Agenda packet, special meeting — Glendale City Council, July 15, 2025

A G E N D A
SPECIAL MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
Meetings

are

broadcast

live

Glendale

TV,

viewable

Spectrum

Cable,

channel

and

AT&T

U-
verse,

channel

99. Meetings

are

also

streamed

live

high

definition

(HD)

the

City

webpage,
glendaleca.gov/live
,

YouTube.com/myglendale
,

and

Apple

TV,

Roku,

Amazon

Fire,

iOS

and
Android

devices

using

free

app

called

Cablecast

and

choosing

"Glendale

TV"

from

the

menu.

Meetings

are

also

archived

the

City

Website

for

viewing

anytime

glendaleca.gov/agendas
.

Call

(818)

548-4013

for

program

schedules.

For

public

comments

and

questions

during

the
meeting,

call

(818)

937-8100.

Public

comments

specific

agenda

item

will

taken

when

that
agenda

item

discussed.

you

have

any

question

about

matters

the

agenda,

requests

for
assistance, please contact the City Clerk at (818) 548-2090 during regular business hours.

PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION In

compliance

with

the

Americans

with

Disabilities

Act

(ADA)

1990,

auxiliary

hearing

aids,

sign
language

translation,

and

Braille

transcripts

are

available

upon

request.

Assisted

listening

devices
are

available

same-day

upon

request.

The

City

Clerk’

office

should

notified

72 hours

(three
business

days)

soon

practicable

for

requests

regarding

sign

language

translation

and
Braille

transcription

services.

All

documents

open

session

items

this

agenda

that

are
received

less

than

72 hours

prior

this

meeting,

and

are

public

records,

will

available

for

review
in the Office of the City Clerk, 613 E. Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.

Translation

services

are

provided

for

meetings

through

the

use

bilingual

staff

for

speakers

who
wish

utilize

the

service

available.

Speakers

should

state

their

request

contacting

the

City
Clerk’s

office

(818)

548-2090,

least

72 hours

prior

the

scheduled

meeting

soon

as
practicable.

Please

specify

the

language

for

which

you

require

translation.

The

exclusive

use

City
provided

interpreters

not

required

and

persons

are

welcome

use

their

own

interpreter

speak
in their native language.

JULY 15, 2025

REVISED NEW START TIME 3:00 PM
AND
ADDED ITEM #2

ROLL CALL
-
3:00 PM

1 TYPED 7/14/2025 1:25:56 PM
07 15 25
SP CC

-
Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, July 15, 2025 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on July 11, 2025 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING
of the City Council is hereby called to meet at

3:00
PM
on
Tuesday, July 15, 2025
, in the Council Chamber, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
,
Glendale, CA 91206 to consider the following item(s) of business, to wit;

1. Community Development, re:

Presentation of the Draft Land Use and Environmental
Justice Elements during the Public Comment Period
a. Motion accepting the presentation of the Draft Land Use and Environmental Justice Elements, including the proposed amendments to the Land Use Map

2. Police Department, re: State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP), Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program, Request for Authorization to Accept Grant Funds to be used to reduce and mitigate the impacts of impaired driving in local communities

1. Motion to accept grant funds in the amount of $435,345.44 and authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with the State of California – Department of California Highway Patrol for the award of funds under the California Highway Patrol (CHP), Cannabis T ax Fund Law Enforcement Grant Program

ADJOURNMENT

2 TYPED 7/14/2025 1:25:56 PM
07 15 25
SP CC

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Presentation of the Draft Land Use and Environmental Justice Elements during the Public Comment Period
1) Motion accepting the presentation of the Draft Land Use and Environmental Justice Elements, including the proposed amendments to the Land Use Map.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Report Only
Approved for July 15, 2025 Calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Following presentations to City Council last year and based on Council’s feedback, the comprehensive update to the Land Use Element, the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element Map, and the new Environmental Justice Element have been completed. The Draft Elements and proposed Land Use Element Map were released for public comment on June 30th.

Staff will be providing an overview of the Drafts and Land Use Element Map changes; this presentation serves an additional opportunity for both the Council and the public to become better informed and to provide feedback during the Public Comment Period (June 30 – August 19, 2025).
3 of 228

2 5
1 8
0 RECOMMENDATION
Accept the presentation on the Draft Land Use and Environmental Justice Elements, including the Land Use Element Map amendments, and provide any relevant comments.

ANALYSIS
City staff has been preparing comprehensive updates to the General Plan’s Land Use and Mobility Elements and a new Environmental Justice Element, led by the City’s consultant, De Novo Planning Group (Amanda Tropiano, Principal, Project Manager).

Project staff provided status updates to City Council on January 30th and July 30th of last year. The last update focused on:
1) Land Use Element, including an outline of proposed policy topic areas and proposed amendments to the Land Use Element Map;
2) Mobility Element, including an outline of proposed policy topic areas; and 3) Environmental Justice Element, including an outline of proposed policy topic areas and a discussion of outreach activities.

Following Council’s feedback, staff completed the comprehensive update to the Land Use Element, the proposed amendments to the Land Use Element Map, and the new Environmental Justice Element. The Public Review Drafts were released for a 51-day public comment period starting on June 30th (longer than the typical 30- or 45-day review periods). The Drafts are available online on the City’s General Plan website and at GlendalePlan.com and are attached to this staff report.

DRAFT LAND USE ELEMENT
The Draft Land Use Element (Exhibit 1) includes policy guidance, summaries of land use designations, a Land Use Map, and buildout projections to promote thoughtful, equitable, and accessible distribution of different land uses throughout the Planning Area (which includes the City of Glendale proper, as well as areas within the City’s sphere of influence).

Note: State law requires the General Plan to include all territory within Glendale’s incorporated area as well as "any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning" (CA Gov. Code Section 65300). The Planning Area for the Glendale General Plan includes the entire city limits (approximately 19,585 acres) and the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) (approximately 2,839 acres), as shown in Figure LU-1, General Plan Planning Area, in Exhibit 1.

Land Use Designations
The Draft Land Use Element update complies with State General Plan law, which requires specifying the maximum allowable densities and intensities for each 4 of 228

3 5
1 8
0 designation shown on the Land Use Map. The updated Land Use Designations clearly identify permitted uses and establish the applicable range of development intensity, typically expressed as residential density (units per acre) and/or floor area ratio (FAR).

Note: Consistency with these intensity standards is required for all zoning regulations, specific plans, and individual development projects.

The Draft Land Use Element features 18 land use designations: 8 residential, 2 commercial, 1 industrial, 2 mixed-use, 2 public land use, and 3 special use designations (see pages LU-3 to LU-7). The land use designations incorporate the following revisions, which were previously presented to City Council last year:
1) Revisions to the category definitions to better reflect the City’s current and future land use goals.
2) Addition of two new residential categories (High/Very High Density Residential and Very High Density Residential allowing for up to 50 dwelling units per acre and up to 100 dwelling units per acre, respectively). These new residential categories aim to accommodate stand-alone multifamily residential uses around the future Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) stops that are planned along Glenoaks Boulevard, at the corner of Broadway and Glendale Avenue, between the 134 Freeway and Glenoaks Boulevard, west of Central and east of Pacific Avenues, as well as directly south of the 134 Freeway in the Pacific Avenue Gateway area. 3) Division of current Mixed-Use designation into two categories: Mixed-Use Residential (which allows for a mix of residential and nonresidential uses) and Mixed-Use Nonresidential (which allows for a mix of nonresidential uses only). 4) Creation of a new “City-Owned Residential Overlay” to allow for multifamily development at City-owned properties.
5) Creation of a new “Specific Plan” designation to improve administration of Specific Plan areas.

Proposed Land Use Map Revisions
A key component of the Land Use Element, the Land Use Map depicts where different land use designations are located within Glendale – the spatial distribution of where the various types and intensities of land uses are allowed. Since the last comprehensive update in 1986, the Land Use Element Map has been revised through various General Plan Amendments (both text and map), Specific Plans (such as the Town Center Specific Plan for the Americana at Brand and the Downtown Specific Plan), and Community Plans that continue to guide long-term land use decisions. The primary objectives of the proposed revisions to the Land Use Map (Exhibit 2) include:
1) Updating designations to ensure consistency with current zoning and existing built uses/conditions.
2) Reflecting land use changes already approved through other actions (i.e., Community Plans and Specific Plans).
5 of 228

4 5
1 8
0 3) Addressing inconsistencies in land use designations for parcels that currently have multiple or split zoning classifications.
4) Applying new land use designation and standards for areas near the BRT stops and the area north of the 134 Freeway, south of Glenoaks Boulevard, west of Central Avenue and east of Pacific Avenue.
5) Introducing a new overlay to permit multifamily development at City-owned properties.
6) Applying a new Specific Plan designation to the Downtown and Town Center areas as identified on the Map, without changing the actual Specific Plans or their boundaries.

During the last public presentation, Council directed staff to update the land use designation along Central Avenue between Tropico and the Downtown Specific Plan from Commercial to Mixed Use; this has been addressed in the Land Use Map (Exhibit 2).

Staff will expand on the various Land Use Map changes during the PowerPoint presentation.

Policy Topics
The Draft Land Use Element outlines the City’s long-term vision for physical growth and development across several key topic areas. Each topic includes a defined goal (as shown below), supported by corresponding policies and implementation actions. The goals represent generalized ideals of desired future conditions, while the policies provide guidance to achieve the goals and guide decision makers, and implementation actions specify the procedures or programs the City will undertake to carry out the policies and realize the goals. See Pages LU-10 to LU 19. 1)Land Use Mix - A range and mix of high-quality land uses that create a livable environment for community members of all ages and income levels. 2)Managed Growth - New development is encouraged in infill locations, especially along commercial and mixed-use corridors where infrastructure and multimodal transportation options are more easily accessible.
3)Compatible Development - New development that is compatible with surrounding land uses.
4)Urban Design - A connected and attractive community that promotes Glendale as a desirable place to live, do business, and visit.
5)Economic Development - A strong, diverse, and resilient local economy that supports the delivery of needed infrastructure and desired community services. 6)Infrastructure Planning - Adequate, reliable and essential public infrastructure and facilities, including transportation, water, sewer, electrical, and telecommunications facilities, to support all existing and future development. 6 of 228

5 5
1 8
0 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE ELEMENT (NEW)
The Draft Environmental Justice Element (Exhibit 3) includes policies to reflect efforts to ensure that all community members, regardless of race, ethnicity or income, have equal access to an inclusive, safe and healthy environment, including clean air and water, parks, and other essential resources. Such policies are closely tied to ongoing updates to other General Plan Elements, including the Land Use, Circulation, and Safety Elements, as well as other citywide plans like the Climate Action and Adaptation Plan, Pedestrian Plan, and Bicycle Transportation Plan.

Policy Topic Outline
The Environmental Justice Element features goals, policies, and implementation actions to minimize pollution and its effects on all neighborhoods, with an emphasis on those in disadvantaged communities. The Environmental Justice Element includes policy direction related to the following topics:
1) Pollution Exposure & Air Quality
2) Public Facility Access
3) Healthy Food Access
4) Safe and Sanitary Homes
5) Physical Activity Access
6) Community Engagement
7) Improvements and Programs
8) Unique Health Risks
Environmental Justice Community Outreach
Community engagement is a key component of the City’s efforts to create a new Environmental Justice Element. Focused engagement activities related to this effort include the following activities:
Booth at Glendale Fire Service Day on May 11, 2024
Booth at Glendale Cruise Night on July 20, 2024
Booth at National Night Out on August 6, 2024
Approximately 50,000 multi-lingual direct mailers sent to residents/households of environmentally sensitive communities in Glendale (delivered the week of July 22, 2024)
Dedicated project webpage for the EJ Element (GlendalePlan.com) Multi-lingual Environmental Justice survey (online and in hard copy) distributed on social media, website, newsletters, flyers, and direct mail Project Factsheet, business cards, and other collateral material available at City Hall and other community facilities
Interviews with key stakeholders (upcoming)
7 of 228

6 5
1 8
0 PUBLIC COMMENT SUBMITTAL
Comments on the Draft Land Use and Environmental Justice Elements, including amendments to the proposed Land Use Element Map, may be submitted through any of the following methods:
Online: Complete the form at: https://tinyurl.com/GlendalePlanComment Email: Send comments to [email protected] or Mail or In-Person Delivery: Address to
Long Range Planning Section,
General Plan Comments
633 E. Broadway, Room 103
Glendale, CA 91206.

Comments must be submitted by August 19, 2025.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
An extensive public outreach campaign to gather public comment is being conducted as part of the comprehensive update of the Land Use and Mobility Elements and new Environmental Justice Element. The outreach consists of online engagement, community events, surveys and other activities, including, but not limited to, providing the public with a timeline for all public meetings leading to the proposed adoption of the updated Elements and new Environmental Justice Element. Such information regarding the individual Elements and opportunities to provide feedback are posted on the City’s GlendalePlan.com website.

Note: City Planning staff and the consultant team will also be hosting public outreach booths and collecting public comments at three upcoming, City-sponsored events:
Cruise Night – July 19 th
National Night Out – August 5 th
Annual Fall Festival – October 26 th
Noticing of Public Review Comment Period for the Land Use and Environmental Justice Elements was published in the paper, emailed to all GlendalePlan.com subscribers and Planning contact list (including all neighborhood associations), posted on CDD’s and the City’s social media, and announced on GlendalePlan.com, the City’s website and GTV prior to the start of the Public Review Comment Period on June 30, 2025. The official Public Comment Period is scheduled to conclude August 19th, though comments will be accepted after that date as well.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report or the adoption of the Elements, as the consulting team is already under contract. A portion of the contract has been paid by the SB2 Grant and the Local Early Action Program (LEAP) Grant. 8 of 228

7 5
1 8
0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
No environmental review is required at this time.

In accordance with State and Local CEQA Guidelines, environmental review will be conducted as part of the Project once the Land Use, Circulation and EJ Elements are in sufficiently final form; public review drafts of the Land Use and Environmental Justice Elements have been completed, and the Draft Mobility Element is expected to be completed later this summer. The Final Drafts of the Elements will be evaluated in a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Draft Program EIR will be circulated for public comment in Fall 2025. The Final Program EIR will be prepared and presented to the City Boards and Commissions for review and ultimately to the Council for certification, along with the Draft Land Use, Mobility and Environmental Justice for adoption, in early 2026.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: City Council may comment on the Draft Land Use Element Update, the proposed Land Use Element Map amendments, and the Draft Environmental Justice Element.

Alternative 2: The City Council may consider any other alternative proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Bradley Calvert, AICP, Director of Community Development Prepared by:

Vilia Zemaitaitis, AICP, Deputy Director of Long Range Planning Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Draft Land Use Element

2. Draft Land Use Map

3. Draft Environmental Justice Element
9 of 228

c:\pgcompilerservicerelease\temp\glendale\meetingid_10584\packet\pdf\58708\14868\1.docx

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member _______________________, seconded by Council Member _______________________, that the City Council hereby accepts the presentation of the Draft Land Use Element and Environmental Justice Element, including the proposed amendments to the Land Use Map as set forth in the July 15, 2025 staff report from the Community Development Department and as presented to the City Council, subject to any Council comments thereon.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
10 of 228

Introduction to Land Use
The Land Use Element is a guide to land use planning in Glendale and identifies how land will be used in the future—for housing, commercial, industrial, and mixed- use, public facilities, parks, open space, and transportation. Ensuring that Glendale has sufficient capacity to support a diverse mix of land uses is essential to the community’s ability to thrive and be sustainable over time.

As population growth continues, this Land Use Element will guide where growth and development will occur in the City and how to accommodate land uses to respond to the community’s changing needs. It also provides high-level guidance on urban design, economic development, and infrastructure planning, which directly relate to the City’s long-term land use planning priorities. The goals and policies contained within this Element are further implemented through complementary City plans and programs, including various Community Plans, Specific Plans, and objective design standards.

Overview
The Land Use Element provides a framework for future development and resource conservation that preserves and protects Glendale’s unique character while promoting opportunities for economic development, housing for all income levels, high-quality local job growth, and robust natural resources protection.

State law requires the Land Use Element to address:
• Proposed general distribution, general location and extent of the uses of the land for housing, business, industry, open space (including agriculture, natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty) , education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of land;
• Population density and building intensity;
• Issues related to environmental justice; and
• Areas subject to flooding.

The Planning Area is the geographic area for which the General Plan provides a framework for long- term plans for growth and resource conservation. State law requires the General Plan to include all territory within Glendale’s incorporated area as well as "any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning" (California Government Code Section 65300). The Planning Area for the Glendale General Plan includes the entire city limits (approximately 19,585 acres) and the City’s S phere of Influence (SOI) (approximately 2,839 acres), as shown in Figure LU-1, General Plan Planning Area.

Contents:
+ Land Use Mix
+ Directed
Growth
+ Comptible
Development
+ Urban Design
+ Economic
Development
+ Infrastructure
Planning

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
11 of 228

Areas subject to flooding are addressed in the Safety Element and open space lands are addressed in the Open Space and Conservation Element, and issues related to environmental justice communities are addressed in the Environmental Justice Element.

Topics identified by State law that are not relevant to Glendale include military land use compatibility and timberland preserve zone lands.

Organization of Element
The Land Use Element addresses each of the following topics as they relate to Glendale:
• Land Use Mix
• Directed Growth
• Compatible Development
• Urban Design
• Economic Development
• Infrastructure Planning
Each of these topics contains goals with related policies and specific actions that the City will undertake to accomplish identified goals.

Goals: A goal in the General Plan is the broadest statement of community values. It is a generalized ideal which provides a sense of direction for action. They are overall statements of desired future conditions.

Policies: Policies are statements which further refine the goals and guide the course of action the City must take to achieve the goals in the plan. It is important to note that policies are guides for decision makers, not decisions themselves.

Actions: The associated actions define the procedure, implementation technique, or specific program to be undertaken by the City to help achieve a specified goal or implement an adopted policy.

For policies and actions to be effective, they need to be clearly defined. The following is a list of common terms used in policies and implementation actions, along with guidance on how to interpret their meanings in relation to the significance, resource allocation, and expected outcomes of the policies and actions . In cases where other terms are used (and not defined below), an equivalent to the closest applicable term can be used.
• Shall: Absolute commitment to the policy or action and indicates that the policy must be adhered to in all cases.
• Should: Policy or action will be followed in most cases, but exceptions are acceptable for good reasons.
• Encourage: Policy or action is highly recommended and/or desired and should be pursued when feasible.
• Allow: Policy or action will be supported within certain parameters and certain guidelines. • Coordinate: Policy or action will occur in conjunction with another entity, and the City will carry its share of the responsibility.
• Explore: Effort will be taken to investigate the subject at hand, to discover whether or not further commitment is relevant.
• Consider: Policy or action may or may not be followed, depending upon the results of analysis that will be completed.
• Limit: Effort will be taken to keep the subject within certain limits or will at least make undesired change more difficult.
• Restrict: Effort will be taken to keep the undesired action to a minimum.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
12 of 228

Land Use Designations
The Land Use Designations specify the type of allowed uses associated with each designation and the allowed range of development intensity, expressed in density or floor area ratio. Zoning, specific plans, community plans, and individual development projects must be consistent with the intensities allowed under the General Plan.

Land Use Map and Classification System
The Land Use Map (Figure LU-2) illustrates the various types and distribution of land uses planned for the community. The Land Use Map, in conjunction with the goals, policies, and actions included in this Element, reflects the City’s efforts to:
• accommodate a range of land uses;
• encourage economic development in strategic focus areas located adjacent to major commercial corridors and around public transit stops;
• promote development in infill locations while preserving the City’s existing single-family and hillside residential neighborhoods; and,
• support expanded range of housing and employment opportunities and commercial goods and services.

The Land Use Map depicts the land use classification system that includes 18 land use designations. There are eight residential designations that allow for a range of housing types and densities. Other designations include two commercial designations (neighborhood commercial and community commercial), two public designations (public/semi-public and recreation/open space), one industrial designation, two mixed- use designations (mixed- use residential and mixed- use nonresidential), and three special uses (ceme tery, Specific Plan, and city-owned residential overlay).

Land Use Density and Building Intensity
This Element uses certain terminology to describe the various land use designations. Land use concepts, including land use density and building intensity (“floor area ratio” or “FAR” for the purposes of the Land Use Element), are described below.

Land Use Density. Land use density refers to a range of allowable dwelling units per gross acre. Various building configurations representing different densities are shown below. For example, the density of a residential development of 14 dwelling units occupying 15,000 square-foot site would be 43 du/ac.

*Density and FAR Standards are for illustrative purposes only; the Zoning Code development standards shall apply.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
13 of 228

Building Intensity (“Floor Area Ratio” or “FAR”) . Floor area ratio, referred to as FAR, measures a building’s total floor area in relation to the size of the lot occupied by the building. FAR is a mechanism for regulating a building’s “intensity” and mass in residential, nonresidential, mixed-use land use designations, and is often used together with other development standards, such as lot coverage and setbacks, to facilitate the appropriate development form.

Generally, FAR is calculated by dividing the total area of the building by the total area of the lot. For example, a 21,780 square-foot building on a 43,560 square-foot lot (one acre) yields a ratio of 0.5:1 (21,780 ÷ 43,560 = 0.5). A 0.5 FAR can yield a building of one story in height covering one-half of the lot area, or a taller building which covers less of the lot and provides for more open space around the building.

The following list describes each of the 18 various land use designations and levels of land use density and building intensity:

Residential Land Use Designations
Very Low Density Residential/Open Space: The Very Low Density Residential/Open Space land use designation provides for the development of residential uses in hillside areas at a variable density of up to 3 units per acre, based on the steepness of slope. This designation is generally most suitable in areas where scenic and natural resources should be protected or where natural hazards limit development potential (such as hillsides). This designation is intended to maintain overall density restrictions pursuant to the intent of the slope density formula as defined in the Glendale Municipal Code. Community Plans may provide additional design guidance for hillside areas.

*Density and FAR Standards are for illustrative
purposes only; the Zoning Code development
standards shall apply.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
14 of 228

Low Density Residential: The Low Density Residential land use designation provides for the development of residential uses compatible with existing single -family neighborhoods at a variable density of up to 8 units per acre, based on the steepness of slope and the development characteristics of adjacent uses. This designation is generally most suitable in areas where scenic and natural resources should be protected, where natural hazards limit development potential (such as hillsides), or within residential sections of the City with older homes and less topography. This designation is intended to maintain overall density restrictions pursuant to the intent of the slope density formula as defined in the Glendale Municipal Code.

Community Plans may provide additional design guidance for hillside areas.

Low/Medium Density Residential: The Low/Medium Density Residential land use designation provides for a range of housing types, such as single-family attached and detached units, townhouses, row houses, garden apartments, and similar low -rise buildings, at a density up to 14 units per acre. This designation may function as a buffer or transition area between lower and higher development intensity areas.

Community Plans may provide additional design guidance for medium/low density residential areas.

Medium Density Residential: The Medium Density Residential land use designation provides for a range of housing types, such as single- family detached and attached units, townhouses, row houses, garden apartments, and similar buildings, at a density of up to a maximum of 19 units per acre for lots less than 90 feet in width, and up to 24 units per acre for lots 90 feet or greater feet in width. Community Plans may provide additional design guidance for medium density residential areas.

Medium/High Density Residential: The Medium/High Density Residential land use designation provides for a range of housing types, such as condominiums, townhouses, row houses, apartments, and similar buildings, at a density up to 26 units per acre for lots less than 90 feet in width, and up to 33 units per acre for lots 90 feet or greater in width. Community Plans may provide additional design guidance for medium/high density residential areas.

High Density Residential: The High Density Residential land use designation provides for a range of housing types, such as condominiums, townhouses, apartments, and similar buildings, at a density up to 35 units per acre for lots less than 90 feet in width, and up to 43 units per acre for lots 90 feet or greater in width. Urban Centers and Urban Corridors may be appropriate for high density residential. Community Plans may provide additional design guidance for high density residential areas.

High/Very High Density Residential : The High/Very High Density Residential land use designation provides for a range of housing types, such as condominiums, townhouses, apartments, and similar buildings, at a density up to 43 units per acre for lots less than 90 feet in width, and up to 50 units per acre for lots 90 feet or greater in width. Community Plans may provide additional design guidance for high density residential areas.

Very High Density Residential : The Very High Density Residential land use designation provides for a range of housing types, such as condominiums, townhouses, apartments, and similar buildings, at a density up to 87 units per acre for lots less than 90 feet in width, and up to 100 units per acre for lots 90 feet or greater in width. Community Plans may provide additional design guidance for high density residential areas.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
15 of 228

Commercial Land Use Designations
Neighborhood Commercial: The Neighborhood Commercial land use designation provides for a variety of low -scale local -serving commercial uses in proximity to lower density residential neighborhoods; appropriate uses include retail, service, and low- rise office uses. There is no maximum floor area ratio (FAR) for stand- alone commercial projects or for the commercial component of mixed -use projects ; massing is regulated by the maximum height standard.

This designation also allows for new housing opportunities by enabling vacant and underutilized commercial buildings to be redeveloped with residential uses. Stand-alone residential projects and the residential components of mixed-use project are permitted with a density range of up to a maximum of 35 units per acre for lots less than 90 feet and 43 units per acre for lots 90 feet or greater in width.

Community Commercial: The Community Commercial land use designation provides for a variety of local- and regional-serving retail, employment-generating office, and service-oriented business activities. There is no maximum FAR for stand-alone commercial projects or for the commercial component of mixed- use projects; massing is regulated by the maximum height standard.

This designation also allows for stand- alone residential or mixed- use projects. Stand- alone residential projects and the residential components of mixed-use project are permitted with a density up to a maximum of 35 units per acre for lots less than 90 feet in width and up to 43 units per acre for lots 90 feet or greater in width.

Industrial Land Use Designation
Industrial: The Industrial designation provides for a variety of industrial and manufacturing uses, including light manufacturing, assembly, warehousing facilities, and similar uses. Other uses that are determined to be compatible with primary uses may also be allowed. There is no maximum floor area ratio for industrial uses and massing is regulated by the maximum height standard.

Mixed-Use Land Use Designations
Mixed-Use Residential: The Mixed-Use Residential designation provides opportunities for a compatible mix of commercial, industrial, and residential land uses in the same building, on the same parcel of land, or within the same area. Stand-alone commercial, industrial, or residential land uses in various combinations may also be allowed, depending on the specific zoning district designation. There is no maximum FAR for stand-alone nonresidential projects or for the nonresidential component of mixed-use projects and massing is regulated by the maximum height and minimum setback standards. Residential densities are defined in the Glendale Municipal Code.

Mixed-Use Nonresidential : The Mixed-Use Nonresidential designation provides opportunities for a compatible mix of commercial and industrial land uses in the same building, on the same parcel of land, or within the same area. Stand-alone commercial and industrial land uses in various combinations may also be allowed, depending on the specific zoning district designation. There is no maximum FAR and massing is regulated by the maximum height and minimum setbacks standards.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
16 of 228

Public Land Use Designations
Public/Semi-Public: The Public/Semi-Public designation provides for uses that benefit the general public, such as government offices and service yards, schools, transportation facilities, public parking, hospitals and utilities. Public/Semi-public areas frequently take the form of campuses and may include both public and private lands. There is no maximum FAR for public/semi -public uses; refer to the Glendale Municipal Code for additional guidance related to development standards associated with the implementing zoning districts.

Recreation/Open Space: The Recreation/Open Space designation provides for public and private open space and recreational uses and to protect open space, natural physical features and scenic resources.

Special Uses
Cemetery: The Cemetery designation is intended to address the unique requirements of cemetery uses in a manner conducive to the public health, safety, and general welfare.

Specific Plan: The Specific Plan designation provides an opportunity for the City to adopt detailed policies, standards, and criteria for the development or redevelopment of an area. As required by State law, specific plans generally consist of a land plan, circulation plan, development standards, design guidelines, and phasing plan and set forth detailed implementation programs necessary to serve the planning area.

The actual designation of each Specific Plan area will be “Specific Plan (SP)” followed by a corresponding reference (e.g., SP-Downtown, SP-Town Center). Actual land uses are illustrated in detail in the specific plan documents (zoning). Amendments to land uses in a specific plan will not warrant a revision to the General Plan (General Plan Amendment).

City-Owned Residential Overlay : The City -Owned Residential Overlay, which applies to select sites owned by the City of Glendale, provides an opportunity for the development of stand- alone multifamily housing at a density of up to 50 units per acre. For new development, all standards related to the underlying land use designation shall continue to apply.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
17 of 228

Realistic Buildout Potential
State General Plan law (Government Code §65302(a)) requires that the Land Use Element indicate the maximum land use densities and building intensities (i.e., floor area ratio) permitted within the Land Use Map. The land use designations shown on the Land Use Map are described in detail in the list above. Table LU-1 below lists each of the land use designations shown on the Land Use Map and provides a corresponding maximum land use density and/ or floor area ratio of development. Maximum allowable development on individual parcels of land is governed by these measures, unless a density bonus pursuant to Glendale Municipal Code Chapter 30.36, Density Bonus Incentives, applies.

The realistic buildout potential represents the reasonably foreseeable development potential that could theoretically occur within the Planning Area through the year 2045. It should be strongly noted that actual development is limited by market conditions, physical site constraints, infrastructure requirements, and zoning standards. As such, it is not realistic to assume that all parcels would develop to their maximum potential (highest land use density or FAR) under the implementation time frame projected for the Land Use Element Update. In general, it is anticipated that new development will occur in a similar manner to historical development patterns in Glendale, with only a limited number of parcels being developed at the maximum land use density or FAR. Realistic buildout potential associated with the Land Use Map is based on several factors, including realistic residential density criteria established in the City's 2021-2029 Housing Element (adopted by City Council and certified by the California Department of Housing and Community Development) and a quantified analysis of residential, nonresidential, and mixed -use projects built in the City from 2015 through 2024. It also reflects the potential for individual developments to exceed the baseline maximum density in accordance with State Density Bonus and the City's Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.

Table LU-1 Realistic Land Use Development Potential Summary Land Use Designation Acres (1) Maximum Allowed Land Use Density and/or FAR (2) Units Population
(3)
Non-
Residential
Square Feet
Jobs (4)

RESIDENTIAL LAND USES
Very Low Density
Residential/Open Space 1,374 0-3 du/ac, based on the site’s average current slope 2,967 8,783 - -
Low Density Residential* 5,206
0-8 du/ac, based on the site’s
average current slope in the R1R
zone
30,556 90,131 - -
Low/Medium Density
Residential* 1,353 0-14 du/ac 15,098 39,653 - -
Medium Density
Residential 788 Lot Width < 90 ft: 0-19 du/ac
Lot Width ≥ 90 feet: 0-24 du/ac 17,209 45,259 - -
Medium/High Density
Residential 362 Lot Width < 90 ft: 0-26 du/ac
Lot Width ≥ 90 feet: 0-33 du/ac 11,256 29,603 - -
High Density Residential 396 Lot Width < 90 ft: 0-35 du/ac Lot Width ≥ 90 feet: 0-43 du/ac 17,136 45,067 - -
High/Very High Density
Residential 11 Lot Width < 90 ft: 0-43 du/ac
Lot Width ≥ 90 feet: 0-50 du/ac 572 1,397 - -
Very High Density
Residential 11 Lot Width < 90 ft: 0-87 du/ac
Lot Width ≥ 90 feet: 0-100 du/ac 1,101 2,686 - -
Residential Subtotal 9,501 - 95,895 262,579 - -

COMMERCIAL LAND USES
Neighborhood
Commercial 112
Commercial Uses: No maximum
FAR

Residential Uses: No Maximum
FAR and
Lot Width < 90 ft: 0-35 du/ac
Lot Width ≥ 90 feet: 0-43 du/ac
5,532 13,499 3,405,533 7,568

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
18 of 228

Land Use Designation Acres (1) Maximum Allowed Land Use Density and/or FAR (2) Units Population
(3)
Non-
Residential
Square Feet
Jobs (4)
Community Commercial* 353
Commercial Uses: No maximum
FAR, except in the Commercial
Auto zoning district, where a
maximum FAR of 3.5 is permitted

Residential Uses: No Maximum
FAR and
Lot Width < 90 ft: 35 du/ac
Lot Width ≥ 90 feet: 43 du/ac
17,531 42,776 10,769,551 23,932
Commercial Subtotal 465 - 23,063 56,275 14,175,084 31,500

INDUSTRIAL LAND USES
Industrial 296 No maximum FAR - - 9,034,158 10,038
Industrial Subtotal 296 - - - 9,034,158 10,038

MIXED-USE LAND USES
Mixed-Use Residential 291
Nonresidential Uses: No
maximum FAR

Residential Uses: See the
Glendale Municipal Code Zoning
Districts SFMU, IMU-R, TOD I
and TOD II and other future
zones as applicable
23,166 56,525 3,808,391 9,521
Mixed-Use Non-
Residential 80 No maximum FAR - - 2,094,799 4,190
Mixed-Use Subtotal 371 - 23,166 56,525 5,903,190 13,711

PUBLIC LAND USES
Public/Semi-Public* 326 No maximum FAR 410 1,000 2,841,874 3,158 Recreation/Open Space* 7,704 N/A 2,024 4,939 - -
Public Subtotal 8,030 - 2,434 5,939 2,841,874 3,158

SPECIAL USES
Cemetery 110 N/A - - - -
Specific Plan 244 Varies: See adopted Specific
Plans 7,796 19,022 10,203,511 45,349
Special Use Subtotal 354 - 7,796 19,022 10,203,511 45,349 Right-Of-Way 3,408 - - - - -
Totals 22,425 152,354 400,340 42,157,817 103,756
* The City-Owned Residential Overlay (CORO) is applied to parcel(s) within this designation, for a total of approximately 34 acres , which allows for a residential land use density of up to 50 du/ac for a total of 3,393 units across all base land use designations.

1. Acres are given as adjusted gross acreages, which do not include the right-of-way for major roadways, flood control facilities, or railroads.

2. Density/intensity includes both residential density, expressed as dwelling units per acre, and building intensity, expressed as floor area ratio (FAR), which is the amount of building square feet in relation to the size of the lot. Historically, citywide buildout levels do not achieve the maximum allowable density/intensity on every parcel, and are, on average, lower than allowed by the General Plan. Accordingly, the projections in this General Plan do not assume buildout at the maximum density or intensity but are adjusted downward to account for variations in development.

3. Estimates of population are based on average household size of 2.96 for single-family uses, 2.44 for multi-family uses, and 2.63 for uses with a mix of single-family and multi-family development, as provided by Economic & Planning Systems (2024) based on the U.S. Census, American Community Survey (2019).

4. Estimates of jobs by land use designation are based on employment generation rates derived from the Longitudinal Employer - Household Dynamics (2022) Report.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
19 of 228

LAND USE MIX
A range and mix of high-quality land uses that create a livable environment for community members of all ages and income levels.

LU-1 Policies
LU-1.1 Sustainable Land Use Pattern . Promote an appropriate mix and pattern of land uses that fosters community livability and public health; sustains economic vitality; promotes efficient development and multiple transportation options; promotes efficient use or expansion of infrastructure; reduces pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and the expenditure of energy and other resources; and ensures compatibility between uses. See Figure LU -2, Land Use Map.

LU-1.2 Balance of Uses. Allow for a variety of land uses to serve the needs of the community.

LU-1.3 Hillside Development. Require that hillside development respects existing natural and scenic resources by using sensitive and creative design and development techniques.

LU-1.4 Residential Development. Provide a variety of residential development opportunities in the City through the designation of sufficient land with a range of densities and housing types, as defined in the Land Use Element, reflecting the projected needs specified in the Housing Element, and implemented by the Zoning Code.

LU-1.5 Nonresidential Development. Encourage well-maintained, functional, and appropriate retail, services, office, and industrial uses at a range of scales, including large- scale commercial centers and neighborhood-scale commercial opportunities.

LU-1.6 Mixed-Use Development. Support the development of a mix of commercial, industrial, and residential land uses in the same building, on the same parcel of land, or in proximity to each other in economically viable areas throughout the City, such as along major transportation corridors and adjacent to public transportation facilities.

LU-1.7 Specific and Community Plans. Continue to allow for the preparation, adoption, and implementation of Specific Plans and Community Plans to guide strategic planning, land use decisions, and development regulations in areas of especially high importance, such as Downtown.

LU-1.8 Public and Community Facilities . Maintain appropriate sites for public/semi -public and community facilities that can accommodate the public services and infrastructure needed to adequately serve the community, consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the City’s other General Plan Elements.

LU-1.9 Transit-Oriented Development. Promote the development of distinct, well -designed activity nodes in proximity to public transportation facilities that support a variety of residential uses, commercial services, employment opportunities, and public spaces.

LU-1.10 Cultural Resources. Promote cultural, historical, recreational and entertainment opportunities, enhance the level and quality of community services and facilities, and improve accessibility to local and regional resources, consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the City’s other General Plan Elements.

LU-1.11 Parks, Recreation, and Natural Resources. Encourage the equitable distribution of and access to park and recreation amenities and natural resources, consistent with the goals, policies, and actions of the City’s other General Plan Elements.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
20 of 228

LU-1 Actions
LU-1a Adopt and maintain the Land Use Map which graphically displays the intended uses and development intensity/density for all land within the Planning Area.

LU-1b Update the City’s Zoning Designations and Zoning Map to be consistent with the land use designations shown on Figure LU-2, Land Use Map.

LU-1c Review the standards provided in the Zoning Ordinance (Title 30 of the Glendale Municipal Code) and amend as necessary for consistency with General Plan policies , land use designations and desired uses.

LU-1d Continue to implement the Glendale Municipal Code and Glendale Building and Safety Code to regulate development.

LU-1e Implement the policies and actions in the Housing Element to enhance opportunities to provide affordable housing within the community and to accommodate a range of household types, special need populations, and income levels.

LU-1f Periodically review , and updated as needed, the Zoning Ordinance to ensure that the designated zoning districts have appropriate allowed uses and development standards to accommodate the building and site needs associated with new and emerging industries.

LU-1g Periodically review, and update as needed, other City plans and programs to ensure consistency with the General Plan.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
21 of 228

DIRECTED GROWTH
New development is encouraged in infill locations, especially along commercial and mixed-use corridors where infrastructure and multimodal transportation options are more easily accessible.

LU-2 Policies
Balanced Growth. Balance new development with the provision of adequate infrastructure, public services, resources, and community facilities.

Existing Urban Footprint . Develop within the existing urban footprint, where infrastructure and service capacity are available to accommodate growth.

Existing Residential Neighborhoods. Preserve and protect the City’s existing hillside areas and lower density residential neighborhoods by directing new higher density residential development to other areas of the City, as feasible.

Infill Development . Encourage infill residential development and future housing growth in areas designated for higher density and mixed-use development where new development can complement existing neighborhoods and surrounding areas.

Multimodal Transportation. Encourage land use patterns that support a range of multimodal transportation options to reduce vehicle trips generated.

Special Planning Areas . Recognize distinct areas of the City that might warrant additional, enhanced policy, land use and urban design direction above and beyond existing zoning and development standards.

Unincorporated Areas Outside of Glendale. Respect the history of the unincorporated neighborhoods in Glendale’s Planning Area (sphere of influence) and continue to provide land use direction for those areas in accordance with applicable local, regional, and state regulations.

LU-2 Actions
LU-2a Identify areas targeted for growth and in cooperation with the Public Works, Community Services and Parks, Glendale Water and Power and other City departments, identify necessary facilities to support such growth.

LU-2b Continue to look for opportunities to incentivize higher density residential development along transit corridors and close to multi-modal transportation options.

LU-2c Continue to consider preparing and implementing special planning tools, such as Specific Plans, Community Plans, and/or district designations, to articulate detailed land use, community design, and mobility guidance for distinct areas of the community.

LU-2d Require new development pay its fair share for infrastructure improvements. Ensure that needed infrastructure and services are available prior to or at project completion.

LU-2e Continue coordinating with surrounding jurisdictions of the unincorporated neighborhoods in Glendale’s Planning Area (sphere of influence) for cohesive land use planning for those areas in accordance with applicable local, regional, and state regulations.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
22 of 228

COMPATIBLE DEVELOPMENT
New development that is compatible with surrounding land uses.

LU-3 Policies
LU-3.1 Neighborhoods and Districts. Create and support thriving neighborhoods and districts that encourage quality development sensitive to the surrounding context.

LU-3.2 Development Compatibility. Require that development is located and designed to ensure compatibility among and between adjacent land uses, addressing such elements as building orientation and setbacks; buffering; visibility and privacy; vehicular access; impacts of noise, lighting, and glare; landscape quality; and aesthetics.

LU-3.3 Transitions in Scale . Require that the scale and massing of new development in higher - density centers and corridors and higher density residential neighborhoods provide appropriate transitions in building height and bulk that are sensitive to the physical and visual character of lower-density abutting neighborhoods. Avoid abrupt changes in density, intensity, scale, and height and provide gradual transitions between different development types.

LU-3.4 Project-Level Mixed-Use Design Integration. Require that residential and nonresidential portions of projects, including individual buildings and sites where a mix of uses are accommodated, to be integrated through site and building design to ensure compatibility among uses.

LU-3.5 Environmental Compatibility. Manage limited development in the hillsides, ridgelines, very high fire hazard severity zones, flood plains, known or suspected earthquake faults, and other high-risk areas.

LU-3.6 Sensitive Uses. Locate sensitive use (e.g. residences, schools, parks) away from hazardous uses and ensure that adequate provisions, including buffers or transitional uses, are made to ensure the health and well-being of existing and future community members.

LU-3.7 Interagency Cooperation Regarding Potential Impacts. Establish and maintain an ongoing liaison with Caltrans, the County of Los Angeles Airport Land Use Commission, the railroads, utility companies, and other major agencies to help minimize the traffic, noise, visual and other impacts of their facilities and operations.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
23 of 228

LU-3 Actions
LU-3a As part of the City’s development review process, ensure that new projects are designed to be compatible with residential uses, including appropriate building massing and scale and minimization of impacts related to the operation of the use. Review of non- residential and mixed-use projects should ensure that the following design concepts are addressed in projects that abut residential areas:
• Appropriate building scale and/or siting;
• Site design and noise-attenuating features to avoid exposure to excessive noise; • Site and structure design to avoid excessive glare or excessive impacts from light sources onto adjacent properties; and
• Site design to minimize loss of community and environmental resources (archaeological, historical, ecological, recreational, etc.).

LU-3b Evaluate allowing for limited commercial uses at key intersections within residential neighborhoods to provide local access to groceries, eateries and other such neighborhood - serving businesses within walking distance.

LU-3c Ensure that development proposals including the construction or operation of a heliport or helistop comply fully with permit procedures under State law and compliance with the Airport Environs Land Use Plan for Heliports, including referral of the project to the Los Angeles County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) by the applicant, and with all conditions of approval imposed or recommended by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), ALUC, and Caltrans, including the filing of a Form 7480 -1 (Notice of Landing Area Proposal) with the FAA. This requirement shall be in addition to all other City development requirements.

LU-3d Require projects 200 feet above ground level to file with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Form 7460-1 Notice of Proposed Construction and Alteration and provide notification to the ALUC.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
24 of 228

URBAN DESIGN
A connected and attractive community that promotes Glendale as a desirable place to live, do business, and visit.

LU-4 Policies
LU-4.1 Civic Design Features. Enhance the City's identity with attractive high-quality gateways, city entry signs and design features, cohesive street signs, and other design features at public gathering spaces and other areas, where appropriate.

LU-4.2 Development and Design Standards. Develop and implement development and objective design standards that provide clear direction for achieving quality community design in new development and redevelopment projects.

LU-4.3 Major Corridors. Enhance the streetscape along the City’s major corridors through coordinated public and private improvements to convey a positive image of the City, contribute to its economic vitality, and improve visual and physical transitions into adjacent neighborhoods and developments.

LU-4.4 Major Activity Centers. Encourage the development of regionally competitive activity centers and destinations with a wide variety of public gathering places, shopping, dining, entertainment, and/or services that contribute to an excellent quality of life in Glendale.

LU-4.5 Adaptive Reuse. Encourage the adaptive reuse of older, underutilized commercial and office buildings for housing and other neighborhood-serving uses.

LU-4.6 Special Plan Implementation. Address additional urban design direction provided for special plan areas (i.e., Community Plan, Specific Plan, or districts) as part of a project’s design and development review process.

LU-4.7 Walkability. Enhance walkability on a citywide scale by improving or adding sidewalks, landscaping, benches, wayfinding signage, and pedestrian-scaled lighting, where appropriate and feasible.

LU-4.8 Sustainable Design . Encourage the incorporation of sustainable principles and design strategies into land use planning, configuration, site design, construction, and materials.

LU-4.9 Individual Neighborhoods. Recognize and celebrate the unique identi ty and character of individual neighborhoods in Glendale and encourage the enhancement of characteristics that make each neighborhood special.

LU-4.10 Public Safety and Community Design. Utilize Crime Prevention through Environmental Design (CPTED) techniques and defensible space design concepts to enhance community safety.

LU-4.11 Public Art. Continue to integrate public art into private projects and public spaces, including streetscapes, parks, and civic spaces, facilitating the installation of art pieces throughout the community using the City’s Urban Art Program.

LU-4.12 Landscaping. Encourage sustainable practices for landscape materials, landscape design and land development beyond what is required for consistency with State requirements.

LU-4.13 Historic Resources. Support designation of individual historic resources and historic districts when merited.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
25 of 228

LU-4 Actions
LU-4a Continue to implement, and prepare as necessary, objective design standards for those areas of the City where special care for development and redevelopment is needed and where change is most likely to occur, including zones that allow for multi -family and mixed -use development.

LU-4b Encourage adaptive reuse of structures, including non- historic structures, as a means of preserving the existing urban character and supporting environmental sustainability.

LU-4c Explore streetscape improvement requirements along commercial, mixed- use, and transit - oriented development corridors to encourage pedestrian activity.

LU-4d Monitor evolving sustainable development practices and technologies and implement those deemed appropriate and feasible for Glendale.

LU-4e Continue to apply for grant funding opportunities for public art to be included in projects at key gateways, major project, or public gathering places to supplement the City’s existing Urban Art Program.

LU-4f Explore a Citywide Gateway Identification Program. Identify opportunity sites, create design criteria, and encourage placement of landmark signs in Glendale.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
26 of 228

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
A strong, diverse, and resilient local economy that supports the delivery of needed infrastructure and desired community services.

LU-5 Policies
LU-5.1 Brand Identity. Strengthen brand identity and enhance awareness of Glendale on a local, national, and global scale.

LU-5.2 Business Culture. Develop a business-friendly ecosystem that supports business attraction, retention, and expansion efforts to ensure a diverse, inclusive, and resilient economy.

LU-5.3 Innovation Ecosystem . Foster a thriving innovation ecosystem by supporting established companies and attracting high-growth industries - from emerging startups to new tech firms to drive job creation, leading to competitive wages and substantial revenue growth for the City and regional economy.

LU-5.4 Entertainment and Lifestyle. Grow the arts, culture, and entertainment sector to position Glendale as a destination City.

LU-5.5 Tax Base. Broaden and diversify the City’s tax base, with an emphasis on increasing GIendale's assessed value and retail sales.

LU-5.6 City Practices. Maintain City government practices attuned to business needs for clear and timely use of incentives, regulations and development entitlement processes.

LU-5.7 Business and Property Development. Encourage business and property development that will provide jobs and generate revenue to support city services and infrastructure but also meets the diverse needs of the community.

LU-5.8 Stakeholder Support. Foster a civic environment in which all stakeholders are committed to the community’s diversity, economic vitality and long-term sustainability.

LU-5.9 City-Owned Properties. Use city -owned property to provide public and economic benefits, such as affordable housing.

LU-5 Actions
LU-5a Maintain and periodically update a strategic plan for economic development (Three- Year Economic Strategy) establishing near -term economic development goals and actions to achieve those goals.

LU-5b Evaluate and periodically update the City’s policies, regulations, and ordinances to maintain Glendale’s competitive ability to attract and grow businesses.

LU-5c Continue to partner with public, private, and non -profit organizations to advance economic development goals, meet the needs of businesses, and resolve constraints to business operations at the local, state, and federal levels.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
27 of 228

INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING
Adequate, reliable and essential public infrastructure and facilities, including transportation, water, sewer, electrical, and telecommunications facilities, to support all existing and future development.

LU-6 Policies
LU-6.1 Public Facility Plans . Maintain and implement public facility master plans, in collaboration with appropriate service providers and agencies, to ensure compliance with appropriate regional, State, and federal laws and to identify infrastructure needs, funding sources, and implement improvements for public facilities and services in Glendale.

LU-6.2 Capital Improvements. Maintain and finance the capital improvement program to ensure the timely implementation of the General Plan and the adequate and the timely provision of public facility and municipal improvements.

LU-6.3 Facility Capacity. Ensure that the capacities of existing and planned infrastructure and public services are consistent with implementation of the densities and intensities assumed in the Land Use Element and illustrated on the Land Use Map.

LU-6.4 Fair Share. Ensure that all new development provides for and funds its fair share of the costs for the expansion of public infrastructure and services, recreational amenities, and facilities.

LU-6.5 Prioritization. Prioritize the placement of new infrastructure in areas targeted for near -term development and in areas designated as “environmental justice communities” (as defined in the City’s Environmental Justice Element) through the orderly extension of infrastructure.

LU-6.6 Regional Cooperation. Collaborate with the various regional facility and service providers to deliver high levels of service to Glendale, and to plan for new development.

LU-6.7 Telecommunications. Encourage service providers to make available the highest level of telecommunications infrastructure, along with a wide range of modern telecommunications services for Glendale’s residences, businesses, and institutions.

LU-6 Actions
LU-6a Implement the City of Glendale Capital Improvement Program incorporating the following range of public facilities:
• public buildings,
• water and sewer facilities,
• street construction and maintenance,
• parks and recreation facilities,
• other major capital investments needed to sustain the City’s development and operations.

LU-6b Regularly study mechanisms for funding and phasing of new infrastructure and bring recommendations to the City Council for consideration.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
28 of 228

E C
hevy Chase Dr
N Centr
al Av
e
La C
res
centa
Ave
E Colorado St
NSan Fer
nand
oRd
San Fer
nando R
d
S Glendale Ave
Ocean View Blvd
Foothill Blvd
Victory Blvd
S Ver
dugo Rd
S Central Ave
Western Ave
W Glenoaks Blvd
E BroadwayW Broadway
Honolulu Ave
NVerd
ugo Rd
Canada Blvd
S Brand Blvd
S Chevy Chase Dr
W Colorado St
N
Gl
end
ale Ave
N Brand Blvd
134
2 134
134
2 2
210
5 210
210
5 B u r b a n kB u r b a n k
L a C a n a d a
F l i n t r i d g e
L a C a n a d a
F l i n t r i d g e
P a s a d e n aP a s a d e n a
L o s A n g e l e sL o s A n g e l e s
L o s A n g e l e sL o s A n g e l e s
L o s A n g e l e sL o s A n g e l e s
1 0 1½
Miles

GENERAL PLAN PLANNING AREAS

L E G E N D
City of Glendale
Glendale Sphere of
Influence (SOI)
Other Incorporated Areas
Sources: City of Glendale; Los Angeles County.

LU-1.

Produced for the City of Glendale
by De Nov
o Planning Group
June 16, 2025.

C I T Y
O F
G L

E N D A L E
S O I

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
29 of 228

Los Angeles River
Verdugo Wash
E C
hevy Chase
Dr
N Centr
al Av
e
La C
res
centaAve
E Colorado St
NSan Fer
nand
oRd
San Fer
nando R
d
S
Glenda
le Ave
Ocean View Blvd
Foothill Blvd
Victory Blvd
S Ve
rdugo
Rd
S Central A
ve
Western Ave
W Glenoaks Blvd
E BroadwayW Broadway
Honolulu Ave
NVerd
ugo R
d
Canada Blvd
S Brand Blvd
S Chevy Chase Dr
W Colorado St
N
Glend
aleAve
N Brand Blvd
134
2 134
134
2 2
210
5 210
210
5 B u r b a n kB u r b a n k
L a C a n a d a
F l i n t r i d g e
L a C a n a d a
F l i n t r i d g e
P a s a d e n aP a s a d e n a
P a s a d e n aP a s a d e n a
L o s A n g e l e sL o s A n g e l e s
L o s A n g e l e sL o s A n g e l e s
L o s A n g e l e sL o s A n g e l e s
1 0 1½
Miles

PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP

L E G E N D
Glendale City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
City-Owned Residential Overlay

RESIDENTIAL
Very Low Density/Open Space
Low Density Residential
Low/Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Medium/High Density Residential
High Density Residential
High/Very High Density Residential
Very High Density Residential

COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public
Recreation/Open Space

INDUSTRIAL
Industrial

MIXED-USE
Mixed-Use Residential
Mixed-Use Nonresidential
OTHER
Cemetery
Specific Plan: Downtown
Specific Plan: Town Center
Sources: City of Glendale; Los Angeles County.

LU-2.

Produced for the City of Glendale
by De Novo Planning Group
June 24, 2025.

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
30 of 228

Los Angeles River
Verdugo Wash
2 134
134
2 2
210
5 PROPOSED

GENERAL PLAN

CHANGE MAP
INDEX
1 0 1½
Miles
Glendale City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
Parcel with a Proposed Change
(Current General Plan to Proposed
General Plan)
Grid Index
Produced for the City of Glendale by De Novo Planning Group, June 24, 2025. 31 of 228

A
V
e
r
d
u
g
o
W
a
s
h
H
o
n
o
l u
l u
A
v
e
Foothill Blvd
Lowell Ave
L
a
C
r
e
s
c
e
n
t
a
A
v
e
Pennsylvania Ave
Boston Ave
Dunsmore Ave
N
e
w
Y
o
r
k
A
v
e
Santa Carlotta St
L
a
C
r
e
s
c
e
n
t
a
A
v
e
Montrose Ave
Honolulu Ave
Foothill Blvd
Orange Ave
T
u
j
u
n
g
a
C
a
n
y
o
n
B
l
v
d
Encinal Ave
Ramsdell Ave
G
l
e
n
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
V
i s
t a
C
t
W h i t i n
g
W
o o d
s
R
d
Pali Ave
Cloud Ave
C
r
e
e
m
o
r
e
D
r
Glenwood Ave
Altura Ave
Lowell Ave
Maryland Ave
Poynette St
C e d a r b e n d D
r
El Caminito St
L
o
s
A
m
i g
o
s
S
t
Lauderdale Ave
Community Ave
F
o
r
e
s
t
g
l
e
n
D
r
M
e
s
a
L
i l a
R
d
Maryland Ave
Los Olivos Ln
Ramsdell Ave
Moore St
Alabama St
L
o
c
k
e
r
b
i
e
L
n
El Lado Dr
Prospect Ave
Encinal Ave
Mary St
D o l o r i t a
A
v
e
Hamilton Ln
E
i l i n
i t a
A
v
e
Mayfield Ave
Fairesta St
P
a
r
k
v
i s
t
a
D
r
Altura Ave
F
r
e
d
e
r
i
c
k
A
v
e
Liberty Ave
Pontiac St
L a R e
i n
a
D
r
S
h
i r l y j e a
n
S
t
Mills Ave
Cloud Ave
H
e
n
r
i e
t t a
A
v
e
W
i
l
l
a
l
e
e
A
v
e
Cloud Ave
S
y
c
a
m
o
r e
A
v
e
Dyer St
Fairmount Ave
Sanborn Ave
Los Olivos Ln
B
e
t h
P l
Evelyn St
Brookhill St
H
e
r
m
o
s
a
A
v
e
N
e
w
Y
o
r
k
A
v
e
E
m
a
n
u
e
l
D
r
H
i
l l w
a
y
D
r
B
e
l
v
o
i
r
A
v
e
Paraiso Wy
C a m a n n S t
S
a
n
t a
C
a
r
l o
t t a
S
t
E
l L a d o
D
r
M
e
s
a
L
i l a
L
n
Prospect Ave
Pinewood Ln
Fairchild St
M
a
r
y
A
n
n
S
t
L
i r
i o
L
n
I
n
v
a
l
e
D
r
Reta St
Community Ave
3 r
d
A
v
e
M
o
n
t r o
s
e
A
v
e
Virginia St
M
a
r
y
S
t
Frances Ave
1st Ave
4th Ave
F a i r m
o
u
n
t
A
v
e
Adams St
5th Ave
Stevens St
Anderson Ave
D
a
n
n
y
S
t
Franklin St
Pontiac St
2 n
d
A
v
e
Fairesta St
Altura Ave
A
b
e
l l a
S
t
Fairway Ave
C
o
u
n
t r y
C
l u
b
D
r
C r e e
m
o
r
e
P
l
N
o
r t h
w
o
o
d
s
L
n
Alta Ter
Mayfield Ave
C
h
e
r
y
l
A
v
e
Manhattan Ave
Montrose Ave
Piedmont Ave
210

PROPOSED

GENERAL PLAN

CHANGES
HIGHLIGTED:

GRID A
1 0 1,000500
Feet
Glendale City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
C City-Owned Residential Overlay
Parcels with a Proposed Designation
Very Low Density/Open Space
Low/Medium Density Residential
Public/Semi-Public
Unchanged Designations

COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public
Recreation/Open Space

INDUSTRIAL
Industrial

MIXED-USE
Mixed-Use Residential
Mixed-Use Nonresidential
OTHER
Cemetery
Specific Plan: Downtown
Specific Plan: Town Center
Produced for the City of Glendale by De Novo Planning Group, June 24, 2025. 32 of 228

B
V
e
r
d
u
g
o
W
a
s
h
Honolulu Ave
P
e
n
n
s
y
l
v
a
n
i
a
A
v
e
L
a
C
r
e
s
c
e
n
t a
A
v
e
Briggs Ave
Ocean View Blvd
L
a
C
r
e
s
c
e
n
t
a
A
v
e
N Verdugo Rd
Foothill Blvd
C
a
n
a
d
a
B
l
v
d
Rosemont Ave
N
V
e
r
d
u
g
o
R
d
Honolulu Ave
Montrose Ave
Roselawn Ave
Montrose Ave
Country Club Dr
A
h
l i n
D r
Encinal Ave
Ramsdell Ave
Lyans Dr
W
a
l t
o
n
i a
D
r
Young Dr
B
r o
a
d
v
i e
w
D
r
G
l e
n
w
o
o
d
A
v e
Fairway Ave
W h i t i n
g
W
o o d
s
R
d
Cross St
Castle Rd
Sunview Dr
G l o r i e t t a A v e
C o
n
l e
W y
S
p
a
r
r
B
l
v
d
Piedmont Ave
Sunset Ave
H
e
r
m
o
s
i
t
a
D
r
G l e n c o e W y
O
a
k w
o
o
d A v e
J
L
e
e
C
i
r
P a l o m a A v e
Val Verde Pl
O
r
a
n
g
e
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
S a n G a b r i e l A v e
Community Ave
Fairmount Ave
B e a
u
d
r y
B
l v d
O
a
k
m
o
n
t
V
i e
w
D
r
Mayfield Ave
M
e
s
a
L
i l a
R
d
M
o
n
t e
c
i t o
D
r
B
e
a u d r y T e r
Arlington Ave
Altura Ave
Sanborn Ave
M e n l o
D
r
O a k
V
a
l l e
y
R d
Raymond Ave
D
o
w
n
i
n
g
A
v
e
L
o
c
k
e
r
b
i
e
L
n
Cloud Ave
El Lado Dr
Daisy Ln
Prospect Ave
Alpha Rd
G
l e n
c
r
e
s
t
D
r
L
a
s
P
a
l
m
a
s
A
v
e
C
l
i
f
t
o
n
P
l
Wickham Wy
M
a
r
k
e
t
S
t
C
r
e
s
c
e
n
t
A
v
e
D
a
i l y
C
i
r
Mary St
V a l a
n
e
D
r
D o l o r i t a
A
v
e
Valihi Wy
E
i l i n
i t a
A
v
e
R
i
n
c
o
n
A
v
e
Sunset Ave
P
a
r
k
v
i s
t
a
D
r
Altura Ave
E
l
T
o
v
a
r
D
r
Liberty Ave
D
e l M a r R d
S h i r l y j e
a
n
S
t
M
i r
a
v
i s
t a
A
v e
B a
y b e
r r y
D r
Evelyn St
U
r
q
u
i d
e
z
A
v
e
Mills Ave
E
l
A
r b
o
l i t a D r
S
h
a
r
o
n
A
v
e
R
o
s
e
b
a
n
k
D
r
V
i
c
k
e
r
s
D
r
M
i r a V i s
t
a
D
r
S
y
c
a
m
o
r e
A
v
e
Los Olivos Ln
Pleasure Wy
Evelyn St
L
e
i
r
D
r
Mountain Ave
N
e
w
Y
o
r
k
A
v
e
D
o
r
a
V
e
r
d
u
g
o
D
r
Rockland Pl
F
l
o
r
e
n
c
i
t
a
D
r
C
a
s
t
e
r
a
A
v
e
E
m
a
n
u
e l D
r
Park Pl
L u a n a
L
n
H a r m
o n
P l
H
i
l l w
a
y
D
r
S
i
e
r
r
a
V
i
s
t
a
A
v
e
O a k C
i r
c
le
D
r
M
a
l
a
f
i
a
D
r
C a m a n n S t
B
a r n
e
s
C
i r
Angelus Ave
M
e
s
a
L
i l a
L
n
Pinewood Ln
Manhattan Ave
Hermosa Ave
I
n
v
a
l
e
D
r
G
l e
n
a
d
a
A
v
e
V
a
l d
e
r
a
s
D r
Hermosa Ave
M
i r a
V i s t a A
v
e
R a m o n a A v e
B
u
e
n
a
V
i
s
t
a
A
v
e
Pickens St
Fairway Ave
Mary St
Rosemary Ave
S a n t a
R o s a
A v e
B
a r t o n L n
N
o
r t h
w
o
o
d
s
L
n
S a n t a
M
a r i a
A v e
C
o
u
n
t
r
y
C
l
u
b
D
r
Manhattan Ave
Montrose Ave
Prospect Ave
210

PROPOSED

GENERAL PLAN

CHANGES
HIGHLIGTED:

GRID B
1 0 1,000500
Feet
Glendale City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
C City-Owned Residential Overlay
Parcels with a Proposed Designation
Very Low Density/Open Space
Low/Medium Density Residential
Community Commercial
Recreation/Open Space
Unchanged Designations

COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public
Recreation/Open Space

INDUSTRIAL
Industrial

C
Verdugo Wash
E Glenoaks Blvd
E
C
h
e
v
y
C
h
a
s
e
D
r
E
M o u n t a i n S t
N
V
e
r
d
u
g
o
R
d
E Glenoaks Blvd
E Lexington Dr
R
o
s
s
m
o
y
n
e
A
v
e
C
a
n
a
d
a
B
l
v
d
N
V
e
r
d
u
g
o
R
d
E M
o
u
n
t
a
i n
S
t
N
G
l e
n
d
a
l e
A
v
e
N
A
d
a
m
s
S
t
M o n t e r e y R
d
G
r
e
e
n
b
r
i a
r
R
d
N
J
a
c
k
s
o
n
S
t
G l o r i e t t a A v e
E C a l i f o r n i a A v e
H o
l l y
D
r
Kimlin Dr
E Doran St
S h e r e r L n
O l d
P
h
i
l
li
p
s
R
d
C
a
m
i
n
o
S
a
n
R
a
f
a
e
l
C o l i n a D r
S a n L u i s R e y D r
L
u
r
i
n
g
D
r
O
p
e
c
h
e
e
W
y
Grove Pl
A
l c
a
l
d
e
W
y
M
o o r s i d e
D
r
Fern Ln
R
o
y
a
l
B
l v
d
H
e
r
m
o
s
i
t
a
D
r
E
D
r y d
e
n
S
t
D o n C a r l o s A v e
O
a
k
e
n
g
a
t
e
D r
H
a
v
e
n
S
t
A
r
b
o
l
e
s
D
r
C o
r w
i n A v
e
C a l l e A m
a
b
l e
Scholl Dr
G
l
e
n
m
o
r
e
B
l
v
d
Fay Dr
Hillside Dr
S
u
n
s
h
i
n
e
D
r
Merrill Ave
N Kenwood St
K i r k b y R d
C
h
e
v
y
O
a
k
s
D
r
S
w
a
r
t h
m
o
r e
D r
T a m e r l a n e D r
Capistrano Ave
K
i l d
o
n
a
n
D
r
G
l
e
n
a
n
d
a
l
e
T
e
r
Naranja Dr
N
G
e
n
e
v
a
S
t
M
i s
t y
I
s
l e
D
r
C
o
r
d
o
v
a
A
v
e
B r a n t a
D
r
C
a
m
p
b
e
l l
S
t
S
w
e
e
t
b
r
i a
r
D
r
A
v
o
n
o
a
k
T
e
r
Wabasso Wy
C
a
v
a
n
a
u
g
h
R d
Camulos Ave
E l R i t o A v e
G
l
e
n
A
v
e
Ethel St
S
t
a
r
v
a
l e
R
d
T
o
r r e
s
D r
Sinaloa Dr
C
o
r
t
e
z
D
r
L
o
r
e
t o
D
r
M
ir
a
V
i s t a D r
W
o
o
d
b
u
r
y
R
d
A
n
d
e
n
e
s
D r
A
t
k
in
s
D
r
R
o
s
e m
o u n t R d
S
o
l
w
a
y
S
t
Richard Pl
D e l V a l l e A v e
H
e a t h
e
r
R
i d
g
e
D
r
L
a
L
o
m
a
R
d
B a r a
R
d
W
i l s
o
n
T
e
r
Harvey Dr
T
r a
f a
l g
e
r
D
r
M
o
u
n
t
C
a
r
m
e
l
D
r
Waltonia Dr
Don Jose Dr
La Zanja Dr
Hill Dr
S
y
l
v
a
n
o
a
k
D
r
L
a
s
F
l
o
r
e
s
D
r
Sinclair Ave
P
u
e
b
l a
D
r
M
o
r
e
n
o
D
r
Jackson Pl
M
e
l w
o
o
d
D
r
D
o
v
e
r
w
o
o
d
D
r
N
i
o
d
r
a
r
a
D
r
Z
e
r
r
C
t
H
i l l c r
o
f t R d
B
o
h
l
i
g
R
d
R
i
s
a
D
r
L
i
l
a
c
L
n
Ridge Dr
N Isabel St
Sierra Pl
Sherman Ln
Bonita Dr
C
a l a f i a S t
R
o
s
s
m
o
y
n
e
A
v
e
N
A
d
a
m
s
S
t
H
a
r r i n g
t o n R d
S
y
l
v
a
n
L
n
N Cedar St
Elvina Dr
C
i
e
l i t o
D
r
M
o
n
c
a
d
o
D
r
R o s i t a
D
r
C
o
r o
n
a
d
o
D
r
I
m
p
e
r
i a
l
D
r
N Howard St
R i s a
P
l
I
n
a
D
r
T r e
n
t o
n
A
v
e
V e
r
d
u
g o K
n
o
l l s D
r
E
l
e
a
n
o
r
e
D
r
Ross St
Geneva St
N Howard St
A
lla
n
ja
y P l
G
a
l e
r
P
l
N Everett St
N Isabel St
O
r c
h a r d
A
v e
G
l a
d
y
s
D
r
Carmen Dr
B
o g u e
D
r
N
J
a
c
k
s
o
n
S
t
F
o
x
k
i
r
k
R
d
The Midway St
Cordova Ave
C
a
n
y
o
n
D
r
M
il
l
a
r
D
r
L
a
V i s
t
a
Ter
P
r
i
n
c
e
s
s
D
r
A
v
o
n
g
l
e
n
T
e
r
R a m o n a A v e
V
i
r
d
e
n
D r
V e r d u g
o
V
i s
t a
D r
A
l
a
m
o
D r
Viscano Dr
V
a
l
l
e
j
o
D
r
A r v i n D r
A
l
c
a
l d e D r
V i a
S a l d i v a r
B a l m
o
r a
l D
r
Portola Ave
L
o
m
a
V
i
s
t
a
D
r
V
e
r
d
u
g o
C
ir
c
l
e
D
r
P
o
l a
r
i s
D
r
2 134
2 2

PROPOSED

GENERAL PLAN

CHANGES
HIGHLIGTED:

GRID C
1 0 1,000500
Feet
Glendale City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
C City-Owned Residential Overlay
Parcels with a Proposed Designation
Low Density Residential
Low/Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
Community Commercial
Recreation/Open Space
Unchanged Designations

COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public
Recreation/Open Space

INDUSTRIAL
Industrial

D
V
e
r d
u
g
o
W
a s h
Los Angeles River
Sonora Ave
Allen Ave
Glenwood Rd
Grandview Ave
W
M
o
u
n
t a
i n
S
t
Allen Ave
W Alameda Ave
R i v e r s i d e D r
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
S San Fernando Blvd
W
K e n n e t h R d
W
G
l e
n
o
a
k
s
B
l v
d
Allen Ave
Victory Blvd
E Alameda Ave
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
A
v
e
Western Ave
S Glenoaks Blvd
W Glenoaks Blvd
5th St
Alameda Ave
Z o o D r
Davis Ave
E
P
r
o
v
i d
e
n
c
i a
A
v
e
Alma St
Thompson Ave
Kellogg Ave
Cumberland Rd
Winchester Ave
Thompson Ave
S 6th St
Grover Ave
Matilija Rd
S Lake St
Flower St
Rosedale Ave
Graynold Ave
A
l l e
n
A
v
e
Spazier Ave
Zoo Dr
Cleveland Rd
Exchange St
N Zoo Dr
S Flower St
Elm Ave
B
e
l
A
i r
e
D
r
W
S
p
a
z
i e
r
A
v
e
E
C
e
d
a
r
A
v
e
Grandview Ave
O
m
a r
S
t
Grange St
G
l e
n
w
o
o
d
R
d
Olmsted Dr
S
t a
n
t o
n
A
v
e
Raymond Ave
N
o
r
t
o
n
A
v
e
Estelle Ave
Linden Ave
Jesse Ave
P
e
l a
n
c
o
n
i
A
v
e
Winchester Ave
Justin Ave
Irving Ave
Willard Ave
Ruberta Ave
Newby St
Thompson Ave
E
S
a
n
t
a
A
n
i t
a
A
v
e
Raymond Ave
Idlewood Rd
E
E
l m
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
Lake St
Irving Ave
B
e
l l e
v
u
e
D
r
Irving Ave
Fairfield St
Randall St
W
L
i n
d
e
n
A
v
e
S 3rd St
S 5th St
W
E
l m
A
v
e
Raymond Ave
5th St
Idlewood Rd
Davis Ave
Brazil St
B
u
r c
h
e
t t S
t
G
a
r
d
e
n
S
t
P
a
u
l a
A
v
e
Justin Ave
D
a
l e
A
v
e
Ruberta Ave
S Varney St
M
o
s
s
S
t
S 1st St
P
a
t t e
r s o
n
A
v e
Z
o
o
k
D
r
E
T
u
j u
n
g
a
A
v
e
Sperry St
C
o
s
m
i c
W y
5th St
E
l m
C
t
C
o
s
m
i
c
W
y
A
r
d
E
e
v
i
n
A
v
e
E
m
e
n
s
W
y
Palm Dr
Crestview Ave
S
t
o
n
e
L
n
R
a n c h o
A v e
Truitt St
Aristo St
San Fernando Rd W
B
e
n
L
o
m
o
n
d
D
r
Lee Dr
G
r a
n
t
A
v
e
Cutter St
Vista Dr
E
L
i n
d
e
n
A
v
e
D o r a n S t
Standard Ave
Dana St
Hazel St
Bruce Ave
Norton Ave
Cleveland Rd
Virginia Ave
E
S
p
a
z
i e
r
A
v
e
Roselli St
E
V
a
l e
n
c
i a
A
v
e
Circle Seven Dr
Colgin Ct
G
r
a
n
d
C
e
n
t r
a
l
A
v
e
Air Wy
E
l
M
i r
a
d
e
r
o
A
v
e
W
e
s
t
e
r
n
H
e
r
i
t
a
g
e
W
y
C
r
y
s
t
a
l
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
D
r
M
o
u
n
t
H
o
l l y
w
o o d D
r
G
r
i f f i t
h
P
a
r
k
D
r
134
134
5 PROPOSED

GENERAL PLAN

CHANGES
HIGHLIGTED:

GRID D
1 0 1,000500
Feet
Glendale City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
C City-Owned Residential Overlay
Parcels with a Proposed Designation
Community Commercial
Industrial
Mixed-Use Residential
Mixed-Use Nonresidential
Unchanged Designations

COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public
Recreation/Open Space

INDUSTRIAL
Industrial

E
Verdugo Wash
Grandview Ave
W
M
o u
n
t a
i n
S
t
N
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
A
v
e
H
i
g
h
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
N Brand Blvd
N
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
A
v
e
Glenwood Rd
N
P
a
c
i
f
i
c
A
v
e
W Kenneth Rd
W Glenoaks Blvd
W Broadway
W Stocker St
E W i l s o n A v e
C
u
m
b
e
r l a
n d
R
d
W Lexington Dr
W Doran St
E M
o
u
n
t
a
i n
S
t
E G l e n o a k s B l v d
Highland Ave
N Brand Blvd
W W i l s o n A v e
Monterey Rd
Concord St
Alma St
G r e e n b r i a r R d
N
J
a
c
k
s
o
n
S
t
Kellogg Ave
Cumberland Rd
Basso Ter
E D r y d e n S t
V
a
l
l
e
y
V
i
e
w
R
d
E F a i r v i e w A v e
E Randolph St
N
C
o
l
u
m
b
u
s
A
v
e
N
K
e
n
i l w
o
r
t
h
A
v
e
N Louise St
Matilija Rd
S a n c h e z D r
O
l
d
P
h
i
l
l
i
p
s
R
d
Graynold Ave
E Doran St
A
r
b
o
r
D r
Brazil St
A
s
p
e
n O
a k L n
Exchange St
M
o
o r s i d e D r
South St
Spencer St
D
e
e
r
m
o
n
t
R
d
N
C
o
l
u
m
b
u
s
A
v
e
B u r c h e t t S t
P
a
r
k
r
id
g
e
D
r
E C a l i f o r n i a A v e
O
m
a r
S
t
Grange St
W o n d e r v i e w
D r
Estelle Ave
K
e
m
p
t o
n
R
d
C
a
n
o n w o o
d
D
r
N
P
a
c
i f
i c
A
v
e
W C a l i f o r n i a A v e
Salem St
Olmsted Dr
C
o
r
d
o
v
a
A
v
e
W L o r a i n e S t
N
G
e
n
e
v
a
S
t
Cameron Pl
Campbell St
W Milford St
W G l e n o a k s B l v d
Pioneer Dr
Idlewood Rd
W Dryden St
C
u
m
b
e r l a
n
d
R
d
C
a
v
a
n
a
u
g
h R
d
S
t
a
r
v
a
l e
R
d
N Kenwood St
Chester St
V i e w c r e s t
R
d
A
u
d
r
a
i n
e
D
r
Brent Pl
Melrose Ave
San Fernando Rd W
R
o
h
r
S
t
Hillcrest Ave
G
l e
n
m
o
n
t
D
r
D
a
l e
A
v
e
M
a
g
i n
n
D
r
H
e a t h
e
r
R
i d
g
e
D
r
L
a
r
c
o
W
y
Ridgeway Dr
C
a
l
e
b
S t
N e s m u t h
R
d
Viola Ave
A r d e n A v e
B
e
u
l a
h
S
t
H
a
z
b
e
t h
L
n
N
C
o
l
u
m
b
u
s
A
v
e
P a r k w o o d D r
Concord St
S
u
n
s e t R d
Jackson Pl
M
e
l w
o
o
d
D
r
Merriman Dr
N
M
a
r
y
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
Sperry St
W Lexington Dr
D w
i
g
h
t
D
r
Glenview Rd
B
o
h
l
i
g
R
d
V a l e n t i n
e D r
C
u
m
b
e
r
l
a
n
d
T
e
r
Sherman Ln
Dorothy Dr
W Doran St
R
i m
c r e
s
t D r
N Orange St
C r e s t v i e w A v e
S
t
o
n
e
L
n
D
a
r
r
e
l l
D
r
N Artsakh Ave
School St
N Cedar St
C
i
e
l
i
t
o
D
r
Ben Lomond Dr
G
r a
n
t
A
v
e
P
a
t t e
r s o n
A
v e
N Howard St
Cutter St
L a w s o n
P
l
N o l a n
A v e
S
a
n
R
a
f
a
e
l
A
v
e
Palm Dr
N Isabel St
Alexander St
Ross St
N Cedar StN Everett St
Geneva St
N Howard St
A
r
d
E
e
v
i
n
A
v
e
N Everett St
N Isabel St
N
J
a
c
k
s
o
n
S
t
W Stocker St
W F a i r v i e w A v e
Cleveland Rd
Arden Ave
Meadows Dr
Faircourt Ln
Idlewood Rd
Goode Ave
W
D r y d e n S t
Ardmore Ave
Norton Ave
Virginia Ave
R
o
b
i
n
G
l
e
n
D
r
C l e m e n t D r
Myrtle St
R
id
g
e
v
i e
w
D
r
B
r
o
c
k
m
o
n t
D
r
134
134

PROPOSED

GENERAL PLAN

CHANGES
HIGHLIGTED:

GRID E
1 0 1,000500
Feet
Glendale City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
C City-Owned Residential Overlay
Parcels with a Proposed Designation
Low/Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
High/Very High Density Residential
Very High Density Residential
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
Recreation/Open Space
Mixed-Use Residential
Mixed-Use Nonresidential
Specific Plan: Downtown
Unchanged Designations

COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public
Recreation/Open Space

INDUSTRIAL
Industrial

F
Los Angeles River
V
e
r
d
u
g
o
W
a
s
h
E Colorado St
S
G
l
e
n
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
S
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
A
v
e
E B r o a d w a y
W Broadway
Glendale Blvd
W Lexington Dr
W Doran St
N
C
e
n
t
r
a
l
A
v
e
L
o
s
F
e
l i z
B
l v
d
S Brand Blvd
W Colorado St
N Brand Blvd
N
G
l
e
n
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
W W i l s o n A v e
N Jackson St
Magnolia Ave
Granada St
E H a r v a r d S t
N Louise St
San Fernando Rd W
S h a
n
n
o
n R
d
Riverdale Dr
E Eulalia St
G
l
e
n
f
e
l
i
z
B
l
v
d
E Windsor RdGoodwin Ave
Vassar St
E Maple St
E Doran St
Chevy Chase Dr
E
C y p r e s s S t
W
S
a
n
F
e
r
n
a
n
d
o
R
d
Brazil St
Exchange St
E Acacia Ave
E P a l m e r A v e
Bemis St
Seneca Ave
N
C
o
l
u
m
b
u
s
A
v
e
L
o
s
A
n
g
e
l
e
s
S
t
E C a l i f o r n i a A v e
Brunswick Ave
L
a
C
l e
d
e
A
v
e
D
o
v
e
r
S
t
W C a l i f o r n i a A v e
Salem St
E L o m i t a A v e
N
K
e
n
i
l
w
o
r
t
h
A
v
e
S
M
a
r
y
l
a
n
d
A
v
e
W Acacia Ave
W Milford St
Pioneer Dr
N Kenwood St
Chester St
Brent Pl
Drew St
Veselich Ave
S Louise St
Rigali Ave
Vista Ct
S
C
o
l
u
m
b
u
s
A
v
e
W P a l m e r A v e
Edenhurst Ave
S Everett St
Appleton St
E E l k A v e
Concord St
Raleigh St
Alger St
Sperry St
W Lexington Dr
Laclede Ave
Verdant St
W Doran St
N Orange St
Legion Ln
O
a
k
r
i d
g
e
D
r
Gardena Ave
Boynton St
N Artsakh Ave
Sequoia St
Vine St
M
i
s s i o n
R
d
W L o m i t a A v e
Colorado Blvd
Fierro St
W Vine St
E Laurel St
Cutter St
W E l k A v e
D o r a n S t
E Chestnut St
Baywood St
N Isabel St
Alexander St
N Everett St
S Isabel St
S Kenwood St
Geneva St
N Howard St
S Jackson St
Treadwell St
P
e
r
l
i
t
a
A
v
e
S
u
n
n
y
n
o
o
k
D
r Casitas Ave
Gardenside Ln
Hollypark Pl
Revere Ave
Boyce Ave
Dover Pl
Edenhurst Ave
Pepper Wy
Garden Ave
W G a r f i e l d A v e
C
a d m
a
n
D
r
W M a p l e S t
W Harvard St
Oak St
Myrtle St
Atwater Ave
Hawthorne St
Ivy St
W Windsor Rd
G
r
i
f
f
i
t
h
V
i
e
w
D
r
E l e c t r o n i c s P l
Perlita Ave
Mariposa St
C
r
y
s
t
a
l
S
p
r
i
n
g
s
D
r
G
r
i
f
f
i
t
h
P
a
r
k
D
r
Valleybrink Rd
E G a r f i e l d A v e
134
5 PROPOSED

GENERAL PLAN

CHANGES
HIGHLIGTED:

GRID F
1 0 1,000500
Feet
Glendale City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
C City-Owned Residential Overlay
Parcels with a Proposed Designation
Low/Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
High/Very High Density Residential
Community Commercial
Public/Semi-Public
Mixed-Use Residential
Mixed-Use Nonresidential
Unchanged Designations

COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public
Recreation/Open Space

INDUSTRIAL
Industrial

G
V e r d u g o W a s h
E
C
h
e
v
y
C
h
a
s
e
D
r
Colorado Blvd
E Broadway
E Glenoaks Blvd
N
G
l
e
n
d
a
l
e
A
v
e
E W i l s o n A v e
E Lexington Dr
Verdugo Rd
N
A
d
a
m
s
S
t
S Verdugo Rd
Y o r k B l v d
W Broadway
N Verdugo Rd
E Colorado St
S Chevy Chase Dr
E
l l e
n
w
o
o
d
D
r
N Eagle Rock Blvd
S
A
d
a
m
s
S
t
E
l l e
n
w
o
o
d
D
r
York Blvd
Eagle Rock Blvd
Alumni Ave
E
a
g
l e
R
o
c
k
B
l v
d
E Chevy Chase Dr
Romulus Dr
M
o
n
t e
r e
y
R
d
Sinclair Ave
Granada St
Aguilar St
W
A
v
e
n
u
e
4 1
Corliss St
Lincoln Ave
N
A
v
e
n
u
e
4 5
W
A
v
e
n
u
e
4 3
W
A
v
e
n
u
e
4 2
E
C
y
p
r
e
s
s
S
t
Ridgeview Ave
Addison Wy
R
o
d
e r i c k R d
El Roble Dr
Y
o
s
e
m
i t
e
W
y
Laverna Ave
H
a
z
e
l
w
o
o
d
A
v
e
E C a l i f o r n i a A v e
E
D
o
r a
n
S
t
Holly Dr
Kimlin Dr
T o l a n d
W
y
L
o
m
p
o
c
S
t
E P a l m e r A v e
Lukens Pl
Harvey Dr
E Harvard St
L
u
r
i
n
g
D
r
R
o
u
n
d
T
o
p
D
r
E Acacia Ave
E G a r f i e l d A v e
Plumas St
Grove Pl
W
A
v
e
n
u
e
4 0
R o c k G l e n A v e
O
b
e
r
l
i n
D
r
W
a
w
o
n
a
S
t
York Hill Pl
C
o
ll
e
g
e
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
Marwood Dr
H o l l i s
t e
r
T
e
r
C
o
r
w
i n
A v e
R
a
n
g
e
R
d
Scholl Dr
S
u
n
n
y
c
r
e
s
t
D
r
E
l
l
e
n
w
o
o
d
D
r
C
o
r o
n
a
d
o
D
r
Merrill Ave
D
e
l o
r
R d
L
a
w
n d a l e
D
r
Park Ave
E Windsor Rd
Saxon Dr
Tyler St
S a g a m o r e W y
Scofield Dr
L
o
c
k
h
a
v
e
n
A
v
e
C
o
l
u
m
b
i a
D
r
M
a
r
i
o
n
D
r
C
a
m
p
u
s
R
d
Hill Dr
Sierra Villa Dr
D
a
r
t
m
o
u
t
h
D
r
G
l
e
n
a
n
d
a
l
e
T
e
r
S h a s t a C i r N
E L o m i t a A v e
W
A
v
e
n
u
e
4 2
Merton Ave
Naranja Dr
C
r
e
s
c
e
n
t
D
r
Barrington Wy
L a s C o l i n a s A v e
E Maple St
Langdale Ave
O r a n g e G r o v e A v e
P
r
i n
c e t o n
D
r
E Maple St
S c e n i c D
r
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
Raleigh St
C
a
l
e
d
o
n
i
a
W
y
L
i
v
e
O
a
k
V
i
e
w
A
v
e
G
l
e
n
A
v
e
V
e
r d O a k s D r
Dixon St
Green St
M
e
d
l o
w
A
v
e
G
l e
n
m
o
r
e
B
l
v
d
W
o
o
d
b
u
r
y
R
d
A
t
k
i
n
s
D
r
Vista Ct
S
o
l w
a
y
S
t
Richard Pl
L
a
L
o
m
a
R
d
W
i l s
o
n
T
e
r
M
o
u
n
t
C
a
r
m
e
l
D
r
Waltonia Dr
V
a
l l e
V
i s
t a
D
r
N
A
v
e
n
u
e
4 6
S h a s t a C i r S
Fischer St
Hill Dr
B a
n
b
u
r
y
P
l
S
y
l
v
a
n
o
a
k
D
r
Yosemite Dr
D
e
l e
v
a
n
D
r
S
t
a
n
f
o
r
d
D
r
S Everett St
Las Flores Dr
F
y
l e r
P
l
S Cedar St
Z
e
r
r
C
t
L
i
l
a
c
L
n
E
A
c a c i a
A v e
Paulhan Ave
E
l
l
e
n
w
o
o
d
P
l
E
l
R
e
p
o
s
o
D
r
N
A
d
a
m
s
S
t
O
a
k
r
i d
g
e
D r
Zinnia Ln
Lincoln Ave
Boynton St
T e r z i l l a
P
l
Elvina Dr
Chapman St
W
e
l d
o
n
A
v
e
Orilla Ave
B
e r k e l e y
D
r
Norwalk Ave
E
l
R
i
o
A
v
e
W
e
l
l
e
s
l
e
y
D
r
I
n
a
D
r
T r e n
t o
n
A
v
e
Porter St
Carr Dr
Windermere Ave
N Isabel St
E
l
e
a
n
o
r
e
D
r
S Belmont St Maynard St
E Chestnut St
N Cedar St
N Belmont St
N Everett St
S Isabel St
Geneva St
Wing St
G
a
l e
r
P
l
O
r c
h a r d
A
v e
Olive St
Sumner Ave
Stanton Dr
S
o
m
e
r
s
A
v
e
T
r
e
n
t
W
y
H
i l d a A v e
C
a
t h
e
d
r
a
l
D
r
H
y
le
r
A
v
e
L
y
t e
l l e
P
l
C
a
n
y
o
n
D
r
M
il
l
a
r
D
r
F a i r P a r k A v e
Kent Pl
D
i c
t u
r n
S t
L
o
m
a
C
r
e
s
t
S
t
Y
a
l e
D r
Stanley Ave
P
r
i s m
o
D
r
R
e e
v
e s P l
A
l u
m
n
i A
v e
A
v
o
n
g
l
e
n
T
e
r
C
o
r
o
n
a
D
r
E
d e n A
v
e
Onteora Wy
E G a r f i e l d A v e
V
a
l
l
e
j
o
D
r
Portola Ave
Drew St
A
r
l i n
g t o
n
R
d
Eagledale Ave
P
r
o
s
p
e
c
t
D
r
E E l k A v e
C
u
n
a r d S t
Griswold St
P
a
lm
e
r
D
r
L
o
y
L
n
Carlton Dr
F
i l i o
n
S
t
R
o
d
e
r i c
k
P
l
2 2
2 134
134

PROPOSED

GENERAL PLAN

CHANGES
HIGHLIGTED:

GRID G
1 0 1,000500
Feet
Glendale City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
C City-Owned Residential Overlay
Parcels with a Proposed Designation
Low/Medium Density Residential
High Density Residential
Community Commercial
Public/Semi-Public
Recreation/Open Space
Unchanged Designations

COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public
Recreation/Open Space

INDUSTRIAL
Industrial

H
E
C
h
e
v
y
C
h
a
s
e
D
r
F
i g
u
e
r o
a
S t
H i g h l a n d
D r
L
i d
a
S
t
E
G
l e
n
o
a
k
s
B
l v
d
C
h
e
v
y
C
h
a
s
e
D
r
L
i
n
d
a
V
i
s
t
a
R
d
S a i n
t
K
a
t
h
e
r i n e
D
r
Kirkham Dr
Erin Wy
E
m
e
r
a
l
d
I
s
l e
D
r
H
o
l l i s
t e
r
T
e
r
D
u
b
l
i
n
D
r
C
a
s
c
a
d
i
a
D
r
L
e
i t h
R d
C
a
l
l
e
L
a
P
r
i
m
a
v
e
r
a
C
a
m
i
n
o
S
a
n
R
a
f
a
e
l
C
a
l l
e
D
e l S
o
l
H
a m
p
s
t e
a
d
R
d
G l e n
o
a
k
s
C
a n y o n
D
r
C
h e v y K n o l l D r
L
e
n
o
r
e
D
r
G o l f
C
l
u
b
D
r
Fern Ln
A
s
h
i
n
g
t
o
n
D
r
T h u r l e
n
e
R
d
P
a
r w
a
y
D
r
E
d
w
a
r
d
s
P
l
H a v e
r
k
a
m
p
D
r
S
a
n
A
u
g
u
s
t i n
e
D
r
B
u
c
k
in
g
h
a
m
R
d
O
x f o r
d
W y
B
e
r
w
i
c
k
D
r
Scholl Dr
D r a g o n f l y S
t
W e n
d
o
v
e
r
R
d
Calle Bella
C
a
s
t
l
e
g
a
t
e
P
l
B
u c
k
i
n
g
h
a
m
P
l
G
r a
n
g
e
m
o
u
n
t R d
C o r n w a l l
D
r
S
a
in
t
G
r
e
g
o
r
y
R
d
S
h
e
r i d
a
n
R
d
B
a
r n e t t D
r
P
h
e
a
s
a
n
t
S
t
C h a
d
n
e
y
D
r
H
o
l l y
b
u
r
n
e
C
t
S l e e p y H o l l o w
P
l
F
i
g
u
e
r
o
a
S
t
E
d
m
o
n
t
o
n
R
d
C
a
l l e
C
a
n
t
a
Belleau Rd
Gardner Pl
I
n
v
e
r
n
e
s
s
D
r
C
r
a
i l
W y
I n v
e
r n e s s D
r
T
y
r r e
l l
P
l
E
d
g e w
i c
k
D
r
E
G
l e n o a k s B l v d
H
i l l f a
i r
D
r
W
y
n
d a l e
P
l
G
r
a
c
e
l a
n
d
W
y
D r u r y
L n
M
a
d
i s
o
n
R
d
S a
i
n
t
A
n d r e w s
D
r
K
e
s
w
i c k
R
d
M a r e
n
g
o
D
r
K i n
g
r i d
g
e W
y
T h o r n
w
o
o
d
S
t
W a l d o r f
R
d
H
o
l l y
w
e
l l
P
l
D
e
v
o
n
s
h
ir
e
L
n
P
e
n
n e
r t o n
D
r
C
a l l e
S
i r e
n
a
A r u
n
d
le
P
l
S
l e e p y H o l l o
w
D
r
C
o
r
lin
g t o n
R
d
R
e
g
e
n t P a r k
D
r
A r c h
P
l
S
a i n t E l i z
a
b
e
t
h
R
d
M
o n a r c h
D
r
Pad
d
i
n
g
t o
n
R
d
S c h o l l C a n y o n
R d
K
a
r
e
n
L
y
n
n
D
r
G
re
e
n
w
i c h
R
d
K
e
n
n
i
n
g
t
o
n
D r
134
2 PROPOSED

GENERAL PLAN

CHANGES
HIGHLIGTED:

GRID H
1 0 1,000500
Feet
Glendale City Boundary
Sphere of Influence
C City-Owned Residential Overlay
Parcels with a Proposed Designation
Recreation/Open Space
Unchanged Designations

COMMERCIAL
Neighborhood Commercial
Community Commercial
PUBLIC
Public/Semi-Public
Recreation/Open Space

INDUSTRIAL
Industrial

Glendale | EJ-1








40 of 228

Glendale | EJ-2

41 of 228

Glendale | EJ-3
Figure EJ-1 Environmental Justice Communities in Glendale

42 of 228

Glendale | EJ-4




43 of 228

Glendale | EJ-5






o
o

44 of 228

Glendale | EJ-6

45 of 228

Glendale | EJ-7

46 of 228

Glendale | EJ-8

47 of 228

Glendale | EJ-9

48 of 228

Glendale | EJ-10

49 of 228

Glendale | EJ-11

50 of 228

Glendale | EJ-12

51 of 228

Glendale | EJ-13





52 of 228

Glendale | EJ-14

53 of 228

Glendale | EJ-15

54 of 228

Glendale | EJ-16

55 of 228

Glendale | EJ-17

56 of 228

Glendale | EJ-18

57 of 228

Glendale | EJ-19

58 of 228

Glendale | EJ-20

59 of 228

Glendale | EJ-21

60 of 228

Glendale | EJ-22

61 of 228

Glendale | EJ-23

62 of 228

Glendale | EJ-24

63 of 228

Glendale | EJ-25




64 of 228

Glendale | EJ-26









65 of 228

Glendale | EJ-27

66 of 228

Glendale | EJ-28

67 of 228

City of Glendale
Environmental Justice Element
Appendix A: Existing Conditions Report
December 2024

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
68 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 1 | P a g e

CONTENTS

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 2

1.1 What is Environmental Justice? .......................................................................................................................................... 2

1.2 Implementation of Senate Bill 1000 ................................................................................................................................ 3

1.3 Identifying Disadvantaged Communities .................................................................................................................. 3

1.4 Note on Terminology .................................................................................................................................................................. 5

1.5 Brief History of Environmental Justice in Glendale ............................................................................................. 9

1.6 Relationship to Other City Plans and Programs .................................................................................................. 14

1.7 Relationship to Other General Plan Elements ...................................................................................................... 17

1.8 Report Organization and Topics Addressed ........................................................................................................... 18

2. Key Takeaways ........................................................................................................................................................ 19

2.1 Reduce Pollution Exposure and Improve Air Quality ....................................................................................... 19

2.2 Promote Public Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................... 19

2.3 Promote Healthy Food Access ......................................................................................................................................... 19

2.4 Promote Safe and Sanitary Homes ............................................................................................................................. 20

2.5 Promote Physical Activity ......................................................................................................................................................21

2.6 Reduce Any Unique or Compounded Health Risks Not Otherwise Addressed ..........................21

2.7 Promote Civic Engagement in the Public Decision-Making Process .................................................21

2.8 Prioritize Improvements and Programs that address the Needs of EJ Communities ......... 22

3. Detailed Analysis ................................................................................................................................................... 23

3.1 Reduce Pollution Exposure and Improve Air Quality .......................................................................................23

3.2 Promote Public Facilities ...................................................................................................................................................... 41

3.3 Promote Healthy Food Access ........................................................................................................................................ 44

3.4 Promote Safe and Sanitary Homes ............................................................................................................................. 49

3.5 Promote Physical Activity .....................................................................................................................................................53

3.6 Reduce Any Unique or Compounded Health Risks Not Otherwise Addressed ........................ 56

3.7 Promote Civic Engagement in the Public Decision-Making Process ............................................... 59

3.8 Prioritize Improvements and Programs That ddress the Needs of EJ Communities ........... 62

4. References ............................................................................................................................................................... 64

69 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 2 | P a g e

1. INTRODUCTION
This report provides a baseline of existing conditions in Glendale related to Environmental Justice (EJ) to equip City staff and the public with a clearer understanding of the EJ-related challenges and opportunities affecting Glendale’s diverse communities. It was developed according to guidance created by the California Environmental Justice Alliance. The findings are used to inform the goals, policies, and actions within the City’s new Environmental Justice Element. In creating an EJ Element, the City of Glendale has identified strategies to reduce disproportionate impacts on Disadvantaged Communities (also referred to as EJ Communities) and ensure equal distribution of resources. While some of the information in this report may be incorporated into the Environmental Justice Element, the majority serves as background material that will remain on file with the City for reference, ensuring a more streamlined and focused General Plan.

The City of Glendale is made up of 34 distinct neighborhoods, each with its own unique history and character, defined by natural features like streets, washes, and mountain ridges. As these neighborhoods developed, they collectively formed the Glendale we know today, and each faces different challenges. Recognizing that no single policy document can fully resolve the complex EJ issues facing the City, this report and the Environmental Justice Element mark the initial steps in building a sustained, strategic approach to advancing EJ in Glendale. Though the Environmental Justice Element applies citywide, it emphasizes areas needing special attention, laying the groundwork for ongoing efforts to address systemic inequities and enhance environmental health and quality of life for all residents.

1.1 WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE?
At a high level, EJ is about making sure everyone has equal access to clean air, water, land, and other resources. EJ seeks to prevent and correct disproportionate environmental impacts on historically marginalized communities. The State of California and the Environmental Protection Agency have similar, yet nuanced, definitions of EJ, provided below.

The State of California defines EJ as: "The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures, incomes, and national origins with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies."1 The Environmental Protection Agency defines EJ as: “The just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people, regardless of income, race, color, national origin, Tribal affiliation, or disability, in agency decision-making and other Federal activities that affect human health and the environment so that people:
 are fully protected from disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects (including risks) and hazards, including those related to climate change, the cumulative impacts of environmental and other burdens, and the legacy of racism or other structural or systemic barriers; and
 have equitable access to a healthy, sustainable, and resilient environment in which to live, play, work, learn, grow, worship, and engage in cultural and subsistence practices.”2

1 https://ceja.org/what-we-do/green-zones/ej-glossary-for-ehjp-release. 2 https://www.epa.gov/environmentaljustice/learn-about-environmental-justice#definitions. 70 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 3 | P a g e

1.2 IMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE BILL 1000
Senate Bill 1000 (SB 1000), the Planning for Healthy Communities Act, was signed into law by Governor Edmond G. Brown, Jr. on September 24, 2016. Per SB 1000, when a city revises two or more General Plan elements concurrently and has areas identified as Disadvantaged Communities (DACs, defined below), a city must address EJ in their General Plan. A city can choose to either adopt a new, stand-alone element or integrate EJ policies and goals into existing elements of the General Plan. (Government Code Section 65302[h][2]).

The City of Glendale is revising two or more General Plan elements concurrently (Land Use, Mobility, and Safety Elements) and has areas identified as DACs, therefore it is required to address EJ in the General Plan. The City has chosen to prepare a dedicated Environmental Justice Element so that all EJ-related goals and policies are easily accessible and to provide clear guidance on the fair and equitable distribution of community benefits.

1.3 IDENTIFYING DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The term “Disadvantaged Communities” is a broad designation that generally includes low- income areas disproportionally affected by environmental, health, and other hazards. In relation to Environmental Justice, Government Code Section 65302, as amended by SB 1000, defines Disadvantaged Communities as follows:

The Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) produces General Plan Guidelines that provide guidance on preparing an Environmental Justice Element. According to LCI’s guidance, the first step in preparing an Environmental Justice Element is to identify DACs within city boundaries. Glendale used a multistep approach to identify DACs in the City, described below.

STEP 1
The California Communities Environmental Health Screening Tool (CalEnviroScreen) version 4.0 was used as the first step to identify DACs within Glendale. This mapping tool was developed by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment on behalf CalEPA. CalEnviroScreen helps identify communities disproportionately affected by environmental hazards. It is a science-based tool that uses existing environmental, health, and socioeconomic data to rank all census tracts in California with a CalEnviroScreen score.

CalEnviroScreen assigns overall scores to census tracts in California based on aggregate data from 21 indicators including potential exposures to pollutants, adverse environmental conditions, socioeconomic factors, and the prevalence of certain health conditions. Each census tract is also assigned scores for each of the 21 individual indicators. These individual scores are shown in Tables 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 and explained in more detail in Section 3.

Disadvantaged Communities (DACs) are areas identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code or a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. 71 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 4 | P a g e

According to CalEPA, census tracts must meet at least one of the following criteria to be considered a DAC:
1) Receiving the highest 25% of overall scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 (meaning a score of 75 or higher)
2) Lacking overall scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0 due to data gaps, but receiving the highest 5% of CalEnviroScreen 4.0 cumulative pollution burden scores 3) Identified in CalEnviroScreen 3.0 (2017 version) as a DAC, regardless of their scores in CalEnviroScreen 4.0
4) Lands under the control of federally recognized Tribes.

Figure 1.1 shows DACs in Glendale based on these criteria. There are 40 census tracts within City of Glendale boundaries. Based on overall CalEnviroScreen 4.0 scores, 21 out of 40 census tracts within Glendale have a CalEnviroScreen 4.0 score of 75 or higher, classifying these areas as DACs.

Tract #27 had an overall score of 78 and tract #29 had an overall score of 77 in CalEnviroScreen

3.0, classifying these two additional tracts as DACs, for a total of 23 DACs. All 23 DACs in Glendale based on CalEnviroScreen are shown as the hatched areas in Figure 1.1.

STEP 2
Under Assembly Bill (AB) 1550, low-income communities3 located within 1/2 mile of a DAC identified via CalEnviroScreen are also considered a DAC. These communities were identified using the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Priority Populations Mapping Tool. Based on this assessment, five more census tracts in Glendale (beyond the 23 identified via CalEnviroScreen) can be considered DACs and are shown as the dotted areas in Figure 1.1.

Glendale has several neighborhoods generally located near downtown and the southern area of the City that are considered DACs.

STEP 3
As part of preparing the Environmental Justice Element, the City of Glendale conducted a robust, multifaceted, and multilingual public engagement program to collect local data and knowledge regarding EJ issues. This included an online survey that was available in English, Spanish, Armenian, Korean, and Tagalog.

Survey respondents were asked to review the DAC map created using CalEnviroScreen and the CARB Priority Populations Mapping Tool. Survey respondents then had the opportunity to identify additional DACs in the City beyond those shown on the map.

The Outreach Summary Report (Appendix B to the Environmental Justice Element) includes a map reflecting these suggestions. Each additional area was suggested by a single respondent.

While this feedback is valuable, it does not justify designating entire census tracts as DACs. The Outreach Summary Report acknowledges these areas which the City may consider investigating further.

Although the scores and DAC status of specific census tracts may change over time (for example, as CalEnviroScreen is periodically updated), the EJ goals, policies, and actions identified in the General Plan generally apply citywide. Therefore, while certain census tracts may shift in their identification as a DAC, the City's commitment to promoting EJ throughout the community remains.

3 AB 1550 amends Section 39713 of the State of California Health and Safety Code. Section 39713(d)(2) defines “low-income communities” as census tracts with median household incomes at or below 80 percent of the statewide median income or with median household incomes at or below the threshold designated as low income by the Department of Housing and Community Development’s list of state income limits adopted pursuant to Section 50093. 72 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 5 | P a g e

1.4 NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY
While the state uses the term “Disadvantaged Communities,” the City of Glendale is opting to use the term “Environmental Justice Communities,” or “EJ Communities.” The term “disadvantaged” can have a negative connotation and undermine the fact that these communities are vibrant places with rich culture and history. It is also clearer and more consistent to say that the Environmental Justice Element is focused on Environmental Justice Communities.

Figure 1.2 shows the CalEnviroScreen identified DACs and AB 1550 identified DACs combined together as EJ Communities by census tract. Any references to EJ Communities in the remainder of this report refer to the communities shown in this figure.

Glendale has a total of 28 Environmental Justice Communities, shown in Figure 1.2. 73 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 6 | P a g e

FIGURE 1.1: DACS IN GLENDALE BASED ON OVERALL CALENVIROSCREEN SCORES

74 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 7 | P a g e

FIGURE 1.2: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES IN GLENDALE BY CENSUS TRACT

75 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 8 | P a g e

As previously mentioned, the City conducted an online survey to collect local data and knowledge regarding EJ issues. Survey respondents were asked for their zip code. For reference, Figure 1.3 shows the combined EJ Communities by zip code.

FIGURE 1.3: ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE COMMUNITIES IN GLENDALE BY ZIP CODE

76 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 9 | P a g e

1.5 BRIEF HISTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE IN GLENDALE
This Section provides a brief overview of Glendale's history with EJ and the City's actions to date.

As noted earlier, this document represents one step in an ongoing commitment to advancing EJ in Glendale. By reflecting on the past and engaging with the present, the City is better positioned to build an equitable and inclusive future, working alongside the community to envision what a safe, just, and welcoming Glendale looks like for all.

2021-2029 HOUSING ELEMENT4
As part of the 2021-2029 Housing Element update, the City of Glendale prepared an Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice (AI) to fulfill its U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) requirement and remove barriers to fair housing choice for all residents.

The AI examined policies, procedures, and practices within the City that may limit a person’s ability to choose their residence free from discrimination. The AI provided an overview of laws, regulations, conditions, or other possible obstacles that may affect an individual or a household’s access to housing in the City. It also presented local and regional demographic profiles, assessed the extent of housing needs among specific groups, identified existing barriers or impediments that may limit housing choice, and proposed actions to overcome those barriers. The City’s demographic and income profile, household and housing characteristics, housing cost and availability, and special needs populations are discussed in the Housing Element Background Report.

This information is important to include here because demographic history and trends regarding race, ethnicity, familial status, age, and income are crucial for understanding environmental justice in Glendale, as they highlight patterns of inequality and help identify communities that may face disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards, limited access to resources, or barriers to social and economic mobility. This data provides the foundation for analyzing how historical and systemic factors contribute to disparities in health, housing, and overall well-being, enabling more targeted and effective policy responses. The findings are summarized below, and more detailed information can be found in the 2021-2029 Housing Element.

GOVERNMENT ALLIANCE ON RACE & EQUITY (GARE)
On July 21, 2020, in response to the nationwide dialogue on race and equity, and as part of a long-term effort to foster diversity, equity, and inclusion, City Council approved the City's membership in the local and regional Government Alliance on Race & Equity (GARE). GARE is a national network of governments working to achieve racial equity and advance opportunities for all. Joining GARE provides staff with access to the organization's resources, network, and staff to develop and present an action plan for consideration and discussion by City Council. Part of the request from Council on this topic included an acknowledgement of Glendale's past with regard to race. As such, staff has been reviewing available historic documents to identify and understand Glendale's history as it pertains to its racist past.

SUNDOWN TOWN
James Loewen, sociologist, professor, and author of Sundown Towns: A Hidden Dimension of American Racism, defines sundown towns as "any organized jurisdiction that for decades kept African Americans or other groups from living in it and was thus 'all-white' on purpose," through formal and informal methods. Loewen identified over 100 sundown towns in California in his research, including Glendale.

4 https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wide-plans/housing-element 77 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 10 | P a g e

Although no official ordinance or law of the City of Glendale has been found imposing sundown restrictions, oral and written history, public accounts, and newspaper articles plainly demonstrate Glendale’s history as a “sundown town” for a significant portion of the 20th century. Such archival information was compiled and presented in a “sundown town” report to City Council on September 15, 2020, outlining Glendale’s history of discrimination toward people of color. In a landmark, unanimous vote, City Council adopted a resolution acknowledging and apologizing for Glendale’s racially exclusionary past as a “Sundown Town”, the first resolution of its kind in the State of California and the third in the nation. The resolution also stated that the City of Glendale unequivocally rejects racism in all its forms and is committed to working towards building an antiracist Glendale where people of all races and cultural backgrounds are welcome to live and prosper. At that same September 15, 2020 meeting, City Council authorized staff to prepare and issue a Request for Proposal for preparation of a formal historical context statement to better understand and address the nexus between historical development patterns and racial disparities within the City; this historical context statement is in process.

Community groups have also undertaken efforts to promote racial equity. The Coalition for an Anti-Racist Glendale was formed in September of 2020 by a group of committed community members, parents, educators, and faith leaders who seek to move Glendale forward to become a more equitable community. The Coalition is currently focused on using the Glendale City Council’s Sundown Town Resolution as an advocacy tool to address institutionalized and systemic racism in the areas of housing, policing and employment in Glendale.

REDLINING
Redlining was a federally sanctioned practice during the New Deal era in which neighborhoods were classified by risk levels for mortgage insurance, largely based on racial composition. The Home Owner’s Loan Corporation (HOLC) created maps categorizing areas as green (Grade A; “best”), blue (Grade B; “desirable”), yellow (Grade C; “declining”), and red (Grade D; “hazardous”), with neighborhoods home to minorities, particularly African Americans, almost exclusively designated as red. This classification discouraged investment and lending in these areas, perpetuating economic and housing inequality.

In Glendale, original redlining maps from 1939, such as the "Redlining Security Map," explicitly marked neighborhoods in south Glendale as high-risk due to the presence of minorities, while areas in north Glendale were favored for lending due to racially restrictive deeds. These covenants, legal until 1968, reinforced racial segregation, enabling predominantly white communities to build wealth through homeownership while excluding minorities from economic opportunities, quality housing, and education.

These historic policies established racial and economic divisions that continue to shape urban demographics and inequities today.

Redlined neighborhoods were often adjacent to industrial or noxious land uses, exacerbating disparities in public health and economic stability. Though redlining was outlawed in the mid- 20th century, its legacy persists: former “best” (Grade A; green) and “desirable” areas (Grade B; blue) remain predominantly white, while “declining” (Grade C; yellow) and “hazardous” (Grade D; red) neighborhoods are largely minority communities. These historic policies established racial and economic divisions that continue to shape urban demographics and inequities today.

78 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 11 | P a g e

The Science Museum of Virginia and Esri prepared a dataset that evaluates redlining in relation to temperature. South Glendale, for instance, is primarily composed of areas that received an HOLC grade of C, originally designated as "Declining." Across 94% of cities, D-rated neighborhoods experience higher temperatures than their A-rated counterparts, with an average difference of 2.6 degrees Celsius (4.48 degrees Fahrenheit).

This temperature disparity is accompanied by a stark contrast in tree canopy coverage. Redlined neighborhoods, on average, have systematically less tree canopy and more impervious, hard surfaces compared to non-redlined areas, further compounding environmental inequities (Hoffman et al., 2020).

Figure 1.4 depicts the majority of neighborhoods in South Glendale with a “C” Classification. The neighborhood shown as a pink polygon in South Glendale is 2.5 degrees C above citywide average, with 76.9% impervious surfaces, 4.3% tree cover, and 56% minority population5.

FIGURE 1.4: REDLINING & EXPOSURE TO HEAT ISLANDS IN GLENDALE

ANALYSIS OF SEGREGATION AND INTEGRATION FOR RACE AND ETHNICITY The 2021-2029 Housing Element includes an in-depth analysis of segregation and integration for race and ethnicity, by disability status, familial status, age, and income to identify the groups in Glendale that experience the highest levels of segregation.

Segregation generally means a condition in which there is a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area. The dissimilarity index is the most commonly used measure of segregation between two groups, reflecting their relative distributions across neighborhoods.

5 Percent of the population who do not self-identify as White based on data from the U.S Census. 79 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 12 | P a g e

Integration refers to a condition in which there is a not a high concentration of persons of a particular race, color, religion, sex, familial status, national origin, or having a disability or a particular type of disability when compared to a broader geographic area.

In general, Glendale is less dissimilar and more integrated for all of the identified racial and ethnic groups, and the community’s most dissimilar communities (its Native Hawaiian and American Indian populations) reflect trends seen throughout the region. This analysis suggests that patterns of segregation at the local level reflect those at the regional level as well, and that partnerships with regional agencies and advocates may be an effective way to address local issues of moderate segregation.

Race and Ethnicity

Diversity Index
Tracking the diversity of cities and counties throughout California is crucial to understanding the shifting demographics of race and ethnicity in California and the United States. Esri’s Diversity Index6 captures the racial and ethnic diversity of a geographic area in a single number, from 0 to 100. Scores less than 40 represent lower diversity in the jurisdiction while scores of greater than 85 represent higher diversity. Additionally, scores between 40-55 represent low diversity, 55-70 represent moderate diversity, and 70-85 represent high diversity.

There generally appears to be higher diversity index scores in the neighborhoods south of Colorado Street bordering the City of Los Angeles, such as Pacific-Edison, Mariposa, and Tropico, and along San Fernando Road north of the 134 Freeway, including the Grand Central, Pelanconi, and Fremont Park neighborhoods. Neighborhoods with low diversity index scores include areas around the Verdugo Mountains where census tract populations are low. While many census tracts across the City have higher density index scores in 2018 compared to 2010, the diversity index in the areas in and around the Verdugo Mountains do not show any significant change between 2010 to 2018.

Demographic Trends
Table 73 in the Housing Element Background Report (shown below) shows the demographic trends over time for the City and the larger region between 1990 and 2020 (shown as “Current” in the last column). According to the Housing Element Background Report, the growing ethnic diversity of Glendale is reflective of the overall changes occurring in Los Angeles County and Southern California as a whole. Until 1980, Glendale had a predominately White population (91.7%), however, the ethnic composition of the City has changed significantly since that time.

The proportion of White residents in Glendale decreased to 63.4% in 1990 and again to 54.18% in 2000. By 2010 however, the City’s proportion of White residents increased to 61.65%. Since 1990, the percentage of Hispanic residents in Glendale decreased from 21.22% to 17.48% compared to the region which has increased from 34.74% to 44.44%. In comparison, percentage of Asian or Pacific Islander residents has increased in the City at a similar rate when compared to the larger region, increasing from 13.71% to 16.07% in the City and from 10.18% to 14.72% in the region.

6 https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/a6066c9c757b49908961253754b01676 80 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 13 | P a g e

Table 73 from Housing Element Background Report

Armenian Population
Glendale is home to a substantial number of Armenian immigrants, who are an important part of the City’s ethnic and cultural diversity. Although only a dozen Armenian families resided in Glendale in the 1950s, by the late 1970s, many Armenian businesses and families had settled in the City. During the 1980s, a new wave of Armenians from various countries settled in the community. By the 1990s, Armenians formed an important core of residents in most parts of Glendale and in the adjacent valleys that includes La Cañada Flintridge and Tujunga. According to the 2015-2019 American Community Survey, 72,060 persons (of those reporting their ancestry) are Armenian, which represents 36% of the City’s population, making Glendale home to one of the largest communities of Armenian descent in the United States.

Other Patterns of Segregation and Integration
The Housing Element Background Report also considers patterns of segregation and integration by disability status, familial status, age, and income.

Disability Status
Persons with disabilities are present throughout the Glendale community, with higher concentrations in areas near transit and major activity centers. The highest concentrations of persons with disabilities exist along both sides of San Fernando Road north of the 134 Freeway, the Adams Hill neighborhood south of Chevy Chase Drive, and Downtown, north of Colorado Street. This pattern of higher concentrations of persons with disabilities near transit and major activity centers in Glendale follows the pattern in Los Angeles County. Generally, there are higher concentrations of persons with disabilities along the I-5 freeway throughout the County.

Based on this analysis, the City finds that there are not significant patterns of segregation impacting persons with disabilities living in Glendale.

Familial Status
There is a higher concentration of population of married couples in east Glendale compared to west Glendale. Overall, the communities in east and north Los Angeles County have a much higher concentration of married households compared to the City of Los Angeles. This pattern continues for married couples with children. Glendale is also home to a number of female- headed households located throughout the community with limited discernible patterns of segregation. Although ratios are still low, census tracts with higher concentrations of female- 81 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 14 | P a g e

headed households are primarily located south of the 134 Fwy in neighborhoods with multifamily housing. However, female-headed households are located in a variety of census tracts with different incomes, access to opportunities, and resource levels. Countywide, there are higher concentrations of female-headed households in census tracts, particularly in the City of Los Angeles, that have lower median incomes and higher diversity scores.

Age
The community’s older residents, persons 65 years of age or older, tend to be more highly concentrated in only one census tract in the City, in a neighborhood of single-family homes specifically within the Glenwood neighborhood north of Kenneth Road. This is an established neighborhood with some of the City’s older single-family homes, which indicates that senior residents there are aging in place. An area of moderate concentration along San Fernando Road corresponds with a concentration of lower median household incomes, which may suggest that some senior residents are choosing to live in these areas as a result of the affordable home options available there. The concentration of senior residents in Glendale is consistent with the surrounding communities.

Income
Patterns of segregated economic wealth, as indicated by median household income, are not present in Glendale. Low and high median household incomes are dispersed throughout the community, with lower and higher levels generally coexisting. Block groups with lower median household incomes are found in three different parts of Glendale. One of the lower median household income block groups is located along the western edge of the City, north and south of San Fernando Road in an area with a concentration of commercial and manufacturing uses.

Another is located between Glendale Avenue and San Fernando Road, north and south of Chevy Chase Drive where there is a mix of multifamily residential and single-family residential along with a concentration of commercial uses in the southern portion of the block group. A third group is in the Downtown, northwest of the intersection of Glendale Avenue and Colorado Street, where multifamily housing is mixed with commercial and office uses. Countywide, census tracts with lower median incomes are concentrated in central Los Angeles, including Downtown Los Angeles.

1.6 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER CITY PLANS AND PROGRAMS
The City has several additional plans and programs beyond the General Plan that address environmental justice. A summary of these initiatives is provided below.

Office Of Sustainability7
The Office of Sustainability is a collaborative effort between various City departments and is also decentralized across the City. That means the Office of Sustainability plans and coordinates sustainability programs in partnership with City departments. The Office of Sustainability website aims to give those interested in the City’s sustainability programs a central place at which to find comprehensive and up to date information.

Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP)8
The City of Glendale is developing a Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (CAAP), which is a people-focused plan set to protect the community against increasingly frequent extreme weather such as heat waves, wildfires, and drought, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The CAAP is anticipated to go before the City Council for consideration in Spring 2025.

7 https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/office-of-the-city-manager/office-of-sustainability 8 https://glendalecaap.rinconconsultants.com/home/get-involved/ 82 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 15 | P a g e

2024 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP)9
Glendale Water & Power developed and published the 2024 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), which analyzes Glendale's future energy needs and determines the most suitable resources to fulfill those needs, taking into account factors such as reliability, cost, constraints, environmental responsibility, efficiency, and risk.

Greener Glendale Plan (GGP)
In March 2012, the City adopted its award-winning Greener Glendale Plan to assess actions taken by the City to be more sustainable through policies and action which could reduce consumption, waste, and associated costs, improve air quality, and provide other benefits for the City.10 GGP is composed of the following documents:
 In preparation for the planning process, the 2010 Report11 was completed to highlight the City's existing conservation programs, on which the Greener Glendale Plan would build.  On Nov 1, 2011, City Council adopted the Greener Glendale Plan for Municipal Operations12.

This document addresses conservation efforts within internal government operations.  On March 27, 2012, City Council adopted the Greener Glendale Plan for Community Activities13. This document addresses how the City of Glendale can help the community improve livability and conservation.

Green Building Code and Standards14
On Jan 1, 2011, the new CAL-Green Building Code went into effect for all California cities. On June 7, 2011, Glendale went a step further by adopting additional green building standards.

Clean Construction15
The City of Glendale requires demolition and/or construction projects to divert at least 65% of waste (by recycling, salvage or deconstruction) from going to landfills in accordance with AB 939. Contractors are expected to implement best management practices (BMPs) to prevent sediment and other materials from flowing into storm drains. These BMPs include dust control measures, sandbags, concrete washout areas and street sweeping.

Glendale Water & Power Residential Programs & Rebates16 Glendale Water & Power is committed to providing low-cost water and electricity in an environmentally sustainable manner by increasing local investments in water conservation and energy efficiency, developing renewable energy resources, and tracking greenhouse gas emissions. The department offers numerous energy and water saving grants, shade trees, EV charging stations, e-bikes, turf replacement, solar, and more.

Verdugo Wash: Active Transportation Vision Study17
The project envisions a linear park energizing the existing urban framework and fabric of Glendale with seamless connections and visually pleasing experiences. A reimagined Verdugo Wash, transformative in character, creating a 9.4-mile long linear park and nature trail for walking/cycling with access to business and entertainment venues while enjoying nature, people, places, and culture as it interweaves several important City centers, services, and a multitude of neighborhoods that make up a large core of Glendale.

9 https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/glendale-water-and-power/reports-plans/integrated-resource-plan 10 https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/management-services/office-of-sustainability/greener-glendale 11 https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/7164/635250794600570000 12 https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6928/635250004174970000 13 https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6934/635250004192330000 14 https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/6930/635250004180270000 15 https://ecode360.com/43347036#43347036
16 https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/glendale-water-and-power/residential-customers/residential-programs 17 https://www.verdugowash.com
83 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 16 | P a g e

Bicycle Transportation Plan18
The City of Glendale has embarked on an update to the 2012 Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) to create a 20-year measurable blueprint for making biking safer, easier, and more attractive while also identifying biking-related strategies that help support broader goals, such as economic development, public health, climate change, and equity. The updated BTP will be a roadmap for creating a safe and enjoyable all-age and all-abilities bicycle network that connects local destinations within the City as well as to the region, while also addressing bicycle parking, programming and education, and new technologies.

Downtown Mobility Study19
The Downtown Mobility Study was adopted by City Council on March 6, 2007, and complements the Downtown Specific Plan approved by City Council in November 2006. The Mobility Study was developed to accommodate expected growth in downtown Glendale, achieving Glendale's vision of a vibrant multi-use downtown, without significantly increasing auto congestion or impacting quality of life. The Downtown Mobility Study focuses on establishing transit and pedestrian-friendly policies within the Downtown Specific Plan area.

Citywide Pedestrian Plan20
The ATP award winning Citywide Pedestrian Plan is a long-term plan for Glendale with near- term steps for action. The Plan established a comprehensive, centralized, and coordinated approach to improving pedestrian infrastructure, safety, and demand. The Glendale Citywide Pedestrian Plan will make Glendale a safer, more pleasant, and more convenient place for walking.

Safe & Healthy Streets Plan21
Adopted in April 2011, the Glendale Safe and Healthy Streets Plan was developed to create a healthier community and provide transportation options for people who do not drive. It has the potential to boost levels of physical activity and help reverse current obesity trends among residents. It provides policies to make Glendale a safer and friendlier City for pedestrians and bicyclists.

Citywide Safe Routes To School (SRTS) Program
The City’s Public Works Department has developed a Safe Routes To School (SRTS) program to encourage students to walk and bike to school while reducing injuries and fatalities. The program includes constructing facilities and enhancing the safety of pathways, trails, sidewalks and crosswalks for pedestrians and bicyclists who are primarily in grades K-12.

Be Street Smart Glendale22
Be Street Smart Glendale represents the Citywide Safety Education Initiative and Safe Routes to School Program that consolidates existing City and community safety programs into a combined and coordinated effort that will reach out to all sectors of the Glendale population.

This includes senior citizens, who are disproportionately affected by pedestrian accidents in the community.

18 https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/plans-for-mobility/bicycle-transportation- plan
19 https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/plans-for-mobility/mobility-study 20 https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/plans-for-mobility/pedestrian-plan 21 https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/plans-for-mobility/safe-and-healthy- streets-plan
22 https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/plans-for-mobility/be-street-smart- glendale
84 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 17 | P a g e

Vision Zero Action Plan23
City of Glendale streets and intersections should be safe for everyone. The City recently launched its Vision Zero Action Plan, which outlines how the City can eliminate traffic fatalities and severe injuries while increasing safe, healthy and equitable options for getting around Glendale. The Vision Zero Action Plan will build upon the work of the Citywide Pedestrian Plan and Bicycle Transportation Plan update using a data-based approach to reduce traffic injuries and fatalities through the four E’s: education, engineering, enforcement, and encouragement.

Be the Change Series24
Be The Change is the Glendale Library’s promise to build collective understanding of systemic racism, elevate the voices and stories of Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC), and inspire our community to be the change through lectures, exhibits, and programming.

Urban Art Program25
The Urban Art Program seeks to promote a diverse and stimulating cultural environment to enrich the quality of life for residents and visitors. The Program encourages the creative interaction of artists, developers, designers, City officials and community members during the design of development projects, in order to develop public art that is meaningful to the site and to the community. The Program anticipates a diverse range of art experiences throughout the City’s commercial districts, enlivening the public space available during the everyday routines of walking to work, eating at a sidewalk café, or shopping.

Integrated Waste Management (IWM) Program26
The City’s Integrated Waste Management (IWM) Department, in partnership with ReCreate, FoodCycle LA, and CareIt, is committed to advancing sustainable food practices and addressing food insecurity within our community. IWM is responsible for implementing a comprehensive food recovery program to help alleviate hunger, reduce food waste, and comply with organic waste disposal mandates. The City partners with businesses to evaluate their food recovery needs, including transporting surplus food to recovery organizations using platforms like the CareIt app and FoodCycle LA. These free apps also help businesses track donations and report them to CalRecycle.

Fresh Air Program27
Glendale's Fresh Air smoking ordinance is an example of Glendale's commitment to clean air and healthy residents alike. To limit the impact of secondhand tobacco smoke on non-smokers, the City has adopted regulations to provide smoke-free air in public places and areas where smokers and nonsmokers might interact.

1.7 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS
Glendale’s General Plan already addresses many environmental justice goals, policies, and actions within its Historic Preservation, Housing, Land Use, Mobility, Noise, Open Space and Conservation, Recreation, and Safety Elements.

An overview of how other General Plan Elements and City plans or programs are related to each of the eight EJ topics listed below is provided in Table 1.1.

23 https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/plans-for-mobility/vision-zero-action-plan 24 https://www.eglendalelac.org/bethechange
25 https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/planning/city-wide-plans/urban-art 26https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/public-works/integrated-waste-management/businesses/edible-food- recovery
27 https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-development/neighborhood-services/fresh-air-program 85 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 18 | P a g e

1.8 REPORT ORGANIZATION AND TOPICS ADDRESSED
With the adoption of SB 1000 in 2016, the California Government Code Section 65302(h) regarding General Plans was amended to include requirements related to incorporating environmental justice into local land use planning processes. This report is organized according to the eight EJ topics included in California Government Code Section 65302(h), listed below. A summary of findings is included in Section 2 of this report and a detailed analysis of each topic is provided in Section 3.

1. Reduce pollution exposure and improve air quality

2. Promote public facilities

3. Promote healthy food access

4. Promote safe and sanitary homes

5. Promote physical activity

6. Reduce any unique or compounded health risks not otherwise addressed

7. Promote civic engagement in the public decision-making process

8. Prioritize improvements and programs that address the needs of EJ Communities

TABLE 1.1: OTHER GENERAL PLAN ELEMENTS AND CITY PLANS OR PROGRAMS SUPPORTING EJ EFFORTS

Environmental Justice Topic General Plan Element City Plan or Program

1. Reduce pollution exposure and
improve air quality
Housing, Land Use, Mobility, Open
Space and Conservation, Safety
Climate Action and Adaptation Plan
(CAAP) (To be Adopted), 2024
Integrated Resource Plan (IRP),
Greener Glendale Plan (GPP), Green
Building Code and Standards, Clean
Construction, Fresh Air Program

2. Promote public facilities
Housing, Land Use, Mobility,
Recreation
Bicycle Transportation Plan,
Downtown Mobility Study, Citywide
Pedestrian Plan, Safe & Healthy
Streets Plan, Verdugo Wash: Active
Transportation Vision Study

3. Promote healthy food access N/A Integrated Waste Management (IWM) Program

4. Promote safe and sanitary
homes Historic Preservation, Housing,
Safety
Glendale Water & Power Residential
Programs & Rebates, Code
Enforcement

5. Promote physical activity
Land Use, Mobility, Open Space and
Conservation, Recreation
Bicycle Transportation Plan,
Downtown Mobility Study, Citywide
Pedestrian Plan, Safe & Healthy
Streets Plan, Be Street Smart
Glendale, Vision Zero Action Plan,
Verdugo Wash: Active
Transportation Vision Study

6. Reduce any unique or
compounded health risks not
otherwise addressed
Housing, Land Use, Mobility, Noise,
Open Space and Conservation,
Recreation, Safety
Be the Change Series, Urban Art
Program, Safe & Healthy Streets
Plan, Be Street Smart Glendale,
Vision Zero Action Plan, Fresh Air
Program

7. Promote civic engagement in
the public decision-making
process
Housing, Land Use, Noise, Open
Space and Conservation, Safety
Be the Change Series, Urban Art
Program

8. Prioritize improvements and
programs that address the
needs of EJ Communities Land Use, Open Space and
Conservation, Recreation, Safety
Bicycle Transportation Plan,
Downtown Mobility Study, Citywide
Pedestrian Plan, Safe & Healthy
Streets Plan, Be Street Smart
Glendale, Vision Zero Action Plan,
Verdugo Wash: Active
Transportation Vision Study
86 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 19 | P a g e

2. KEY TAKEAWAYS
Below is a summary of key takeaways for each of the eight EJ topics presented in this report.

More details about each topic are included in Section 3, Detailed Analysis.

2.1 REDUCE POLLUTION EXPOSURE AND IMPROVE AIR QUALITY
CalEnviroScreen is a science-based mapping tool that was used to determine overall pollution exposure and vulnerability of Glendale communities by census tract. CalEnviroScreen assigns a numerical score for each census tract in the state. The scores are representative of how vulnerable census tracts are to environmental “burdens”. A census tract with a high score is one that experiences higher pollution burden and vulnerability than census tracts with low scores.

Out of the 40 census tracts in Glendale, more than half (21) have high CalEnviroScreen scores, qualifying these tracts as EJ Communities. More information is provided in Section 3.1 explaining how CalEnviroScreen scores are derived.

Key issues include high pollution burdens from ozone, particulate matter, diesel particulate matter, and traffic, with EJ Communities experiencing the highest exposure, particularly in neighborhoods near major freeways and industrial areas. Several health burdens disproportionately affect EJ Communities, particularly in southern and western areas of the City, such as asthma, low birth weight, and cardiovascular disease. Socioeconomic issues such as linguistic isolation and housing cost burden are also prevalent, with many residents facing difficulties accessing affordable housing, particularly in low-income brackets.

Contributing factors are Glendale’s unique geography, proximity to major freeways, and historic and current industrial land uses. These disparities highlight the need for targeted policies and resources to address these inequities and improve the quality of life for vulnerable populations.

2.2 PROMOTE PUBLIC FACILITIES
Under SB 1000, “public facilities” is an umbrella term that includes “public improvements, public services, and community amenities.” If EJ Communities lack equal access to public facilities or if a city fails to provide sufficient public resources, these communities may face barriers to essential services. Such limitations can negatively impact health, reduce life expectancy, and harm mental well-being. Overall, Glendale has a wide variety of public facilities well-distributed throughout the City, many within EJ Communities, including transit stations, hospitals, public safety facilities, daycare centers, community centers, City Hall, post offices, libraries, public schools, and parks. Glendale can utilize options for dual purpose or joint use facilities to help address public needs. Regarding equitable distribution of and access to public transit, Glendale has good transit connectivity in its central and southern areas, with services like the Glendale Transportation Center, Beeline, and Metro buses, and there are opportunities for additional connections in western and northern areas of the City. Essential public services, including hospitals, fire and police stations, daycare centers, and libraries, are primarily concentrated in EJ Communities, though some areas, particularly in the north and west, have limited access to these resources.

2.3 PROMOTE HEALTHY FOOD ACCESS
Healthy food access encompasses the following three interrelated topics:

 Nutritionally adequate, culturally appropriate, and affordable food;  Income sufficient to purchase healthy food; and
 Proximity and ability to travel to a food source that offers affordable, nutritionally adequate, and culturally appropriate food.
87 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 20 | P a g e

Healthy food access is closely linked to individual food security, defined as one’s ability to obtain enough food to lead an active, healthy life. No comprehensive source of data regarding existing conditions on food insecurity and costs currently exists at a city level. As the best possible alternative, Feeding America, the nation’s largest domestic hunger-relief organization, produces the Map the Meal Gap report which offers insights on food insecurity and food costs at the county and congressional district level. Glendale is in Los Angeles County and within the 30th Congressional District. The 30th District has a slightly higher food insecurity rate than the County, and the average meal cost in Los Angeles County is higher than in the rest of the state and the nation. Slightly more than half of residents in the 30th District are eligible to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

There are at least 17 supermarkets within Glendale, and thirteen of these distributed throughout EJ Communities. Supermarkets are defined as larger food retailers that carry a wide selection of items and serve the community and surrounding area. Healthy food priority areas were identified using the USDA Food Access Research Atlas. They are defined as low-income census tracts with at least 500 people or 33% of the tract’s population living more than 1/2 mile from the nearest supermarket. There are four healthy food priority areas in Glendale, all within EJ Communities.

Most supermarkets are concentrated downtown. Areas where there is a deficit of supermarkets generally overlap with healthy food priority areas. There is a deficit of supermarkets in the healthy food priority area southwest of San Fernando Road; in the healthy food priority area bound by Grandview Avenue, Glenwood Road, and Pacific Avenue, and Glenoaks Boulevard; and in the healthy food priority area bound by Glendale Avenue, CA-134, and CA-2. There is also a deficit of supermarkets south of CA-134, west of Brand Boulevard and as well as generally in the southern portion of the City, south of Colorado Street (where there is also a healthy food priority area).

2.4 PROMOTE SAFE AND SANITARY HOMES
Housing conditions in EJ Communities can harm residents' health due to factors like poor indoor air quality, toxic materials, overcrowding, and structural instability, often linked to older housing. Financial strain exacerbates these issues, limiting access to repairs, healthcare, and nutritious food.

HOUSING STOCK CONDITIONS
A large proportion of housing stock that is over 30 years old typically indicates that most of the City’s housing stock could require major rehabilitation. Only about a third of the housing in Glendale is less than 50 years old; 36.6% of units were built in 1970 or later. The majority (63.4%) of housing units were built prior to 1970, with 30.6% built prior to 1950.

OVERCROWDING
The U.S. Census defines overcrowded households as more than one occupant per room (excluding bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and porches). About 3.1% of owner-occupied homes and 6.6% of renter-occupied homes are overcrowded, and a total of 5.5% of all households in Glendale are overcrowded.

COST BURDEN
In Glendale, more renters (57%) than homeowners (37%) are cost burdened, meaning they spend over 30% of their income on housing. Cost-burdened renters are more concentrated in 88 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 21 | P a g e

western Glendale, where multi-family housing and renter-occupied units are more prevalent, while cost-burdened homeowners are distributed citywide.

2.5 PROMOTE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Residents in EJ Communities often face limited opportunities for physical activity, contributing to negative health outcomes and an increased risk of chronic illnesses. Enhancing access to physical activity opportunities in these areas can significantly improve residents' physical health and overall well-being. The nonprofit organization Trust for Public Land provides data on park access levels for every urban city and town in the United States. They report that 77% of Glendale residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park. Their ParkServe® mapping platform helps pinpoint priority areas, defined as areas outside a 10-minute walk to a park, for new park investments. These priority areas in Glendale are primarily located along the northern boundary of the EJ Communities and slightly beyond. There are some additional priority areas scattered throughout the EJ Communities. Park priority areas will be further analyzed in the Open Space and Conservation Element and Recreation Element updates. Furthermore, the City has several plans and programs to continue improving and expanding the bicycle and pedestrian network, as detailed in Section 1, “Relationship Other City Plans and Programs”. Access to existing and planned parks in Glendale is expected to improve as the City implements these plans, programs, and Element updates..

2.6 REDUCE ANY UNIQUE OR COMPOUNDED HEALTH RISKS NOT

OTHERWISE ADDRESSED
Analyzing specific indicators that affect personal and communal health is important; but it is also essential to examine how each indicator affects one another, and how they combine to create unique health risks on both the individual and the community. This Report did not reveal any specific situations that would significantly compound health risks; however, certain unique characteristics of Glendale are important to consider, such as.

 Historically underrepresented groups
 Car-centric development patterns and air quality
 Vulnerability to natural disasters & climate change
 History of discriminatory practices

2.7 PROMOTE CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN THE PUBLIC DECISION-

MAKING PROCESS
Civic engagement is crucial for local planning, fostering a sense of place and investment in neighborhood improvements. In EJ Communities, engaging low-income, minority, and linguistically isolated stakeholders is essential to address their unique needs. Effective engagement strengthens the City’s relationship with the community and ensures decisions reflect community needs, leading to better investments in the future. Glendale offers various opportunities for civic engagement; however, residents may face challenges in identifying and accessing information about these opportunities as the information is dispersed across various departmental webpages. The demographic assessment of Glendale reveals key factors influencing civic participation and engagement.

 The City has a diverse age distribution, with 43.5% of the population aged 45 and older, and a significant portion of families with children under 15 (14.8%). The presence of many seniors suggests higher participation in conventional civic activities, while younger families may require outreach through virtual tools and community events. 89 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 22 | P a g e

 Linguistic isolation is prevalent in Glendale, particularly within EJ Communities, with 33% of households speaking limited English, indicating a need for translation services and culturally tailored engagement.
 Three census tracts in Glendale have high CalEnviroScreen burden scores for education, all within EJ Communities. Only eight census tracts have low burden scores. All other census tracts in Glendale have medium burden scores. Educational attainment can impact civic participation, with lower education correlating with reduced engagement due to underemployment or lack of time.
 Glendale's population is predominantly White (36%), with significant Armenian, Hispanic, and Asian or Pacific Islander communities, highlighting the importance of inclusive outreach to ensure all voices are heard and policies reflect the diverse needs of the City.

2.8 PRIORITIZE IMPROVEMENTS AND PROGRAMS THAT ADDRESS

THE NEEDS OF EJ COMMUNITIES
It is essential to prioritize projects, programs, and investments that directly serve and benefit residents within EJ Communities. Opportunity maps created by the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) can be used to inform the City how to target policies and investments. These maps measure and visualize place-based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes, such as educational attainment, earnings from employment, and economic mobility. The map also identifies areas that score better across nine economic, educational, and environmental indicators relative to other areas in the same region. The scores classify areas into four resource categories: highest, high, moderate, and low. Low resource areas are those most in need of investment.

The HCD/CTCAC opportunity map for Glendale shows that all census tracts in the northern portion of the City are considered highest resource areas. Many census tracts within EJ Communities are considered high resource areas, though there are eight moderate resource tracts, mostly concentrated in the southern portion of the City. There are no low resource areas in the City.
90 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 23 | P a g e

3. DETAILED ANALYSIS

3.1 REDUCE POLLUTION EXPOSURE AND IMPROVE AIR QUALITY
CalEnviroScreen 4.0 was used to determine pollution exposure and vulnerability in Glendale.

WHAT IS CALENVIROSCREEN?
CalEnviroScreen is a science-based mapping tool that helps identify California communities that are most affected by many sources of pollution, and that are often especially vulnerable to pollution’s effects. CalEnviroScreen uses environmental health, and socioeconomic information to produce a numerical score for each census tract in the state. The results are depicted on maps so that different communities can be compared to one another. A census tract with a high score is one that experiences higher pollution burden and vulnerability than census tracts with low scores. CalEnviroScreen ranks census tracts based on data that are available from state and federal government sources. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 is the most current version and was released in October 2021.

The CalEnviroScreen 4.0 model is made up of four components: Two Pollution Burden components: Exposures and Environmental Effects; and two Population Characteristics components: Sensitive Populations and Socioeconomic Factors. Each component is made up of a set of indicators. There are 13 Pollution Burden indicators and eight Population Characteristics indicators, for a total of 21 indicators. Each indicator is described in more detail in Section 3.1.1.

Pollution Burden Indicators
Represent the potential exposures to pollutants
and the adverse environmental conditions caused
by pollution.

Population Characteristics Indicators
Represent physiological traits, health status, or
community characteristics that can result in
increased vulnerability to pollution.

EXPOSURES SENSITIVE POPULATIONS

1. Ozone 1. Asthma

2. Particulate Matter 2.5 2. Low Birth Weight

3. Diesel Particulate Matter 3. Cardiovascular Disease

4. Pesticides SOCIOECONOMIC FACTORS

5. Toxic Releases 4. Education

6. Traffic 5. Linguistic Isolation

7. Drinking Water 6. Poverty

8. Children’s Lead Exposure Risk From Housing 7. Unemployment ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 8. Housing Burden

9. Cleanup Sites

10. Groundwater Threats

11. Hazardous Waste

12. Impaired Water Bodies

13. Solid Waste

91 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 24 | P a g e

HOW ARE CALENVIROSCREEN SCORES CALCULATED?
The overall CalEnviroScreen score is based on a combination of the Pollution Burden score and the Population Characteristics score, but it is not a direct multiplication of the two. Instead, a weighted formula is used to account for the different factors that influence environmental and health vulnerabilities. Because of this weighting, the overall CalEnviroScreen score does not equal the simple product of the individual Pollution Burden score and Population Characteristics score. A summarized explanation is provided below, and a full explanation of the calculation methodology can be found in the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Report.28

For a given census tract, scores for the Pollution Burden and Population Characteristics are calculated as follows:

 First, the percentiles for all the individual indicators in a component are averaged. This becomes the score for that component. When combining the Exposures and Environmental Effects components, the Environmental Effects score was weighted half as much as the Exposures score. This was done because the contribution to possible pollutant burden from the Environmental Effects component was less than those from sources in the Exposures component. More specifically, the Environmental Effects components represent the presence of pollutants in a community rather than exposure to them. Thus, the Exposure component receives twice the weight as Environmental Effects component.

 The Population Characteristics score is the average of the Sensitive Population score and Socioeconomic Factors score.

 The Pollution Burden and Population Characteristics scores are then scaled so that they have a maximum value of 10 and a possible range of 0 to 10. A value of zero typically implies that monitoring or reporting was conducted, but no impacts were present.

 Each average was divided by the maximum value observed in the state and then multiplied by 10. The scaling ensures that the pollution component and population component contribute equally to the overall CalEnviroScreen score.

Since each group has a maximum score of 10, the maximum CalEnviroScreen score is 100. Each census tract in the state is assigned a score between 0 to 100 for as many of the 21 indicators as possible based on available data. Some census tracts will not have scores for every one of the indicators. The scores represent the degree of pollution exposure and vulnerability, or “burdens,” facing each census tract.

 Scores between 75 to 100 are considered a high burden  Scores between 25 to 74 are a medium burden
 Scores between 0 to 24 are a low burden

28 https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen40reportf2021.pdf, pages 17-24. 92 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 25 | P a g e

The CalEnviroScreen 4.0 website includes a “Data Dashboard” which provides summary data for each city in California.29 Average scores for the City of Glendale are shown below.

Tables 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 show the citywide Pollution Burden and Population Characteristics scores for each indicator. Glendale has high scores for Drinking Water (81), Linguistic Isolation (83), and Housing Burden (77).

Table 3.1.3 presents the scores for each of the 13 Pollution Burden indicators by census tract. Out of 40, 23 census tracts in the City of Glendale have high total Pollution Burden scores.

Table 3.1.4 presents the scores for each of the eight Population Characteristics indicators by census tract. Out of 40, 10 census tracts in the City of Glendale have high total Population Characteristics scores.

Table 3.1.5 presents the total Pollution Burden scores, total Population Characteristics scores, and the overall CalEnviroScreen scores by census tract. Out of 40, 21 census tracts in the City of Glendale have high overall CalEnviroScreen scores, qualifying these tracts as EJ Communities. These are depicted in Figure 1.1 in Section 1.

29 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/6b863505f9454cea802f4be0b4b49d62 TABLE 3.1.1: CITYWIDE POLLUTION

BURDEN INDICATOR SCORES
Pollution Indicators Score

1. Ozone 74

2. Particulate Matter 2.5 67

3. Diesel Particulate
Matter 63

4. Pesticides 0

5. Toxic Releases 71

6. Traffic 57

7. Drinking Water 81

8. Lead Exposure 61

9. Cleanup Sites 62

10. Groundwater Threats 34

11. Hazardous Waste 47

12. Impaired Water Bodies 43

13. Solid Waste 47

TABLE 3.1.2: CITYWIDE POPULATION

CHARACTERISTICS INDICATOR SCORES
Population Indicators Score

1. Asthma 34

2. Low Birth Weight 43

3. Cardiovascular
Disease 62

4. Education 45

5. Linguistic Isolation 83

6. Poverty 51

7. Unemployment 59

8. Housing Burden 77

Average Population Characteristics Score
Average Pollution Burden Score
Average Overall CalEnviroScreen Score
93 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 26 | P a g e

TABLE 3.1.3: POLLUTION BURDEN INDICATOR SCORES BY CENSUS TRACT Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0
EJ Communities are in bold.

Color Key

High Burden: 75 – 100 Medium Burden: 25 – 74 Low Burden: 0 – 24

# Census
Tract ZIP Assembly
District Population Ozone Particulate
Matter 2.5
Diesel
Particulate
Matter 2.5
Pesticides Toxic
Releases Traffic Drinking
Water
Lead
Exposure
Cleanup
Sites
Groundwater
Threats
Hazardous
Waste
Impaired
Water
Bodies
Solid
Waste
TOTAL

POLLUTION
BURDEN
SCORE

1. 6037300301 91214 44

6,024 91 56 17 0 61 13 97 52 0 65 31 24 10 46

2. 6037300400 91214 44

5,986 89 59 70 0 64 83 97 61 0 67 36 24 53 83

3. 6037300600 91208 44

9,609 83 60 51 0 66 60 98 54 69 76 24 24 10 77

4. 6037300701 91208 44

5,835 80 57 9 0 67 55 76 62 19 17 6 59 53 54

5. 6037300702 91207 44

5,430 78 60 11 0 68 49 76 44 0 0 39 33 53 44

6. 6037300800 91208 44

7,280 77 59 53 0 67 81 98 64 31 78 36 24 0 78

7. 6037300901 91206 44

6,540 75 58 15 0 67 40 94 32 0 4 11 24 85 43

8. 6037300902 91206 44

1,981 74 60 35 16 67 100 76 57 0 25 31 0 90 71

9. 6037301000 91206 44

5,230 74 63 86 0 68 90 76 73 0 4 29 33 22 71

10. 6037301100 91207 44

7,114 74 67 60 0 68 68 76 51 0 0 55 33 13 58

11. 6037301203 91202 44

4,711 74 69 33 0 69 25 76 41 80 0 27 59 13 54

12. 6037301204 91202 44

5,284 73 69 53 0 69 46 76 33 91 0 39 59 26 68

13. 6037301205 91202 44

2,106 75 68 27 0 69 14 76 74 91 28 10 59 27 65

14. 6037301206 91202 44

5,281 74 70 74 0 70 40 76 55 91 42 50 59 64 89

15. 6037301300 91202 44

1,894 77 67 15 0 68 8 76 77 34 0 7 59 36 47

16. 6037301400 91201 44

4,190 78 66 59 0 68 5 94 79 34 0 2 59 53 63

17. 6037301501 91201 44

1,790 77 68 54 0 69 11 76 81 81 32 27 59 26 74

18. 6037301502 91201 44

6,750 77 68 65 0 69 35 76 49 93 77 67 59 55 91

19. 6037301601 91201 44

6,112 75 69 94 0 70 91 76 59 97 96 93 77 98 100

20. 6037301602 91201 44

4,446 74 70 94 0 69 97 94 79 95 83 87 77 71 100
94 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 27 | P a g e

POLLUTION
BURDEN
SCORE

21. 6037301701 91202 44

2,962 74 70 89 0 71 86 76 75 95 75 84 59 89 99

22. 6037301702 91203 52

5,835 72 70 97 0 79 90 76 69 97 89 94 59 95 100

23. 6037301801 91203 44

5,258 72 69 92 0 70 85 76 41 91 51 65 59 39 94

24. 6037301802 91203 52

4,516 70 70 96 0 73 55 76 38 82 51 86 59 59 94

25. 6037301900 91206 44

8,192 72 68 98 0 69 90 76 39 34 0 72 33 64 85

26. 6037302002 91206 52

3,949 70 68 100 0 71 56 76 65 94 0 72 33 65 90

27. 6037302003 91206 52

3,665 70 68 93 0 71 57 76 43 86 0 53 33 42 81

28. 6037302004 91206 52

4,151 72 68 94 0 70 75 76 63 62 2 38 24 13 77

29. 6037302102 91205 52

5,946 69 69 61 0 72 82 94 60 34 11 10 0 36 66

30. 6037302103 91205 52

5,430 70 69 63 0 72 35 76 64 62 4 30 0 22 57

31. 6037302104 91205 52

4,288 72 68 87 0 70 90 97 80 0 22 24 0 36 77

32. 6037302201 91205 52

4,019 69 68 67 0 73 54 76 44 95 0 63 0 43 73

33. 6037302202 91205 52

5,510 69 69 69 0 76 54 76 74 95 0 48 59 26 84

34. 6037302301 91204 52

3,985 69 71 79 0 93 55 76 54 95 88 96 59 84 98

35. 6037302302 91204 52

5,337 69 72 71 0 93 57 76 73 95 60 95 59 84 98

36. 6037302401 91204 52

7,395 67 72 73 0 77 58 76 77 96 82 92 59 92 98

37. 6037302503 91205 52

4,290 69 71 49 0 75 43 76 73 93 0 27 59 43 78

38. 6037302504 91205 52

4,273 68 71 41 0 77 39 76 75 92 0 19 59 43 74

39. 6037302505 91205 52

4,376 67 70 73 0 75 57 76 74 92 89 72 59 44 96

40. 6037302506 91205 52

3,262 67 70 58 0 74 43 79 61 91 51 46 59 14 82

95 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 28 | P a g e

TABLE 3.1.4: POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS INDICATOR SCORES BY CENSUS TRACT Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0
EJ Communities are in bold.

Color Key

High Burden: 75 – 100 Medium Burden: 25 – 74 Low Burden: 0 – 24

# Census Tract ZIP Assembly
District Population Asthma Low Birth
Weight
Cardiovascular
Disease Education Linguistic
Isolation Poverty Unemployment Housing
Burden
TOTAL

POPULATION

CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE

1. 6037300301 91214 44

6,024 15 25 26 22 56 14 16 13 11

2. 6037300400 91214 44

5,986 23 65 39 36 53 29 21 55 36

3. 6037300600 91208 44

9,609 8 8 16 31 76 30 28 88 21

4. 6037300701 91208 44

5,835 7 87 11 13 53 15 25 19 20

5. 6037300702 91207 44

5,430 3 5 18 11 67 14 N/A 24 7

6. 6037300800 91208 44

7,280 10 30 22 21 70 25 47 54 23

7. 6037300901 91206 44

6,540 12 14 23 26 72 3 35 24 12

8. 6037300902 91206 44

1,981 29 76 57 24 47 6 62 21 39

9. 6037301000 91206 44

5,230 21 34 50 47 73 50 67 83 50

10. 6037301100 91207 44

7,114 10 17 58 15 84 46 61 92 41

11. 6037301203 91202 44

4,711 27 13 75 56 90 42 85 80 57

12. 6037301204 91202 44

5,284 27 33 75 43 95 53 57 97 61

13. 6037301205 91202 44

2,106 27 9 75 10 63 5 68 16 27

14. 6037301206 91202 44

5,281 27 2 75 54 93 64 54 92 55

15. 6037301300 91202 44

1,894 21 88 65 7 51 11 88 58 51

16. 6037301400 91201 44

4,190 26 11 47 26 42 25 73 64 30

17. 6037301501 91201 44

1,790 33 18 58 39 81 29 2 68 35

18. 6037301502 91201 44

6,750 32 23 57 65 99 77 87 98 68

19. 6037301601 91201 44

6,112 33 71 59 77 99 75 73 96 79

20. 6037301602 91201 44

4,446 27 73 47 68 83 __44 67 77 63
96 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 29 | P a g e

# Census Tract ZIP Assembly
District Population Asthma Low Birth
Weight
Cardiovascular
Disease Education Linguistic
Isolation Poverty Unemployment Housing
Burden
TOTAL

POPULATION

CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE

21. 6037301701 91202 44

2,962 18 97 58 46 74 38 28 70 57

22. 6037301702 91203 52

5,835 40 26 78 57 87 63 70 91 67

23. 6037301801 91203 44

5,258 33 50 72 47 95 59 56 91 67

24. 6037301802 91203 52

4,516 34 10 71 45 96 53 56 96 56

25. 6037301900 91206 44

8,192 34 54 70 41 97 50 39 95 63

26. 6037302002 91206 52

3,949 39 49 75 36 96 64 70 92 70

27. 6037302003 91206 52

3,665 30 48 60 52 94 62 32 99 61

28. 6037302004 91206 52

4,151 42 25 80 54 98 76 62 95 70

29. 6037302102 91205 52

5,946 54 52 79 30 73 30 44 77 60

30. 6037302103 91205 52

5,430 58 50 88 59 99 74 82 98 85

31. 6037302104 91205 52

4,288 47 85 79 55 97 66 79 93 86

32. 6037302201 91205 52

4,019 39 35 68 75 99 89 56 97 73

33. 6037302202 91205 52

5,510 69 25 96 68 98 84 59 96 83

34. 6037302301 91204 52

3,985 35 32 46 59 90 73 80 91 63

35. 6037302302 91204 52

5,337 77 61 89 67 97 71 66 86 89

36. 6037302401 91204 52

7,395 74 42 85 66 98 86 95 99 90

37. 6037302503 91205 52

4,290 64 64 93 54 97 81 75 99 90

38. 6037302504 91205 52

4,273 63 69 92 63 97 92 91 99 94

39. 6037302505 91205 52

4,376 47 63 66 75 98 89 86 99 85

40. 6037302506 91205 52

3,262 59 88 85 61 90 73 44 79 85

97 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 30 | P a g e

TABLE 3.1.5: TOTAL POLLUTION BURDEN, POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS, AND OVERALL CALENVIROSCREEN SCORES BY CENSUS TRACT Source: CalEnviroScreen 4.0
EJ Communities are in bold.

Color Key

High Burden: 75 – 100 Medium Burden: 25 – 74 Low Burden: 0 – 24

# Census
Tract ZIP Assembly
District Population
TOTAL

POLLUTION
BURDEN
SCORE
TOTAL

POPULATION

CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE

OVERALL

CALENVIROSCREEN
SCORE

1. 6037300301 91214 44

6,024 46 11 18

2. 6037300400 91214 44

5,986 83 36 56

3. 6037300600 91208 44

9,609 77 21 39

4. 6037300701 91208 44

5,835 54 20 30

5. 6037300702 91207 44

5,430 44 7 12

6. 6037300800 91208 44

7,280 78 23 41

7. 6037300901 91206 44

6,540 43 12 19

8. 6037300902 91206 44

1,981 71 39 53

9. 6037301000 91206 44

5,230 71 50 61

10. 6037301100 91207 44

7,114 58 41 49

11. 6037301203 91202 44

4,711 54 57 60

12. 6037301204 91202 44

5,284 68 61 68

13. 6037301205 91202 44

2,106 65 27 40

14. 6037301206 91202 44

5,281 89 55 74

15. 6037301300 91202 44

1,894 47 51 52

16. 6037301400 91201 44

4,190 63 30 43

17. 6037301501 91201 44

1,790 74 35 51

18. 6037301502 91201 44

6,750 91 68 84

19. 6037301601 91201 44

6,112 100 79 98

20. 6037301602 91201 44

4,446 100 63 93
# Census
Tract ZIP Assembly
District Population
TOTAL

POLLUTION
BURDEN
SCORE
TOTAL

POPULATION

CHARACTERISTICS
SCORE

OVERALL

CALENVIROSCREEN
SCORE

21. 6037301701 91202 44

2,962 99 57 87

22. 6037301702 91203 52

5,835 100 67 94

23. 6037301801 91203 44

5,258 94 67 85

24. 6037301802 91203 52

4,516 94 56 79

25. 6037301900 91206 44

8,192 85 63 78

26. 6037302002 91206 52

3,949 90 70 85

27. 6037302003 91206 52

3,665 81 61 73

28. 6037302004 91206 52

4,151 77 70 78

29. 6037302102 91205 52

5,946 66 60 67

30. 6037302103 91205 52

5,430 57 85 78

31. 6037302104 91205 52

4,288 77 86 87

32. 6037302201 91205 52

4,019 73 73 78

33. 6037302202 91205 52

5,510 84 83 89

34. 6037302301 91204 52

3,985 98 63 89

35. 6037302302 91204 52

5,337 98 89 98

36. 6037302401 91204 52

7,395 98 90 99

37. 6037302503 91205 52

4,290 78 90 90

38. 6037302504 91205 52

4,273 74 94 91

39. 6037302505 91205 52

4,376 96 85 96

40. 6037302506 91205 52

3,262 82 85 89
98 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 31 | P a g e

3.1.1. INDICATOR DESCRIPTIONS
This Section includes descriptions of the individual Pollution Burden and Population Characteristics indicators mentioned above. Even for census tracts that are not within EJ Communities, examining how different areas are impacted by the individual indicators can help identify areas of vulnerability within Glendale, providing valuable insight to guide future decision-making.

POLLUTION BURDEN INDICATORS
More than half (23) of census tracts in Glendale have high overall Pollution Burden indicator scores, and 20 of these are within EJ Communities, particularly in neighborhoods near major freeways and industrial areas. Key issues include high pollution burdens from ozone, particulate matter, diesel particulate matter, and traffic, with EJ Communities experiencing the highest exposure. Other concerns include drinking water, children's lead exposure risks, hazardous waste sites, and impaired water bodies, particularly in the southern and western parts of the City. These environmental burdens are compounded by the presence of cleanup sites, groundwater threats, and solid waste facilities in EJ Communities. There also some concerns over aging infrastructure, including old housing stock and contamination from past industrial activities, particularly along the San Fernando Road corridor. Out of the 13 individual Pollution Burden indicators, there are at least some census tracts with high burden scores for the 11 indicators shown in Table 3.1.6:

TABLE 3.1.6: POLLUTION BURDEN INDICATORS WITH HIGH BURDEN SCORES Indicator Total Census Tracts
With High Burden
Scores
Census Tracts Within
EJ Communities

1. Ozone 13 2

2. Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 13 13

3. Toxic Release Burden Scores 8 1

4. Traffic Impacts 13 10

5. Drinking Water 40 21

6. Children’s Lead Risk 8 5

7. Cleanup Sites 23 21

8. Groundwater Threats 10 8

9. Hazardous Waste 8 8

10. Impaired Water Bodies 2 2

11. Solid Waste 8 6

More details about all 13 Pollution Burden indicators are included below.

1. OZONE
Thirteen census tracts in Glendale have high burden scores for ozone and two of these are within EJ Communities. Ozone is the main ingredient of smog. The main sources of ozone are trucks, cars, trains, factories, construction, and dry cleaners. At ground level, ozone is formed when pollutants chemically react in the presence of sunlight. Higher temperatures can increase surface ozone concentrations as increased water vapor in the air can trap ozone in already polluted areas. Higher future temperatures will likely increase the production of ground-level 99 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 32 | P a g e

ozone. Communities with high burden scores for ozone pollution are concentrated in the northern Glendale in the neighborhoods of Sparr Heights, Whiting Woods, Montrose and Crescenta Highlands. The high scores may be due to their proximity to major freeways, exposing them to higher levels of vehicle exhaust as well as their location in the valley between the Verdugo, San Gabriel Mountains and San Rafael Hills. Ozone can irritate the lungs, cause inflammation, and make chronic illnesses worse, even at low levels of exposure.

Children and the elderly are sensitive to the effects of ozone. Ozone levels are highest in the afternoon and on hot days. People who spend a lot of time outdoors may also be more affected by ozone.30

2. PARTICULATE MATTER 2.5
All census tracts in Glendale have medium burden scores for particulate matter 2.5 (PM2.5).

PM2.5 is a very small airborne particle, less than 2.5 micrometers, which is less than the thickness of a human hair. PM2.5 is a mixture of particles that can include organic chemicals, dust, soot, and metals. These particles can come from cars and trucks, factories, wood burning, and other activities. Direct contributors of PM2.5 within Glendale varies for each community but can be attributed to factors such as local geography, proximity to major freeways, and industrial land uses in the City. PM2.5 particles can travel deep into the lungs because they are so small and cause various health problems including heart and lung disease. Children, the elderly, and people suffering from heart or lung disease, asthma, or chronic illness are most sensitive to the effects of PM2.5 exposure.31

3. DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER
Thirteen census tracts in Glendale have high diesel particulate matter (DPM) burden scores, and all of these are within EJ Communities in southern and western Glendale. Exhaust from trucks, buses, trains, and other equipment with diesel engines contain a mixture of gases and solid particles. The solid material in diesel exhaust is known as DPM. Glendale is traversed by four major freeways transporting millions of vehicles through the City every year, including Interstate 210 (Foothill Freeway) in the north, State Route 2 in the east, State Route 134 (Ventura Freeway) in the south, and Interstate 5 in the southwest corner of the City. These major traffic corridors expose certain neighborhoods to higher DPM pollution levels. More than 90% of DPM is less than 1 micrometer in diameter (about 1/70th the diameter of a human hair) and thus is a subset of PM2.5.32 DPM contains hundreds of different chemicals. Many of these are harmful to health. The highest levels of DPM are usually near rail yards, ports, and freeways.

The particles in DPM can reach deep into the lung, where they can contribute to health problems including eye, throat and nose irritation, heart and lung disease, and lung cancer.

Children and the elderly are most sensitive to the effects of DPM.33

4. PESTICIDES
All census tracts in Glendale have low burden scores for pesticides. Wind erosion, drift, or volatilization of pesticides from agricultural fields can be a source of pesticide exposure and can spread pesticides over a greater distance than the immediate area.34 Exposure to pesticides is typically more of an issue in communities near agricultural operations, so this is not a significant issue in Glendale.

5. TOXIC RELEASES
All census tracts in Glendale have at least a medium burden score for toxic releases. Eight census tracts in Glendale have high burden scores for toxic releases and these are all within

30 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators/?views=Ozone 31 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators/?views=PM2.5 32 https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/overview-diesel-exhaust-and-health#:~:text=The%20solid%20material%20in%20diesel,5) 33 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators/?views=Diesel-Particulate-Matter 34 https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen40reportf2021.pdf#page=79 100 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 33 | P a g e

EJ Communities. Facilities that make or use toxic chemicals can release these chemicals into the air and these chemicals are sometimes detected in the air of communities nearby. The census tracts with high burden scores are near industrial communities such as Vineyard, Moorpark, Pacific Edison, and Tropico neighborhoods. People living near these facilities may be more prone to breathing contaminated air.35

6. TRAFFIC
Thirteen of Glendale’s census tracts have high burden scores for traffic impacts, which includes air pollution.36 Out of these, ten are within EJ Communities, primarily located adjacent to freeways. While California has strict vehicle-emissions standards, exhaust from cars and trucks is still one of the main sources of air pollution in much of the state. Major roads and highways can bring air pollutants and noise into nearby neighborhoods. As mentioned above, Glendale is traversed by four major freeways transporting millions of vehicles through the City every year. Communities near these freeways may be exposed to higher levels of air pollution from traffic. Children who live or go to school near busy roads have higher rates of asthma than children in areas farther from roads.

7. DRINKING WATER
Glendale has a high burden score overall for drinking water (81), and all census tracts in Glendale have high burden scores for drinking water. The drinking water contaminant index used to calculate CalEnviroScreen scores is a combination of contaminant data that considers the relative concentrations of different contaminants and whether multiple contaminants are present.37 The indicator does not indicate whether water is safe to drink.38 Most drinking water in California meets health standards, and Glendale Water and Power (GWP) provides safe, reliable, and cost-effective water to City of Glendale residents. The City is required to prepare an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) and update it every five years. This plan supports GWP’s long-term resource planning to ensure that adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water needs. The 2020 City of Glendale UWMP states that 60% to 70% of Glendale’s water supply comes from imported water provided by Metropolitan Water District (MWD) via the Colorado River Aqueduct and the State Water Project, which imports water from the Sacramento Delta. The remainder of Glendale’s supply comes from local groundwater and recycled water.39

Glendale’s drinking water burden scores are in line with those of surrounding communities such as Los Angeles, Burbank, and Pasadena. This could potentially be related to the San Fernando Valley (Area 2) Superfund Site, described below in #9. Ongoing coordination with the State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA), the developer of CalEnviroScreen, may be needed to understand why Glendale and other cities in the region have high drinking water burden scores.

8. CHILDREN’S LEAD EXPOSURE RISK FROM HOUSING
Eight census tracts in Glendale have high burden scores for children’s lead exposure risk from housing, and five of these are within an EJ Communities. Lead is a toxic metal that occurs naturally in the environment. Historically, lead has been used in house paint, plumbing, and as a gasoline additive. While lead levels have declined over the past five decades in the United States, it still persists in older housing. Most census tracts with high burden scores are in

35 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators/?views=Toxic-Releases-from- Facilities
36 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators/?views=Traffic-Impacts 37 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators/?data_id=dataSource_41- 17c4c93b14c-layer-14%3A1350&views=Drinking-Water-Contaminants 38 https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen40reportf2021.pdf#page=54 39 https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/62412/638562960022130000 101 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 34 | P a g e

communities in southern portions of the City with older housing stock. Exposure to lead through paint is the most significant source of lead exposure for children. There are no known safe levels of lead exposure. Young children are especially susceptible to the effects of lead exposure and can suffer adverse health effects, particularly in the brain and nervous system. This increased susceptibility is due to children’s unique exposure pathways, developing brains, and differences in the absorption of ingested lead. Children’s exposure to lead even at low levels can lead to a higher likelihood of lower IQ and educational performance outcomes, and symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).40

9. CLEANUP SITES
More than half (23) of census tracts in Glendale have high burden scores for cleanup sites. All but two of these are within EJ Communities. Most cleanup sites within Glendale are concentrated in industrial areas along San Fernando Road. One cleanup site is located in the Montrose neighborhood. As previously mentioned, there is one active Superfund Site that traverses the City of Glendale, referred to as San Fernando Valley, Area 2.41 This 6,680-acre area traverses multiple cities. Within Glendale boundaries, it is mostly located in the Riverside Rancho, Grand Central, and Pelanconi neighborhoods.42 Cleanup sites are places that are contaminated with hazardous chemicals and require clean up by the property owners or government. The Department of Toxic Substances Control tracks cleanups of contaminated sites in California. Chemicals at cleanup sites can move through the air or groundwater. People living near these sites have greater potential to be exposed to chemicals from the sites than people living further away. Neighborhoods with cleanup sites are generally poorer and have more people of color than other neighborhoods.43 The land may take many years or decades to clean up, reducing possible benefits to the community from potential public facilities.44

10. GROUNDWATER THREATS
Ten census tracts in Glendale have high burden scores for groundwater threats. All but two of these are within EJ Communities. Groundwater threats in Glendale are concentrated along San Fernando Road as well as the communities of Montrose and La Crescenta. Groundwater threats include the storage and disposal of hazardous materials on land and in underground storage tanks at various types of commercial, industrial, and military sites. Groundwater threats may occur when leaks from containers and tanks that contain hazardous chemicals spill and contaminate the soil and pollute water sources. Hazardous chemicals are often stored in containers on land or in underground storage tanks. Leaks from tanks can contaminate soil and groundwater. Common soil and groundwater pollutants include gasoline and diesel fuels at gas stations, as well as solvents, heavy metals, and pesticides.45

There are two active locations within the Planning Area that are listed in the GeoTracker database for Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (“LUST”) as shown in Table 3.1.7, GeoTracker Database Sites. Most LUST sites in the Planning Area have a status of Completed – Case Closed.

However, one location has an open case. Interstate Brand Corporation located at 6841 San Fernando Rd is open with remediation measures.

40 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators/?data_id=dataSource_41- 17c4c93b14c-layer-14%3A1350&views=Children%E2%80%99s-Lead-Risk-from-Housing 41 https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Cleanup&id=0902252#bkground 42 https://map22.epa.gov/cimc/superfundZoom&params=0902252&15 43 https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen40reportf2021.pdf#page=106 44 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators/?data_id=dataSource_41- 17c4c93b14c-layer-14%3A1350&views=Cleanup-Sites
45 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators/?data_id=dataSource_41- 17c4c93b14c-layer-14%3A1350&views=Groundwater-Threats
102 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 35 | P a g e

TABLE 3.1.7: GEOTRACKER DATABASE SITES
Site Name Address Site Type Status
Interstate Brands Corporation
6841 San Fernando
Rd
Lust Cleanup
Site Open - Remediation
Source: California State Water Resource Control Geotracker Database. Available at:
https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/map/?CMD=runreport&myaddress=Glendale . Accessed February 5, 2025.

11. HAZARDOUS WASTE
Eight census tracts in Glendale have high burden scores for hazardous waste which are all within EJ Communities, primarily located along San Fernando Road. Hazardous waste can range from used automotive oil to highly toxic waste materials produced by factories and businesses. Hazardous waste is transported from businesses that generate waste to permitted facilities for recycling, treatment, storage, or disposal. Studies have found that hazardous waste facilities are often located near poor neighborhoods and communities of color. Hazardous waste facilities often are cause for concern about effects on health and the environment in communities where they operate. There are seven active hazardous waste sites in the City according to the Cortese List, listed below:

TABLE 3.1.8: CORTESE LIST SITES

12. IMPAIRED WATER BODIES
Two census tracts in Glendale have high burden scores for impaired water bodies, both in EJ Communities in western Glendale. These two census tracts are within the neighborhoods of Riverside Ranch, Grand Central, and Grandview. Within these neighborhoods, there are several impaired water bodies that intersect including the Burbank Western Channel and Los Angeles River Reach 4 (Sepulveda Drive to Sepulveda Dam), Los Angeles River Reach 3 (Figueroa Street to Riverside Drive), Verdugo Wash Reach 1 (Los Angeles River to Verdugo Road). This indicator is calculated by considering the number of pollutants in water bodies listed as impaired (contaminated by pollutants) and the water bodies’ distance to the census tract.

Water bodies like streams, rivers, or lakes are used for recreation and fishing or may provide Site / Facility Name Envirostor Id Program Type Status Address Description Site Code Central Cleaners 60003360 Evaluation Active
1100 So Central Ave
#C 308053
Elite Cleaners 60003362 Evaluation Active 1242 W Glenoaks Blvd 308055 Palace Cleaners
Glendale 60002013
State
Response Active
201 South Glendale
Avenue 301655
San Fernando Valley
(Area 2) 19990012
Federal
Superfund -
Listed Active
Crystal Springs
Wellfield Area 300127
The Drilube Co. 71002199
State
Response Active 711 W. Broadway 402089
Windsor Cleaners 60003368 Evaluation Active 730 S Central Ave #114 308059 Windsor Cleaners 60003369 Evaluation Active
721 S Central Ave Ste
D 308060
Source: Department of Toxic Substances Control Envirostor Database. Available at: https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov Accessed November 1, 2024
103 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 36 | P a g e

water for drinking or irrigation. These impairments can harm wildlife habitats and prevent recreational and other uses of the water body.46

13. SOLID WASTE
Eight census tracts in Glendale have high burden scores for solid waste, and all but two of these are within EJ Communities. Solid waste facilities are places where household garbage and similar kinds of waste are collected, processed, or stored. These include landfills and composting or recycling facilities. The waste material may come from homes, factories, or businesses. Most of these operations require permits. Regulated facilities as well as illegal sites that do not comply with the law can harm the environment and potentially expose people to hazardous substances. Solid waste facilities can also raise concern in a community about odors, insect pests, vermin, and truck traffic.47

California’s Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (“CalRecycle”) maintains the Solid Waste Information System (SWIS), which is a database of solid waste facilities. The SWIS database identifies active, planned and closed sites. It shows there are five active solid waste facilities located within the Planning Area, although Scholl Canyon has a planned closure for 2027.48

TABLE 3.1.9: SOLID WASTE FACILITIES IN GLENDALE
Name Address Activity Classification
City of Glendale MRF
and TS
540 W. Chevy Chase Dr Limited Volume
Transfer Operation
Solid Waste Operation
City of Glendale
Corporation Yard
541 Chevy Chase Blvd. Limited Volume
Transfer Operation
Solid Waste Operation
Scholl Canyon
Landfill
3001 Scholl Canyon
Road
Solid Waste Landfill Solid Waste Facility
City of Glendale
Brand Park T.S.
1602 West Mountain
Street
Limited Volume
Transfer Operation
Solid Waste Operation
Road Division 514 3916 Dunsmore Ave.

La Crescenta, CA 91214
Limited Volume
Transfer Operation
Solid Waste Operation
Glendale Recycling
Center
540 W. Chevy Chase Dr. Recycling Facility Recycling Facility Source: CalRecycle, 2024, SWIS Facility/Site Search. Available at:
https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Search. Accessed November 1, 2024.

46 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators/?data_id=dataSource_41- 17c4c93b14c-layer-14%3A1350%2CdataSource_29-17c39109ce9-layer-2%3A7420&views=Impaired-Waters 47 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators/?data_id=dataSource_41- 17c4c93b14c-layer-14%3A1350%2CdataSource_29-17c39109ce9-layer-2%3A7420&views=Solid-Waste-Sites 48 https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community-services-parks/capital-improvement-program/scholl-canyon- landfill-project
104 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 37 | P a g e

POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS INDICATORS
Ten census tracts in Glendale have high overall Population Characteristics burden indicator scores, and all of these are within EJ Communities. Several health and socioeconomic burdens disproportionately affect EJ Communities, particularly in southern and western areas of the City.

The most prevalent of which include cardiovascular disease, linguistic isolation, and housing burden. These disparities highlight the need for targeted policies and resources to address these inequities and improve the quality of life for vulnerable populations. There are at least some census tracts with high burden scores for all eight individual Population Characteristics indicators, shown in Table 3.1.10:

TABLE 3.1.10: POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS INDICATORS WITH HIGH BURDEN SCORES Indicator Total Census Tracts
With High Burden
Scores
Census Tracts Within
EJ Communities

1. Asthma 1 1

2. Low Birth Weight 6 3

3. Cardiovascular Disease 16 15

4. Education 3 3

5. Linguistic Isolation 27 25

6. Poverty 9 9

7. Unemployment 10 9

8. Housing Burden 28 27

More details about all eight Population Characteristics indicators are included below.

1. ASTHMA
There is one census tract in Glendale within EJ Communities that has a high burden score for asthma. This census tract encompasses the industrial neighborhoods of Tropico, Pacific Edison, and Moorpark in southern Glendale. Asthma is a chronic disease that affects the lungs and makes it hard to breathe. Symptoms include breathlessness, wheezing, coughing, and chest tightness. The causes of asthma are unknown but both genetic and environmental factors can be involved, such as emissions from industrial land uses. Five million Californians have been diagnosed with asthma at some point in their lives. People with asthma can be especially susceptible to pneumonia, flu, and other illnesses. Outdoor air pollution can trigger asthma attacks.49

2. LOW BIRTH WEIGHT
Six census tracts in Glendale have high burden scores for low birth weight in southern Glendale. Three of these are within EJ Communities. Babies who weigh less than about five and a half pounds (or 2,500 grams) at birth are considered low birth weight. Poor nutrition, lack of prenatal care, stress, and smoking by the mother are known to increase the risk of having a low-birth-weight baby. Studies suggest that pollution could also be a factor. Low-birth-weight babies may face a greater risk of developing asthma or other chronic diseases later in life. They are also more likely to die as infants than babies who are not born low weight.50

49 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators/?data_id=dataSource_41- 17c4c93b14c-layer-14%3A1350%2CdataSource_29-17c39109ce9-layer-2%3A7420&views=Asthma 50 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators/?data_id=dataSource_41- 17c4c93b14c-layer-14%3A1350%2CdataSource_29-17c39109ce9-layer-2%3A7420&views=Low-Birth-Weight 105 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 38 | P a g e

3. CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE
Sixteen census tracts in Glendale have high burden scores for cardiovascular disease, and most (15) of these are within EJ Communities located in southern Glendale. There are many risk factors for developing cardiovascular disease including diet, lack of exercise, smoking, and exposure to air pollution. Cardiovascular disease refers to conditions that involve blocked or narrowed blood vessels of the heart which can result in a heart attack or other heart problems.

Many people survive and return to normal life after a heart attack, but quality of life may be reduced.51 In addition to people with a past heart attack, the effects of air pollution may also be greater in the elderly and people with other preexisting health conditions.52

4. EDUCATION
Three census tracts in south and west Glendale have high burden scores for education, all within EJ Communities. The education indicator in CalEnviroScreen is based on the percentage of the population over age 25 with less than a high school education.53 A higher education percentile indicates a higher number of residents in that tract without a high school diploma.

Educational attainment is the highest level of education a person has completed. People with more education usually earn more than people with less education. Many studies have found that the health effects of air pollution are worse among people with low educational attainment due to corresponding socioeconomic disparities associated with exposure to polluted areas and limited access to healthcare.54 55

5. LINGUISTIC ISOLATION
Glendale has a high burden score overall for linguistic isolation (83). More than half (27) of census tracts in Glendale have high burden scores for linguistic isolation, and most (25) of these are within EJ Communities in south and west Glendale. Linguistic isolation is a term used by the U.S. Census Bureau for limited English-speaking households. As previously discussed, the City of Glendale is very diverse and has a large population of immigrant communities from Armenia, Philippines., Korea, and Latin America. Adults who are not able to speak English well often have trouble communicating with people who provide social services and medical care. Linguistically isolated households may also not hear or understand important information when there is an emergency like an accidental chemical release or spill.56 According to the U.S. Census, nearly 33% (61,074) of households in Glendale are considered limited English- speaking. Table 3.1.11 includes a breakdown of languages spoken by households in Glendale considered to be limited-English speaking.

51 https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen40reportf2021.pdf#page=156 52 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators/?data_id=dataSource_41- 17c4c93b14c-layer-14%3A1350%2CdataSource_29-17c39109ce9-layer-2%3A7420&views=Cardiovascular-Disease 53 https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen40reportf2021.pdf#page=168 54 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators/?data_id=dataSource_41- 17c4c93b14c-layer-14%3A1350%2CdataSource_29-17c39109ce9-layer-2%3A7420&views=Education 55 https://www.lung.org/clean-air/outdoors/who-is-at-risk/disparities 56 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators/?data_id=dataSource_41- 17c4c93b14c-layer-14%3A1350%2CdataSource_29-17c39109ce9-layer-2%3A7420&views=Linguistic-Isolation 106 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 39 | P a g e

TABLE 3.1.11: LANGUAGES OF LIMITED-ENGLISH SPEAKING HOUSEHOLDS Language Percent
Armenian 57.5%
Spanish 16.4%
Korean 6.3%
Tagalog 4.6%
Farsi 4.3%
Russian 3.1%
Arabic 1.7%
Japanese 0.8%
Vietnamese 0.6%
Mandarin 0.5%
Thai 0.5%
Chinese 0.5%
Filipino 0.4%
Polish 0.4%
Source: State of California Department of Finance, DRU Data Hub, Web Mapping Application. Available at https://dru-data-portal- cacensus.hub.arcgis.com/apps/edaf9becf66d4a16be9844726c29cf2f/explore.

Accessed March 26, 2024.

6. POVERTY
Nine census tracts in Glendale have high burden scores for poverty57, all within EJ Communities in south and west Glendale. The U.S. Census Bureau determines the federal poverty level each year. The poverty level is based on the size of the household and the age of family members. If a person or family’s total income before taxes is less than the poverty level, the person or family are considered in poverty. CalEnviroScreen 4.0 uses the federal poverty level from 2021. The federal poverty level in 2021 was $14,097 for one person under age 65 and $12,996 for one person aged 65 and older.58 CalEnviroScreen 4.0 uses a threshold of twice the federal poverty level because California’s cost of living is higher than many other parts of the country.

This equates to $28,194 for one person under age 65 and $25,992 for one person aged 65 and older. According to studies cited in the CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Report59, people living in poverty are more likely than others to become ill from pollution.

7. UNEMPLOYMENT
Ten census tracts in Glendale have high burden scores for unemployment and nine of these are within EJ Communities in south and west Glendale. The U.S. Census Bureau counts people who are over 16 years old, out of work and able to work but not working as unemployed. This does not include students, active-duty military, retired people, or people who have stopped looking for work. Stress from long-term unemployment can lead to chronic illnesses, such as heart disease, and can shorten a person’s life.60

8. HOUSING BURDEN
Glendale has a high score overall for housing burden (77). More than half (28) of census tracts in Glendale have high scores for housing burden. Most (27) of these are within EJ Communities in south and west Glendale. According to the City’s 2021-2029 Housing Element, housing in Glendale is still relatively affordable, especially with multifamily units, when compared to some areas in Los Angeles County. However, housing is not affordable for all income levels, particularly the very-low and low-income households. Housing-burdened low-

57 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators/?data_id=dataSource_41- 17c4c93b14c-layer-14%3A1350%2CdataSource_29-17c39109ce9-layer-2%3A7420&views=Poverty 58 https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/income-poverty/historical-poverty-thresholds.html 59 https://oehha.ca.gov/media/downloads/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen40reportf2021.pdf#page=187 60 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators/?data_id=dataSource_41- 17c4c93b14c-layer-14%3A1350%2CdataSource_29-17c39109ce9-layer-2%3A7420&views=Unemployment 107 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 40 | P a g e

income households are households that are both low income and highly burdened by housings costs. Households with lower incomes may spend a larger proportion of their income on housing and may suffer from housing-induced poverty. Housing affordability is an important determinant of health and well-being. Low-income households with high housing costs may suffer adverse health impacts.61 Housing is also discussed further in Section 3.4 below.

61 https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/ed5953d89038431dbf4f22ab9abfe40d/page/Indicators/?data_id=dataSource_41- 17c4c93b14c-layer-14%3A1350%2CdataSource_29-17c39109ce9-layer-2%3A7420&views=Housing-Burden 108 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 41 | P a g e

3.2 PROMOTE PUBLIC FACILITIES
Access to and availability of public facilities is an aspect of the built environment that may disproportionately limit the opportunities of EJ Communities. If EJ Communities have unequal access to public facilities, or if a city does not provide adequate facilities for public use, EJ Communities may be limited in their ability to access essential resources. Limited access to these resources can lead to reduced lifespans, poorer health outcomes, and diminished mental well-being. Intentional planning of parks and transportation infrastructure can help provide equal access to resources for all communities within a city. The current locations of public facilities within Glendale including transit stations, hospitals, public safety facilities, daycare centers, community centers, City Hall, post offices, libraries, public schools, and parks are shown in Figure 3.2.1.

OVERVIEW OF ALL PUBLIC FACILITIES
Essential public services and facilities, including hospitals, fire and police stations, daycare centers, and libraries, are primarily concentrated in EJ Communities, though some areas, particularly in the north and west, have limited access to these resources. Regarding the equitable distribution of and access to public transit, Glendale has good transit connectivity in central and southern Glendale, and there are opportunities for additional connections in western and northern areas of the City. Essential public services, including hospitals, fire and police stations, daycare centers, and libraries, are primarily concentrated in EJ Communities, though some areas, particularly in the north and west, have limited access to these resources.

The distribution of all public facilities is summarized below.

HOSPITALS
There are three hospitals within the City, and two are located in EJ Communities. While communities in northern, southern, and east/central Glendale are able to easily access hospital facilities, there is a lack of hospital facilities in western Glendale.

PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES.
 The City operates its own fire department and there are nine fire stations within city boundaries. Five of the fire stations are within EJ Communities. The fire stations are evenly distributed within the Planning Area.
 The City operates its own police department and there is one police station within city boundaries, also located within an EJ Community.

DAYCARE CENTERS
 There are dozens of daycare centers throughout the City, primarily located within EJ Communities. However, areas north and west Glendale lack childcare facilities.

CITY HALL
 City Hall is located at 613 East Broadway, which is within an EJ Community.

POST OFFICES
 There are six post offices within city boundaries, and five of them are within EJ Communities.

LIBRARIES
 There are eight libraries within the City, and five of these are within EJ Communities.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS
 There are dozens of schools distributed throughout the City, and many are located within EJ Communities. Two schools currently have joint use agreements (Cerritos & Thomas 109 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 42 | P a g e

Edison Elementary Schools). Joint use agreements open school sites after hours for the public, allowing for part time access to extra amenities.

PARKS AND COMMUNITY CENTERS.
 There are dozens of parks throughout the City, many located within EJ Communities. Many of the parks also have community centers and other sports amenities. More detailed information about parks and recreation facilities is included in Section 3.5.

TRANSIT
While Glendale has good transit connectivity in its central and southern areas, with services like the Glendale Transportation Center, Beeline, and Metro buses, though there are fewer connections in the northern and western parts of the City.

 Train Service. Glendale Transportation Center (GTC) is a regional transportation hub located in the southernmost portion of the City and is located within EJ Communities. GTC is serviced by the Amtrak Pacific Surf liner and Metrolink Ventura County and Antelope Valley Lines.
 Bus Service. Glendale has two major bus providers that operate routes within the Planning Area. While the routes provide decent connectivity between neighborhoods in Glendale, service frequency is somewhat low, particularly on weekends and late evenings. o Glendale Transit. Glendale Beeline operates twelve fixed bus routes serving the cities of Glendale and La Cañada Flintridge and the unincorporated areas of La Crescenta and Montrose. The Beeline functions primarily as a community circulator system that complements the regional transit service provided to Glendale residents by Metro. The Beeline has the following operating hours.62  Monday - Friday: All routes operate from approximately 6:00 am to 6:30 pm.
 Saturday: The only routes that operate on Saturdays are Routes 1-8 from approximately 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
 Sunday: The only routes that operate on Sundays are Routes 1 and 4 from approximately 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
o Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro). Metro operates a mix of transit services including bus, light rail, heavy rail, and bus rapid transit throughout Los Angeles County.
 Bus lines including, but not limited to, 180, 127, 81, 251 and 103 run within the Planning Area which complement the City’s Glendale Beeline.63,  The NoHo to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Corridor Project is a future bus rapid transit (BRT) line that will connect Los Angeles (North Hollywood and Eagle Rock communities), Burbank, Glendale and Pasadena. It is forecasted to begin operating in 2028. 64

 Dial-a-Ride. A curb-to-curb transportation service is made available by the City of Glendale to its residents who are 65 years of age or older. Disabled residents of any age are also served.

62 https://www.glendaletransit.com/tools/system-map/beeline-timetables-route-maps 63 https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/tddy41w6vt9g6ykcjciui/25- 0924_blt_system_map_47x47.5_DCR.pdf?rlkey=4jomgpiuql4o78wxrmccifuah&e=1&st=imtnbfct&dl=0 64 https://www.metro.net/projects/noho-pasadena-corridor 110 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 43 | P a g e

FIGURE 3.2.1: PUBLIC FACILITIES

111 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 44 | P a g e

3.3 PROMOTE HEALTHY FOOD ACCESS
Healthy food access encompasses the following three interrelated topics:

Ensuring adequate access to healthy food is challenging in many communities. Many communities, especially those in low-income areas, lack retailers with a sufficient selection of healthy or fresh foods which exacerbates public health challenges. Healthy food access is closely linked to individual food security, defined as one’s ability to obtain enough food to lead an active, healthy life. It is also linked to community food security, which is when all community residents obtain a safe, culturally acceptable, nutritionally adequate diet through a sustainable food system that encourages community self-reliance and social justice. Promoting healthy food access directly supports community food security.

FOOD INSECURITY AND COST
Food insecurity is defined by the United States Department of Agriculture as the lack of access, at times, to enough food for an active, healthy life.65 No comprehensive source of data regarding existing conditions on food insecurity and costs currently exists at the City level. As the best possible alternative, Feeding America, the nation’s largest domestic hunger-relief organization, has released a report entitled, Map the Meal Gap, for the past eleven years to offer insights on how food insecurity and food costs vary at the county and congressional district level. The latest Map the Meal Gap report, which uses the most recent data from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Census Bureau, is based on data from 2021. Glendale is in Los Angeles County and within the 30th Congressional District.

Another important data set highlighting food insecurity is the federal Free and Reduced-Price Lunch (FRLP) program. In South Glendale, several schools have over 50% of their student population enrolled in this program, with five schools exceeding 70%. Communities within these tracts or within half a mile of these schools could be considered food insecure, further emphasizing the need for targeted interventions to support these areas.

Furthermore, the majority of Glendale Unified School District (GUSD) schools qualify for Title I federal funds, which are used to supplement instructional programs. The U.S. Department of Education's Title I, Part A (Title I) program under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) provides financial assistance to local educational agencies (LEAs) and schools with high numbers or percentages of children from low-income families. Title I funds are allocated based on the number of students who qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, ensuring resources are directed toward students who need them most. Notably, 17 of GUSD’s 18 Title I schools have earned recognition as Title I Achieving Schools, highlighting the district's commitment to leveraging these resources effectively. An additional opportunity to address food insecurity while providing students with hands-on educational experiences and access to fresh produce would be to provide community gardens within GUSD’s schools.

Table 3.3.1 compares food insecurity rates for individuals in the U.S., the State of California, Los Angeles County, and the 30th Congressional Districts. The table also provides estimated nutrition program eligibility among food insecure people, as well as information about average meal cost and annual food budget shortfalls. Average meal cost and annual food budget shortfalls are not

65 See notes at https://map.feedingamerica.org
112 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 45 | P a g e

available at the congressional district level. The 30th District has a slightly higher food insecurity rate than the County, and the average meal cost in Los Angeles County is higher than in the rest of the state and the nation. Slightly more than half of residents in the 30th District are eligible to receive Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.

TABLE 3.3.1: FOOD INSECURITY66
Location
Food
Insecure
People
Food
Insecurity
Rate67
Estimated Program
Eligibility Among
Food Insecure
People68 Average
Meal Cost69

Annual
Food
Budget
Shortfall70
Above
SNAP
threshold
of 200%
poverty
Below SNAP
or other
nutrition
programs
threshold of
200%
poverty
United
States 33,844,000 10.4% 32% 49% $3.59 $21.4B
California 4,104,060 10.5% 42% 58% $3.67 $2.6B
Los
Angeles
County
1,132,600 11.3% 27% 73% $3.88 $775M
30th District 90,170 11.8% 47% 53% N/A N/A
Source: Feeding America – Map the Meal Gap report, 2023.

66 For additional information about Map the Meal Gap methodology, please visit https://www.feedingamerica.org/research/map-the- meal-gap/how-we-got-the-map-data
67 To calculate the food insecurity rate, the relationship between food insecurity and its closely linked indicators (poverty, unemployment, homeownership, disability prevalence, etc.) are first analyzed at the state level. Then, the coefficient estimates from this analysis are used with the same variables for every county and congressional district. Together, these variables generate estimated food insecurity rates for individuals and children at the local level. 68 Nutrition program eligibility is defined as the percentage of the estimated food-insecure population by income category, according to the eligibility thresholds of the major federal nutrition assistance programs, including SNAP (at or below 130% of the federal poverty line or the state-specific threshold, when it is a higher multiple) and other programs such as WIC (185% of poverty or the state-specific threshold).
69 The average weekly dollar amount food-secure individuals report spending on food, as estimated in the Current Population Survey, divided by 21 (assuming three meals a day, seven days a week). This amount has been adjusted to reflect local food prices and relevant taxes.
70 The total annualized additional dollar amount that food-insecure individuals report needing, on average, to purchase just enough food to meet their food needs. This amount is based on responses in the Current Population Survey and the USDA assumption that individuals in households that are food insecure experience food insecurity, on average, seven months out of the year. This amount has been adjusted to reflect local food prices and relevant taxes.

113 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 46 | P a g e

ACCESS TO FOOD RETAILERS
Healthy food access includes physical and economic accessibility. Consumer choices about food spending and diet are likely to be influenced by the accessibility and affordability of food retailers—travel time to shopping, availability of healthy foods, and food prices. Some people and places, especially those with low incomes, may face greater barriers in accessing healthy and affordable food retailers, which may negatively affect diet and food security. Even within supermarkets (defined below), fresh produce can be more expensive than processed items. This can make less nutritious pre-packaged foods and fast-food options more attainable for families on a budget. The location of supermarkets and healthy food priority areas within the City are illustrated in Figure 3.3.1.

Supermarkets are defined as larger food retailers that carry a wide selection of items and serve the community and surrounding area. There are at least 17 supermarkets within Glendale, and thirteen of these are distributed throughout EJ Communities. Most supermarkets are concentrated in downtown Glendale. Figure 3.3.1 reveals areas where there are a deficit of supermarkets. These areas generally overlap with healthy food priority areas identified using the USDA Food Access Research Atlas. Healthy food priority areas are defined as low-income census tracts with at least 500 people or 33% of the tract’s population living more than 1/2 mile from the nearest supermarket. There are four healthy food priority areas in the City, all within EJ Communities.

There is a deficit of supermarkets in the healthy food priority area southwest of San Fernando Road; in the healthy food priority area bound by Grandview Avenue, Glenwood Road, and Pacific Avenue, and Glenoaks Boulevard; and in the healthy food priority area bound by Glendale Avenue, CA-134, and CA-2. There is also a deficit of supermarkets south of CA-134, west of Brand Boulevard and as well as generally in the southern portion of the City, south of Colorado Street (where there is also a healthy food priority area).

One alternative to purchasing fresh produce at a supermarket is farmers’ markets. The Planning Area has a total of three farmers’ markets:

 Glendale Farmers Market: Thursdays, 9:30am - 1:30pm year-round, located at the 100 block of North Brand Blvd between Broadway and Wilson.
 Glendale Artsakh Farmers Market: Sundays, 9:00am – 2:00pm year-round, located at the Glendale Central Library, 222 E. Harvard Street.
 Montrose Harvest Market: Sundays, 8:00am – 1:00pm year-round, located in the Montrose Shopping Park, 2300-2314 Honolulu Avenue.

The Glendale Farmers Market and Glendale Artsakh Farmers Market are both located within EJ Communities and Montrose Harvest Market is located in the SOI. While farmers markets can help improve food access and support the local economy, they can be prohibitively expensive, especially for low-income residents.

Another low-cost way that Glendale has been encouraging the local production of food is by sponsoring community gardens. Glendale residents can apply for plots at one of three community gardens within Maryland Avenue Park, Verdugo Park, and Palmer Park, which are City-owned and managed. Maryland Ave Park and Palmer Park are located in EJ Communities in southern and central Glendale. Additionally, three community-led community gardens have been established on vacant parcels, known collectively as the Monterey Road Eco Community Gardens (870 Monterey Road (East), 827 Monterey Road (West) and 634 Geneva Street (Geneva); these are member-managed and led by the Monterey Road Eco-Community Gardens Steering Committee, and not only provide access to fresh food and green space to Glendale residents, 114 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 47 | P a g e

but also serve as hubs for community building, social interaction, and grassroots democracy. All three gardens are located within EJ Communities.

The lack of proximate food retailers has a greater impact on residents who do not own vehicles.

It is not only more challenging to get to and from the market, but they are also limited by the number of items they can carry with them whether they are taking transit, riding a bike, or walking. According to the American Community Survey, 9,625 units (13%) of Glendale’s occupied housing units do not have any vehicles available.71 Research shows that food delivery apps such as Instacart can help expand access to healthy nutritious foods and groceries for people who are mobility limited.72 However, additional fees can make this a cost prohibitive for some households.

71 American Community Survey, Table DP04, 5-Year Estimates, 2022. 72 https://www.brookings.edu/articles/delivering-to-deserts-new-data-reveals-the-geography-of-digital-access-to-food-in-the-us 115 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 48 | P a g e

FIGURE 3.3.1: FOOD ACCESS

116 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 49 | P a g e

3.4 PROMOTE SAFE AND SANITARY HOMES
The condition of homes in EJ Communities may have negative health impacts on its residents.

These health impacts stem from issues such as poor indoor air quality, toxic building materials, exposure to climate variation such as excess heat or cold, improper ventilation, and structural insecurity. Unsafe housing conditions can be a result of the age of the dwelling, which increases the likelihood of the presence of dangerous materials like lead and asbestos that have significant negative health impacts. EJ Communities often have a larger number of older units within their housing stock and therefore residents of these communities are more likely to be exposed to the harmful health impacts that are associated with older housing. Other factors that can contribute to unsafe housing conditions include improper regulation and overcrowding. Prioritizing the safety and sanitation of housing stock within a community helps create proper living conditions for all residents, including those living in EJ Communities.

HOUSING STOCK CONDITIONS
Housing age may affect the structural integrity of a house and can be an indicator of overall housing quality within a community. Housing that is over 30 years old is typically in need of some major rehabilitation, such as a new roof, foundation, plumbing, etc. Many federal and state programs also use the age of housing as a factor in determining housing rehabilitation needs.

A large proportion of older housing stock typically indicates that most of the City’s housing stock could require major rehabilitation. This does not include properties within historic districts that have been well-preserved. According to the City of Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element, only about a third of the housing in the City is less than 50 years old; 36.6% of units were built in 1970 or later. The majority (63.4%) of housing units were built prior to 1970, with 30.6% built prior to 1950. In addition to structural deficiencies and standards, the lack of infrastructure and utilities often serves as an indicator for substandard conditions.

OVERCROWDING
The U.S. Census defines overcrowded households as more than one occupant per room (excluding bathrooms, kitchens, hallways, and porches). The City of Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element reported that about 3.1% of owner-occupied homes and 6.6% of renter-occupied homes are overcrowded, and a total of 5.5% of all households in Glendale are overcrowded.

Figure 3.4.1 adds the boundaries of all EJ Communities in Glendale to Figure 33: Overcrowded Households by Census Tract, from the Housing Element. Figure 3.4.2 is a more zoomed in view of the EJ Communities. Two census tracts, 3017.02 and 3025.05, have over 20% of households which are overcrowded, but neither census tract is considered severely overcrowded.

According to the California Department of Housing and Community Development’s Building Blocks: A Comprehensive Housing-Element Guide73, several factors may cause overcrowding, including a lack of affordable housing (which forces more than one household to live together) and/or a lack of available housing units of adequate size, especially for multigenerational households. Overcrowding in households may lead to neighborhood deterioration, due to the intensive use of individual housing units which results in excessive wear and tear, and the potential for exceeding infrastructure and service capacity. According to the article, “Can your neighborhood make you sick?” published by the Institute for Housing Studies at DePaul University74, overcrowding in neighborhoods may lead to an overall decline in social cohesion and environmental quality. Such decline may spread geographically and affect the quality of life, the economic value of property, and the vitality of commerce within a city. The combination of lower incomes and high housing costs may result in households living in overcrowded housing conditions.

73 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/housing-elements/building-blocks 74 https://www.housingstudies.org/blog/can-your-neighborhood-make-you-sick 117 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 50 | P a g e

FIGURE 3.4.1: OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS BY CENSUS TRACT WITHIN EJ COMMUNITIES

118 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 51 | P a g e

FIGURE 3.4.2: OVERCROWDED HOUSEHOLDS BY CENSUS TRACT WITHIN EJ COMMUNITIES (ZOOMED IN)

119 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 52 | P a g e

COST BURDEN
State and federal standards define cost burden households as households paying more than 30% of its income for housing costs. A household that allocates greater than 50% of total income toward housing costs is severely cost burdened. This indicator is an important measurement of local housing market conditions as it reflects the affordability of housing in the community and is used by federal and state agencies to determine the amount of funding allocated to a community to assist with housing opportunities. Cost burden provides an indicator of the ability to sustain a household budget in consideration of other factors beyond housing costs (utilities, food, maintenance, etc.). Whenever households pay an excessive amount of their income on costs directly related to housing, it decreases the amount of income available for other needs.

The majority of homeowners with a cost burden greater than 30% are those who have a household income between 50% and 80% of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Median Family Income (MFI). This HUD MFI is the median family income calculated by HUD for each county, to determine Fair Market Rents (FMRs) and income limits for HUD programs. MFI will not necessarily be the same as other calculations of median incomes (such as a simple Census number), due to a series of adjustments that HUD makes to these numbers. Of owner-households with a cost burden over 50%, most have earned below 30% of the MFI.

The City of Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element shows that more renters are cost burdened than owners, with 57% of renters in Glendale being cost burdened compared to 37% of homeowners. These cost burdened renters are located throughout Glendale, with increased concentrations in census tracts located in western Glendale. Overall, these census tracts have a higher percentage of households in renter-occupied housing units and include more multi- family housing. Like cost-burdened renters, cost-burdened homeowners are located throughout Glendale.

120 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 53 | P a g e

3.5 PROMOTE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Residents in EJ Communities often face limited opportunities for physical activity, contributing to negative health outcomes and an increased risk of chronic illnesses. Enhancing access to physical activity opportunities in these areas can significantly improve residents' physical health and overall well-being. While Glendale boasts scenic natural spaces like Deukmejian Wilderness Park, Verdugo Mountains, and San Rafael Mountains, access to parks and open spaces is not evenly distributed, particularly in densely populated, urbanized neighborhoods within EJ Communities. Expanding green spaces and recreational opportunities in underserved areas is essential for fostering environmental equity, improving physical health, and supporting mental well-being across the City. To help expand accessibility to nearby regional parks, the City is planning the Garden River Bridge Project which will connect the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk to Griffith Park.

FACILITIES CONDUCIVE TO PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Glendale has 286 acres of developed park land and over 5,000 acres of open space. The Community Services & Parks department manages 47 parks and park facilities, including 37 parks, the Civic Auditorium, four community centers, six sports facilities, and four historic buildings.75

The nonprofit organization Trust for Public Land provides data on park access levels for every urban city and town in the United States. They report that 77% of Glendale residents live within a 10-minute walk of a park. Their ParkServe® mapping platform helps pinpoint priority areas for new park investments. Park priority areas will be further analyzed in the Open Space and Conservation Element and Recreation Element updates.

Figure 3.5.1 depicts these priority areas which are outside a 10-minute walk to a park and identified based on seven variables including 1) low-income households, 2) people of color, 3) heat islands, 4) air pollution, 5) population density, 6) poor mental health, and 7) lack of physical activity. The areas shown in dark purple on the map indicate very high priority areas for new parks; medium purple indicates high priority areas; and light purple indicates moderate priority areas. These priority areas are primarily located along the northern boundary of the EJ Communities and slightly beyond. There are some additional priority areas scattered throughout the EJ Communities. There are also priority areas identified in the northern portion of the City within the sphere of influence.

PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES
Walking and biking, whether for recreation or as a mode to get to work, are excellent forms of exercise. Providing safe and accessible places for residents to walk and bike encourages people to switch their mode of transportation from auto-centered to more active uses. Reducing vehicular travel can result in several significant benefits, including a reduction in emissions and improvement in traffic congestion. One method to reduce automotive travel is through the addition of bicycle lanes, which have been shown through previous studies to shift travel from automobiles to bicycles. The City has several plans and programs to continue improving and expanding the bicycle and pedestrian network, as noted in Section 1, Relationship Other City Plans and Programs. Figure 3.5.2 shows the location of existing and proposed bikeways, hiking, and riding trails in the City. There is an existing bike lane along Glenoaks Boulevard within the EJ Communities. There are also many proposed bike routes and some proposed bike lanes throughout the EJ Communities. There are several miles of hiking and riding trails in the mountainous central portion of the City.

75 Per the OSCR RFP prepared by Community Services and Parks 121 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 54 | P a g e

FIGURE 3.5.1: PARK PRIORITY AREAS

122 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 55 | P a g e

FIGURE 3.5.2: BIKEWAYS AND HIKING TRAILS

123 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 56 | P a g e

3.6 REDUCE ANY UNIQUE OR COMPOUNDED HEALTH RISKS NOT

OTHERWISE ADDRESSED
Analyzing specific indicators that affect personal and communal health is important; but it is also essential to examine how each indicator affects one another, and how they combine to create unique health risks on both the individual and the community. The community survey did not reveal any specific situations that would significantly compound health risks; however, certain unique characteristics of Glendale and their ramifications are worth noting, as summarized below.

HISTORICALLY UNDERREPRESENTED GROUPS
Glendale has a highly diverse population, with a large Armenian-American community—one of the largest in the United States—and significant Latino, Filipino, Korean, and Middle Eastern populations. While Glendale may have a diverse cultural composition, the ramifications of historical discriminatory practices has left underrepresentation of the Black/African American community in Glendale. Recognizing this helps contextualize the City's efforts to engage with multicultural and historically underrepresented groups in an inclusive manner. It also emphasizes the need for culturally inclusive and language-accessible policies.

CAR-CENTRIC DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS AND AIR QUALITY
Glendale’s development patterns have historically favored car-centric infrastructure, and this has implications for air quality and accessibility. Glendale is traversed by four freeways: the Glendale Freeway (State Route 2), the Ventura Freeway (State Route 134), the Foothill Freeway (Interstate 210) and the Golden State Freeway (Interstate 5). These major traffic corridors expose adjacent neighborhoods, many of which are located in especially EJ Communities, to air pollutants such as ozone, DPM, PM10, and PM5.

VULNERABILITY TO NATURAL DISASTERS & CLIMATE CHANGE
Glendale’s geography includes mountainous areas with wildland-urban interfaces and high fire-hazard zones, putting some neighborhoods at higher risk for wildfires and other natural disasters. These risks are exacerbated by climate change, which is expected to increase the frequency and intensity of wildfires and other extreme weather events. This is a particular concern for marginalized and low-income residents, who often have fewer resources to prepare for or recover from such disasters.

In fact, no other category of hazardous weather event in the United States has caused more fatalities over the past few decades than extreme heat. Urban landscapes, such as those found in South Glendale, amplify the effects of extreme heat through the urban heat island effect, which intensifies the duration and severity of heat waves. Human-caused climate change further exacerbates these conditions, disproportionately impacting historically underserved communities. Vulnerable populations within urban areas, as highlighted by Hoffman et al., (2020), face a heightened state of precarity due to their increased exposure to extreme heat and limited adaptive capacity. The City has prepared a Climate Vulnerability Assessment (CCVA) to address these interconnected risks and build resilience and equity across all neighborhoods.

The CCVA is included as Appendix B to the recently updated Safety Element, which was adopted by the City Council on April 1, 2025.

LEGACY OF DISCRIMINATORY PRACTICES
Like many urban areas, and as mentioned in Section 1, Introduction, Glendale has a legacy of discriminatory housing practices, including redlining, which shaped residential segregation patterns and created inequities in access to parks, schools, and other community resources. 124 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 57 | P a g e

Understanding this historical context helps frame current EJ efforts to address disparities in neighborhood quality and access to resources.

Research by the Science Museum of Virginia highlights how the legacy of redlining continues to impact communities today. In 94% of studied areas, formerly redlined neighborhoods exhibit elevated land surface temperatures—by as much as 7°C—compared to non-redlined areas.

These hotter urban areas are often home to resource-limited residents and communities of color, underscoring the connection between environmental justice and urban climate change.

As Hoffman et al. (2020) note, vulnerable populations in these areas are disproportionately exposed to extreme heat and its associated risks, making climate adaptation an urgent priority for cities like Glendale.

Recognizing these challenges, Glendale’s proposed Climate Action & Adaptation Plan identifies the need to reduce community vulnerability to climate change. The plan emphasizes that primary public health impacts include an increase in hospitalizations and deaths due to more frequent and extreme heat events, as well as health impacts from higher ground-level ozone pollution facilitated by rising average temperatures. Addressing these compounding issues requires a commitment to equitable climate adaptation measures that prioritize historically underserved communities.

Statewide, millions of California’s K-12 public school students face a critical lack of shade on their campuses. More than 2.5 million students attend schools with less than 5% tree canopy coverage in “student zones”—the areas where they spend the majority of their school day.

Alarmingly, over 1.5 million of these students qualify for free or reduced-price meals, highlighting a clear overlap between economic disadvantage and insufficient shade. This widespread issue affects nearly all K-12 public schools in California, underscoring the urgent need for Glendale to prioritize equitable solutions that mitigate urban heat, enhance tree canopy coverage, and ensure healthier, more sustainable school environments for its students.

Furthermore, the California Department of Education and Green Schoolyards America have identified 5 public schools in Glendale where over 70% of the student population qualifies for free or reduced-price meals—all located in South Glendale. These school populations are not only economically disadvantaged but also disproportionately exposed to higher urban heat levels. This exposure is directly tied to the correlation between low tree canopy coverage in school play areas and historically redlined neighborhoods in South Glendale. These compounding inequities exacerbate environmental injustices that Glendale must prioritize.

125 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 58 | P a g e

The graph below shows the number of students present on campuses with varying levels of tree canopy—and illustrates how far California is from the goal of 30% tree canopy.

The following map depicts campuses with low levels of tree canopy and high percentage of students qualifying for free/reduced-priced meals are concentrated in South Glendale.

Campuses marked with a red diamond have ≤5% tree canopy in student zones AND ≥70% of students who qualify for free/reduced-priced meals. These campuses are labeled “Highest Need” on the map.

Source: Interactive GIS Map - Green Schoolyards Tree Canopy Equity Study

126 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 59 | P a g e

3.7 PROMOTE CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN THE PUBLIC DECISION-

MAKING PROCESS
A key pillar of EJ is creating policies and programs that empower all residents to participate meaningfully in local decision-making processes. SB 1000 emphasizes that community engagement must be promoted in a local jurisdiction through the development of objectives and policies that seek to specifically involve residents of EJ Communities. Prioritizing the voices of these communities in shaping decisions ensures that policies address their unique needs and challenges, resulting in more equitable and effective outcomes.

EXISTING CIVIC ENGAGEMENT EFFORTS
The City of Glendale offers various opportunities for civic engagement, as summarized below.

However, residents may face challenges in identifying and accessing information about these opportunities as the information is dispersed across various departmental webpages.

 A webpage devoted to transparency which includes an explanation of how the City functions; links to the budget and other reports; request form for public records; links to sign up to receive various newsletters, press releases, agenda notifications, and other news and event updates; links to view City Council agendas and minutes; and contact information for City officials.
o https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/transparency

 A calendar that shows public meetings and other City-sponsored events. o https://www.glendaleca.gov/residents/calendar

 A public meeting portal.
o https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/public-meeting-portal

 The Community Development Department posts public meetings and notices online. o https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/community- development/planning/public-meetings-and-notices

 The Communications and Community Relations Department works to ensure the public is informed of what’s happening in the City by disseminating information through social media platforms, including X, Facebook, and Instagram. Residents can also stay connected via MyGlendaleCityNews.org, YouTube, and the City’s monthly newsletter, City Connection. o https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/management- services/communications-community-relations

 Glendale TV (GTV6) is the City of Glendale’s official government access channel, featuring a live video stream of City meetings, public affairs and educational programs. o https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/office-of-the-city- manager/glendale-tv/live-video-stream

 Beginning in 2024, the City Manager prepares a memo highlighting key activities, events, commendations and announcements that is shared weekly with the City Council, City staff, and the community in an effort to increase community awareness. o https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/office-of-the-city- manager/city-manager-weekly-reports

 Report a problem online or with the MyGlendale app.
127 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 60 | P a g e

o https://www.glendaleca.gov/residents/how-do-i/contact-the-city/report-a-problem- online

 The City of Glendale's Fact Page is dedicated to eliminating misconceptions and bringing residents the facts about varying issues and concerns within the community. o https://www.glendalefactpage.com/

 Meetings, events, and resources related to the Climate Action & Adaptation Plan. o https://glendalecaap.rinconconsultants.com/home/get-involved/

 24 Hour Hotline for residents and businesspeople to be able to access a “live” City representative 24 hours a day, including weekends, by calling 818-550-4400.

 Request non-emergency police services such as parking violations, blocked driveways/alleys, and 72 hour violations by calling 818-548-4840.

 GlendalePlan.com provides ongoing General Plan element updates and mobility plans, including outreach activities and survey links.

 VerdugoWash.com provides information on the Verdugo Wash Visioning Report and upcoming Master Plan.

DEMOGRAPHICS THAT MAY INFLUENCE CIVIC ENGAGEMENT
Certain demographic categories can help predict a community’s level of civic engagement. This Section assesses four demographic categories: resident age, language spoken at home, educational attainment, and race/ethnicity.

RESIDENT AGE
According to the City of Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element, adults aged 45 and older comprise 43.5% of the population. Children under fifteen years of age comprise 14.8% of the City’s population, teens and young adults (15 to 24) represent 10.1%, and adults in family-forming age groups (25-44) comprise 29.0%. Adults aged 45 to 64 represent 21.8% of the population and seniors (65 and over) comprise 21.7%. In 2019, the median age in Glendale (41.9 years) was higher than that of Los Angeles County, 37.0 years, and the Statewide median age of 37.0 years.

Age distribution can help predict the likelihood of a community participating in civic activities and identify constraints associated with engaging different members of the community. A disproportionately high percentage of residents under the age of 18 suggests the significant presence of families. Parents of minors are generally busy raising their children, reducing their likelihood of engaging in civic activities. Encouraging the use of virtual outreach tools, such as social media and online surveying, and outreach approaches at other community events, such as farmers markets, fairs, and sporting events, can help increase participation among this group.

Conversely, a disproportionately high percentage of seniors, a group that generally has fewer commitments and less time constraints, suggests that the community may participate in conventional civic activities at a higher rate. Because seniors are less familiar with technology than their younger counterparts, the group is less likely to utilize virtual outreach tools. However, patterns of civic participation have changed significantly as a result the COVID-19 pandemic.

Populations previously reluctant to use online methods of communication are now more aware and comfortable with these tools, presenting new opportunities to engage all members of the community.

128 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 61 | P a g e

LINGUISTIC ISOLATION
Glendale has a high CalEnviroScreen burden score overall for linguistic isolation. More than half of census tracts in Glendale have high burden scores for linguistic isolation, and most of these are within EJ Communities. Nearly 33% (61,074) of Glendale households are limited English- speaking. Table 3.1.4 includes a breakdown of languages spoken by these households.

Language is a critical signifier of a population’s likely participation in civic activities. Non-native English speakers, and especially those individuals with limited English fluency, are less likely to participate in civic activities. Translation services are critical to reaching and actively communicating with these individuals. In addition, the metric assessing households who speak languages other than English can help identify the cultural diversity of a community. Civic activities, and the venues where they take place, can be tailored to accommodate the cultural preferences of individual racial, ethnic, and religious groups.

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT
Three census tracts in Glendale have high CalEnviroScreen burden scores for education, all within EJ Communities. Only eight census tracts have low burden scores. All other census tracts in Glendale have medium burden scores. Educational attainment is a strong signifier of a population’s likely participation in civic activities. Higher educational attainment generally correlates with increased civic participation. This is reflective of individuals with less educational attainment experiencing underemployment circumstances, such as working for less than a living wage and/or on a part-time basis. This may require individuals to seek out additional employment, reducing the time that they can commit to civic activities. In addition, individuals with lower educational attainment generally make less money. Those individuals who cannot afford to own or otherwise have limited access to an automobile, may be unable to attend civic events. This may also be reflective of individuals with less educational attainment lacking the sufficient literacy level and/or a formal education in civics and government to feel comfortable participating in civic matters.

RACE/ETHNICITY
Numerous studies have shown that race and ethnicity are important predictors of civic engagement, and that white populations are more likely to be civically engaged than other groups.76 As mentioned in the Introduction, the 2021-2029 Housing Element provides demographic trends over time for the City and the larger region, including race and ethnicity.

While most Glendale residents identify as White, it is important to acknowledge that 36% of the City’s population also identifies as Armenian. There are also sizeable Hispanic (17%) and Asian or Pacific Islander (16%) populations, along with a number of Black (1%) and Native American or other races and ethnicities. It is essential to engage with all Glendale residents to create an inclusive, equitable, and thriving city. Specifically reaching out to multicultural and historically excluded groups in the City helps make sure that policies reflect the needs and aspirations of the entire community, not just those of the majority population.

76 For example, see Foster-Bey, J. (2008, December). CIRCLE Working Paper #62: Do Race, Ethnicity, Citizenship and Socio- economic Status Determine Civic-Engagement? Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED505266.pdf, accessed March 26, 2024.
129 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 62 | P a g e

3.8 PRIORITIZE IMPROVEMENTS AND PROGRAMS THAT ADDRESS

THE NEEDS OF EJ COMMUNITIES
An integral component of EJ planning is prioritizing projects and investments that directly benefit EJ Communities. These communities may have specific needs that are distinct from those of the greater community, which may require taking actions to help improve existing conditions. These kinds of actions may not be applicable across the entire City but may be needed due to the special circumstances EJ Communities face. Considering EJ Communities for future investments would help community benefits and programs achieve implementation in a timely fashion. Additionally, identifying and considering improvements and programs for EJ Communities may also help the City obtain grants and/or other public funding that is targeted for vulnerable groups.

The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) created an opportunity map to measure and visualize place- based characteristics linked to critical life outcomes, such as educational attainment, earnings from employment, and economic mobility. Opportunity maps can be used to inform the City how to target investments and policies in a way that is conscious of the independent and inter- related effects that research has shown places have on economic, educational, and health outcomes. The opportunity map identifies areas that score better across nine economic, educational, and environmental indicators relative to other areas in the same region. The scores classify areas into four resource categories: highest, high, moderate, and low. Low resource areas are those most in need of investment.

Figure 3.8.1 shows the HCD/CTCAC Opportunity Map77 for Glendale using 2024 data. All census tracts in the northern portion of the City are considered highest resource areas. Many census tracts within the EJ Communities are considered high resource areas, though there are eight moderate resource tracts, mostly concentrated in the southern portion of the City. There are no low resource areas in the City.

Table 3.8.1 shows the individual scores for the eight moderate resource areas. Each indicator value that falls above the regional median adds one point to the overall opportunity score. To account for areas with high levels of environmental burden, one point is deducted if a tract ranks in the highest 5% of regional environmental burden. Using this method, the final scores are divided into four primary categories:

 9 or 8 = “Highest Resource”
 7 or 6 = “High Resource”
 5 or 4 = “Moderate Resource”
 3 or lower = “Low Resource”

TABLE 3.8.1: INDIVIDUAL SCORES FOR MODERATE RESOURCE AREAS Census Tract Resource Score Census Tract Resource Score 06037302301 5 06037302202 4
06037302302 5 06037302103 5
06037302401 4 06037302004 5
06037302504 5 06037302003 5
Source: HCD/CTCAC Opportunity Map. 2024. See the methodology document for more details. 78

77 https://belonging.berkeley.edu/final-2024-ctcac-hcd-opportunity-map 78 https://www.treasurer.ca.gov/ctcac/opportunity/2024/draft-2024-opportunity-mapping-methodology.pdf 130 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 63 | P a g e

FIGURE 3.8.1: HCD/CTCAC OPPORTUNITY AREAS

131 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix A │ Environmental Justice Existing Conditions Report 64 | P a g e

4. REFERENCES
American Lung Association. Disparities in the Impact of Air Pollution. 2023 Available at:
https://www.lung.org/clean-air/outdoors/who-is-at-risk/disparities.

Brookings Institute. Delivering To Deserts: New Data Reveals The Geography Of Digital Access To Food In The U.S. 2022. Available at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/delivering-to- deserts-new-data-reveals-the-geography-of-digital-access-to-food-in-the-us/ California Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor; Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese). Available at: https://dtsc.ca.gov/dtscs-cortese-list/ California Environmental Justice Alliance (CEJA), Placeworks. SB 1000 Implementation Toolkit:

Planning for Healthy Communities, October 2017.

California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA). CalEnviroScreen 4.0 Report, October 2021. Available at:
https://oehha.ca.gov/calenviroscreen/report/calenviroscreen-40 City of Glendale. 2021-2029 Housing Element, February 27, 2023. Available at https://www.glendaleplan.com/housing-element-update
Feeding America. Map the Meal Gap Report, May 3, 2023. Available at:
https://www.feedingamerica.org/research/map-the-meal-gap/overall-executive- summary
Foster-Bey, J. CIRCLE Working Paper #62: Do Race, Ethnicity, Citizenship and Socio-economic Status Determine Civic-Engagement? 2008.

Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI). General Plan Guidelines.

Hoffman JS, Shandas V, Pendleton N. 2020. The effects of historical housing policies on resident exposure to intra-urban heat: a study of 108 US urban areas. Climate 8(1):12, https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8010012.

132 of 228

City of Glendale
Environmental Justice Element
Appendix B: Outreach Summary Report
December 2024

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
133 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report

1 | P a g e

CONTENTS

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................................. 2 What is Environmental Justice (EJ)? ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Senate Bill 1000 ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Disadvantaged Communities ..................................................................................................................................................... 3

2. General Outreach ................................................................................................................................................... 4

3. Pop-Up Events ........................................................................................................................................................... 9

4. Survey Summary ..................................................................................................................................................... 11

5. Complete Survey Results .................................................................................................................................. 40

134 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 2 | P a g e

1. INTRODUCTION
As part of preparing its new Environmental Justice (EJ) Element, the City of Glendale conducted a robust, multifaceted, and multilingual public engagement program to collect local input and knowledge regarding EJ issues. The following programs/activities were completed:
 General education/announcements, including a dedicated project website with educational information and public comment opportunity, project factsheet (also available in print), email and social media announcements, and direct mailer sent to over 40,000 addresses in the City’s EJ communities
 Pop-up booths (with interactive activities) hosted at Fire Service Day, Cruise Night, National Night Out, and the Fall Festival
 EJ survey (online and paper copies in English, Spanish, Armenian, Korean, and Tagalog) This outreach was conducted to provide various opportunities for the Glendale community to share their experiences with topics related to EJ, including:
 Access to a range of public facilities and services
 Availability of safe and convenient places for recreation  Access to healthy food options
 Housing conditions
 Pollution exposure and air quality
 Opportunities to share their input on City plans and programs This report provides an overview of the input received.

135 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 3 | P a g e

WHAT IS ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE (EJ)?
EJ seeks to prevent and correct disproportionate environmental impacts on historically marginalized communities. Impacts can result from either the presence or absence of certain land uses, facilities, and physical and social infrastructure. For example, the presence of industrial land uses causing air pollution in a marginalized community is an EJ issue. The absence of parks and open space, community centers and recreational facilities, sidewalks and bike lanes, public transportation options, safe housing, and healthy food options in a marginalized community are also EJ issues. This report will use the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) definition of EJ:

SENATE BILL 1000
Senate Bill 1000 (SB 1000), the Planning for Healthy Communities Act, was signed into law by Governor Edmond G. Brown, Jr. on September 24, 2016. SB 1000 requires cities and counties with Disadvantaged Communities (as described below) to adopt an EJ Element or integrate EJ goals, objectives, and policies into other elements of their general plans. The intent of this legislation is to create healthier cities and counties by protecting sensitive land uses and prioritizing the needs of Disadvantaged Communities (also referred to as EJ Communities in this document). The City of Glendale has chosen to prepare a dedicated EJ Element so that all EJ-related goals and policies are easily accessible and to provide clear guidance on the fair and equitable distribution of community benefits.

DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES
The term “Disadvantaged Community” is a broad designation that generally includes low- income areas disproportionally affected by environmental, health, and other hazards. In relation to EJ, Government Code Section 65302, as amended by SB 1000, defines a Disadvantaged Community as follows:

Environmental Justice is “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Fair treatment means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or policies.”
A Disadvantaged Community (DAC) is an area identified by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) pursuant to Section 39711 of the Health and Safety Code or a low-income area that is disproportionately affected by environmental pollution and other hazards that can lead to negative health effects, exposure, or environmental degradation. 136 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 4 | P a g e

2. GENERAL OUTREACH

GENERAL PLAN WEBSITE
The Glendale General Plan website
(glendaleplan.com) includes an overview of
the updates Glendale is making to the
General Plan. Viewers can access information
regarding each of the General Plan Elements
that are new or are being amended, eight
mobility plans that the City has developed to
encourage a connected and sustainable
Glendale, the Glendale EJ Survey, and how to
get involved.

Between January 1, 2024, and October 30,
2024, the Glendale General Plan website
received 1,669 visits and 3,396 page views by
986 unique visitors. About 80% were new
visitors and about 20% were returning.

The website received the most traffic in July
2024 with over 200 visitors, as shown in the
chart below.

Overview of Glendale General Plan Website Traffic, January – October 2024

200 175 150 125 100 75 50 25 0
Unique Visitors

New
Returning
Jan 1
Feb 1
Mar 1
Apr 1
Jul 1
Aug 1
Sep 1
Oct 1
May 1
Jun 1
137 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 5 | P a g e

SOCIAL MEDIA
The City of Glendale utilizes a variety of social media platforms to disperse information to its community,
including Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube.

These platforms were used to spread the word about
the Glendale EJ Survey, encouraged folks to visit the
Glendale Plan website, and highlight outreach efforts
at pop-up events.

City staff promoted the EJ Element on social media
between April 25, 2024, and August 15, 2024. Posts on
social media received a combined total of 7,739 views
and reached an audience of over 23,000 followers. The
next page includes screenshots of the Instagram posts
that were published by the City.

Below is a detailed breakdown for all City-created EJ
posts, including those promoting the EJ survey:

July 18, 2024
 The City created three EJ posts: two that promoted the EJ survey and one that highlighted the City’s outreach efforts at the pop-up booth.
 The Glendale EJ Survey video, which featured a TikTok clip and survey link, achieved 6,606 views and six shares on the Community Development Department (CDD) account.  This video was also shared via Stories on the MyGlendale account, which has a follower base of 17,500, and on the ChooseGlendale account, managed by the Economic Development Division, which has 5,517 followers. (No specific view counts for are available for these Stories).

April 25, 2024
The post covering the EJ Element Outreach pop-up booth, which included the survey link, received 632 views. This post was only shared on the City’s main CDD account and did not appear on other platforms.

August 15, 2024
The final video gained 501 views on the City’s CDD account. It was also reshared via Stories on both MyGlendale and ChooseGlendale, with potential exposure to 17,500 and 5,517 followers, respectively. Additionally, a resident from another public agency shared the video on their account, which has over 1,000 followers.

Other Story Shares
Several Stories were posted between these dates; however, the City is unable to track the exact engagement, as Stories remain available for only 24 hours. Still, these posts were likely seen by the follower counts provided above.

138 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 6 | P a g e

Screenshots of the Instagram posts that were published by the City

139 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 7 | P a g e

DIRECT MAILER
All residents living in
disadvantaged
communities were
notified of the new
Glendale EJ Element via
US Postal Service via a
postcard mailed to over
40,000 physical
addresses. They were also
encouraged to visit the
official Glendale Plan
website, take the survey,
and visit the EJ outreach
booth at Glendale’s
National Night Out event.

This targeted effort was
done to increase
awareness and
participation in
disadvantaged
communities.

140 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 8 | P a g e

ADDITIONAL EFFORTS
City staff provided information
about the new EJ Element during
various televised public hearings,
and Planning Division outreach and
community meetings for other
long-range planning projects. The
new EJ Element and survey was
announced at the May 1, 2024
Planning Commission meeting and
at City Council meetings. The EJ
survey was also promoted at the
Objective Design Standard
meetings with the Northwest
Glendale Homeowners Association
on May 13, 2024, a public meeting
at the Sparr Heights Community
Center on May 22, 2024, and a
virtual meeting on May 29, 2024.

Email blasts regarding the new EJ
Element and open survey were
sent to every City employee
(approximately 1,800-2,000
individuals) on May 20, 2024, and to
all HOA representatives and
interested parties who had signed
up for the GlendalePlan.com
notices (67 total) on August 15,
2024.

EJ flyers with the EJ survey link and QR code were also distributed at the Glendale Central Library.

141 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 9 | P a g e

3. POP-UP EVENTS

Photos on this page are from Cruise Night 2024

Fire Service Day Cruise Night National Night Out Fall Festival May 11, 2024
9:00 AM to 2:00 PM

The Glendale Fire
Department
annually invites the
community to
celebrate Fire
Service Day.

Activities included a
pancake breakfast,
live
demonstrations,
and recruitment
information. Events
like this boost
community safety
awareness.

July 20, 2024
5:30 PM to 10:30 PM

Cruise Night is one
of Glendale’s
longest running
events that
showcases around
300 – 400 classic
and exotic cars,
with over 45,000 in
attendance. Visitors
can listen to live
music, watch
fireworks, and enjoy
other activities such
as various vendor
booths.

August 6, 2024
5:00 PM to 7:30 PM

The Glendale Police
Department and
Community
Services & Parks
Department hosts
an annual event
where neighbors
get the chance to
get to know each
other and share
concerns,
strategies, and
ideas for safer
communities. There
are food, games,
prizes, and
community
resources.

October 26, 2024
11:00 AM to 2:00 PM

Community
Services & Parks
hosts the annual
Fall Festival
featuring various
carnival games, arts
& crafts, and
seasonal activities
for children and
also informational
booths of the
programs and
services provided
by the various City
departments.

142 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 10 | P a g e

Pop-Up Event Summary
At all four citywide events, the consultant and City staff facilitated an EJ outreach booth for residents and visitors to learn more about the Glendale General Plan updates, including the EJ Element. Visitors were given opportunities to voice their ideas or concerns about their community through multiple activities, such as placing stickers on poster boards as shown on the following page. With the input received through the activities and discussion, community members indicated that the City’s public facilities and services, as well as safe and sanitary homes and physical activities, were areas that need the most attention. At Fire Service Day, Cruise Night and National Night Out, handouts were available with the EJ survey link and QR code, with staff encouraging attendees to take the EJ survey at their convenience.

Postcard Activity
At Cruise Night, National Night Out, and the Fall Festival, City staff facilitated an activity where attendees wrote their thoughts, experiences, and suggestions on different postcards regarding the main topic areas (e.g. access to healthy food, air quality, etc.). Each topic area postcard was printed in a different color. While this activity was intended to provide another means for attendees to provide EJ input, it also became an attractive activity for children who enjoyed drawing pictures related to each topic. The postcards with suggestions and drawings were then hung on twine within the outreach booth, creating colorful string flags.

While the children occupied coloring, staff was able to engage parents and guardians in conversation related to EJ and obtain additional feedback.

EJ Investment Activity
At the National Night Out event, community members were also able to participate in an EJ investment activity, where each participant received a certain number of coins to spend how they would like on six potential solutions/programs. These programs included:

1. Improve conditions and safety of sidewalks and crosswalks

2. Install new bicycle facilities like bike lanes and safety features

3. Expand/Promote Public Transit Options

4. Expand Local Library, Museum, Cultural Center Options

5. Expand Recreation Activities for people of different ages and abilities

6. Improve easy access to a park or recreation center

Programs 4, 5, and 6 were the most selected and received an almost equal number of coins.

143 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 11 | P a g e

Posterboard Activity

Fire Service Day National Night Out
144 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 12 | P a g e

Cruise Night

145 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 13 | P a g e

4. SURVEY SUMMARY
The online survey was open between April 1, 2024, and September 10, 2024, and staff promoted the EJ survey using social media, direct mailers, email blasts, public announcements at hearings and public meetings, and face-to-face contact at pop-up events, as described in the Public Outreach and Pop-Up Events sections above. A total of 248 responses were received. The survey consisted of 22 questions, of which 11 were related to EJ. The other 11 questions were related to the demographics of the respondent and optional input for email updates. For full survey results, please refer to section 5.

Below is a summary of survey questions related to the respondents’ association with the City of Glendale.

DO YOU LIVE, WORK, OR STUDY IN
GLENDALE?

80.7% of survey respondents indicated that
they live in Glendale, 41.1% work in Glendale,
and 3.2% study in Glendale. The remaining
respondents chose “Other” or indicated that
they do not live, work, or study in Glendale.

Some of the respondents that chose “Other”
included that they were organizational
members, have children attending
Glendale schools, or reside in the
unincorporated areas.

ASSOCIATED ZIP CODE WHERE

RESPONDENTS LIVE, WORK, OR

STUDY IN GLENDALE
When asked to select the ZIP code for
where the respondents either primarily
live, work, or study in Glendale, out of 248
respondents, approximately 23% of
respondents chose 91206, followed by 18%
for 91205 and 10% for 91204. In review of
the survey data, a large portion of survey
respondents had some type of activity in
the central and south areas of Glendale,
where Glendale’s Disadvantaged
Communities are mainly located. More
details on the numbers of respondents by
ZIP code are provided on the following
page.

146 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 14 | P a g e

RESPONDENTS BY ZIP CODE
The top three ZIP codes identified by the 248 respondents were 91206, 91205, and 91204.

ZIP Code Percent Responses
91206 22.98% 57
91205 18.15% 45
91214 9.68% 24
91201 9.27% 23
91208 9.27% 23
91204 7.26% 18
91202 6.45% 16
91203 6.05% 15
91207 4.03% 10
91020 1.21% 3
91210 0.40% 1
Other 3.23% 8
N/A* 2.02% 5
Total
Answered 100% 248
Total
Skipped 0 0

Additional ZIP Codes Reported Under “Other”

Of the respondents who selected "other" and provided a ZIP code, the entries included 91207, 91205, 91107, 91504, 90026, and 91352.

* Respondent does not reside, work, or study in Glendale

147 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 15 | P a g e

RESPONDENTS BY NEIGHBORHOOD
Of the survey respondents who indicated their neighborhood where they may live, work, or study in Glendale, approximately 17% chose the City Center, followed by 9.4% for Verdugo Woodlands, 8.5% for Crescenta Highlands, and 7.1% for Adams Hill and Citrus Grove.

Neighborhood Percent Neighborhood Percent
Adams Hill 7.14% Oakmont 0.45%
Brockmont 0.89% Pacific-Edison 4.91%
Chevy Chase 2.23% Pelanconi 0.89%
Citrus Grove 7.14% Rancho San Rafael 0.00%
City Center 16.96% Riverside Rancho 2.68%
College Hills 0.45% Rossmoyne 5.36%
Crescenta Highlands 8.48% San Gabriel Mountains 0.00%
El Miradero 0.89% San Rafael Hills 0.45%
Emerald Isle 0.45% Scholl Canyon 0
Freemont Park 0.89% Somerset 2.68%
Glenoaks Canyon 0.45% Sparr Heights 0.00%
Glenwood 4.02% Tropico 2.23%
Grand Central 0.89% Verdugo Mountains 0.89%
Grandview 4.91% Verdugo Viejo 0
Greenbriar 0.00% Verdugo Woodlands 9.38%
Mariposa 3.13% Vineyard 3.57
Montecito Park 0.45% Whiting Woods 0.00%
Montrose Verdugo City 2.68% Woodbury 0.89%
Moorpark 0.45% Other or unsure 2.23%

148 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 16 | P a g e

Below is a summary of the demographic survey question responses.

ETHNICITY
Of the survey respondents who provided
their ethnicity information, a majority
identified as White/Caucasian (59%),
followed by Other (12%), Hispanic or Latino
(12%), Asian (7%), and Two or More (7%),
with the remaining representing Native
American, Native Hawaiian or Pacific
Islander, and Black or African American.

Most respondents that chose “Other”
identified as Armenian.

Ethnicity by ZIP Code

Ethnicity by ZIP Code Observations
Respondents from ZIP codes 91204, 91205, and 91206 represent roughly 50% of all survey participants. The ethnic breakdown for these three ZIP codes are as follows:

 91204: 56% White, 6% Other, 13%% Hispanic, 19% Asian, 6% Two or More.  91205: 46% White, 21% Other, 15% Hispanic, 6% Asian, 9% Two or More, 3% Native American.  91206: 60% White, 14% Other, 14% Hispanic, 9% Asian, 7% Two or More.

149 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 17 | P a g e

EMPLOYMENT STATUS
Regarding employment status, 55% of
respondents reported having a full-time job,
20% were retired, 9% were self-employed,
and 7% identified as part-time employees.

The remaining respondents identified as a
mix of unemployed individuals,
homemakers, students, and some unable to
work. Some who indicated “other” identified
as volunteers.

Employment Status by ZIP Code

Employment Status by ZIP Code Observations
Respondents from ZIP codes 91204, 91205, and 91206 represent roughly 50% of all survey participants, and have high rates of full-time employment status.

150 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 18 | P a g e

LEVEL OF EDUCATION
In terms of the highest level of education
attained, 43% reported a master’s degree or
above, 33% reported a bachelor’s degree, 8%
reported some college (no degree), 7%
reported an associate’s degree, 5% reported
a high school diploma, 3% reported a
technical certification, and 1% reported
“other”. No one indicated that they have less
than a high school diploma.

Level of Education by ZIP Code

Level of Education by ZIP Code Observations
A percentage of respondents in every ZIP code in the City report having at least a bachelor’s degree. A portion of respondents in most ZIP codes also report having a master’s degree.

151 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 19 | P a g e

HOUSING STATUS
58% of survey respondents who provided
information on their housing status were
homeowners, while 39% were renters, 3%
lived with family or friends, and 0.5%
indicated “other” housing status. No one
indicated that they are currently without
permanent shelter.

Housing Status by ZIP Code

Housing Status by ZIP Code Observations
Southern Glendale ZIP codes, such as 91203, 91204, and 91205, tend to have a higher rate of respondents who are renters in comparison to northern ZIP codes, such as 91207, 91208, and 91214.

152 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 20 | P a g e

HOUSEHOLD INCOME
In terms of household income, 32%
earn $150,000 or more, 23% earn
$100,000 to $149,999, 16% earn $75,000
to $99,999, 14% earn $50,000 to $74,999,
10% earn $25,000 to $49,999, and 5%
earn less than $24,999.

Household Income by ZIP Code

Household Income by ZIP Code Observations
Respondents who have a total household income of $150,000 or more are prevalent in the central and northern Glendale ZIP codes, such as 91207, 91208, and 91204. Respondents who earn less than $24,999 tend to be in the western and southern ZIP codes, such as 91201 and 91203, which are also identified as Disadvantaged Communities.

153 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 21 | P a g e

CONSIDERATION OF DISABILITIES
For consideration of disabilities, 90% of survey
respondents indicated that they do not have
a disability, while 10% indicated that they do
have a disability.

Consideration of Disabilities by ZIP Code

Consideration of Disabilities by ZIP Code Observations
There are at least a few respondents who report having a disability in all ZIP codes, except for 91020 and 91208.

154 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 22 | P a g e

PROFICIENCY LEVEL IN ENGLISH

LANGUAGE
Regarding proficiency level in English language,
91% indicated that they are fluent, 5% are
advanced, 2% are intermediate, and 2% are basic.

No survey respondents chose “None” as their
choice.

Proficiency Level in English Language by ZIP Code

Proficiency Level in English Language by ZIP Code Observations There is an overall high percentage of English fluency throughout the City, as well as some dispersed advanced/intermediate/basic respondents. The respondents who chose “Basic” are clustered within the southeastern ZIP codes of 91204, 91205, and 91206.

155 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report

23 | P a g e

IDENTIFYING EJ COMMUNITIES
Survey respondents were asked to review a map of “disadvantaged communities” that were identified by tools such as CalEnviroScreen and the California Air Resources Board Priority Populations Mapping Tool. Based on these tools, Glendale has several neighborhoods generally located near downtown and the southern area of the City that are considered disadvantaged communities. Survey respondents then had the opportunity to identify additional areas in the City beyond those shown on the map.

Figure 1, Map of EJ Communities in Glendale, Including Input from Survey Respondents, is an updated version of the map reflecting these suggestions. Each additional area was suggested by a single respondent. While this feedback is valuable, it does not justify designating entire census tracts as EJ communities. This summary acknowledges these areas which the City may consider investigating further. Regardless, the City will include goals, policies, and actions within the EJ Element to support residents citywide, not only those in designated EJ communities.

Additional Areas Identified by Survey Respondents

Apartments in the foothills by La Crescenta

Area near the 210 Freeway around Pennsylvania Street

Verdugo City

Areas along the Verdugo Wash

Verdugo Woodlands

Woodbury neighborhood

Areas within a one-mile radius of the Grayson Power Plant

Additional Comments
 All of Glendale should be evaluated, especially in terms of access/transportation  Review areas around schools – increase green space
 I believe the entire city is entitled to environmental justice but that it means different things to different neighborhoods. In south Glendale it means more parks and open space. In canyons and near woodlands it means better fire protection. Near freeways it means filters to clean the air.  The City is perfect as is. Safe and clean.

156 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 24 | P a g e

Figure 1 - Map of Disadvantaged Communities in Glendale, Including Community Input

157 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report

25 | P a g e

PROMOTE PUBLIC FACILITIES
Access and availability of public facilities is an aspect of the built environment that may disproportionately limit the opportunities of EJ communities. If EJ communities have unequal access to public facilities, or if a city does not provide adequate facilities for public use, EJ communities may be limited in their ability to access essential resources. Limited access to these resources can lead to reduced lifespans, poorer health outcomes, and diminished mental well-being. Intentional planning of parks and transportation infrastructure can help provide equal access to resources for all communities within a city.

In Figure 2, Levels of Satisfaction for Public Facilities in Glendale Results, survey respondents indicated high satisfactory rates for “Availability and response time of emergency services such as fire department, paramedics, and police department,” (35% Very Satisfied, 33.5% Satisfied) and “Access to health care services like doctors, dentists, and hospitals” (33.5% Very Satisfied, 35% Satisfied). Some areas of higher dissatisfaction include “Bicycle lanes and safety for people who use bicycles to get around” (20% Very Dissatisfied, 21% Dissatisfied), and “Condition of sidewalks and crosswalks, and safety for people who walk and use wheelchairs or strollers: (8% Very Dissatisfied, 19% Dissatisfied).

Figure 2 – Levels of Satisfaction for Public Facilities in Glendale

ZIP Code Observations
When taking a deeper dive into the levels of satisfaction for bicycle infrastructure and analyzing the results by ZIP code, the neighborhoods in south/east Glendale, such as 91204, 91205, and 91206, have a high rate of Neutral to Very
Dissatisfied responses. On the contrary, ZIP code 91214 (north Glendale) has a high range of Very Satisfied to Neutral responses. Please see the graphic on the left for ZIP code reference.
158 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 26 | P a g e

PROMOTE HEALTHY FOOD ACCESS
Healthy food access encompasses the following three interrelated topics:

 Nutritionally adequate, culturally appropriate, and affordable food;  Income sufficient to purchase healthy food; and
 Proximity and ability to travel to a food source that offers affordable, nutritionally adequate, and culturally appropriate food.

In review of Figure 3, Levels of Satisfaction for Healthy Food Options in Glendale Results, survey respondents had indicated high levels of being “Satisfied” with “Places to get healthy food” (43.5%), “Variety of healthy food” (41.5%), and “Quality of healthy food” (47.5%). The category with the highest levels of dissatisfaction was the “Cost of healthy food,” with 21% Very Dissatisfied and 32% Dissatisfied.

Figure 3 - Levels of Satisfaction for Healthy Food Options in Glendale Places to gethealthy foodCost of healthyfoodVariety of healthyfoodQuality of healthyfood0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%Very DissatisfiedDissatisfiedNeutralSatisfiedVery Satisfied ZIP Code Observations
When breaking down the “Places to get healthy food” results by ZIP code, 40% of responses from ZIP code 91205 range from Neutral to Dissatisfied. While 51% of responses from ZIP code 91206 chose Satisfied and 23% of responses were
Neutral. With these results, there is room for improvement regarding accessibility to healthy food options in the
southern/eastern neighborhoods of Glendale. Please see the graphic on the left for ZIP code reference.
159 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report

27 | P a g e

PROMOTE SAFE AND SANITARY HOMES
The condition of homes in an EJ Community may have negative health impacts on its residents.

EJ communities often have a larger number of older units within their housing stock and therefore residents of these communities are more likely to be exposed to the harmful health impacts that are associated with older housing. Other factors that can contribute to unsafe housing conditions include improper regulation and overcrowding. Prioritizing the safety and sanitation of housing stock within a community helps create proper living conditions for all residents, including those living in EJ communities.

In Figure 4, Concern for Issues Related to Safe and Sanitary Homes in Glendale Results, survey respondents indicated a high level of concern for “Affordability of or access to air conditioning or heating” (41%), followed by “None of the above” (30%), “Unsafe or unhealthy conditions in homes” (30%), “Overcrowding conditions in homes” (27%), and “Other” (18%). A summary of additional comments that correspond to the “Other” responses is provided on the following page and Table 1 includes the comments as received and categorized by theme.

Figure 4 – Concern for Issues Related to Safe and Sanitary Homes in Glendale *such as lead, asbestos, mold, poor ventilation, pests and rodents, or needed repairs Affordability ofor access to airconditioning orheating.None of theabove.Unsafe orunhealthyconditions inhomes*Overcrowdingconditions inhomes.Other (pleasespecify)0.00%5.00%10.00%15.00%20.00%25.00%30.00%35.00%40.00%45.00%Responses ZIP Code Observations
When comparing the topics by ZIP code, the results of each area are similar to the overall results of the City. A noticeable difference is the slightly higher rate of respondents who chose “None of the above” in western and northern ZIP codes, such as 91020, 91201, 91208, and 91214. 160 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report

28 | P a g e

Summary of Additional Comments Related To “Other” In Figure 4 Glendale residents feel that rising housing costs and the lack of rent control are making the City unaffordable, especially for low-income families. They express concerns about overcrowding in older buildings, inadequate shade and landscaping, and a lack of public amenities like public bathrooms and parking. High-density developments are perceived as adding to traffic, pollution, and infrastructure strain, while rising utility costs challenge residents’ ability to maintain comfortable homes. Many are calling for tenant protections, improved amenities, and thoughtful planning to address these issues.

Table 1 – Additional comments related to “Other” in Figure 4 Themes Comments
Housing Costs  Very high rent and no rent control for landlords in Glendale  affordable housing
 Rent to expensive
 Affordability of rent in a clean environment is a huge problem  Affordability of rental properties and homes to buy in Glendale for first time homebuyers
 Affordability of family and "workforce" housing
 Lots of low income folks in Glendale can’t afford the heightened cost of living so there’s dilapidated buildings that are overcrowded with habitants Environment  Reasonable landscaping -trees for shade
 Need for more trees, especially in S Glendale
Living Conditions  No insulated windows in rental units  Only the amount of daily dust, allergens, and overall pollution, not to mention noise, produced by incessant leaf blowers operation.  Giant cockroaches showing up out of nowhere
Neighborhood
Conditions
 Public bathroom especially at the parks
 Lack of street parking- Burbank does better
 Inadequate parking for family properties throughout a city without mass transit options
 unmaintained landscaping - uncleared dead vegetation prone to fire hazard
 Tenant protections
 Neighbors burning varnished/painted wood and even plastic and rubber  Intrusion of busy-bodies, NIMBYS and Homeowner Associations imposing their minority standards upon the majority
 Criminal activity in my building (drug dealers) which has become quite an obvious nuisance in Glendale in the past 5-7 years.
 residents who smoke in multifamily properties
General
Overcrowding
 Too many high rise apartment buildings with too many apartments putting too many people in too small spaces.
 State mandated push to build more housing, thus making the city more crowded, slowing traffic which will increase air pollution, overburdening infrastructure such as electricity and water
 Overcrowding in the city with too many condos being built Utilities  The power grid
 Exacerbating public utilities.
 Trash pickup by Athens is a disaster of high costs to condos  Energy costs are expensive in Glendale
 I’m very concerned with the cost of electricity which may cause a problem for some people to have air conditioning during these very hot months  natural gas exhaust into homes from stoves and appliances  Utility rates are going up so much that it’s becoming expensive to maintain a comfortable home.
 The cost of running the air conditioner is outrageous 161 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report

29 | P a g e

COOLING OFF ON HOT DAYS
In continuation of promoting safe and sanitary homes, survey respondents were asked where they go in Glendale if they need to cool off on hot days. In Figure 5, Where Does the Glendale Community Go If They Need to Cool Off on Hot Days? Results, 89% of respondents indicated that they have air conditioning at home to utilize, followed by 20% of respondents that go to private facilities, 18% go to public facilities, 9% go to another location, and 3% do not have a place to cool off on hot days. Table 2 on the following page includes additional comments, as received on the survey, related to the “Other location” response. Due to high energy costs, residents struggle to keep cool at home, often seeking relief in workspaces, friends’ homes, and public places. To manage, they rely on fans, limited AC use, and evening ventilation, while also visiting local pools and ice rinks.

Figure 5 – Where Does the Glendale Community Go if They Need to Cool Off on Hot Days?

ZIP Code Observations
When comparing the issue topics by ZIP code, the results of each area are similar to the overall results of the City. There were no noticeable differences to note in this report. 162 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 30 | P a g e

Table 2 - Additional comments related to “Other” in Figure 5 Themes Additional Comments
Work  Work has AC.
 Work runs air conditioning during work hours.

Costs  Energy costs are too high.
 I can't afford to keep my home cool enough due to the price increases. So any place I can think of that won't cost me money in fuel or purchases by being a good customer for using their AC and taking up space.  The cost of running the air conditioner is outrageous  Rising cost of electricity is the problem
Home  I open the house in the evening once it has cooled down and close up in the morning. Our house is very well insulated and holds the cool very well until late afternoon without a/c.
 Take a cold shower, turn on the fan.
 I have mobile AC unit at home.
 Have to use regular fans to cool off at home since we can't afford increase in electricity bill
 sit in front of box fan
Neighborhood
Amenities
 pool in the apartment building where I live
Community  Friends who have air conditioning
Specific
places
 LA Kings Ice at Pickwick Gardens

163 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 31 | P a g e

WARMING UP ON COLD DAYS
Survey respondents were asked where in Glendale do they go if they need to warm up on cold days and 92% indicated that they have heating at home to use, 7% have “other locations,” and

4.5% do not have a place to warm up on cold days (Figure 6). Table 3 below includes additional comments, as received in the survey, related to the “other location” response. There were quite a few comments that indicated work as their place to find warmth. Other comments also suggested that it doesn’t get very cold in Southern California, so some may not need to use a heater.

Figure 6 - Where Does the Glendale Community Go if They Need to Warm Up on Cold Days?

I have heating at home touse during cold daysOther locations, such as:(please specify)I do not have a place towarm up on cold days0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%100.00%Responses ZIP Code Observations
When comparing the issue topics by ZIP code, the results of each area are similar to the overall results of the City. There were no noticeable differences to note in this report. 164 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 32 | P a g e

Table 3 - Additional Comments Related To “Other” In Figure 6 Themes Additional Comments
Costs  Energy costs are too high.
 Rising cost of electricity is the problem
Work  Office Building
 Work runs heater during work hours.

Facilities  Library
 Public & private facilities
Other  my car
 I feel like Glendale doesn’t really have this problem. The coldest it gets is like low 50s or maybe 40s but that’s not even that bad.. with climate change I feel like this will be less of a problem, the Air con is going to be a hot topic
 I wear layers of clothing. It isn't that cold in Southern California.
 wear more clothes and use more blankets

165 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 33 | P a g e

PROMOTE PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
Residents living in EJ communities are more likely to experience negative health outcomes due to fewer opportunities for formal and informal physical activity. Increasing the opportunity for physical activity within an EJ Community can positively impact the physical health of residents living in these areas. Increased physical activity levels are associated with a decreased risk for numerous health conditions and chronic illnesses.

In Figure 7, Level of Satisfaction for Physical Activity Options in Glendale Results, the highest levels of “Very Satisfied” categories were shown in “Easy access to a park or recreation center” (32%), followed by “Access to a suitable space to do physical activity” (29%), and “the amenities at my local park” (27.5%). “Opportunities for affordable activities at local parks and recreation centers” had a “Neutral” response from 38% of respondents, as well as the “Availability of activities for people of different ages and abilities.” The highest levels of dissatisfaction came from “Access to suitable space to do physical activity (4% Very Dissatisfied and 17% Dissatisfied).

Figure 7 – Level of Satisfaction for Physical Activity Options in Glendale ZIP Code Observations
When comparing the physical activity topics by ZIP code, the results of each area are similar to the overall results of the City. There were no noticeable differences to note in this report. 166 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report

34 | P a g e

REDUCE ANY UNIQUE OR COMPOUNDED HEALTH RISKS
Analyzing specific indicators that affect personal and communal health is important; but it is also essential to examine how each indicator affects one another, and how they combine to create unique health risks on both the individual and the community. Glendale does not have any notable unique situations which would significantly compound health risks.

In Figure 8, Conditions that Might Affect Good Health and Quality of Life Results, survey respondents were asked to indicate if any of the listed conditions in their neighborhood might affect good health and quality of life. Approximately two-thirds (63%) of respondents chose “Air pollution from vehicles on streets and freeways”, followed by 47.5% for “Illegal dumping of trash and other items in waterways or other areas”, 27% for “Air pollution from industrial businesses and activities”, and 27% for “Water pollution in waterways or storm drainage areas.” A summary of additional comments that correspond to the “Other”
responses is provided on the following page and Table 4 includes the comments categorized by theme.

Figure 8 – Conditions That Might Affect Good Health and Quality of Life

ZIP Code Observations
In addition to the high rates of concern for air pollution caused by vehicles and illegal dumping of trash or other items, water pollution was the top third choice for many of the respondents representing southern ZIP codes
such as 91204, 91205, and 91206. “Fumes, noise, and/or
chemicals [...]” is the top third choice for ZIP codes in western Glendale, such as 91201 and 91202. Please see the graphic on the left for ZIP code reference.
167 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report

35 | P a g e

Summary of Additional Comments Related To “Other” In Figure 4 Residents expressed frustration with constant noise and pollution from freeway traffic, modified vehicles, leaf blowers, and DMV driving tests. Concerns also center on increased crime, illegal marijuana grow houses, and insufficient police enforcement of dangerous driving, with many feeling that high neighborhood speed limits pose safety risks. Residents are dissatisfied by limited shade canopies, poor vegetation barriers, and neglected litter removal, particularly along the 134 freeway and Verdugo Road, which they believe contribute to a deteriorating environment. They also expressed a need for traffic mitigation associated with new development, improved City coordination on trash cleanup, and better water filtration technology.

Table 4 - Additional Comments Related To “Other” In Figure 8 Themes Additional Comments
Air Pollution  DMV has driving schools and DMV testers constantly parking by my house to do backups and often cars will sit with engines running causing extra pollution by my house and this goes on everyday and holidays. This has been going on for years and I am sick of it.
 particulate matter from fireplace fires
 Cigarette smoking is prevalent in Glendale
 Leaf blowers and fake “grass” are toxic to the environment Community  no more "development" - traffic in Glendale is outrageous  Illegal Marijuana grow houses in our neighborhood
 gang problems and crime
Landscaping  Lack of tree shade canopies and vegetation barriers.

Noise  Excessive noise from freeways, modified vehicles and illegal fireworks.  Noise pollution from traffic, sirens, helicopters, etc  Construction noise, commercial and residential
 Noise and smoke from train line on San Fernando
 pollution from gardening equipment, Noise and air pollution from generator at Milford and Maryland.
 Car and motorcycle noises
 Noise and air pollution from gas powered yard maintenance equipment.  Loud gas leaf blowers
 The railroad is not a good neighbor!
Street Safety  Lack of Police enforcement of dangerous drivers - injurious & possibly fatal  The speed limit in my neighborhood is very high and dangerous Waste  The city needs to better coordinate with CalTrans to remove trash along the 134 just outside the sound walls. For example around Doran & Naranja  Businesses not cleaning sidewalk & curbs
 a lot of trash in los angeles river
 Litter and cigarette butts
 Illegal dumping of used furniture in front of apartment buildings  Junk accumulating on sidewalks and city strip
 I have noticed an increase in dumped trash and more graffiti in my neighborhood.
 Cigarette smoke in public parks and citywide
 Verdugo road right above Glenoaks is a giant trash dump—really disgusting  People not picking up dog poo
Water
Pollution
 New technology for filtration of city water is necessary

168 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report

36 | P a g e

PROMOTE CIVIC ENGAGEMENT IN THE PUBLIC DECISION-MAKING PROCESS An important aspect of EJ is the development of effective policies and programs that enable all residents to participate in local decision making. SB 1000 emphasizes that community engagement must be promoted in a local jurisdiction through the development of objectives and policies that seek to specifically involve residents of DACs. By engaging EJ communities in decision-making processes, policymakers can more effectively meet the needs of these community members. EJ communities often have culturally specific needs, distinct from those of the general population. The U.S. EPA EJ Policy requires the “…meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.”

In Figure 9, Level of Satisfaction Regarding Community Engagement Results, a large portion of survey respondents indicated that they are “Very Satisfied” that “Information is available in my preferred language” (43%). Respondents are generally mixed between “Neutral” and “Satisfied” amongst all categories. Higher levels of dissatisfaction are seen in categories like “If I share input on decisions that the City is making, I feel like my input is fairly considered” (16% Very Dissatisfied, 15% Dissatisfied) and “Ease of finding information about City meetings, plans, and programs” (9% Very Dissatisfied, 19% Dissatisfied).

Figure 9 – Level of Satisfaction Regarding Community Engagement in Glendale

ZIP Code Observations
When comparing the community engagement topics by ZIP code, the results of each area are similar to the overall results of the City. One notable difference is that a high portion of respondents from ZIP code 91214 (northern Glendale) indicated that they were very dissatisfied with the option, “If I share input on decisions that the City is making, I feel like my input is fairly considered.”
169 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report

37 | P a g e

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ABOUT EJ FROM SURVEY RESPONDENTS

Summary of Additional Comments Provided By Survey Respondents Residents expressed concerns about illegal dumping, pedestrian and bicycle safety, and the need for more public amenities. They advocate for community food gardens, exercise programs, and more electric vehicle charging stations, as well as increased access to mental health services for vulnerable populations. Noise pollution from helicopters and gas leaf blowers raises concerns, leading to suggestions for sound barriers and educational initiatives. There is strong demand for more green space, better street safety, and improved neighborhood connectivity.

Residents emphasize the need for inclusive City surveys, financial incentives for solar energy, proper waste management education, and active community involvement in environmental justice efforts to enhance livability in Glendale.

Table 5 includes all comments categorized into themes, which include Community, Noise, Parks, Pollution, Streets, Survey, Utilities, and Waste. There was a diverse set of comments and ideas, suggesting that there is more to be discussed about EJ efforts in Glendale.

Table 5 – Summary of Additional Comments About EJ From Respondents Themes Comments
Community  Concerns regarding dumping in areas that affects neighbors and the community
 Increase pedestrian and bicycle safety
 Develop community food gardens
 Develop community programs, such as exercise classes
 Expanding our public facilities and amenities
 Keep Grayson open
 Incorporate inclusive design
 Awareness and education on reducing carbon footprints and mitigating climate change.
 Increasing the amount of electric vehicle charging stations  Increasing amount of filtered drinking water fountains  Need for more public restrooms
 Planting more trees
 The communities in South Glendale would benefit from EJ efforts  The most vulnerable population who needs to have access to services (especially mental health services) doesn't have information on where to go and who to go to. It would be great to do PSAs in different languages to connect the community with resources and services in our community.

Moreover, to help them navigate the various systems they may be in need of.
 Those most affected by these issues may require other methods of engagement, e.g. schools, churches, leaders, word of mouth, etc.  Community organizations that are interested in contributing to EJ efforts and participate in more city initiatives
 Tackling invasive species in the city
 Several years ago, the City's Neighborhood Services Department researched and compiled a report documenting various indicators for Quality of Life in Glendale. All of the topics included in this survey were a part of that effort, as well as many more. This report was adopted by the City Council and could serve as a foundation for a more comprehensive 170 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 38 | P a g e

Themes Comments
effort, for all residents, involving many more elements that contribute to the livability of our city.
 More mixed use zoning in the neighborhood so people can have stores and shops within walking distance of where they live
Noise  Idea of installing curved translucent sound barriers along train tracks to reduce noise pollution.
 Complaints regarding noise pollution from helicopters in the middle of the night.

Parks  Develop more pocket parks
 Increase shade at existing Glendale parks, especially over children’s play structures and swings.
 Most apartment communities have no play areas, and available parks are not within a short distance.
 Lack of greenspace in South Glendale
 Idea of opening GHS to the public on weeknights
 Need of open space in underserved areas of Glendale
Pollution  Concern for gas leaf blower exhaust and fumes in the Verdugo Woodlands. Advise to educate residents about the harm from gas leaf blowers
 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions
 Concern for large amount of cigarette smoking in residential areas and improper disposal of cigarette buds.

Streets  Increase street safety and law enforcement measures.  No noticeable change to pedestrian safety despite budget allocation.  Concern for roadways in school zones
 Unsure why some bike/pedestrian bridges are not accessible, such as the Naranja and Doran entryways.
 Lack of neighborhood connectivity in North Glendale.
 Lowell Avenue is too crowded in Crescenta Highlands.
 Drivers are not considerate of pedestrians
 Traffic conditions on Windsor Rd between Chevy chase and Glendale blvd are dangerous, traffic drives through at high speeds with little caution to pedestrians.
 Elimination of car lanes leads to more traffic.
 Little use of bike lanes
 Need for wider streets
 Increase in bus and bike lanes
 Increase in trees along sidewalks
 Residential streets, like Louise, are being used as thoroughfares to bypass Brand and Central.
 Please also consider keeping the Verdugo Channel day-lit as part of the bikepath remodel. This would not only help circulate and cool the air in the surrounding areas, but would also create/restore habitat for the abundant wildlife in the area.
 Suggest to take inspiration from Burbank, who has converted certain streets to one way traffic.
 More parking in apartment communities
Survey  Ensuring that city surveys like these are accessible to disadvantaged communities
 This survey has increased interest and awareness of the EJ Element 171 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report 39 | P a g e

Themes Comments
 I don't believe this is a representative survey as the areas selected are basically a representation of population and not "disadvantaged" for any other reason
 This survey was too short and too general. It doesn't reflect the competing pressures primarily those from state mandates to increase housing and the preferences of long time residents for quiet, peaceful, uncrowded neighborhoods with reasonable commuting times and relatively good air quality.

Utilities  Needed financial assistance and incentives to transition to solar energy  Increase solar panels in commercial parking lots to provide shade and a sustainable source of energy.
 Concern for the rising cost of energy
Waste  City needs to be proactive on illegal dumping
 Lack of proper education and participation of the community in regard to recycling, trash, and compost collection
 Concern for businesses that use toxic chemicals along San Fernando Road
 Concern for dumping of furniture and trash on curbs and streets  Would like to have compost bins in apartment communities 172 of 228

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT Appendix B │ Environmental Justice Outreach Summary Report

40 | P a g e

5. COMPLETE SURVEY RESULTS
173 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
1 / 51

80.65% 200

41.13% 102

3.23% 8

1.21% 3

4.84% 12
Q1 Please select the options that best describes you. Select all that apply.

Answered: 248 Skipped: 0
Total Respondents: 248
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Unincorporated La Crescenta 8/17/2024 9:05 AM
2 x 8/16/2024 10:55 PM
3 I work in GUSD, live in Glendale, and take courses at GCC 8/7/2024 10:41 PM 4 Run a Business 8/4/2024 8:44 AM
5 I am an environmental/social justice leader with the Sierra Club Angeles Chapter. The City of Glendale is within our chapter boundaries.
7/31/2024 5:57 PM
6 91205 7/28/2024 6:35 PM
7 I am an environmental justice leader with the Sierra Club in Los Angeles 7/28/2024 5:15 PM 8 I am an environmental justice leader with the Sierra Club Angeles Chapter 7/28/2024 5:08 PM 9 Just live 7/27/2024 9:54 AM
10 d 7/10/2024 11:12 AM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I live in
Glendale
I work in
Glendale
I study in
Glendale
I do not live,
work, or study
in Glendale
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I live in Glendale
I work in Glendale
I study in Glendale
I do not live, work, or study in Glendale
Other (please specify)
174 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
2 / 51
11 Child attends public school in Glendale and I own property 5/1/2024 5:35 PM 12 Rincon test 4/18/2024 12:28 PM
175 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
3 / 51
Q2 Please select the ZIP code of where you either primarily live, work, orstudy in Glendale, or select N/A if this does not apply to you.If you arecurrently reside in Glendale but are without permanent shelter, pleaseselect or enter the ZIP code where you spend the majority of your time inthe City.

Answered: 248 Skipped: 0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
N/A - I do not
reside, work,
or study in...
91205
91206
91201
91202
91208
91214
91204
91203
91207
91020
91210
Other (please
specify)
176 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
4 / 51

2.02% 5

18.15% 45

22.98% 57

9.27% 23

6.45% 16

9.27% 23

9.68% 24

7.26% 18

6.05% 15

4.03% 10

1.21% 3

0.40% 1

3.23% 8
TOTAL 248
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 d 7/10/2024 11:12 AM
2 91207 & 91205 7/3/2024 5:49 PM
3 Glendale 5/22/2024 1:48 PM
4 91107 5/21/2024 7:41 AM
5 91504 5/16/2024 3:52 PM
6 90026 4/20/2024 12:21 PM
7 91352 4/20/2024 12:08 PM
8 Rincon Test 4/18/2024 12:28 PM

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
N/A - I do not reside, work, or study in Glendale
91205
91206
91201
91202
91208
91214
91204
91203
91207
91020
91210
Other (please specify)
177 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
5 / 51
Q3 Referring to the map below, in which general neighborhood do youprimarily live, work, or study in Glendale?If you do not know or do not live,work, or study in Glendale, or prefer not to answer, you may skip thisquestion.

Answered: 224 Skipped: 24
City Center
Verdugo
Woodlands
Crescenta
Highlands
Adams Hills
Citrus Grove
Rossmoyne
Grandview
Paciﬁc-Edison
Glenwood
Vineyard
Mariposa
Montrose
Verdugo City
Riverside
Rancho
Somerset
Chevy Chase
Tropico
Other or
unsure (please
specif )
178 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
6 / 51
specify)
Brockmont
El Miradero
Freemont Park
Grand Central
Pelanconi
Verdugo
Mountains
Verdugo Viejo
Woodbury
College Hills
Emerald Isle
Glenoaks Canyon
Montecito Park
Moorpark
Oakmont
San Rafael
Hills
Greenbriar
Rancho San
Rafael
San Gabriel
Mountains
Scholl Canyon
Sparr Heights
Whiting Woods
179 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
7 / 51
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
180 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
8 / 51

16.96% 38

9.38% 21

8.48% 19

7.14% 16

5.36% 12

4.91% 11

4.02% 9

3.57% 8

3.13% 7

2.68% 6

2.23% 5

0.89% 2

0.45% 1

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
City Center
Verdugo Woodlands
Crescenta Highlands
Adams Hills
Citrus Grove
Rossmoyne
Grandview
Pacific-Edison
Glenwood
Vineyard
Mariposa
Montrose Verdugo City
Riverside Rancho
Somerset
Chevy Chase
Tropico
Other or unsure (please specify)
Brockmont
El Miradero
Freemont Park
Grand Central
Pelanconi
Verdugo Mountains
Verdugo Viejo
Woodbury
College Hills
Emerald Isle
Glenoaks Canyon
Montecito Park
Moorpark
Oakmont
San Rafael Hills
181 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
9 / 51

0.00% 0

0.00% 0
TOTAL 224
# OTHER OR UNSURE (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Near La Crescenta Library 8/17/2024 9:05 AM
2 Glendale 5/22/2024 1:48 PM
3 91203 5/16/2024 4:00 PM
4 Glendale 5/16/2024 3:41 PM
5 E Garfield Ave 5/14/2024 8:53 AM
Greenbriar
Rancho San Rafael
San Gabriel Mountains
Scholl Canyon
Sparr Heights
Whiting Woods
182 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
10 / 51
Q4 We want to know if there are any additional areas in the City beyondthose shown in the map that deserve special attention to address issues ofenvironmental justice. Please describe the area to the best of your abilityusing neighborhood references, cross streets, landmarks, or otherdescriptors, and also provide details about why this area needs specialattention.

Answered: 37 Skipped: 211
# RESPONSES DATE
1 None need "environmental justice". The city should leave our neighborhoods alone . 8/20/2024 7:22 PM 2 I think it’s important to recognize there is a big difference between the disadvantaged communities you’ve identified. Specifically, the areas closest to the rail line on N San Fernando are in a heavily industrial area. A couple years ago one of these buildings had a major chemical gas leak. This problem should probably be prioritized over car pollution in the downtown area, for instance.
8/17/2024 4:23 PM
3 The area of the verdugo wash has become an area that needs special attention because of the proliferation of gang activity, unhoused people, and consequence of not being able to use it for recreation safely.
8/17/2024 12:38 PM
4 Verdugo City. Our park/green space access by anything other than a car is limited by wide, high speed roads and incomplete/ non-existent sidewalk network. Trees on main roads for shade also very limited. We have a lot of apartments in the area, so it’s denser than surrounding neighborhoods. Cross walks or safe connectors to CV park and other neighborhoods would go a long way. We need trees for shade. 8/17/2024 5:34 AM
5 All of Glendale. GWP water treatment needs to do a better job in filtering out PFAS in water and higher levels of toxic Hexavelent chromium. There is no reason that this cannot be filtered out almost entirely.
8/16/2024 11:25 PM
6 n/a 8/14/2024 4:45 PM
7 x 8/9/2024 2:27 PM
8 This looks pretty accurate to me. The hillside communities including Kenneth village area and La crescenta / montrose regions are pretty affluent compared to the areas of Glendale closer to down town, and they exhibit less smog than the disadvantaged regions you highlighted green
8/7/2024 10:45 PM
9 There are low income families in apartments in the foothills by La Crescenta. 7/31/2024 5:20 PM 10 not at this time. 7/30/2024 4:46 PM
11 All areas should have access to environmental justice. 7/29/2024 8:58 PM 12 Side walks need plants that are pollinators to help the environment and bee's. Trees should not be cut down.
7/29/2024 11:45 AM
13 My area is experiencing an uptick in homelessness and street food vendors without permits. 7/29/2024 7:51 AM 14 I don’t know any other areas 7/28/2024 11:41 AM
15 The Verdugo woodlands is at higher risk of wildfire damage than the areas you’ve highlighted. 7/28/2024 10:53 AM 16 Not sure 7/27/2024 6:29 PM
17 I live in the green area—better connects to the river 7/27/2024 9:56 AM 18 I don't know about environmental justice, I know Glendale has been deteriorating rapidly over 7/26/2024 6:00 PM 183 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
11 / 51
the last few years for all residents.
19 n/a. This map accurately reflects where the highest needs are. 7/22/2024 9:38 AM 20 Special attention should be taken in areas within 1 mile of the Grayson Power Plant. Also all areas surrounding large parking lots. Areas near artificial turf are also impacted with excess heat and pollutants.
7/22/2024 8:49 AM
21 none 6/13/2024 12:36 PM
22 Yes.... All the R H zoned lots for HORSES !! 6/13/2024 10:14 AM 23 The city is perfect as is. Safe and clean 6/11/2024 11:27 AM 24 First you need to define "environmental justice." I believe the entire city is entitled to environmental justice but that it means different things to different neighborhoods. In south Glendale it means more parks and open space. In canyons and near woodlands it means better fire protection. Near freeways it means filters to clean the air. 5/24/2024 4:35 PM
25 Glendale in general 5/22/2024 1:50 PM
26 None. 5/21/2024 11:10 AM
27 I think the whole city should be looked at especially in terms of access/transportation. 5/21/2024 9:34 AM 28 none. just the identified areas 5/21/2024 7:45 AM
29 Area near the 210 freeway, both north/south of the 210 freeway around pennsylvania. 5/21/2024 6:48 AM 30 The Woodbury neighborhood should also be considered. It sits at the junction of the 134 and 2 freeways, as well as
5/21/2024 12:26 AM
31 San Fernando Rd, Colorado trash, illegal dumping, crime 5/20/2024 5:00 PM 32 Unhoused people living in encampments for many years on the sidewalks 5/20/2024 4:28 PM 33 None 5/20/2024 3:19 PM
34 Nmtroze/Hrmolulu/Verduyo 5/16/2024 4:01 PM
35 around schools - more green space 5/16/2024 3:56 PM
36 n/a 5/16/2024 3:42 PM
37 Circulation/speed bumps at 91205 area 4/20/2024 11:31 AM 184 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
12 / 51
Q5 How satisfied are you with the following public facilities in Glendale?When answering, think about your personal experiences over the course ofthe past year. If the topic does not apply to you, please skip it.

Answered: 213 Skipped: 35
Condition of
sidewalks and
crosswalks, ...

Bicycle lanes
and safety for
people who u...

Bus services
for people who
use buses to...

Access to
185 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
13 / 51
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very Dissat… Dissatisﬁed Neutral Satisﬁed
Very Satisﬁ…
libraries,
museums, and...

Availability
and response
time of...

Access to
health care
services lik...

Availability
of aﬀordable
daycare...
186 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
14 / 51

7.62%
16 19.05%
40 20.00%
42 41.90%
88 11.43%
24 210

19.80%
40 20.79%
42 28.71%
58 17.33%
35 13.37%
27 202

7.22%
14 16.49%
32 39.69%
77 27.32%
53 9.28%
18 194

0.96%
2 7.66%
16 16.75%
35 48.33%
101

26.32%
55 209

3.45%
7 4.43%
9 23.65%
48 33.50%
68 34.98%
71 203

2.43%
5 5.34%
11 23.79%
49 34.95%
72 33.50%
69 206

6.42%
12 12.30%
23 67.38%
126

6.42%
12 7.49%
14 187

VERYDISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED NEUTRAL SATISFIED VERYSATISFIED TOTAL Condition of sidewalks and crosswalks,
and safety for people who walk and use
wheelchairs or strollers.

Bicycle lanes and safety for people who
use bicycles to get around.

Bus services for people who use buses to
get where they need to go.

Access to libraries, museums, and other
cultural centers.

Availability and response time of
emergency services such as fire
department, paramedics, and police
department.

Access to health care services like
doctors, dentists, and hospitals.

Availability of affordable daycare centers.
187 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
15 / 51
Q6 How satisfied are you with the following options for physical activity inGlendale? When answering, think about your personal experiences overthe course of the past year. If the topic does not apply to you, please skipit.

Answered: 210 Skipped: 38
Easy access to
a park or
recreation...

Access to a
suitable space
to do physic...

Feeling safe
at my local
park or...
188 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
16 / 51
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very Dissat… Dissatisﬁed Neutral Satisﬁed
Very Satisﬁ…
The amenities
at my local
park (such a...

Opportunities
for aﬀordable
activities a...

Availability
of activities
for people o...
189 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
17 / 51

2.90%
6 15.46%
32 16.91%
35 32.85%
68 31.88%
66 207

4.35%
9 16.91%
35 15.94%
33 33.82%
70 28.99%
60 207

1.93%
4 8.70%
18 19.81%
41 42.03%
87 27.54%
57 207

1.48%
3 14.29%
29 21.67%
44 39.41%
80 23.15%
47 203

3.00%
6 13.00%
26 38.00%
76 27.00%
54 19.00%
38 200

2.53%
5 13.64%
27 38.38%
76 28.79%
57 16.67%
33 198

VERYDISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED NEUTRAL SATISFIED VERYSATISFIED TOTAL Easy access to a park or recreation center.

Access to a suitable space to do physical
activity (such as exercise, play sports, ride
a bike, walk, etc.).

Feeling safe at my local park or recreation
center.

The amenities at my local park (such as
sports fields, playgrounds, picnic tables,
trash receptacles, benches, landscaping,
shade, lighting, etc.).

Opportunities for affordable activities at
local parks and recreation centers.

Availability of activities for people of
different ages and abilities.
190 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
18 / 51
Q7 How satisfied are you with the following healthy food options inGlendale? When answering, think about your personal experiences overthe course of the past year. If the topic does not apply to you, please skipit.

Answered: 203 Skipped: 45
Places to get
healthy food
Cost of
healthy food
Variety of
healthy food
191 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
19 / 51

2.00%
4 13.00%
26 20.50%
41 43.50%
87 21.00%
42 200

20.79%
42 31.68%
64 28.71%
58 15.35%
31 3.47%
7 202

5.45%
11 14.36%
29 21.29%
43 41.58%
84 17.33%
35 202

4.95%
10 9.90%
20 21.29%
43 47.52%
96 16.34%
33 202
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very Dissat… Dissatisﬁed Neutral Satisﬁed
Very Satisﬁ…
Quality of
healthy food

VERY DISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED NEUTRAL SATISFIED VERY SATISFIED TOTAL Places to get healthy food
Cost of healthy food
Variety of healthy food
Quality of healthy food
192 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
20 / 51

30.30% 60

26.77% 53

29.80% 59

40.91% 81

17.68% 35
Q8 Are you concerned about any of the following issues related to safeand sanitary homes in Glendale? You may select as many as apply. Whenanswering, think about your personal experiences over the course of thepast year.

Answered: 198 Skipped: 50
Total Respondents: 198
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Inadequate parking for family properties throughout a city without mass transit options 8/17/2024 12:43 PM 2 The cost of running the air conditioner is outrageous 8/17/2024 9:13 AM 3 Utility rates are going up so much that it’s becoming expensive to maintain a comfortable home.
8/16/2024 11:31 PM
4 natural gas exhaust into homes from stoves and appliances 8/15/2024 1:59 PM 5 Lots of low income folks in Glendale can’t afford the heightened cost of living so there’s dillapatated buildings that are overcrowded with habitants :( 8/7/2024 10:53 PM
6 Affordability of family and "workforce" housing 8/5/2024 8:56 AM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
None of the
above
Overcrowding
conditions in
homes.

Unsafe or
unhealthy
conditions i...

Aﬀordability
of or access to
air...

Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
None of the above
Overcrowding conditions in homes.

Unsafe or unhealthy conditions in homes (such as lead, asbestos, mold, poor ventilation, pests and rodents, or needed repairs).

Affordability of or access to air conditioning or heating.

Other (please specify)
193 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
21 / 51
7 Affordability of rental properties and homes to buy in Glendale for first time homebuyers 8/4/2024 7:32 PM 8 Affordability of rent in a clean environment is a huge problem 8/3/2024 6:48 PM 9 Doesn’t apply to me 7/30/2024 4:21 PM
10 Overcrowding in the city with too many condos being built 7/30/2024 2:55 PM 11 NA 7/30/2024 6:59 AM
12 Giant cockroaches showing up out of nowhere 7/29/2024 8:12 PM 13 residents who smoke in multipfamily properties 7/29/2024 4:37 PM 14 I’m very concerned with the cost of electricity which may cause a problem for some people to have air conditioning during these very hot months
7/28/2024 10:39 AM
15 Energy costs are expensive in glendale 7/27/2024 6:33 PM 16 Trash pickup by Athens is a disaster of high costs to condos 7/27/2024 1:02 PM 17 Although none of these issues apply to my PERSONAL circumstances, I'm concerned about all of them in GENERAL regarding their negative impact on the quality of life for others in this community.
7/27/2024 7:31 AM
18 Only the amount of daily dust, allergens, and overall pollution, not to mention noise, produced by incessant leaf blowers operation.
7/26/2024 6:04 PM
19 Rent to expensive 7/26/2024 3:12 PM
20 Criminal activity in my building (drug dealers) which has become quite an obvious nuisance in Glendale in the past 5-7 years.
7/26/2024 1:48 PM
21 Intrusion of busy-bodies, NIMBYS and Homeowner Associations imposing their minority standards upon the majority
7/26/2024 1:29 PM
22 Need for more trees, especially in S Glendale 7/22/2024 8:52 AM 23 Reasonable landscaping -trees for shade 6/13/2024 12:37 PM 24 Exacerbating public utilities. 5/28/2024 11:56 AM
25 State mandated push to build more housing, thus making the city more crowded, slowing traffic which will increase air pollution, overburdening infrastructure such as electricity and water
5/24/2024 4:38 PM
26 Too many high rise apartment buildings with too many apartments putting too many people in too small spaces.
5/23/2024 2:19 PM
27 Public bathroom especially at the parks 5/22/2024 1:55 PM 28 affordable housing 5/22/2024 12:14 PM
29 Neighbors burning varnished/painted wood and even plastic and rubber 5/21/2024 10:45 AM 30 Tenant protections 5/21/2024 9:36 AM
31 Very high rent and no rent control for landlords in Glendale. Please pass rent control or I may be forced to move to LA City and commute to my job in Glendale instead. 5/20/2024 4:37 PM
32 unmaintained landscaping - uncleared dead vegetation prone to fire hazard 5/20/2024 3:25 PM 33 Lack of street parking- Burbank does better 5/16/2024 3:49 PM 34 The power grid 5/1/2024 5:36 PM
35 No insulated windows in rental units 4/18/2024 11:43 AM 194 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
22 / 51

88.56% 178

3.48% 7

17.91% 36

19.90% 40

9.45% 19
Q9 Where in Glendale do you go if you need to cool off on hot days?(Select all that apply) Answered: 201 Skipped: 47
Total Respondents: 201
# OTHER LOCATION, SUCH AS: (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 I open the house in the evening once it has cooled down and close up in the morning. Our house is very well insulated and holds the cool very well until late afternoon without a/c. 8/21/2024 8:55 PM
2 Energy costs are too high. 8/20/2024 2:24 PM
3 I can't afford to keep my home cool enough due to the price increases. So any place I can think of that won't cost me money in fuel or purchases by being a good customer for using their AC and taking up space.
8/17/2024 12:43 PM
4 Movie theatre 8/17/2024 12:15 PM
5 The cost of running the air conditioner is outrageous 8/17/2024 9:13 AM 6 pool in the apartment building where I live 8/3/2024 6:48 PM 7 Take a cold shower, turn on the fan. 7/31/2024 10:26 AM 8 I have mobile AC unit at home. 7/30/2024 5:00 PM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I have air
conditioning at
home to use...

I do not have
a place to cool
oﬀ on hot days
I go to public
facilities,
such as...

I go to
private
facilities,...

Other
location, such
as: (please...

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I have air conditioning at home to use during hot days
I do not have a place to cool off on hot days
I go to public facilities, such as libraries, senior centers, public pools, or recreation centers I go to private facilities, such as movie theaters or shopping malls Other location, such as: (please specify)
195 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
23 / 51
9 Have to use regular fans to cool off at home since we can't afford increase in electricity bill 7/29/2024 8:12 PM 10 pick ice arena 7/26/2024 10:00 PM
11 Friends who have air conditioning 5/23/2024 2:19 PM
12 Rising cost of electricity is the problem 5/22/2024 1:55 PM 13 Work has AC. 5/21/2024 11:12 AM
14 work 5/20/2024 5:03 PM
15 work 5/20/2024 3:31 PM
16 Work runs air conditioning during work hours. 5/20/2024 3:25 PM 17 sit in front of box fan 5/20/2024 3:17 PM
18 -/halls 5/16/2024 4:03 PM
19 work place 5/16/2024 3:49 PM
196 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
24 / 51

92.39% 182

4.57% 9

7.11% 14
Q10 Where in Glendale do you go if you need to warm up on cold days? Answered: 197 Skipped: 51
Total Respondents: 197
# OTHER LOCATIONS, SUCH AS: (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Energy costs are too high. 8/20/2024 2:24 PM
2 Library 8/18/2024 4:05 PM
3 I feel like Glendale doesn’t really have this problem 😅 the coldest it gets is like low 50s or maybe 40s but that’s not even that bad.. with climate change I feel like this will be less of a problem, the Air con is going to be a hot topic
8/7/2024 10:53 PM
4 Գնել եմ էլեկտրական ջեռուցման սարք 7/26/2024 4:25 PM 5 my car 6/13/2024 10:16 AM
6 Public and private facilities. 5/28/2024 11:56 AM
7 Libraries 5/24/2024 8:50 AM
8 Rising cost of electricity is the problem 5/22/2024 1:55 PM 9 Work. 5/21/2024 11:12 AM
10 I wear layers of clothing. It isn't that cold in Southern California. 5/21/2024 7:48 AM 11 Office Building 5/20/2024 6:03 PM
12 work 5/20/2024 5:03 PM
13 Work runs heater during work hours. 5/20/2024 3:25 PM 14 wear more clothes and use more blankets 5/20/2024 3:17 PM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I have heating
at home to use
during cold...

I do not have
a place to warm
up on cold days
Other
locations, such
as: (please...

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I have heating at home to use during cold days
I do not have a place to warm up on cold days
Other locations, such as: (please specify)
197 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
25 / 51
Q11 Do you see any of these conditions in your neighborhood that mightaffect good health and quality of life? You may select as many as apply.When answering, think about your personal experiences over the course ofthe past year.

Answered: 202 Skipped: 46
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
None of the
above
Air pollution
from vehicles
on streets a...

Air pollution
from industrial
businesses a...

Water
pollution in
waterways or...

Access to safe
and/or
aﬀordable...

Fumes, noise,
and/or
chemicals fr...

Pollution at
prior
industrial...

Illegal
dumping of
trash and ot...

Other (please
specify)
198 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
26 / 51

15.84% 32

62.87% 127

26.73% 54

16.34% 33

24.26% 49

8.91% 18

47.52% 96

18.32% 37
Total Respondents: 202
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Lack of Police enforcement of dangerous drivers - injurious & possibly fatal 8/25/2024 5:28 PM 2 The city needs to better coordinate with CalTrans to remove trash along the 134 just outside the sound walls. For example around Doran & Naranja
8/21/2024 9:00 PM
3 Businesses not cleaning sidewalk & curbs 8/18/2024 4:07 PM 4 a lot of trash in los angeles river 8/17/2024 4:28 PM 5 Noise pollution from speeding and radios from cars and parties late at night 8/17/2024 12:44 PM 6 DMV has driving schools and DMV testers constantly parking by my house to do backups and often cars will sit with engines running causing extra pollution by my house and this goes on everyday and holidays. This has been going on for years and I am sick of it. 8/15/2024 11:04 PM
7 Excessive noise from freeways, modified vehicles and illegal fireworks. 8/15/2024 5:14 PM 8 Litter and cigarette butts 8/15/2024 4:42 PM
9 particulate matter from fireplace fires 8/15/2024 2:01 PM 10 Illegal dumping of bulky items ALL OVER the city. These don’t decompose very well, are an eye sore, and are a nuisance to the community. People need a free and easy way to dispose of bulky items without getting in the habit of throwing it in the median 8/7/2024 10:54 PM
11 Leaf blowers and fake “grass” are toxic to the environment 8/5/2024 12:20 PM 12 Illegal dumping of used furniture in front of apartment buildings 8/5/2024 8:57 AM 13 Junk Accumulating on sidewalks and city strip 8/4/2024 8:52 AM 14 the waste (compost, trash, recylcables) in our building and at eateries all end up in the same trash truck. I have pictures to prove it. I spoke to management multiple times of our apartment building and several eateries. Nothing is being done by the waste companies. 8/3/2024 6:50 PM
15 Noise pollution from traffic, sirens, helicopters, etc 7/29/2024 4:38 PM 16 I have noticed an increase in dumped trash and more graffiti in my neighborhood. 7/29/2024 8:05 AM 17 Construction noise, commercial and residential 7/28/2024 7:46 AM 18 Cigarette smoke in public parks and citywide 7/27/2024 9:21 PM 19 NO MORE "DEVDELOPMENT" - TRAFFIC IN GLENDALE IS OUTRAGEOUS 7/27/2024 1:04 PM 20 The railroad is not a good neighbor! 7/27/2024 10:00 AM

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
None of the above
Air pollution from vehicles on streets and freeways.

Air pollution from industrial businesses and activities.

Water pollution in waterways or storm drainage areas.

Access to safe and/or affordable drinking water.

Fumes, noise, and/or chemicals from current industrial businesses or gas stations.

Pollution at prior industrial sites/locations
Illegal dumping of trash and other items in waterways or other areas.

Other (please specify)
199 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
27 / 51
21 Noise and smoke from train line on San Fernando 7/26/2024 11:58 PM 22 As mentioned, leaf blowers pollution. 7/26/2024 6:06 PM 23 Cigarette smoking is prevalent in Glendale despite your signs stating “Glendale Fresh Air”. And why does the Phoenicia Restaurant get away with cigarette and cigar smoking on their patio? I have to smell that every time I walk by it. Who got paid off to allow this? 7/26/2024 1:51 PM
24 Include gardeners with leaf/dust blowers. There are many days when you want to leave your windows open for ventilation....but with weekly visits by gardeners serving many different adjacent addresses on different days and times it becomes a chore to have to remember to close windows to prevent the infiltration of dust, odors and noise! 7/26/2024 1:35 PM
25 pollution from gardening equipment, Noise and air pollution from generator at Milford and Maryland.
7/22/2024 8:54 AM
26 Car and motorcycle noises 7/20/2024 11:33 PM
27 Batteries being stored / Lithium is hazardous / @ 1847 Victory Blvd by owner 6/13/2024 10:18 AM 28 Littering and many many cigarette butts 5/24/2024 8:51 AM 29 Noise and air pollution from gas powered yard maintenance equipment. 5/23/2024 9:04 AM 30 New technology for filtration of city water is necessary 5/22/2024 1:57 PM 31 Verdugo road right above Glenoaks is a giant trash dump—really disgusting 5/21/2024 10:45 AM 32 The speed limit in my neighborhood is very high and dangerous 5/21/2024 9:38 AM 33 Illegal Marijuana grow houses in our neighborhood 5/21/2024 6:50 AM 34 Very very very loud gas leaf blowers 5/20/2024 4:38 PM 35 People not picking up dog poo 5/20/2024 3:41 PM
36 Lack of tree shade canopies and vegetation barriers. 5/20/2024 3:26 PM 37 gang problems and crime 5/20/2024 3:17 PM
200 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
28 / 51
Q12 How satisfied are you with the following regarding communityengagement in Glendale? When answering, think about your personalexperiences over the course of the past year. If the topic does not apply toyou, please skip it.

Answered: 199 Skipped: 49
Ease of
ﬁnding
information...

Ability to
participate in
City meeting...

Information is
available in my
preferred...
201 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
29 / 51

9.05%
18 19.10%
38 30.15%
60 31.66%
63 10.05%
20 199

5.70%
11 10.88%
21 40.41%
78 30.57%
59 12.44%
24 193

0.52%
1 2.08%
4 17.71%
34 36.46%
70 43.23%
83 192

15.87%
30 14.81%
28 45.50%
86 19.05%
36 4.76%
9 189
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Very Dissat… Dissatisﬁed Neutral Satisﬁed
Very Satisﬁ…
If I share
input on
decisions th...

VERYDISSATISFIED DISSATISFIED NEUTRAL SATISFIED VERYSATISFIED TOTAL Ease of finding information about City
meetings, plans, and programs.

Ability to participate in City meetings at a
time and through a method (i.e., in-person,
computer, phone, etc.) that is convenient
for me.

Information is available in my preferred
language.

If I share input on decisions that the City is
making, I feel like my input is fairly
considered.
202 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
30 / 51
Q13 Please select the methods you currently use and would prefer to useto receive information about what the City is doing. You may select asmany as you like.

Answered: 177 Skipped: 71
Currently Use
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
X
City website
E-Newsletter
Facebook
X (formerly...

Instagram
YouTube
Nextdoor
Direct mailer
City meetings
Glendale Wat...

Prefer to Use
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
X
City website
E-Newsletter
Facebook
X (formerly...

Instagram
YouTube
Nextdoor
Direct mailer
City meetings
Glendale Wat...
203 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
31 / 51
Currently Use
100.00%
131

131
100.00%
66 66
100.00%
19 19
100.00%
11 11
100.00%
42 42
100.00%
30 30
100.00%
40 40
100.00%
58 58
100.00%
57 57
100.00%
69 69
Prefer to Use
100.00%
55 55
100.00%
60 60
100.00%
13 13
100.00%
14 14
100.00%
35 35
100.00%
19 19
100.00%
18 18
100.00%
41 41
100.00%
31 31
100.00%
25 25
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Public schools 5/20/2024 3:28 PM

X TOTAL
City website
E-Newsletter
Facebook
X (formerly Twitter)
Instagram
YouTube
Nextdoor
Direct mailer
City meetings
Glendale Water and Power (GWP) inserts

X TOTAL
City website
E-Newsletter
Facebook
X (formerly Twitter)
Instagram
YouTube
Nextdoor
Direct mailer
City meetings
Glendale Water and Power (GWP) inserts
204 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
32 / 51
2 An important avenue for sharing information is word of mouth via community groups/connections
5/20/2024 4:15 PM
3 Community meetings 5/21/2024 8:10 AM
4 Not enough time to use most of the methods 5/22/2024 1:59 PM 5 The elderly and technology challenged cannot even fill out this survey 5/23/2024 2:22 PM 6 So where is that PROBLMATIC "myGlendale" site ??? on this list? it gets a 2 star rating !! 6/13/2024 10:20 AM 7 Library 7/3/2024 5:53 PM
8 email 7/26/2024 5:20 PM
9 Checks aren’t wirking 7/27/2024 10:01 AM
10 Mike Mohill's Glendale Community Newsletter 7/29/2024 7:49 PM 11 Public Access TV channel 7/29/2024 8:16 PM
12 Local newspaper 7/29/2024 9:02 PM
13 Newspaper 7/29/2024 9:45 PM
14 GWP insert and E-newsletter 7/30/2024 5:08 PM
15 LED signs at major intersections or schools around town and at city hall announcing meetings and events would be nice!
8/3/2024 6:54 PM
16 Outside News Agencies 8/4/2024 8:54 AM
17 More city council meetings held in neighborhoods 8/5/2024 8:58 AM 18 Eh, preferably less stuff mailed for the fact that it’s using up more paper and pfas film. Ideally we could communicate mostly through technology. I’m not a big fan of social media though, the city’s email newsletters are lovely reminders of local happenings! 8/7/2024 10:57 PM
19 the city website has a poor search interface and the meeting notes and agendas are not indexed in google
8/15/2024 2:02 PM
20 The above is not working. Needs to be redone. I use city website, youtube, nextdoor, city meetings
8/15/2024 11:07 PM
21 Prefer email notifications from the city 8/17/2024 11:41 AM 22 Emails that are succinct with useful headlines. 8/17/2024 12:51 PM 23 This section would not allow me to click and save my selections 9/2/2024 2:36 PM 205 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
33 / 51
Q14 If you have any additional comments about environmental justice inGlendale, please share them here.

Answered: 91 Skipped: 157
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Streets get dirty by homeless , but Do not get cleaned or hosed down to get rid of the germs or stains, making it disgusting to walk around the block with a baby stroller 9/2/2024 2:39 PM
2 My main request is for the city to step up law enforcement of bad drivers for whom stop signs and speed limits are meaningless. This is a hazard to me, families, pets, deer, etc. in the 91202. A short observation of any cross streets on Cumberland would inform the city of this. It starts with issues like this and grows as scofflaws become empowered. 8/25/2024 5:32 PM
3 There was a budget for improving pedestrian safety… Have not noticed any major improvements. Especially in roadways surrounding our schools. 8/24/2024 10:38 PM
4 I’m a cyclist and I can’t understand why the bike/pedestrian bridge at Naranja and Doran over the 234 is forever locked. The bridge at Columbus is open, the tunnel at Kenniworth is open.

Why not Doren?…..
8/21/2024 9:09 PM
5 Gas leaf blower exhaust and fumes are exceptionally bad in Verdugo Woodlands. Residents need to be educated about how detrimental gas leaf blowers are to human and animal well- being.
8/20/2024 8:29 PM
6 Leave our wonderful neighborhoods alone. Stop pushing Democratic Party policies and agenda in neighborhoods that don't want or need extra government interference. 8/20/2024 7:28 PM
7 Stop calling it “environmental justice.” It’s divisive and not accurate. Call it “Community Experience and Interface for All”
8/20/2024 2:28 PM
8 City needs to be proactive on illegal dumping. Advertise in paper and on Nextdoor regarding use of electric landscaping equipment
8/18/2024 4:10 PM
9 Tackling the urban heat island effect is extremely important to prevent heat related illness.

Tree canopy is needed in streets with no shade and areas of high traffic. More Community gardens are needed that are accessible to all neighborhoods. More effort into community engagement/communications for all languages so that everyone understands and can participate. How can Glendale utilize its resources to prioritize EJ and its different cultural communities when it comes to education, communication, engagement, and empowerment.

How is Glendale fostering community leadership through this EJ initiative? 8/18/2024 12:56 AM
10 I've been a Glendale residents for a few years now. I'm unsure about the environmental concerns, other than living near a freeway. I signed up because I'm curious what concerns EJ is trying to address.
8/17/2024 5:32 PM
11 The cost of electricity is going insane. 8/17/2024 4:30 PM 12 Remember that not everybody can afford the current GWP rates. In the past month, I've received a handful of notices to " watch my gwp video!" On this that or the other thing. Then I received my bill, and it is 150% of my prior two muns Bill . This is despite keeping my thermostat at 78° or higher, June was epically cooler than usual so the AC never ran at night; and I've already participated in at least three rush hours. 8/17/2024 1:00 PM
13 It’s a great city if you leave it alone. 8/17/2024 12:17 PM 14 Currently, I cannot afford a new roof, much less install solar panels. What is the city doing to assist me in going solar?
8/17/2024 11:47 AM
15 Please take a hard look a neighborhood connectedness in terms of walking the north most part of Glendale. You’ll find it lacking - sidewalks limited, cross walks, shade, safe bike routes. 8/17/2024 5:40 AM
16 Please provide cleaner drinking water. Please speed up permitting and inspections of 8/16/2024 11:37 PM 206 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
34 / 51
residential solar installations.
17 Street on Lowell Ave is too crowded in Cresenta Highlands. Glendale ignores their own regulations to favor private schools and developers. There is racial bias at the city level which needs to be addressed.
8/16/2024 11:25 PM
18 Several years ago, the City's Neighborhood Services Department researched and compiled a report documenting various indicators for Quality of Life in Glendale. All of the topics included in this survey were a part of that effort, as well as many more. This report was adopted by the city Council and could serve as a foundation for a more comprehensive effort, for all residents, involving many more elements that contribute to the liveability of our city. 8/15/2024 5:23 PM
19 I am the founder of Bridging the Borders, an Armenian social justice organization based in Glendale that focuses on indigenous Armenian issues and fostering solidarity. Environmental justice is a significant component of our mission and has been a personal passion of mine since childhood. During my time as Environmental Club President at Glendale Community College (GCC), I initiated the campus-wide smoking ban in 2009/2010, which eventually contributed to the broader smoking ban across all of Glendale. Additionally, I was actively involved in the Go Green Glendale initiatives to ban plastic bags citywide. I am eager to collaborate with your team and explore how Bridging the Borders can further contribute to environmental justice efforts. Our organization is primarily active on Instagram @BridgingtheBorders.
8/15/2024 4:49 PM
20 Need more small pocket parks parks scattered throughout the community. Need to infill missing sidewalks on blocks of residential streets to encourage walking. 8/15/2024 4:45 PM
21 Grayson was built in the poor part of town and now you are going to rebuild it with gas power.

Give everyone in the area around it solar panels.
8/15/2024 2:04 PM
22 There are invasive species overtaking many waterways and hillsides in Chevy Chase and other areas of wildland in Glendale. I'm surprised we are not aggressively targeting Arundo Donax (giant reed) before it takes over the stream alongside Linda Vista, the headwaters of a stream on Figueroa, and the small streams along the dirt portion of Greenwich Road. That stuff takes over if you don't poison it and will clog up our natural waterways and displace native species essential for native animals and insects. Also, there's lots of tree tobacco all of a sudden these last 5-6 years on the hillsides. Hummingbirds like it but otherwise it is useless and crowds out natives. Can we not make an effort as a city to stop these? Arundo donax requires poisoning to kill it. Let's at least stop those who use the Arundo Donax in their gardens. (See, for example: https://maps.app.goo.gl/7sh4Q8tM6n81gb9J6) Finally, I do not understand why more commercial parking lots don't have solar panels shading the cars. This is a win-win-win. Let's incentive businesses to do it and thereby reduce our need to burn natural gas.
8/8/2024 12:31 PM
23 You’ve covered a great range of topics thank you! I believe we need more community than ever rather than individualism. the latter is what leads people to dumping in areas they think doesn’t effect them but hurts their neighbor. Crazy drivers not paying mind to pedestrians / bicyclists. Businesses polluting the air or waters bc it doesn’t effect their bottom line. All these just as examples. We need more community building as Glendale boasts some really cool features like we’ve got tons of clean beautiful parks we should capitalize on community building through classes like for exercise or community gardening maybe even public vegetable/fruit botanical gardens, we’ve got great libraries and some pretty cool museums we could definitely do more community building through public works like these, expanding these programs. Community building through events like how city of LA has cicla via. I think we’ve got a particular edge over LA in that were smaller, more tight nit, so we can do things at a much more hyper local level that would take LA much longer to implement. Like how we are quickly revitalizing our parks (I live steps away from Fremont park and so excited for what’s to come). Please help us build community because this is what we need in the future fight against climate catastrophe and individualism reigning supreme. 8/7/2024 11:04 PM
24 The number of cars that drive incredibly fast and don't respect pedestrian safety is out of control.
8/7/2024 12:14 PM
25 We use Glendale parks regularly with our kids. I would strongly support any efforts to increase shade at Glendale parks, especially over the play structures and swings, etc. The parks are amazing but many of them need more shade. Thank you!
8/6/2024 9:02 PM
26 Artificial Turf of all kinds are bad for the ecosystem, known to have cancer-causing properties 8/5/2024 12:29 PM 207 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
35 / 51
and heat up the environment. Vinyl fencing is also horrible for the environment. Leaf blowers (electric or gas) are bad for healthy ecosystems. But the gas blowers are the worst on so many levels.
27 Glendale needs at least one park in the southern area and preferably more. There need to be more Beeline buses that run in other areas. The need for bike lanes is vastly overstated; installing them would not only cost an exorbitant amount but would actually increase air pollution by forcing cars and trucks to spend more time idling at traffic signals. 8/5/2024 9:01 AM
28 Most families in South Glendale live in apartment buildings with no play areas and most do not have parks within a 15-minute walk.
8/4/2024 10:31 PM
29 We need more parking in areas with a lot of apartments. My street is mostly red and it does not make sense. We also need programs to assist first time homebuyers. Also more assistance for people trying to turn their lawns into drought resistant terrain. 8/4/2024 7:36 PM
30 Keep Grayson open 8/4/2024 4:03 PM
31 Please lower energy prices, I can't afford it and feeding my family 8/4/2024 8:55 AM 32 I am VERY concerned about the lack of recycling, trash, and compost collection: the lack of proper education and participation of the community AND of the waste collecting companies.

People throw away perfectly find items into the trash bins instead of giving them to Goodwill for example. Because every recycling container also contains trash, the waste companies dump the recycling in with the trash truck. Very few apartments separate compost+cardboard from their trash. The In-and-out restaurant on Brand and all other eateries throw all of their customer sided waste collection into one trash bin. It is terribly irresponsible. I called and emailed the sustainability office, and the city multiple times, but nothing has been done about it. My engagement is not wanted.
8/3/2024 6:58 PM
33 There is a significant lack of green space in south Glendale. The GCC Garfield Campus has a massive field that is currently sitting unused behind an iron fence. Why doesn't that get turned into a public park? GHS could also be opened up to the public on weeknights. I'm not sure if Adams Hill is "disadvantaged" anymore. Most of those houses are 1.5 million dollars or more. 7/31/2024 5:29 PM
34 Glendale is becoming a concrete jungle. Way too many MEGA BUILDINGS , buildings with more than 50 units, are built in downtown Glendale. No Open Space Anymore. Too many Cars and People are causing Air, Noise and Mental Health Pollution, not to mention pedestrian endangerment and heavy traffic and gridlock. Also cycling in the city is too dangerous, the roads are already overcrowded with moving and parked cars, so allowing bikes to use the entire lane, like if it is a car, is not a solution. Also, repainting a road to make a space for a side bike lane and pushing parking spots further away from the sidewalk is putting our elders and disabled citizens into a dangerous situation and total disadvantage . The elders and disabled citizen’s parking should be right at the sidewalk not a bike lane away from it. What was done to North Brand BLVD Is Wrong.
7/30/2024 11:23 PM
35 Thank you. 7/30/2024 8:17 PM
36 thank you, survey helped me to be more interested and attention to detail of Glendale plan. 7/30/2024 5:16 PM 37 I never hear any encouragement for avoiding eating meat and dairy from the city or from the Sierra Club when it is clear that shifting diets from meat and other animal products to plant- based diets would greatly reduce carbon footprints and mitigate climate change, as well as improve human health. Please read Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change, a report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 7/30/2024 4:20 PM
38 Traffic conditions on Windsor Rd between Chevy chase and Glendale blvd are dangerous, traffic drives through at high speeds with little caution to pedestrians. 7/30/2024 9:49 AM
39 I would love for Glendale to be a leader in environmental justice. 7/29/2024 9:03 PM 40 We need more electric vehicle charging stations. We need more filtered drinking water fountains. We need more public restrooms.
7/29/2024 7:50 PM
41 Reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 7/29/2024 7:39 PM
42 Very happy to see Glendale thinking about this. I hope that public outcry over “what is woke” will not impede the city’s progress toward making Glendale livable for lower income and unhoused people
7/29/2024 7:05 PM
208 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
36 / 51
43 Thank you for the opportunity to participate. I wonder if this survey is going out to people who are disadvantaged (who may not be connected to Sierra Club or other similar groups seeking input into environmental justice)... or is it just going to people like me (i.e., privileged folks who have a place to live and food to eat and someplace to go when it gets hot)? 7/29/2024 6:23 PM
44 More trees. More protected bike lanes. 7/29/2024 6:19 PM 45 Thank you for embarking on Environmental Justice. 7/29/2024 4:40 PM 46 My concerns are that the streets need more cleaning such as sweeper should also pass through alleys. Drain should have fence to avoid trash dumping in the street drains. Trash cans and benches should be cleaned often.
7/29/2024 11:52 AM
47 Please stop eliminating lanes of traffic for bike lanes (like on Brand Blvd). It just creates more traffic and no one uses the bike lanes. Wasted tax payer dollars. 7/29/2024 8:09 AM
48 Just worried that driving will become more difficult due to elimination of lanes to promote bike lanes for bikes I have never seen, and “safety”. As well as efforts to restrict vehicle travel in a giant city where distance is real and the 15 minute city is absurd. 7/28/2024 7:07 PM
49 Where and when would people be able to see the results of everyone’s input? How will they be included in the current/future decisions being made for the city? 7/28/2024 11:49 AM
50 This looks like it would be very beneficial to the people in South Glendale, instead of spending millions of dollars to study the Verdugo wash bike path project, which will only benefit a few. 7/28/2024 10:42 AM
51 more community gardens 7/28/2024 7:48 AM
52 The most concerning part of living in Glendale is the lack of pedestrian safety. I rely on safe crosswalks and sidewalks and regularly find that the crosswalks are not property signaled (broken lights), poor lighting, poor striping on the asphalt, lack of drivers education on yielding to pedestrians or stopping at the stop bar - all things that put my life in danger in Glendale as a pedestrian.
7/27/2024 9:25 PM
53 Too many cigarette smokers in residential areas and these smokers just throw their cigarette butts anywhere even on neighbors space and property, very inconsiderate and creates major environmental pollution. Also lots of car pollution and reckless drivers. Need more street policing in terms of road and residential rules
7/27/2024 9:24 PM
54 Along San Fernando Rd there are many businesses that use toxic chemicals for body shop work and these are next to residential neighborhoods, I don’t feel this is healthy. Too many people smoke and drop cigarette butts on the streets
7/27/2024 6:36 PM
55 THERE WILL BE NO E-JUSTICE IF THE CITY COUNCIL AND SCHOOL "EDUCATORS" CONTINUE THEIR ABSURD FOCUS ON LGBTQ & INDOCTRINATING SCHOOL CHILDREN! GET REAL YOU DARN FOOLS!!!
7/27/2024 1:10 PM
56 I'm glad the City is taking steps to make Glendale a more equitable community. Always a good direction to be going in.
7/27/2024 7:34 AM
57 My biggest issue is the constant dumping of furniture and trash on the streets and waiting for someone to report. I've seen trash left there for months. you need to hire someone to drive around the city and make sure these items are picked up in a timely manner. 7/27/2024 6:42 AM
58 Glendale need wider street to accommodate traffic. Narrow streets create congested traffic which adds to already existing air and noise pollution. 7/27/2024 12:01 AM
59 street swiper every week since I have to move my car every Monday 7/26/2024 10:06 PM 60 Being proactive about environmental justice and incorporating it into the Glendale plan is such a great thing! Shoutout city council, especially you Dan <3 7/26/2024 9:02 PM
61 1. There has been a LOT of helicopter traffic, at all hours, including 10:30 and 11:30 at night.

Some have flown so low, my whole 2nd floor apartment shook like during an earthquake. The police said they patrol the streets, not the sky. But I know they own helicopters and cannot think who else might be flying overhead almost daily like that. I tried to find an agency to report it to, or to find out more about the issue and finally wrote to the FAA, but I sincerely doubt they will ever respond or do something about it. 2. When I go for walks, there is bulk trash dumped on streets and alleys, practically everywhere. People do not know they need to call for pickup, and think somebody would clean up after them. I wrote to the former mayor suggesting an 7/26/2024 6:14 PM
209 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
37 / 51
educational campaign, but I never received a response. Not even an automatic one. On the plus side, I see more and more people clean after their dogs. It used to be horrific, where you had to watch each step so as not to step into poop.
62 The City has existed for a hundred years without this proposed bureaucracy. Who is asking for this? Is this an underhanded scheme to re-install the influence of the home owners associations and NIMBY activists? The City needs housing and the State SB330 has helped to eliminate unnecessary costs and time delays imposed by a minority of NIMBY activists.

This City doesn't have an airport, oil wells or oil processing, farming, ranching, mining, heavy industrial plants with toxic pollution or hazardous materials within its boundaries. Again why is the City pushing for this? Do we need another bureaucracy? Does the City want to slow down growth......and really intrude upon the majority's right to vote on it? When will our council districts be approved? Should there be higher City taxes for those who live high on the hillsides, canyons and severe fire hazard areas and receive the same or better City services than the rest of us? Is it because they have more influence with the city's decision making? Shouldn't renters be paying less for their utilities than those single family residences? The City's housing stock is aging and its dwellers are aging and unable to maintain their properties on their fixed budgets.....but refuse to move into smaller, less expensive living quarters with less upkeep. This City has more important problems to solve. 7/26/2024 2:09 PM
63 Main concerns in Glendale are the criminal element (from Armenia), the air pollution (from cigarette, cigars and now marijuana) and drivers that do not know or refuse to follow the law.

We already had a woman struck and killed by a car at the intersection where I live. I do not feel comfortable crossing a street in Glendale. I have had to dodge cars many times when I had the right of way. I have witnessed three cars passing an intersection AFTER the light turned red. I rarely see Police catching any of this.
7/26/2024 1:56 PM
64 We need more park space in this underserved area of Glendale. And better bicycle facilities to get around safely in the city.
7/22/2024 9:44 AM
65 I would love to have places easier to recycle glass bottles, jars etc... I feel guilty to trash glass. I leave in an apartment and wish we had compost bins, which I know exist at Glendale.

I wish there was more education on recycling. Its soo bad that we create so much trash. And use so much plastic, People need to be educated, our kids need to live on this planet 7/20/2024 11:43 PM
66 More bus lanes and bike lanes needed 6/17/2024 10:47 PM 67 none 6/13/2024 12:39 PM
68 You all need to better respect the Riverside Rancho & Border to Burbank areas !! that is JUSTICE ! Horses & Horse property owners deserve JUSTICE ! due to the extra services they require. Really the "connected' businesses to Glendale city & staff should be TRANSPARENT ! or better yet NON EXISTENT ! <see the attorney on your GWP advisory board for a local Power installer / contractor.... on Victory blvd.
6/13/2024 10:23 AM
69 The city council does not engage the community. It has Ben a problem during the last several years.
6/11/2024 11:32 AM
70 Noise pollution from trains and freeways can be reduced by installing curved translucent sound barriers along train tracks and above the freeway block walls. In Europe, these barriers have been in practice for decades and have proven effective in increasing the quality of life of people living and working nearby. Increasing the no train horn areas. 5/28/2024 12:12 PM
71 I don't believe this is a representative survey as the areas selected are basically a representation of population and not "disadvantaged" for any other reason 5/24/2024 5:56 PM
72 This survey was too short and too general. It doesn't reflect the competing pressures primarily those from state mandates to increase housing and the preferences of long time residents for quiet, peaceful, uncrowded neighborhoods with reasonable commuting times and relatively good air quality.
5/24/2024 4:42 PM
73 There is much dumping on curbs. City should require trash collectors to pick these up on regular trash days.
5/24/2024 8:54 AM
74 Noise pollution is also important since helicopters at night is not a good idea 5/22/2024 2:00 PM 75 Not sure how this can be improved; however, it seems like sometimes the most vulnerable population who needs to have access to services (especially mental health services) doesn't have information on where to go and who to go to. It would be great to do PSAs in different 5/22/2024 12:16 PM
210 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
38 / 51
languages to connect the community with resources and services in our community. Moreover, to help them navigate the various systems they may be in need of. 76 Not applicable. 5/21/2024 2:50 PM
77 Please understand costs and realism of implementing quickly directives from environmental justice, as it may impede on other justices, or practical living in Glendale. There needs to me more than "a good idea" for something to be wise.
5/21/2024 11:15 AM
78 I've noticed a rising issue of noise while people are working from home, though I know that's difficult to mitigate. I would also like the City to focus more on getting around as a pedestrian:
safer walking and biking, more street trees, education for drivers, city outreach etc. 5/21/2024 9:40 AM
79 We need incentives to go solar, such as a virtual power plant program with home batteries. We need electric school busses and regular busses (Natural gas is not clean, as is falsely advertised by our fleet. cleaner that diesel, but not clean.), as well as an electric City Fleet (especially Parks and PD where they are near children and idle a lot). Frankly, in 2024, polluting our air with known carcinogens is stupid when viable alternatives are readily available.

We also need incentives to convert all home appliances to electric. Again, burning gas is dumb in 2024 and beyond. And of course we need more charging stations and for the ones we have to stop being blocked by movie crews and other events. (looking at you City Hall parking lot DC fast charger.)
5/21/2024 9:30 AM
80 I am a city planner and I believe "more than enough" public engagement is better than "just enough." EJ should overcome lack of inclusion, reactive and meaningless engagement.

Consider a design-thinking approach to public engagement. Empathize, Define, Ideate, Prototype, Test. Results in early engagement, amplifies voices, and focuses on ideation. 5/21/2024 8:22 AM
81 None. 5/21/2024 7:49 AM
82 Traffic and the associated air and noise pollution is my biggest concern. Glenoaks Blvd, in particular, is a major source of both in my neighborhood and very negatively affects the walkability and health of the surrounding neighborhoods. It should be reduced in its number of lanes and be made to accommodate dedicated bus and bike lanes. There should also be more trees on the sidewalks for people instead of in the median divider. There also needs to be more mixed use zoning in the neighborhood so people can have stores and shops within walking distance of where they live.
5/21/2024 1:32 AM
83 The City Center has incredible planning that we inherited from the first planners of the city. It's incredibly walkable and I can get groceries, grab take out, or enjoy a walk with ease. Please enhance these spaces by increasing pedestrian safety (I see inattentive drivers and hesitant pedestrians interacting multiple times daily). Residential streets, like Louise, are being used as thoroughfares to bypass Brand and Central. Please please please build a large park or several mini parks (or both!), in the City Center. It's ridiculous a city of this size and resources doesn't have a sizeable park in it's city center. I've been living in this neighborhood for 5 years and grew up in Burbank prior to that. Please also consider keeping the Verdugo Channel day-lit as part of the bikepath remodel. This would not only help circulate and cool the air in the surrounding areas, but would also create/restore habitat for the abundant wildlife in the area.

Thank you, Kevork Babayan
5/21/2024 12:48 AM
84 bike lanes are a waste of tax payer money and dangerous to drivers. Unsafe drivers are a problem
5/20/2024 5:06 PM
85 Not about environmental justice but just how much the city ruined Brand Boulevard between Glenoaks and Mountain. You have caused traffic jams, limited space for buses and cars to maneuver in and especially fire trucks. You have created traffic of vehicles into residential areas instead of keeping it on Brand. Bike lanes are not being utilized by the "bikers" and yet everything is catered to them. What a sh** show you have created. I now have to look at other routes to get to work when Brand was working just fine. Thank you to the city of Glendale and to everyone who proposed and passed this stupidity for all of us that actually live her. GREAT JOB.
5/20/2024 4:42 PM
86 Those most affected by these issues may require other methods of engagement, e.g. schools, churches, leaders, word of mouth, etc.
5/20/2024 4:18 PM
87 The streets are not safe, too many dangerous drivers, I ride ebike and have been hit many times, please help!
5/16/2024 4:50 PM
211 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
39 / 51
88 More info about project on Verduyo wash 5/16/2024 3:59 PM 89 Burbank has converted certain streets to one way traffic. Copy that please 5/16/2024 3:51 PM 90 Allow city residents own chickens in their property. 5/16/2024 3:45 PM 91 N/A 4/20/2024 11:40 AM
212 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
40 / 51

5.14% 9

10.29% 18

13.71% 24

16.00% 28

23.43% 41

31.43% 55
Q15 Which range best describes your household income?
Answered: 175 Skipped: 73
TOTAL 175
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Less than
$24,999
$25,000 to
$34,999
$50,000 to
$74,999
$75,000 to
$99,999
$100,000 to
$149,999
$150,000 or
more

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Less than $24,999
$25,000 to $34,999
$50,000 to $74,999
$75,000 to $99,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$150,000 or more
213 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
41 / 51

59.22% 106

6.70% 12

0.56% 1

11.73% 21

1.12% 2

1.68% 3

6.70% 12

12.29% 22
Q16 What is your ethnicity?
Answered: 179 Skipped: 69
TOTAL 179
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Armenian 8/19/2024 10:33 PM
2 Armenian 8/17/2024 5:32 PM
3 Turkish 8/15/2024 11:37 PM
4 Armenian. Please remove Caucasian next to White as this is misleading and will skew your 8/15/2024 4:53 PM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
White/Caucasian
Asian
Native
Hawaiian or
Paciﬁc...

Hispanic or
Latino
African-America
n
Native American
Two or more
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
White/Caucasian
Asian
Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander
Hispanic or Latino
African-American
Native American
Two or more
Other (please specify)
214 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
42 / 51
data since Armenians are Caucasian, but not White.
5 I hate how middle eastern is never an option. 8/7/2024 11:05 PM 6 n/a 8/4/2024 10:08 PM
7 Middle Eastern 7/30/2024 11:25 PM
8 chose not to answer 7/30/2024 5:21 PM
9 Armenian 7/30/2024 2:59 PM
10 White and Asian 7/28/2024 7:09 PM
11 DECLINE TO ANSWER RACIST QUESTION 7/27/2024 1:10 PM
12 Middle eastern 7/27/2024 12:02 AM
13 armenian 7/26/2024 5:21 PM
14 Armenian 5/22/2024 12:17 PM
15 Armenian 5/21/2024 10:47 AM
16 Armenian 5/20/2024 9:06 PM
17 Armenian 5/20/2024 8:25 PM
18 Armenian 5/20/2024 2:15 PM
19 Armenian American 5/18/2024 9:36 PM
20 Armenian 5/16/2024 3:55 PM
21 Armenian 4/20/2024 11:41 AM
22 Armenian 4/18/2024 11:46 AM
215 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
43 / 51

0.00% 0

4.84% 9

8.06% 15

2.69% 5

7.53% 14

32.80% 61

43.01% 80

1.08% 2
Q17 What is your level of education?
Answered: 186 Skipped: 62
TOTAL 186
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 A 5/23/2024 2:19 AM
2 BA with some Masters work 5/21/2024 9:31 AM
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Less than high
school
High school
(including GED)
Some college
(no degree)
Technical
certiﬁcation
Associate’s
degree (2-year)
Bachelor’s
degree (4-year)
Master’s
degree and
above
Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Less than high school
High school (including GED)
Some college (no degree)
Technical certification
Associate’s degree (2-year)
Bachelor’s degree (4-year)
Master’s degree and above
Other (please specify)
216 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
44 / 51
Q18 What is your employment status?
Answered: 191 Skipped: 57
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Full-time
Part-time
Contract or
temporary
Unemployed
Unable to work
Self-employed
Home-maker
Student
Retired
Other (please
specify)
217 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
45 / 51

54.97% 105

7.33% 14

1.57% 3

2.62% 5

0.52% 1

9.42% 18

1.57% 3

1.05% 2

19.90% 38

1.05% 2
TOTAL 191
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 W 7/30/2024 8:17 PM
2 Volunteer at a nonprofit 5/23/2024 2:24 PM

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Full-time
Part-time
Contract or temporary
Unemployed
Unable to work
Self-employed
Home-maker
Student
Retired
Other (please specify)
218 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
46 / 51

90.82% 178

4.59% 9

2.04% 4

2.55% 5

0.00% 0
Q19 Please indicate your proficiency level in the English language:

Answered: 196 Skipped: 52
TOTAL 196
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Fluent
Advanced
Intermediate
Basic
None

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Fluent
Advanced
Intermediate
Basic
None
219 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
47 / 51

10.26% 20

89.74% 175
Q20 Do you consider yourself to have a disability?
Answered: 195 Skipped: 53
TOTAL 195
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Yes, I have a
disability
No, I do not
have a
disability

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
Yes, I have a disability
No, I do not have a disability
220 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
48 / 51

58.33% 112

38.54% 74

2.60% 5

0.00% 0

0.52% 1
Q21 Do you currently own or rent your home?
Answered: 192 Skipped: 56
TOTAL 192
# OTHER (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE
1 Both; I own a home in Glendale and rent an apartment. 5/28/2024 12:14 PM 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
I am a
homeowner
I am a renter
I live with
family or
friends
I am currently
without
permanent...

Other (please
specify)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
I am a homeowner
I am a renter
I live with family or friends
I am currently without permanent shelter
Other (please specify)
221 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
49 / 51
Q22 Email address:

Answered: 96 Skipped: 152
# RESPONSES DATE
1 [email protected] 9/2/2024 2:40 PM
2 [email protected] 8/21/2024 9:10 PM
3 [email protected] 8/21/2024 1:33 PM
4 [email protected] 8/20/2024 7:29 PM
5 [email protected] 8/20/2024 7:15 PM
6 [email protected] 8/19/2024 10:33 PM
7 [email protected] 8/18/2024 4:11 PM
8 [email protected] 8/17/2024 5:32 PM
9 [email protected] 8/17/2024 11:48 AM
10 [email protected] 8/17/2024 9:27 AM
11 [email protected] 8/17/2024 5:41 AM
12 [email protected] 8/15/2024 7:43 PM
13 [email protected] 8/15/2024 5:24 PM
14 [email protected] 8/15/2024 4:54 PM
15 [email protected] 8/15/2024 2:29 PM
16 [email protected] 8/15/2024 2:04 PM
17 [email protected] 8/15/2024 1:51 PM
18 [email protected] 8/11/2024 3:50 PM
19 [email protected] 8/8/2024 12:32 PM
20 [email protected] 8/7/2024 11:05 PM
21 [email protected] 8/7/2024 12:14 PM
22 [email protected] 8/6/2024 7:36 PM
23 [email protected] 8/5/2024 12:31 PM
24 [email protected] 8/5/2024 9:02 AM
25 [email protected] 8/4/2024 10:32 PM
26 [email protected] 8/4/2024 8:56 AM
27 [email protected] 8/3/2024 7:01 PM
28 [email protected] 8/3/2024 6:29 PM
29 [email protected] 8/1/2024 4:31 PM
30 [email protected] 7/31/2024 4:31 PM
31 [email protected] 7/30/2024 11:25 PM
32 [email protected] 7/30/2024 8:18 PM
33 [email protected] 7/30/2024 5:22 PM
222 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
50 / 51
34 [email protected] 7/30/2024 4:24 PM
35 [email protected] 7/30/2024 4:21 PM
36 [email protected] 7/30/2024 2:59 PM
37 [email protected] 7/30/2024 9:51 AM
38 [email protected] 7/30/2024 7:02 AM
39 [email protected] 7/29/2024 9:04 PM
40 [email protected] 7/29/2024 8:16 PM
41 [email protected] 7/29/2024 7:51 PM
42 [email protected] 7/29/2024 7:06 PM
43 [email protected] 7/29/2024 7:04 PM
44 [email protected] 7/29/2024 4:41 PM
45 [email protected] 7/29/2024 11:53 AM
46 [email protected] 7/29/2024 10:43 AM
47 [email protected] 7/28/2024 7:09 PM
48 [email protected] 7/28/2024 6:05 PM
49 [email protected] 7/28/2024 11:51 AM
50 [email protected] 7/28/2024 7:49 AM
51 [email protected] 7/27/2024 9:25 PM
52 [email protected] 7/27/2024 1:04 PM
53 [email protected] 7/27/2024 10:02 AM
54 [email protected] 7/27/2024 6:43 AM
55 [email protected] 7/27/2024 12:02 AM
56 [email protected] 7/26/2024 11:22 PM
57 [email protected] 7/26/2024 10:07 PM
58 [email protected] 7/26/2024 8:12 PM
59 [email protected] 7/26/2024 6:15 PM
60 [email protected] 7/26/2024 5:21 PM
61 [email protected] 7/26/2024 4:31 PM
62 [email protected] 7/26/2024 3:17 PM
63 [email protected] 7/26/2024 2:12 PM
64 [email protected] 7/26/2024 1:01 PM
65 [email protected] 7/22/2024 9:44 AM
66 [email protected] 7/22/2024 8:56 AM
67 [email protected] 7/21/2024 9:33 AM
68 [email protected] 7/9/2024 8:59 AM
69 [email protected] 6/17/2024 10:48 PM
70 [email protected] 6/13/2024 12:40 PM
71 [email protected] 6/13/2024 10:24 AM
223 of 228

City of Glendale Environmental Justice Survey
51 / 51
72 [email protected] 6/11/2024 4:09 PM
73 [email protected] 6/1/2024 10:52 AM
74 [email protected] 5/28/2024 12:14 PM
75 [email protected] 5/24/2024 4:43 PM
76 [email protected] 5/24/2024 8:55 AM
77 [email protected] 5/23/2024 9:12 AM
78 [email protected] 5/23/2024 2:19 AM
79 [email protected] 5/22/2024 2:02 PM
80 [email protected] 5/21/2024 9:40 AM
81 [email protected] 5/21/2024 8:22 AM
82 [email protected] 5/21/2024 7:50 AM
83 [email protected] 5/21/2024 6:57 AM
84 [email protected] 5/21/2024 12:50 AM
85 [email protected] 5/20/2024 3:42 PM
86 [email protected] 5/16/2024 4:59 PM
87 [email protected] 5/16/2024 4:55 PM
88 [email protected] 5/16/2024 4:51 PM
89 [email protected] 5/16/2024 4:04 PM
90 [email protected] 5/16/2024 3:46 PM
91 [email protected] 5/16/2024 3:40 PM
92 [email protected] 4/20/2024 1:51 PM
93 [email protected] 4/20/2024 12:47 PM
94 [email protected] 4/20/2024 12:23 PM
95 [email protected] 4/20/2024 12:12 PM 96 [email protected] 4/20/2024 11:42 AM
224 of 228

2 CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP), Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program, Request for Authorization to Accept Grant Funds to be used to reduce and mitigate the impacts of impaired driving in local communities.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for July 15, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To accept $435,345.44 in grant funds from the State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP), Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program for the grant period July 1, 2025 through June 30, 2026.
225 of 228

22 6
2 3
4 RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt the attached motion approving participation in the State of California – Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP), Cannabis Tax Fund Law Enforcement Grant Program and accept grant funds in the amount of $435,345.44.

ANALYSIS
With the passage of Proposition 64 in 2016, The Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use Marijuana Act (AUMU), California voters mandated the state to set aside funding for the CHP to provide grants to local governments and qualified non-profit organizations for the education, prevention, and enforcement of impaired driving laws pursuant to Section 34019 (f)(3)(B) of the Revenue and Taxation Code (RTC).

In February 2025, an application seeking grant funds was submitted to the State of California – Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP), Cannabis Tax Fund Law Enforcement Grant Program. The CHP Program provides law enforcement agencies with funding to help reduce and mitigate the impacts of impaired driving in local communities. The intent of the program is to educate the public regarding the dangers of impaired driving, enforce impaired driving laws on the roadway, and improve an agency’s effectiveness through training and development of new strategies.

The Glendale Police Department has been approved to use CHP’s Cannabis Tax Fund Law Enforcement Grant Program funds to continue to enhance its capabilities in identifying impaired drivers while operating motor vehicles. The grant funds will be used to help meet the Department’s goal of training 100% of patrol and traffic personnel in Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) and Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) programs, as well as continue to train internal and external personnel within the County of Los Angeles for Drug Recognition Expert (DRE), SFST, and ARIDE Recertification classes. The City of Glendale has a strong partnership with the CHP DRE Unit and will continue to host annual DRE schools and SFST / DRE instructor schools. The Department will also be able to host quarterly certification sites to train officers on how to identify drivers who may be impaired by alcohol and/or drugs while operating motor vehicles upon a roadway. Using best practice strategies, the Police Department strives to reduce the number of persons killed and/or injured by drivers under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and these grant funds will assist with these efforts.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Participation in this program provides the Glendale Police Department the ability to educate the public regarding the dangers of impaired driving, enforce impaired driving laws on the roadway, and improve its effectiveness through training and development of new strategies.
226 of 228

32 6
2 3
4 FISCAL IMPACT
The FY2025-26 Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program award in the amount of $435,345 was included as part of the FY2025-26 approved budget. No new appropriation is being requested at this time. The City Council approved funding is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation:

Amount From (Account String) To (Accounting
String)
Funding Source
$435,345 GL: 32610-2610-GPD-
0020-P0000
PL: GPD01380AG
GL: Various-2610-
GPD-0020-P0000
PL: GPD01380AG
Police Fund –
State Grants -
Labor

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is considered a ministerial activity and therefore, not subjected to CEQA/NEPA review. There is no possibility that the acceptance of this award may have a significant effect on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3))

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Deny the Police Department’s request, in which case the Police Department will not be able to utilize the grant funding for training, education, and enforcement of laws relating to impaired drivers and will have to utilize the general fund for those activities.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Manuel Cid, Police Chief
Prepared by:

Bryan Duncan, Police Sergeant
Alison Finch, Public Safety Business Administrator
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
None.
227 of 228

MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the Council authorizes the City Manager to execute an agreement with the State of California – Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP) for the award of funds under the CHP Cannabis Tax Law Enforcement Grant Program and to accept funds in the amount of $435,345.44.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
228 of 228

Glendale City CouncilJuly 15, 2025

Glendale City Council
July 15, 2025