.

When the project was first introduced, some in the neighborhood took exception to the loss of parking spaces. Glendale City Engineer and Deputy Director of Public Works Sarkis Oganesyan summed up the history of the project so far, reporting that the project as currently proposed maintains all legal parking spots. 

Several residents of the area spoke heatedly and threatening litigation. Mayor Kassakhian suggested approving the project but holding off on the bike lanes. 

Councilmember Alek Bartrosouf observed that the inclusion of bicycle lanes is not just a benefit for cyclists. 

“We do have a traffic safety problem in this city and whether this bike lane will be used or not, it will calm traffic. This is not my opinion; it’s not the opinion of engineers. This fact is backed by study after study after study. This is a tool in the toolkit that addresses a known safety problem,” he said.

Bartrosouf listed some of the streets on which bike lanes have been added: “None of them impacted area parking or travel lanes.”

“The simple fact of mentioning or proposing a bicycle lane – even when it doesn’t impact anybody’s functional life or practical behavior – is somehow like a trigger warning for folks. It’s like we can’t even talk about it anymore, even in a situation where it has no impact.”

The most controversial topic of the evening was a lengthy discussion of the city’s use of Flock cameras. After a long discussion and comments from nearly 20 Glendale residents, the council opted to seek opportunities to enhance the security of the camera system, particularly attempting to limit access to the city’s data, but to keep the cameras.

Councilmember Dan Brotman summarized the discussion as good, recognizing the “concerns of many of us here and in the community.”

“At the same time, I want you guys to have the tools you need to solve crimes but we also don’t want to feel like you know everywhere I went today,” he said. Councilmember Brotman summed up the need “to give people a sense that their privacy is not going to be abused.”

Glendale Police Chief Robert William offered a lengthy and detailed overview of the Flock camera program. License plates are not constitutionally protected for privacy purposes; rather the California vehicle code requires them to be visible on all cars. Automated license plate readers – such as the Flock cameras – use the same technology as is used in parking garages and college campuses, the chief noted. 

Glendale has 82 cameras operating on public roadways across Glendale’s 30 square miles; the cameras capture 1.2 million plate reads per month, taking a still photo of the rear license plate and the vehicle, triggered by motion sensors. The pictures are date and time stamped. The system does not identify the occupants or owner of the vehicle. 

Chief William went on. The cameras do not record video or audio nor issue traffic tickets; they do not measure speed or use facial recognition or live monitoring.

The council listened to many members of the public. None spoke in support of the Flock cameras.

“Alex” started his comments with a nod to the local police: “What I’m about to say is not slight to our excellent police department. We’re one of the safest cities in the country and I think you do an amazing job. My issue is how we implement technology in general, whether it’s ALPR or other systems, we have a problem: hubris. We think that we’re infallible, that we won’t make mistakes. Then when mistakes happen, harm is done before we can acknowledge the harm.” Alex focused on the need “to make sure people feel safe and like they’re not being surveilled without their knowing.”

“Ian” agreed.

“I’m against Flock cameras because I believe the pursuit of justice needs to be carried out with facts and evidence, not statistical probability and algorithmic suspicions. LAPD has already canceled [its] contract with Flock due to false positives and backlash, and Glendale needs to follow suit and move away from mass surveillance altogether.”

Another Alex identified himself as the parent of a toddler and the son-in-law of elderly parents. He said he was “deeply concerned with traffic safety and safety in general but Flock and mass surveillance is not the answer. Every choice that we make trades liberty for security and must be made carefully.”

“How many crimes have been solved in the roughly six years because of Flock?” he asked. “A few examples are not data. Anecdotes are not data. Forty thousand license plates scanned each day means each of us is being scanned multiple times a day. Whether a license plate is public or not doesn’t really matter. The ability to track our daily movements should not be. Plus, we have no real oversight over the 319 in-state agencies that Flock shares data with.”