Glendale City Council
May 20, 2025

365 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
Engineering Studies will refine the mitigation plan. The most appropriate engineering solution will be determined by conducting studies that incorporate all the above elements (existing mitigation, timeframe, and cost to implement and maintain) to the specific engineering challenges and issues that must be overcome. Depending upon the outcome of these detailed engineering studies to determine corrective actions, mitigating activities may include:
• Installation of insulated overhead conductors (i.e., “tree wire”) in those areas where conductor contacts are likely to initiate a wildfire; as of May 2023, tree wires are purchased, and plans are being developed to convert a small stretch of overhead conductors that have been identified as requiring this mitigation. Increasing the spacing between conductors, as clearance requirements and easements allow, can also reduce the likelihood of palm fronds creating shorts across conductors, which could spark a wildfire. • Leveraging conductor-spacing devices to minimize the likelihood of “wire slapping.” • Where appropriate, converting existing overhead transmission and distribution assets to underground assets (e.g., conductors and transformers). Most new installations are underground, unless doing so would be cost-prohibitive or is otherwise infeasible.

Undergrounding will also allow for the spreading of costs over a longer period of time and will allow us to significantly reduce ongoing programs and the associated costs, such as vegetation management, in areas that have been undergrounded removing the need to inspect, trim and cut trees.
• Replacing wood poles, which can topple and ignite new fires in high-wind conditions, with sturdier poles, reducing the likelihood of downed poles igniting wildfires and speeding customer restoration. This may include the use of steel poles, where applicable. • Using stronger, composite materials for crossarms, e.g., fiberglass. • Replacement of insulators to reduce the likelihood of overhead conductors becoming detached and contacting vegetation or other flammable materials. • Identification, and replacement, of splices, clamps, and connectors on overhead conductors, where stress from heat or general use can cause downed conductors to come in contact with vegetation or other flammable materials.
• Continue the current practice of replacing overhead distribution transformers that are over 40 years old. Studies have confirmed that transformers over 40 years old have a higher likelihood of failure, which could result in sparking or explosions that could initiate a wildfire.
• Replacing overloaded transformers that do not meet loading criteria to prevent transformer failure
• Improving transformer resiliency to reduce the likelihood of transformer failures (which can trigger transformer fires) and to protect transformers against the heat of a wildfire (which can also trigger transformer fires). This may include investigating more robust materials and supplies (e.g., FR3 transformer oil).
• GWP’s engineering redesigned the capacitor bank installation standards. Capacitor bank neutral that is grounded at the base of the pole can facilitate high fault currents (and the

366 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
potential for fire). According to the new standard capacitor bank neutral is no longer grounded.
• Installing fault indicators for detecting faults on electric lines or equipment. Remote fault indicators can provide line current measurement at device • Implementing fast-acting, automatic protection schemes to detect broken conductors and de-energize before the conductor touches the ground.
• Installing remotely operable SCADA sectionalizing/reclosing devices and manually operated sectionalizing/reclosing devices on the distribution system can support GWP’s ability to segment the distribution circuits close to designated meteorology shutoff polygons to reduce the customer impact and scope of PSPS events which are used as a last resort to avoid ignition risks
• Replacing non-exempt equipment with exempt equipment in HFTD areas and HFRAs to reduce fire risk by reducing the frequency of all types of ignition events since the exempt equipment is considered “non-expulsion” and does not generate arcs/sparks during normal operation. Accordingly. Replacing distribution fuses with non-expulsive fuses to prevent inadvertent sparking as fuses blow.
• Conducting engineering studies to identify ideal locations for lightning arresters, devices designed to protect equipment from the damaging effects of lightning. GWP has already installed throughout GWP’s electric system, but these locations will be reevaluated for effectiveness.
• Installing weather station data equipment and HD camera footage to be monitored 24/7. • Installing advanced monitoring methods such as Distribution Fault Anticipation (DFA), Early Fault Detection (EFD) and Brocken Conductor detection (BCD)technologies on circuits feeding into High Fire Threat District (HFTD) areas or High Fire Risk Areas (HFRAs). These technologies measure different electrical parameters over the distribution circuits and along with analytical methods may be able to detect issues and fire risks resulting from non-equipment failure type outage (where no problems are found) early in their degradation mode. One sensor per circuit will be installed at initiating substation in the HFRA and HFTD areas.
• Installing line sensor devices on circuits feeding into HFTD areas or HFRA to cover mainline and major tap lines in areas meeting minimum load requirements and within cellular coverage areas to provide visibility
Based upon these, and similar, criteria, each project will be evaluated for the best-fit solution, funded through the annual budgeting process, and implemented based upon priority. These efforts are intended to reduce the likelihood of GWP equipment igniting a wildfire.

GWP intends to also ensure rapid and safe restoration by improving the resiliency of its infrastructure against wildfire damage. For example, in those areas especially prone to wildfires, GWP will identify wood poles that could be replaced with non-flammable (e.g., steel or concrete) and/or taller poles. This type of action would not necessarily prevent wildfires, but it would speed restoration after a wildfire. These activities will be on-going and are subject to adjustment, depending upon the results of GWP’s investigations and studies.

367 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Efforts
Prioritization of wildfire mitigation efforts includes tailoring GWP’s O&M resources to meet or exceed state utility standards to minimize the risks posed by vegetation and equipment failure.

Funding shall be allocated through the annual budgeting process and is subject to management and City Council approval.
• Vegetation Management – Reduction of Ignition. GWP’s existing vegetation management program is on a two-year cycle, ensuring that all trees under power lines have been trimmed at least bi-annually. Vegetation management practices is expanded to exceed minimum clearance requirements (as described in GO 95) by trimming trees down to the telecommunications layer and to clear hazardous vegetation in both Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones.

GWP’s more aggressive tree-trimming policy may also include trimming or removing trees that could fall onto overhead power lines from above.
• Vegetation Management Program (VMP) – Limiting the Spread of Wildfires. Reducing the risk of spreading wildfires posed by hazardous vegetation near structures is achieved, in large measure, by leveraging the City of Glendale Fire Department’s Hazardous Vegetation Management Program (VMP); the VMP reduces the risk of a home igniting from a nearby wildfire by controlling hazardous vegetation within 100 feet of the home. • Inspections. Expanding asset inspections and refining its master plan to address end-of-life infrastructure management. In January of 2021.GWP issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to solicit proposals from qualified engineering firms to conduct a complete assessment of all overhead and underground assets. In May of 2021, Council awarded a three-year contract to an Engineering firm to provide Transmission & Distribution System inspection. This assessment includes pole inspections, vault inspections, and inspections of all assets connected to (or within) these assets, including (but not limited to) transformers, crossarms, insulators, conductors, cables, landings, capacitor banks, voltage regulators, and all other attachments. This program, consistent with GO 165, shall assess the condition of GWP assets and provide a mechanism to prioritize repair and replacement. Maintaining robust infrastructure will minimize the likelihood of downed power lines or failed equipment that can spark and ignite wildfires.
• Reclosers. Modifying recloser settings during high-risk periods to minimize the likelihood of inadvertently reclosing in a high-wildfire risk area. • Equipment Failure. According to information collected by GWP staff, over 40% of equipment failures in recent GWP history were transformer failures and overhead conductor failures. GWP has instituted an on-going process to replace aged transformers, which are more likely to fail by tracking characteristics like age, installation date, manufacturer, loading factor, and size for each transformer. Currently, transformers with more than 40 service years are prioritized for replacement. The failure of overhead conductors can ignite a fire if the line is still energized when it touches the ground; GWP is investigating technological solutions to de-energize a falling conductor before it touches the ground. The probability of overhead conductor failure has been reduced.

368 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
Wildfire Mitigation Budget Measure
FY 2022-
2023
Budget
FY 2023-
2024
Budget
FY 2025-2026
Proposed
Budget
FY 2024-
2025 BudgetProject # Project Description
$300,000Wildfire Mitigation $200,000
$300,000
$7,000,000
$150,000
$50,000
$300,000
$7,000,000
$50,000
$100,000
$600,000
$7,000,000
$100,000
GWP00653AA
$1,000,000
$7,000,000
Pole Replacement
4kV/12kV Feeder
GWP00652AA Upgrade
$300,000
1,500,000
Distribution ExpansionGWP00656AA
Transmission &
Distribution
Inspection Program
Tree Trimming
Contract
$1,000,000
$2,800,000
$1,000,000
$2,800,000
$2,000,000GWP00643AA
43110
Contract
$2,500,000$2,800,000
$12,600,000Total $11,450,000 $11,200,000 $12,600,00
General Project Description
GWP00653AA System hardening and installation of composite poles and tree wires GWP00642AA Pole replacement project within the entire city including Tier 2 and Tier 3 GWP00652AA Rebuilding power poles for 12 kV Operation within the entire city including Tier 2 & Tier 3. In 12kV operation, the conductors are spread apart, and the risk of fire is lower GWP00656AA Converting Overhead to Underground and extending distribution lines for new services GWP00643AA Inspection of electrical facilities Incl. Power Poles, Vaults, Pull boxes & Street lights 43110 Contract Vegetation management in accordance with WMP &California regulatory requirements Operational Practices as Preventive Measures
• Operational practices on disabling reclosers, proactive de-energization, and public outreach, as well as leveraging City programs that are consistent with this Plan (e.g., VMP).

Situational practices by the deployment of high-definition cameras to provide visual coverage of high-risk areas.

To reduce the risk of spread of wildfire, the Glendale Fire Department uses multiple cameras and weather stations at strategic locations to monitor conditions and take immediate action.

Cameras are found at:

Mt. Lukens 1&2, https://alertca.live/cam-console/2181
Verdugo Peak 1&2, https://alertca.live/cam-console/2477 Mt. Lee North https://alertca.live/cam-console/2176

369 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
Weather Stations area located at: https://www.weather.gov/lox/fwmV3

10. Metrics
To evaluate the effectiveness of these mitigation measures, GWP intends to:
• Evaluate and measure the effectiveness of this Plan by monitoring and tracking verifiable metrics.
• Establish a baseline by inspecting the condition of its transmission and distribution assets, including poles, switches, reclosers, vaults, and transformers. Based upon these inspection results, submit annual budget requests to repair or replace equipment in a subpar condition. Continue periodic inspections consistent with GO 165. • Incorporate lessons learned and institutional intelligence specific to GWP to revise this Plan.

Tracking of the initial set of metrics commenced in January 2021. New metrics are tracked, to provide actionable data and feedback. These metrics are intended to provide a quantitative assessment of the effectiveness of the Plan over time. The metrics themselves are not as important as the trends that are quantified in the metrics; accordingly, GWP intends to prioritize its limited resources by minimizing the time spent on gathering metrics in favor of implementing mitigating measures.

As the Plan matures and its effectiveness is measured over time, the metrics will be modified and adjusted, just as the Plan itself will be modified and adjusted based upon performance, successes, and failures.

The formal list of metrics shall demonstrate results and measure the effectiveness of GWP’s wildfire mitigation and will include the following:
• After any relay event, where GWP’s protective relays automatically de-energize a feeder or transmission line, the following information will be collected during the post-mortem:
• Did the outage ignite a fire? (yes/no)
• If the outage ignited a fire, were first responders notified? (yes/no) • If the outage ignited a fire, how large was the fire? < 1 acre, 1-50 acres, 50-300 acres, or > 300 acres
• If the outage ignited a fire, how many structures were impacted? 1, 2-10, 10-50, or > 50 • Number of trees trimmed by GWP.
• Number of poles replaced in Tier 2/3.
• Number of transformers replaced in Tier 2/3.
• Feet/miles of transmission/distribution lines moved underground in Tier 2/3. • Feet/miles of tree wire installed in Tier 2/3.
• Number of standard (expulsive) fuses replaced by non-expulsive fuses. • Glendale Fire Department average time to respond to fire incidents.

370 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
GWP engineering set up an inhouse made metric to track the number of poles, transformers and tree wires replaced in Tier 2 and Tier 3.

Wildfire Mitigation Summary
From 01/01/2021 To 03/21/2025
Transformers Replaced - Source GIS
Tier Overhead Underground Pad mount
2 3
19 5
24 16
2 18
2 0
2Totals
Tree Wire Installed - Source GIS
Tier Feet OH Feet UG Feet Total
2 623.15 N/A 623.15
Totals 623.15 N/A 623.15
Poles Replaced - Source GIS
Tier
2 3
Count
62 30
Totals 92
In addition, staff established the metric shown below to track the number of facilities that are inspected within a given time period.

371 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
GWP funding and capital improvement priorities will be adjusted, based upon the results of these inspections, to replace and harden equipment and assets that are flagged as requiring replacement. Following are a sample inspection reports:

Sample of Pole Inspection Report by Date
Sample of Vault Inspection Report by Date
Sample of Pullbox Inspection Report by Date

372 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

11. Metrics Feedback
As GWP monitors and evaluates the metrics described in the previous section, it should also adjust this Plan to ensure these goals are achieved. During the annual review of this Plan, the following general questions should be reviewed with respect to the existing metrics:
• Metric Not Met. If a metric was not met, determine the cause. Review the metric for appropriateness – is the metric too strict, given GWP’s resources? Are additional resources required to improve the metric performance? Will additional resources have an impact on performance, or is the return on investment minimal? • Metric Significantly Exceeded. If a metric was significantly exceeded, review the metric for appropriateness. It is possible that the metric is too easily achieved, making the metric meaningless.
• New or Obsolete Metrics. Review any proposed new metrics and determine whether existing metrics are obsolete. Experience, legislative drivers, and management priorities can trigger the development of new metrics and the retirement of obsolete metrics. • Adjustments Based Upon Metrics. Based upon performance against these metrics, this Plan should be updated to adjust priorities and goals. For example, once a known issue has been mitigated, it should transition from “active construction” to “active monitoring.”

373 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

12. Operational Practices
The City of Glendale’s operational practices are coordinated across Departments and implemented independently by each Department.

Citywide
The City of Glendale’s Emergency Response Plan10 addresses the City’s planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security emergencies. The Plan does not address normal, day-to-day emergencies or the well-established and routine procedures used in coping with such emergencies. Instead, the operational concepts reflected in the Plan focus on potential large-scale disasters which can generate unique situations requiring unusual emergency responses.

The City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan11 provides a set of action items that, if implemented, can help reduce the risk from hazards through education and outreach programs, the development of partnerships, and the implementation of preventive activities (such as land use programs) that restrict and control development in areas subject to damage from natural hazards.

City of Glendale personnel involved in emergency response and emergency management functions are provided ongoing training, including local workshops, SEMS12 training, NIMS13 training, and other special programs throughout the year. Key management and emergency personnel also attend the California Specialized Training Institute to receive in-depth training in related emergency management topics.

GWP
Engineering and field personnel will periodically review operational practices to identify preventative strategies and enhanced operational procedures to minimize and mitigate the risk of causing and/or spreading catastrophic wildfires, both during periods of high danger as well as during normal operating conditions.

The Principal Power System Operator oversees the real-time System Dispatch function and provides on-going, topical training to all Power System Operators (PSO’s). At least two PSO’s staff a Dispatch desk 24/7 to monitor and control GWP’s electric grid while dispatching field crews to investigate and resolve problems, or to schedule work, on GWP electrical infrastructure. 10 https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/fire-department/other/emergency-preparedness- response/city-emergency-plans
11 https://www.glendaleca.gov/Home/ShowDocument?id=48978 12 Standardized Emergency Management System, which unifies all elements of California’s emergency management community into a single, integrated system with standardized key elements. Se e https://www.caloes.ca.gov/cal-oes- divisions/planning-preparedness/standardized-emergency-management-system for more information. 13 The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) National Incident Management System, which guides all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations (NGO), and the private sector to work together to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from incidents. See https://www.fema.gov/national-incident- management-system for more information.

374 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
The Substation Operations Training Program includes training on system protection and trouble response; topics include discussions on preemptive de-energization, rolling blackouts, and automatic system protection schemes. This training is provided to all new PSO’s, as well as to seasoned PSO’s on an annual basis.

Operationally, the PSO retains the authority and obligation to de-energize electrical equipment, sub-transmission lines, and/or distribution feeders in the event of a high wildfire danger. The decision to preemptively de-energize GWP equipment is described further in GWP Standard Operating Procedure SOP-021 and is based upon multiple factors, including Red Flag Warnings, system conditions, and other operational considerations. The PSO considers several factors before de-energizing overhead lines during periods of extreme wildfire danger:
• Hospitals
• Elder care facilities
• Communications equipment (e.g., cell phone towers, pole-mounted cell sites) • City of Glendale Public Works facilities (e.g., sewer) • First responder facilities, including police, fire, and local government facilities. • Community information facilities (e.g., radio equipment). • GWP Water Division and Crescenta Valley Water District systems, which maintain water quality, water supply, and water pressure to residents and to the Glendale Fire Department for fighting fires.

De-energization is always the PSO’s option of last resort, given the potential impacts of de- energization as described below (e.g., traffic signals, air conditioning during high temperatures, lack of electricity to water facilities to fight fires, etc.). In the event preemptive de-energization is initiated, every attempt to minimize the number of affected customers is made by sectionalizing only the effected feeders or transmission lines.

Per SOP-021, it is GWP’s policy to preemptively de-energize overhead transmission and distribution lines and to disable automatic reclosers in the Tier 2 or Tier 3 zones during periods of extreme wildfire danger, or at other times as deemed necessary by GWP, with the intent of reducing the risk of igniting a wildfire from energized equipment.

During these periods of extreme wildfire danger, if a protective scheme (e.g., relay or recloser) automatically de-energizes a feeder, GWP crews will physically patrol a feeder to identify and clear the cause of the protective action before any attempts are made to re-energize the circuit.

The benefits of preemptive de-energization are offset by the challenges and potential dangers of widespread and extended power outages during periods of high temperatures. As discussed in

18. Enterprise-Wide Risks, the supply of safe drinking water, water for firefighting, infrastructure used for public safety, and the overall impacts of power outages could all potentially be compromised. Therefore, the decision to de-energize customers must be the solution of last resort after all wildfire mitigation efforts have been exhausted.

375 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
Thus far, GWP has never de-energized a feeder that would result in customer outage.

Glendale reacts proactively whenever there is a Red Flag warning issued for the area by the National Weather Service, and de-energizes the Glendale’s 34.5 kV “Bel Aire-Montrose transmission line. Also, before the line is re-energized, a lineman patrols to confirm that the line is intact and that there is no debris lodged across the insulators or the lines. Overwhelming majority of the area serviced by GWP is classified as ‘Urban’, with clear access by the city Fire Department, therefore the possibility of wildfire is very low, but there is a single sub- transmission line mentioned in the above paragraph “Bel Aire-Montrose line” that runs across an uninhabited hilly terrain covered with brush; it has limited vehicular access. This is an area of elevated fire risk. For that reason, GWP de-energizes this transmission line (without loss of customer load) each time the National Weather Service issues a Red Flag Alert.

The PSOs conduct and complete annual and periodic training on their job responsibilities, processes, procedures, and practices. This training includes their authority to de-energize customers as needed to prevent potential ignitions during extreme fire conditions, as well as during periods where there is insufficient energy supply to meet load requirements. SOP-021 is also covered in this training, including notification requirements before initiating planned de- energization of customers. System conditions can change rapidly, so in an emergency, the PSO may opt to de-energize first, then conduct the required notifications. GWP will make a case-by- case decision to shut off power based on the following factors:
• Red Flag Warnings issued by the National Weather Service for wildfire weather zones that contain GWP circuits.
• Real-time input from fire experts and vegetation experts. • Input from local and state fire authorities regarding the potential consequences of wildfires in GWP territories.
• Alternative ways to reroute power to affected areas.
• operational considerations to minimize potential wildfire ignitions, including the blocking of reclosers on the identified circuit(s).
• On-going fire activity throughout GWP territory.
• Potential impacts to communities and customers.

While the PSOs determine whether and when de-energization is necessary, the field crews work in tandem with the PSOs to conduct field switching (as necessary, and as directed by the PSOs), patrol de-energized lines prior to re-energization, and repair damage to equipment and lines discovered during patrols. This is consistent with their usual duties and is folded into their standard job responsibilities and practices.

Energy Supply and Procurement Contingencies
Should the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power (LADWP), Southern California Edison (SCE), or other utilities elect to de-energize major transmission corridors during periods of

376 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
extreme fire danger (which usually correlate with periods of high electrical loads), the City will be forced to procure replacement energy from alternate energy sources to meet load.

Given GWP’s load and contingency obligations during periods of peak load, the loss of a major transmission line could result in the loss of 100 MW or more of imported energy. Options to replace this energy are limited to local generation capability (e.g., Grayson) or purchases of energy that rely upon LADWP transmission. Most GWP transmission is closely tied to LADWP transmission, meaning the loss of GWP transmission likely includes the loss of LADWP transmission, further straining the local transmission grid. When GWP’s transmission capacity is curtailed during periods of high load, LADWP is unlikely to have excess transmission capacity to sell to GWP, at any price; even if GWP could find an energy provider, it would be unlikely to be delivered to the Glendale (69 kV) side of the Air Way receiving station.

The next option would be to generate the energy locally (e.g., Grayson). The proposed repowered Grayson power plant must be sufficient to accommodate the loss of 100 MW of transmission import capability, which reflects the amount of transmission capacity that would be lost if the Pacific Direct Current Intertie (PDCI) transmission line were to be de-energized.

However, should this local generation not be available when needed (for example, if the repower were to not occur), GWP would have insufficient capability to meet its load and contingency obligations while the PDCI were de-energized.

In the event GWP is unable to procure energy delivered to the Air Way receiving station or to generate the replacement energy locally, it would be forced to initiate rolling blackouts to balance its load with delivered energy. These rollouts would continue until the lost transmission capability is restored. In other words, preemptive de-energization of transmission lines, initiated by a party other than GWP, could result in rolling blackouts within the City of Glendale. In the scenario where an outside agency’s actions caused a lack of energy supply to the City of Glendale, advanced notification to customers would likely not be possible given that the energy shortage would occur with no more than a few hours’ notice, though “best efforts” would be initiated to provide notice when possible.

GWP has acquired a new Outage Management System (OMS) by DataVoice International Inc., which allows efficient and quick notification to our customers of impending power outage, whether than outage is due to generation shortage or due to PSPS.

GWP Dispatch maintains a rolling blackout schedule that is initiated at the direction of the Integrated Resource Planning Administrator or delegate.

To increase our generation reliability, GWP is planning more distributed generation in the city, namely by installing photovoltaic panels and battery storage. One of the projects involves the placement of solar panels on city-owned properties, such as roof-tops and parking structures that are owned by the city of Glendale. Another project is considering the placement of 25 MW of battery storage at possibility Montrose Substation. In the future, GWP plans to install 50 MW of battery storage at the Utility Operations Center yard (UOC), close to GWP’s power generation.

377 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

13. Customer Outreach
Prevention and Strategy
GWP will maintain a multi-level outreach and education strategy to create public awareness of fire threats, fire prevention, and support during a wildfire or a de-energizing event. GWP will work with the public, community leaders, and other agencies to collaboratively discuss fire- safety processes regarding public safety. These collaborations will provide forums for public education and opportunities to exchange improvement ideas and practices. Provide fire-safety and emergency preparedness communications such as general market TV, streaming radio, out- of-home (bulletins/posters/transit), digital ads, etc.

GWP partners with first responders, health care facilities, and operators of telecommunications infrastructures. GWP, in coordination with the Glendale Fire Department, proactively alerts customers on the Life Support list it maintains. GWP maintains a Public Safety Power Shutoff webpage for its website at https://www.glendaleca.gov/wildfiremitigation to provide information on power shut offs and fire mitigation plans, and a link to this page from the main GWP website will also be added. This webpage will be used to ask customers to update their GWP account information and emergency contact preferences, and to provide a link to both the login page to GWP account information and to the Everbridge Emergency Contact Information webpage.

GWP will develop informational brochures on wildfire mitigation safety and what to do when a de-energizing event is called, referencing the website in all collateral items produced and distributed. On the dedicated Public Safety Wildfire Mitigation webpage, customers will be able to find the following information:
• GWP’s adopted Wildfire Mitigation Plan;
• Information on how GWP mitigates wildfire risk;
• Emergency preparedness tips and guide;
• Information on what not to do during Red Flag Warnings (e.g., BBQs, smoking outdoors, throwing ashes out, etc.);
• Links to any additional resources;
• Links to GWP Account Information & Everbridge Emergency Notification sign-ups; • Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) on the power shut-off process.

De-Energization (Public Safety Shutoff Event)
During an extreme weather event, GWP will actively provide customer outreach and support through a targeted communications strategy, with the goal of providing as much advance notice as possible. GWP will inform its customers of expected severe weather conditions and directly notify affected customers through established points of contact such as email, phone, text, and/or push notifications. GWP will also alert customers through its social media platforms, alert the media, work with the City’s Fire and Police PIO offices and websites, and post rolling

378 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
messages on local television (GTV6) and on the City’s and GWP’s websites. GWP can initiate automated pre-recorded phone calls to customers in the impacted areas, advising them when the outages are called and directing customers to the dedicated GWP website for up-to-date information. Pre-recorded IVR (Interactive Voice Response) messages will have real-time recorded information informing customers that may be impacted. GWP will also post messages on its website and through its Mobile App, social media platforms, changeable and movable road signs and In-Home Digital Display program for targeted push messaging. Messaging will increase in urgency as the certainty of a Public Safety Power Shutoff approaches. Finally, in addition to alerting its customers, GWP will also notify, as a priority, first responders’ PIO offices, health care facilities’ communication offices, and the offices of the building engineers, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), and operators of telecommunications infrastructure.

For customers on Life Support, GWP, if notified, will contact these customers through phone calls. Two phone attempts will be made, and an email will be sent if there is an email address on file. GWP will also keep local news and radio outlets informed.

Timing of notifications
When GWP determines a preemptive de-energization is required, either because another entity’s actions suddenly limit GWP’s energy supply (e.g., Southern California Edison initiates a Public Safety Power Shutoff – PSPS – on a transmission line that impacts GWP’s incoming transmission capacity) or due to the PSO’s system assessment, GWP will provide advance notifications in three phases:

1. Advanced notification (when possible)
• 48 hours before electricity is turned off.
• 24 hours before electricity is turned off.

2. Shutoff notification just before electricity is turned off.

3. Notifications during the event
Post event notifications will be provided to notify customers that power has been restored.

379 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

14. Vegetation Management
As described in this Plan, the majority of acreage burned by wildfires triggered by electric utilities was determined to be due to vegetation contacts and equipment failure. GWP oversees a contracted arborist that implements GWP’s vegetation management program intended to mitigate the risk posed by vegetation contacts. This program is consistent with General Order (GO) 95 – Rules for Overhead Electric Line Construction, including the clearance requirements described in Section III – Requirements for All Lines, Rule 35 Vegetation Management.

GWP has on their staff Line Clearance Forestry Supervisors who spend most of their time in the field, overseeing the contractor and monitoring vegetation under GWP transmission and distribution lines. These Supervisors are typically certified arborists who identify all trees that need trimming, direct the contractor to specific trees and/or areas that require trimming, and then confirm afterward that the identified trees have been trimmed to GWP standards.

Although the highest wildfire risk is presented in the Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones of the City, the Supervisors monitor the entire City for dangers posed by vegetation under GWP lines.

In fiscal year 2022-2023, GWP had budgeted approximately $2,500,000 to fund a contractor to conduct tree-trimming activities. For the fiscal year 2023-2024, GWP has increased its tree- trimming budget by approximately $300,000 for enhanced tree-trimming activities; these enhancements may include larger clearances, expansion of tree-trimming to nearby trees not directly under power lines, and other clearing of hazardous vegetation near power lines.

As part of its risk assessment to prioritize mitigation efforts, GWP has engaged the City of Glendale’s Fire Department to leverage its Vegetation Management Program (VMP). The VMP was developed to ensure there is adequate defensible space around buildings in the wildland- urban interface. Activities include annual inspections and review/permitting of landscape and fuel modification plans for properties in the high wildfire hazard area. Property owners are required to maintain a 100-foot radius of defensible space (i.e., remove hazardous vegetation) around all property structures, including homes, backhouses, sheds, etc. The majority of GWP’s electrical assets also reside within this 100-foot radius, so even if a localized fire were ignited by failed GWP equipment, the likelihood of this fire igniting nearby buildings would be reduced.

Therefore, GWP can focus its resources on mitigating electrical assets that are outside of the zones covered by the VMP. The VMP facilitates GWP’s ability to focus on mitigation of electrical assets on a subset of its assets, potentially improving the success and rate of its mitigation efforts.

GWP maintains an electronic tree database that tracks the inspection, trimming, and auditing activity, by containing an inventory number of trees. An inventory tree is one that could encroach the minimum required clearance or otherwise impacts the electrical facilities within two- years of the inspection date.

380 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
Vegetation management in GWP service area is performed by the same Electrical Line Mechanics that are involved in the installation and maintenance of power lines and all other overhead equipment; it usually takes place under the watchful eye of GWP’s Electrical Line Mechanic Supervisor II. Vegetation management has been expanded to exceed minimum clearance requirements as described in GO 95, by trimming trees down to the telecommunication levels. Fiscal year 2023-24, we spent $1.64 million on vegetation management.

15. System Inspections
As described in this Plan, the majority of acreage burned by wildfires triggered by electric utilities was determined to be due to vegetation contacts and equipment failure. GWP leverages GO 165 requirements as a “best practice” to provide guidance on system inspections that are intended to identify failing equipment that may ignite a fire.

As part of its Master Plan, GWP conducts a system inventory that includes a system-wide inspection of its poles, streetlights, vaults, and all equipment and assets connected to, or contained within, these assets. GWP funding and capital improvement priorities will be adjusted, based upon the results of these inspections, to replace and harden equipment and assets that are flagged as requiring replacement. This system-wide inspection program commenced in November of 2022, by a qualified, contracted engineering firm that will formally inspect and assess all overhead and underground assets. As assets are inspected, GWP will remediate based upon these inspection results and will issue work orders to address any problems that were observed: replace poles, repair equipment, etc. The completed inspection report will establish a baseline condition assessment of system assets; this program will establish the new inspection program going forward, and GWP staff will conduct all subsequent assessments as part of an on- going inspection program, consistent with the requirements of GO 95 and GO 165.

In fiscal year 2023-2024, GWP budgeted $1.5M per year for the contracted engineering firm to inspect the electrical facilities.

GWP has dedicated staff who are responsible for the preventative and routine inspections, construction, installation, maintenance, and repair of all transmission and distribution assets. For the fiscal year 2023-2024, GWP has budgeted capital and O&M funds related to wildfire mitigation, including system hardening, substation and distribution automation, and vegetation management.

The City of Glendale’s VMP, managed by the Glendale Fire Department, includes annual inspections of properties in the high fire hazard areas of the City to ensure compliance with its defensible space standards (see Exhibit B).

381 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

16. Wildfire Risks and Drivers
The City of Glendale’s wildfire risk is driven by controllable and uncontrollable factors. The City’s topography consists of both a highly developed urban center and mountainous open spaces with frequently dry vegetation; this diversity adds complexity to GWP’s wildfire mitigation efforts and requires a surgical approach to tailored mitigation efforts in each area of the City. Climate change exacerbates the already hot, dry weather common to Glendale, as well as the seasonal winds, as discussed in Section 9. Preventative Strategies and Programs, and is assumed to only exacerbate GWP’s wildfire risk going forward, namely with respect to making dry fuel available for ignition and for spread. This Plan focuses on preventing wildfires from being caused by inadvertent vegetation contacts with, or failures of, GWP electric utility equipment. Prevention of wildfires ignited by other causes (e.g., intentionally set fires, accidental human-caused fires, etc.) are not considered.

GWP aims to reduce the risk of starting and spreading wildfires, acknowledging that it is not feasible to achieve zero risk. To that end, GWP has adopted a risk-based approach to prioritize capital improvements, Operations and Maintenance (O&M) work, and changes to operating procedures to achieve the objective stated in Section 8 of this Plan.

This prioritization leverages historical data that measures the relative size (in this case, measured in acreage of burned land) of California wildfires and that describes the causes of the wildfires.

Historical data confirms that the majority of acreage burned was due to vegetation contacts and equipment failure.

To quantify the size (in acreage) of historical fires, 2018-2022 wildfire statistics from Cal Fire14 indicate:
• 50% of the acres burned were due to fires initiated by vegetation contacts – i.e., trees touching power lines, causing sparks and starting fires. Plentiful brush and undergrowth can also facilitate rapid expansion of wildfires once the initial spark is provided. • The majority of the acreage burned due to vegetation contacts occurred in 2018, which skews the acreage burned due to vegetation contacts. 46% of the total acres burned were caused by equipment failure – i.e., failed hardware that possibly sparked or exploded and started fires.
• The majority of the acreage burned due to equipment failure occurred in 2021, which skews the acreage burned due to equipment failure. 1.3% of the total acres burned were caused by lines down – i.e., energized power lines that touched the ground and started fires. Equipment and hardware failures are discussed in more detail below. 14 “2018 Wildfire Activity Statistics,” “2019 Wildfire Activity Statistics,” “2020 Wildfire Activity Statistics,” “2021 Wildfire Activity Statistics,” “2022 Wildfire Activity Statistics,” Historical Wildfire Activity Statistics (Redbooks), https://www.fire.ca.gov/our-impact/statistics (Past Wildfire Activity Statistics (Redbooks)

382 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
• The acreage burned due to animals (e.g., squirrels shorting lines and starting a fire) and line slap (transmission lines touching during high winds) was negligible.

The chart below summarizes this data.

Figure 1. California Wildfires: Number of Acres Burned by Cause (2018-2022) 250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
0 Vegetation Contact Hardware Lines Down Line Slap Animals

383 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
GWP concurs that its own risks stem largely from vegetation contacts and equipment failure.

Equipment failures from 2013 – 2023, based upon historical GWP data, show that the largest number of equipment failures came from transformers, overhead conductors, insulators, and switches and disconnects. The chart below summarizes this data.

Figure 2. Outages Based on GWP Equipment (2013-2023)
30 28
26 24
22 20
18 16
14 12
10 8
6 4
2 0
GWP’s transformer-replacement program prioritizes life-cycle replacement of transformers that are over 40 years old to minimize the likelihood of transformer failures igniting wildfires.

As part of its review of assets in the Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones, GWP Electric Engineering has identified overhead feeder and transmission line sections at the highest risk of igniting and spreading wildfires. These sections will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis for the most appropriate mitigation approach, as discussed in Section 9.

384 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

17. Wildfire Zones
GWP has leveraged the tiered zones developed and mapped by Cal Fire; the Glendale Fire Department’s independent wildfire zone assessment15 correlates strongly with Cal Fire’s maps and assigns similar levels of risk to these areas. GWP does not anticipate making any changes to these maps and accepts them as provided. In addition, Section 7 of the City’s Hazard Mitigation Plan contains the City’s independent assessment of wildfire risk within the City of Glendale.

CalFire’s methodology reflects the risk of a wildfire igniting and spreading by classifying each area within the City of Glendale as Tier 1 (low risk), Tier 2 (elevated risk), or Tier 3 (extreme risk).

The Fire Area Map in Exhibit A is from 2018 and shows that approximately 48% of the City of Glendale falls within Tier 2 and 14% falls within Tier 3. GWP intends to prioritize its efforts to mitigate wildfire hazards within these areas, which cover nearly 62% of the City’s area.

GWP and the Glendale Fire Department, working in concert, significantly reduce the wildfire risk imposed by hazardous vegetation:
• GWP’s aggressive, City-wide tree-trimming program, consistent with GO 95, reduces the likelihood of trees coming in contact with live transmission and distribution wires. • The City of Glendale’s Vegetation Management Program (VMP) reduces the intensity and rate of spread of a wildfire near buildings, reducing the risk that nearby buildings will be ignited. The majority of GWP’s electrical assets reside within 100 feet of structures on private property (where property owners are required to manage vegetation), so only

0.47% of the City’s Tier 2 and Tier 3 land area contains GWP electrical assets that require additional mitigation to reduce the risk of igniting a spreading wildfire; this is compared to the nearly 62% of the City’s area that is within the Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones.

By applying this risk-based approach of focusing wildfire mitigation resources on GWP’s overhead resources in
unmitigated areas, only 0.47% of the City’s Tier 2 and Tier 3 land area contains GWP assets that require additional
mitigation.

By applying prudent vegetation management programs, GWP has decreased the City of Glendale’s wildfire exposure from 62% of its land area to 0.47%, a 99.5% decrease; this reduction in scope provides clear guidance on the remaining areas requiring additional wildfire mitigation. Figure 3 summarizes the impact of the existing mitigating measures, and Figure 4 graphically illustrates the level of mitigation currently in place. GWP intends to focus its added wildfire mitigation efforts and resources on mitigating the remaining electrical assets in these Tier 2 and Tier 3 zones.
15 City of Glendale’s High Fire Hazard Area map, https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showdocument?id=50019

385 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
Figure 3. GWP Assets Currently Mitigated vs. Requiring Additional Mitigation Liable Assets Requiring
Total Assets Additional Mitigation
Overhead T+D Lines
(miles) 206.2
11,303
3,528
523

60.6 2,899
673

15.6 282.4 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-

9.6 3.4
60 3

13.0 245
26 95.4%

98.4%

99.4%

98.3%

99.1%

97.7%

99.5%
100.0%
100.0%

4.6%

1.6%

0.6%

1.7%

0.9%

2.3%

0.5%
0%
Poles / Towers
Transformers
703 14,905 185
165
16 4,366
647
23 Pole Switches 108 10 1 11
Pole Disconnects / Fuses
Reclosers
1,098
28 232 49 1379

43.0 7 5 12
12 3 1 0 1
Area Coverage
Electric Meters
Structures / Buildings
38% 48% 14% 100% 0.29% 0.18% 0.47%*
77,524 10,889 1,945 90,358
44,469 11,622 2,248 58,339
5 0
1 0
6 0 0%
* Refer to page 5 of report, Methodology for calculating high-wildfire danger areas in the City of Glendale Eliminate the area from Tier 2 and Tier 3 where
1) there are no GWP electrical assets
2) electrical assets reside within 100 feet of a private structure, are cleared by vegetation (VMP program) 3) Divide the remaining area from Tier 2 & Tier 3 to the entire City area to get 0.47% The number of liable assets in Tier2 and Tier 3, requiring additional mitigation from Figure 3 is:

Liable Assets Requiring
Additional Mitigation
Overhead Assets
Overhead T&D Lines
(Miles) 9.6
185
23 10
7 3.4
60 3
13 245
26 Poles
Transformers
Pole Switches 1 11
Pole Disconnects / Fuses 5 12
Area Coverage 0.29% 0.18% 0.47%
Electric Meters 5
0 1
0 6
0Structures / Buildings

386 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
Figure 4. GWP Assets Currently Mitigated vs. Requiring Additional Mitigation

387 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

18. Enterprise-Wide Risks
This Plan discusses mitigating steps and measures intended to “protect City customers, employees, and assets against the potential dangers and costs of damage incurred as a result of wildfires inadvertently initiated by GWP electrical assets and equipment.”16 These dangers and costs also apply to functions and departments other than the GWP electrical division, including the GWP Water Division, Glendale Police Department-Radio Shop, Glendale Police, and Glendale Fire.

The primary impacts of a wildfire are the potential for preemptive de-energization of one or more feeders and evacuation of high-danger areas during an active wildfire.

GWP – Water Division
GWP’s Water Division serves over 200,000 residents through 34,000 service connections to residential units and businesses and is an essential partner in public safety by ensuring sufficient water supply to the City of Glendale’s over 3,000 fire hydrants. In order to provide this service, water needs to be pumped from the various points of delivery to the end users.

Due to the topography of the City of Glendale, water is delivered by gravity to the “downtown” area of the City and pumped from this elevation up to the canyons and hills and to the northern elevations of the City. Specifically, the hydraulic elevation, or grade, of the City’s downtown is 724 feet and the highest water service elevation is at 2,483 feet, with several elevations in between. These areas primarily rely upon water storage tanks, which can supply a few hours of water for firefighting purposes to extinguish single structure fires as originally planned and designed when these neighborhoods were developed.

Many of these areas are in what could be called “native brush/urban” interfaces; reliable power to the water facilities can be restricted by wildfires or by proactive de-energization. Since the City has historically had a reliable, local source of generation at the Grayson Power Plant, the water system has not been required to install permanent back-up generation at its facilities. If electrical service to GWP’s pump stations were unavailable for more than a few hours, GWP would be unable to provide additional water to an area where a large brush fire could be occurring. It is estimated that the planning, design, and installation of permanent on-site generation to power critical water facilities would cost around $10 million; on-going maintenance and operations would be an added annual budgeted expense.

Glendale Police Department (Radio Shop)
The Glendale Police Department (GPD) Radio Shop maintains the Citywide radio communications system used by all City departments. This infrastructure is also used by a number of other cities as part of the ICI System Joint Powers Authority, a regional radio network that integrates infrastructure owned by a number of other cities into a single unified network

388 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
using 37 sites to provide seamless roaming throughout the county. Glendale is the lead agency for the ICI System and works closely with the other member and subscriber agencies to assure maximum availability of two-way radio communications to users.

Glendale users can automatically access other members’ sites outside of the immediate area of the City if coverage is needed when working in those areas. While Glendale Radio Shop staff have insight into and awareness of these sites outside the City, they are not maintained by or directly the responsibility of City personnel. Every radio site has unique characteristics, but the eight sites maintained by Glendale all share a high degree of resiliency against wildfires and loss of commercial power. Four of the sites are served by GWP, three by SCE and the last by LADWP. Six of the sites operate together with three owned by the City of Pasadena to blanket the area, while the other two Glendale-maintained sites provide radio coverage in the San Fernando, Santa Clarita, and Antelope Valleys.

Glendale’s radio infrastructure operates on a battery system that is continuously charged by commercial power. Battery capacity varies according to physical space available at each site and the electrical load of the equipment there. Two sites have additional hardware and thus greater electrical loads. Those sites are accordingly equipped with extra battery capacity to support the additional power requirements, as is another mountaintop site that does not have added equipment but may be less accessible in an emergency situation.

In addition to large battery plants, each of Glendale’s radio sites has a diesel generator with automatic start, stop, and transfer functions. Diesel fuel was chosen as it can be creatively transported to a site if normal vehicle routes are unusable and would prevent access to refuel propane generators. All City-maintained radio sites can run for 24-72 hours without commercial or generator power, allowing time to safely respond to generator failures. The ICI System’s “Master Site” is also equipped with a manual transfer switch that has terminals to connect to any suitable generator that can be procured should the City’s generator fail. In addition to City assets from GWP or Public Works, generators from film and television production companies could be pressed into service. During past wildfire events, radio system equipment vendors have offered and staged emergency support including portable generators, The Radio Shop has telemetry that reports the status of commercial power, generator power, and the battery system. They also know which GWP circuits feed the four sites in the City and during outages actively communicate radio system status with GWP restoration managers. Radio Shop staff have relationships with other agencies for information sharing about outages and site access issues at sites not supplied by GWP. Loss of commercial power would not have a significant impact unless the outage were to last for several weeks without the ability to refuel generators.

Though the “Master Site” might seem a single point of failure, there is a redundant facility located 12 miles outside of the City that will automatically take over operation of the entire 37- site ICI System should the primary facility become unavailable for any reason. Another location

389 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
outside the City hosts equipment to control the six radio sites covering Glendale. An intricate web of network connectivity consisting of microwave radio, dark fiber, and leased circuits from both AT&T and Spectrum, connects all of the radio sites together and the underlying transport protocols (MPLS) will automatically restore connectivity using whatever paths are available.

Loss of the facility hosting both primary facilities will only result in loss of the collocated transmitter and receiver gear with an accompanying reduction of signal strength in the Civic Center area. Minimal, if any, reduction of service, should as handheld radios inside the EOC, could accompany this situation.

The threat from wildfire is that of physical impact and is thus based on the intensity and proximity of the fire. Except for generator maintenance, physical access is not required to ensure uninterrupted operation of the City’s radio system. During past power outages impacting these radio sites, the Radio Shop has recommended that GWP prioritize power restoration to GWP customers since the Radio Shop can ensure continued operation for several days without GWP power
Glendale Police Department
Wildfires and power outages, planned and unplanned, impact the Glendale Police Department (GPD) directly (“First-Order Impacts”), other City services with Police effects (“Second-Order Impacts”), and the community in general (“Third-Order Impacts”).

First Order Impacts:
• Diesel Backup. GPD has a 13,500-gallon diesel fuel tank, which provides no more than 95 hours of run time if the tank is full when an extended power outage begins. Typically, these tanks are not kept full and the tank volume fluctuates. • Loss of Data Center. GPD’s data center is not backed up outside of the City. As a result, evacuation due to wildfires or a long-term power loss that extends beyond the diesel backup means an inability to access local criminal justice records until the evacuation is lifted or power is restored. These records can include information supporting arrest warrants, involving active investigations, or related to critical missing persons – this accounts for all records-related functions.
• Access to Fuel for Vehicles. GPD’s automotive fuel supplies require power to pump. Thus, a loss of power beyond their diesel support means the fleet is drastically limited. They do not have a tanking capacity so they would need to execute an emergency contract for fuel services in an area unaffected by power outages or secure an emergency tanker from another source. The Los Angeles (LA) County Sheriff does not have an emergency tanker, so they would be forced to wait for a tanker from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), or they would drive somewhere to purchase fuel commercially.

390 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
Second Order Impacts:
• Citywide Fuel for Vehicles. The City as a whole has access to 115,000 gallons of tanked diesel fuels and a limited capacity to support moving fuel supplies from site to site. This tanked fuel would have to support all City operations. In all likelihood, mission-critical activities like Fire, Police, GWP, and Public Works would be given nearly equal priority in these supplies in the event of evacuation or loss of GWP power. If the fuel is unreachable due to evacuations or wildfire, the capacity of this fuel is further restricted. • Police Radio Towers. Police radio towers use an uninterruptable power supply (UPS) consisting of batteries and generator backup.
• Emergency 911 Calls. If the 911 system fails at the Glendale Police building or the building is evacuated due to wildfires, calls roll over to Verdugo Fire. Depending on the location, extent, and duration of a power outage or wildfire, both centers could go down or become unreachable. Neighboring agency facilities have insufficient desk space to accommodate rolling calls to them, even if GPD sent personnel.
• Internet. Citywide data connectivity to the Internet, including GPD access, requires GWP power. If the City’s primary data center goes down, GPD loses its Internet connectivity to the outside world.
• Prisoner Impacts. With an extended loss of GWP power, GPD would experience hindered water deliveries to the police building. They have limited supplies of drinking water, and dealing with wastewater / sewage would become an issue. With a loss of power to the police building or an evacuation, the prisoner population would need to be transported offsite and GPD could no longer hold or book arrestees locally.

Third Order Impacts:
• Streetlights. Extended loss of power to the streetlights would increase traffic collisions and dramatically snarl traffic, especially if coupled with a localized evacuation. GPD does not have sufficient staff to manually run traffic control, even at the City’s major intersections. • Gas Stations. Extended loss of power to area gas stations would limit local fuel supplies, even to the extent that some residents would enter emergency situations because they are stranded. For example, kids at school may need to be picked up, or people requiring medical care may need transportation.
• Hospitals. Evacuation or extended loss of power to area hospitals, if closure was forced, would result in patients being sent to distant facilities. Currently the limited ambulance capacity would be strained by long-range transports, impacting both GPD and GFD. • Grocery Stores. Extended loss of power or a mass evacuation would impact grocery stores.

Reductions in food supply would impact the most vulnerable. Many of the City’s residents have limited transport ability (primarily, the elderly) who are unable to walk to the corner store for food and supplies.
• Uninhabitable Areas. Extended loss of power could create whole neighborhoods that are not serviced by GWP – first power, then water. Eventually, these neighborhoods become uninhabitable. Based upon observations after wildfires, situations like this require increased services on the order of 300% to 500%.

391 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
• Cellular Services. The area cellular telephone systems rely upon GWP power and have a limited battery backup. Once the battery backup fails, the cellular network breaks down and citizens will be limited in their ability to care for themselves or request aid.

Glendale Fire Department
Wildfires and power outages, planned and unplanned, directly impact the Glendale Fire Department (GFD). However, the GFD has mitigating measures in place to ensure continued operations.
• Backup Generators: GFD has diesel backup power generators at all GFD fire stations.

There is sufficient fuel, when full, for 90 to 560 hours of emergency power generation at each station, depending on the size of the generator at the station. • Verdugo Dispatch: Dispatch has a UPS (Uninterruptable Power Supply) with a manual transfer switch to accommodate multiple electric feeds. On a full charge, the backup batteries can run dispatch operations for 10 hours. After 10 hours, dispatch will rely on diesel backup generators at Fire Station 21.

392 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

19. Restoration
GWP restores power after a wildfire or preemptive de-energization in a similar manner, ensuring the assets are in a safe condition prior to re-energization.

GWP maintains a list of reclosers that are disabled in the event of a Red Flag Warning or as determined necessary by the Power System Operators based upon system conditions. These devices are disabled during periods of extreme wildfire danger to minimize the likelihood of inadvertently sparking a fire upon automatic re-energization. Upon restoration, the reclosers will be re-enabled to perform normally.

GWP maintains a list of transmission and distribution lines that must be manually patrolled prior to re-energization, in the event the lines were automatically (e.g., via relay action) or manually (through Power System Operator action) de-energized. System Dispatch notifies GWP staff that the lines are being patrolled in anticipation of re-energization. During these patrols, GWP personnel ensure that structures and equipment are not damaged – e.g., poles are upright, conductors are attached, transformers are in place, there are no trees or other vegetation in contact with overhead conductors, etc.

During these patrols, if equipment or assets are found in a suboptimal condition, GWP personnel will coordinate to repair the equipment and restore service. To facilitate repairs, GWP maintains a minimum level of spare distribution transformers, conduit, cables and conductors, other equipment, and associated parts in its warehouse. When minimum thresholds are reached, the warehouse automatically orders a pre-determined number of units to restore warehouse stock in anticipation of the next emergency.

In the event GWP lacks the personnel, equipment, or parts to rapidly restore service, it can leverage mutual assistance and mutual aid programs with neighboring utilities. In these cases, neighboring utilities can quickly offer personnel, equipment, and parts to safely and quickly restore service to customers.

Glendale reacts proactively whenever there is a Red Flag warning issued for the area by the National Weather Service, and de-energizes Glendale’s 34.5 kV “Bel Aire-Montrose transmission line. Also, before the line is re-energized, a lineman patrols to confirm that the line is intact and that there is no debris lodged across the insulators or the lines. Overwhelming majority of the area serviced by GWP is classified as ‘Urban’, with clear access by the city Fire Department, therefore the possibility of wildfire is very low, but there is a single sub- transmission line mentioned in the above paragraph “Bel Aire-Montrose line” that runs across an uninhabited hilly terrain covered with brush; it has limited vehicular access. This is an area of elevated fire risk. For that reason, GWP de-energizes this transmission line (without loss of customer load) each time the National Weather Service issues a Red Flag Alert.

393 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

20. Plan Maintenance and Inspection Effectiveness
This Plan is intended to be a “living document,” providing guidance to GWP on funding and operational priorities, yet with sufficient flexibility to be updated based upon new data and feedback from those responsible for its implementation.

As described in 10. Metrics and 11. Metrics Feedback, GWP’s metrics are intended to measure the effectiveness of this Plan. As the metrics are collected and analyzed, the Plan’s effectiveness will be evaluated and, as necessary, the Plan will be modified in response to that feedback. The Wildfire Mitigation Plan Committee will meet quarterly, or as needed, to review the Plan metrics and compare against operational performance – specifically, the Committee will assess each metric and, with the benefit of hindsight and added experience, determine the metric’s effectiveness. The Plan will be reviewed annually and circulated through GWP management, City of Glendale management, and the City of Glendale’s City Council for review and approval. This review process will include making updates to the Plan to correct any Plan deficiencies.

As discussed in 9. Preventative Strategies and Programs, Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Efforts, GWP contracted with an engineering firm to conduct a complete system inspection of all poles, vaults, and associated/attached equipment. GWP staff will oversee these inspections and will assign qualified personnel to monitor and audit the inspections to ensure that they are conducted in a consistent and thorough manner. As changes to the process are required, GWP staff will be empowered to initiate those changes with the contracted inspectors. Once completed, this set of system inspections will establish a condition baseline. GWP will then use internal staff to launch an on-going inspection program, using the contractor inspection plan as a basis, to ensure system assets continue to be monitored and inspected on a regular basis.

394 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
Exhibit A. City of Glendale Fire Threat Map

395 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
Exhibit B. Vegetation Management Program (VMP)
The two-page VMP brochure below was up to date as of the date of this Plan. For the latest version, please see https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/fire-department/fire- prevention-environmental-management/vegetation-management-and-weed-abatement.

396 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
Exhibit B. Vegetation Management Program (VMP), continued

397 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
Exhibit C. General Statistics from CalFire
Glendale
Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones in LRA
As Recommended by CAL FIRE
https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5819/glendale.pdf
General Statistics

398 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

21. GWP Accomplishments during calendar year 2021
During calendar year 2021, GWP completed the following projects to mitigate the risk of wildfire.
• Replaced 8 power poles in Tier 2 and Tier 3.
• Replaced 8 transformers in Tier 2 and Tier 3.
• Trimmed 6787 trees within Tier 2 and Tier 3.
• Installed 8,306 feet of underground high voltage circuits within Tier 2 and Tier 3. Most new installations are underground, unless doing so would be cost-prohibitive or is otherwise unfeasible.
• Procured 15 fire resistant wrap/coating poles to install in the high risk. • GWP’s linemen replaced two power poles with fire resistant wrap/coated poles and installed 250 feet of covered conductors in Tier 2. Project as the first was completed successfully.
• Field supervisors continually assess and inspect the electrical facilities when they are in the field for any project construction.
• We rebuilt three power poles/300 feet of overhead circuit per project #652AA-13, and 16 power poles/1568 feet under project #30076-20 for 12kV operation to increase the conductor spacing. This will minimize the likelihood of fire due wire slapping. • We purchased and installed the first batch of composite crossarms to improve the system reliability.
• Replacement of insulators to reduce the likelihood of overhead conductors becoming detached and contacting vegetation or other flammable materials. • Identification, and replacement, of splices, clamps, and connectors on overhead conductors, where stress from heat or general use can cause downed conductors to come in contact with vegetation or other flammable materials.
• Installed Fusesaver device to minimize the risk of fire in brush area from ejecting a blown fuse.
• In calendar year 2021, 6787 trees were trimmed within Tier 2 & Tier 3. • To evaluate the effectiveness of the wildfire plan, GWP came up with metrics posted on an internal website to track the number of electrical assets replaced in Tier 2 and Tier 3.

These numbers were directly extracted from Electrical GIS map. • GWP has acquired a new Outage Management System (OMS) by DataVoice International Inc., which allows efficient and quick notification to our customers of impending power outage, whether than outage is due to generation shortage or due to PSPS.

399 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

22. GWP Accomplishments during calendar year 2022
During calendar year 2022, GWP completed the following projects to mitigate the risk of wildfire.
• The approved budget for Wildfire Mitigation for the fiscal year 2022 -23 is $200,000. • GWP’s contractor trimmed 8016 trees within Tier 2 and Tier 3. Vegetation management has been expanded to exceed minimum clearance requirements as described in GO 95, by trimming trees down to the telecommunications level. In fiscal year 22-23, we spent $780 thousand on tree trimming and vegetation management.
• GWP construction crew replaced 14 power poles in Tier 2 and 10 power poles in Tier 3. • Replaced 6 overhead transformers in Tier 2 and Tier 3. • Replaced 6 underground transformers in Tier 2 and Tier 3. • Installed 223 feet of covered conductor wires in Tier 2. • Installed 1107 feet of underground conduits within Tier 2 and Tier 3. Most new installations are underground, unless doing so would be cost-prohibitive or is otherwise unfeasible. • Procured 30 composite crossarms to install in the high risk. • Inspected 71 power poles within the Glendale Service territory to identify any possible electrical equipment at the verge failure.
• Inspected 674 Street Lights within the City.
• Inspected 5 vaults within the City.
• Inspected 71 pull boxes within the City

400 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan

23. GWP Accomplishments during calendar year 2023
During calendar year 2023, GWP completed the following projects to mitigate the risk of wildfire.
• The approved budget for Wildfire Mitigation for the fiscal year 2023 -24 is $200,000. • GWP’s contractor trimmed 8016 trees within Tier 2 and Tier 3. Vegetation management has been expanded to exceed minimum clearance requirements as described in GO 95, by trimming trees down to the telecommunications level. In fiscal year 22-23, we spent $1.642 Million on tree trimming and vegetation management.
• GWP construction crew replaced 5 power poles in Tier 2 and 1 power pole in Tier 3. • Replaced 5 overhead transformers in Tier 2 and Tier 3. • Replaced 2 underground transformers in Tier 2 and Tier 3. • Installed 96 feet of underground conduits within Tier 2 and Tier 3. Most new installations are underground, unless doing so would be cost-prohibitive or is otherwise unfeasible. • Inspected 2567 power poles within the Glendale Service territory to identify any possible electrical equipment at the verge failure.
• Inspected 8631 Street Light and pull boxes within the City. • Inspected 1458 primary pull boxes and vaults within the City. • Inspected 2521 secondary pull boxes within the City.
• Glendale’s longest sub-transmission line is the one connecting Bel Aire Substation in Northwest Glendale to Montrose Substation in Montrose. This 34.5kV line passes through both tier 2 and tier 3 fire-threat zones. Portions of the line lies in the mountainous area and accessing it can be difficult. The line which is mostly overhead has three conductors. These conductors can break due to aging, corrosion, lightning strikes and other reasons. If a downed energized conductor causes fire to break out due to generated heat and sparking, it would be difficult for emergency personnel to response quickly. GWP is currently implementing SEL’s broken conductor detection scheme. This scheme will detect any broken conductor that may be under way to fall on the ground and de-energizes the line before the conductor hits the ground. A factory acceptance tests have been completed successfully and the project would be commissioned in the upcoming months.

401 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
GWP Accomplishments during calendar year 2024
During calendar year 2024, GWP completed the following projects to mitigate the risk of wildfire.

The approved budget for Wildfire Mitigation for the fiscal year 2024 -25 is $100,000.

GWP’s contractor trimmed 8,103 trees within Tier 2 and Tier 3. Vegetation management has been expanded to exceed minimum clearance requirements as specified in GO 95, by trimming trees down to the telecommunications level. In the calendar year 2024, we spent $1.67 million on tree trimming and vegetation management.

GWP construction crews replaced 55 power poles in Tier 2 and Tier 3 fire zones, as detailed below.
• Tier 3: 15 pole replacements
• Tier 2: 40 pole replacements
Replaced 10 overhead transformers in Tier 2 and Tier 3 areas as shown below. • Tier 3: 2 overhead transformers
• Tier 2: 8 overhead transformers
Replaced 7 underground / pad-mount transformers in Tier 2 and Tier 3 fire zones as broken down below.
• Tier 3: 1 underground transformer
• Tier 2: 4 underground transformers
• Tier 2: 2 pad-mount transformers
Installed tree wires in the Scholl Canyon area that falls in Tier 2 fire hazard zone. • Installed about 400ft. of tree wires (covered conductors), replacing open overhead conductors.

Installed 555 feet of underground conduits within Tier 2 and Tier 3. Most new installations are underground, unless doing so would be cost-prohibitive or is otherwise unfeasible. • 555 feet of underground conduits in Tier 2 and 3 zones.

GWP continued its aggressive inspection program in 2024 with following assets inspected • Inspected 6,962 power poles within the Glendale Service territory to identify any possible electrical equipment on the verge of failure.
• Inspected 4,671 Street Lights within the City.
• Inspected 212 primary pull boxes and 591 vaults within the City. • Inspected 274 customer service pads within the City.

Glendale’s longest sub-transmission line is the one connecting Bel Aire Substation in Northwest Glendale to Montrose Substation in Montrose. This 34.5kV line passes through both tier 2 and tier 3 fire-threat zones. Portions of the line lie in the mountainous area and accessing it can be very difficult. The line, which is mostly overhead, has three conductors.

These conductors can break due to aging, corrosion, lightning strikes and other reasons. If a downed energized conductor causes fire to break out due to generated heat and sparking, it would be difficult for emergency personnel to respond quickly enough. GWP is currently implementing Schweizer Engineering Laboratory’s (SEL) broken conductor detection scheme.

This scheme will detect any broken conductor that may be on the way to fall to the ground and

402 of 472

Glendale Water & Power
Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan
will de-energize the line before the conductor hits the ground. The relays have been installed, and testing has been done. Now waiting for firmware upgrade from the vendor. The project will be commissioned in the upcoming months.

24. Third-Party Independent Assessment – will be completed in 2026.

403 of 472

8d
6 0
0 9

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Project Update – Vision Zero Action Plan

1.Motion to Note and File Report

COUNCIL ACTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 6, 2023, the City Council approved extension of the Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) contract to include development of the Glendale Vision Zero Action Plan (VZAP). The Vision Zero initiative provides a framework to eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries while advancing safe, healthy, and equitable mobility for all people in Glendale. This proactive approach builds on the City’s existing transportation and safety plans by emphasizing systemic solutions and coordinated action. This was also strengthened by meeting through our technical working group, a collaboration between Community Development and Public Works Departments.

The city has launched a collaborative planning process involving internal departments, technical teams, and community partners. The effort builds upon key policies in the Citywide Pedestrian, Bicycle Transportation, and Local Roadway Safety plans. While the project is still underway, it has established the foundational structure to support the plan’s development. This includes forming a Project Management Team, initiating data-driven technical analysis, convening a Project Development Team (PDT), and conducting crucial community outreach and field checks. Through these steps, the plan is positioned to deliver actionable strategies that promote safer streets citywide.

Technical Analysis of the Plan has been completed including:
•A High Injury Network (HIN)
•Citywide Crash Analysis
•Prioritization Approach: Used to identify High-Need Corridors and Intersections Item Type: Report Only
Approved forMay 20, 2025 calendar
404 of 472

2 8d

RECOMMENDATION
Staff is seeking general feedback regarding the Vision Zero Action Plan.

ANALYSIS
On June 6, 2023, city council approved staff’s recommendation to extend the Bicycle Transportation Plan BTP contract to include VZAP.

The goal of VZAP is to achieve zero traffic fatalities for all modes in the City of Glendale. Vision Zero challenges the traditional approach to traffic safety by recognizing that traffic collisions aren’t random and unavoidable. With the right approach, they are predictable and preventable. The City’s Vision Zero Plan will develop a systemic approach that will make streets safer through proactive, low-cost measures, preventing fatal collisions on the road. The Vision Zero Action Plan will include detailed recommendations on how to implement strategies to create safer streets for all road users.

The City has begun developing Vision Zero policy guidelines with much of the underlying framework being derived from existing infrastructure, enforcement, and plans, such as the Citywide Pedestrian Plan, Citywide Safety Education Initiative, and Bicycle Transportation Plan. The City has also taken steps to reduce collisions with pedestrians and cyclists by creating events for public engagement, public education, and awareness of City policies and plans. Utilizing a comprehensive and coherent approach that encompasses aspects of Engineering, Education and Enforcement (3E’s) that will serve as the primary drivers for Glendale’s Vision Zero Action Plan. This will be achieved through an initial implementation following the completion of the plan and yearly audits to evaluate the impacts.

To support the development of the Glendale VZAP, staff conducted a series of technical analyses and planning activities aimed at identifying and addressing the most significant traffic safety challenges across the city. This section summarizes the results of a citywide crash analysis, outlines the proposed prioritization framework for future safety improvements, and highlights the ongoing community engagement and coordination efforts undertaken by the PDT. Walk audits are also conducted to provide on-the-ground insights and community feedback on key corridors.

Project Development Team
The PDT was established to support the development of the VZAP by engaging in targeted policy discussions informed by past implementation experience and insight into City procedures and priorities.

PDT membership includes representatives from the Transportation and Parking Commission, Sustainability Commission, Community Development Department, Public Works Department, Parks and Community Services Department, Fire Department, and Police Department. It also includes community members to ensure that local voices and lived experiences are reflected in the plan. Participants represent local school districts, advocacy organizations, and professional associations. Regional collaboration is critical to the success of the VZAP. Recognizing the importance of alignment with broader regional initiatives, staff has also engaged key partners, including the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, Los Angeles Metro, and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The PDT members were approved by the city council. The PDT is scheduled to meet up to six times throughout the planning process, with additional meetings added as needed.

The PDT plays a vital role in shaping Glendale’s Vision Zero strategy by representing a wide range of technical expertise and lived experience from across Glendale’s diverse communities. 405 of 472

3 8d
Crash Analysis
As part of the City’s VZAP, a comprehensive citywide crash analysis was conducted to better understand the patterns and contributing factors of traffic-related injuries and fatalities (Exhibit 1).

This effort, which spans from available crash data from 2012 to 2021, supports Glendale’s goal of eliminating all traffic deaths and serious injuries.

The analysis used crash data from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System (SWITRS), accessed through the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), and focused exclusively on injury and fatal crashes—excluding property-damage-only. The data was geocoded and contextualized using various datasets, including land use, street classifications, and California’s Healthy Places Index.

The crash characteristics analysis included:
•Crash trends over time and by travel mode (2012-2021)
•Injury severity and demographics of crash-involved parties •Primary causes of crashes, such as speeding, impaired driving, and hit-and-run •Roadway, environmental, and land use contexts, including time of day, lighting, and proximity to parks or transit
A crash density analysis was performed for all modes (pedestrian, bicycle, motorcycle, motor vehicle) to identify the street segments with the highest concentrations of crashes (in other words, a heat map of crashes). This crash heat map helps to identify the most critical locations for safety improvements. These high crash locations form the basis of Glendale’s High Injury Network (HIN) – a set of targeted corridors with the greatest potential for crash reductions. The final HIN is based on a crash density analysis, combined with input from the Project Development Team (PDT), provided essential local knowledge and firsthand experience with road safety while driving, biking, and walking—insights not captured in the crash data alone. Notably, the HIN covers only 13% of local roadways in Glendale but represents 78% of severe crashes – highlighting how addressing safety on these segments would significantly reduce the chances of severe crashes in Glendale. This framework will guide future investments, safety improvements, and policy decisions in support of Vision Zero goals.

Figure 1 illustrates “All Crashes” and “killed or Seriously Injured” (KSI) crashes for the period 2012-2021. Figure 2 illustrates Healthy Places Index and KSI Crashes tracts in the lowest quartile saw the highest rates of crashes and KSI crashes, indicating that communities under the greatest health, environmental, and socioeconomic burdens experience the highest rates and severity of crashes. Figure 3 illustrates older people make up a larger portion of fatal and severe injury crash victims: 23.0% of KSI victims were 70 years old or older, compared to 9.8% of all crash victims. 406 of 472

4 8d
Figure1. Crashes by Year, 2012-2021
19 35
31 24 24 25
21 14 13
23 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
KSI Crashes All Crashes
All Crashes
KSI Crashes
Year
407 of 472

5 8d
Figure 2. Healthy Places Index and KSI Crashes
408 of 472

6 8d
Figure 3. Crashes by Victim Age
Prioritization Approach
To effectively target the most critical locations for traffic safety improvements, the Glendale VZAP introduces a structured prioritization framework for identifying high-need corridors and intersections (Exhibit 2). This approach builds on the crash data that informed the development of the High Injury Network (HIN) and incorporates quantitative metrics and local priorities, with input from the PDT.

Proposed Prioritization Criteria
The prioritization process integrated the following quantitative data:

Quantitative Factors:
•Number of killed or seriously injured (KSI) crashes
•Total number of crashes
•Number of vulnerable road user (pedestrian and bicyclist) crashes •Healthy Places Index (HPI) scores, an equity indicator •Presence on the citywide High Injury Network
Implementation of Prioritization
The top 30 intersections and top 30 corridors were presented in the Figures 4 and 5, with results reviewed by the PDT and City staff for any needed adjustments based on project feasibility or synergy with other plans or initiatives. Through consultation with City staff and consideration of other major planned projects (such as the Metro BRT project), the prioritization results aided in identifying locations for further countermeasure development. Figure 4 shows the top 30 intersections and Figure 5 shows the top 30 corridors respectively.
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-75 75 and older
All Crashes KSI Crashes
Percent of Crashes
Age of Victim
409 of 472

7 8d
Figure 4. Top 30 Prioritized Intersections
410 of 472

8 8d
Figure 5. Top 30 Prioritized Corridors
411 of 472

9 8d
Walk Audits
As part of the VZAP, the City conducted a series of walk audits between March 19 and March 22, 2025, to assess pedestrian safety and accessibility across a diverse range of neighborhoods (Exhibit 3). Walk audits serve as a hands-on engagement and data-gathering tool that allows City staff, consultants, and residents to observe real-world conditions, identify safety issues, and gather community input directly from the street level.

Five walk audits were conducted in the following neighborhoods: Riverside Rancho (West Glendale), Tropico (South Glendale), Woodbury/College Hills (Central Glendale), Sparr Heights (East Glendale), and Crescenta Highlands (North Glendale). These locations were selected based on geographic distribution, proximity to key destinations such as schools and parks, alignment with the High Injury Network (HIN), and to avoid overlap with areas recently studied in other city efforts.

Each walk was attended by City staff, members of the consultant team, and community participants.

A total of approximately 50 residents took part, ranging in age and background. Participants completed walk audit questionnaires and provided valuable qualitative feedback. Key concerns observed across multiple neighborhoods included drivers failing to yield to pedestrians, inadequate crossing time at signalized intersections, faded or obstructed crosswalks, narrow or uneven sidewalks, and limited amenities at transit stops. These issues often intersected with concerns about traffic speed, visual impairments, and overall accessibility—especially for seniors and people using mobility aids or strollers.

Several walk audits revealed neighborhood-specific conditions and challenges. For instance, the Riverside Rancho audit noted missing sidewalks and insufficient crossing time at certain signals, while the Tropico audit highlighted driveway conflicts and school-related congestion. In Crescenta Highlands, residents raised concerns about sidewalk obstructions and traffic near Clark Magnet High School. These insights will inform future engineering and policy recommendations in the final VZAP.

The walk audits also offered an opportunity to build relationships with community members and raise awareness of Glendale’s safety initiatives. Materials and methods from this effort will be preserved as part of the City’s outreach toolkit to enable future walk audits using established templates and best practices.

Next Steps
The next steps will focus on advancing key components of the project’s implementation. Staff will continue developing and refining proposed education initiatives, including a draft outline and content aimed at raising public awareness and promoting safer behaviors across all modes of transportation. The site selection process for targeted safety improvements is also underway, with a draft list of potential locations and an interactive online map will be provided in a future phase to assist with evaluation and community feedback. In addition, the team will work on developing a GIS-based dashboard that will allow users to visualize key data, track progress, and support data- driven decision-making.
412 of 472

1 0
8d

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Vision Zero team has participated in a variety of outreach events to share information, build awareness, and gather community input. These include:
•Cruise Night (July 2024) – pop-up booth and engagement •National Night Out (August 2024)
•Community Events throughout late summer and early fall •GPD Traffic Town Hall
•LA Metro BRT First/Last Mile Event (August 2024)
•Montrose Harvest Market (November 2024)
•GUSD Student Council Outreach (Dec 2024)
•Walk audits (March 19 and March 22, 2025) – Riverside Rancho (West Glendale), Tropico (South Glendale), Woodbury/College Hills (Central Glendale), Sparr Heights (East Glendale), and Crescenta Highlands (North Glendale).
•Earth Day (April 2024)
Communications tools such as surveys, social media content, fact sheets, and multilingual materials and Walk audits are being used to ensure inclusive engagement.

Since the PDT includes members from both Public Works and the Glendale Police Department, we relied on their expertise to guide key decisions—such as refining the High Injury Network (HIN), selecting Walk Audit areas, and improving data reporting. Their input was invaluable for assessing traffic flow, individual driver behavior, and providing firsthand knowledge of local collisions.

From Public Works, we also integrated the City's 2030 Capital Improvement Projects to identify where infrastructure upgrades could align with safety goals. This information was especially helpful during Walk Audits, allowing us to respond to public questions and demonstrate the City's commitment to improving Glendale.

In collaboration with the Police Department, we reviewed citation procedures—examining how decisions are made about who receives tickets and the factors that contribute to enforcement actions. These insights allowed Vision Zero to tailor strategies aimed at reducing risky behaviors and preventing crashes from an enforcement perspective.

To date, three PDT meetings have been held:
•PDT 1 (April 25, 2024): Introduced the Vision Zero planning effort, reviewed crash data, and discussed project goals.
•PDT 2 (June 27, 2024): Reviewed crash trends, discussed early findings, and explored outreach strategies.
•PDT 3 (September 24, 2024): Presented the draft High Injury Network, evaluated prioritization criteria, and discussed the approach for upcoming walk audits.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
NA
413 of 472

1 1
8d

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The City Council may consider any other recommendation.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Bradley Calvert
Prepared by:

Fred zohrehvand
Ismael Perez Carbajal
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
1: City of Glendale Crash Analysis
2: City of Glendale Prioritization Approach
3: City of Glendale Walk Audit
414 of 472

9 3
9 1
MOTION
Moved by Council Member _________________________________, seconded by Council Member _____________________________, that the City Council hereby note and file the Project Update – Vision Zero Action Plan presented to the City Council on May 20, 2025.

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk
415 of 472

EXHIBIT 1

GLENDALE VISION ZERO ACTION PLAN
July12, 2024
Project: Glendale Vision Zero Action Plan

Re: Glendale Vision Zero Action Plan Crash Analysis

Contents
Summary of Findings ..................................................................................................................................................3 Descriptive Crash Analysis Methodology ...................................................................................................................4 Crash Data Overview ..............................................................................................................................................4 Data Sources ..........................................................................................................................................................4 Study Limitations .....................................................................................................................................................4 Temporal Consistency Limitations ......................................................................................................................4 Exposure Data .....................................................................................................................................................4 Transportation Data for Future Study ..................................................................................................................5 Descriptive Crash Analysis .........................................................................................................................................5 General Crash Trends .........................................................................................................................................5 Crashes by Severity by Year ...............................................................................................................................6 Crashes Per Mode ..............................................................................................................................................6 Crash Causation .....................................................................................................................................................6 Crash Dynamics ..................................................................................................................................................6 Leading Crash Violations ....................................................................................................................................7 Contributing Behaviors ........................................................................................................................................8 Roadway Characteristics ........................................................................................................................................8 Crash Location ....................................................................................................................................................8 Functional Classification ......................................................................................................................................9 Number of Lanes .................................................................................................................................................9 Environmental Characteristics ............................................................................................................................. 10 416 of 472

2 Crashes by Time of Year .................................................................................................................................. 10 Crashes by Lighting Condition ......................................................................................................................... 10 COVID-19 Pandemic Impact ............................................................................................................................ 11 Crashes by Day of Week and Time of Day ...................................................................................................... 11 Crashes by Land Use ....................................................................................................................................... 12 Crashes by Park Proximity ............................................................................................................................... 13 Crashes by Healthy Places Index .................................................................................................................... 13 Party Characteristics ............................................................................................................................................ 14 Victim Age ........................................................................................................................................................ 14 Victim Gender ................................................................................................................................................... 15 High Injury Network ................................................................................................................................................. 16 Overview ........................................................................................................................................................... 16 Pedestrian Crash Density .................................................................................................................................... 17 Bicycle Crash Density .......................................................................................................................................... 18 Vehicle Crash Density .......................................................................................................................................... 19 Motorcycle Crash Density .................................................................................................................................... 20 Development of the High Injury Network ............................................................................................................. 21 High Injury Network Thresholds ........................................................................................................................... 21 Draft High Injury Network ..................................................................................................................................... 22 Revised High Injury Network ................................................................................................................................ 22 High Crash Density Intersections ......................................................................................................................... 24

417 of 472

3 Summary of Findings
Years of Crash Data Analyzed: 2012 - 2021
Total Crashes: 5,125
Total Fatal Crashes: 37
Total Serious Injury Crashes: 192
Total Killed and Serious Injury Crashes (KSI): 229
Crashes by Year: Crashes peaked in 2013, with a peak of KSI crashes in 2015, before falling to a low point in 2020. In 2021, both the total number of crashes and KSI crashes grew.

Injury Severity By Mode:
 103 pedestrian crashes, or 44.9% of all KSI crashes in the city, resulted in a death or severe injury  20 bicycle crashes resulted in a death or severe injury  40 motorcycle crashes resulted in a death or severe injury Crashes by Mode: 71.8% of all crashes were motor vehicle-only; 17.0% of crashes were pedestrian-involved;

7.7% of crashes were bicycle-involved; 4.6% of crashes were motorcycle-involved Leading KSI Violations: Pedestrian right of way was the most common KSI crash violation type, at 17.9% of KSI crashes, followed by pedestrian violations (17.5%). Unsafe vehicle speed and failure to follow traffic signals and signs were also common violations, at 13.5% and 11.4% of KSI crashes respectively.

HPI and Equity: When normalized by miles of roadway per census tract, tracts in the lowest quartile of HPI (Healthy Places Index) scores experienced the highest rates of overall crashes and KSI crashes.

HIN Description: The proposed High Injury Network accounts for 13% of local streets in the city of Glendale, where 71% of crashes and 78% of KSI crashes occurred. Streets in the HIN are predominantly arterials in central, downtown, and West Glendale.

418 of 472

4 Descriptive Crash Analysis Methodology
Crash Data Overview
Crash data was obtained from the Transportation Injury Mapping System (TIMS), maintained by the UC Berkeley Safe Transportation Research and Education Center for the 10 most recent years of available data. Crashes cover the years 2012 through 2021, as available data for 2022 is currently considered provisional. TIMS provides crashes from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records Systems (SWITRS), which is composed of data collected and maintained by the California Highway Patrol. Crashes within the study area but occurring on grade-separated federal- and state-controlled freeways, were excluded from the analysis, given the Action Plan’s focus on local roadways.

Data Sources
Dataset Source Attributes
Crash Data TIMS/SWITRS Attributes consistent with information documented in SWITRS crash reports
Road Inventory City of Glendale Number of lanes
Functional Classification
Healthy Places
Index 3.0
Healthy Places
Index
Health Places Index percentile scores
Land Use
Classification
City of Glendale Land use type by parcel
Open Space City of Glendale Parks and recreation centers

Study Limitations
Temporal Consistency Limitations
The consultant team studied crashes that occurred during a period of ten years, from 2012 through 2021. The compiled roadway data reflects current conditions according to the data made available at the time of this analysis. It can be assumed that some changes in roadway design and operations have occurred over the previous years that cannot be accounted for. For example, if a crash occurred in 2016 and number of lanes on that street were later reduced from four to two, the crash would be recorded as occurring on a two- lane street. As crash data is viewed at an aggregate level within this document, the impacts of these temporal inconsistencies are expected to be minor.

Exposure Data
The analyses reported here do not adjust for exposure rates based on volumes by modes. Therefore, results show crash density but not frequency of crashes normalized by level of traffic or pedestrian and bicycle volumes, which is also called exposure. For example, in many communities, pedestrian crashes are more common during daylight conditions than dark conditions. This does not mean that daylight conditions are more dangerous than dark conditions. Rather, it reflects the fact that people are more likely to travel, and especially more likely to travel by walking, in light conditions than in dark conditions. Some proxies for exposure are noted in this analysis, such as land use and functional classification.
419 of 472

5 Transportation Data for Future Study
As the City monitors its progress on Vision Zero, additional data can assist departments in understanding crash risk and identifying proactive countermeasures and strategies. Below are some recommendations for additional data components that were not available for this analysis. • Complete citywide collected bicycle and pedestrian volume data would allow for a measure of crash exposure for bicyclists and pedestrians.
• Several datasets listed below would help further identify or refine risk factors. These datasets, when combined with crash data, may grant further detail into factors potentially evident in crash patterns. At this time, this data is either not available in a geospatial format, or were available, but with limited coverage:
o Vehicle operating speeds
o Crosswalk style
o Street width
o Traffic signal phasing
o Vehicle volumes
o Intersection control type
Descriptive Crash Analysis
General Crash Trends
Figure 1 depicts the trend in all crashes and KSI crashes for all modes over the ten- year period analyzed.

Crashes in Glendale have fallen gradually from a peak of 644 in 2015, reaching the city’s lowest annual rate in the time period studied in 2020. Changes in travel patterns and behaviors associated with the COVID -19 pandemic may have influenced this drop somewhat, and are discussed further below in this memo. KSI crashes in 2019, however, had already dropped significantly from the previous year, by 33.3%, preceding the pandemic. Both overall crashes and KSI crashes later increased in 2021, with KSI crashes growing 76.9% in one year.

Figure 1. Crashes by Year, 2012 - 2021

19 35
31 24 24 25
21 14 13
23 0
5 10
15 20
25 30
35 40
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
KSI Crashes
All Crashes
Year
KSI Crashes All Crashes
420 of 472

6 Crashes by Severity by Year
Table 1 shows crash severity by year in the city of Glendale, across all modes . 2014 and 2017 had the most fatal crashes, though 2013 covers the highest rate of severe injury and combined KSI crashes, with 30 and 35, respectively.

Complaint of Pain Other Visible Injury Severe Fatal Total 2012 347 189 17 2 555
2013 389 170 30 5 594
2014 357 160 25 6 548
2015 423 197 22 2 644
2016 382 155 19 5 561
2017 348 165 19 6 538
2018 323 141 18 3 485
2019 317 143 12 2 474
2020 180 109 10 3 302
2021 248 153 20 3 424
Total 3314 1582 192 37 5125
Table 1. Crashes by Severity by Year

Crashes Per Mode
Table 2 shows crashes by modes involved, between 2012 and 2021, in the city of Glendale. The vast majority of collisions were motor vehicle-only, comprising 71.0% of all collisions on Glendale streets. While pedestrian- involved crashes make up just 17.0% of crashes, they are disproportionately represented in KSI crashes, making up nearly half of those. Motorcycle-involved crashes and bicycle-involved crashes, too, have higher shares of KSI crashes than overall crashes, suggesting a greater vulnerability for these modes.

Note: the total number of crashes listed in the first column exceeds the total number analyzed, as there are a small number of pedestrian-bicycle collisions and pedestrian-motorcycle collisions.

# of Crashes % of Crashes # of KSI Crashes % of KSI Crashes Pedestrian-
Involved Crash
870 17.0% 103 44.9%
Bicycle-Involved
Crash
393 7.7% 20 8.7%
Motorcycle-
Involved Crash
237 4.6% 40 17.5%
Motor Vehicle-
Only Crash
3637 71.0% 66 28.8%
Table 2. Crashes by Mode

Crash Causation
Crash Dynamics
The crash dynamics listed in Table 3 describe the general type of crash. Broadside crashes were the most common among all crashes in Glendale (1,987 of 5,125 crashes), but they made up only 22.3 % of KSI crashes.

Vehicle/pedestrian crashes were the most common KSI crash type, at 39.3% of KSI crashes. Bicycle-involved 421 of 472

7 crashes, though another vulnerable road user category as a road user not in a motor vehicle, are not categorized separately as pedestrian-involved crashes are. Rear end crashes were also a common overall dynamic, and this type was less likely to result in KSI crashes (21.0% of all crashes, 7.0% of KSI crashes).

Crash Dynamic # of
Crashes
% of
Crashes
# of KSI
Crashes
% of KSI
Crashes
Broadside 1987 38.8% 51 22.3%
Head-On 417 8.1% 28 12.2%
Hit Object 145 2.8% 13 5.7%
Overturned 59 1.2% 4 1.7%
Rear End 1078 21.0% 16 7.0%
Sideswipe 472 9.2% 12 5.2%
Vehicle/Pedestrian 754 14.7% 90 39.3%
Other 80 1.6% 9 3.9%
Not provided 133 2.6% 6 2.6%
Grand Total 5125 100.0% 229 100.0%
Table 3. Crash Dynamics

Leading Crash Violations
Table 4 shows the most common crash violations recorded for all crashes and KSI crashes. Automobile Right of Way, which includes violations where a driver did not cede proper right-of-way to other drivers while making a turn or proceeding at an intersection, was the most common overall with 23.6% of crashes. Unsafe speed is also commonly cited as a violation, with 20.4% of all crashes.

The most common violation cited in KSI crashes was Pedestrian Right of Way, in which a driver has failed to properly yield to a pedestrian. Pedestrian Violations, cited when a pedestrian does not yield to a vehicle outside of crosswalks and intersections, was the second-highest violation for crashes resulting in KSIs.

Violation Types # of Crashes % of Crashes # of KSI
Crashes
% of KSI
Crashes
Automobile Right of
Way
1208 23.6% 23 10.0%
Unsafe Speed 1043 20.4% 31 13.5%
Improper Turning 577 11.3% 22 9.6%
Traffic Signals and
Signs
720 14.1% 26 11.4%
Pedestrian Right of
Way
462 9.0% 41 17.9%
Pedestrian Violation 187 3.7% 40 17.5%
Driving or Bicycling
Under the Influence of
Alcohol or Drug
146 2.9% 17 7.4%
Unsafe Starting or
Backing
119 2.3% 4 1.8%
Wrong Side of the
Road
144 2.8% 2 0.9%
422 of 472

8 Other Hazardous
Violation
72 1.4% 2 0.9%
Unsafe Lane Change 79 1.5% 2 0.9%
Other Violations 440 8.6% 10 9.2%
Total 100.0% 229 100.0%
Table 4. Top Crash Violations

Contributing Behaviors
Table 4 and Table 5 depict crash behaviors contributing to crashes and severity. The former shows crashes cited where one of the parties was found to have been drinking. This occurred at higher rates for KSI crashes, making up 14.0% of crashes resulting in fatalities and severe injuries.

Table 5 shows the share of crashes that involved a hit and run, where the at-fault party left the scene of the crash.

Felony hit and run charges represent crashes resulting in more serious injuries and outcomes, while misdemeanor charges are typically charged when a hit and run did not result in an injury to other parties. Hit and runs were slightly more common for KSI crashes, making up 12.7%, than for crashes overall, where they occurred in 7.7%.

Alcohol
Involvement
# of Crashes % of Crashes # of KSI
Crashes
% of KSI
Crashes
Yes 293 5.7% 32 14.0%
No 4832 94.3% 197 86.0%
Grand Total 5125 100.0% 229 100.0%
Table 5. Crashes by Alcohol Involvement

Hit and Run
Type
# of Crashes % of Crashes # of KSI
Crashes
% of KSI
Crashes
Felony 233 4.5% 29 12.7%
Misdemeanor 164 3.2% 0 0.0%
Not Hit and Run 4728 92.3% 200 87.3%
Grand Total 5125 100.0% 229 100.0%
Table 6. Crashes by Hit and Run Type

Roadway Characteristics
Crash Location
Nearly half of all crashes in Glendale took place at an intersection, as reported by responding officers via collected SWITRS data. That rate was lower for KSI crashes, which were more likely to take place along a street segment or away from an intersection. KSI crashes occurred at an intersection at slightly lower rates, about

39.7% of the time.

423 of 472

9 All Crashes % of All
Crashes
# of KSI Crashes % of KSI Crashes
Intersection 2366 46.2% 91 39.7%
Street Segment 2735 53.4% 138 60.3%
Table 7. Crash Location

Functional Classification
Across the approximately 355 miles of streets and alleys in Glendale, both overall crashes and KSI crashes predominantly on streets classified as major and minor arterials. Approximately 41.0% of crashes occurred on major arterial roadways, and 40.2% of KSI crashes. Normalized by mile, the classification saw 65 crashes per mile and 2.84 KSI crashes per mile. Minor arterials and urban collector roadways also saw higher rates of crashes, and represented 1.83 and 1.62 KSI crashes per mile, respectively.

Though minor/local streets make up 58% of streets in the city by length, only about 14.6% of all crashes took place on one.
# of All
Crashes
% of All
Crashes
# of KSI
Crashes
% of KSI
Crashes
Miles
of
Road
Crashes
per Mile
KSI
Crashes
per Mile
Major Arterial 2085 41.0% 91 40.2% 32.1 65.0 2.84
Minor Arterial 1083 20.6% 44 18.8% 24.1 45.0 1.83
Urban Collector 654 12.7% 32 14.3% 19.8 33.0 1.62
Community Collector 345 6.7% 20 8.6% 35.9 9.6 0.56
Neighborhood Collector 87 1.7% 6 2.5% 16.6 5.2 0.36
Minor/Local 763 14.6% 34 14.7% 226.2 3.4 0.15
Alley 10 0.2% 0 0.0% 29.6 0.3 0
Not Captured 98 2.2% 2 0.8% N/A N/A N/A
Total 5125 100.00% 229 100.00% 354.7

Table 8. Crashes by Street Classification

Number of Lanes
A plurality of overall crashes and KSI crashes (47.4% and 48.0%) occurred on streets with four through lanes.

Normalized by mileage, however, streets with five through lanes saw the most crashes of both categories. Streets with five through lanes are less common in Glendale, making up just about 2.7 miles of roadway in the city. They include portions of streets such as Mountain Street, Brand Boulevard, Glendale Avenue and Central Avenue.

Number of Lanes # of Crashes % of
Crashes
# of KSI
Crashes
% of KSI
Crashes
Crashes
by Mile
KSI Crashes
by Mile
0 (Alleys) 10 0.2% 0 0.0% 0.3 0.0
2 2066 40.3% 100 43.7% 6.8 0.3
3 64 1.2% 1 0.4% 54.4 0.8
4 2427 47.4% 110 48.0% 55.0 2.5
5 216 4.2% 8 3.5% 80.7 3.0
424 of 472

10 6 238 4.6% 8 3.5% 53.3 1.8
7 6 0.1% 0 0.0% 46.3 0.0
No data 98 1.9% 2 0.9%
Grand Total 5125 100.0% 229 100.0%
Table 9. Crashes and Number of Lanes

Environmental Characteristics
Crashes by Time of Year
Table 10 shows crashes grouped by the month. The distribution of crashes over the year is largely even, with slightly more crashes occurring overall in December and November. KSI crashes occurred most frequently in October (13.1%) and were also slightly more frequent in November and December.

Months # of Crashes % of
Crashes
# of KSI
Crashes
% of KSI
Crashes
Jan 367 7.2% 16 7.0%
Feb 405 7.9% 16 7.0%
Mar 445 8.7% 17 7.4%
Apr 442 8.6% 19 8.3%
May 396 7.7% 15 6.6%
Jun 403 7.9% 12 5.2%
Jul 417 8.1% 15 6.6%
Aug 405 7.9% 18 7.9%
Sep 410 8.0% 20 8.7%
Oct 446 8.7% 30 13.1%
Nov 470 9.2% 28 12.2%
Dec 519 10.1% 23 10.0%
Total 5125 100.0% 229 100.0%
Table 10. Crashes by Month

Crashes by Lighting Condition
The vast majority of crashes in Glendale took place during daylight conditions. Fewer than a quarter of crashes took place under dark conditions, with most of those occurring where there are already street lights. Pedestrian crashes in the dark took place at a slightly higher rate than all crashes overall.

Lighting
Condition
# of
Crashes
% of
Crashes
# of KSI
Crashes
% of KSI
Crashes
# of
Bicycle
Crashes
% of
Bicycle
Crashes
# of Ped
Crashes
% of Ped
Crashes
Dark - No
Street Lights 42 0.8% 5 2.2% 2 0.5% 14 1.6%
Dark - Street
Lights 1221 23.8% 92 40.2% 69 17.6% 223 25.6%
Dark - Street
Lights Not
Functioning
8 0.2% 3 1.3% 0 0.0% 5 0.6%
425 of 472

11 Daylight 3678 71.8% 123 53.7% 308 78.4% 601 69.1%
Dusk -
Dawn 151 2.9% 6 2.6% 11 2.8% 24 2.8%
Not
Provided 25 0.5% 0 0.0% 3 0.8% 3 0.3%
Total 5125 100.0% 229 100.0% 393 100.0% 870 100.0%
Table 11. Crashes by Lighting Condition

COVID-19 Pandemic Impact
The COVID-19 pandemic significantly reshaped travel patterns due to lockdown periods, increased rates of telework, and broader socioeconomic changes. Overall, the rates of collisions slowed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which continued across other vulnerable modes such as bicyclists and pedestrians. However, KSI crashes increased slightly during the first two years of the pandemic, comprising a greater percent (4.9%) of all crashes in that period. Immediately prior to the pandemic, KSI crashes made up 3.6% of all c rashes.

All
Crashes
KSI
Crashes
Bicycle
Crashes
Pedestrian
Crashes
Motorcycle
Crashes
Pre-Covid Total 959 35 58 164 44
2018 485 21 28 77 25
2019 474 14 30 87 19
COVID-19 Total 726 36 42 141 35
2020 302 13 23 64 15
2021 424 23 19 77 20
Table 12. Crashes by COVID-19 Impact

Crashes by Day of Week and Time of Day
Crashes in Glendale most commonly occurred in the afternoon, between the hours of 3:00 pm and 6:00pm on most days. On Fridays and weekends, slightly more crashes occur later at night and in the early morning. Most crashes, 15.8%, occurred on Fridays.

Table 14 shows KSI crashes by time of day and day of the week. KSI crashes were more likely to take place later in the evening, between 6:00 pm and 9:00 pm, and on Fridays and Saturdays. Mondays, however, saw the most KSI crashes, with 39 crashes or 17.0%.

Day of the
Week
12-3
AM
3-6
AM
6-9
AM
9 AM-
12 PM
12-3
PM
3-6 PM 6-9 PM 9 PM-
12 AM
Left
Blank
Total
Monday 15 10 90 138 158 186 138 47

782
Tuesday 15 9 103 141 153 189 117 55

782
Wednesday 7 8 90 130 165 208 127 54 1 790
Thursday 14 6 86 111 170 172 149 51

759
Friday 9 9 79 140 168 191 149 68

813
Saturday 34 12 35 128 173 127 95 54

658
Sunday 37 10 30 89 129 112 88 46

541
426 of 472

12 Total 131 64 513 877 1116 1185 863 375 1 5125
Table 13. Crashes by Day of Week and Time of Day

Days of the
Week
12-3
AM
3-6
AM
6-9
AM
9 AM-
12 PM
12-3
PM
3-6 PM 6-9 PM 9 PM-
12 AM
Total
Monday 4 3 5 3 13 8 3 39
Tuesday 1 1 3 1 2 4 14 4 30
Wednesday 1 1 7 3 4 12 4 32
Thursday 2 1 4 4 3 6 3 23
Friday 1 1 5 7 12 9 3 38
Saturday 3 1 3 3 5 4 7 3 29
Sunday 3 2 4 5 10 5 3 6 38
Total 14 6 19 26 34 45 59 26 229
Table 14. KSI Crashes by Day of Week and Time of Day

Crashes by Land Use
Crash data was matched to the closest parcel to determine adjacent land use types. Crashes in Glendale (44.1% of all crashes, 41.5% of KSI crashes) in this period largely occurred near commercial land uses such as retail and offices, many of which are served by wide, arterial roadways.

The government use type refers to a range of city-owned uses, such as educational campuses and city facilities.

Normalized miles of roadway by land use were not included due to a data limitation in the available data.

Land Use
Type
# of Crashes % of Crashes # of KSI
Crashes
% of KSI
Crashes

Commercial 2262 44.1% 95 41.5%
Government 619 12.1% 37 16.2%
Industrial 161 3.1% 4 1.7%
Institutional 96 1.9% 1 0.4%
Irrigated Farm 1 0.0% 0 0.0%
Recreational 45 0.9% 1 0.4%
Residential 1809 35.3% 83 36.2%
Miscellaneous 76 1.5% 6 2.6%
No data 56 1.1% 2 0.9%
Grand Total 5125 100.0% 229 100.0%
Table 15. Crashes by Land Use

427 of 472

13 Crashes by Park Proximity
Crashes were identified as being adjacent to a Glendale park if they were within 250 feet from parcels identified as City recreation centers or city parks. This distance was selected in order to eliminate the inadvertent selection of crashes on the opposite side of blocks not facing parks, due to the short block length (about 330 feet) in some parts of the city.

About 5.6% of crashes occurred at or adjacent to parks in Glendale. Slightly more, 7.0%, KSI crashes and pedestrian-involved crashes occurred near parks.

Relation to
Park
# of Crashes % of Crashes # of KSI
Crashes
% of KSI
Crashes

# of Pedestrian
Crashes
% of Pedestrian
Crashes
Not at park 4836 94.4% 213 93.0% 809 93.0%
At Park 289 5.6% 16 7.0% 61 7.0%
Total 5125 100.0% 229 100.0% 870 100.0%
Table 16. Crashes and Parks

Crashes by Healthy Places Index
The Healthy Places Index tracks social and economic indicators associated with public health and equitable outcomes. Census tracts receive a score under the index, which are then compared across the state on a percentile basis. A high score and high percentile are associated with indicators of healthier outcomes, such as higher per capita income and lower rates of air pollution. HPI quartiles represent the lowest-scoring 25% to highest-scoring 25% of census tracts.

In Glendale, as shown in Figure 2, the lower quartile census tracts are located in central, southwestern, and western parts of the city, while the higher-scoring tracts are in eastern and northern neighborhoods. Table 11 shows that nearly 40% of crashes and 38% of KSI crashes occurred in the census tracts that fell in the second- lowest quartile, the most of any quartile. Normalized by mile of roadway in those census tracts, tracts in the lowest quartile saw the highest rates of crashes and KSI crashes, indicating that communities under the greatest health, environmental, and socioeconomic burdens experience the highest rates and severity of crashes.

HPI Quartile # of Crashes % of
Crashes
# of KSI
Crashes
% of KSI
Crashes
Crashes per
Mile of
KSI Crashes
per Mile
1, Lowest 1713 33.4% 74 32.3% 27.7 1.2
2 2043 39.9% 86 37.6% 24.8 1.0
3 1138 22.2% 62 27.1% 7.0 0.4
4, Highest 150 2.9% 7 3.1% 1.7 0.1
No data 81 1.6% 0 0.0% 479.9 0.0
Totals 5125 100% 229 1.728503

Table 17. Crashes by Healthy Places Index

428 of 472

14 Figure 2. HPI and KSI Crashes
Party Characteristics
Victim Age
More than one-quarter of crash victims in Glendale were younger than 25 years old. Younger people make up a smaller portion of KSI crash victims, as 20.6% of KSI crash victims are younger than 25 years old.

Older people make up a larger portion of fatal and severe injury crash victims: 23 .0% of KSI victims were 70 years old or older, compared to 9.8% of all crash victims.
429 of 472

15 Figure 3. Crashes by Victim Age
Victim Gender
Crash victims overall are more likely to be women than men (50.6% to 43.1%). Men, however, are more likely to be victims of KSI crashes, making up 59.7% of KSI crashes.

Figure 4. Crashes by Victim Gender

0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%Percent of Crashes
Age of Victim
All Crashes KSI Crashes
43%
51%
6%
60%
36%
4%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Male
Female
No data
KSI Victims All Victims
430 of 472

16 High Injury Network
Overview
Using the methodologies outlined in the Crash Analysis Methodology, the project team produced the crash density map results based on the Sliding Window analysis. Outcomes in this section set the foundation for High Injury Network development.

As described in the Crash Analysis Methodology, the Sliding Windows Analysis identifies segments with the highest crash density, weighted by crash severity. The analysis was conducted by determining the number and severity of crashes in a half-mile window on a roadway and shifting that virtual “window” along the roadway 1/10 of a mile at a time, counting the number of crashes by severity and mode that occurred within each successive half-mile segment. The sliding window scores weight the most severe crashes more heavily than lower severity crashes. The total number of crashes were then aggregated along a corridor while incorporating the crash severity weighting, resulting in scored results applied to roadway segments.

Sliding Windows outputs in the following pages are the result of scoring applied by crash severity and crash frequency, and maps are shown with the lowest-scoring segments hidden for legibility.

431 of 472

17 Pedestrian Crash Density

Figure 5. Pedestrian Sliding Windows Analysis
Pedestrian crashes largely occurred in the central, downtown, and eastern areas of Glendale, with a significant grouping of crashes in West Glendale near Glenoaks Boulevard and Sonora Avenue. Many of these areas have a high density of destinations, such as local shops, schools, and parks, where residents and visitors are more likely to be walking and in greater numbers. The highest scoring streets in the outputs include major arterials that connect to regional destinations, such as Brand Boulevard, Glendale Avenue, Verdugo Road south of the CA-134 freeway, and Colorado Boulevard. In addition, a number of smaller streets near downtown Glendale appear in the results, such as Louise Street.

432 of 472

18 Bicycle Crash Density

Figure 6. Bicycle Sliding Windows Analysis

Bicycle crashes were similarly focused on arterial streets throughout Glendale, but especially those that connect to central Glendale, the downtown core, and other central neighborhoods. Additionally, some smaller streets that may be used as common bike routes showed higher crash densities, likely due to a more frequent presence of people biking on those streets. These include Columbus Avenue and Maple Avenue in southwestern Glendale.

433 of 472

19 Vehicle Crash Density

Figure 7. Vehicle Sliding Windows Analysis

Vehicle crashes, as shown in Figure 7, are spread further throughout the city. As with bicycle and pedestrian crashes, highest scoring segments appear on major arterials that connect to downtown Glendale, such as Brand Boulevard and Glendale Avenue. Other significant densities appear in major streets in western and northern Glendale, such as Verdugo Road in Montrose. However, a number of high-scoring segments also appear at access routes to the freeways that serve Glendale: these include Honolulu Avenue/Lowell Avenue at the I-210 on- ramps and Goode Avenue and Sanchez Drive near CA-134.
434 of 472

20 Motorcycle Crash Density

Figure 8. Motorcycle Sliding Windows Analysis
Motorcycle crashes, shown in Figure 8, are focused primarily on arterial streets that serve central Glendale.

However, in addition to central streets such as Colorado Boulevard, higher scoring segments appear in arterials outside of the center of the city, such as Verdugo Road and Glenoaks Boulevard.

435 of 472

21 Development of the High Injury Network
The draft High Injury Network is developed based on the results of the crash density maps from the sliding window analysis. The HIN aims to help identify corridors that may warrant special attention. Identification of these streets will help the City of Glendale prioritize investment in the areas where crash history demonstrates the most serious problems and easily communicate those priorities to the community.

Developing an HIN is an iterative process. It is expected that the City of Glendale will review the HIN produced through this analysis. The process of generating the HIN is as follows:

1. Map the Sliding Windows analysis results for each mode (pedestrian, bicycle, motorcycle, and motor vehicle) individually. As detailed in the Crash Analysis Methodology Memo, analysis outputs reflect the weighting applied by severity, that places a greater focus on fatal and severe injury (KSI) crashes: KSI crashes received a score of 3, and other injury crashes received a score of 1. See the above Crash Density maps for sliding window analysis results.

2. For each mode, determine the threshold of the Sliding Window score required to be included in the HIN.

This step eliminates streets that have a lower crash density thereby prioritizing streets that have higher crash severities and frequencies.

3. Review and manually adjust for false-positive segments that have a high crash score due to a single intersection crash but do not have any other crashes along the corridor.

Segments manually excluded due factors such as false-positive intersection crashes are:
• Pioneer Avenue (Pacific Avenue to Central Avenue): excluded from the Bicycle HIN cutoff due to crashes being accounted for on Pacific and Central Avenue segments • Palmer Avenue (Brand Boulevard to Glendale Avenue): excluded from the Bicycle HIN cutoff due to crashes already being accounted for in Brand Boulevard and Glendale Avenue segments • Glenoaks Boulevard (service road north of the Glenoaks Boulevard arterial, Pacific Avenue to Central Avenue): excluded from the Bicycle HIN cutoff due to crash already being accounted for at the Pacific Avenue intersection
• El Cino Place (Verdugo Road to Montrose Community Park): excluded from the Motorcycle HIN cutoff due to crash being accounted for on Verdugo Road
• School Street (Glenwood Road to Olmsted Drive): excluded from the Motorcycle HIN cutoff due to short segment length (940 feet)
High Injury Network Thresholds
The goal of the minimum HIN threshold setting process is to settle on a minimum sliding window score for each mode independently that will create a network that covers a selective set of the city streets but a relatively large share of crashes with an emphasis on KSI crashes, achieved via severity weighting.

Thresholds (inclusive and above the values listed) for each mode included in the HIN are listed below. A segment that meets or exceeds the weighted crash score threshold noted below for each mode were included in each mode-specific HIN and the overall HIN. The weighted crash score thresholds for areas included in the HIN do not exactly follow the weighted crash score ranges from the sliding windows, as the HIN is a compilation of the highest weighted crash scores.
» Pedestrian: 16
» Bicycle: 6
» Motorcycle: 5
» Motor Vehicle: 42
436 of 472

22 Draft High Injury Network
The Draft High Injury Network shown in Figure 9 integrates the above threshold scores for crashes of all modes. It accounts for 68% of all crashes, and 75% of KSI crashes, on 12% of the local streets within the City of Glendale.

Figure 9. Draft High Injury Network

Revised High Injury Network
Following the presentation to the Project Development Team, the Draft High Injury Network was revised based on stakeholder input regarding existing safety conditions and need. Additions included:
 Inclusion of the full extent of Foothill Boulevard in northern Glendale  Inclusion of the segments of Verdugo Road previously excluded (Fern Lane to Mountain Street, Bagdad Place to La Crescenta Avenue) to cover the roadway’s full extent  Extension of Louise Avenue north from Harvard Street to Lexington Drive Figure 10 on the following page depicts the High Injury Network with these revisions. This HIN accounts for 71% of all crashes,78% of KSI crashes, and covers 13% of local streets within Glendale. 437 of 472

23 Figure 10. Revised High Injury Network
438 of 472

24 High Crash Density Intersections
The intersections detailed in Table 18 were determined by identifying clusters of intersection crashes that took place within 50 feet of one another. The below list represents a set of intersections with the most crashes of any modes between 2012 and 2021. It should be noted that while these represent locations with frequent crashes, other intersections along each HIN segment similarly experience high rates of crashes and will also merit study for safety improvements.

Primary Road Secondary Road Number of Crashes
(all)
San Fernando Road Los Feliz Road 21
Central Avenue Chevy Chase Drive 18
Brand Boulevard Colorado Street 18
Central Avenue Broadway 21
Verdugo Road Honolulu Avenue 21
San Fernando Road Western Avenue 27
Brand Boulevard Goode Avenue 21
Brand Boulevard Sanchez Avenue 29
Honolulu Avenue Lowell Avenue 35
Table 18. High Crash Density Intersections (all crashes)

439 of 472

EXHIBIT 2

MEMORANDUM
January 21, 2025
Project: Glendale Vision Zero Safety Action Plan
Re: Glendale Vision Zero – Prioritization Outputs

A
s part of the Glendale Vision Zero Action Plan, the City of Glendale must be able to direct resources to safety treatments on roadways with the greatest needs. This memo outlines the framework that the City can use to direct those resources and summarizes the initial outputs when that framework is applied to Glendale’s roadways .

The overall prioritization process utilizes quantitative metrics that reflect priorities shared by the Project Development team and the City project team. These include:
 Vulnerable Road User (VRU) Crashes
 Total Crashes of All Modes
 Inclusion on Overall HIN
 Total KSI Crashes
 Healthy Places Index
As the framework is applied in the future and utilized in identifying projects at prioritized locations, qualitative factors such as the following could be used, but are not required, to adjust locations and their extents. Inclusion of qualitative factors for future adjustments is at the discretion of the City:
• Citywide Traffic and Mobility Study (CTMS) public comments • Consolidation of parallel or adjacent corridors
• Alignment with Glendale TIP and other planned projects • Opportunities for quick-build
Scoring Process
Following presentation of proposed priority factors to the Project Development T eam (PDT) in September 2024, the below quantitative scoring process was developed. The PDT provided direction to focus on overall crash frequency and KSI crashes, and recommended survey comments be included as a qualitative step. Scores were updated following the PDT meeting, in October 2024, in consultation with City staff.

Crashes were derived from the Statewide Integrated Traffic Records System/Transportation Injury Mapping System dataset of crashes on local Glendale streets, and the Healthy Places Index (H PI) was utilized as an equity metric to reflect socioeconomic needs in the City.
440 of 472

2 Table 1. Quantitative Scoring Approach
Prioritization Factor Points Score Type Note
Number of KSI Crashes (All
Modes)
0 - 10 By Percentile,
or no score
Number of KSI crashes within 100 ft of
intersection/segment
Equity Score (Healthy
Places Index Score)
1-8 By percentile,
across scores
within city
For any segment that crosses multiple equity
score polygons, use the highest equity need score
Number of Crashes (All
Modes)
0 - 8 By Percentile,
or no score
Number of crashes within 100 ft of
intersection/segment
Presence on High Injury
Network
0 - 5 By overlap
with HIN
Percent overlap with HIN (e.g., a segment 50% on
HIN scores 2.5 points)
Number of Vulnerable
Road User Crashes
(Bicycle- and Pedestrian-
Involved)
0 - 4 By quartile, or
no score
Number of VRU crashes within 100 ft of
intersection/segment

Overview of the Prioritization Scoring
Scores for each segment and intersection were determined through the approach and metrics detailed in Table 1.

The total possible points for each metric are shown in the second column. The differing number of possible points reflects the overall emphasis on each factor. For example, KSI crashes yield the most points as they reflect the most serious crash types and indications of safety need.

Scores for most metrics are determined by percentile as noted in the Score Type column, comparing how they place among all other segments or intersections in the city. After the scoring process, these are summed into one overall score for the segment or intersection.

How does the percentile score work?
A percentile reflects the distribution of a metric across other segments or intersections: a segment in the 85th percentile of crashes means that 85% of street segments saw fewer crashes. That percentile is then adapted to the respective point amount proportionally, such that segments in the 50th percentile receive half the possible points, the 100th percentile receive full points, and so on.

For example, a segment of Los Feliz Road between San Fernando Road and Central Avenue had 2 KSI crashes (97th percentile across all segments, 9.77 points out of 10), 54 overall crashes (highest percentile, 8 points of 8), and 12 VRU crashes (highest quartile, 4 points of 4). It also fully overlapped the HIN, receiving the full 5 points, and had an HPI score placing it in the 87th percentile, or 6.99 points out of 8. Added together, this yielded a score of 33.76 points. For further information on how segment scores were weighted into aggregated corridors, please see the Segment Prioritization section below.

Prioritization Outputs
Intersection Prioritization
Table 2 below shows the top 30 highest-scoring intersections in Glendale using the quantitative prioritization framework, as mapped on Figure 1. Intersections were generated based on connections in the city street grid, 441 of 472

3 with additional intersections manually added where Glendale streets connect to local freeways via on- and off- ramps. High-scoring intersections are generally centered in central and western Glendale, along major corridors such as Glenoaks Boulevard, Broadway, and Glendale Avenue.

Figure 1. Top 30 Prioritized Intersections

442 of 472

4 Table 2. Prioritized Intersections - Highest 30 Scoring Street Name 1 Street Name 2 Total KSI
Crashes
Total Score Rank
(Including Ties)
Cerritos Avenue Brand Boulevard 2 34.62 1
Alameda Avenue
Glenoaks
Boulevard 2 34.28 2
Cypress Street Glendale Avenue 1 34.07 3
Los Feliz Road Brand Boulevard 1 34.01 4
Boynton Street
Chevy Chase
Drive 1 34.01 4
Colorado Street Brand Boulevard 1 33.99 5
Broadway Brand Boulevard 1 33.95 6
San Fernando
Road Glendale Avenue 1 33.94 7
Broadway Glendale Avenue 1 33.92 8
Broadway Everett Street 1 33.9 9
Colorado Street Adams Street 1 33.85 10
Irving Avenue
Glenoaks
Boulevard 4 33.75 11
Western Avenue
Glenoaks
Boulevard 1 33.7 12
Allen Avenue
Glenoaks
Boulevard
1 33.67 13
Broadway Jackson Street 1 33.59 14
Elk Avenue Glendale Avenue 2 33.46 15
San Fernando
Road Western Avenue 4 33.45 16
San Fernando
Road
Sonora Avenue 4 33.41 17
443 of 472

5 Street Name 1 Street Name 2 Total KSI
Crashes
Total Score Rank
(Including Ties)
San Fernando
Road Palmer Avenue 2 33.21 18
Flower Street Sonora Avenue 2 33.15 19
Broadway Artsakh Avenue 1 33.1 20
Harvard Street Louise Street 1 33.1 20
Justin Avenue
Glenoaks
Boulevard 1 33.01 21
Glenoaks
Boulevard
Winchester
Avenue
1 33.01 21
Wilson Avenue Verdugo Road 2 32.97 22
Central Avenue Lomita Avenue 2 32.89 23
Colorado Street Verdugo Road 2 32.87 24
Broadway Verdugo Road 2 32.87 24
Princeton Street
San Fernando
Road 1

32.8 25
California
Avenue Glendale Avenue 2

32.67 26

Segment Prioritization
Segment prioritization followed the same scoring inputs and points allocation as intersections, applied to longer street segment. The highest-scoring segments were identified by filtering all segments with a score of 30 or above. This identified approximately 200 unique segments, which are presented in Figure 2 below . Of these, resulting segments were aggregated into longer corridors when continuous. Where there were small breaks equal to 400 feet or shorter (the length of a typical short block in central Glendale), the corridor was deemed continuous, and that segment was included.

The resulting scores of segments were given weights by their respective length and averaged together to create the weighted average score shown in Table 3. Figure 3 shows where these corridors are located within the city:
they include longer segments on Glendale Avenue, Broadway, and Colorado Street, as well as shorter segments on street such as San Fernando Road and Doran Street.

444 of 472

6 2. Top 200 Prioritized Segments

445 of 472

7 Figure 3. Top 30 Prioritized Corridors

446 of 472

8 Table 3. Top 30 Prioritized Corridors
Corridor From To Length
(Miles)
KSI
Crashes
Weighted
Avg. Score
Rank
(Including
Ties)
Glendale
Avenue Lomita Avenue Colorado Street 0.11 2 33.76 1
Glenoaks
Boulevard
Valenica
Avenue
(approx.)
Spazier Avenue
(approx.) 0.07
2 33.72 2
Chevy Chase
Drive
Glendale
Avenue La Boice Dr 0.47 2 33.69 3
Glendale
Avenue Madison Way Palmer Avenue
(approx.) 0.16 1 33.43 4
San Fernando
Road
Raymond
Avenue
Winchester
Avenue 0.15 4 33.32 5
San Fernando
Road Grover Avenue Ruberta Avenue 0.15 4 33.27 6
Western
Avenue
San Fernando
Road
(approx.)
Glenwood Road 0.25
3 33.08 7
San Fernando
Road
Glendale
Boulevard Dolores Street 0.21 2 32.97 8
Glendale
Avenue Harvard Street CA-134 Freeway 0.85 7 32.88 9
San Fernando
Road
Chevy Chase
Drive Magnolia Avenue 0.19 3 32.88 9
Louise Street Broadway Colorado Street 0.26 1 32.85 11
San Fernando
Road Los Feliz Road Central Avenue 0.13 1 32.82 12
Broadway Olive Street Lukens Place 0.25 3 32.78 13
Broadway Orange Street
(approx.)
Louise Street
(approx.) 0.15 2 32.76 14
447 of 472

9 Corridor From To Length
(Miles)
KSI
Crashes
Weighted
Avg. Score
Rank
(Including
Ties)
Central Avenue Cypress Street Los Feliz Road 0.08 1 32.64 15 Glenoaks
Boulevard
Linden Avenue
(approx.) Sonora Avenue 0.62 10 32.43 16
Colorado
Street
San Fernando
Road
Brand Boulevard
(approx.) 0.87 8 32.42 17
Brand
Boulevard Maple Street Chestnut Street 0.08 1 32.41 18
Riverdale Drive Pacific Avenue Central Avenue 0.38 2 32.24 19 Central Avenue Acacia Avenue
(approx.) Palmer Avenue 0.15 1 32.17 20
Verdugo Road California
Avenue
Rock Glen
Avenue 0.68 10 31.95 21
Doran Street Everett Street
(approx..) Adams Street 0.14 4 31.9 22
Doran Street Orange Street
(approx.) Maryland Avenue 0.11 4 31.84 23
Chevy Chase
Drive Virginia Place Central Avenue
(approx..) 0.3 2 31.76 24
Glenoaks
Boulevard
Grandview
Avenue Newby Street 0.09 1 31.72 25
Maple Street Louise Street Glendale Avenue 0.09 1 31.69 26 San Fernando
Road Milford Street Salem Street 0.25 4 31.66 27
Colorado
Street Cedar Street Langley Street 0.64 7 31.64 28
Sonora Avenue Grand Central
Avenue I-5 Freeway 0.27 2 31.64 28
448 of 472

10 Corridor From To Length
(Miles)
KSI
Crashes
Weighted
Avg. Score
Rank
(Including
Ties)
Chevy Chase
Drive Harvard Street Elk Avenue 0.21 2 31.61 30

Next Steps
Following the review of the quantitative prioritization outputs and any subsequent adjustments, the outputs lists may be evaluated, with City direction, against the qualitative criteria described in the process overview to determine if any projects should be shifted to a higher or lower priority based on those metrics. For example, a location that is ranked 10th on the list using quantitative analysis might be shifted to a higher priority if it can leverage an adjacent project or a project on the CIP list. Another location might be shifted to a higher priority for quick-build potential if there is an upcoming planned restriping of the corridor in which a road diet or a quick-build intersection daylighting could be implemented at the same time. Additional adjustments may be based on criteria such as the following:
• Public comments received through the CTMS survey
• Consolidation or separation of adjacent or parallel corridors, with City input • Adjustments based on alignment with planned projects identified by the City • Opportunities for quick-build implementation and pilots

449 of 472

1 Exhibit 3
City of Glendale Vision Zero Action Plan Walk Audit
April 2025

Introduction and Methodology

The City of Glendale is developing a Vision Zero Action Plan with the goal of eliminating pedestrian fatalities. Vision Zero challenges the traditional approach to traffic safety by recognizing that severe traffic collisions are neither random nor unavoidable; rather, with the right strategies and dedication of resources, they can be prevented.

Vision Zero takes a systemic approach to traffic safety by making streets more forgiving through proactive, cost-effective measures designed to prevent severe and fatal collisions. This comprehensive strategy integrates engineering, education, and enforcement to enhance street safety. Through the Vision Zero Action Plan, the City of Glendale will develop strategic recommendations to create safer streets for all road users, reducing both fatalities and serious injuries.

Vision Zero Action Plan Objectives

The Vision Zero Action Plan aims to:
• Identify priority areas for street safety improvements. • Recommend policy changes to improve street design, operational standards, and project delivery processes that enhance safety.
• Strengthen policies and programs identified in the Citywide Pedestrian Plan. • Promote and enforce safe driving behavior to enhance street safety. • Address areas where specific age groups are disproportionately impacted by collisions. • Eliminate severe and fatal traffic collisions on city streets.

Walk Audit Methodology

“A walk audit is an assessment of the pedestrian safety, accessibility, and comfort of a particular area.”
1 Walk audits serve as a key tool for assessing current street conditions, engaging with residents and other stakeholders, and gathering community input on safety improvements.

Residents, who know their neighborhoods best, were invited to participate in walk audits

1 “How to conduct a walk audit in your community,” AmericaWalks.org, October 2, 2020, https://americawalks.org/how-to-conduct-a-walk-audit-in-your-community-quick-video-guide-for-assessing-your- neighborhood-walkability/
450 of 472

2 alongside city staff and consultant team members. Each walk audit covered approximately one mile and lasted between one hour and ninety minutes, depending on the number of stops for discussions about observed conditions. The walks took place between March 19 and March 22, 2025, covering five routes selected based on the following criteria:

• Geographic diversity across different Glendale neighborhoods. • Proximity to key destinations such as schools, parks, medical facilities, and shopping centers.
• Alignment with the High Injury Network, prioritizing areas with higher collision rates. • Exclusion of areas recently assessed in the 2024 Metro NoHo to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Walk Audit and the Citywide Pedestrian Plan Walk Audits.

Walk Audit Locations and Schedule

1. Walk Audit #1 – Riverside Rancho (West Glendale)
o Date/Time: Wednesday, March 19, 4:00 PM
o Meeting Location: Bette Davis Picnic Area, 1850 Riverside Dr.

2. Walk Audit #2 – Tropico (South Glendale)
o Date/Time: Thursday, March 20, 4:00 PM
o Meeting Location: Glendale Transportation Center, 400 West Cerritos Ave.

3. Walk Audit #3 – Woodbury/College Hills (Central Glendale) o Date/Time: Friday, March 21, 4:00 PM
o Meeting Location: Woodrow Wilson Middle School, 1221 Monterey Rd.

4. Walk Audit #4 – Sparr Heights (East Glendale)
o Date/Time: Saturday, March 22, 10:30 AM
o Meeting Location: Montrose Community Park, 3529 Clifton Pl.

5. Walk Audit #5 – Crescenta Highlands (North Glendale) o Date/Time: Saturday, March 22, 2:30 PM
o Meeting Location: Dunsmore Park, 4700 Dunsmore Ave.

Maps of the walk audit areas are provided in the Appendix. Weather for all the walk audits was pleasant, with full to partly sunny conditions and mild temperatures.

Community Engagement and Participation

The walk audits were promoted through multiple outreach efforts, including:
• Flyers and emails sent to the Vision Zero Project Development Team. • Emails to City Council members, commissioners, neighborhood associations, and other key stakeholders.
• Notices sent to the Vision Zero and Bicycle Transportation Plan email databases. • Social media posts on city channels.
• Flyers distributed at local libraries.
451 of 472

3 A total of approximately 50 community members of all ages – including parents with toddlers, students, and adults – participated in the five walk audits, not including city staff and consultant team members. Several community members participated in more than one walk audit. City of Glendale Planning Associate and Vision Zero Project Manager Ismael Carbajal-Perez facilitated the walks, welcoming participants, explaining the walk audit objectives and questionnaire, and introducing city staff and consultants.

A total of 39 completed walk audit questionnaires were collected. The Appendix includes:
• The walk audit flyer
• The walk audit questionnaire
• The 39 completed questionnaire responses
• The full list of attendees

Findings

Feedback from the walk audit questionnaire is considered qualitative input, similar to insights gathered from community meetings, open houses, and pop-up events. Unlike a statistically representative survey, the goal of qualitative feedback is to capture diverse perspectives and lived experiences. Given the small group sizes, the findings reflect the observations of key participants rather than the broader community.

Key themes emerged from participant responses across all walk audits. The top three reflect common concerns the Vision Zero project team has heard at other outreach events:

1. Speeding Concerns: Nearly all participants observed that traffic moved faster than the posted speed limit in walk audit areas.

2. Failure to Fully Stop: Many participants reported frequent "California rolls" at stop signs, where drivers slowed down but did not come to a complete stop.

3. Failure to Yield to Pedestrians: Participants commonly noted that drivers did not stop for pedestrians with the right of way. This was especially noticeable when the walk audit groups encountered shopping center or business driveways.

Other themes include:

• Blocked Crosswalks: A common concern was drivers pulling too far into intersections, obstructing crosswalks, and creating potential hazards for pedestrians and cyclists. • Faded Crosswalks: Several intersections throughout walk audit areas were noted as needing restriping for greater visibility, with the Tropico neighborhood receiving the most observations for well-marked crosswalks.
• Inaccessible Intersections/Sidewalks: Sidewalks and intersections throughout various neighborhoods were noted as lacking accessibility for individuals in wheelchairs or using 452 of 472

4 a stroller or mobility aid: Sonora Avenue and Victory Boulevard, Sonora Avenue and Fairfield Street, Victory Boulevard and Randall Street, or Garden Street or Randall Street. • Sidewalk Obstructions: Participants observed uneven pavement or sidewalks blocked by overgrown landscaping in most walk audit areas, creating accessibility challenges for pedestrians, particularly anyone with a stroller, wheelchair or mobility aid. • Lack of Accessible Traffic Signals: Participants noted a general absence of traffic signals with audio features for individuals with visual impairments. • Limited Transit Amenities: Throughout the walk audit areas, participants noted a lack of transit stops with lighting and/or shelter.
• Concerns About School Traffic: Some participants shared concerns about congestion around schools during drop off and pick up, especially due to lack of school buses and some schools drawing students from outside Glendale. This came up during the Tropico walk audit for Cerritos Elementary School and the Crescenta Highlands walk audit for Clark Magnet High School.

Findings by Neighborhood
This section presents findings from individual walk audits, detailing neighborhood-specific observations.

Walk Audit #1 – Riverside Rancho Neighborhood (West Glendale) Date: Wednesday, March 19, 2025

The walk audit began near the Bette Davis Picnic Area off Riverside Drive. Participants followed Victory Boulevard west to Allen Avenue, continued east on Lake Street, and returned via Sonora Avenue to Riverside Drive.

Key observations included:
• Missing Sidewalks: Participants noted the absence of sidewalks on Garden Street and Ruberta Avenue.
• Street Trees and Furniture: While all participants observed some street trees, opinions on the presence of street furniture were split—half reported seeing some, while the other half noted none.
• Crossing Time at Signals: Participants were evenly divided on whether traffic signals provided adequate time for pedestrians to cross. Signals at Victory Boulevard and Sonora Avenue, and Lake Street and Sonora Avenue, were specifically cited as not allowing sufficient crossing time.
• Crosswalks: The participants were even split with half noting crosswalks were well- marked and half noting they were not well-marked.
• Accessibility: Most felt intersections and sidewalks were accessible in some places.

Problem areas were identified along Victory Boulevard, at Victory Boulevard and Riverside Drive (lacking curb ramp).
453 of 472

5 • Features for the Visually-Impaired: Some Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) were noted, at Victory Boulevard and Justin Road, for example. The Sonora Avenue and Victory Boulevard intersection was noting as lacking APS. • Pedestrian Comfort Levels in Intersections: Participants were split between “very comfortable,” “somewhat comfortable,” and “not comfortable” when crossing intersections in the audit area.
• Perceived Safety: While most participants felt “somewhat safe” or “very safe” walking in the area, a couple noted they did not feel safe.
• Likelihood of Encouraging Walking: More participants were “somewhat unlikely” or “very unlikely” to encourage a child or older relative to walk in the area for transportation.
• Transit Stop Conditions: Participants noted a lack of lighting and shelter at transit stops, including those at Sonora Avenue and Lake Street, Victory Boulevard and Western Avenue, Western Avenue and Raymond Avenue, and Victory Boulevard and Thompson Avenue.
• Additional Concerns: Detailed comments were submitted and are included in the Appendix. Key themes include:
o Concerns noted about drivers not stopping for pedestrians with right of way. o Pedestrian button noted as not working at Sonora Avenue and Lake Street.

Further details and specific participant comments for all walk audits can be found in the Appendix.

Walk Audit #2 – Tropico Neighborhood (South Glendale)
Date: Thursday, March 20, 2025

The walk audit began at the Glendale Transportation Center (GTC) on Cerritos Avenue.

Participants proceeded along Gardena Avenue to South Central Avenue, then headed northeast to Los Feliz Road, and took Los Feliz Road east to Glendale Avenue. From there, the route turned west on Laurel Street, then south on Brand Boulevard to San Fernando Road, before returning to the GTC.

Key Observations:
• Sidewalk Width: Sidewalks were present throughout the area, with most noted as wide enough for at least two people to walk side by side.
• Street Trees and Furniture: Nearly all participants observed street trees, though street furniture was noted as mainly concentrated along San Fernando Road. • Crossing Time at Signals: Participants were evenly divided on whether traffic signals provided adequate time for pedestrians to cross. Signals at San Fernando Road and Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard were specifically cited as not allowing sufficient crossing time.
• Crosswalks: Nearly all participants noted that crosswalks were well-marked. 454 of 472

6 • Accessibility: Most intersections and sidewalks were considered wheelchair and stroller accessible, except for Los Feliz Road between Brand Boulevard and Glendale Avenue, where a lack of tree grates leading to uneven sidewalks were identified as a potential hazard.
• Features for the Visually-Impaired: Some truncated domes were noted on the sidewalk.

Some Accessible Pedestrian Signals (APS) were noted, at Central Avenue and San Fernando Road, for example. The Los Feliz Avenue and Orange Street intersection was noting as lacking APS.
• Pedestrian Comfort in Intersections: All participants rated crossing the walk audit area intersections as either “very comfortable” or “somewhat comfortable.” • Perceived Safety: All participants reported feeling “very safe” or “somewhat safe” walking in the area.
• Likelihood of Encouraging Walking: Most participants were “very likely” or “somewhat likely” to encourage a child or older relative to walk in the area for transportation. • Transit Stop Conditions: Participants noted a lack of lighting and shelter at transit stops, including those at Central Avenue and Cerritos Avenue, and Central Avenue near Dignity Health.
• Driveway Conflicts: Participants noted issues with vehicles quickly exiting business driveways, creating challenges for pedestrians.
• Additional Concerns: Detailed comments were submitted and are included in the Appendix. Key themes include:
o Suggestion to add a traffic signal at Cerritos Avenue and Glendale Avenue to improve safety, particularly for school-related traffic. Cerritos Elementary School traffic was cited as challenging during peak times.

Walk Audit #3 – Woodbury/College Hills (Central Glendale) Date: Friday, March 20, 2025

The walk audit began across the street from Woodrow Wilson Middle School on Monterey Avenue. Participants proceeded northwest along Monterey Road, then turned northeast on Coronado Drive. After a brief segment on East Glenoaks Boulevard, the group connected to Glendale Avenue heading northeast to North Verdugo Road. From there, they traveled south on North Verdugo Road back to Monterey Avenue, before returning to the starting point across from Woodrow Wilson Middle School.

A total of four walk audit forms were submitted for this location, resulting in less feedback compared to the other four walk audits.

Key Observations:
• Sidewalk Width: Sidewalks were present throughout the area, and most were noted as wide enough for two people to walk side by side.
455 of 472

7 • Street Trees and Furniture: All participants observed street trees. Half of the participants also noted the presence of street furniture, primarily trash cans. • Crossing Time at Signals: Three of the four respondents reported that some of the traffic signals did not provide adequate time to cross safely. The intersection at Glendale Avenue and Monterey Road was specifically cited as problematic, with another comment emphasizing the need for more crossing time for seniors and individuals with disabilities to cross.
• Crosswalks: All participants noted that most crosswalks in the walk audit area were well- marked.
• Accessibility: Most intersections and sidewalks were considered accessible for individuals using wheelchairs or strollers.
• Pedestrian Comfort in Crosswalks: Three participants rated crossing the walk audit area intersections as “somewhat comfortable,” while one rated it “not comfortable” due to concerns about drivers running red lights. The Glendale Avenue and Monterey Road intersection was highlighted by a second participant as an intersection of concern, especially given its frequent use by students.
• Features for the Visually-Impaired: No special signals or design elements for people who are blind or visually impaired were observed.
• Perceived Safety: Participants reported feeling “somewhat safe” walking in the area. • Likelihood of Encouraging Walking: Participants were “somewhat likely” to encourage a child or older relative to walk in the area for transportation, with a note from one specifying during the daytime.
• Driveway Conflicts: Participants noted issues with vehicles quickly exiting business and shopping center driveways, creating challenges for pedestrians. • Additional Concerns: Detailed comments were submitted and are included in the Appendix. Key themes include:
o Concerns about drivers failing to stop at stop signs, running red lights, stopping within the crosswalk on Glendale Avenue, and not yielding to pedestrians who have the right of way, particularly at intersections such as Glendale Avenue and Monterey Road, Glenoaks Avenue and Verdugo Road, and Monterey Road and 134 Freeway west of Glenoaks.

Walk Audit #4 – Sparr Heights (East Glendale)
Date: Saturday Morning, March 21, 2025

The walk audit began at Montrose Park on Clifton Avenue. Participants walked through the park to North Verdugo Road, then continued south on North Verdugo Road to Paloma Avenue. From there, the group traveled east on Paloma Avenue to La Cresenta Avenue, then northeast on La Cresenta Avenue to Roselawn Avenue. The walk continued north on Roselawn Avenue to Honolulu Avenue, then south on North Verdugo Road, returning to the park via Clifton Avenue.

Key Observations:
456 of 472

8 • Sidewalk Width: Sidewalks were present throughout the area. While some were noted as wide enough for two people to walk side by side, there were narrow sections where only one person fit comfortably, primarily along La Cresenta Avenue. • Street Trees and Furniture: All participants observed street trees, with some street furniture noted, primarily along Honolulu Avenue.
• Crossing Time at Signals: Most participants felt traffic signals provided adequate time for pedestrians to cross.
• Crosswalks: More than half of the participants noted that some crosswalks were not well-marked, several showing faded paint.
• Accessibility: Most intersections and sidewalks were considered wheelchair and stroller accessible. However, La Cresenta Avenue was highlighted as an exception due to its narrow width and sections with overgrown landscaping encroaching onto the sidewalks. • Pedestrian Comfort in Crosswalks: Most participants rated feeling “somewhat comfortable” when crossing intersections in the walk audit area. • Perceived Safety: Most participants reported feeling “somewhat safe” walking in the area, one felt “not safe,” and one felt “very safe” and “somewhat safe” depending on the specific area.
• Likelihood of Encouraging Walking: Most respondents were “somewhat likely” to encourage a child or older relative to walk in the area for transportation. Two participants reported being “very likely” to encourage walking, while one participant reported being “somewhat unlikely.”
• Transit Stop Conditions: Participants noted a lack of shelter or benches at transit stops, including the Rosemont Avenue and Honolulu Avenue stop. • Additional Concerns: Detailed comments were submitted and are included in the Appendix. Common themes included:
o Safety concerns at the crosswalk near Trader Joe’s on Honolulu Avenue, particularly during peak hours.
o Reports of drivers not stopping for pedestrians who have the right of way along Verdugo Road (at Verdugo Road and Broadview Drive) and at Sunset Avenue and Honolulu Avenue.
o Multiple requests for improved crosswalks or four-way stops at key intersections.

Walk Audit #5 –Cresenta Highlands Neighborhood (North Glendale) Date: Saturday Afternoon, March 20, 2025

The walk audit route began at Dunsmore Park and proceed north along Dunsmore Avenue to Santa Carlotta Street. Participants then walked east on Santa Carlotta to Maryland Avenue, headed south on Maryland Avenue, transitioned to New York Avenue, and continued south. The group then walked west along Foothill Boulevard before heading back to Dunsmore Park.

457 of 472

9 Key Observations:
• Sidewalk Width: Sidewalks were present throughout the walk audit area. While some were noted as wide enough for two people to walk side by side, some narrow sections where only one person could walk comfortably. The sidewalk on Dunsmore on the east side near St. James Church was noted for overgrown landscaping encroaching on the sidewalk. Multiple uneven sidewalk segments were noted while walking south on New York Avenue, near Clark Magnet High School.
• Street Trees and Furniture: All participants observed some street trees. However, there was a lack of street furniture noted, aside from benches for transit along Foothill Boulevard and private residential benches accessible from the sidewalk. • Crossing Time at Signals: Most participants felt traffic signals did not allow adequate time for pedestrians to cross, particularly at the intersection of New York Avenue and Foothill Boulevard.
• Crosswalks: More than half of the participants noted that crosswalks were well-marked, though some fading paint was noted on New York Avenue.
• Accessibility: Most intersections and sidewalks were considered wheelchair and stroller accessible, though concerns were raised about obstructions such as utility boxes and poles blocking the sidewalk, particularly at New York Avenue and Santa Carlotta Street. • Pedestrian Comfort in Crosswalks: All but one participant rated feeling “very comfortable” or “somewhat comfortable” when crossing intersections along the walk audit route.
• Perceived Safety: Most participants reported feeling “somewhat safe” walking in the area, with one participant stating they felt “very safe.” • Likelihood of Encouraging Walking: Participants expressed mixed opinions on how likely they would be to encourage a child or older relative to walk in the area for transportation purposes.
• Additional Concerns: Detailed comments were submitted and are included in the Appendix. Key themes include:
o Lack of visible speed limit signage along Santa Carlotta Street. o Concerns about traffic congestions around Clark Magnet High School, which participants noted is common near schools throughout Glendale. Some participants suggested that providing bus service could alleviate traffic, particularly since Clarks School draws students from outside the Glendale area.

Next Steps
The walk audits had a great turnout and a lot of great feedback was given. Information from the walk audits will be incorporated, where appropriate, into the countermeasures, project goals, and project actions. Materials from the walk audit will be preserved as part of the outreach toolkit so that the city can conduct future walk audits using already prepared materials and collateral.
458 of 472

8e
25-87782

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Request to establish a standardization of specialized high-capacity lifting equipment manufactured by Paratech Incorporated.

1. Resolution to adopt the standardization policy and authorize the purchase of equipment and supplies manufactured by Paratech Incorporated.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for May 13, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Glendale Fire Department currently uses Paratech Incorporated airbags across all three fire truck companies and the Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) apparatus. The equipment is used for a wide range of rescue operations that require precision lifting and stabilization.
459 of 472

8e2
25-87782
5 9
7 2

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the attached resolution authorizing the City Manager to adopt equipment standardization for the purchase of specialized equipment for daily use, manufactured by Paratech Incorporated.

ANALYSIS
The Glendale Fire Department currently deploys Paratech airbags on all three truck companies and the USAR apparatus. This effort does not represent a change in companies, but rather a move to officially standardize equipment already in use across the department. These lifting systems have a proven reliability in diverse rescue environments, offering rapid deployment, compact storage, and high lifting capacities suited to modern urban hazards. These systems can be placed into incidents involving structural collapse, vehicle entrapments, confined space rescues, and other technical scenarios where precise vertical movement of heavy loads is critical to victim access and survivability. Formalizing the use of Paratech airbags as the department-wide standard ensures consistent training, interoperability across multiple agencies, and logistical uniformity during complex incidents.

In addition, standardizing the use of Paratech airbags reflects best practices currently observed across USAR agencies. It reinforces consistency within Regional Task Force- 4, where USAR 21 serves as a Type 1 heavy apparatus. The next planned purchase will focus on replacing the existing Paratech high- and low-pressure air bag systems on USAR 21. In accordance with Firescope Incident Command System 162, air bag systems are a required component of the equipment cache for a Type I USAR team.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
N/A

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of the specialized high-capacity lifting equipment from Paratech will cost $60,200, which was approved in the FY 2024-25 Budget. No new appropriation is being requested at this time. The City Council approved funding is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$60,200 GL: 45150-2650-GFD-0020-P0000-
PL: GFD01162AG
Federal Grant – UASI
2023

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
There is no possibility that the acceptance of the request may have a significant effect on the environment.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements. 460 of 472

8e3
25-87782
5 9
7 2

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: The City Council may deny the Fire Department’s request. To which, there will be no standardization for the specialized high-capacity lifting equipment.

Alternative 2: The City Council can consider any other alternative, not proposed by staff.

Doing so, would delay the procurement and replacement of this critical equipment on USAR 21. It would also result in lack of uniformity and interoperability, which could hinder operational coordination during incidents or regional responses.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Jeffrey Brooks, Acting Fire Chief
Prepared by:

David An, Battalion Chief
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
461 of 472

C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\Fire Paratech dispense with bid establish standard 2025.pdf RESOLUTION NO.______________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,

CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING STANDARDIZATION OF MANUFACTURER,

DISPENSING WITH COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND AUTHORIZING THE

PURCHASING ADMINISTRATOR TO PURCHASE EQUIPMENT AND
SUPPLIES MANUFACTURED PARATECH INC.

WHEREAS, the Glendale Fire Department currently deploys Paratech airbags on all three truck companies and the USAR apparatus, which are lifting systems that have a proven reliability in diverse rescue environments, offering rapid deployment, compact storage, and high lifting capacities suited to modern urban hazards; and
WHEREAS, these systems can be placed into incidents involving structural collapse, vehicle entrapments, confined space rescues, and other technical scenarios where precise vertical movement of heavy loads is critical to victim access and survivability and formalizing the use of Paratech airbags as the department-wide standard ensures consistent training, interoperability across multiple agencies, and logistical uniformity during complex incidents; and WHEREAS, standardizing the use of Paratech airbags reflects best practices currently observed across USAR agencies. It reinforces consistency within Regional Task Force-4, where USAR 21 serves as a Type 1 heavy apparatus. This standardization further strengths operational cohesion within RTF-4 by promoting uniformity across the task force and enhancing overall effectiveness; and
WHEREAS, the next planned purchase will focus on replacing the existing Paratech high- and low-pressure air bag systems on USAR 21. In accordance with Firescope Incident Command System 162, air bag systems are a required component of the equipment cache for a Type I USAR team; and
WHEREAS, Paratech equipment has been the only air bag lifting system used by the department for many years. Its long-standing service record, proven reliability in diverse rescue scenarios, and strong alignment with operational needs have made it the department’s trusted standard. Fire personnel have repeatedly relied on Paratech systems in high-risk incidents with consistent, successful outcomes. Although alternative vendors were considered during this process, none provided sufficient advantages or met the department’s operational expectations.

This reinforces confidence in the equipment’s quality, safety, and effectiveness. The Fire Department without the need for comparative trials; and WHEREAS, the Glendale Fire Department long-standing operational use has demonstrated the equipment’s reliability, performance, and safety under demanding conditions.

Standardizing Paratech ensures compatibility with existing inventory, simplifies maintenance, and improves operational readiness. The Fire Department recommends establishing this standardization for a period of ten (10) years; and
WHEREAS, the City of Glendale Purchasing Policy promotes the standardization of commonly used items, vehicles, and equipment and this process will eliminate repetitive future approvals by the City Council for similar equipment and standardized items need to be reviewed by the Departments at least every five years and need to be approved by City Council at least every ten years.
462 of 472

C:\inetpub\wwwroot\multitenant\temp\Fire Paratech dispense with bid establish standard 2025.pdf

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

1. That the City Council hereby approves the standardization of the high- and low- pressure air bag systems and related services from Paratech Inc. to ensure reliability, with the understanding that reasonable effort will be made in the purchase of such equipment to obtain competitive pricing.

2. That the determination to standardize high- and low-pressure air bag systems will be reviewed by the Fire Department and Purchasing Section at least every five years and the Fire Department will seek approval from City Council at least every ten years.

3. That the foregoing facts are deemed to be true and correct and a basis for dispensing with competitive bidding and the Council hereby finds that it is in the best interests of the City to dispense with competitive bidding.

4. The Purchasing Administrator is hereby authorized to issue purchase orders with Paratech Inc. for purchase of high- and low-pressure air bag systems and related services as needed, as long as the budget is available.

Adopted this __________ day of ______________________, 2025. _________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Dr. Suzie Abajian, Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ________________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _______ day of ____________________, 2025, and that same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________________
City Clerk
463 of 472

8f 25-88082
Item Type: Action Item
Approved forMay 20, 2025 calendar

AGENDA ITEM

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Report: GlendaleOUT Pride in the Park Sponsorship Request

1. Motion Approving a sponsorship request of up to $5,000 for the GlendaleOUT Pride in the Park event with Glendale Arts as the fiscal sponsor.

2. Resolution of Appropriation.

COUNCIL ACTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City Council is considering a sponsorship request of up to $5,000 for the 2025 GlendaleOUT Pride in the Park (4th Annual Queer Family Picnic), scheduled to take place on Saturday, June 7, 2025 at Adams Square Mini Park, with Glendale Arts as the fiscal sponsor.
464 of 472

8f
25-88082
2 RECOMMENDATION
That the Council consider and provide direction on a sponsorship request of up to $5,000 to support the GlendaleOUT 2025 Pride in the Park event, with Glendale Arts as the fiscal sponsor.

ANALYSIS
Staff recommends the City Council consider and provide direction on a $5,000 sponsorship request for the GlendaleOUT 2025 Annual Pride in the Park event, scheduled to take place on Saturday, June 7, 2025 in Adams Square Mini Park, with Glendale Arts as the fiscal sponsor. The event is free and open to the public, and provides food, activities and entertainment for the community. GlendaleOUT is a grassroots organization working with Glendale Arts as the fiscal sponsor of the event. Glendale Arts is an established tax-exempt nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization under the Arts, Culture and Humanities category, and has previously and historically worked with the City of Glendale in organizing and executing community engagement and events, and has the not-for- profit and legal standing necessary to facilitate a financial contribution of the City of Glendale. Glendale Arts as the fiscal sponsor will manage the sponsorship amount of up to $5,000 of event costs on a reimbursable basis; if the event costs exceed or fall below $5,000 total, the City of Glendale will only pay the incurred amount, not to exceed $5,000.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Click or tap here to enter text.

FISCAL IMPACT
Sponsorship for the Pride in the Park event will cost up to $5,000, which was not included as part of the FY 2024-25 budget. Therefore, staff is requesting an appropriation of $5,000 from the General Fund undesignated fund balance. The appropriation request is outlined below:

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$5,000 25300-1010-000 43112-1010-MSD-
6504-P0000
General Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
CEQA does not apply to projects where the lead agency determines "with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment." CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.) § 15061(b)(3). Here, the action involves approval of funding in support of a day at Adams Square Mini Park where food, activities and entertainment will be provided for the community. There is no possibility that the action to note and file this report may have a significant effect on the environment. 465 of 472

8f
25-88082
3 CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements. 466 of 472

8f
25-88082
4 ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1) Council may choose to not sponsor this event. 2) Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Roubik R. Golanian, City Manager
Prepared by:

Domenica Megerdichian, Assistant to the City Manager
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Letter of Explanation & Fiscal Sponsorship Description- Glendale Arts 467 of 472

MOTION
Moved by Council Member _________________________________, seconded by Council Member _____________________________, that the City Council hereby approves a sponsorship request of up to $5,000 for the GlendaleOUT Pride in the Park event with Glendale Arts as the fiscal sponsor as described in the May 20, 2025 staff report from the City Manager.

Votes as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
_________________________
City Clerk
468 of 472

469 of 472

Letter of Explanation & Fiscal Sponsorship Description
May 15, 2025
Dear Mayor Najarian and Glendale City Councilmembers,
On behalf of Glendale Arts, I am writing to explain what our role would be as the fiscal sponsor for glendaleOUT’s 4th Annual Queer Family Picnic in the Park, a beloved cultural celebration taking place on June 7, 2025. We are proud to support this inclusive, family- friendly event and to provide the organizational infrastructure necessary to ensure its continued success.

About Glendale Arts
Glendale Arts is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization dedicated to strengthening the community through arts and culture. Our mission is to power arts and culture, build community, inspire new ideas, and make connections that elevate the human experience.

Through innovative programming, including the Glendale International Film Festival, ace/121 Gallery exhibitions, and community-based events, Glendale Arts fosters belonging and engagement across diverse populations.

The Queer Family Picnic in the Park is an all-ages, all-inclusive event designed to bring together families, friends, and neighbors for a joyful afternoon of visibility, connection, and community celebration. Now in its fourth year, the picnic attracts a broad cross-section of Glendale residents as well as attendees from neighboring cities.

Our Fiscal Sponsorship Relationship with glendaleOUT
As glendaleOUT is not currently a 501(c)(3) organization, Glendale Arts is serving as the event’s fiscal sponsor. Fiscal sponsorship is a widely accepted and essential practice in the nonprofit sector. It allows grassroots initiatives like glendaleOUT as well as other organizations doing the work of nonprofits to access charitable funding, operate transparently, and direct more energy toward mission-driven work without the administrative burden of maintaining independent tax-exempt status. Since Glendale Arts acts as the host tax-exempt organization, we would retain discretion and control over the funds. Although Glendale Arts is responsible for reasonable oversight, we will not directly operate the project.

Our role as Fiscal Sponsor for this event includes:
470 of 472

 Receiving and stewarding charitable contributions on behalf of glendaleOUT

 Disbursing funds for approved expenses related to the event

 Providing acknowledgment letters for tax-deductible donations

 Maintaining restricted fund accounting to ensure that glendaleOUT funds are not commingled with our general operations

 Ensuring transparency and accountability in the use of charitable funds We have a dedicated point of contact at glendaleOUT. All expenditures are approved by them and processed by Glendale Arts. This arrangement has been in place for prior glendaleOUT programming and has functioned successfully.

Since glendaleOUT is requesting a $5,000 sponsorship from the City of Glendale, we would administer the funds, such as the below, for this event only on their behalf:
 Permits and fees required for public event use

 Marketing and promotion to reach a wide, diverse audience

 Event supplies and activities

 Activations for guests, including a photo booth and craft tables

 Administrative fee to support Glendale Arts’ fiscal sponsorship services

This sponsorship helps glendaleOUT create a joyful, affirming experience for LGBTQIA+ families and allies, but also affirms the importance of cultural events that reflect and serve all members of our community.

Your support brings legitimacy and structure to a vital grassroots initiative, and ensures that the values of inclusion, celebration, and visibility are honored in Glendale.

Sincerely,

Nina Crowe, Chief Executive Officer
Glendale Arts

4 of 4

4th Annual Queer Family Picnic in the Park
June 7, 2025 1-5 pm
Adams Square Mini Park

BUDGET / EXPENSES as per glendaleOUT

Equipment Rental Photo Booth $500.00
Power Source/Generator $500.00
Marketing $200.00
Supplies Craft Table Supplies $500.00
Decor $1,800.00
Event Ancillary Expenses Food $500.00
Opportunity Drawings $300.00
Permits & Licenses Adam’s Square Park $160.00
Food Vendor $100.00
Glendale Arts Fiscal
Sponsor Fee
$500.00

ESTIMATED TOTAL

EXPENSES
$5,360.00

472 of 472