At a Glance:

Age:
Occupation: Retired Teacher
Political affiliation: Democrat
Education: Bachelor of Science degree in Physical Education, 1962
Master of Arts in Education Administration, 1976

Online Resources:

Campaign WebsiteFacebook Page
Twitter Feed
pauladevine4council@yahoo.com

Questionnaire:

Have you run for office previously?

Yes, June 3, 2014 [to the] Glendale City Council. Yes [won].

Why are you running?

My initial reason for running was to have an opportunity to continue my many years of service in Glendale by stepping up to a policy-making level in order to have a positive and meaningful impact on my city. The citizens of Glendale gave me this opportunity and, after serving for seven months as a Council member, I found that I can make a difference and deliver on my promises. I am running now because I want to keep on the path I have started and fulfill my goal of helping to shape the future of Glendale while ensuring that we continue to have a safe, beautiful and prosperous city.

Should the City Council be elected by district or remain at-large? If districts, five or seven?

I supported placing Ballot Measure D on the ballot, because it allows our residents to decide if they want districting in Glendale. If the measure passes, the Charter will be changed and Council can begin to establish a districting plan.

Districting could resolve concerns that certain segments of our city, both ethnically and geographically, are underrepresented on Council. In addition, districting might increase voter participation by minority groups. I believe, however, that districting would divide the city and create little “empires” in which each Councilperson is advocating just for his or her district and not considering the city as a whole. Absent reliable demographic information showing that there is underrepresentation on Council, my concern about a divided city leads me to oppose districting at this time. If the voters approve Measure D, I will move forward with districting plans in support of their decision. Due to the relatively small size of Glendale, I believe five districts would be appropriate.

Is downtown Glendale better or worse due to the significant development projects completed or underway? Why?

In order to answer this question, one must ask, “better or worse than what?” Also, in answering this question, the impact of this development on the entire city must be considered. I believe that, due to the significant development projects, Downtown Glendale and the entire city are better than:

Having no development -- the city would lose millions of dollars in property tax, sales tax and administrative fee revenue.

Developing the originally zoned downtown area with up to 18 story office buildings -- Traffic would be much worse than with the mixed-use buildings.

Absorbing the city’s mandated population growth in our outlying residential neighborhoods -- Integrity of our neighborhoods would be compromised.

To adddress future development in Downtown Glendale, I supported reducing and/or eliminating height and density incentives. In addition, I will be focusing on designs that include wide sidewalks with trees, large open public spaces, code-compliant parking, and creative architecture.

Should Councilmembers be able to increase their own pay? Why or why not?

In accordance with the Glendale City Charter, Council Member compensation is established and controlled by the California Government Code and is tied to the population of the city. The intent of the Code is to provide a uniform, logical and, most importantly, an independent, arms-length process of determining pay rates for elected Council Members. I believe that Council Members should not be able to increase their own pay because it would negate the principals and intent of the Government Code, especially in terms of eliminating the independent arms-length element. This will likely lead to doubts, concerns and criticism from the residents who pay Council Member salaries.

Should Glendale have a permanent winter homeless shelter? If yes, where should it go? If no, why not?

In answering this question, it must be understood that providing a permanent winter homeless shelter is a “regional” issue and not just a Glendale concern. Also, it must be understood that Glendale provides outstanding year-round support for the homeless in collaboration with Ascencia.

Glendale used to provide a winter homeless shelter at the Armory, but had to close it because of the daily negative impact the homeless residents had on surrounding businesses. This problem occurred due to the lack of funds to provide meals and activities necessary to have the homeless residents remain at the shelter during the day.

In view of these facts, I believe that there should be a permanent winter homeless shelter somewhere in the “region.” If grant funding is available to pay for meals and daily activities in Glendale and a location is found that does not impact retail businesses or residential neighborhoods, such as an industrial area, then I would support establishing a permanent winter shelter in Glendale.

How would you improve pedestrian safety?

In the seven months I’ve been on council, I have been working on improving pedestrian safety. I advocated for safer crosswalks (zebra and continental) and these currently are being installed in various locations on Glendale Ave and Canada Blvd. I also advocated for more “diagonal crosswalks,” similar to the one at Harvard and Brand, and the first one in Montrose has just been installed in the Montrose Shopping Park. In addition, I am addressing the improvement of pedestrian safety by supporting the Glendale Police Department’s education program. In this comprehensive program, police officers reach out to the community by giving talks at community centers, parks and other locations where the citizens who are most impacted by traffic incidents frequently gather. I have heard from the police and the clergy that these type of efforts are beginning to change behavior. I believe that, with our engineering, education and enforcement efforts, progress is being made.

Funds raised by candidates: