Agenda packet, first session — Glendale City Council, April 2, 2024 (part 1 of 3)

A G E N D A

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
Meetings are broadcast live on Glendale TV, viewable on Spectrum Cable, channel 6, and AT&T Uverse, channel 99. Meetings are also streamed live in high definition (HD) on the City webpage, glendaleca.gov/live, on YouTube.com/myglendale, and on Apple TV, Roku, Amazon Fire, iOS and Android devices usinga free app called Cablecast and choosing "Glendale TV" from the menu.

Meetings are also archived on the City Website for viewing anytime at glendaleca.gov/agendas.

Call (818) 548-4013 for program schedules. For public comments and questions during the meeting, call (818) 937-8100. Public comments ona specific agenda item will be taken when that agenda item is discussed. If you have any question about matters on the agenda, or requests for assistance, please contact the City Clerk at (818) 548-2090 during regular business hours.

PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, auxiliary hearing aids, sign language translation, and Braille transcripts are available upon request. Assisted listening devices are available same-day upon request. The City Clerk’ office should be notified 72 hours (three business days) or as soon as practicable for requests regarding sign language translation and Braille transcription services. All documents related to open session items on this agenda that are received less than 72 hours prior to this meeting, and are public records, will be available for review in the Office of the City Clerk, 613 E. Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.

Translation services are provided for meetings through the use of bilingual staff for speakers who wish to utilize the service as available. Speakers should state their request by contacting the City Clerk’s office at (818) 548-2090, at least 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting or as soon as practicable. Please specify the language for which you require translation. The exclusive use of City provided interpreters is not required and persons are welcome to use their own interpreter or speak in their native language.

APRIL 2, 2024

ROLL CALL

1. CLOSED SESSION – 1:00 PM (To Commence at 3:00 PM)
a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation: Significant Exposure to Litigation Pursuant to Paragraphs (d)(2) and (e)(3) of Government Code Section 54956.9: One potential case
1 TYPED 3/29/2024 9:58:39 AM
04 02 24
CC

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:00 PM
Roll Call
a. Flag Salute: Mayor Dan Brotman
b. Invocation: Dr. Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c. Report of the City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the April 2, 2024 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on March 29, 2024, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, April 9, 2024 b. Proclamation Designating April 2024 as Sexual Assault Awareness Month c. Proclamation Designating April 1-7, 2024 as Food Waste Prevention Week d. Commendations for businesses in Glendale who attained the Green Business Certification
– Ara Kassabian CPA, Joie De Vivre Style, SIG Property Management, and the City of Glendale Central Library
e. Outgoing Mayor’s Comments
f. Selection of a New Mayor
g. New Mayor’s Comments

4. CONSENT ITEMS (Including Minutes)
The following are Routine and May be Acted Upon by One Motion. Any Member of Council or the Audience Requesting Separate Consideration May do so by Making Such Request Before Motion is Proposed.
a. City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Special City Council and Regular City Council Meetings of March 26, 2024

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES
a. Glendale Water and Power, re: Ordinance Amending Ordinance No. 6016 Establishing the Electric Rates for Glendale Water & Power for Fiscal Years 2024 to 2027 to Add the Standby Service Rider for Medium Business Dispatchable and the Standby Service Rider for Large Business Dispatchable Rates

8. ACTION ITEMS
a. Fire Department, re: Review of Fire Services Master Plan produced by CityGate Associates for the Glendale Fire Department

1. Motion to Note and File
b. Human Resources, re: Approval of First Amendment to the Amended and Restated City Attorney Employment Agreement with Michael J. Garcia to Extend the Term of the Agreement and Provide for Salary Adjustment

1. Motion Approving First Amendment to the Amended and Restated City Attorney Employment Agreement
2 TYPED 3/29/2024 9:58:39 AM
04 02 24
CC

2. Resolution Establishing Classification Titles and Compensation for Employees of the City of Glendale – City Attorney

9. HEARINGS
a. Community Development, re: Ordinance Amending Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, Relating Generally to Standards for Design Review, Entitlement Processes, Parking Requirements for Certain Uses, and Miscellaneous Zoning Code Clean-Ups (Case No. PZC-0004-2023)

1. Ordinance for Introduction
b. Community Development, re: Unpermitted Demolition of a Historic Resource at 1239 N. Everett Street, to Consider Issuance of Penalties, and to Authorize Recordation of Instrument Imposing Covenants Memorializing the Penalties

1. Resolution Adopting Findings of Violation of the Glendale Municipal Code Chapters

15.20 and 30.25

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS

13. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Each Speaker is Allowed 5 minutes.

Council May Question or Respond to The Speaker But There Will be no Debate or Decision.

The City Manager May Refer the Matter to the Appropriate Department for Investigation and Report.

14. NEW BUSINESS

15. ADJOURNMENT
3 TYPED 3/29/2024 9:58:39 AM
04 02 24
CC
4 of 715
5 of 715
6 of 715
7 of 715
8 of 715
9 of 715
1 M I N U T E S

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor Glendale, CA 91206
MARCH 26, 2024
ROLL CALL – All Present

1. CLOSED SESSION – 4:03 p.m.
a. Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation: Terrazas v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. Case No. 19STCV07748
b. Public Employee Performance Evaluation – City Attorney c. Conference with Labor Negotiators. City-designated negotiator: Mayor Dan Brotman. Unrepresented employee position: City Attorney d. Conference with Labor Negotiators. City-designated representatives: Paula Adams and Laura Kalty. Employee organization: Glendale Police Officers’ Association
City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is not anticipated. Council recessed to closed session at 4:07 p.m.

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:09 PM
Roll Call – All Present
a. Flag Salute: Mayor Dan Brotman
b. Invocation: Dr. Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
c. Report of the City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the March 26, 2024 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on March 21, 2024, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, April 2, 2024 Asst. City Manager John Takhtalian provided the preview. b. Presentation by the Burbank Glendale Pasadena Regional Housing Trust Grant Henninger, CivicHome
c. Commendations for businesses in Glendale who attained the Green Business Certification
– Ara Kassabian CPA, Joie De Vivre Style, SIG Property Management, and the City of Glendale Central Library
Item moved to April 2, 2024 Council Meeting.
d. Proclamation Designating April 7-13, 2024 as National Library Week Lessa Pelayo-Lozada, Assistant Director of Library, Arts & Culture Jennifer Quiñonez-Skinner, Glendale Library Arts & Culture Trust James Lau, Glendale Library Arts & Culture Trust
Public Comment:

Mike Mohill
4A
10 of 715
2 e. Commendation Recognizing Tara Peterson, Outgoing CEO of the YWCA of Glendale & Pasadena
Public Comment:

Mike Mohill

Item 4b pulled for separate consideration.
a. City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Regular City Council Meeting of March 12, 2024 Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
Vote as Follows
a.
b. Community Services and Parks, re: Authorize submission of project application and acceptance of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Grants and Local Services grant funds for Fremont Park Renovation approved in the 2023-2024 state budget
Public Comments:

Chad Kroger
JT Parr

1. Resolution 24-50 to authorize filing of project application for Fremont Park Renovation through California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Grants and Local Services (OGALS), and accept grant funds in the amount of $933,000 from July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2027, through a legislatively specified grant in the 2023-2024 state budget; and authorize the City Manager, or a designee, to conduct all negotiations, sign and submit all documents, including, but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments, and payment requests, which may be necessary for the completion of the project scope
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Asatryan
Vote as Follows
b.

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
11 of 715
3 c. Community Services and Parks, re: Award of a Professional Services Agreement with Biocom California Institute in an amount not to exceed $285,000, at $95,000 per year from January 1, 2024 to January 29, 2027

1. Motion to approve executing a Professional Services Agreement with Biocom California Institute in an amount not to exceed $285,000, at $95,000 per year from January 1, 2024 to January 29, 2027, to increase employer engagement and provide technical assistance to colleges serving underserved populations, in establishing biotechnology career technical education for the Board Foundation grant; and authorize the City Manager, or a designee, to execute all agreements, certifications, and documents necessary to accept and implement the funding Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
Vote as Follows
c.
d. Fire Department, re: Annual Weed Abatement Program for 2024

1. Resolution 24-51 declaring that noxious weeds on certain properties are a public nuisance; that the City intends to cause abatement by removal; that a hearing will be held on April 2, 2024 for objections to removal
Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
Vote as Follows
d.
e. Public Works, re: Amend existing contract for Citywide Maintenance and Repairs of Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning Systems (HVAC) with ACCO Engineered Systems, Inc. (ACCO)

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to execute Amendment No. 2, to contract 8001439 for Citywide Maintenance and Repairs of HVAC Systems with ACCO, increasing the contract amount by $852,000 to the total not-to-exceed amount of $2,173,160
Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
Vote as Follows
e.

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Councilmember Najarian read Ralph Tufenkian’s biography and asked council to adjourn in his memory. Councilmember Kassakhian sent his condolences to the family of the deceased.

Councilmember Devine attended an event at the YWCA called “YOUniqueness Festival 2024.” She commended community leaders, Edith Fuentes and George Saikali, for a wellAyes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
12 of 715
4 organized and well-attended event. Devine attended the 5th Anniversary of the Cherry Blossom Festival and the 50th Anniversary of the Japanese Tea House at the Glendale Brand Park. She acknowledged Community Services and Parks Director Onnig Bulanikian for being instrumental for bringing this festival to the City of Glendale. Devine announced there was a Japan-Ukraine Conference for Promotion of Economic Growth and Reconstruction that will help Japan rebuild Ukraine when the war is over. Devine and Mayor Brotman attended the Soroptimist’s Live Your Dream Awards, an education award for women who provide the primary financial support for their families.

Councilmember Asatryan had the honor of accepting a delegation from the Philippines, in which members of our Sister City Santa Rosa, Laguna, signed the official Memorandum of Understanding. Asatryan and City Clerk Dr. Abajian attended the LA County’s 39th Annual Woman of the Year Celebration. Asatryan met with an organization called Women’s Fire Alliance, who support and empower women in the fire service, and asked the Glendale Fire Department to collaborate with the organization.

Mayor Brotman announced that the City of Glendale received the American Green Zone certification for converting all gas-powered equipment used in city parks and landscaped areas to electric. He attended the grand opening of a youth drop-in center offering social services called “Our Third Place,” located at 1540 E. Colorado St.

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

8. ACTION ITEMS
a. Public Works, re: Award of a Professional Services Agreement (PSA) to Administer Glendale’s Green Business Program
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Daniel Hernandez, Interim Director of Public Works
Presenting:

Regina Wheeler, Recycling Coordinator

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager or his designee to execute a new PSA with a 501c3 organization Sustainable Works, a Project of Community Partners (Community Partners) for $155,250 to Administer Glendale’s Green Business Program for one year
Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
f. Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
13 of 715
5 b. Glendale Water and Power, re: Amending Ordinance No. 6016 Establishing the Electric Rates for Glendale Water and Power for Fiscal Years 2024 to 2027 to Add the Standby Service Rider for Medium Business Dispatchable and the Standby Service Rider for Large Business Dispatchable Rates
Staff Comment:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Presenting:

Michelle Nall, Utility Business System Support Administrator

1. Introduction of Ordinance - Devine
c. City Attorney, re: Review of Mayoral Selection Policy Set Forth in Glendale Municipal Code Section 2.04.020
Presenting:

Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Public Comments:

Karen Kwak
Mike Mohill
Tony Passarella
Ray Shelton
Denise Miller
Joy McCreary
Catherine Yesayan
Lily Bekmezian
Alek Bartrosouf
Joseph Kaskanian
Ani Grigorian
Ramella Eraghi
Susan Broussalian
Angela Gee
Elizabeth Vitanza
Karen Costa
Armik Shahinian
Anahid Sarkissian

1. Motion to Note and File Report and Direct Staff
Moved: Kassakhian Seconded: Asatryan
Vote as Follows
g. Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
14 of 715
6 d. City Attorney, re: Amendment to Glendale Municipal Code Section 2.04.020 Relating to the Mayoral Selection Process to Remove Subsection (H) Pertaining to the "Best Interest" Exception
Staff Comment:

Mike Garcia, City Attorney
Public Comments:

Allan Durham
Ray Sheldon
Eric
Ramella Eraghi
Hans Johnson
Robert Lucero
Margaret Vee
Charlene Hill
Manuk Grigoryan
Denise Miller
Council recessed at 9:40 p.m. and reconvened after five minutes.

1. Introduction of Ordinance Amending Section 2.04.020 of the Glendale Municipal Code, 1995, Relating to the Mayoral Selection Policy and the “Best Interest” Exception to the Rule Requiring the Appointment of the Councilmember with the Longest, Continuous Uninterrupted Service on the Council Introduced by: Najarian

9. HEARINGS
a. Public Works, re: Vacation of a portion of the Southeast Corner of Jackson Street and California Avenue at 246 N Jackson Street; Vacation Case No. 191V Hearing opened at 9:59 p.m. and closed at 10:00 p.m.

1. Resolution 24-53 Ordering the Vacation
Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
h.

2. Resolution 24-5 Adopting Plan No. 12-246
Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
i.

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
15 of 715
7 b. Public Works, re: Vacation of the First Alley Northeasterly of Victory Boulevard, Between Allen and Irving Avenues (Alley 21); Vacation Case No. 190V Hearing opened at 10:00 p.m. and closed at 10:06 p.m.

Public Comment
Joshua T
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Bill A’Hearn, Senior GIS Project Manager
Daniel Hernandez, Interim Director of Public Works
Mike Garcia, City Attorney

1. Resolution 24-54 Ordering the Vacation
Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
j.

2. Resolution 24-55 Adopting Plan No. 12-245
Moved: Devine Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
k.

10. REPORTS – INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS

13. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Each Speaker is Allowed 5 minutes. Council May Question or Respond to The Speaker But There Will be no Debate or Decision. The City Manager May Refer the Matter to the Appropriate Department for Investigation and Report.

Ray Shelton
Gayane Kadzhikyan
Joseph Kaskanian
Allan Durham
Eric
Frank Wilson
Anonymous
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
16 of 715
8 14. NEW BUSINESS

15. ADJOURNMENT – 10:40 p.m., adjourned in memory of Ralph Tufenkian Moved: Najarian Seconded: Kassakhian
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
17 of 715
1 M I N U T E S
SPECIAL MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
MARCH 26, 2024
The Special Public Meeting of the Glendale City Council convened in the Brand Studios, in said City, at 3:03 p.m. on the above date, pursuant to a call for such meeting signed by the City Clerk of the City Council, and on file with the City Clerk, a copy of which is as follows:

March 21, 2024
Date
A SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING of the City Council is hereby called to meet at 3:00 PM on Tuesday, March 26, 2024, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;

1. Community Development, re: Use of City Days at the Alex Theatre: Armenian Genocide Commemoration and Rhythm Is Us Show
a. Motion to approve use of one of twelve annual City Days at the Alex Theatre for the Armenian Genocide Commemoration Event on Sunday, April 21, 2024 and to cover the costs associated with labor and additional equipment rentals at the Theatre for the day
b. Motion to approve use of one of twelve annual City Days at the Alex Theatre for the Jacob Armen presentation of Rhythm Is Us on a mutually agreeable weekday

2. Community Development, re: Improvements to the Entitlement and Permitting Process
a. Motion providing Council feedback on the proposed work plan to improve the entitlement and permitting process
Written Notice of said meeting was given, which Notice consisted of a copy of the foregoing Call, and was served on each Member of the Council not joining in the Call, and upon the in said City not less than 24 hours before the time fixed in said Call for said meeting, as follows:

Upon Elen Asatryan at 5:00 p.m. March 21, 2024 Glendale, CA Upon Paula Devine at 5:00 p.m. March 21, 2024 Glendale, CA Upon Ardy Kassakhian at 5:00 p.m. March 21, 2024 Glendale, CA Upon Ara Najarian at 5:00 p.m. March 21, 2024 Glendale, CA Upon Dan Brotman at 5:00 p.m. March 21, 2024 Glendale, CA Mayor Brotman called the meeting to order at 3:03 p.m.

ROLL CALL
- All Present
- Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, March 26, 2024 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on March 21, 2024, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall. 18 of 715
2 Motion to approve Councilmember Kassakhian’s attendance via teleconference due to a medical emergency
Moved: Najarian Seconded: Devine
Vote as Follows
a.

1. Community Development, re: Use of City Days at the Alex Theatre: Armenian Genocide Commemoration and Rhythm Is Us Show
Staff Comment:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Presenting:

Tamar Sadd, Deputy Director of Community Development
Jacob Armen
a. Motion to approve use of one of twelve annual City Days at the Alex Theatre for the Armenian Genocide Commemoration Event on Sunday, April 21, 2024 and to cover the costs associated with labor and additional equipment rentals at the Theatre for the day Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
Vote as Follows
b.
b. Motion to approve use of one of twelve annual City Days at the Alex Theatre for the Jacob Armen presentation of Rhythm Is Us on a mutually agreeable weekday Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
Vote as Follows
c.

2. Community Development, re: Improvements to the Entitlement and Permitting Process
Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Joseph Rodarte, Permit Services Administrator
Presenting:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Brotman, Najarian (pro tem) None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
19 of 715
3 Public Comment:

Joanna Pringle
a. Motion providing Council feedback on the proposed work plan to improve the entitlement and permitting process
Moved: Devine Seconded: Asatryan
Vote as Follows
d.

ADJOURNMENT – 4:03 p.m.

Moved: Asatryan Seconded: Devine
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Asatryan, Devine, Kassakhian, Najarian, Brotman
None
None
None
20 of 715
21 of 715
22 of 715
23 of 715
24 of 715
25 of 715
26 of 715
27 of 715
28 of 715
29 of 715
30 of 715
8a

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Review of Fire Services Master Plan produced by CityGate Associates for the Glendale Fire Department.

1. Motion to Note and File.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for April 2, 2024 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Glendale commissioned a detailed study by outside consultants, CityGate Associates, to review three broad service delivery needs, and develop recommendations for the Glendale Fire Department. The three parts of the study include:

1. Fire crew deployment (Standards of Cover) to address station locations, apparatus types, unit staffing, response times and unit workloads.

3. Fire station physical assessments given the age of the stations to determine whether they meet current staffing needs, all gender access, and safety considerations given firefighter operational needs, and Occupational Safety and Health Code requirements. 31 of 715
2 a 8

RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully recommends City Council review, note and file the Fire Services Master Plan for the Glendale Fire Department produced by CityGate Associates.

ANALYSIS
The City of Glendale commissioned a detailed study by outside consultants, CityGate Associates, to review three broad service delivery needs, and develop recommendations for the Glendale Fire Department. The three parts of the study include:

1. Fire crew deployment (Standards of Cover) to address station locations, apparatus types, unit staffing, response times and unit workloads. The current station locations are sufficient to ensure acceptable response times. Unit staffing is also acceptable, however, there is a need to add response units related to medical emergencies.

2. Fire Department administrative staffing and program review focused on determining whether the current staffing is appropriate for technical oversight and leadership for Operations, EMS, and Prevention services. Having sufficient administrative staffing is critical for proper support in all areas of emergency management.

3. A physical assessment of Fire stations given their age and 24/7 use to determine where they meet current staffing needs, all gender access, and safety considerations given firefighter operational needs and Occupational Safety and Health Code requirements.

The CityGate study’s major recommendations center around addressing Emergency Management Services and ambulance transport capacity, modest changes to administrative services, and critical needs to be addressed regarding the City’s aged fire stations. Staff’s proposed implementation plan will present the cost and timing to hire an experienced fire station architect, to prepare biddable plans for short term repairs to include, where possible, gender separating dorms, along with plans and estimated costs for complete station replacements as needed. Staff and the consultant understand the substantial cost associated with undertaking repair and replacement of stations; therefore, the proposed plan anticipates the City will be required to proceed in at least three phases and over several fiscal years.

The attachments that accompany this report have been developed in four volumes. These four volumes articulate the strengths and needs of the overall effectiveness of the Glendale Fire Department. Moreover, the attached master plan provide best practices and recommendations for improving the operations of the department. A representative from CityGate will be in attendance at the City Council meeting to present their findings in greater detail.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The impact of the CityGate study sheds light on the current successes and challenges the Glendale Fire Department faces when delivering services to the community. By accepting the findings and recommendations of this master plan, the public can be confident that the department has established a comprehensive roadmap to implement 32 of 715
3 a 8
industry best practices bringing increased value to all stakeholders.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. The costs associated to address the needs discussed in the Fire Services Master Plan will be presented with staff’s recommendations to Council in the ensuing months. The implied fiscal impact from the recommendations within the attached master plan will be significant relative to fire station replacement and improvement.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This matter is a study of the Fire Department needs and, as such, it can be seen with certainty there is no reasonable possibility that the noting and filing of this study will have a significant effect on the environment.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. City Council may choose to commission other studies and recommendations as an alternative to the CityGate Fire Services Master Plan.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Greg Fish, Fire Chief
Prepared by:

Greg Fish, Fire Chief
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
33 of 715

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member _________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the Council hereby notes and files the Report to Council dated April 2, 2024 pertaining to the Review of the Fire Services Master Plan produced by CityGate Associates for the Glendale Fire Department.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
34 of 715

CITYOFGLENDALE,CA

FIRESERVICESMASTERPLAN
VOLUME1OF4:TECHNICALREPORT
MARCH27,2024
600COOLIDGEDRIVE,SUITE150
FOLSOM,CA95630
PHONE:(916)458-5100
FAX:(916)983-2090
WWW.CITYGATEASSOCIATES.COM

F I R E & E M S

F I R E & E M S
35 of 715
This page was intentionally left blank
36 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Table of Contents Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 1 of 4—Technical Report (this volume)
Section Page
Executive Summary ......................................................................................................................................................1 Policy Choices Framework...............................................................................................................................1 Standards of Cover Deployment Evaluation Summary....................................................................................2 Headquarters Services Adequacy Review Summary .......................................................................................3 Fire Station Physical Conditions Review Summary (Volume 4).....................................................................4 Findings and Recommendations by Theme......................................................................................................4 Standards of Cover Deployment Findings .........................................................................................4 Standards of Cover Deployment Recommendations..........................................................................6 Headquarters Programs Adequacy Findings......................................................................................7 Headquarters Programs Adequacy Recommendations ......................................................................8 Fire Station Facilities Physical Conditions Findings .........................................................................9 Fire Station Facilities Physical Conditions Recommendations........................................................10 Next Steps.......................................................................................................................................................11 Near-Term........................................................................................................................................11 Longer-Term ....................................................................................................................................11 Section 1—Introduction and Background................................................................................................................13

1.1 Report Organization .........................................................................................................................13

1.2 Goals of the Report...........................................................................................................................14

1.3 Limitations of the Report .................................................................................................................15

1.4 Project Approach and Scope of Work..............................................................................................15

1.4.1 Project Approach and Research Methods..........................................................................15

1.4.2 Scope of Work ...................................................................................................................16

1.5 City Overview ..................................................................................................................................16

1.5.1 Future Growth and Development.......................................................................................17

1.6 Fire Department Overview...............................................................................................................17

1.6.1 Organization.......................................................................................................................17

1.6.2 Facilities, Response Resources, and Staffing ....................................................................18

1.6.3 Service Capacity ................................................................................................................20 Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis...................................................................................................................21

2.1 Standards of Cover Process Overview.............................................................................................21

2.2 Current Deployment.........................................................................................................................23

2.2.1 Current Response to Incident Types Plan..........................................................................24

2.3 Outcome Expectations......................................................................................................................25

2.4 Community Risk Assessment...........................................................................................................28

2.4.1 Risk Assessment Methodology..........................................................................................28 37 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Page ii Table of Contents

2.4.2 Values at Risk to Be Protected...........................................................................................28

2.4.3 Hazard Identification .........................................................................................................30

2.4.4 Risk Assessment Summary................................................................................................32

2.5 Critical Task Time Measures—What Must Be Done over What Time Frame to Achieve the Stated Outcome Expectation? ..........................................................................................................33

2.5.1 Critical Firefighting Tasks.................................................................................................34

2.5.2 Critical Medical Emergency Tasks....................................................................................36

2.5.3 Critical Task Analysis and Effective Response Force (ERF) Size ....................................37

2.6 Distribution and Concentration Studies—How the Location of First-Due and First Alarm Resources Affects Emergency Incident Outcomes..........................................................................38

2.6.1 Deployment Baselines .......................................................................................................38

2.7 Statistical Analysis...........................................................................................................................42

2.7.1 Demand for Service ...........................................................................................................43

2.7.2 Incident Quantity by Incident and Property Types............................................................46

2.7.3 Simultaneous Incident Activity..........................................................................................48

2.7.4 Unit-Hour Utilization.........................................................................................................50

2.7.5 Operational Performance ...................................................................................................54

2.7.6 Call to First-Unit Arrival ...................................................................................................57

2.7.7 Effective Response Force (ERF) Concentration Measurements .......................................58

2.8 Overall Deployment Evaluation.......................................................................................................59

2.8.1 Deployment Recommendations.........................................................................................60 Section 3—Headquarters Services Adequacy Review.............................................................................................63

3.1 Review Methodology .......................................................................................................................63

3.2 Fire Department Administrative Organization.................................................................................64

3.3 Administration Division...................................................................................................................64

3.3.1 Administration Battalion Chief..........................................................................................65

3.3.2 Community Relations ........................................................................................................65

3.3.3 Emergency Management ...................................................................................................67

3.4 EMS Division...................................................................................................................................68

3.4.1 EMS Division Staff Positions............................................................................................69

3.4.2 Workload Capacity Assessment ........................................................................................74

3.5 Operations Division..........................................................................................................................74

3.6 Fire Prevention Division ..................................................................................................................76

3.6.1 Workload Assessment........................................................................................................79

3.7 Verdugo Fire Communications Center.............................................................................................80

3.8 Fire Department Fleet.......................................................................................................................80

3.8.1 Assessment Methodology ..................................................................................................80

3.8.2 Fleet Overview...................................................................................................................81

3.8.3 Fleet Maintenance..............................................................................................................82

3.8.4 Fleet Replacement..............................................................................................................83

3.8.5 Fleet Assessment................................................................................................................83 38 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Table of Contents Page iii

3.9 Overall Headquarters Services Assessment Summary.....................................................................84 Section 4—Facilities Assessment ...............................................................................................................................85

4.1 Key Findings and Recommendations...............................................................................................85 Table of Tables
Table 1—Fire Department Facilities, Response Resources, and Daily Response Staffing ......................................... 19 Table 2—Standards of Coverage Process Elements.................................................................................................... 22 Table 3—Fire Service Deployment Paradigm............................................................................................................. 23 Table 4—Response Plan by Incident Type.................................................................................................................. 25 Table 5—Overall Risk by Hazard................................................................................................................................ 33 Table 6—First Alarm Residential Fire Critical Tasks (22 Personnel)......................................................................... 35 Table 7—Cardiac Arrest Critical Tasks – 1 Engine or Truck and 1 BLS Ambulance (6 Personnel).......................... 36 Table 8—4:00-Minute and 5:00-Minute Travel Time Coverage Summary ................................................................ 42 Table 9—Incident Type Summary by Year................................................................................................................. 47 Table 10—Incident Type by Property Use (RY 22/23)............................................................................................... 48 Table 11—Simultaneous Incident Activity (RY 22/23) .............................................................................................. 49 Table 12—Unit-Hour Utilization – Engines (RY 22/23)............................................................................................. 51 Table 13—Unit-Hour Utilization – Ladder (RY 22/23) .............................................................................................. 52 Table 14—Unit-Hour Utilization – EMS Apparatus (RY 22/23)................................................................................ 53 Table 15—Call Processing Analysis by Year.............................................................................................................. 54 Table 16—90th Percentile Crew Turnout Performance (Urgent EMS Incidents)........................................................ 55 Table 17—90th Percentile First-Unit Travel Performance ........................................................................................... 56 Table 18—90th Percentile Call to First-Unit Arrival Performance .............................................................................. 57 Table 19—90th Percentile ERF Travel Time Performance .......................................................................................... 58 Table 20—90th Percentile ERF Call-to-Arrival Performance..................................................................................... 58 Table 21—Fire Prevention Activity Summary (2023)................................................................................................. 79 Table 22—Fire Department Fleet................................................................................................................................ 82 Table of Figures
Figure 1—Organizational Chart – Glendale Fire Department..................................................................................... 18 Figure 2—Fractile versus Average Response Time Measurements............................................................................ 26 Figure 3—Building Fire Progression Timeline............................................................................................................ 31 Figure 4—Survival Rate versus Time of Defibrillation............................................................................................... 32 Figure 5—Annual Service Demand by Year............................................................................................................... 43 Figure 6—Annual Service Demand by Incident Type................................................................................................. 44 Figure 7—Service Demand by Month ......................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 8—Service Demand by Day of Week .............................................................................................................. 45 Figure 9—Service Demand by Hour of Day and Year................................................................................................ 45 Figure 10—Service Demand by Station ...................................................................................................................... 46 Figure 11—Simultaneous Incident Activity by Year................................................................................................... 49 Figure 12—Number of Incidents by Station by Year.................................................................................................. 50 39 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Page iv Table of Contents
Figure 13—Travel Fractile Analysis (RY 22/23) ........................................................................................................ 56 Figure 14—Call-to-First-Unit-Arrival Fractile Analysis (RY 22/23).......................................................................... 57 Figure 15—Glendale Fire Department Administrative Support Organization............................................................ 64 Figure 16—Fire Prevention Division Organization..................................................................................................... 77 VOLUME 2 of 4—Community Risk Assessment (Separately Bound) VOLUME 3 of 4—Map Atlas (Separately Bound)
VOLUME 4 of 4—Facilities Assessment (Separately Bound)
40 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Executive Summary Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Glendale, California (City) Fire Department (Department) retained Citygate Associates, LLC (Citygate) to conduct a Fire Services Master Plan to include a Community Risk Assessment (CRA), Standards of Cover (SOC) deployment analysis, an adequacy review of headquarters support services, and a physical assessment of fire stations due to age. Together, these components comprise a Fire Services Master Plan from which the City and Department can manage immediate and longer-term fire service programs.

This report is presented in four volumes. Volume 1—Technical Report (this volume) includes:
this Executive Summary—which contains a summary of Citygate’s analysis and suggested next steps; a Standards of Cover analysis supported by maps and response statistics; a Headquarters Services Adequacy Review; and a Fire Station Physical Conditions Review Summary. Volume 2 includes a detailed Community Risk Assessment. A Map Atlas of deployment coverage measures is provided in Volume 3. The detailed Facilities Assessment of the physical conditions of the City’s fire stations is presented in Volume 4.

Throughout this report, Citygate makes key findings and, where appropriate, specific action item recommendations. Overall, there are 36 key findings and 20 actionable recommendations.

POLICY CHOICES FRAMEWORK
As a reminder to the reader, there are no mandatory federal or state regulations directing the level of fire service staffing, response times, or outcomes. The level of service provided, and any resultant cost, is a local policy choice. The body of regulations related to fire service suggests that, if fire services are provided, they must be provided with the safety of firefighters and the public in mind. Thus, there is often a constructive tension between the desired level of fire services and the level that can be funded, and many communities may not have the level of fire services they desire.

The City’s’ investments in fire services over the past decades serve as its baseline commitment today.

The fundamental policy choices driving the City’s investment in fire services should be derived from two key questions:

1. What outcomes are desired for the emergencies to which the Department responds? Is it the desire to provide emergency medical care in time to lessen the possibility of preventable death and severe disability, and to keep a building fire to the room, building, or block of origin?

2. Should equitable response time coverage be provided to all neighborhoods with similar risks (building types and population density) to protect? 41 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Executive Summary Page 2
Once desired outcomes are identified, fire and emergency medical services (EMS) first responder and ambulance deployment can then be designed to cover the most geography in the fewest travel minutes to meet stated outcome goals.

STANDARDS OF COVER DEPLOYMENT EVALUATION SUMMARY
Citygate finds the Department is adequately organized to accomplish its mission to serve a diverse urban/suburban population across the City. The Department is utilizing best practices where possible and is committed to continuous improvement. Citygate found a caring, committed workforce that is strongly dedicated to anticipating and meeting the risks to be protected. Citygate finds many positive factors regarding how the Department provides quality services within the constraints of fiscal realities.

Fire service deployment, simply summarized, is about the speed and weight of response.

Speed refers to initial response resources—typically engines, ladder trucks, squads, or ambulances—strategically deployed across a jurisdiction within a specified travel time interval to mitigate routine-to-moderate emergencies to achieve desired outcomes.

Weight refers to multiple-unit responses for more serious emergencies such as building fires, multiple-patient medical emergencies, vehicle collisions with extrication required, or technical rescue incidents where enough firefighters must be assembled within a time interval to safely control the emergency and prevent it from escalating into an even more serious event.

Adequate incident response is not defined by the number of physical apparatus responding to a particular emergency; rather, it is defined as the appropriate number of firefighters with the right training and equipment to safely mitigate the emergency. Within the fire service deployment process, positive outcomes are the goal. From that, staffing and travel time can be calculated to determine appropriate fire station spacing (distribution and concentration). Serious medical emergencies and building fires have the most severe time constraints.

Typical desired outcomes in communities with urban/suburban density include:

1. Preventing death and permanent impairment from medical emergencies where possible.

2. Confining building fires to the room or compartment of origin and safely rescuing any occupants unable to self-evacuate.

To achieve these outcomes, the initial (first-due) unit should arrive within 7:30 to 8:30 minutes— before brain death becomes irreversible or an incipient building fire expands beyond the room or 42 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Executive Summary Page 3
compartment of origin—and a full, multiple-unit Effective Response Force (ERF) should arrive within 11:30 to 12:00 minutes with enough personnel to safely perform all the critical tasks necessary to mitigate the emergency and prevent it from becoming even more serious.

The Risk Assessment in Volume 2 details the risks the Department serves to protect in an urban City with a mixed zoning land-use pattern typical of other cities in the Los Angeles County area.

Glendale has a particular fire station location planning challenge due to the two hill ranges inside City limits. Historically, these wildland areas have also generated significant damaging wildfires.

Infill growth intensification of land uses in the southern region of the City will make some areas very urban for population densities and traffic. Going forward, the City should maintain robust firefighting and first responder EMS programs suitable for an urban fire department in staffing, unit types, and facility locations.

Even as state or local fire codes require fire sprinklers in residential dwellings, it will be many more decades before enough homes are built or remodeled with automatic fire sprinklers. The City—for decades to come—will still need both first-due unit and multiple-unit ERF coverage consistent with controlling a building fire to near the room(s) of origin and improving the chance of survival for patients with life-threatening medical emergencies. The Department must also remain prepared for the special risks of wildfire, hazardous materials spills, and technical rescues.

The City is to be commended for its strong mutual aid relationships and for hosting a shared fire dispatcher center—which has a decades-long history of further enhancing mutual and automatic aid coordination.

The Department’s deployment system is strong and has opportunities for improvement to align with the City’s needs as it evolves. The nine fire stations can cover 92.8 percent of the City’s public streets within 5:00 minutes of travel time, which is excellent first-unit coverage to facilitate positive outcomes. There is an increasing demand for emergency incident response, including a rate of three simultaneous emergency incidents of any type 47 percent of the time.

While none of the first responder engine crews are at or over peak-hour demand saturation, five of the nine are very busy hour-over-hour, being 10 percent or less away from maximum saturation.

However, five of the six basic life support (BLS) ambulance units are at or past incident load saturation during daylight hours and ambulance capacity must be increased as soon as possible.

Prior to this study, the City had not adopted outcome-driven response time goals. Doing so would allow the budget process to include measuring effectiveness and adding resources as needed.

HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ADEQUACY REVIEW SUMMARY
Overall, Citygate’s high-level review and assessment finds the Department’s administrative support services to be appropriately organized and adequately staffed (with a few minor exceptions, as follows) to meet the Department’s mission to “protect life and property by providing 43 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Executive Summary Page 4
the highest level of service to the community.” Our assessment found the Department lacking a centralized method to coordinate all Department-level logistics functions including facilities, fleet, safety clothing and equipment, non-fleet equipment, and communications equipment. In addition, the Emergency Manager lacks sufficient administrative support capacity, and the Fire Marshal lacks sufficient capacity to develop and implement community-wide risk reduction strategies and initiatives. Citygate further recommends that all administrative workload capacity measures need to be tracked going forward.

FIRE STATION PHYSICAL CONDITIONS REVIEW SUMMARY (VOLUME 4) Out of nine fire stations, three are more than 50 years old, and three are more than 60 years old.

The stations are dated and showing signs of significant wear and tear despite the best efforts of maintenance staff.

All fire stations with the exception of Station 21 are undersized by modern fire service standards.

Most stations are not compliant with current Building Code, ADA, or NFPA standards, and the stations were built before passage of the California Essential Services Buildings Seismic Safety Act of 1986. Per an independent Property Seismic Inspection and Analysis conducted by Wheeler & Gray Consulting Engineers in 2020, all stations require structural modification to comply with the California Building Code for Seismic Activity.

Further, all fire station sleeping, locker room, and restroom facilities were developed based on historically all-male fire crews and thus lack gender inclusion and privacy.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY THEME
Standards of Cover Deployment Findings
Finding #1: The Department’s current deployment model provides a minimum of 62 response personnel on duty daily including a chief officer for incident command.

Finding #2: The City and Department have not established formal response performance goals consistent with best practice recommendations as published by the Commission on Fire Accreditation International and the National Fire Protection Association. Doing so will help guide future fire crew staffing, apparatus types, and deployment.

Finding #3: The Department has a standard response plan that considers risk and establishes an appropriate initial response for each incident type; each type of call for service receives the combination of engines, trucks, specialty units, and command officers customarily needed to effectively control that type of incident based on Department experience.
44 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Executive Summary Page 5
Finding #4: The Department’s nine fire station locations can be expected to deliver 5:00- minute first-unit travel time coverage to 92.8 percent of the City’s public streets.

Additional fire stations are not needed.

Finding #5: The geographic coverage model shows that a single Battalion Chief / Incident Commander can reach only 49.5 percent of the City within an 8:00-minute travel time based on best practices. A second Battalion Chief located in the northern area of the City would be very beneficial.

Finding #6: Given the street layout around the City’s hills, as part of its overall deployment policy, the Department should consider a 5:00-minute travel time goal to 90 percent of emergency incidents as a best fit to the service area’s topography.

Finding #7: There is a constant, predictable demand for service across all hours of the month, week, and day, with overall annual demand increasing slightly.

Finding #8: Two simultaneous calls for service occur 77 percent of the time, and three occur 47 percent of the time. The highest rate of simultaneous demand occurs in five station areas, all of which are in the south to southwest area of the City. These busiest station areas all adjoin each other, resulting in there not being enough available firefighting resources in the southern part of the City during hours of the day with peak EMS demand.

Finding #9: Unit-Hour Utilization rates for the City’s engines are approaching Citygate’s recommended 30 percent saturation rate over multiple consecutive hours, with five of the six transport ambulances being significantly above 30 percent.

Overall, EMS at peak hours of the day is straining the system significantly and not leaving enough firefighting capacity in the southern area of the City if a serious fire occurs during peak EMS hours.

Finding #10: Call-processing / dispatch performance is better than Citygate’s recommended 1:30-minute best practice goal to facilitate positive outcomes for fire and EMS emergencies.

Finding #11: Crew turnout performance over the three-year period studied was better than the Citygate-recommended, 2:00-minute best practice goal; however, record keeping is not as accurate in distinguishing turnout and travel times due to the current electronic systems in use. The travel times reported may reflect times that are slightly too long as they include some turnout time.

Finding #12: At 5:58 minutes in RY 22/23, 90th percentile first-unit travel time performance to fire and EMS incidents was 1:58 minutes slower than a recommended 4:00- minute best practice goal to facilitate best practice outcomes in urban-density communities.
45 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Executive Summary Page 6
Finding #13: 90th percentile call-to-first-unit-arrival performance is only 5 seconds slower than a Citygate-recommended 7:30-minute goal to facilitate positive outcomes for urban-density communities. This is due to quicker dispatch and turnout times compensating for longer travel times in addition to most of the incidents being reached within a 5:00-minute travel time.

Finding #14: At 17:30 minutes, reported building fire ERF call-to-arrival performance was significantly slower than a Citygate-recommended, 11:30-minute best practice goal to facilitate positive outcomes in urban density communities. However, there were only 53 reported ERF building fire incidents in the three years of data studied, showing that small data sets can be quite volatile. It is also quite challenging in the central and northern areas of the City to gather so many units in a travel time of only 8:00 minutes.

Standards of Cover Deployment Recommendations
Recommendation #1: Adopt Updated Deployment Policies: The City Council should adopt complete performance measures to aid deployment planning and monitor response performance. The measures of time should be designed to deliver outcomes that will prevent death or more serious injury for EMS patients upon arrival when possible and keep small but serious fires from becoming more serious. With this is mind, Citygate recommends the following measures.

1.1 First-Due Unit: To treat pre-hospital medical emergencies and control small fires, the first-due unit should arrive within 8:30 minutes, 90 percent of the time, from receipt of the 9-1-1 call at Verdugo Fire Communications Center to incidents in the City. This equates to a 1:30-minute call-processing / dispatch time, a 2:00-minute crew turnout time, and a 5:00-minute travel time.

1.2 Multiple-Unit Effective Response Force for Serious Emergencies:

To confine building fires near the room or rooms of origin and treat multiple medical patients at a single incident, a multiple-unit ERF of a minimum of 16 personnel, including one Chief Officer, should arrive within 11:30 minutes from the time of call receipt at Verdugo Fire Communications Center at 90 percent or better reliability. This equates to a 1:30-minute call-processing / dispatch time, a 2:00-minute crew turnout time, and an 8:00-minute travel time, respectively.

1.3 Hazardous Material Response: To protect the service area from hazards associated with uncontrolled release of hazardous and toxic 46 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Executive Summary Page 7
materials, the fundamental mission of the Department’s response is to isolate the hazard, deny entry into the hazard zone, and minimize impacts on the community. This can be achieved with a first-due total response time of 8:30 minutes or less to provide initial hazard evaluation and mitigation actions. After the initial evaluation is completed, a determination can be made whether to request additional resources to mitigate the hazard.

1.4 Technical Rescue: To respond to technical rescue emergencies as efficiently and effectively as possible with enough trained personnel to facilitate a successful rescue, a first-due total response time of 8:30 minutes or less is required to evaluate the situation and initiate rescue actions. Additional resources should assemble as needed within a total response time of 11:30 minutes or less to safely complete rescue/extrication and delivery of the victim to the appropriate emergency medical care facility.

Recommendation #2: At a minimum, a sixth BLS ambulance is needed in the southern area of the City during peak demand daylight hours.

Headquarters Programs Adequacy Findings
Finding #15: The Department lacks a centralized support services function to coordinate all Department-level logistics functions including facilities, fleet, safety clothing/equipment, non-fleet equipment, and communications equipment.

Finding #16: The Department lacks redundant capacity for the Community Liaison Officer position, resulting in single points of failure for critical position responsibilities.

Finding #17: The Emergency Manager lacks some required Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and other emergency management training.

Finding #18: The Emergency Manager lacks adequate administrative support capacity to manage state and federal grants, deliver emergency preparedness education, and administer EOC training across all City departments.
47 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Executive Summary Page 8
Finding #19: The Ambulance Operator program is challenged to maintain enough Ambulance Operators to effectively manage work/rest cycles and overtime.

Finding #20: The Department’s EMS program is meeting state and County EMS Agency standards and regulations relative to continuing education and continuous quality improvement.

Finding #21: EMS equipment and supplies are appropriately controlled, accounted for, and compliant with state and County standards and regulations.

Finding #22: Department-wide training is meeting state and federal standards.

Finding #23: The Department lacks a consistent, pre-incident planning data collection/retrieval process.

Finding #24: Department logistical support functions assigned to station personnel lack a standardized records management system for inventory, procurement, and maintenance.

Finding #25: In 2023, not all high-risk occupancies with fire and life safety deficiencies identified on the initial inspection were re-inspected for completion of required corrective actions.

Finding #26: The Fire Marshal is heavily engaged in daily tasks with little capacity to develop and implement community-wide risk reduction strategies.

Finding #27: There is currently no inspection program for existing business occupancies.

Finding #28: The Department’s automotive fleet is in good overall condition with reliable serviceability and adequate reserve capacity to maintain operational response capacity.

Finding #29: The City’s fire apparatus replacement schedule conforms with typical fire service recommended guidelines; however, the schedule is based predominantly on vehicle age only.

Headquarters Programs Adequacy Recommendations
Recommendation #4: Consider expanding the Administration Battalion Chief’s role to include coordination of all Department-level logistics functions.

Recommendation #5: Consider cross-training another Department employee to provide backup/redundancy of critical responsibilities managed by the Community Liaison Officer.
48 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Executive Summary Page 9
Recommendation #6: The Department should prioritize EOC Director, related EOC management, and federal Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) training for the Emergency Manager.

Recommendation #7: Consider allocating additional staff support capacity to assist with Emergency Management grant administration and training.

Recommendation #8: The Department should consider incentives to improve Ambulance Operator recruitment and retention.

Recommendation #9: Develop a standardized format and secure location for records related to support functions assigned to the Operations Division.

Recommendation #10: Ensure deficiencies identified on initial inspections are appropriately tracked and follow-up inspections are conducted to ensure required corrective action(s) have been completed.

Recommendation #11: Consider adding an Assistant/Deputy Fire Marshal position to coordinate all inspections.

Recommendation #12: Consider additional Inspector position(s) as needed to ensure reinspection of all initial inspections with deficiencies. Alternatively, consider assigning simpler re-inspections and/or vegetation inspections to the Operations Division.

Recommendation #13: The City’s Fleet Services Division should consider multiple factors in determining replacement of heavy-duty fire apparatus including age, mileage, aggregate cost of repairs, aggregate out-of-service time, and current operational reliability.

Fire Station Facilities Physical Conditions Findings
Finding #30: Out of nine fire stations, three are more than 50 years old and three are more than 60 years old. The stations are dated and showing signs of significant wear and tear despite the best efforts of maintenance staff.

Finding #31: All City fire stations, with the exception of Station 21, are undersized by modern fire service standards.

Finding #32: Most of the City’s fire stations are not compliant with current Building Code, ADA, or NFPA standards, and were built before the Essential Services Buildings Seismic Safety Act of 1986.

Finding #33: All fire station sleeping, locker room, and restroom facilities were developed based on historically all-male fire crews and lack gender inclusion and privacy. 49 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Executive Summary Page 10
Finding #34: All fire stations need structural modification to comply with the California Building Code for Seismic Activity—per an independent Property Seismic Inspection and Analysis conducted in 2020 by Wheeler & Gray Consulting Engineers.

Finding #35: Plymovent diesel truck exhaust systems are not functional in all apparatus bays of multiple stations due to incomplete conversion from pneumatic to magnetic release latches to the apparatus.

Finding #36: The training tower and related props need some major repairs and/or updating.

Fire Station Facilities Physical Conditions Recommendations Recommendation #14: The City must prioritize fire stations for substantial remodels or replacement. Citygate recommends the three following reconstruction phases. As execution of these phases will require several years, in each phase and order, some stations will require minor remodeling to “buy time” for the Department’s facility needs.

Phase 1 Rebuild stations 29, 28 and 26.

Phase 2 Rebuild stations 23, 24 and 27.

Phase 3 Update and remodel (where needed) stations 21, 22, and 25.

Recommendation #15: Select and hire a veteran fire station design firm to prepare building and site plans and provide actual design-based construction cost estimates.

Recommendation #16: City finance staff can explore multi-year financing strategies (e.g., General Obligation Bonds, Certificates of Participation, and LeaseBack arrangements, etc.) so that adequate consideration is given to their possible benefits or consequences.

Recommendation #17: Replacement and remodeling must include solutions for finding adequate space for physical fitness in areas away from listed carcinogens produced by fire apparatus.

Recommendation #18: Fire station living spaces should be designed to accommodate personnel of all gender identities.

Recommendation #19: Building components throughout the City’s fire stations need to be upgraded with new equipment such as station alerting, overhead doors, traffic warning signal lights at doors or close by, and high-efficiency HVAC that provides comfortable work and living spaces. Remove carpet and replace with polished concrete where applicable. 50 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Executive Summary Page 11
Recommendation #20: Coordinate with the City Facilities Management Division to affect needed repairs/updating of the training tower and related training props.

NEXT STEPS
Near-Term
 Review and absorb the content, findings, and recommendations of this report.  Adopt response performance measures via City Council policy.  Consider increasing EMS system capacity by adding a sixth ambulance and a paramedic squad in the City’s core area.

Longer-Term
 Consider adding the identified headquarters positions in administration, emergency management, and fire prevention.
 Identify funding for design, capital repair, and replacement of aging fire stations.  Monitor response performance against adopted goals.
51 of 715
This page was intentionally left blank
52 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 1—Introduction and Background Page 13
SECTION 1—INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
The City of Glendale, California (City) Fire Department (Department) retained Citygate Associates, LLC (Citygate) to conduct a Fire Services Master Plan to include a Community Risk Assessment (CRA), Standards of Cover (SOC) deployment analysis, an adequacy review of headquarters support services, and a physical assessment of fire stations due to age. Together, these components comprise a Fire Services Master Plan from which the City and Department can manage immediate and longer-term fire service programs.

This review and assessment is based on nationally recognized guidelines and best practices, federal and state mandates, and relevant local and regional operating procedures. This assessment is intended to provide recommendations relative to the organization and deployment of fire suppression operations, emergency medical operations, and special operations for consideration by Department and City leadership as a template for future analysis and long-term financial and deployment planning.

Citygate’s work plan for this assessment reflects its Project Team members’ cumulative experience in fire administration and deployment. Citygate utilizes various National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) and Insurance Services Office (ISO) publications as best practice guidelines, along with the self-assessment criteria of the Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI). This systems-based approach uses local risks and demographics to determine the level of protection best fitting the City’s needs.

1.1 REPORT ORGANIZATION
This report is organized into the following volumes and sections.

Volume 1—Technical Report
Executive Summary
A summary of Citygate’s analysis of the Department’s current services and significant challenges, including key findings and recommendations.

Section 1—Introduction and Background
An introduction to the study and background information about the City and Department.

Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis
An overview of the SOC process and detailed analysis of the Department’s existing deployment model, emergency outcome expectations, community risk assessment summary, staffing needed 53 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 14 ends

for different emergencies (critical tasks), geographical distribution and concentration effectiveness of fire crew locations, reliability and historical response measures effectiveness, and a concluding overall deployment evaluation.

Section 3—Headquarters Services Assessment
A review and evaluation of the Department’s administrative support functions, facilities, and response apparatus for regulatory compliance and capacity, including configuration and lines of authority.

Section 4—Facilities Assessment
This section presents a summary of key themes and recommendations based on Citygate’s on-site assessment of Department fire stations, review of facility records, and interviews of key members of staff.

Volume 2—Community Risk Assessment
A comprehensive assessment of the values at risk to be protected within the community and evaluation of the fire and non-fire hazards likely to impact the service area as related to services provided by the Department.

Volume 3—Map Atlas
A Map Atlas of deployment coverage measures and scenarios as described in 2.6.1 of this report.

Volume 4—Facilities Assessment
A detailed analysis of the physical condition of the City’s fire stations.

1.2 GOALS OF THE REPORT
This report cites findings and makes recommendations, as appropriate, related to each finding.

Throughout the report, findings and recommendations are sequentially numbered.

This document provides technical information about how fire services are provided and legally regulated, and how the Department is currently operating. This information is presented in the form of recommendations and policy choices for the City and Department to consider. 54 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 1—Introduction and Background Page 15
The result is a solid technical foundation upon which to understand the advantages and disadvantages of the choices facing City leadership regarding the best way to provide services and, more specifically, at what level of desired outcome and expense.

1.3 LIMITATIONS OF THE REPORT
There are no federal or state regulations mandating the level of fire service staffing, response performance, or outcomes. Through the public policy process, each community is expected to understand local fire and non-fire risks and its ability to pay for fire services, and then choose its level of services accordingly. If fire services are provided at all, federal and state regulations specify how to safely provide them, both for the public and the personnel providing services.

While this report and technical explanation can provide a framework for the discussion of Department services, neither this report nor the Citygate team can make final decisions or cost out every possible alternative in detail. Once final policy choices receive City Council direction, City staff can conduct any final cost and fiscal analyses as typically completed in the City’s normal operating and capital budget preparation cycle.

1.4 PROJECT APPROACH AND SCOPE OF WORK

1.4.1 Project Approach and Research Methods
Citygate utilized multiple sources to gather, understand, and model information about the City and Department. Citygate requested a large amount of relevant background data and information to better understand current costs, service levels, history of service level decisions, and other prior studies.

In virtual and on-site meetings, Citygate conducted focused interviews of the Department’s project team members and other key project stakeholders. Citygate reviewed demographic information about the City, including the potential for future growth and development. Citygate also obtained map and response data from which to model current and projected fire service deployment, with the goal to identify the location(s) of stations and the number of personnel required to best serve the Department’s service area as it currently exists and facilitate future deployment planning.

Once Citygate gained an understanding of the Department’s service area and its fire and non-fire risks, Citygate developed a model of fire services that was tested against prior response data to ensure an appropriate fit. Citygate also considered future growth and service demand and evaluated potential alternative emergency service delivery models. Subsequently, Citygate developed a potential approach to address both current and longer-range needs. The result is a framework for enhancing Department services while meeting reasonable community expectations and fiscal realities.
55 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 16 ends

1.4.2 Scope of Work
Citygate’s scope of work for this assessment included:
 Reviewing data and information provided by the Department and City and conducting listening sessions with key project stakeholders.  Conducting a comprehensive CRA in conformance with NFPA 1300 – Standard on Community Risk Assessment and Community Risk Reduction Plan Development (2020 edition).
 Providing a deployment Standards of Cover (SOC) analysis consistent with guidelines by the CFAI, the NFPA, the International Code Council (ICC), the ISO, Cal/OSHA, federal and state laws, and recognized industry best practices. This will include an assessment of the Department’s incident history records, the deployment plan’s historic reliability, response effectiveness, distribution, and concentration analysis.
 Assessing the Department’s EMS, wildland firefighting, technical rescue, and specialty deployment to identify optimal resource deployment locations and hours of service to best serve the City’s evolving demographics and service demand needs.
 Assessing the staffing and technical adequacy of the Department’s headquarters programs, including overall Department administration, command, training, EMS quality assurance, and fire prevention programs.
 Assessing Department facilities, to include an in-person visit of all fire stations, the training center, and headquarters offices using NFPA 1500 (2021 edition) checklist.  Preparing a comprehensive report that includes analysis-based findings and recommendations, including an executive summary presentation of the written report for City stakeholders.

1.5 CITY OVERVIEW
Located approximately 10 miles north of downtown Los Angeles in the San Fernando Valley on the southern edge of the Verdugo Mountains, the City of Glendale is the fourth largest city in Los Angeles County. Incorporated as a charter city in 1906, the City encompasses 30.6 square miles and had a 2023 population of nearly 200,000 residents.
1 The City has a robust economy with
significant employment and retail sales activity, including a large industrial business center (Grand 1 Source: Esri Community Profile.
56 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 1—Introduction and Background Page 17
Central Business Centre) on the site of a former airport which includes major tenants such as the Disney Company and DreamWorks Animation.

The City provides a full range of urban municipal services including community development, community services and parks, fire, water and power, economic development, library, arts and culture, police, and public works services.

The City operates under a Council-Manager form of government, with the Mayor and four council members elected at large to staggered four-year terms. The City’s 2023 assessed valuation was $40.2 billion, and its adopted FY 2023/24 Citywide budget is $1.17 billion.

1.5.1 Future Growth and Development
Prior to the 2010 Census, the City’s Community Development department estimated the City’s population would increase to nearly 222,000 by 2030. However, the City’s population declined 1.7 percent from 2000–20102and continues to decline at a rate of approximately 1.9 percent annually.3

1.6 FIRE DEPARTMENT OVERVIEW

1.6.1 Organization
The Department, operating under authority of the City Charter, provides fire suppression, Basic Life Support (BLS) and Advanced Life Support (ALS) pre-hospital emergency medical, rescue, hazardous materials response, fire prevention, disaster preparedness / emergency management, community outreach, regional dispatch, and related fire and life safety services with a staff of 213 personnel,
4 organized as shown in the following figure.
2 Source: https://www.glendaleca.gov/our-city/demographics/census-information 3 Source: World Population Review, Glendale California Population, 2024. 4 Source: City of Glendale Adopted 2023-24 budget, page 393 57 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 18 ends

Figure 1—Organizational Chart – Glendale Fire Department

1.6.2 Facilities, Response Resources, and Staffing
The Department provides services with 62 response personnel on duty daily from nine fire stations, as summarized in the following table.

Fire
Chief
EMS
Battalion
Chief
Medical
Director
EMS
Captain
EMS
Captain
Ambulance
Operator
Coordinator
Ambulance
Operators
Nurse
Educator
Pub. Safety
Bus. Asst.

Deputy
Chief
Operations
Battalion
Chief
A Shift
Staff
Captain
Sta. 21
Sta. 22
Sta. 23
Sta. 24
Sta. 25
Sta. 26
Sta. 27
Sta. 28
Sta. 29
Battalion
Chief
B Shift
Staff
Captain
Sta. 21
Sta. 22
Sta. 23
Sta. 24
Sta. 25
Sta. 26
Sta. 27
Sta. 28
Sta. 29
Battalion
Chief
C Shift
Staff
Captain
Sta. 21
Sta. 22
Sta. 23
Sta. 24
Sta. 25
Sta. 26
Sta. 27
Sta. 28
Sta. 29
Battalion
Chief
Training
Training
Captain
(2)
Battalion
Chief
Admin.

Fire
Marshal
Principal Fire
Envir. Safety
Specialist
Life Safety
Unit
Sr. Fire
Envir.

Specialist
Fire Envir.

Safety
Specialist
Fire Prev.

Inspector
(2)
Hourly Worker
Engineering
Unit
Sr. Fire
Envir.

Specialist
Fire Envir.

Safety
Specialist
Fire
Prevention
Inspector
Hourly Worker
Public Safety
Business
Asst.

Hourly Worker
Principal Fire
Envir. Safety
Specialist
Fire Safety
Envir.

Specialist (3)
Deputy
Director
Fire Admin.

Battalion Chief
Verdugo
Communications
Business
Administrator
Communications
Center Manager
Dispatch
Supervisor
Dispatchers
Dispatch
Supervisor
Dispatchers
Dispatch
Supervisor
Dispatchers
Dispatch
Supervisor
Dispatchers
Community
Relations
Officer
Emergency
Manager
58 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 1—Introduction and Background Page 19
Table 1—Fire Department Facilities, Response Resources, and Daily Response Staffing Station
Number Address Assigned Response Resources
Minimum
Daily
Staffing
21 421 Oak St.

Engine 21
Truck 21
BLS 21
Battalion Chief/Staff Captain
Engine 321
OES Water Tender 11
4 4
2 2
**
**
22 1201 S. Glendale Ave.

Engine 22
BLS 22
USAR 22
Engine 629
4 2
**
**
23 3303 E. Chevy Chase Dr. Engine 23 4
24 1734 Canada Blvd. Engine 24
Hazmat 24
4 **
25 353 N. Chevy Chase Dr.

Engine 25
BLS 25
OES Engine 1317
4 2
**
26 1145 N. Brand Blvd.

Engine 26
Truck 26
BLS 26
4 4
2 27 1127 Western Ave.

Engine 27
BLS 27
4 2***
28 4410 New York Ave.

Engine 28
Air Utility 28
4 **
29 2465 Honolulu Ave.

Engine 29
Truck 29
BLS 29
OES 1317
Water Tender 29
4 4
2 **
**
Total Minimum Daily Staffing 62
** Cross-staffed as needed depending on incident type
*** Staffed 12 hours per day from 7:00 am – 7:00 pm
Finding #1: The Department’s current deployment model provides a minimum of 62 response personnel on duty daily including a chief officer for incident command.
59 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 20 ends

1.6.3 Service Capacity
Service capacity refers to the Department’s available response force; the size, type, and condition of its response fleet and any specialized equipment; core and specialized performance capabilities and competencies; resource distribution and concentration; availability of automatic or mutual aid; and any other agency-specific factors influencing its ability to meet current and prospective future service demand relative to the risks to be protected.

Service capacity for fire and non-fire risk consists of 62 response personnel on duty daily staffing nine engines, three aerial ladder trucks, six BLS ambulances, plus one Battalion Chief with a staff Captain, all operating from the Department’s nine fire stations. The Department also has an Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) response apparatus, a hazardous materials technical response apparatus, three wildland engines, two water tenders, and an air/lighting unit that can be staffed as needed by on-duty or call-back personnel depending on incident type.

All response personnel are trained to either the emergency medical technician (EMT) level, capable of providing BLS pre-hospital emergency medical care, or the EMT-P (Paramedic) level, capable of providing ALS pre-hospital emergency medical care. All engines, and Truck 26 are staffed with at least two paramedics. The BLS transport ambulances are staffed with two nonsworn EMTs.

All response personnel are further trained to the Confined Space Awareness and Low-Angle Rope Rescue Operations levels. Beginning February 2024, Station 21 will be staffed daily with four personnel trained to the Trench Rescue Technician level, Confined Space Technician level, lowangle rope rescue, Swiftwater Rescue Technician, and Structural Collapse Specialist 2 levels to cross-staff USAR 21 from Truck 21 as needed.

The Department has automatic mutual aid agreements with the cities of Los Angeles, Burbank, and Pasadena, as well as with the Los Angeles County Fire Department. 60 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 21
SECTION 2—STANDARDS OF COVER ANALYSIS
This section provides a detailed review of the Department’s current ability to deploy and mitigate emergency hazards within its service area. The response analysis uses prior response statistics and geographic mapping to help the Department and the community visualize the capabilities and limitations of the current response system.

2.1 STANDARDS OF COVER PROCESS OVERVIEW
The core methodology used by Citygate in the scope of its deployment analysis work is Standards of Cover, fifth and sixth editions, which is a systems-based approach to fire department deployment published by the CFAI. This approach uses local risk and demographics to determine the level of protection best fitting a community’s needs.

The SOC method evaluates deployment as part of a fire agency’s self-assessment process. This approach uses risk and community expectations on outcomes to help elected officials make informed decisions regarding fire and EMS first responder deployment levels. Citygate has adopted this methodology as a comprehensive tool to evaluate fire station locations. Depending on the needs of the assessment, the depth of the components may vary.

Such a systems-based approach to deployment, rather than a one-size-fits-all prescriptive formula, allows for local determination. In this comprehensive approach, each agency can match local needs (risks and expectations) with the costs of various levels of service.

In an informed public policy debate, a governing board “purchases” the fire and emergency medical service levels the community needs and can afford.

While working with multiple components to conduct a deployment analysis is admittedly more work, it yields a much better result than using only a singular component. For instance, if only travel time is considered, and frequency of multiple calls is not, the analysis could miss overworked companies. If a risk assessment for deployment is not considered, and deployment is based solely on travel time, a community (city, district, county) could under-deploy to incidents.

The following table describes the eight elements of the SOC process. 61 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 22 ends

Table 2—Standards of Coverage Process Elements
SOC Element Description
1 Existing Deployment Describing the current deployment model and response performance goals the agency has in place today.
2 Community Outcome
Expectations
Reviewing the expectations of the community for responses to emergencies.
3 Community Risk Assessment
Identifying and quantifying the assets at risk to fire and nonfire hazards likely to impact the community (see Volume 2— Community Risk Assessment.)
4 Critical Task Analysis Reviewing the tasks that must be performed and the personnel required to deliver the stated outcome expectation. 5 Distribution Analysis Reviewing the spacing of first-due response resources (typically engines) to control routine emergencies.
6 Concentration Analysis
Reviewing the spacing of fire stations so that more complex emergencies can receive sufficient resources and personnel in a timely manner (First Alarm Assignment or ERF).
7 Reliability and Historical
Response Effectiveness Analysis
Using prior response statistics to determine the percent of compliance the existing system delivers.
8 Overall Evaluation Proposing Standard of Coverage statements by risk type, as necessary.

Source: CFAI, Standards of Cover, Fifth Edition
Simply summarized, fire service deployment is about the speed and weight of the response.

Speed refers to initial response (first-due), all-risk intervention resources (e.g. engines, ladder trucks, rescues, ambulances) strategically deployed across a jurisdiction for response to emergencies within a specified time interval to control routine-to-moderate emergencies to achieve desired outcomes and prevent the incident from escalating to greater size or severity.

Weight refers to multiple-unit responses for more serious emergencies, such as building fires, multiple-patient medical emergencies, vehicle collisions with extrication required, or technical rescue incidents where enough firefighters must be assembled within a time interval to safely control the emergency and prevent it from escalating into a more serious event.

The following table illustrates this deployment paradigm. 62 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 23
Table 3—Fire Service Deployment Paradigm
Element Description Purpose
Speed of Response
Travel time of first-due, all-risk
intervention units strategically located
across a jurisdiction.

Controlling routine-to-moderate
emergencies without the incident
escalating in size or complexity.

Weight of Response
Number of firefighters in a multipleunit response for serious emergencies.

Assembling enough firefighters within
a reasonable time frame to safely
control a more complex emergency
without escalation.

Thus, smaller fires and less complex emergencies require a single-unit or two-unit response (fully staffed engine or specialty resource) within a relatively short response time. Larger or more complex incidents require more units and personnel to control. In either case, if the crews arrive too late or the total number of personnel is too few for the emergency, they are drawn into an escalating and more dangerous situation. The science of fire crew deployment is to spread crews out across a community or jurisdiction for quick response to keep emergencies small and ensure positive outcomes without spreading resources so far apart that they cannot assemble quickly enough to effectively control more serious emergencies.

2.2 CURRENT DEPLOYMENT
Nationally recognized standards and best practices suggest using several incremental measurements to define response time. Ideally, the clock starts when the Verdugo Fire
Communications Center (VFCC) dispatcher receives the
emergency call. Response time increments include 9-1-1 call processing / dispatch, crew response unit boarding
(commonly called crew turnout), and actual driving (travel) time. Response performance best practices include specific time goals for each of these three increments which, combined, equal total response time, or call-to-arrival time, which is a fire agency’s true customer service metric.

Response performance goals should also address response performance to other risks within the service area, such as hazardous materials and technical rescue, as recommended by the CFAI.

While the Department has not adopted a formal response time goal, it has a service-level history that can be documented in response times as well as number of response units and personnel—all of which were analyzed for this study.

Currently, NFPA Standard 1710, a recommended deployment standard for career fire departments in urban/suburban areas, recommends the initial (first-due) intervention unit arrival within a SOC ELEMENT 1 OF 8

EXISTING DEPLOYMENT

POLICIES
63 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 24 ends

4:00-minute travel time and arrival of all resources comprising a multiple-unit First Alarm within an 8:00-minute travel time, all at 90 percent or better reliability.5 If the travel time measures recommended by the NFPA and Citygate are added to dispatch processing and crew turnout times recommended by Citygate and best practices, then a realistic first-unit total response time goal (at 90 percent reliability) for urban response zones is 7:30 to 8:30 minutes from Verdugo Fire Communications Center (VFCC) receiving the call. This includes 1:30 minutes for call processing / dispatch, 2:00 minutes for crew turnout, and 4:00 to 5:00 minutes for travel.

2.2.1 Current Response to Incident Types Plan
The Department is an all-risk fire agency providing the people and community it protects with services that include fire suppression, pre-hospital BLS and ALS emergency medical, ground ambulance transportation, rescue, and technical hazardous material response. Given these risks, the Department utilizes a tiered response plan calling for different types and numbers of resources depending on incident/risk type. The VFCC CAD system selects and dispatches the most appropriate resource types pursuant to the Department’s response plan, as shown in the following table.
5 Source: NFPA 1710 – Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments (2020 Edition). 64 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 25
Table 4—Response Plan by Incident Type
Incident Type Resources Dispatched Total
Personnel
EMS 1 Engine/Truck, 1 BLS 6
Traffic Collision – Freeway 1 Engine, 1 Truck, 1 BLS, 1 BC 12 Traffic Collision – Surface Streets 1 Engine 4
Vehicle Fire 1 Engine 4
Building Fire 3 Engines, 2 Trucks, 1 ALS, 1 BC 24
Brush Fire 5 Engines, 1 BLS, 1 BC, 1 Helicopter 26
Water Rescue 3 Engines, 1 USAR, 1 BLS, 1 BC, 1 Helicopter 22 Hazardous Material Release 2 Engine, 1 Truck, 1 Hazmat, 1 ALS, 1 Air Utility, 1 BC 24 Technical Rescue 1 Engine, 1 Truck, 1 USAR, 1 BLS, 1 BC 16 Finding #3: The Department has a standard response plan that considers risk and establishes an appropriate initial response for each incident type; each type of call for service receives the combination of engines, trucks, specialty units, and command officers customarily needed to effectively control that type of incident based on Department experience.

2.3 OUTCOME EXPECTATIONS
The SOC process begins by reviewing existing emergency
services outcome expectations. This includes determining for what purpose the response system exists and whether the governing body has adopted any response performance
measures. If it has, the time measures used must be
understood and sound data must be available to evaluate performance.

Currently, national best practice is to measure percent completion of a goal (e.g., 90 percent of responses) instead of an average measure. Mathematically, this is called a fractile measure.6 Measuring the average only identifies the central or middle point of response time performance 6 A fractile is that point below which a stated fraction of the values lie. The fraction is often given in percent; the term percentile may then be used.

SOC ELEMENT 2 OF 8

COMMUNITY OUTCOME

EXPECTATIONS
65 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 26 ends

for all calls for service in the data set. Using an average makes it impossible to know how many incidents had response times that were far above or just above the average.

For example, the following figure shows response times for a fictitious fire department. This small agency receives 20 calls for service each month, and each response time has been plotted on the following graph from shortest response time to longest response time.

The graph shows that the average response time is 8.7 minutes. However, the average response time fails to properly account for four calls for service with response times far exceeding a threshold in which positive outcomes could be expected. In fact, it is evident in that 20 percent of responses are far too slow and that this jurisdiction has a potential life-threatening service delivery problem. Average response time as a measurement tool for fire services is simply not sufficient.

This is a significant issue in larger cities if hundreds or thousands of calls are answered far beyond the average point.

By using the fractile measurement with 90 percent of responses in mind, this small example jurisdiction has a response time of 18:00 minutes, 90 percent of the time. This fractile measurement is far more accurate at reflecting the service delivery situation of this small, fictitious agency.

Figure 2—Fractile versus Average Response Time Measurements 66 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 27
More importantly, within the SOC process, positive outcomes are the goal. From that goal, crew size and response time can be calculated to allow appropriate fire station spacing (distribution and concentration). Emergency medical incidents include situations with the most severe time constraints. The human brain can only survive 4:00 to 6:00 minutes without oxygen. Cardiac arrests and other events can cause oxygen deprivation to the brain. While cardiac arrests make up a small percentage of emergencies, drowning, choking, trauma constrictions, or other similar events have the same effect. In a building fire, a small incipient fire can grow to involve the entire room in a 3:00 to 5:00-minute time frame. If fire service response is to achieve positive outcomes in severe emergency medical situations and incipient fire situations, all responding crews must arrive, assess the situation, and deploy effective measures before brain death occurs or the fire spreads beyond the room of origin.

Thus, from the time the 9-1-1 call is received by the dispatch center, an effective deployment system is beginning to manage the problem within a 7:00 to 8:00-minute total response time. This is right at the point that brain death is becoming irreversible, and the fire has grown to the point of leaving the room of origin and becoming very serious. Thus, the City needs a first-due response goal that is within a range to give hope for a positive outcome.

It is important to note that the fire or medical emergency continues to deteriorate from the time of inception, not from the time the fire engine starts to drive the response route.

Ideally, the emergency is noticed immediately, and the 9-1-1 system is activated promptly. In the best of circumstances, this step of awareness—calling 9-1-1 and giving the dispatcher accurate information—takes 1:00 minute. Crew notification and travel time take additional minutes. Upon arrival, the crew must approach the injured party or emergency, assess the situation, and appropriately deploy its skills and tools. Even in easy-to-access situations, this step can take 2:00 minutes or more. This time frame may be increased considerably due to long driveways, apartment buildings with limited access, multiple-story buildings or office complexes, or shopping centers.

Unfortunately, there are times when the emergency has become too severe, even before the 9-1-1 notification or fire department response, for the responding crew to reverse; however, when an appropriate response time policy is combined with a well-designed deployment system, then only anomalies like bad weather, poor traffic conditions, or multiple emergencies slow down the response system. Consequently, a properly designed system will give the public hope of a positive outcome for their tax dollar expenditure.

For this report, total response time is the sum of 9‑1‑1 call processing / dispatch, crew turnout, and travel time, which is consistent with CFAI and NFPA best practice recommendations. 67 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 28 ends

2.4 COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT
The third element of the SOC process is a community risk assessment. Within the context of an SOC study, the
objectives of a community risk assessment are to:
 Identify the values at risk to be protected
within the community or service area.
 Identify the specific hazards with the potential to adversely impact the community or service area.
 Quantify the overall risk associated with each hazard.  Establish a foundation for current/future deployment decisions and riskreduction/hazard mitigation planning and evaluation.

2.4.1 Risk Assessment Methodology
The methodology employed by Citygate to assess community risks as an integral element of an SOC study incorporates the following elements:
 Identification of geographic planning sub-zones (risk planning zones) appropriate to the community or jurisdiction.
 Identification and quantification, to the extent data is available, of the values at risk to various hazards within the community or service area.  Identification of the fire and non-fire hazards likely to impact the community or service area relative to services provided by the fire agency.  Determination of the probability of occurrence for each identified hazard based on prior occurrences.
 Determination of the likely impact severity for each hazard by planning zone.  Determination of overall risk by hazard considering probability of occurrence and likely impact severity.

2.4.2 Values at Risk to Be Protected
Broadly defined, values at risk are those tangibles of significant importance or value to the community or jurisdiction that are potentially at risk of harm or damage from a hazard occurrence.

Values at risk typically include people, critical facilities/infrastructure, buildings, and key economic, cultural, historic, and natural resources.

SOC ELEMENT 3 OF 8

COMMUNITY RISK

ASSESSMENT
68 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 29
People
Residents, employees, visitors, and travelers through a community or jurisdiction are vulnerable to harm from a hazard occurrence. Particularly vulnerable are specific at-risk populations, including those unable to care for themselves or self-evacuate in the event of an emergency. Key demographic data for the Department’s combined service area includes:
 Nearly 29 percent of the population is under 10 years or over 65 years of age.  The City’s population is predominantly White Alone (63 percent), followed by Asian Alone (16 percent), other / two or more races (10 percent), and Black Alone (2 percent). 19 percent of the population is of Hispanic background or ethnicity.  Of the population over 24 years of age, 90 percent has completed high school or equivalency.
 Of the population over 24 years of age, 45 percent has an undergraduate, graduate, or professional degree.
 Of the population 15 years of age or older, nearly 95 percent is in the workforce; of those, just over 5 percent are unemployed.
 Median household income is nearly $80,000.
 The population below the federal poverty level is slightly more than 13 percent.  Only 8.5 percent of the population under age 65 does not have health insurance coverage.

Critical Infrastructure / Key Resources
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security defines critical infrastructure and key resources (CIKR) as those physical assets essential to the public health and safety, economic vitality, and resilience of a community, such as lifeline utilities infrastructure, telecommunications infrastructure, essential government services facilities, public safety facilities, schools, hospitals, airports, etc.

The Department has identified 97 critical facilities as identified in Volume 2.

A hazard occurrence with significant impact severity affecting one or more of these facilities would likely adversely impact critical public or community services.

Buildings
The service area includes more than 80,500 residential dwelling units and nearly 13,000 businesses, including offices, professional services, retail sales, restaurants/bars, motels, churches, 69 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 30 ends

schools, government facilities, healthcare facilities, and other business types as described in Volume 2.

2.4.3 Hazard Identification
Citygate utilizes prior risk studies where available, fire and non-fire hazards as identified by the CFAI, and agency/jurisdiction-specific data and information to identify the hazards to be evaluated for this study.

Following an evaluation of the hazards identified in the 2019 City of Glendale Local Hazard Mitigation Plan and the fire and non-fire hazards identified by the CFAI as they relate to services provided by the Department, Citygate evaluated the following six hazards for this assessment:

1. Building fire

2. Vegetation/wildland fire

3. Medical emergency

4. Hazardous material release/spill

5. Technical rescue

6. Marine incident
Because building fires and medical emergencies have the most severe time constraints if positive outcomes are to be achieved, the following is a brief overview of building fire and medical emergency risk. Volume 2 contains the full risk assessment for all seven hazards.

Building Fire Risk
One of the primary hazards in any community is building fire. Building fire risk factors include building density, size, age, occupancy, and construction materials and methods, as well as the number of stories, the required fire flow, the proximity to other buildings, built-in fire protection/alarm systems, an available fire suppression water supply, building fire service capacity, fire suppression resource deployment (distribution/concentration), staffing, and response time.

The following figure illustrates the building fire progression timeline and shows that flashover, which is the point at which the entire room erupts into fire after all the combustible objects in that room reach their ignition temperature, can occur as early as 3:00 to 5:00 minutes from the initial ignition. Human survival in a room after flashover is extremely improbable. 70 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 31
Figure 3—Building Fire Progression Timeline
Source: http://www.firesprinklerassoc.org
Medical Emergency Risk
Fire agency service demand in most jurisdictions is predominantly for medical emergencies. The following figure illustrates the reduced survivability of a cardiac arrest victim as time to defibrillation increases.
71 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 32 ends

Figure 4—Survival Rate versus Time of Defibrillation
The Department provides BLS and ALS pre-hospital emergency medical services with all response personnel trained to either the EMT or EMT-P level.

2.4.4 Risk Assessment Summary
The Department’s overall risk for six hazards related to emergency services provided by the Department range from Low to High, as summarized in the following table. See Volume 2 for the full risk assessment.
72 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 33
Table 5—Overall Risk by Hazard
Hazard
Planning Zone
Station
21 Station
22 Station
23 Station
24 Station
25 Station
26 Station
27 Station
28 Station
29 Building Fire Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Vegetation/Wildland Fire Low Low High High High High High High High Medical Emergency Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Hazardous Material Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Technical Rescue Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Marine Incident Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low Low

2.5 CRITICAL TASK TIME MEASURES—WHAT MUST BE DONE OVER WHAT TIME FRAME TO ACHIEVE THE STATED OUTCOME EXPECTATION?
SOC studies use critical task information to determine the number of firefighters needed within a time frame to achieve desired objectives on fire and emergency medical incidents.

The following tables illustrate critical tasks typical of building fire and medical emergency incidents, including the minimum number of personnel required to complete each
task. These tables are composites from Citygate clients in urban departments like Glendale, with units staffed with three or four personnel per engine or ladder truck, and two per rescue. It is important to understand the following relative to these tables:
 It can take a considerable amount of time after a task is ordered by command to complete the task and achieve the desired outcome.
 Task completion time is usually a function of the number of personnel that are simultaneously available. The fewer firefighters available, the longer some tasks will take to complete. Conversely, with more firefighters available, some tasks are completed concurrently.
 Some tasks must be conducted by a minimum of two firefighters to comply with safety regulations. For example, two firefighters are required to search a smokefilled room for a victim.

SOC ELEMENT 4 OF 8

CRITICAL TASK TIME
STUDY
73 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 34 ends

2.5.1 Critical Firefighting Tasks
The following table illustrates the critical tasks required to control a typical single-family dwelling fire with seven response units, including three engines, two ladder trucks, and one chief officer with aide for a total Effective Response Force (ERF) of 22 personnel. These tasks are taken from typical fire departments’ operational procedures, which are consistent with the customary findings of other agencies using the SOC process. No conditions exist to override the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) two-in/two-out safety policy, which requires that firefighters enter atmospheres such as building fires that are immediately dangerous to life and health in teams of two while two more firefighters are outside and immediately ready to rescue them should trouble arise.

Scenario: Simulated approximately 2,000-square-foot, two-story, single-family residential fire with unknown rescue situation. Responding companies receive dispatch information typical for a witnessed fire. Upon arrival, they find approximately 50 percent of the second floor involved in fire.
74 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 35
Table 6—First Alarm Residential Fire Critical Tasks (22 Personnel) Critical Task Description Personnel
Required
First-Due Engine (4 Personnel)
1 Conditions report 1
2 Establish supply line to hydrant 2
3 Deploy initial fire attack line to point of building access 1–2 4 Operate pump and charge attack line 1
5 Establish incident command 1
Second-Due Engine (4 Personnel)
1 If necessary, establish supply line to hydrant 1–2
2 Secure utilities 2
3 Deploy a backup attack line 1–2
4 Establish initial Rapid Intervention Team 2
First-Due Ladder Truck (4 Personnel)
1 Conduct primary search and rescue, if not already completed 2-3 2 Deploy ladders to roof 1–3
3 Establish horizontal or vertical building ventilation 1–2 4 Open concealed spaces as required 2–3
First-Due Chief Officer + Aide
1 Transfer of incident command 1
2 Establish exterior command and incident safety 1
Third-Due Engine (4 Personnel)
1 Establish Rapid Intervention Team 2
2 Assist suppression effort as directed 2–4
Second-Due Ladder Truck (4 Personnel)
1 Conduct secondary search 2
2 Assist other units as assigned 2-4
Grouped together, these duties form an ERF, or First Alarm Assignment. These distinct tasks must be performed to effectively achieve the desired outcome; arriving on-scene does not stop the emergency from escalating. While firefighters accomplish these tasks, the incident progression clock keeps running.

Some studies have shown that a small fire can spread to engulf an entire room in fewer than 3:00 to 5:00 minutes after free burning has started. Once the room is completely superheated and 75 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 36 ends

involved in fire (known as flashover), the fire will spread quickly both vertically and horizontally throughout the structure. For this reason, it is imperative that fire suppression and search/rescue operations commence before the flashover point occurs if the outcome goal is to keep fire damage in or near the room of origin and to rescue persons unable to self-evacuate. In addition, flashover presents a life-threatening situation to both firefighters and any occupants of a building. Fire fatalities typically include persons under 10 and over 65 years of age and those unable to selfevacuate, and 29 percent of the population falls within those age groups.

2.5.2 Critical Medical Emergency Tasks
The Department responds to more than 17,500 EMS incidents annually, including vehicle accidents, strokes, heart attacks, difficulty breathing, falls, childbirths, and other medical emergencies.

For comparison, the following table summarizes the critical tasks required for a cardiac arrest patient.

Table 7—Cardiac Arrest Critical Tasks – 1 Engine or Truck and 1 BLS Ambulance (6 Personnel)
Critical Task Personnel
Required Critical Task Description
1 Chest compressions 1–2 Compression of chest to circulate blood 2 Ventilate/oxygenate 1–2 Mouth-to-mouth, bag-valve-mask, apply O2 3 Airway control 1–2 Manual techniques/intubation/cricothyroidotomy 4 Defibrillate 1–2 Electrical defibrillation of dysrhythmia 5 Establish I.V. 1–2 Peripheral or central intravenous access 6 Control hemorrhage 1–2 Direct pressure, pressure bandage, tourniquet 7 Splint fractures 2–3 Manual, board splint, HARE traction, spine 8 Interpret ECG 2 Identify type and treat dysrhythmia
9 Administer drugs 2 Administer appropriate pharmacological agents 10 Spinal immobilization 2–5 Prevent or limit paralysis to extremities 11 Extricate patient 3–4 Remove patient from vehicle, entrapment 12 Patient charting 1–2 Record vitals, treatments administered, etc. 13 Hospital communication 1–2 Receive treatment orders from physician 14 Treat en route to hospital 2–3 Continue to treat/monitor/transport patient 76 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 37

2.5.3 Critical Task Analysis and Effective Response Force (ERF) Size What does a deployment study derive from a critical task analysis? The time required to complete the critical tasks necessary to stop the escalation of an emergency (as shown in Table 6 and Table 7) must be compared to outcomes. As stated, after approximately 3:00 to 5:00 minutes of free burning in an enclosed room, fire will escalate to the point of flashover. At this point, the entire room is engulfed in fire, the entire building becomes threatened, and human survival near or in the room of a fire’s origin becomes impossible. Additionally, brain death begins to occur within 4:00 to 6:00 minutes of the heart stopping. Thus, the ERF must arrive in time to prevent such emergency events from becoming worse.

The Department’s daily on-duty response staffing of 62 personnel and an Effective Response Force of 22 personnel is sufficient to deliver more than the NFPA-recommended minimum ERF of 16– 17 personnel to a low-hazard or medium-hazard building fire, which the statistical analysis of this report will discuss in detail.

Mitigating an emergency event is a team effort once the units have arrived. This refers to the weight of response analogy; if too few personnel arrive too slowly, the emergency will escalate instead of improving. The outcome times, of course, will be longer and yield less-desirable results if the arriving force is later or smaller.

The number of personnel and the arrival timeframe can be critical in a serious fire. Fires in older or multiple-story buildings could require the initial firefighters to rescue trapped or immobile occupants. If the ERF is too small, rescue and fire suppression tasks cannot be conducted simultaneously. Thus, achieving good performance requires adequate staffing (and training).

Fires and complex medical incidents require additional units to arrive in time to complete an effective intervention. Time is one factor that comes from proper station placement and the staffing model used. When fire stations are spaced too far apart and one unit must cover another unit’s area or multiple units are needed, the units can be too far away, and the emergency will escalate and result in a less-than-desirable outcome. Thus, some overlapping coverage between fire stations is desirable.

Previous critical task studies conducted by Citygate and NFPA Standard 1710 identify that all units need to arrive at a building fire with a minimum of 17 firefighters within 11:30 minutes (from the time of a 9-1-1 call) to simultaneously and effectively perform the tasks of rescue, fire suppression, and ventilation.

If fewer firefighters arrive, all tasks may not be completed. Most likely, the search team would be delayed, as would ventilation. The attack lines would only consist of two firefighters, which does not allow for rapid movement of the hose line above the first floor in a multiple-story building.

Because rescue is conducted with at least two two-person teams, when rescue is essential, other 77 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 38 ends

tasks are not completed in a simultaneous, timely manner. Therefore, effective deployment is about the speed (travel time) and the weight (number of firefighters) of the response.

The fact that the Department’s 90th percentile ERF call-to-arrival performance over the three years of data studied was 17:30 minutes reflects a commitment to confining building fires to or near the room of origin and preventing the spread of fire to adjoining buildings.

2.6 DISTRIBUTION AND CONCENTRATION STUDIES—HOW THE LOCATION OF FIRST-DUE AND

FIRST ALARM RESOURCES AFFECTS EMERGENCY INCIDENT OUTCOMES The Department’s service area is currently served by nine fire stations. When using geographic mapping tools, it is appropriate to understand what the existing station spacing does and does not cover within travel time goals; if there are any coverage gaps needing one or more additional
stations; and what, if anything, to do about them. In brief, there are two geographic perspectives to fire station
deployment:
 Distribution – the spacing of first-due fire units to control routine emergencies and achieve desired outcomes before they escalate and require additional resources.  Concentration – the spacing of fire stations sufficiently close to each other so that more complex emergency incidents can quickly receive sufficient resources from multiple fire stations. As indicated, this is known as the Effective Response Force (ERF) or, more commonly, the First Alarm Assignment—the collection of a sufficient number of firefighters on scene, delivered within the concentration time goal to stop the escalation of the problem.

To analyze first-due fire unit travel time coverage, Citygate used a geographic mapping tool that measures theoretical travel time over a road network. For this calculation, Citygate used the base map and street travel speeds calibrated to actual fire apparatus travel times from previous responses to simulate real-world travel time coverage. Using these tools, Citygate ran several deployment tests and measured their impact on various parts of the service area. We evaluated both a 4:00- minute and a 5:00-minute travel time for first-due coverage throughout the City, consistent with best practice response performance goals for positive outcomes in urban/suburban areas.

2.6.1 Deployment Baselines
Map #1 – General Geography, Station Locations, and Response Resource Types Map #1 shows the City boundary and fire station locations. This is a reference map for other maps that follow. Station symbols denote the type of staffed fire apparatus at each station. All engines SOC ELEMENT 5 OF 8

DISTRIBUTION STUDY
SOC ELEMENT 6 OF 8

CONCENTRATION STUDY
78 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 39
and trucks are staffed with a minimum of four personnel each, and there are seven ambulance units that are staffed with two firefighter/paramedics each.

Map #2 – Risk Assessment Planning Zones
This map displays the primary fire station service areas that this study also uses to quantify and assess the risks to be protected by the Department.

Map #2a – Risk Assessment: Population Density
Map #2a shows resident population density across the City. People drive EMS incident demand; thus, the areas of a city with higher population density are also typically the areas with higher EMS demand. As the map shows, the City’s fire stations are located in the most densely populated areas.

Map #3 – Distribution: 4:00-Minute First-Due Engine Travel Time Coverage Map #3 shows, in green, the City’s public road miles that should be expected to be reached within 4:00 minutes of travel time from the City’s nine fire station locations without traffic congestion, and assuming the responding resource is in-station.

The purpose of response time modeling is to determine response time coverage across a jurisdiction’s geography and station locations. This geo-mapping design is then validated against actual response data to reflect actual travel times. There should be some overlap between station areas so that a second-due unit can have a chance of an acceptable response time when it responds to a call in a different station’s first-due response area.

Map #3a – Distribution: 5:00-Minute First-Due Engine Travel Time Coverage This map adds 1:00 minute to the travel time to compare how much more of the City is within a 5:00-minute travel time of the existing fire stations. The added miles of coverage are very small and all at the outer edges of the public street network. In either the 4:00-minute or 5:00-minute coverage visualizations, it is very apparent that—given the two areas of hilly open space in the City—the street network would be very difficult to serve from a smaller number of fire stations.

Map #3b – Distribution: 8:00-Minute First-Due Ambulance Travel Time Coverage A long-time best practice has been to site ambulances with an 8:00-minute travel time coverage to provide transport as needed after the first responder firefighter/paramedics arrive. In this measure, there is Citywide BLS ambulance coverage at 8:00-minutes’ travel for one unit and, in the most densely populated southern area of the City, the Department’s one ALS ambulance covers the core area along with the engines given the rate of simultaneous incident demand in this area.

Map #4 – Insurance Services Office 1.5-Mile Coverage
Map #4 displays the ISO recommendation that urban stations cover a 1.5-mile distance response area. Depending on a jurisdiction’s road network, the 1.5-mile measure usually equates to a 3:30- 79 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 40 ends

minute to 4:00-minute travel time. However, a 1.5-mile measure is a reasonable indicator of station spacing and overlap. As the map shows, the 1.5-mile ISO coverage is good except in small pockets of the hilly southeast areas. This coverage shows the value of the nine fire station locations.

Map #5 – Concentration: 8:00-Minute Effective Response Force (ERF) Travel Time Coverage This map shows, in green, the City’s public road miles that should be reachable within 8:00 minutes of travel time for a minimum initial ERF of three engines, two ladder trucks, and one Battalion Chief totaling 22 personnel. This quantity of units is a challenging number to deliver to the entire City within a travel time of 8:00 minutes, and this performance only occurs in the southern area of the City, where there are two ladder trucks and the single Battalion Chief unit.

Map #6 – Concentration: 8:00-Minute ERF Travel Time Coverage – Ladder Trucks Map #6 shows ERF coverage from the City’s three ladder trucks. As the map shows, the three units are properly located to cover most of the City except for some of the outer edges.

Map #7 – 8:00-Minute Battalion Chief Travel Time Coverage This map displays 8:00-minute travel time coverage for a Battalion Chief from Station 21. It is apparent that a single Battalion Chief cannot promptly cover the City outside of core areas in the southwest.

Map #8 – All Incident Locations
This map shows the locations of all incident responses from July 1, 2020, through June 30, 2023, which occurred on almost every street segment in the City as well as in some of the wildland recreational areas.

Map #9 – Emergency Medical Services and Rescue Incident Locations Map #9 illustrates only the emergency medical and rescue incident locations for the three reporting years of data being analyzed. With most of the calls for service being medical emergencies, virtually all areas of the City need pre-hospital emergency medical services.

Map #10 – All Fire Locations
This map displays the location of all fires within the City in the three reporting years being studied, which includes any type of fire call, from vehicle, to dumpster, to building. There are obviously fewer fires than medical or rescue calls. Even given this fact, it is evident that fires occur in all fire station areas and are more frequent along major arterials and in the more densely populated areas of the City.

Map #11 – Building Fire Locations
Map #11 shows the locations of all building fire incidents during the three reporting years being studied. While the number of building fires is a smaller subset of total fires, in Citygate’s 80 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 41
experience, this is consistent with other, similar cities in the western United States. As with the prior map showing all types of fires, there are more building fires in areas of the City that are more densely populated and areas with older building stock.

Map #12 – Emergency Medical Services and Rescue Incident Location Densities This map displays by mathematical density where clusters of EMS and rescue incident activity occurred during the three reporting years of data analyzed by Citygate. In this set, the darker density color plots the highest concentration of EMS and rescue incidents. This type of map makes the location of frequent workload more meaningful than simply mapping the locations of all EMS and rescue incidents, as was shown in Map #9.

This perspective is important because the deployment system needs an overlap of units to ensure the delivery of multiple units when needed for more serious incidents or to handle simultaneous calls for service, as is evident for the areas of the City with higher population density. The density of EMS incidents in the southwest area of the City is why the Department also operates multiple transport ambulances in the City’s core area.

Map #13 – Fire Incident Location Densities
Map #13 shows the hot spots for all types of fire incidents (shown in Map #10).

Map #14 – Building Fire Incident Location Densities
This map shows the hot spots specifically for building fire incidents (shown in Map #11). The density of structure fire incidents is most pronounced in sections of the City that are more densely populated (as with EMS incidents) and have older building stock.

Map Scenario #1: Second Battalion Chief Coverage
This travel time model measures the 8:00-minute travel time coverage of a second incident command Battalion Chief located at Station 29. Making this addition ensures that one Battalion Chief can provide timely command at serious incidents by the eighth minute of travel.

Fire Station Distribution Travel Time Coverage
The GIS model also measured the road miles covered from each station within a specified time interval, as summarized in the following table.
81 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 42 ends

Table 8—4:00-Minute and 5:00-Minute Travel Time Coverage Summary Map
Number Travel Time Measure
Total
Public
Road Miles
Miles
Covered
Percent of
Total Miles
Covered
3 4:00-Minute First-Due Engine 418.1 363.5 86.9%
3a 5:00-Minute First-Due Engine 418.1 388.0 92.8%
3b 8:00-Minute BLS with Ambulance Overlay 418.1 394.0 94.2% Ambulance Overlay only 418.1 206.9 49.5%
4 ISO 1.5-Mile Station Spacing 418.1 358.6 85.8%
5 8:00-Minute ERF – 3 Engines, 2 Trucks, 1 BLS, 1 BC 418.1 193.2 46.2% 6 8:00-Minute Truck 418.1 368.8 88.2%
7 8:00-Minute Battalion Chief 418.1 206.9 49.5%
Scenario 1 8:00-Minute Battalion Chief (including Sta. 29) 418.1 324.8 77.7% Finding #4: The Department’s nine fire station locations can be expected to deliver 5:00-minute first-unit travel time coverage to 92.8 percent of the City’s public streets. Additional fire stations are not needed.

2.7 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
While travel time maps can show the ideal situation for response times and response effectiveness given perfect conditions, examination of the actual response time data provides a picture of actual response performance with simultaneous calls, rush-hour traffic congestion, units out of position, and delayed travel time due to events such as periods of severe weather.

SOC ELEMENT 7 OF 8

RELIABILITY AND

HISTORICAL RESPONSE

EFFECTIVENESS

STUDIES
82 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 43
The following subsections provide summary statistical information regarding the Department and its services.

2.7.1 Demand for Service
In data reporting year (RY) 22/23, the Department responded to 22,214 incidents. During this time, the Department had a daily demand of 60.86 incidents, of which 1.22 percent were fire incidents,

81.71 percent were to EMS incidents, and 17.07 percent were to “Other” incident types. The following figure summarizes total service demand over the most recent three reporting years.

Figure 5—Annual Service Demand by Year
As the figure shows, incident activity grew from RY 20/21 through RY 22/23. 83 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 44 ends

The following figure illustrates the number of incidents by incident type. As the figure shows, while the number of EMS incidents continues to grow, the number of fire and “Other” incident types has remained roughly the same.

Figure 6—Annual Service Demand by Incident Type
The following figure illustrates service demand by month and year.

Figure 7—Service Demand by Month
84 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 45
The following figure shows service demand by day of week, with the highest service demand being on Saturday.

Figure 8—Service Demand by Day of Week
The following figure illustrates the breakdown of incidents by hour of the day by year. Year to year, hourly incidents appear to increase after 8:00 am.

Figure 9—Service Demand by Hour of Day and Year
85 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 46 ends

The following figure illustrates the number of incidents by station for all three years of data analyzed. Station 21 had the highest activity while Station 23 had the lowest.

Figure 10—Service Demand by Station
Finding #7: There is a constant, predictable demand for service across all hours of the month, week, and day, with overall annual demand increasing slightly.

2.7.2 Incident Quantity by Incident and Property Types
The following table summarizes service demand by NFIRS 5 incident code for counts greater than 40 in RY 22/23. These national reporting system codes identify the type of incident more specifically. Note the high ranking of EMS incident types. Vehicle accidents with injuries were 4 th
while building fires ranked 19
th
.
86 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 47
Table 9—Incident Type Summary by Year
Incident Type RY 22/23
321 EMS call, excluding vehicle accident with injury 16,639 611 Dispatched & canceled en route 907
700 False alarm or false call, other 902
322 Vehicle accident with injuries 772
554 Assist invalid 574
600 Good intent call, other 200
320 Emergency Medical Service, other 196
520 Water problem, other 144
353 Removal of victim(s) from stalled elevator 139
323 Motor vehicle/pedestrian accident (MV Ped) 138
651 Smoke scare, odor of smoke 124
400 Hazardous condition, other 120
424 Carbon monoxide incident 101
622 No incident found on arrival of incident address 93 352 Extrication of victim(s) from vehicle 90
324 Motor vehicle accident no injuries 78
412 Gas leak (natural gas or LPG) 76
500 Service Call, other 76
111 Building fire 76
444 Power line down 63
553 Public service 61
130 Mobile property (vehicle) fire, other 48
100 Fire, other 47
331 Lock-in (if lock out, use 511 ) 41
The following table summarizes service demand by property use for RY 22/23. The highest rankings are residential dwellings and streets/roads. Only property types with more than 40 instances in RY 22/23 are shown.
87 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 48 ends

Table 10—Incident Type by Property Use (RY 22/23)
Property Use RY 22/23
419 1- or 2-family dwelling 6,271
429 Multifamily dwellings 5,834
311 24-hour care Nursing homes, 4 or more persons 1,431 400 Residential, other 1,325
963 Street or road in commercial area 1,082
962 Residential street, road or residential driveway 631 960 Street, other 548
961 Highway or divided highway 379
459 Residential board and care 273
500 Mercantile, business, other 255
340 Clinics, Doctors’ offices, hemodialysis centers 250 599 Business office 222
965 Vehicle parking area 206
449 Hotel/motel, commercial 168
342 Doctor, dentist or oral surgeon's office 141
331 Hospital - medical or psychiatric 139
161 Restaurant or cafeteria 122
580 General retail, other 104
361 Jail, prison (not juvenile) 98
882 Parking garage, general vehicle 88
581 Department or discount store 79
519 Food and beverage sales, grocery store 59
215 High school/junior high school/middle school 44

2.7.3 Simultaneous Incident Activity
Simultaneous incidents occur when other incidents are underway at the time a new incident begins.

During RY 22/23, 77.03 percent of the City’s incidents occurred while one or more other incidents were underway.

The following table summarizes simultaneous incident occurrence for RY 22/23. 88 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 49
Table 11—Simultaneous Incident Activity (RY 22/23)
Number of Simultaneous Incidents Percent of
Occurrence
1 or more 77.03%
2 or more 46.87%
3 or more 23.45%
4 or more 9.92%
The following figure shows that the number of simultaneous incidents is increasing each year.

Figure 11—Simultaneous Incident Activity by Year
In a larger city, simultaneous incidents in different station areas have very little operational consequence. However, when simultaneous incidents occur within a single station area, there can be significant delays in response times.

The following figure illustrates the number of single-station simultaneous incidents by station area by year. Station 21 has the highest number of single-station simultaneous incidents. There was a significant year-to-year increase in simultaneous incident activity in Station 22’s service area as well.
89 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 50 ends

Figure 12—Number of Incidents by Station by Year
Finding #8: Two simultaneous calls for service occur 77 percent of the time, and three occur 47 percent of the time. The highest rate of simultaneous demand occurs in five station areas, all of which are in the south to southwest area of the City. These busiest station areas all adjoin each other, resulting in there not being enough available firefighting resources in the southern part of the City during hours of the day with peak EMS demand.

2.7.4 Unit-Hour Utilization
The unit-hour utilization percentage for apparatus is calculated using the number of responses and the duration of those responses to show the percentage of time a unit is committed to an active incident during a given hour of the day. In Citygate’s experience, a unit-hour utilization of 30 percent or higher over multiple consecutive hours becomes the point at which other responsibilities, such as training, do not get completed.

The following table summarizes incident activity by unit by hour of day for the City’s engine companies in RY 22/23. The utilization percentage for apparatus is calculated by two primary factors: (1) the number of responses, and (2) the duration of responses. In the table, the busiest engines are listed first.
90 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 51
Table 12—Unit-Hour Utilization – Engines (RY 22/23)
Hour E25 E26 E22 E21 E27 E24 E29 E28 E23
00:00 12.16% 10.13% 11.47% 10.67% 10.40% 4.37% 3.45% 2.65% 0.28% 01:00 9.92% 10.93% 11.37% 10.83% 9.79% 4.60% 2.05% 2.45% 1.69% 02:00 8.21% 7.42% 5.79% 8.45% 9.02% 2.76% 1.43% 3.13% 0.80% 03:00 10.83% 13.63% 8.44% 8.62% 9.38% 4.19% 3.16% 2.46% 1.60% 04:00 7.93% 6.92% 6.46% 6.10% 5.11% 1.48% 2.43% 1.51% 0.51% 05:00 8.99% 9.42% 7.65% 6.25% 9.50% 5.26% 2.21% 1.75% 0.96% 06:00 8.43% 9.09% 8.77% 10.65% 9.68% 5.82% 5.22% 3.83% 1.41% 07:00 13.02% 10.03% 12.30% 8.19% 9.84% 5.96% 4.70% 3.42% 1.65% 08:00 17.84% 15.03% 13.42% 14.43% 13.74% 6.95% 6.29% 6.63% 1.77% 09:00 18.32% 18.24% 25.90% 16.67% 18.20% 6.82% 7.03% 9.08% 3.62% 10:00 20.65% 20.91% 19.50% 17.56% 17.33% 9.99% 10.06% 6.76% 4.14% 11:00 20.53% 23.29% 20.18% 21.87% 19.81% 13.45% 8.44% 5.52% 3.79% 12:00 23.21% 21.24% 19.93% 18.46% 22.46% 11.81% 10.04% 8.19% 4.72% 13:00 21.09% 20.65% 20.10% 21.64% 20.18% 10.74% 9.44% 5.43% 2.59% 14:00 21.23% 20.27% 21.13% 21.23% 13.12% 11.65% 8.75% 7.88% 2.78% 15:00 22.89% 20.15% 21.15% 21.64% 16.20% 9.98% 7.85% 6.88% 2.15% 16:00 21.96% 21.50% 21.64% 22.25% 22.48% 11.96% 6.97% 6.21% 2.04% 17:00 20.25% 22.07% 22.33% 26.26% 18.94% 10.83% 5.13% 7.52% 2.12% 18:00 20.13% 20.54% 17.84% 18.57% 19.59% 10.85% 6.88% 6.21% 4.13% 19:00 19.14% 19.58% 19.19% 17.96% 17.59% 8.64% 7.24% 6.83% 2.18% 20:00 18.75% 20.45% 18.48% 18.40% 18.43% 7.90% 9.54% 5.20% 0.96% 21:00 19.05% 16.79% 16.09% 17.88% 17.01% 7.33% 6.26% 5.30% 1.93% 22:00 16.66% 17.43% 13.85% 16.18% 15.55% 3.35% 4.87% 3.73% 1.76% 23:00 13.99% 13.88% 12.34% 12.75% 12.01% 4.89% 4.70% 3.55% 1.48% As the table shows, the same five busiest station areas (as shown in Figure 12) are the busiest engine companies. While no one crew is at 30 percent utilization or more hour-over-hour, they are all above 20 percent, and will continue to get busier each year.

The following table summarizes incident activity by hour of day for the City’s ladder trucks in RY 22/23. While the trucks are not as busy as the engines are, they are taking a considerable workload off the engines. For example, if Engine 26’s utilization is added to that of Truck 26, the total utilization at 3:00 pm is 40 percent—which is significantly higher than a 30 percent UHU. In this way, Truck 26 is already serving in a reliever unit capacity to Engine 26. 91 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 52 ends

Table 13—Unit-Hour Utilization – Ladder (RY 22/23)
Hour T26 T21 T29
00:00 4.89% 5.31% 1.54%
01:00 5.36% 4.91% 1.41%
02:00 3.72% 3.84% 0.48%
03:00 6.52% 5.61% 2.42%
04:00 2.44% 3.09% 0.96%
05:00 4.84% 4.40% 0.44%
06:00 3.71% 3.36% 1.36%
07:00 5.02% 4.76% 1.79%
08:00 11.00% 7.30% 3.49%
09:00 12.22% 7.47% 4.48%
10:00 14.21% 8.03% 3.69%
11:00 16.24% 9.25% 3.14%
12:00 14.44% 10.62% 4.68%
13:00 14.47% 10.51% 2.84%
14:00 13.78% 11.46% 2.77%
15:00 17.26% 12.60% 4.89%
16:00 14.17% 11.47% 3.93%
17:00 15.23% 13.56% 2.45%
18:00 14.04% 11.77% 2.30%
19:00 10.82% 9.02% 2.48%
20:00 10.13% 10.40% 4.27%
21:00 9.37% 9.47% 1.84%
22:00 9.26% 7.95% 1.23%
23:00 7.31% 6.74% 1.42%
The following table summarizes incident activity by hour of day for the City’s EMS apparatus in RY 22/23, with the busiest units listed first. Five transport units are at or well above 30 percent UHU hour over hour. The City’s ambulance transport system is clearly under great stress. 92 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 53
Table 14—Unit-Hour Utilization – EMS Apparatus (RY 22/23) Hour BLS26 BLS21 BLS25 BLS22 BLS29 BLS27
00:00 27.49% 21.08% 21.32% 15.73% 10.59% 0.70%
01:00 29.05% 18.32% 19.86% 15.11% 7.80% 0.52%
02:00 22.26% 19.58% 14.20% 8.05% 6.35% 1.01%
03:00 20.18% 16.03% 16.20% 9.09% 5.98% 0.58%
04:00 17.45% 10.84% 13.06% 8.09% 7.59% 0.66%
05:00 20.82% 16.47% 11.70% 9.01% 8.73% 0.25%
06:00 24.52% 17.80% 16.29% 12.63% 13.61% 0.22%
07:00 25.50% 19.89% 22.08% 14.04% 14.82% 9.53%
08:00 32.68% 27.67% 30.30% 22.13% 19.28% 13.15%
09:00 41.42% 33.99% 35.84% 27.68% 19.78% 19.48%
10:00 46.89% 42.54% 43.72% 31.14% 29.21% 23.55%
11:00 48.78% 43.30% 41.92% 35.41% 29.97% 25.56%
12:00 44.18% 42.02% 44.05% 35.02% 30.12% 21.76%
13:00 50.57% 45.58% 43.00% 33.28% 26.99% 22.04%
14:00 49.17% 47.77% 37.02% 40.83% 30.91% 18.96%
15:00 43.35% 45.08% 40.46% 33.43% 31.70% 17.01%
16:00 53.86% 39.17% 47.39% 38.24% 27.65% 21.18%
17:00 41.41% 52.51% 48.34% 32.36% 26.80% 25.35%
18:00 50.55% 44.55% 35.05% 32.76% 25.79% 18.92%
19:00 48.41% 40.37% 43.19% 35.75% 25.81% 3.01%
20:00 48.77% 38.32% 32.74% 31.15% 30.47% 1.48%
21:00 43.35% 43.70% 39.55% 31.91% 21.00% 2.15%
22:00 39.78% 38.11% 33.99% 20.94% 15.61% 0.93%
23:00 34.71% 26.71% 27.40% 17.06% 13.01% 1.83%
Finding #9: Unit-Hour Utilization rates for the City’s engines are approaching Citygate’s recommended 30 percent saturation rate over multiple consecutive hours, with five of the six transport ambulances being significantly above 30 percent. Overall, EMS at peak hours of the day is straining the system significantly and not leaving enough firefighting capacity in the southern area of the City if a serious fire occurs during peak EMS hours.
93 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 54 ends

2.7.5 Operational Performance
Measurements for the performance of the first response apparatus to arrive at emergency incidents are the number of minutes and seconds necessary for 90 percent completion of the following response components:
 Call processing / dispatch
 Crew turnout
 Travel
 Call to arrival
In the measures to follow, only Fire and EMS incidents are used, and not others. This ensures an analysis of the most acute emergencies.

Call Processing / Dispatch
Call processing measures the time interval from the first incident timestamp at the Verdugo Fire Communications Center (VFCC) until completion of the dispatch notification. Call-processing performance depends on what is being measured.

In addition, not all requests for assistance are received via landline 9-1-1. Generally, there are numerous ways that requests for assistance are received—including landline telephone, cellular telephone, SMS text message, fire, or police officer-initiated requests, TTY/TDD operator, etc.— that each have a separate timestamp at a different point in the processing operation. This is not as much of a factor if most requests are received via 9-1-1 PSAP.

Table 15—Call Processing Analysis by Year
Station Overall RY 20/21 RY 21/22 RY 22/23
Department-Wide :48 :45 :49 :48
Finding #10: Call-processing / dispatch performance is better than Citygate’s recommended 1:30-minute best practice goal to facilitate positive outcomes for fire and EMS emergencies.

Crew Turnout
Crew turnout measures the time interval from completion of the dispatch notification until the start of vehicle movement to the emergency incident. While the NFPA7recommends 1:00 to 1:20 7 NFPA 1710 Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operation to the Public by Career Fire Departments (2020 Edition). 94 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 55
minutes for crew turnout depending on the type of protective clothing that must be donned, Citygate has found that few agencies can meet that performance standard, and thus has long recommended 2:00 minutes (averaged across a 24-hour day) as an achievable goal for on-duty station personnel.

NOTE: Over the course of Citygate’s analysis, it was discovered that data related to the Department’s turnout and travel time performance contained some inaccuracies. Due to the electronic systems in use, current record keeping is not fully distinguishing turnout times from travel times accurately.

The following table summarizes 90th percentile crew turnout and shows that overall performance was better than a 2:00-minute best practice goal over the three-year period studied.

Table 16—90th Percentile Crew Turnout Performance (Urgent EMS Incidents) Station Overall RY 20/21 RY 21/22 RY 22/23
Department-Wide 1:52 1:51 1:48 1:58
Finding #11: Crew turnout performance over the three-year period studied was better than the Citygate-recommended, 2:00-minute best practice goal; however, record keeping is not as accurate in distinguishing turnout and travel times due to the current electronic systems in use.

The travel times reported may reflect times that are slightly too long as they include some turnout time.

First-Unit Travel
First-unit travel measures the time interval from the start of apparatus travel until arrival at the emergency incident. In most urban/suburban jurisdictions, a 90th percentile first-unit travel time goal of 4:00 minutes8 would be considered highly desirable to achieve desired outcomes.

As the following table shows, 90th percentile first-unit travel performance was slightly more than 1:30 minutes (40 percent) slower than the 4:00-minute goal. 8 Source: NFPA 1710 – Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments (2020 Edition). 95 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 56 ends

Table 17—90th Percentile First-Unit Travel Performance
Station Overall RY 20/21 RY 21/22 RY 22/23
Department-Wide 5:50 5:41 5:45 5:58
The following figure shows fractile first-unit travel performance in 30-second increments for RY 22/23, with peak performance occurring at 240 seconds (4:00 minutes). There is, however, a significant number or incidents after the 240-second mark indicating that, while many incidents can be reached within the first 4:00 minutes of travel, there are still some incidents that require a travel time into the fifth minute and longer.

Figure 13—Travel Fractile Analysis (RY 22/23)
Even if the travel time (as measured and reported by the Department) includes some turnout time, the Department is not reaching 90 percent of emergency incidents in 4:00 minutes’ travel. This is occurring for three reasons: hilly terrain, a non-grid-based road network that is difficult to serve efficiently, and a high occurrence of simultaneous incidents pulling units away from their primary areas of coverage.

2.7.6 Call to First-Unit Arrival
Call to first-unit arrival measures the time interval from receipt of the 9-1-1 call until the first response apparatus arrives at the emergency incident and is a fire agency’s true customer service measure. For 90th percentile call-to-first-unit arrival to fire and EMS incidents, Citygate’s best practice recommendation—determined over many years of fire service deployment analysis—is for first-unit arrival within 7:30 minutes of 9-1-1 answering the call.

The following table shows the Department’s overall performance over the three-year period of data studied by Citygate as meeting this goal.

Table 18—90th Percentile Call to First-Unit Arrival Performance Station Overall RY 20/21 RY 21/22 RY 22/23
Department-Wide 7:22 7:15 7:15 7:35
The following figure shows fractile call-to-first-unit-arrival performance peaking at 5:00 minutes in RY 22/23; however, the right-shifted graph indicates several incidents with longer call-to-arrival times.

Figure 14—Call-to-First-Unit-Arrival Fractile Analysis (RY 22/23) 97 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 58 ends

Finding #13: 90th percentile call-to-first-unit-arrival performance is only 5 seconds slower than a Citygate-recommended 7:30-minute goal to facilitate positive outcomes for urban-density communities. This is due to quicker dispatch and turnout times compensating for longer travel times in addition to most of the incidents being reached within a 5:00-minute travel time.

2.7.7 Effective Response Force (ERF) Concentration Measurements The Department’s ERF for a confirmed building fire (for firefighter units, without a Battalion Chief) is three engines, two ladder trucks and one EMS unit for a total of 22 personnel, meeting NFPA recommendations. Over the three-year period of data studied, there were 53 confirmed building fire incidents where the ERF force all arrived at the incident. The following tables show 90th percentile ERF travel time and ERF call-to-arrival time for those 53 incidents.

Table 19—90th Percentile ERF Travel Time Performance
Station Overall RY 20/21 RY 21/22 RY 22/23
Department-Wide 16:45 16:21 15:34 18:18
Best practice and Citygate’s recommendations are an ERF travel time of 8:00 minutes for the lastdue unit to arrive and a total call-to-arrival time of 11:30 minutes or less for all units to arrive. As the previous table shows, overall 90th percentile ERF travel time was well past the recommended 8:00-minute goal over the three-year period studied by Citygate. However, it is worth understanding that small data sets can be quite volatile.

As shown in the following table, overall ERF call-to-arrival performance was 6:00 minutes slower than a Citygate-recommended 11:30-minute best practice-based goal to facilitate positive outcomes in communities with urban density.

Table 20—90th Percentile ERF Call-to-Arrival Performance Station Overall RY 20/21 RY 21/22 RY 22/23
Department-Wide 17:30 16:56 16:10 18:51
98 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 59
Finding #14: At 17:30 minutes, reported building fire ERF call-to-arrival performance was significantly slower than a Citygaterecommended, 11:30-minute best practice goal to facilitate positive outcomes in urban density communities. However, there were only 53 reported ERF building fire incidents in the three years of data studied, showing that small data sets can be quite volatile. It is also quite challenging in the central and northern areas of the City to gather so many units in a travel time of only 8:00 minutes.

2.8 OVERALL DEPLOYMENT EVALUATION
The Department serves an urban City with a mixed zoning land-use pattern typical of other cities in the Los Angeles County area. Glendale has a particular fire station location planning challenge due to the two hill ranges inside City limits. Historically, these wildland areas have also generated significant damaging wildfires. Infill growth intensification of land uses in the southern region of the City will make some areas very urban for population densities and traffic. Going forward, the City should maintain robust firefighting and first responder EMS programs suitable for an urban fire department in staffing, unit types, and facility locations.

Even as State or local fire codes require fire sprinklers in residential dwellings, it will be many more decades before enough homes are built or remodeled with automatic fire sprinklers. The City for decades to come will still need both first-due unit and multiple-unit ERF coverage consistent with controlling a building fire to near the room(s) of origin and improving the chance of survival for patients with life-threatening medical emergencies. The Department also has to stay prepared for the special risks of wildfire, hazardous materials spills, and technical rescues. The City is to be commended for its strong mutual aid relationships and for hosting a decades long shared fire dispatcher center which further enhances mutual and automatic aid coordination.

While none of the first responder engine crews are at or over peak-hour demand saturation, five of the nine are very busy hour-over-hour, being 10 percent or less away from maximum saturation.

However, five of the six basic life support (BLS) ambulance units are at or past incident load saturation during daylight hours and ambulance capacity must be increased as soon as possible.

Prior to this study, the City had not adopted outcome-driven response time goals. Doing so would allow the budget process to include measuring effectiveness and adding resources as needed. 99 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 60 ends

2.8.1 Deployment Recommendations
Based on the technical analysis and findings contained in this assessment, Citygate makes the following deployment recommendations.

Recommendation #1: Adopt Updated Deployment Policies: The City Council should adopt complete performance measures to aid
deployment planning and monitor response performance.

The measures of time should be designed to deliver
outcomes that will prevent death or more serious injury for EMS patients upon arrival when possible and keep
small but serious fires from becoming more serious. With this is mind, Citygate recommends the following
measures.

1.1 First-Due Unit: To treat pre-hospital medical
emergencies and control small fires, the first-due unit should arrive within 8:30 minutes, 90 percent of the time, from receipt of the 9-1-1 call at Verdugo Fire
Communications Center to incidents in the City. This
equates to a 1:30-minute call-processing / dispatch time, a 2:00-minute crew turnout time, and a 5:00-minute travel time.

1.2 Multiple-Unit Effective Response Force for Serious
Emergencies: To confine building fires near the room or rooms of origin and treat multiple medical patients at a single incident, a multiple-unit ERF of a minimum of 16 personnel, including one Chief Officer, should arrive
within 11:30 minutes from the time of call receipt at
Verdugo Fire Communications Center at 90 percent or
better reliability. This equates to a 1:30-minute callprocessing / dispatch time, a 2:00-minute crew turnout time, and an 8:00-minute travel time, respectively.
100 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 2—Standards of Cover Analysis Page 61

1.3 Hazardous Material Response: To protect the service area from hazards associated with uncontrolled release of hazardous and toxic materials, the fundamental mission
of the Department’s response is to isolate the hazard,
deny entry into the hazard zone, and minimize impacts on the community. This can be achieved with a first-due total response time of 8:30 minutes or less to provide initial hazard evaluation and mitigation actions. After the initial evaluation is completed, a determination can be made
whether to request additional resources to mitigate the hazard.

1.4 Technical Rescue: To respond to technical rescue
emergencies as efficiently and effectively as possible
with enough trained personnel to facilitate a successful rescue, a first-due total response time of 8:30 minutes or less is required to evaluate the situation and initiate rescue actions. Additional resources should assemble as needed within a total response time of 11:30 minutes or less to safely complete rescue/extrication and delivery of the
victim to the appropriate emergency medical care facility.

Recommendation #2: At a minimum, a sixth BLS ambulance is needed in the southern area of the City during peak demand daylight
hours.

Recommendation #3: The Department should consider adding a 2- firefighter/paramedic squad unit in the southern part of the City to handle less acute EMS incidents with the BLS ambulance. Doing so will take incident demand pressure
off the engine crews that are approaching peak-hour
demand saturation.
101 of 715
This page was intentionally left blank
102 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 3—Headquarters Services Adequacy Review Page 63 SECTION 3—HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ADEQUACY REVIEW
As an element of this Fire Services Master Plan, Citygate was tasked to review and evaluate the Department’s administrative support functions, facilities, and response apparatus for regulatory compliance and capacity, including configuration and lines of authority.

NFPA 1201
9 states, in part, “the [Department] shall have a leader and organizational structure that facilitates efficient and effective management of its resources to carry out its mandate as required [in its mission statement].” Best practices call for a management organization and headquarters programs with adequate staffing capacity to provide a properly trained, equipped, and supported response force to ensure prompt response and safe, competent service delivery.

Compliance regulations for fire services operations are increasing; thus, the proper hiring, training, and supervision of operational personnel requires a significant commitment from leadership and general management.

3.1 REVIEW METHODOLOGY
For this assessment, Citygate reviewed all Department administrative support functions and conducted interviews with individual personnel as needed to identify and evaluate:
 Key program responsibilities for each function.
 Administrative support organizational structure and staffing, including configuration and lines of authority.
 Critical workload capacity gaps, including what key responsibilities are not being met, or are not being performed at the desired or expected levels or within the expected timeline.
 Available redundant critical business services capability (e.g., Departmental-level timecard/payroll processing, accounts payable, personnel issues tracking, etc.).  Workload capacity gaps relative to critical business systems and assigned key primary and secondary responsibilities.
 Single points of failure, if any, for critical business functions, processes, or services. 9 NFPA 1201 – Standard for Providing Emergency Services to the Public (2015 Edition). 103 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 64 ends

3.2 FIRE DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATION
The Department’s administrative support organization is responsible for the overall administration and management of all Department-level programs and services and most administrative support functions, including general administration, fire prevention, training, health and safety, emergency preparedness and management, public education/information, policies and procedures, coordination with other local or regional service providers and stakeholders, and other related administrative and program responsibilities.

The City’s Fiscal Year 2023–24 budget authorizes 34.0 FTE administrative personnel to support the EMS, Operations, Training/Logistics, and Fire Prevention / Emergency Management Divisions as shown in the following figure.

Figure 15—Glendale Fire Department Administrative Support Organization

3.3 ADMINISTRATION DIVISION
The Department’s Administrative Division includes the Fire Chief, Administrative Battalion Chief, Community Relations Officer, Emergency Manager, and Administrative Specialist.

Fire Chief
EMS Battalion
Chief
Medical Director
EMS Captain
EMS Captain
Ambulance
Operator
Coordinator
Nurse Educator
Public Safety
Business Asst.

Deputy Chief
Operations
Battalion Chief.

Training
Training Captain
(2)
Battalion Chief
Administration
Fire Marshal
Principal Fire
Environmental
Safety Specialist
Life Safety Unit
Senior Fire
Environmental
Specialist
Fire
Environmental
Safety Specialist
Fire Prevention
Inspector
(2)
Hourly Worker
Engineering Unit
Senior Fire
Environmental
Specialist
Fire
Environmental
Safety Specialist
Fire Prevention
Inspector
Hourly Worker
Public Safety
Business Asst.

Hourly Worker
Principal Fire
Environmental
Safety Specialist
Senior
Environmental
Specialist
Fire Safety
Environmental
Specialist
(3)
Battalion Chief
Verdugo
Communications
Business
Administrator
Center Manager
Community
Relations Officer
Administrative
Specialist
Emergency
Manager
104 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 3—Headquarters Services Adequacy Review Page 65

3.3.1 Administration Battalion Chief
The Administration Battalion Chief does not have a defined position description but is currently the Department’s liaison to the Public Works Department Fleet and Facilities Management divisions to coordinate fleet maintenance and acquisition, as well as facilities maintenance and repair. Of note, various operations personnel currently handle non-fleet equipment repairs, obsolete equipment, and broken equipment. Citygate noted that the Department lacks a centralized point to coordinate all Department-level logistics functions to include facilities, fleet, safety clothing and equipment, non-fleet-related equipment, and communications equipment.

Workload Assessment
Citygate’s high-level assessment of the Administrative Battalion Chief workload capacity found it to be adequately staffed to meet its current responsibilities and workload. The Battalion Chief receives adequate support from Headquarters administrative staff as needed.

This function could be expanded to include coordination of all Department-level logistics functions with additional staff as needed.

Finding #15: The Department lacks a centralized support services function to coordinate all Department-level logistics functions including facilities, fleet, safety clothing/equipment, non-fleet equipment, and communications equipment.

Recommendation #4: Consider expanding the Administration Battalion Chief’s role to include coordination of all Department-level
logistics functions.

3.3.2 Community Relations
Under the direction of the Fire Chief, the Community Relations Officer oversees all internal and external Department communications including media relations, community engagement (online and in-person), community relations, and event coordination. This position is a non-sworn, 40- hours per week, salaried position with the incumbent working a 4/40 schedule. However, this staff member is expected to be available as needed when off duty.

Key responsibilities include:
 Overseeing internal and external communications; ensuring consistent, engaging messaging.
105 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 66 ends

 Serving as the Department's media representative and overseeing the preparation of all press releases.
 Managing and creating materials and services for organizational needs in the areas of marketing, communications, and public relations.
 Managing all Department media relations during non-emergency and emergency situations, including responding to routine media inquiries; drafting, editing, and distributing news releases; and alerting media of photo opportunities.  Advising the Fire Chief and the respective Department Command Staff on communication strategies.
 Coordinating response with emergency services and departmental representatives and handling media inquiries.
 Managing recruitment initiatives, building relationships with community groups and schools to establish on-going recruitment programs, and representing the Department at school, conventions, and other events.
 Communicating newsworthy stories; organizing press events; and /or performing other media or community related activities.
 Establishing, managing, and implementing the Department's diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
 Coordinating and managing Department events to include promotion ceremonies, award ceremonies, and public outreach programs such as Pink Patch Program, Fire Service Day, etc.
 Serving as the liaison to the Glendale Fire Foundation and assisting with planning and coordinating events, meetings, and fundraising efforts.

Workload Capacity Assessment
Citygate’s high-level review of the Community Relations Officer’s workload capacity found that all key responsibilities and assignments are being completed as expected; however, many assignments or questions come up after normal work hours that necessitate immediate attention.

Further, Citygate identified all critical responsibilities for this position as single points of failure due to a lack of backup/redundant capacity.

Finding #16: The Department lacks redundant capacity for the Community Liaison Officer position, resulting in single points of failure for critical position responsibilities.
106 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 3—Headquarters Services Adequacy Review Page 67 Recommendation #5: Consider cross-training another Department employee to provide backup/redundancy of critical responsibilities
managed by the Community Liaison Officer.

3.3.3 Emergency Management
The Department’s Emergency Manager is a sworn Fire Captain reporting directly to the Fire Chief and representing the City within the region on emergency planning and preparedness issues. The Emergency Manager works with other City departments and governmental and private agencies to develop and implement emergency and disaster management programs and oversees programs that promote resiliency and reduce community risk. This position develops and maintains strong relationships with public safety and other stakeholders and cooperators for planning and responding during emergencies.

Key emergency preparedness responsibilities include:
 Coordination of City disaster preparation activities
 Maintaining operational readiness of the City’s primary and secondary Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs)
 Coordination and delivery of Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training
 Serving as a board member for the Strategic Planning Element and the GWP Wildfire Mitigation Committee
 City representative on the Area C Group for regional disaster preparation  Management of any state or federal emergency management grants.

During a large-scale incident or disaster, the Emergency Manager operates as the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Coordinator and reports directly to the City Manager’s office. The EOC serves as the centralized location where information gathering, situation analysis, response actions, and support decisions are coordinated during large-scale emergencies and disasters. The EOC is activated to escalating staffing levels upon direction of the City Manager's office or other designated City officials depending on the type and complexity of the emergency.

Workload Capacity Assessment
Citygate’s high-level assessment of the Department’s emergency management workload capacity found it to be challenged to meet its current responsibilities and workload, with insufficient administrative support capacity. The Emergency Manager has been unable to conduct any EOC training or exercises due to other workload priorities. The City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 107 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 68 ends

(LHMP) and Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) are being updated this year; however, the City does not have a Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)—which is important for succession planning and redundancy during emergency operations. Some emergency preparedness education is being provided as requested, and the Emergency Manager is currently managing a state Homeland Security Grant with no prior experience or training in managing such grants. Citygate’s review also noted that the incumbent lacks some required federal and/or state-level emergency management training/certifications.

Finding #17: The Emergency Manager lacks some required Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) and other emergency
management training.

Recommendation #6: The Department should prioritize EOC Director, related EOC management, and federal Emergency Management
Performance Grant (EMPG) training for the Emergency
Manager.

Recommendation #7: Consider allocating additional staff support capacity to assist with Emergency Management grant administration
and training.

3.4 EMS DIVISION
The Department has a long, rich history of providing EMS services—including briefly being an early provider of paramedic services in the early 1970s before contracting those services to a private ambulance provider. Professional Ambulance, subsequently acquired by American Ambulance Response (AMR) around 1996, was the City’s paramedic provider from 1976–1998.

During that period, the Department would only be dispatched to high-acuity calls such as cardiac arrest or traffic collisions; otherwise, the private ambulance responded alone.

In 1999, the Department launched its own paramedic program with Firefighter Paramedics (FFPMs) staffing five rescue ambulances, while engines and ladder trucks staffed with at least one paramedic were designated as Advanced Life Support (ALS) Assessment Units. Under this system, FFPMs rotated from an ambulance to an engine on a three-month schedule. 108 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 3—Headquarters Services Adequacy Review Page 69 Due to a changing EMS service delivery landscape and budgetary needs stemming from the 2008 financial crisis, the current BLS Ambulance Operator (AO) program was implemented in 2010, resulting in all paramedics being reassigned to the nine engines and one of the three ladder trucks.

Pursuant to Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services Agency (LACEMSA) regulations, every time an ALS patient is transported by a BLS ambulance, at least one paramedic (and the engine or truck that paramedic is assigned to) is required to follow the ambulance to the hospital.

This allowed for the replacement through attrition of 21 sworn EMT firefighter positions with 60 non-sworn EMT Ambulance Operators; however, the AO program has experienced significant recruitment and retention challenges since its inception due to the small pool of available, qualified candidates and competition from other fire agencies with a similar ambulance program.

All response personnel are either certified Emergency Medical Technicians, capable of providing BLS pre-hospital emergency medical care, or licensed paramedics, capable of providing ALS prehospital medical care. Of the 19 response units staffed daily, nine engines and one ladder truck are staffed with at least two paramedics. The other two ladder trucks and the BLS transport ambulances are staffed with EMTs.

EMS support staff includes a Battalion Chief, two EMS Captains, one Nurse Educator, one Ambulance Operator Coordinator, and a Public Safety Business Assistant II to ensure program compliance with County and state standards and regulations.

Key program responsibilities include:
 EMT continuing education requirements
 Paramedic continuing education requirements
 EMS program quality assurance / quality improvement
 Ambulance Operator program
 Infection control program
 EMS supplies management including Operative IQ platform  EMS equipment management.

3.4.1 EMS Division Staff Positions
Medical Director
The Department’s EMS program operates under a scope of practice approved by the Medical Director. Key responsibilities of the Medical Director include:
 Advising the Department in planning and evaluating the delivery of pre-hospital medical care by EMT-Bs and paramedics.
109 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 70 ends

 Reviewing and approving the medical content of all EMS training performed by the Department and ensuring compliance with continuing education requirements of the state and local EMS agency.
 Reviewing the medical components of the Verdugo dispatch system. Assisting in the development of procedures to optimize patient care.  Reviewing and recommending to the EMS Agency Medical Director any new, noninvasive medical monitoring devices under consideration and ensuring compliance with state and local regulations.
 Evaluating conformance with legal documentation requirements of patient care.  Participating in direct observation of field responses as needed.  Participating as needed with appropriate EMS committees and the local medical community.
 Assisting the Department in the development and implementation of a continuous quality improvement program to ensure the provision of quality medical care.  Evaluating adherence of the Department’s medical personnel to medical policies, procedures, and protocols of the Los Angeles County EMS Agency.  Coordinating delivery and evaluation of patient care with base and receiving hospitals.
 Reviewing incidents of unusual or adverse patient outcomes, inadequate performance of EMT personnel, and complaints related to the delivery of medical care.
 Evaluating medical performance, gathering appropriate facts, and (when appropriate) forwarding those facts in writing to the Los Angeles County EMS Agency Medical Director.

The EMS Battalion Chief maintains close coordination with the Medical Director to ensure all response personnel are equipped with the information, resources, and equipment needed to provide EMS services. This position is also the Department liaison to the California Emergency Medical Services Authority (CAEMSA), Los Angeles County Emergency Medical Services Agency (LAEMSA), all local receiving hospitals, area fire departments, private ambulance transportation providers, and community service partners.

The EMS Battalion Chief supports the delivery of medical services and is responsible for coordination and compliance of all elements of the EMS program including (but not limited to) the provision of training; policy compliance; controlled substances inventory restock requests, 110 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 3—Headquarters Services Adequacy Review Page 71 intake, and distribution to field units; licensure and accreditations; quality assurance/improvement; compliance with regulatory entities; area collaborations; and community engagement.

The Department contracts for Nurse Educator services with UCLA, and they provide all additional training as required by the LAEMSA and/or the Department and the VFCC including (but not limited to) new hire firefighter/paramedics in-service training (ex/provider impression, treatment, patient destination protocols/policies); incumbent remediation; and policy update training. The Nurse Educator completes Quality Assurance / Quality Improvement (QA/QI) analysis of responses through review of electronic patient records including all cardiac arrest responses; establishes CE curriculum based on QA/QI indicators; and presents annually required EMS update for all response personnel.

EMS Captains
The two EMS Captains are cross-trained to eliminate any single points of failure—though one is responsible for EMS operations and the other for EMS equipment. The EMS Captains share the following key responsibilities.
 Attend all EMS-related meetings on behalf of the Department  Monthly EMS Staff meetings
 Probationary FFPM EMS Q1–Q2 Exams
 Coordinate and administer the operation of Operative IQ (digital narcotics tracking software)
 LA County Accreditation Process (coordinate with DHS)  Monitor Filemaker and APS for updated State and County PM license dates  Fill pharmaceutical and narcotic station orders
 Act as liaison with EMS related vendors (Boundtree, Zoll, Femo, etc.)  Ensure Departmental narcotic storage safe program is maintained  Coordinate Department oxygen supplies and order as needed  Ensure monthly and daily field narcotic and Zoll paperwork is complete, accurate, and filed appropriately
 Assist the AO Coordinator with designated Infection Control Officer (DICO) responsibilities as needed
 Assist with tracking and communicating with COVID-19 positive employees as needed
111 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 72 ends

 Assist with the coordination of Departmental or Citywide AED program.

The two EMS Captains manage all aspects of the ePCR Program including:
 Review and evaluate ePCRs as necessary and assist with QI process  Assist with the identification of, and follow-up with high- risk “rekindle” patients  Ensure iPads and ePCR platforms are operating with the most current  Assist with communication to field members with flagged ePCRs and AAR incidents.

The two EMS Captains participate in all EMS related training and planning with the Medical Director and Nurse Educator. On the equipment side, they also ensure compliance with 12-lead ECG and Zoll Case-Push transmissions on an annual basis. Some additional collateral duties include:
 Assist with EMS related community outreach and education as needed  Assist with GFD AO and firefighter recruitment processes  Assist with AO training a staffing needs as needed
 Maintain City of Glendale pre-positioned antibiotics program  Assist with Citywide or regional vaccination program as needed.

Ambulance Operator Coordinator
The Ambulance Operator Coordinator plans, coordinates, monitors, and evaluates the effectiveness of the Basic Life Support (BLS) ambulance transport component of the Department’s EMS program. Some of the major responsibilities of this position include:
 Coordinates the medical quality assurance program as it relates to the BLS ambulance transport component.
 Ensures the Department and appropriate personnel are in conformance with all State and County Emergency Medical Technician (EMT) regulatory requirements.  Trains and supervises Ambulance Operators in the performance of their duties; identifies training needs via the quality improvement process; coordinates, facilitates, and/or conducts training activities.
 Schedules subordinate personnel utilizing TeleStaff and ensures adequate staffing of positions, making necessary or requested adjustments in shift scheduling; maintains automated employee attendance/payroll records. 112 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 3—Headquarters Services Adequacy Review Page 73  Plans and coordinates the maintenance of all EMS-related vehicles, equipment, and supplies.
 Monitors all EMTs, including Ambulance Operators and sworn personnel, for compliance with EMT educational requirements.
 Assists in AO program budget preparation and budgetary transactions as assigned.  Department Infection Control Officer (DICO) trained and assists in proper documentation and management of personnel that are exposed to communicable diseases.

Public Safety Business Analyst
The Public Safety Business Analyst supports the EMS Division in a variety of ways:
 Coordinates the administrative functions of the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) program
 Processes and monitors all EMS driver records with DMV  Reviews all electronic Patient Care Records (ePCRs) for proper designation based on treatment procedures
 Sends data and billing records to LA County EMS Agency and third-party billing and collections vendors
 Compiles EMS financial data and prepares reports
 Assists with preparing records for annual DHS audits
 Researches, updates, and resolves patient account billing issues  Assists Paramedics with re-licensing/certification process with State and County EMS agencies
 Coordinates with legal counsel on the production of subpoenas and attorney requests
 Operates as custodian of EMS related records
 Assists with data collection, records production, and payment processing for the Public Provider Ground Ambulance Medical Transportation Inter-Governmental Transfer (PP-GEMT-IGT) program.

Citygate believes the Department is compliant with all regulatory EMS training as required by the CAEMSA and LAEMSA.
113 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 74 ends

3.4.2 Workload Capacity Assessment
Citygate’s high-level assessment of the Department’s EMS administrative support capacity found it to be adequately staffed to meet its responsibilities and workload to meet anticipated EMS Division needs as well as county and state regulations. The recent addition of the second EMS Captain has markedly improved overall administration of the EMS Division and support to Operations.

In addition, Citygate found the EMS program is meeting state and County EMS Agency standards and regulations relative to continuing education and continuous quality improvement, and the EMS Captains are ensuring that EMS equipment and supplies are appropriately controlled, accounted for, and compliant with state and County standards and regulations.

Finding #19: The Ambulance Operator program is challenged to maintain enough Ambulance Operators to effectively manage work/rest cycles and overtime.

Finding #20: The Department’s EMS program is meeting state and County EMS Agency standards and regulations relative to continuing education and continuous quality improvement.

Finding #21: EMS equipment and supplies are appropriately controlled, accounted for, and compliant with state and County standards and regulations.

Recommendation #8: The Department should consider incentives to improve Ambulance Operator recruitment and retention.

3.5 OPERATIONS DIVISION
The Department supports its emergency operations program with one Deputy Chief supervising a Training Battalion Chief and three Operations Battalion Chiefs who each supervise a 56-hour work week shift. Each shift Battalion Chief is responsible for a daily staffing of 62 personnel deployed across 9 Fire Stations operating 13 fire apparatus and 6 BLS ambulances.

The Deputy Chief’s primary responsibilities include:
 Acting as Fire Chief in the absence of the Fire Chief  Monitoring response performance and deployment
 Approving all training and equipment for Operations
114 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 3—Headquarters Services Adequacy Review Page 75  Accident investigation and after-action reports for significant incidents  Management and approval of the various support functions and special operations teams embedded at the Fire Stations:
➢ SCBA repair and maintenance
➢ Coordinate annual fit testing and respiratory protection program ➢ Personal protective equipment issuance
➢ Wildland
➢ Hazardous Materials
 Operational policy and procedure
 Development/maintenance of target hazard and pre-incident plans  Department Safety Program Officer.

3.5.1 Training
The Operations Deputy Chief provides oversight of department’s training program with assistance from a 40-hour Training Captain. Key administrative training responsibilities include:
 Coordination and delivery of mandated and discretionary training curriculum and manipulative drills to maintain operational skills and proficiency  Department-wide administrative oversite using the APS software platform  California Firefighter Joint Apprenticeship Committee (JAC) oversight and reporting
 California Incident Command Certification System certifications (CICCS)  OSHA respirator fit testing
 Department health and wellness program
 National Incident Management System (NIMS) training compliance  Operations and maintenance coordination for the Regional Fire Training Center facilities and maintenance, and the purchasing and outfitting of fire apparatus and light vehicles. The Operations Chief provides oversight of the fire boats due to prior marine safety experience.
115 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 76 ends

Administrative Workload Assessment
Citygate’s high-level assessment of the Department’s Operations Division administrative workload found it to be adequately staffed to meet its responsibilities and workload, with sufficient administrative support capacity available from the newly expanded Administration Division to meet anticipated needs. While no single points of failure were identified, Citygate noted the following:
 The various fire station-level support and program responsibilities lack a consistent record keeping format or standardized location to ensure continuity.  The Department lacks a consistent pre-incident planning data collection or retrieval process.
 Given the span of control of the Operations Battalion Chiefs, there is no capacity for them to assist with special projects.

Finding #22: Department-wide training is meeting state and federal standards.

Finding #23: The Department lacks a consistent, pre-incident planning data collection/retrieval process.

Finding #24: Department logistical support functions assigned to station personnel lack a standardized records management system for inventory, procurement, and maintenance.

Recommendation #9: Develop a standardized format and secure location for records related to support functions assigned to the
Operations Division.

3.6 FIRE PREVENTION DIVISION
The Fire Prevention Division was converted from safety personnel to non-safety personnel in 2006 and all station-level inspections were reassigned to Prevention in 2018. The Division consists of 17 full-time and three hourly personnel organized into four units as shown in the following figure.

The Fire Engineering Bureau is located within the Permit Services Center with the other City development functions, and all other prevention units and personnel are located at the Fire Prevention Bureau on Flower Street.
116 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 3—Headquarters Services Adequacy Review Page 77 Figure 16—Fire Prevention Division Organization
The Prevention Division has the following key responsibilities:
 Adoption and enforcement of the California Fire Code
 Response to concerns and complaints regarding fire hazards and violations  Review of all new development projects and building permits for conformance with applicable fire and life safety codes, ordinances, and regulations  Participation in pre-construction meeting
 Plan review and inspection of fire protection and detection systems for conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations; and for appropriate design, installation, and operation
 Certificate of Occupancy inspections for changes to building use  Inspection of new building construction for conformance with applicable fire and life safety codes, ordinances, and regulations
Fire Marshal
Principal Fire
Environmental
Safety Specialist
Life Safety Unit
Senior Fire
Environmental
Specialist
Fire Environmental
Safety Specialist
Fire Prevention
Inspector
(2)
Hourly Worker
Engineering Unit
Senior Fire
Environmental
Specialist
Fire Environmental
Safety Specialist
Fire Prevention
Inspector
Hourly Worker
Public Safety
Business Assistant
Hourly Worker
Principal Fire
Environmental
Safety Specialist
Senior
Environmental
Specialist
Fire Safety
Environmental
Specialist
(3)
117 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 78 ends

 Inspection of existing building occupancies for conformance with applicable fire and life safety codes, ordinances, and regulations
 State mandated daycare inspections
 Public fire and life safety education
 Fire/arson investigations
 KNOX lockbox program
 Special event planning and enforcement
 Vegetation management inspections
 Administration of the Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) responsibilities:
➢ Hazardous Materials Management and Release Reporting
➢ California Accidental Release Prevention
➢ Aboveground/Underground Storage Tanks
➢ Hazardous Waste Generator & Treatment
➢ Industrial waste program (pretreatment)
➢ Drop-off location of hazardous materials and waste collected at incidents by the Operations Section
 Familiarization tours of significant new construction projects with the Operations Division.

The Department operates under a published, comprehensive fee system for inspection services with billing and collections administered by a third party (Whitman Enterprises). Fees include excessive false fire alarms due to malfunctioning systems upon the 3rd occurrence during the last 365 days.

The City adopted stringent codes for fire sprinklers in the 1980s including single-family dwelling units and substantial remodels. Fire safety education is coordinated by the Emergency Management section with assistance from Community Relations, Prevention, and Operations. Fire cause determination is conducted by certified members of the Operations Division and referred to the Police Department for investigation and case management as appropriate.

The vegetation management program includes not only inspection and enforcement but also public education and the use of livestock (goats) to reduce fuel density by prescriptive grazing of rugged areas.
118 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 3—Headquarters Services Adequacy Review Page 79 The Division conducted more than 1,300 plan reviews and 14,000 inspections across multiple service categories as summarized in the following table. There is currently no capacity to inspect existing business occupancies for Fire Code compliance.

Table 21—Fire Prevention Activity Summary (2023)
Service Type 2023 Activity
Plan Review 1,347
New System Acceptance 584
Assembly (Existing) 174
Educational (Existing) 51
High Rise (Existing) 26
Residential (Existing) 3,998
Reinspection (Existing) 228
Vegetation 9,058
Industrial Wastewater 148
Hazardous Waste Drop-Offs 3,631
Pounds of Hazardous Waste Collected and Disposed 238,836

3.6.1 Workload Assessment
Given the significant inspection workload and the environmental duties required as the City’s Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA), the Fire Prevention Division is operating at a high level of efficiency. The Fire Marshal advised Citygate that this leaves little opportunity for employee development or process improvements. Further, the Fire Marshal is actively engaged in daily tasks and has little time for external focus with regards to a broader community risk reduction strategy.

For 2023, the Division was unable to complete reinspection of all existing businesses with noted fire code deficiencies found on the initial inspection. Even if two current Fire Inspector position vacancies are filled, Citygate’s high-level assessment of the Division’s workload capacity found it unlikely to be adequately staffed to meet its current responsibilities and workload, although no critical single points of failure were identified.
119 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 80 ends

Finding #25: In 2023, not all high-risk occupancies with fire and life safety deficiencies identified on the initial inspection were re-inspected for completion of required corrective actions.

Finding #26: The Fire Marshal is heavily engaged in daily tasks with little capacity to develop and implement community-wide risk reduction strategies.

Finding #27: There is currently no inspection program for existing business occupancies.

Recommendation #10: Ensure deficiencies identified on initial inspections are appropriately tracked and follow-up inspections are
conducted to ensure required corrective action(s) have
been completed.

Recommendation #11: Consider adding an Assistant/Deputy Fire Marshal position to coordinate all inspections.

Recommendation #12: Consider additional Inspector position(s) as needed to ensure re-inspection of all initial inspections with
deficiencies. Alternatively, consider assigning simpler reinspections and/or vegetation inspections to the Operations Division.

3.7 VERDUGO FIRE COMMUNICATIONS CENTER
Evaluation of the Verdugo Fire Communications Center was excluded from the scope of this study in anticipation of a separate study.

3.8 FIRE DEPARTMENT FLEET

3.8.1 Assessment Methodology
For its high-level assessment of the Department’s automotive fleet, Citygate utilized the following regulatory standards and industry-recognized best practice guidelines as well as available City/Department records and anecdotal evidence.
120 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 3—Headquarters Services Adequacy Review Page 81  NFPA 1901 Standard for Automotive Fire Apparatus – built prior to 2017  NFPA 1911 Standard for the Inspection, Testing, Maintenance, and Retirement of In-Service Emergency Vehicles – built after 2017
 NFPA 1912 Standard for Fire Apparatus Refurbishing
 NFPA 1914 Standard for Testing Fire Department Aerial Devices

3.8.2 Fleet Overview
The fire service generally groups fire apparatus into two primary categories:

1. Engines, whose primary functions are to pump and deliver water and provide basic firefighting tools including search and rescue.

2. Aerial ladder trucks, whose primary functions include aerial operations for fire suppression and rescue, forcible entry, ventilation, search and rescue, utility control, illumination, salvage, and overhaul work.

Other types of apparatus include water tenders, whose main function is to carry larger quantities of water; squads or rescue companies that carry a variety of rescue and emergency medical equipment; medic units or ambulances; command vehicles; and other specialty and/or support vehicles.

The Department utilizes 86 vehicles to provide services as summarized in the following table. 121 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 82 ends

Table 22—Fire Department Fleet
Fleet Category Front Line Reserve Total
Average Age
Front Line
(Years)
Average Age
Reserve
(Years)
Suppression 15 8 23
Engine – Structural1 10 6 16 8.7 16.8
Engine – Wildland 2 0 2 8.0 n/a
Ladder Truck 3 2 5 6.7 19.0
EMS 8 4 12
Rescue Ambulance – ALS 1 0 1 1.0 n/a
Ambulance – BLS 7 4 11 7.9 14.5
Specialty Apparatus 9 0 9
Hazardous Material Unit 1 0 1 19.0 n/a
Urban Search & Rescue 1 0 1 19.0 n/a
Water Tender 2 0 2 21.0 n/a
REMS 1 0 1 3.0 n/a
Gator – All-Terrain Vehicle 1 0 1 17.0 n/a
AU 1 0 1 16.0 n/a
Pump Pod 1 0 1 5.0 n/a
Rescue Cushion 1 0 1 19.0 n/a
Support Fleet 41 1 42
Command Vehicle 3 0 3 6.3 n/a
Staff Vehicle 21 0 21 8.2 n/a
Utility Vehicle 15 1 16 12.5 19.0
Pool Vehicle 2 0 2 13.0 n/a
Total 73 13 86
1 Includes Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Type-2 Engine assigned to Glendale Fire Department

3.8.3 Fleet Maintenance
Maintenance of the Department’s automotive fleet is performed by the City’s Fleet Services Division staff at a separate, dedicated, approximately 8,000-square-foot Fire Department shop facility with one Shop Supervisor, three heavy vehicle mechanics, and one light-duty vehicle mechanic. Major repairs including body work are outsourced to local heavy-duty truck or apparatus manufacturer repair facilities as needed. All engines are pump-tested annually, and ladders are tested annually in conformance with NFPA recommended standards. 122 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 3—Headquarters Services Adequacy Review Page 83 According to Department staff, all required apparatus testing, preventive maintenance, and repairs are generally performed in a timely manner, and the entire fleet, including reserve units, is maintained in a high state of operational readiness.

3.8.4 Fleet Replacement
The City’s Fleet Services Division establishes a useful service life for all City vehicles—over which the vehicle cost is amortized, which includes 20 years of service life for all heavy-duty fire apparatus, and 10 years of service life for ambulances and light-duty vehicles. In determining replacement timing, Fleet Services evaluates multiple factors including vehicle age, mileage, and the aggregate cost of repairs. Department staff advised Citygate that front-line medic engines are currently accumulating over 100,000 miles during their first 10 years in service, and they are having conversations with Fleet Services management about reducing the expected service life of these higher-use heavy apparatus going forward.

With the current delivery of a new heavy-duty fire apparatus taking upwards of three plus years from the time of purchase, the City Council approved replacement of one fire engine per year to help mitigate the impacts of these delays on the Department’s primary response apparatus. The City has one engine on order with delivery expected in 2024, and one new ladder truck ordered in FY 21/22 delivered and being upfitted by Fleet Services staff at the time of this review. The City’s FY 23/24 budget includes replacement of two engines, five ambulances, two staff vehicles, and two utility vehicles. The FY 24/25 budget includes replacement of one engine, two ambulances, and one staff vehicle.

3.8.5 Fleet Assessment
Citygate’s high-level review of the Department’s automotive fleet found it to be of the appropriate types and sizes to protect against expected hazards and provide appropriate command and support staff capacity. Citygate also found the reserve apparatus fleet appropriately sized to maintain daily front-line operational capacity. The City has a fleet replacement plan that provides for replacement of heavy-duty fire apparatus within typical Fire Service guidelines and maintains an adequate number of reserve apparatus. Older fire apparatus typically require more maintenance and repair work, resulting in longer out-of-service intervals. As shown in Table 22, all front-line suppression and EMS vehicles are under 10 years old, and most of the support/staff vehicles are under 12 years of age.

Fire apparatus must be relied on to transport fire fighters safely to and from an incident and to operate reliably and properly to support the mission of the Department. Citygate’s review of the Department’s fleet found it to be in good condition with reliable maintenance, serviceability, and an appropriate replacement schedule. 123 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 84 ends

Finding #28: The Department’s automotive fleet is in good overall condition with reliable maintenance, serviceability, and adequate reserve capacity to maintain desired daily operational response capacity.

Finding #29: The City’s fire apparatus replacement schedule conforms with typical fire service recommended guidelines; however, the schedule is based predominantly on vehicle age only.

Recommendation #13: The City’s Fleet Services Division should consider multiple factors in determining replacement of heavyduty fire apparatus including age, mileage, aggregate cost of repairs, aggregate out-of-service time, and current
operational reliability.

3.9 OVERALL HEADQUARTERS SERVICES ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Overall, Citygate’s high-level review and assessment finds the Department’s administrative support services to be appropriately organized and adequately staffed (with a few minor exceptions, as follows) to meet the Department’s mission to “protect life and property by providing the highest level of service to the community.” Our assessment found the Department lacking a centralized method to coordinate all Department-level logistics functions including facilities, fleet, safety clothing and equipment, non-fleet equipment, and communications equipment. In addition, the Emergency Manager lacks sufficient administrative support capacity, and the Fire Marshal lacks sufficient capacity to develop and implement community-wide risk reduction strategies and initiatives. Citygate further recommends that all administrative workload capacity measures need to be tracked going forward.
124 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report
Section 4—Facilities Assessment Page 85
SECTION 4—FACILITIES ASSESSMENT
The scope of work for this study included an on-site assessment of Department fire stations, a facility records review, and staff interviews as appropriate to identify key findings and make recommendations from an operational and fire executive management perspective.

4.1 KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Citygate’s key findings are as follows.

Finding #30: Out of nine fire stations, three are more than 50 years old and three are more than 60 years old. The stations are dated and showing signs of significant wear and tear despite the best efforts of maintenance staff.

Finding #31: All City fire stations, with the exception of Station 21, are undersized by modern fire service standards.

Finding #33: All fire station sleeping, locker room, and restroom facilities were developed based on historically all-male fire crews and lack gender inclusion and privacy.

Finding #34: All fire stations need structural modification to comply with the California Building Code for Seismic Activity—per an independent Property Seismic Inspection and Analysis conducted in 2020 by Wheeler & Gray Consulting Engineers.

Finding #36: The training tower and related props need some major repairs and/or updating.

Citygate’s recommendations to address these findings are as follows. 125 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Volume 1—Technical Report

Page 86 ends

Recommendation #14: The City must prioritize fire stations for substantial remodels or replacement. Citygate recommends the three
following reconstruction phases. As execution of these
phases will require several years, in each phase and order, some stations will require minor remodeling to “buy
time” for the Department’s facility needs.

Phase 1 – Rebuild stations 29, 28 and 26.

Phase 2 – Rebuild stations 23, 24 and 27.

Phase 3 – Update and remodel (where needed) stations
21, 22, and 25.

Recommendation #15: Select and hire a veteran fire station design firm to prepare building and site plans and provide actual designbased construction cost estimates.

Recommendation #16: City finance staff can explore multi-year financing strategies (e.g., General Obligation Bonds, Certificates of Participation, and Lease-Back arrangements, etc.) so that adequate consideration is given to their possible benefits or consequences.

Recommendation #17: Replacement and remodeling must include solutions for finding adequate space for physical fitness in areas away from listed carcinogens produced by fire apparatus.

Recommendation #18: Fire station living spaces should be designed to accommodate personnel of all gender identities.

Recommendation #20: Coordinate with the City Facilities Management Division to affect needed repairs/updating of the training tower and related training props.
[Please refer to Volume 4—Facilities Assessment for more detailed information regarding the Department’s facilities.]
126 of 715

CITYOFGLENDALE,CA

FIRESERVICESMASTERPLAN
VOLUME2OF4:COMMUNITYRISKASSESSMENT
MARCH27,2024
600COOLIDGEDRIVE,SUITE150
FOLSOM,CA95630
PHONE:(916)458-5100
FAX:(916)983-2090
WWW.CITYGATEASSOCIATES.COM

F I R E & E M S

F I R E & E M S
127 of 715
This page was intentionally left blank
128 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Table of Contents Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME 2 of 4—Community Risk Assessment (this volume)
Section Page
Community Risk Assessment.......................................................................................................................................3

1.1 Community Risk Assessment.............................................................................................................3

1.1.1 Risk Assessment Methodology............................................................................................3

1.1.2 Risk Assessment Summary..................................................................................................4

1.1.3 Planning Zones.....................................................................................................................5

1.1.4 Values at Risk to Be Protected.............................................................................................6

1.1.5 Hazard Identification .........................................................................................................11

1.1.6 Service Capacity ................................................................................................................13

1.1.7 Probability of Occurrence ..................................................................................................13

1.1.8 Impact Extent.....................................................................................................................14

1.1.9 Impact Severity ..................................................................................................................15

1.1.10 Overall Risk .......................................................................................................................17

1.1.11 Building Fire Risk..............................................................................................................18

1.1.12 Vegetation/Wildland Fire Risk ..........................................................................................21

1.1.13 Medical Emergency Risk...................................................................................................26

1.1.14 Hazardous Material Risk....................................................................................................29

1.1.15 Technical Rescue Risk.......................................................................................................33

1.1.16 Marine Incident Risk..........................................................................................................36 Table of Tables
Table 1—Overall Risk by Planning Zone...................................................................................................................... 5 Table 2—Key Demographic Data – Glendale ............................................................................................................... 7 Table 3—Building Occupancy Inventory by Risk Category ......................................................................................... 9 Table 4—Critical Facilities/Infrastructure ................................................................................................................... 10 Table 5—Probability of Occurrence Categories.......................................................................................................... 14 Table 6—Impact Extent Categories............................................................................................................................. 15 Table 7—Impact Severity Categories.......................................................................................................................... 16 Table 8—Overall Risk Categories – Negligible Impact Extent................................................................................... 17 Table 9—Overall Risk Categories – Limited Impact Extent....................................................................................... 17 Table 10—Overall Risk Categories – Significant Impact Extent................................................................................ 17 Table 11—Overall Risk Categories – Extensive Impact Extent.................................................................................. 18 Table 12—Building Fire Service Demand................................................................................................................... 20 Table 13—Building Fire Risk Assessment.................................................................................................................. 21 Table 14—Vegetation/Wildland Fire Service Demand ............................................................................................... 25 Table 15—Vegetation/Wildland Fire Risk Assessment .............................................................................................. 26 Table 16—Medical Emergency Service Demand........................................................................................................ 28 129 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Page ii Table of Contents
Table 17—Medical Emergency Risk Assessment....................................................................................................... 29 Table 18—Average Annual Daily Traffic Volume ..................................................................................................... 30 Table 19—Hazardous Material Service Demand ........................................................................................................ 32 Table 20—Hazardous Materials Risk Assessment...................................................................................................... 33 Table 21—Technical Rescue Service Demand............................................................................................................ 35 Table 22—Technical Rescue Risk Assessment........................................................................................................... 36 Table 23—Water Rescue Service Demand.................................................................................................................. 37 Table 24—Marine Incident Risk Assessment.............................................................................................................. 38 Table of Figures
Figure 1—Risk Planning Zones..................................................................................................................................... 6 Figure 2—Commission on Fire Accreditation International Hazard Categories......................................................... 12 Figure 3—Building Fire Progression Timeline............................................................................................................ 19 Figure 4—LRA Very High Wildland Fire Hazard Severity Zones ............................................................................. 22 Figure 5—Survival Rate versus Time to Defibrillation............................................................................................... 27 VOLUME 1 of 4—Technical Report (Separately Bound)
VOLUME 3 of 4—Map Atlas (Separately Bound)
VOLUME 4 of 4—Facilities Assessment (Separately Bound)
130 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Community Risk Assessment Page 3

COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT

1.1 COMMUNITY RISK ASSESSMENT
The third element of the Standards of Coverage (SOC)
process is a community risk assessment. Within the context of an SOC study, the objectives of a community risk
assessment are to:
 Identify the values at risk to be protected
within the community or service area.
 Identify the specific hazards with the potential to adversely impact the community or service area.
 Quantify the overall risk associated with each hazard.  Establish a foundation for current/future deployment decisions and riskreduction/hazard-mitigation planning and evaluation.

A hazard is broadly defined as a situation or condition that can cause or contribute to harm.

Examples include fire, medical emergency, vehicle collision, earthquake, flood, etc. Risk is broadly defined as the probability of hazard occurrence in combination with the likely severity of resultant impacts to people, property, and the community.

1.1.1 Risk Assessment Methodology
The methodology employed by Citygate to assess community risks as an integral element of an SOC study incorporates the following elements:
 Identification of geographic planning sub-zones (risk planning zones) appropriate to the community or jurisdiction.
 Identification and quantification, to the extent data is available, of the specific values to be protected within the community or service area.  Identification of the fire and non-fire hazards to be evaluated.  Determination of the probability of occurrence for each hazard.  Determination of the probable extent of impact of a hazard occurrence by planning zone.
 Determination of the probable impact severity of a hazard occurrence by planning zone.

SOC ELEMENT 3 OF 8

COMMUNITY RISK

ASSESSMENT
131 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT)

Page 4 ends

 Quantification of overall risk for each hazard based on probability of occurrence in combination with impact extent and impact severity.

For this assessment, Citygate used the following data sources to understand the hazards and values to be protected in the City.
 Esri and U. S. Census Bureau population and demographic data  City Geographical Information Systems (GIS) data
 City General Plan and Zoning information
 City and Los Angeles County Hazard Mitigation Plans
 Department and other City data and information.

1.1.2 Risk Assessment Summary
Citygate’s evaluation of the values at risk and hazards likely to impact the service area yields the following:
 The Department serves a very diverse urban population with densities ranging from less than 3,500 to more than 25,000 people per square mile over a varied urban land use pattern.
 The City population has declined slightly since the 2020 census.  The service area has a large inventory of residential and non-residential buildings to protect.
 The service area has significant economic and other resource values to be protected, as identified in this assessment.
 The Department has multiple mass emergency notification options available to effectively communicate emergency information to the public in a timely manner.

The service area’s risk for six hazards related to emergency services provided by the Department range from Low to High as summarized in the following table. 132 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Community Risk Assessment Page 5
Table 1—Overall Risk by Planning Zone
Hazard
Planning Zone
Station
21 Station
22 Station
23 Station
24 Station
25 Building Fire Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Vegetation/Wildland Fire Low Low High High High
Medical Emergency Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Hazardous Material Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Technical Rescue Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Marine Incident Low Low Low Low Low
Hazard
Planning Zone
Station
26 Station
27 Station
28 Station
29 Building Fire Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Vegetation/Wildland Fire High High High High
Medical Emergency Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Hazardous Material Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Technical Rescue Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Marine Incident Low Low Low Low

1.1.3 Planning Zones
The Commission on Fire Accreditation International (CFAI) recommends jurisdictions establish geographic planning zones to better understand risk at a sub-jurisdictional level. For example, portions of a jurisdiction may contain predominantly moderate risk building occupancies, such as detached single-family residences, while other areas contain high or maximum-risk occupancies, such as commercial and industrial buildings with a high hazard fire load. If risk were to be evaluated on a jurisdiction-wide basis, the predominant moderate risk could outweigh the high or maximum risk and may not be a significant factor in an overall assessment of risk. If, however, high or maximum-risk occupancies are a larger percentage of the risk in a smaller planning zone, then they become a more significant risk factor. Another consideration in establishing planning zones is that the jurisdiction’s record management system must also track the specific zone for each incident to appropriately evaluate service demand and response performance relative to each 133 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT)

Page 6 ends

specific zone. For this assessment, Citygate utilized nine planning zones corresponding with fire station first-due response areas as shown on the following map.

Figure 1—Risk Planning Zones

1.1.4 Values at Risk to Be Protected
Values at risk, broadly defined, are tangibles of significant importance or value to the community or jurisdiction potentially at risk of harm or damage from a hazard occurrence. Values at risk typically include people, critical facilities/infrastructure, buildings, and key economic, cultural, historic, or natural resources.

People
Residents, employees, visitors, and travelers in a community or jurisdiction are vulnerable to harm from a hazard occurrence. Particularly vulnerable are specific at-risk populations, including those unable to care for themselves or self-evacuate in the event of an emergency. At-risk populations typically include children under the age of 10, the elderly, people housed in institutional settings, and households below the federal poverty level. The following table summarizes key demographic data for the City of Glendale.
134 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Community Risk Assessment Page 7
Table 2—Key Demographic Data – Glendale
Demographic 2023
Population 195,455
Under 10 Years 8.7%
10–14 Years 5.1%
15–64 Years 66.1%
65–74 Years 11.2%
75 Years and Older 8.9%
Median Age 43.0
Daytime Population 211,515
Housing Units 80,518
Owner-Occupied 31.70%
Renter-Occupied 63.60%
Vacant 4.70%
Median Household Size 2.52
Median Home Value $955,735
Ethnicity
White Alone 62.60%
Black / African American Alone 1.90%
Asian Alone 16.40%
Other / Two or More Races 19.10%
Hispanic / Latino Origin 18.70%
Diversity Index 69.6%
Education (Population over 24 Years of Age)
High School Graduate or Equivalent 148,131
Undergraduate Degree 90.00%
Graduate/Professional Degree 45.40%
Employment (Population over 15 Years of Age)
In Labor Force 100,042
Unemployed 5.30%
Median Household Income $79,793
Population below Poverty Level 13.40%
Population with Disabilities 5.60%
Population without Health Insurance Coverage 8.50%
Source: Esri and U.S. Census Bureau
135 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT)

Page 8 ends

Of note from the previous table is the following:
 Nearly 29 percent of the population is under 10 years or over 65 years of age.  The City’s population is predominantly White Alone (63 percent), followed by Asian Alone (16 percent), other / two or more races (10 percent), and Black Alone (2 percent). 19 percent of the population is of Hispanic background or ethnicity.  Of the population over 24 years of age, 90 percent has completed high school or equivalency.
 Of the population over 24 years of age, 45 percent has an undergraduate, graduate, or professional degree.
 Of the population 15 years of age or older, nearly 95 percent is in the workforce; of those, just over 5 percent are unemployed.
 Median household income is nearly $80,000.
 The population below the federal poverty level is slightly more than 13 percent.  Only 8.5 percent of the population under age 65 does not have health insurance coverage.

Buildings
The service area has more than 80,000 residential housing units and nearly 13,000 other occupancies housing manufacturing, research, technology, office, professional services, retail sales, restaurants/bars, motels, churches, schools, storage, government facilities, healthcare facilities, and other occupancy types.1
Building Occupancy Risk Categories
The CFAI identifies the following four risk categories that relate to building occupancy:

Low Risk – includes detached garages, storage sheds, outbuildings, and similar building occupancies that pose a relatively low risk of harm to humans or the community if damaged or destroyed by fire.

Moderate Risk – includes detached single-family or two-family dwellings; mobile homes; commercial and industrial buildings smaller than 10,000 square feet without a high hazard fire load; aircraft; railroad facilities; and similar building occupancies where loss of life or property damage is limited to the single building.
1 Source: Esri Community Analyst – Community Profile and Business Summary (2023). 136 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Community Risk Assessment Page 9
High Risk – includes apartment/condominium buildings; commercial and industrial buildings larger than 10,000 square feet without a high hazard fire load; low-occupant load buildings with high fuel loading or hazardous materials; and similar occupancies with potential for substantial loss of life or unusual property damage or financial impact.

Maximum Risk – includes buildings or facilities with unusually high risk requiring an Effective Response Force (ERF) involving a significant augmentation of resources and personnel and where a fire would pose the potential for a catastrophic event involving large loss of life or significant economic impact to the community.

Evaluation of the service areas’ building inventory identified 3,945 high/maximum-risk building uses as they relate to the CFAI building fire risk categories, as summarized in the following table.

Table 3—Building Occupancy Inventory by Risk Category
Building Occupancy Classification Count1 Risk Category2 A-1 Large Assembly 15 Maximum
H Hazardous 4 Maximum
I Institutional 31 High
R-1 Hotel/Motel 27 High
R-2 Multi-Family Residential 3,861 High
R-2.1 Assisted Living 7 High
Total 3,945
1 Source: Glendale Fire Prevention Division
2 Source: CFAI Standards of Cover (Fifth Edition)
Critical Facilities
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security defines critical infrastructure and key resources as those physical assets essential to the public health and safety, economic vitality, and resilience of a community, such as lifeline utilities infrastructure, telecommunications infrastructure, essential government services facilities, public safety facilities, schools, hospitals, airports, etc. The City has a near term goal to identify critical facilities and generate an inventory list for mitigation measures (Multi-Hazard #6) in their Hazard Mitigation Plan. At this writing the Fire Department has identified 97 critical facilities and infrastructure, as shown in the following table. A hazard occurrence with significant impact severity affecting one or more of these facilities would likely adversely impact critical public or community services. 137 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT)

Page 10 ends

Table 4—Critical Facilities/Infrastructure
Critical Facility Category Quantity
Communications 4
Community Services 2
Economic 5
Education 27
Energy 1
Food, Water, Shelter 26
Government Services 6
Hazardous Materials 4
Healthcare & Medical 3
Infrastructure 2
Public Safety 10
Transportation 2
Utility 5
Total 97
Source: Glendale Fire Prevention Division
Economic Resources
The City has nearly 13,000 businesses employing nearly 98,000 people. Key economic industries include media, retail, business, education, healthcare, and services.2 Natural Resources
Key natural resources within the City include:3
 Over seven miles of the Glendale Narrows bicycle path and pedestrian walkway.  4,782 acres of rugged open space owned by the City.
 246 acres of developed parkland.
 Three major physiographical features: the San Gabriel Mountains, the San Rafael Hills, and the Verdugo Mountains, with numerous trail systems accessible by foot, horse, or bicycle.
2 Source: ESRI Business Summary, Glendale, California 2023, and City of Glendale Hazard Mitigation Plan, 2019 3 Source: City of Glendale Open Space and Conservation Element of the General Plan (1993) 138 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Community Risk Assessment Page 11
Cultural/Historic Resources
Key cultural/historic resources within the service area include:
 148 residential and commercial structures listed in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources2023
 Grand Central Air Terminal (Disney Company)
 Alex Theater
 YMCA Building
Special/Unique Resources
The following facilities are special or unique resources to be protected:
 Glendale Narrows Recreation Area

1.1.5 Hazard Identification
Citygate utilizes prior risk studies where available, fire and non-fire hazards as identified by the CFAI, and agency/jurisdiction-specific data and information to identify the hazards to be evaluated for this study. The 2019City of Glendale Local Hazard Mitigation Plan identifies the following ten hazards (natural and man-made) likely to impact the service area:

1. Earthquake

2. Flooding

3. Landslide and Mudslide

4. Wildfires

5. Winter Storms

6. Transportation Incident (rail, airplane)

7. Terrorism

8. Pandemic

9. Dam Failure

10. Hazardous Materials
Although the Department has no legal authority or responsibility to mitigate any hazards other than possibly for wildfire, it does provide services related to many hazards, including fire suppression, emergency medical services, technical rescue, and hazardous materials response. 139 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT)

Page 12 ends

The CFAI groups hazards into fire and non-fire categories, as shown in the following figure.

Identification, qualification, and quantification of the various fire and non-fire hazards are important factors in evaluating how resources are or can be deployed to mitigate those risks.

Figure 2—Commission on Fire Accreditation International Hazard Categories Source: CFAI Standards of Cover (Fifth Edition)
After review and evaluation of the hazards identified in the City’s 2019 Hazard Mitigation Plan and the fire and non-fire hazards as identified by the CFAI as they relate to services provided by the Department, Citygate evaluated the following six hazards for this risk assessment:

1. Building fire

2. Vegetation/wildland fire

3. Medical emergency

4. Hazardous material release/spill

5. Technical rescue

6. Marine incident
140 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Community Risk Assessment Page 13

1.1.6 Service Capacity
Service capacity refers to the Department’s available response force; the size, type, and condition of its response fleet and any specialized equipment; core and specialized performance capabilities and competencies; resource distribution and concentration; availability of automatic or mutual aid; and any other agency-specific factors influencing its ability to meet current and prospective future service demand relative to the risks to be protected.

Response personnel are also trained to the U.S. Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials First Responder Operations (FRO) level to provide initial hazardous material incident assessment, hazard isolation, and support for the Department’s hazardous materials response team. The Department maintains daily staffing of four personnel trained to the Hazardous Materials Specialist or Technician level at Station 24 to cross-staff the Department’s Hazardous Materials Response Unit as needed. For larger hazardous materials responses, they are joined by four personnel from the Burbank Fire Department to form a Type 1 team.

The Department has automatic mutual aid agreements with the cities of Los Angeles, Burbank, and Pasadena, as well as with the Los Angeles County Fire Department.

1.1.7 Probability of Occurrence
Probability of occurrence refers to the probability of a future hazard occurrence during a specific period. Because the CFAI agency accreditation process requires annual review of an agency’s risk assessment and baseline performance measures, Citygate recommends using the 12 months 141 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT)

Page 14 ends

following the completion of an SOC study as an appropriate period for the probability of occurrence evaluation. The following table describes the five probability of occurrence categories and related characteristics used for this analysis.

Table 5—Probability of Occurrence Categories
Category General Characteristics
General
Frequency
of
Occurrence
Rare • Hazard may occur under exceptional circumstances. > 10 years Unlikely
• Hazard could occur at some time.
• No recorded or anecdotal evidence of occurrence.
• Little opportunity, reason, or means for hazard to occur. 2–10 years
Possible
• Hazard should occur at some time.
• Infrequent, random recorded or anecdotal evidence of occurrence. • Some opportunity, reason, or means for hazard to occur. 1–23
months
Probable
• Hazard will probably occur occasionally.
• Regular recorded or strong anecdotal evidence of occurrence. • Considerable opportunity, reason, or means for hazard to occur. 1–4 weeks
Frequent
• Hazard is expected to occur regularly.
• High level of recorded or anecdotal evidence of regular occurrence. • Strong opportunity, reason, or means for hazard to occur. • Frequent hazard recurrence.

Daily to
weekly
Citygate’s SOC assessments use recent multiple-year hazard response data to determine the probability of hazard occurrence for the ensuing 12-month period.

1.1.8 Impact Extent
Impact extent refers to the probable geographic area and/or number of persons likely to be impacted by a specific hazard occurrence. The following table describes the four impact extent categories and general characteristics used for this analysis. 142 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Community Risk Assessment Page 15
Table 6—Impact Extent Categories
Category General Characteristics
Negligible • Less than 1 percent of planning area likely impacted • No persons impacted
Limited • Less than 10 percent of planning area likely impacted • 1-5 people impacted
Significant • 10-50 percent of planning area likely impacted • 6-50 people impacted
Extensive • More than 50 percent of planning area likely impacted • More than 50 people impacted

1.1.9 Impact Severity
Impact severity refers to the magnitude or reasonably expected loss a hazard occurrence has on people, buildings, lifeline services, the environment, and the community. The following table describes the five consequence severity categories and general characteristics used for this analysis.
143 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT)

Page 16 ends

Table 7—Impact Severity Categories
Category General Characteristics
Insignificant
• No injuries or fatalities
• None to few persons displaced for short duration
• Little or no personal support required
• None to inconsequential damage
• None to minimal community disruption
• No measurable environmental impacts
• None to minimal financial loss
• No wildland Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Minor
• Few injuries; no fatalities; minor medical treatment only • Some displacement of persons for less than 24 hours
• Some personal support required
• Some minor damage
• Minor community disruption of short duration
• Small environmental impacts with no lasting effects
• Minor financial loss
• No wildland Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Moderate
• Medical treatment required; some hospitalizations; few fatalities • Localized displaced of persons for less than 24 hours • Personal support satisfied with local resources
• Localized damage
• Normal community functioning with some inconvenience
• No measurable environmental impacts with no long-term effects, or small impacts with long-term effect
• Moderate financial loss
• Less than 25% of area in Moderate or High wildland FHSZ Major
• Extensive injuries; significant hospitalizations; many fatalities • Large number of persons displaced for more than 24 hours • External resources required for personal support
• Significant damage
• Significant community disruption; some services not available • Some impact to environment with long-term effects
• Major financial loss with some financial assistance required • More than 25% of area in Moderate or High wildland FHSZ; less than 25% in Very High wildland FHSZ
Extreme
• Large number of severe injuries requiring hospitalization; significant fatalities • General displacement for extended duration
• Extensive personal support required
• Extensive damage
• Community unable to function without significant external support • Significant impact to environment and/or permanent damage • Catastrophic financial loss; unable to function without significant support • More than 50% of area in High wildland FHSZ; more than 25% of area in Very High wildland FHSZ
144 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Community Risk Assessment Page 17

1.1.10 Overall Risk
Overall risk was determined by considering the probability of occurrence, likely impact extent, and reasonably expected impact severity using to the following tables.

Table 8—Overall Risk Categories – Negligible Impact Extent Probability of
Occurrence
Impact Severity
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Extreme
Rare Low Low Low Low High
Unlikely Low Low Low Low High
Possible Low Low Low Moderate High
Probable Low Low Low Moderate High
Frequent Low Low Low Moderate High
Table 9—Overall Risk Categories – Limited Impact Extent Probability of
Occurrence
Impact Severity
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Extreme
Rare Low Low Low Moderate High
Unlikely Low Low Low Moderate High
Possible Low Low Moderate High High
Probable Low Low Moderate High Extreme
Frequent Low Low Moderate High Extreme
Table 10—Overall Risk Categories – Significant Impact Extent Probability of
Occurrence
Impact Severity
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Extreme
Rare Low Low Low Moderate High
Unlikely Low Low Moderate High High
Possible Low Low Moderate High Extreme
Probable Low Moderate Moderate High Extreme
Frequent Low Moderate High High Extreme
145 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT)

Page 18 ends

Table 11—Overall Risk Categories – Extensive Impact Extent Probability of
Occurrence
Impact Severity
Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Extreme
Rare Low Low Moderate High Extreme
Unlikely Low Low Moderate High Extreme
Possible Low Moderate High High Extreme
Probable Low Moderate High Extreme Extreme
Frequent Moderate Moderate High Extreme Extreme

1.1.11 Building Fire Risk
One of the primary hazards in any community is building fire. Building fire risk factors include building size, age, construction type, density, occupancy, and height above ground level; required fire flow; proximity to other buildings; built-in fire protection/alarm systems; available fire suppression water supply; building fire service capacity; and fire suppression resource deployment (distribution/concentration), staffing, and response time. In addition, large fires following an earthquake in an urban region, although rare, have the potential to cause great losses. Citygate used available data from the Department and the U.S. Census Bureau to assist in determining the service area’s building fire risk.

The following figure illustrates the building fire progression timeline and shows that flashover, which is the point at which the entire room erupts into fire after all the combustible objects in that room reach their ignition temperature, can occur as early as three to five minutes from the initial ignition. Human survival in a room after flashover is extremely improbable. 146 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Community Risk Assessment Page 19
Figure 3—Building Fire Progression Timeline
Source: http://www.firesprinklerassoc.org
Population Density
Population density within the service area ranges from less than 3,500 to more than 25,000 people per square mile.4 Although risk analysis across a wide spectrum of other Citygate clients shows no direct correlation between population density and building fire occurrence, it is reasonable to conclude that building fire risk relative to potential impact on human life is greater as population density increases, particularly in areas with high-density, multiple-story buildings.

Water Supply
A reliable public water system providing adequate volume, pressure, and flow duration near all buildings is a critical factor in mitigating the potential impact severity of a community’s building fire risk. Potable water is provided by the Glendale Power and Water Department and Crescenta 4 Source: ESRI 2023.
147 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT)

Page 20 ends

Valley Water District. According to Fire Department staff, available fire flow volume and pressure exceed ISO Class 1 requirements throughout the service area.

Building Fire Service Demand
For the three-year period studied, the service area experienced 243 building fire incidents comprising 0.39 percent of total service demand over the same period, as summarized in the following tables.

Table 12—Building Fire Service Demand
Hazard
Year
Planning Zone
Station
21 Station
22 Station
23 Station
24 Station
25 Station
26 Building
Fire
RY 20/21 15 10 1 7 7 10
RY 21/22 11 7 0 6 10 9
RY 22/23 9 5 0 3 9 7
Total 35 22 1 16 26 26
Percent of Total Station Service Demand 0.29% 0.24% 0.12% 0.51% 0.24% 0.29% Hazard
Year
Planning Zone
Total
Percent
Total
Annual
Service
Demand
Station
27 Station
28 Station
29 Other
Building
Fire
RY 20/21 13 4 5 6 78 0.41%
RY 21/22 8 8 1 17 77 0.37%
RY 22/23 11 4 1 39 88 0.40%
Total 32 16 7 62 243 0.39%
Percent of Total Station Service Demand 0.39% 0.66% 0.23% 1.71% Building Fire Risk Assessment
The following table summarizes Citygate’s assessment of the service area’s building fire risk by planning zone.
148 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Community Risk Assessment Page 21
Table 13—Building Fire Risk Assessment
Vegetation / Wildland
Fire Risk
Planning Zone
Station 21 Station 22 Station 23 Station 24 Station 25
Probability of Occurrence Probable Possible Possible Possible Possible Impact Extent Significant Significant Limited Limited Significant Impact Severity Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Overall Risk Rating Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Vegetation / Wildland
Fire Risk
Planning Zone
Station 26 Station 27 Station 28 Station 29
Probability of Occurrence Possible Probable Possible Possible Impact Extent Significant Significant Limited Significant Impact Severity Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Overall Risk Rating Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

1.1.12 Vegetation/Wildland Fire Risk5
Many areas within and adjacent to the service area are susceptible to a vegetation/wildland fire.

Vegetation/wildland fire risk factors include vegetative fuel types and configuration, weather, topography, prior fires, water supply, mitigation measures, and vegetation/wildland fire service capacity.

Wildland Fire Hazard Severity Zones
CAL FIRE designates wildland Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZ) throughout the state based on analysis of multiple wildland fire hazard factors and modeling of potential wildland fire behavior.

For State Responsibility Areas (SRAs) where CAL FIRE has fiscal responsibility for wildland fire protection, CAL FIRE designates Moderate, High, and Very High FHSZs by county.

CAL FIRE also identifies recommended Very High FHSZs for Local Responsibility Areas (LRAs) where the local jurisdiction is responsible for wildland fire protection, including incorporated cities, as shown in red in the following map for Glendale. 5 Source: Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, City of Glendale California. 149 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT)

Page 22 ends

Figure 4—LRA Very High Wildland Fire Hazard Severity Zones In addition, the Department has established four fire zones that require property owners to conduct vegetation mitigations to reduce wildland fire danger.

Vegetative Fuels
Vegetative fuel factors influencing fire intensity and spread include fuel type (vegetation species), height, arrangement, density, and moisture. In addition to decorative landscape species, vegetative fuels within the service area consist of a mix of annual grasses and weeds, invasive species, and 150 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Community Risk Assessment Page 23
mixed scrub brush and chaparral. Once ignited, vegetation fires can burn intensely and contribute to rapid fire spread under the right fuel, weather, and topographic conditions.

Weather
Weather elements, including temperature, relative humidity, wind, and lightning, also affect vegetation/wildland fire potential and behavior. High temperatures and low relative humidity dry out vegetative fuels, creating a situation where fuels will more readily ignite and burn more intensely. Wind is the most significant weather factor influencing vegetation/wildland fire behavior, with higher wind speeds increasing fire spread and intensity. Fuel and weather conditions most conducive to vegetation/wildfires generally occur from late June through October when the “Santa Ana” winds are typical. However, above-normal temperatures and drought can increase that period on either end.

Topography
Vegetation/wildland fires tend to burn more intensely and spread faster when burning uphill and up-canyon, except for a wind-driven downhill or down-canyon fire. The parts of the service area with hilly terrain contribute more to vegetation/wildland fire behavior and spread. The Verdugo Mountains, San Rafael Hills and San Gabriel Mountains not only facilitate fire spread but also hinder fire department response of personnel and equipment. Many streets are of insufficient width because they were constructed prior to improved street design and fire department access standards.

Water Supply
Another significant vegetation fire consequence severity factor is water supply immediately available for fire suppression. According to Fire Department staff, available fire flow and hydrant spacing is adequate throughout the service area.

Wildland Fire History
Several wildland fires have impacted the City over the years including the La Tuna Fire in 2017, and the College Hills Fire in 1990 that destroyed 64 homes.

Vegetation/Wildland Fire Hazard Mitigation
Hazard mitigation refers to specific actions or measures taken to prevent a hazard from occurring or to minimize the severity of impacts resulting from a hazard occurrence. While none of the hazards subject to this study can be entirely prevented, measures can be taken to minimize the impacts when those hazards do occur. In addition to requiring fire-resistive construction materials and methods in High Fire Hazard Areas, City departments have completed or are continuing the following wildfire mitigation measures:6
6 Source: City of Glendale Water & Power Wildfire Mitigation Plan 2022 and Fire Prevention Division. 151 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT)

Page 24 ends

 Fire code inspection and plan review of proposed development ➢ Required Class A roof coverings.
➢ Fire Sprinklers for residential new construction and substantial remodel of existing homes.
➢ Annual vegetation inspection of over 9000 parcels.
 Public Education and Hazard Abatement Notices
➢ Placement of livestock (goats) in rugged areas in need of vegetation abatement.
➢ Vegetation management and fuel modification (approved landscape plantings)
 Glendale Power and Water Operation and Maintenance
➢ Emphasis on vegetation contacts and equipment failure related to Glendale Water and Power distribution lines.
➢ De-energizing plan for Bel Aire -Montrose overhead line during Red Flag Warnings or similar conditions.

Vegetation/Wildland Fire Service Demand
Over the three-year study period, the Department responded to 125 vegetation/wildfires comprising 0.20 percent of total service demand over the same period, as summarized in the following tables.
152 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Community Risk Assessment Page 25
Table 14—Vegetation/Wildland Fire Service Demand
Hazard
Year
Planning Zone
Station
21 Station
22 Station
23 Station
24 Station
25 Station
26 Vegetation /
Wildland Fire
RY 20/21 2 1 1 1 6 3
RY 21/22 3 2 1 0 2 3
RY 22/23 4 3 0 0 1 2
Total 9 6 2 1 9 8
Percent of Total Station Service Demand 0.08% 0.07% 0.25% 0.03% 0.08% 0.09% Hazard
Year
Planning Zone
Total
Percent
Total
Annual
Service
Demand
Station
27 Station
28 Station
29 Other
Vegetation /
Wildland Fire
RY 20/21 4 2 0 36 56 0.30%
RY 21/22 3 0 0 31 45 0.21%
RY 22/23 1 1 1 11 24 0.11%
Total 8 3 1 78 125 0.20%
Percent of Total Station Service Demand 0.10% 0.12% 0.03% 2.15% Vegetation/Wildland Fire Risk Assessment
The following table summarizes Citygate’s assessment of the service area’s vegetation/wildland fire risk by planning zone.
153 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT)

Page 26 ends

Table 15—Vegetation/Wildland Fire Risk Assessment
Vegetation / Wildland
Fire Risk
Planning Zone
Station 21 Station 22 Station 23 Station 24 Station 25
Probability of Occurrence Possible Possible Possible Possible Possible Impact Extent Negligible Negligible Limited Limited Limited Impact Severity Moderate Moderate Major Major Major
Overall Risk Rating Low Low High High High
Vegetation / Wildland
Fire Risk
Planning Zone
Station 26 Station 27 Station 28 Station 29
Probability of Occurrence Possible Possible Possible Possible Impact Extent Significant Significant Significant Significant Impact Severity Major Major Major Major
Overall Risk Rating High High High High

1.1.13 Medical Emergency Risk
Medical emergency risk in most communities is predominantly a function of population density, demographics, violence, health insurance coverage, and vehicle traffic.

Medical emergency risk can also be categorized as either a medical emergency resulting from a traumatic injury or a health-related condition or event. Cardiac arrest is one serious medical emergency among many where there is an interruption or blockage of oxygen to the brain.

The following figure illustrates the reduced survivability of a cardiac arrest victim as time to defibrillation increases. While early defibrillation is one factor in cardiac arrest survivability, other factors can influence survivability as well, such as early CPR and pre-hospital ALS interventions. 154 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Community Risk Assessment Page 27
Figure 5—Survival Rate versus Time to Defibrillation
Population Density
Population density in the service area ranges from less than 3,500 to more than 25,000 people per square mile, as shown in Map #2a (Volume 3—Map Atlas). Risk analysis across a wide spectrum of other Citygate clients shows a direct correlation between population density and the occurrence of medical emergencies, particularly in high urban population density zones.

Demographics
Medical emergency risk tends to be higher among older, poorer, less educated, and uninsured populations. As shown in Table 2, 20 percent of the service area population is age 65 or older; 10 percent of the population over 24 years of age has less than a high school education or equivalent; just under 14 percent of the population is at or below poverty level; and 8.5 percent of the population does not have health insurance coverage.7
7 Source: ESRI and US Census Bureau.
155 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT)

Page 28 ends

Vehicle Traffic
Medical emergency risk tends to be higher in areas of a community with high daily vehicle traffic volume, particularly areas with high traffic volume traveling at high speeds. The service area’s transportation network includes the Golden State Freeway (I-5), Glendale Freeway (SR-2), Ventura Freeway (SR134) and the Foothill Freeway (I-210) carrying an aggregate annual average daily traffic volume of more than 571,000 vehicles.8
Medical Emergency Service Demand
Medical emergency service demand over the three-year study period includes nearly 49,000 calls for service comprising nearly 79 percent of total service demand over the same period, as summarized in the following table.

Table 16—Medical Emergency Service Demand
Hazard
Year
Planning Zone
Station
21 Station
22 Station
23 Station
24 Station
25 Station
26 Medical
Emergency
RY 20/21 2,744 2,359 174 679 2,765 2,244
RY 21/22 3,210 2,551 193 845 3,152 2,447
RY 22/23 3,550 2,731 215 781 3,125 2,410
Total 9,504 7,641 582 2,305 9,042 7,101
Percent of Total Station Service Demand 79.74% 84.11% 71.67% 73.97% 83.02% 79.44% Hazard
Year
Planning Zone
Total
Percent
Total
Annual
Service
Demand
Station
27 Station
28 Station
29 Other
Medical
Emergency
RY 20/21 2,059 577 722 325 14,648 77.49%
RY 21/22 2,334 581 782 499 16,594 78.88%
RY 22/23 2,437 657 915 836 17,657 79.49%
Total 6,830 1,815 2,419 1,660 48,899 78.68%
Percent of Total Station Service Demand 82.62% 74.45% 79.18% 45.72% As the table shows, medical emergency service demand varies significantly by planning zone but has increased overall by nearly 20 percent over the three-year study period. 8 Source: Traffic Census Program | Caltrans: Glendale 2021. 156 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Community Risk Assessment Page 29
Medical Emergency Risk Assessment
The following table summarizes Citygate’s assessment of the service areas medical emergency risk by planning zone.

Table 17—Medical Emergency Risk Assessment
Medical Emergency
Risk
Planning Zone
Station 21 Station 22 Station 23 Station 24 Station 25
Probability of Occurrence Frequent Frequent Frequent Frequent Frequent Impact Extent Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited
Impact Severity Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Overall Risk Rating Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Medical Emergency
Risk
Planning Zone
Station 26 Station 27 Station 28 Station 29
Probability of Occurrence Frequent Frequent Frequent Frequent Impact Extent Limited Limited Limited Limited
Impact Severity Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Overall Risk Rating Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

1.1.14 Hazardous Material Risk
Hazardous material risk factors include fixed facilities that store, use, or produce hazardous chemicals or waste; underground pipelines conveying hazardous materials; aviation, railroad, maritime, and vehicle transportation of hazardous commodities into or through a jurisdiction; vulnerable populations; emergency evacuation planning and related training; and specialized hazardous material service capacity.

Fixed Hazardous Materials Facilities
The Glendale Fire Prevention Division identified 608 sites requiring a state or County hazardous material operating permit or Hazardous Materials Business Plan. In addition, several SoCalGas high-pressure natural gas distribution pipelines are located throughout the service area.

Transportation-Related Hazardous Materials
The service area also has transportation-related hazardous material risk because of its road transportation network, including the Golden State Freeway (I-5), Glendale Freeway (SR-2), 157 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT)

Page 30 ends

Ventura Freeway (SR134) and the Foothill Freeway (I-210) carrying an aggregate annual average daily truck traffic volume of nearly 60,000 commercial vehicles as summarized in the following table, some of which are transporting hazardous commodities. 9 Table 18—Average Annual Daily Traffic Volume
Highway Crossing
Truck AADT1 by Axles
2 3 4 5+
5 JCT. RTE. 2 3,510 1,194 389 8,218
134 JCT. RTE. 2 2,079 762 247 1,682
210 JCT. RTE. 2 2,537 1,007 508 5,689
Total 18,903 5,345 2,110 33,479
Average Annual Daily Trips
Source: California Department of Transportation
The City also has transportation-related hazardous material risk due to hundreds of train movements along the southwestern border of the City daily, many of which are transporting hazardous commodities.

Population Density
Because hazardous material emergencies have the potential to adversely impact human health, it is logical that the higher the population density, the greater the potential population exposed to a hazardous material release or spill. As shown in Map #2a (Volume 3—Map Atlas), the service area population density ranges from less than 3,500 to more than 25,000 people per square mile.

Vulnerable Populations
Persons vulnerable to a hazardous material release/spill include individuals or groups unable to self-evacuate, generally including children under the age of 10, the elderly, and persons confined to an institution or other setting where they are unable to leave voluntarily. As shown in Table 2, nearly 29 percent of the population is under age 10 or is 65 years and older.

Emergency Evacuation Planning, Training, Implementation, and Effectiveness Another significant hazardous material consequence severity factor is a jurisdiction’s shelter-inplace / emergency evacuation planning and training. In the event of a hazardous material release or spill, time can be a critical factor in notifying potentially affected persons, particularly at-risk populations, to either shelter-in-place or evacuate to a safe location. Essential to this process is an effective emergency plan that incorporates one or more mass emergency notification capabilities, as well as pre-established evacuation procedures. It is also essential to conduct regular, periodic 9 Source: Traffic Census Program | Caltrans: Glendale 2021. 158 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Community Risk Assessment Page 31
exercises involving these two emergency plan elements to evaluate readiness and to identify and remediate any planning or training gaps to ensure ongoing emergency incident readiness and effectiveness.

The City has a formal evacuation plan in Annex H of the Glendale Emergency Plan, with periodic exercises to ensure familiarity and effective utilization.10 The City also has a free subscription and reverse 9-1-1-based mass emergency notification system (Everbridge) that is used to provide emergency alerts, notifications, and other emergency information to email accounts, cell phones, smartphones, tablets, and landline telephones. Federal Communications Commission Wireless Emergency Alerts and Departmental social media (Facebook, Twitter) are also used to provide emergency notifications and information to the public. The Glendale Office of Emergency Management also conducts Emergency Operations Center training at least quarterly but has not recently conducted an exercise.

Hazardous Material Service Demand
The service area experienced 561 hazardous material incidents over the three-year study period, comprising 0.9 percent of total service demand over the same period, as summarized in the following tables.
10 Annex H – City of Glendale Emergency Plan (2008).
159 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT)

Page 32 ends

Table 19—Hazardous Material Service Demand
Hazard
Year
Planning Zone
Station
21 Station
22 Station
23 Station
24 Station
25 Station
26 Hazardous
Material
RY 20/21 18 20 2 17 26 35
RY 21/22 31 24 6 17 35 38
RY 22/23 37 21 2 11 46 25
Total 86 65 10 45 107 98
Percent of Total Station Service Demand 0.72% 0.72% 1.23% 1.44% 0.98% 1.10% Hazard
Year
Planning Zone
Total
Percent
Total
Annual
Service
Demand
Station
27 Station
28 Station
29 Other
Hazardous
Material
RY 20/21 22 10 6 5 161 0.85%
RY 21/22 26 4 11 9 201 0.96%
RY 22/23 23 9 12 13 199 0.90%
Total 71 23 29 27 561 0.90%
Percent of Total Station Service Demand 0.86% 0.94% 0.95% 0.74% Hazardous Material Risk Assessment
The following table summarizes Citygate’s assessment of the service area’s hazardous materials risk by planning zone.
160 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Community Risk Assessment Page 33
Table 20—Hazardous Materials Risk Assessment
Hazardous Material
Risk
Planning Zone
Station 21 Station 22 Station 23 Station 24 Station 25
Probability of Occurrence Possible Possible Possible Possible Probable Impact Extent Limited Significant Limited Limited Limited Impact Severity Moderate- Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Overall Risk Rating Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Hazardous Material
Risk
Planning Zone
Station 26 Station 27 Station 28 Station 29
Probability of Occurrence Probable Possible Possible Possible Impact Extent Limited Significant Significant Limited
Impact Severity Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Overall Risk Rating Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

1.1.15 Technical Rescue Risk
Technical rescue risk factors include active construction projects; structural collapse potential; confined spaces, such as tanks and underground vaults; bodies of water, including rivers and streams; industrial machinery use; transportation volume; and earthquake, flood, and landslide potential.

Construction Activity
There is ongoing residential, commercial, industrial, and infrastructure construction activity within the City.

Confined Spaces
There are multiple confined spaces within the City, including tanks, vaults, and open trenches.

Transportation Volume
Another technical rescue risk factor is transportation-related incidents requiring technical rescue.

This risk factor is primarily a function of vehicle, railway, maritime, and aviation traffic. Vehicle traffic volume is the greatest of these factors within the service area, with the Golden State Freeway 161 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT)

Page 34 ends

(I-5), Glendale Freeway (SR-2), Ventura Freeway (SR134) and the Foothill Freeway (I-210) carrying an aggregate annual average daily traffic volume of more than 571,000 vehicles.11 Earthquake Risk12
According to the City’s Hazard Mitigation Action Plan, there are several major faults nearby capable of producing damaging earthquakes affecting Glendale including the San Andreas. Sandy soils found in the service area increase the likelihood liquefaction and subsequent structure displacement as well. convergence of the Juan de Fuca and North American tectonic plates puts the service area at risk for a catastrophic magnitude 9 or higher earthquake. Known seismic faults within the service area include:
 Sierra Madre
 Hollywood
 Verdugo
 Raymond
Of these, earthquakes originating from the Sierra Madre and Verdugo faults have the potential to cause the most significant damages to the City.

Slope Failure13
Soil conditions on the foothills are vulnerable to erosion, especially when exposed to seasonal rainfall post-wildfire. The sandy slopes are also susceptible to movement with seismic events.

These prone conditions are in the presences of structures built upon them or along their failure path in many neighborhoods in the service area.

Flood Risk14
Many drainage areas within the City that are subject to seasonal peak flows have been channelized including most of the Verdugo Wash to reduce the potential for flooding in the urban areas.

Technical Rescue Service Demand
The Department responded to 743 technical rescue incidents over the three-year study period, comprising 1.20 percent of total service demand for the same period, as summarized in the following tables.
11 Source: Traffic Census Program | Caltrans: Glendale 2021. 12 Source: 2019 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Glendale California. 13 Ibid.
14 Source: 2019 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan City of Glendale, California, Section 2. 162 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Community Risk Assessment Page 35
Table 21—Technical Rescue Service Demand
Hazard
Year
Planning Zone
Station
21 Station
22 Station
23 Station
24 Station
25 Station
26 Technical
Rescue
RY 20/21 40 20 3 11 28 45
RY 21/22 61 9 1 11 23 43
RY 22/23 66 17 0 10 39 52
Total 167 46 4 32 90 140
Percent of Total Station Service Demand 1.40% 0.51% 0.49% 1.03% 0.83% 1.57% Hazard
Year
Planning Zone
Total
Percent
Total
Annual
Service
Demand
Station
27 Station
28 Station
29 Other
Technical
Rescue
RY 20/21 14 10 10 39 220 1.16%
RY 21/22 24 9 10 37 228 1.08%
RY 22/23 26 8 8 69 295 1.33%
Total 64 27 28 145 743 1.20%
Percent of Total Station Service Demand 0.77% 1.11% 0.92% 3.99% Technical Rescue Risk Assessment
The following table summarizes Citygate’s assessment of the service area’s technical rescue risk by planning zone.
163 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT)

Page 36 ends

Table 22—Technical Rescue Risk Assessment
Technical Rescue
Risk
Planning Zone
Station 21 Station 22 Station 23 Station 24 Station 25
Probability of Occurrence Probable Possible- Possible Possible Probable Impact Extent Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited
Impact Severity Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Overall Risk Rating Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Technical Rescue
Risk
Planning Zone
Station 26 Station 27 Station 28 Station 29
Probability of Occurrence Possible Possible Probable Possible Impact Extent Limited Limited Limited Limited
Impact Severity Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Overall Risk Rating Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate

1.1.16 Marine Incident Risk
Surface water rescue incident risk factors primarily include citizens commuting and proximal recreational activities within the service area coinciding with rain events.

Waterways
Bodies of water and seasonal waterways within the service area that collect rainfall from the mountain canyons, collect in the 9.4-mile Verdugo Wash and the Burbank Western Channel before emptying into the Los Angeles River and an 11-mile section of parkland known as The Glendale Narrows which the department has mutual aid responsibilities.

Historic Incidents
Some of the largest flood incidents occurred after large wildfire incidents where large amounts of mud and debris created drainage impediments that contributed to a great deal of damage. Rainfall patterns will change, with drier springs and summers and wetter winters. The concentration of rainfall over short periods will increase the likelihood of inland flooding17.

Water Rescue Service Capacity
The Department’s marine safety service capacity includes 4 swift water rescue technicians constantly staffed at Fire Station 22 primarily using reach, throw and inflatable rescue boat tactics 164 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT) Community Risk Assessment Page 37
along the narrow drainage channels. Additional resources include (4) Pasadena Fire Department swift water rescue technicians through mutual aid agreement.

Water Rescue Service Demand
Over three-year study period, the Department responded to 12 marine incidents, comprising 0.02 percent of total service demand for the same period, as summarized in the following tables.

Table 23—Water Rescue Service Demand
Hazard
Year
Planning Zone
Station
21 Station
22 Station
23 Station
24 Station
25 Station
26 Marine
Incident
RY 20/21 0 0 0 0 0 0
RY 21/22 1 0 0 0 0 1
RY 22/23 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 1 0 0 0 0 1
Percent of Total Station Service Demand 0.01% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01% Hazard
Year
Planning Zone
Total
Percent
Total
Annual
Service
Demand
Station
27 Station
28 Station
29 Other
Marine
Incident
RY 20/21 1 2 0 0 3 0.02%
RY 21/22 0 0 0 1 3 0.01%
RY 22/23 0 2 1 3 6 0.03%
Total 1 4 1 4 12 0.02%
Percent of Total Station Service Demand 0.01% 0.16% 0.03% 0.11% Marine Incident Risk Assessment
The following table summarizes Citygate’s assessment of the service area’s marine risk by planning zone.
165 of 715
City of Glendale, CA
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 2 – Community Risk Assessment (DRAFT REPORT)

Page 38 ends

Table 24—Marine Incident Risk Assessment
Marine Incident
Risk
Planning Zone
Station 21 Station 22 Station 23 Station 24 Station 25
Probability of Occurrence Unlikely Rare Rare Rare Rare
Impact Extent Limited Limited Limited Limited Limited
Impact Severity Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Overall Risk Rating Low Low Low Low Low
Marine Incident
Risk
Planning Zone
Station 26 Station 27 Station 28 Station 29
Probability of Occurrence Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Impact Extent Limited Limited Limited Limited
Impact Severity Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate
Overall Risk Rating Low Low Low Low
166 of 715

CITYOFGLENDALE,CA

FIRESERVICESMASTERPLAN
VOLUME3OF4:MAPATLAS
MARCH27,2024
600COOLIDGEDRIVE,SUITE150
FOLSOM,CA95630
PHONE:(916)458-5100
FAX:(916)983-2090
WWW.CITYGATEASSOCIATES.COM

F I R E & E M S

F I R E & E M S
167 of 715
168 of 715
169 of 715
170 of 715
171 of 715
172 of 715
173 of 715
174 of 715
175 of 715
176 of 715
177 of 715
178 of 715
179 of 715
180 of 715
181 of 715
182 of 715
183 of 715
184 of 715
185 of 715
186 of 715
This page was intentionally left blank
187 of 715
Glendale Fire Department
Fire Services Master Plan Assessment (DRAFT)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Fire Station Condition Assessment..............................................................................................................................1 Fire Station Assessment Overview...................................................................................................................1 Key Themes........................................................................................................................................1 Regulatory Standards........................................................................................................................................2 California Building Code ...................................................................................................................2 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) ............................................................................................2 California Essential Services Buildings Seismic Safety Act (ESBSSA) ...........................................3 NFPA 1500.........................................................................................................................................3 NFPA 1851.........................................................................................................................................4 NFPA 1710.........................................................................................................................................4 Industry Standards ............................................................................................................................................4 Response.............................................................................................................................................4 Community Presence and Access.......................................................................................................5 Safety – Vehicular Circulation...........................................................................................................5 Safety – Hazardous Material Decontamination..................................................................................6 Public To Private Separation..............................................................................................................6 Security ..............................................................................................................................................6 Equity And Inclusion..........................................................................................................................7 Culture ..............................................................................................................................................7 Facility Condition Criteria................................................................................................................................7 Fire Station Assessment....................................................................................................................................8 Assessment Findings ......................................................................................................................................11 Assessment Recommendations.......................................................................................................................12 Table of Tables
Table 1—Overall Facility Condition Criteria ................................................................................................................ 8 Table 2—Fire Station Assessment Summary ................................................................................................................ 8 Appendices
Appendix A—Citygate Facility Evaluation Forms
Appendix B—Fire Station Priority List
Appendix C—Support Services Facility Assessments
Appendix D—Fire Station Seismic Inspections and Analysis Table of Contents Page i
188 of 715
This page was intentionally left blank
189 of 715
Glendale Fire Department
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 4—Facilities Assessment

FIRE STATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT

FIRE STATION ASSESSMENT OVERVIEW
The City of Glendale (City) requested Citygate Associates, LLC (Citygate) to conduct a Fire Services Master Plan Assessment. The scope of work for this study included an on-site assessment of Glendale Fire Department (Department) stations, a facility records review, and staff interviews as appropriate to identify key findings and make recommendations based on an operational and fire executive management perspective.

The following Department fire stations were visited by Citygate and reviewed for conformance with current California Building Code standards, the California Essential Services Act, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards, and National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards—with a focus on health, safety, privacy, and access for all Department personnel:









Fire Station 21 – 421 Oak St.

Fire Station 22 – 1201 S. Glendale Ave.

Fire Station 23 – 3303 E. Chevy Chase Dr.

Fire Station 24 – 1734 Canada Blvd.

Fire Station 25 – 353 N. Chevy Chase Dr.

Fire Station 26 – 1145 N. Brand Blvd.

Fire Station 27 – 1127 Western Ave.

Fire Station 28 – 4410 New York Ave.

Fire Station 29 – 2465 Honolulu Ave.

Citygate’s on-site assessments of the fire stations were to confirm conditions against the available records and oral history, and to assess their conformance with both (1) the applicable standards cited in the section to follow and (2) recognized best practice employee health and safety standards.

Key Themes

1. 2.

Out of 9 fire stations, three are more than 50 years old and three are more than 60 years old. The stations are dated and showing signs of significant wear and tear despite the best efforts of maintenance staff.

All of the fire stations but Fire Station 21 are undersized by modern fire service standards.

Fire Station Condition Assessment Page 1
190 of 715
Glendale Fire Department
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 4—Facilities Assessment

3. Most of the fire stations are not compliant with current Building Code, ADA, or NFPA standards, and the stations were built before the Essential Services Buildings Seismic Safety Act of 1986.

4. 5.

All fire station sleeping, locker room, and restroom facilities were developed based on historically all-male fire crews and lack gender inclusion and privacy.

All fire stations need structural modification to comply with the California Building Code for Seismic Activity per an independent Property Seismic Inspection and Analysis conducted in 2020 by Wheeler & Gray Consulting Engineers.

6. Plymovent diesel truck exhaust systems are not functional in all apparatus bays of multiple stations due to incomplete conversion from pneumatic to magnetic release latches to the apparatus.

REGULATORY STANDARDS
California Building Code
The International Code Council launched the International Codes Series (I-codes) at the end of the 1990s as a singular replacement for the regional building codes. Locally, the California Building Code is borne out of the International Building Code and local jurisdictions adopt the California Building Code as their own guidance.

The International Building Code provides a tiered approach for the required structural performance of a building and, as essential facilities, fire stations are subject to the strictest structural requirements. While an office building is required to be built to protect life in the event of a disaster—which means the occupants survive but the building may be condemned—a fire station must be designed to protect life and be immediately occupiable post-disaster. This means a fire station will be better able to resist the shaking of an earthquake or the high winds of an unusual storm.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
The ADA, enacted in 1990, establishes a series of standards for accessibility for persons with identified disabilities (e.g., 2010 ADA Standards). Requirements for fire stations as public buildings are scoped under Title 2 of the ADA, and public facilities are subject to higher accessibility standards than commercial and residential developments.

With a few exceptions for building support spaces, fire station facilities, as Title 2 public buildings, are required to be fully accessible for disabled staff and the public. Cogent arguments have been made for why some areas within a fire station, such as a sleeping room, should not be considered “public” or “accessible.” Similarly convincing cases have been made relative to the mandatory

Page 2 ends

191 of 715
Glendale Fire Department
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 4—Facilities Assessment
fitness requirements for firefighters. Nonetheless, the ADA law is clear: spaces are not exempt based on a policy that excludes persons with disabilities from certain work, and a fire facility is considered a public building in its entirety.

California Essential Services Buildings Seismic Safety Act (ESBSSA) In 1986, the California Legislature determined that buildings providing essential services should be capable of providing those services to the public after a disaster. Their intent in this regard was defined in legislation known as the Essential Services Buildings Seismic Safety Act of 1986 and includes requirements that such buildings shall be:
“Designed and constructed to minimize fire hazards and to resist… the forces generated by earthquakes, gravity, and winds” (Excerpt from Health and Safety Code section 16001).

The enabling legislation can be found in the California Health and Safety Code, Chapter 2, sections 16000 through 16022. In addition, the California Building Code cited above defines how the intent of the act is to be implemented in Title 24, Part 1 of the California Building Standards Administrative Code, Chapter 4, Articles 1 through 3. Only three of the City’s 9 fire stations were built as Essential Services facilities (Fire Station 21, Fire Station 22, and Fire Station 25).

NFPA 1500
NFPA 1500 – Standard on Fire Department Occupational Safety, Health, and Wellness Program is a non-mandated, generally accepted best practice consensus standard for fire station design relative to cancer prevention, firefighter fitness, and space for firefighters to unwind from the stresses of the job.

Newly built fire stations include differential air pressure zones where positive-pressure airflow or an air curtain can prevent contaminants in the apparatus bays from entering the station living and work areas.

Since departments are required to have fitness programs, many departments opt for a separate physical fitness space. Indoor and outdoor fitness areas have been used when space is limited; however, they should have easy access to the apparatus bays in the event of a dispatch while exercising.

Training rooms allow crews to learn about the latest firefighting, EMS, and safety and health programs, so ample space that provides a functional learning space is part of this standard.

Personal protective equipment (PPE) needs to be stored in areas away from the sun and with little fluorescent lighting. The space also needs ventilation to remove particulates from the area and needs to be physically isolated from indoor living, sleeping, and work areas. Most of the PPE storage spaces in Glendale fire stations are in the apparatus bays.

Fire Station Condition Assessment Page 3
192 of 715
Glendale Fire Department
Fire Services Master Plan Vol. 4—Facilities Assessment
NFPA 1851
NFPA 1851 – Standard on Selection, Care, and Maintenance of Protective Ensembles for Structural Fire Fighting and Proximity Fire Fighting provides non-mandated, consensus best practice guidelines for the maintenance and care of firefighter PPE. This standard recommends separate laundry facilities for contaminated PPE from facilities used to launder personal clothing/uniforms, bedding, and bath towels. Laundry areas continue to evolve and are being separated so that personal belongings can be cleaned in the living areas and PPE can be laundered in a separate room or adjacent to the apparatus bays. In so doing, contaminated PPE does not enter the living spaces of the facility. Only some of the laundry spaces at Glendale fire stations are in the apparatus bays.

NFPA 1710
NFPA 1710 – Standard for the Organization and Deployment of Fire Suppression Operations, Emergency Medical Operations, and Special Operations to the Public by Career Fire Departments provides guidelines for fire station design to include access to the apparatus bays from first and second floor (as applicable) interior living/work areas.

INDUSTRY STANDARDS
Fire departments have the primary goals of providing safe, responsive service to the communities they serve while providing a safe environment for firefighters to work in. There are industry-wide design practices common to fire departments across the country that help ensure facilities assist departments in achieving these goals.

Response
Fire stations are located within communities based on careful analysis of the response times required to reach different locations in a service area and provide service within set, standard timeframes. Location is the first criteria to support response. Site circulation across the front apron and connection to roadways determines the ability of apparatus to respond rapidly once firefighters are in a vehicle. Clear lines of sight, and traffic control at busy roadways, contribute to fast response. Alerting systems with clear signalization and visual/audible direction provide firefighters with the information they need to respond. Apparatus bay doors that operate quickly and automatically allow the apparatus to exit the station when the crew is ready. A plan layout of the facility should be organized to provide firefighters with direct access to the apparatus bay from all areas of the station as quickly as possible. Priority should be given to the areas the firefighters may be in most, such as office areas and living areas. Sleeping areas should be prioritized with a direct path to the apparatus bay as longer internal response to the apparatus occurs when the firefighters are sleeping. Areas that may need to be visited as part of response should be placed on

Page 4 ends

Glendale City CouncilApril 2, 2024

Glendale City Council
April 2, 2024