A G E N D A
SPECIAL MEETING: GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ACCESSIBILITY
PLEASE SILENCE CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION Viewing of City Council Meetings
:
•
In-person – City Council Chambers, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 •
Live Broadcast via Glendale TV, viewable on Spectrum Cable, channel 6, and AT&T U-verse, channel 99. Meetings are also streamed on the City webpage, glendaleca.gov/live
, on
YouTube.com/myglendale
, and on the Cablecast app under "Glendale TV". Meetings are also archived on the City Website for viewing anytime at
glendaleca.gov/agendas
.
City Council meeting agenda packets, any agenda related documents, and additional documents are available at City Hall and online for public viewing on the City’s website:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/public-meeting-portal ADA Accessibility and Translation Services
:
In
compliance
with
the
Americans
with
Disabilities
Act
(ADA)
of
1990,
auxiliary
hearing
aids,
sign
language
translation,
and
Braille
transcripts
are
available
upon
request.
Assisted
listening
devices
are
available
same-day
upon
request.
The
City
Clerk’s
office
should
be
notified
72 hours
(three
business
days)
or
as
soon
as
practicable
for
requests
regarding
sign
language
translation
and
Braille
transcription
services;
please
direct
all
accessibility
requests
to
(818)
548-2090.
For
translations,
please
specify
the
language
for
which
you
require
translation.
The
exclusive
use
of
City
provided
interpreters
is
not
required
and
persons
are
welcome
to
use
their
own
interpreter
or
speak in their native language.
Public participation in Council meetings may occur as follows :
•
In-person – City Council Chambers
•
T elephonic participation: Call (818) 937-8100
If you have any questions about matters on the agenda, or requests for assistance including agenda email notification, please contact the City Clerk’s Office via email at [email protected], or by phone at (818) 548-2090.
1 TYPED 10/17/2025 11:17:21 AM
10 21 25
SP CC
PUBLIC COMMENT GUIDELINES
The City Council welcomes public input at City Council meetings. Public input at Council meetings is regulated by the City Council’s Rules of Order, Procedure and Decorum for the Conduct of City Council Meetings as set forth in Resolution No. 25-76, which will be summarized below.
Written Comments and Documents
:
Public comments received in writing will NOT be read aloud at the meeting but will be part of the meeting record. Written public comments can be emailed to [email protected], and will be uploaded to the City website as an attachment to the agenda item. When submitting a public comment, please make sure to include the following
:
1. Name (optional); and
2. Agenda item to which you are submitting public comment
3. Submit no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of the City Council meeting. Correspondence received after this time may not be distributed until the following business day.
All documents related to open session items on this agenda that are received less than 72 hours prior to this meeting, and are public records, will be available for review in the Office of the City Clerk, 613 E. Broadway, Room 110, Glendale, CA 91206.
Submitting Speaker Cards or Calling In for Public Comment :
Speaker cards must be submitted, and telephonic participants must call in and be in the call-in queue PRIOR to the completion of the verbal staff report on the agenda item (unless waived by the Mayor). Any audio-visual files displayed by speakers must be emailed to the Clerk’s office by 12:00 pm on the day before a Council meeting.
2 TYPED 10/17/2025 11:17:21 AM
10 21 25
SP CC
OCTOBER 21, 2025
ROLL CALL
-
3:00 PM
-
Report of the City Clerk of the City Council, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the Tuesday, October 21, 2025 Special Public Meeting of the City Council was posted on October 17, 2025, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.
A
SPECIAL PUBLIC MEETING
of the City Council is hereby called to meet at
3:00
PM
on
Tuesday, October 21, 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 Mobility Element during the
Public Comment Period
1. Motion accepting the presentation of the Draft Mobility Element
2. Public Works, re: Agreement with T2 Systems Canada, Inc. for the Operation and Maintenance of Digital Multi-Space Parking Meters
1. Resolution dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the City Manager or his designee to extend an existing agreement with T2 Systems Canada, Inc. for a term of five years in the not-to-exceed amount of $784,750 for continued uninterrupted system operation and maintenance of digital multi-space parking meters
ADJOURNMENT
3 TYPED 10/17/2025 11:17:21 AM
10 21 25
SP CC
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Presentation of the Draft Mobility Element during the Public Comment Period 1) Motion accepting the presentation of the Draft Mobility Element.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Report Only
Approved for October 21, 2025 Calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Following presentations to City Council last year, the comprehensive update to the Mobility (previously named Circulation) Element has been completed. The Draft Element was released for public comment on September 3, 2025.
Staff will provide an overview of the Draft Element during this presentation. This serves as an additional opportunity for both the Council and the public to become better informed and to offer feedback during the Public Comment Period.
The City is also issuing a 30-day notice ahead of the close of the comment period for both the Draft Land Use and Mobility Elements. Comments on both Elements are due by November 21, 2025.
RECOMMENDATION
Accept the presentation on the Draft Mobility Element and provide any relevant comments.
ANALYSIS
The Mobility Element, last comprehensively updated in 1998, is one of three elements being updated or developed as part of a multi-year update to Glendale’s General Plan (“Project”). This Project, led by the City’s consultant, De Novo Planning Group (Amanda Tropiano, Principal, Project Manager), also includes the recalibration of the City’s transportation model to comply with Senate Bill (SB) 743 as well as the development of a Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee. SB 743 replaces the traditional Level of Service (LOS) congestion metric (movement of vehicles along streets and through intersections rated as A, B, C, D , E and F) with Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) (impact of the distance 4 of 56
2 6
3 7
2 vehicles travel) for environmental review per the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); this new VMT metric is intended to promote sustainable transportation, reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and encourage infill development.
The Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee is a charge imposed on new developments to offset the additional demand they place on the transportation system. This undertaking is intended to update these Glendale’s General Plan Elements to align with state requirements, and reinforce the City’s commitment to sustainability, multi-modal mobility, and responsible growth management.
Following General Plan Elements’ status updates to City Council on January 30th and July 30th of last year, the Draft Land Use Element proposed amendments to the Land Use Element Map, and the new Environmental Justice Element were completed and released for public comment on June 30, 2025. Staff presented the Draft Land Use and Environmental Justice Elements to City Council on July 15, 2025. In response to strong public interest and requests for greater engagement, the City conducted extensive additional outreach on the Draft Land Use Element and extended its comment period indefinitely. The comment period was also extended to coincide with review of the Draft Mobility Element, which was to be released shortly thereafter, thereby allowing the public to consider and provide feedback on both Elements together. The comment period for the Draft Environmental Justice Element closed on July 29, 2025.
The Draft Mobility Element was released for public comment on September 3, 2025, and is attached to this staff report as Exhibit 1. The Draft Mobility Element, as well as the Draft Land Use and Environmental Justice Elements, are available online on the City’s General Plan website and at GlendalePlan.com.
DRAFT MOBILITY ELEMENT
The Draft Mobility Element reflects a coordinated, interdepartmental effort to guide the future of Glendale’s multi-modal transportation system. Led by the Community Development Department, this Element was developed in close collaboration with the Public Works, Police, Fire, and Community Services & Parks Departments to ensure alignment across City policies, plans, and priorities.
The Element is proposed to be renamed from the Circulation Element to the Mobility Element to better encompass the various modes of travel through Glendale and includes the following objectives:
• Streamline policy direction to address “complete streets”, walking and bicycling, transit, carpooling, traffic demand, environmental health and air quality, parking, and goods movement
• Prepare new “complete streets” layered network maps (identifying pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and auto streets)
• Identify necessary network improvements
5 of 56
3 6
3 7
2 • Identify long-term roadway vehicular classifications • Identify routes for emergency evacuation and goods movement • Comply with the requirements of the California Government Code • Integrate graphics, tables, and maps to create a user-friendly document The updated Mobility Element ensures that Glendale’s transportation system is planned and managed to support broader City objectives around safety, sustainability, equity, and efficiency. It also aligns with ongoing land use and housing planning efforts and complies with relevant state mandates, including SB 743 and AB 98.
Additionally, the Draft Mobility Element builds on the City’s transportation planning efforts such as the existing Bicycle Transportation Plan, the Citywide Pedestrian Plan, and the upcoming Roadway Design Policy. It also provides for coordination with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), which serves as the coordinating agency for transportation funding for Los Angeles County and strives to help plan a better street environment for all types of users, as reflected in the LA Metro Complete Streets Policy.
Goals, Policies, Actions, and Structure of the Glendale Mobility Element The updated Element is organized into seven thematic sections, each featuring clearly defined goals, supported by policies and implementation actions that translate strategic objectives into tangible steps. Together, they provide a comprehensive and integrated framework for improving mobility citywide while advancing long-term community goals.
This framework is intended to guide decision-making regarding the City’s multimodal transportation system, covering roadways, public transit, parking, goods movement, and various travel modes – cars, bicycles, pedestrians, rail, and emerging options such as micromobility.
Below is a summary of the goals, policies, and actions developed in the Draft Mobility Element (Exhibit 1):
Goal M-1 Complete Streets (Pages M-5 - M-13, Map Figure M-1) Objective: A network of aesthetically pleasing complete streets that is sustainable, safe, and accessible for all users.
Policies: Promote complete street design standards, prioritize safety, discourage cut-through traffic, and integrate multimodal improvements. Actions: Create a citywide network of multimodal streets, implement new roadway design standards that support complete streets, and update the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program.
This section reframes Glendale’s mobility network to focus on people throughput rather than vehicle capacity, aligning with sustainability and Vision Zero goals. 6 of 56
4 6
3 7
2 Goal M-2 Active Transportation: Walking and Bicycling (Pages M-13 - M-14, Map Figures M-2 & M-3)
Objective: A safe and comfortable walking, bicycling, and rolling environment that provides access to community destinations for users of all ages and abilities. Policies: Expand bikeways, improve sidewalks, coordinate with regional partners, and enhance ADA compliance.
Actions: Implement Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan improvements, require new developments to provide walking/biking connections, and prioritize filling ADA network gaps.
This section promotes walking and cycling as safe, convenient and everyday modes of travel that support and complement land use and housing growth.
Goal M-3 Public Transit, Ridesharing, and Carpooling (pages M-15 - M-16, Map Figure M-4)
Objective: Maximized use of existing and future investments in public transit, ridesharing, and other alternative travel modes with increased ridership and decreased private automobile use.
Policies: Prioritize transit service and amenities in high demand areas, encourage transit-oriented development (TOD), and expand ridesharing and microtransit.
Actions: Partner with Metro and Beeline to implement transit-priority treatments, improve first/last mile connections, and develop mobility hubs such as the Larry Zarian Transportation Center and planned BRT stations.
This section ties shared mobility and transportation options directly to Glendale’s land use strategies by supporting housing and employment near high-quality transit.
Goal M-4 Existing and Future Local and Regional Traffic Demand (Pages M-17 - M- 18, Map Figures 5a & 5b and Figures 6a & 6b)
Objective: Safe and efficient accommodation of local and regional traffic demand along the City’s street network, including optimization of existing infrastructure.
Policies: Maintain connectivity to freeways, use Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS), and plan for new technologies such as autonomous vehicles. Actions: Monitor traffic flows, require development projects to analyze impacts, and balance growth with sustainable mobility.
This section shows how Glendale is modernizing mobility management to comply with SB 743 while still addressing daily operational needs.
Goal M-5 Environmental Health and Air Quality (Page M-19) Objective: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions and meet state and regional climate goals.
7 of 56
5 6
3 7
2 Policies: Promote alternative fuels and EV charging, require Transportation Demand Management (TDM) strategies, and encourage land uses that reduce the number and length of vehicular trips.
Actions: Update the City’s TDM ordinance, integrate VMT analysis into CEQA review, and expand low-emission vehicle infrastructure.
This section ensures mobility planning directly supports environmental sustainability and public health.
Goal M-6 Parking (Pages M-20 – M-21)
Objective: Effective supply and management of vehicle parking with minimized spillover to the local community.
Policies: Require adequate off-street parking, maximize efficiency of existing supply, and engage communities in decisions.
Actions: Implement additional residential parking permits for areas impacted by adjacent commercial uses, explore carshare parking, review minimum parking requirements, and create a citywide parking management strategy.
This section shifts Glendale’s approach from expanding parking supply to actively managing parking demand.
Goal M-7 Goods Movement (Page M-22)
Objective: Local and regional goods movement facilities that minimize effects on other modes and the local community character.
Policies: Restrict truck traffic on local residential streets, encourage use of freeways, and monitor evolving freight technologies.
Actions: Maintain a designated truck route network, update it as land use changes, and plan for increased e-commerce curbside demands.
This section directly responds to AB 98 (2024 Statewide legislation for logistics facilities - warehouses, which requires local governments to update their General Plan Circulation Elements to include designated truck routes, updated by SB 415 on October 3, 2025), ensuring truck routes avoid sensitive populations and residential areas.
Street Classifications – Mobility Element
One of the key updates in the Draft Mobility Element is the introduction of multimodal priority street framework designed to create a connected network for vehicles, transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists. Implementation of this framework includes new roadway classifications and a new Multimodal Street Classifications map (see Action M-1a on pages M-6 - M-9, Table M-1 Street Classification Summary on pages M-10 - M-11, and Map Figure M-1 Multimodal Street Classifications). Below is a summary of the City’s multimodal network street classifications and sub-classifications. The summaries clearly identify the parameters for each street classification and key features to be assessed when applying the City’s upcoming Roadway Design Policy (Policy M-1h):
8 of 56
6 6
3 7
2 Major Mobility Thoroughfares
These serve as the backbone of Glendale’s multimodal transportation network, accommodating the largest volumes of people, vehicles, and goods, and linking freeways, highways, activity centers, and collector streets. They generally feature four to six travel lanes, daily vehicle volume capacities up to 36,800 (four lanes) or 55,300 (six lanes) and speeds up to 40 mph with acceptable operational volumes of 32,000 (four lanes) and 48,350 (six lanes). Possible facilities on Major Mobility Thoroughfares include on-street parking, bike facilities, bus stops, and buffered sidewalks. Sub- Classifications are:
Bicycle Priority Thoroughfares: Reallocate lanes/parking for buffered or separated bike lanes; speeds limited to 30 mph.
Transit Priority Thoroughfares: Provide bus-only lanes and transit priority treatments; speeds up to 35 mph.
Bicycle and Transit Priority Thoroughfares: Balance high-quality bike and transit facilities with reallocated curb space.
Collector Streets
These connect neighborhoods to local destinations and higher-capacity thoroughfares.
They generally feature two lanes, daily volume capacities up to 12,200 without center turn lane, or 18,300 with center turn lane, and 30 mph speeds with acceptable operational volumes of 10,675 (without center turn lane) or 16,000 (with center left-turn lane). Facilities include bike routes, sidewalks, and bus stops. Collector streets can be adapted through traffic calming or priority sub-classifications:
Bicycle Priority Collectors: Bike boulevards or dedicated lanes with narrowed travel lanes; speeds reduced to 25 mph.
Transit Priority Collectors: Allocate curb lanes for enhanced bus stops and transit priority treatments.
Local Streets
Comprising the largest share of Glendale’s network, these residential streets support very short trips and connect directly to housing. They typically have two lanes, daily volume capacities up to 2,500, and maximum speeds of 25 mph with acceptable operational volumes of 2,185 vehicles per day. Facilities may include on-street parking, bike routes with sharrows, and sidewalks. Traffic calming is emphasized to discourage cut-through traffic.
Signature Streets
An overlay classification applied to select corridors with distinctive retail, dining, or community character. These streets receive unique design treatments, pedestrian- focused facilities, and branding elements consistent with their local context. 9 of 56
7 6
3 7
2 Transportation and Parking Commission Review
The Draft Mobility Element was presented to the Transportation and Parking Commission (TPC) for review and comment at a special meeting on September 15, as an informational item only.
The Commission and public provided a number of comments and suggested edits (the ones starred * will be addressed in the next Mobility Element draft):
Add a table summarizing relevant applicable City policy documents and state legislation, providing an easy-to-read cross-referenced overview** Update Table M-1 Street Classification Summary:
oMajor Mobility Thoroughfares cell under Bicycle Facilities should read “Bike Facilities” and not “Bike lanes”.* Action M-1a to be updated for consistency. oComments: Identified lane widths may be too prescriptive, for example 10- 14’ center turn lanes may be too wide. Consider eliminating dimensions altogether and allow Public Works Traffic Engineering to review future street improvements to determine appropriate lane widths or add a disclaimer that lane/improvement widths are minimums if dimensions are to be kept. * Clarify Action M-1h - Add the word “proposed” before City’s Roadway Design Policy to clarify that the Roadway Design Plan (RDP) is not yet adopted.* This will be done if the RDP is not adopted by the time the next draft is circulated. Clarify Policy M-2.2 Bike Network – Clarify that the City’s current Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) from 2012 applies.* If and when the BTP is updated, the Mobility Element may need to be amended to reflect the newly adopted BTP policies and map.
Update Policy M-4.3 New Vehicle Technologies - Consider adding drone taxis in addition to autonomous vehicles.
Update Policy M-4.5 Emergency Vehicle Access and Action M-4c – Discuss not only emergency response routes as shown in Goal M-7 but also note evacuation scenarios and other emergency response programs in alignment with Safety Element Goal S-4 Fire Hazard and Goal S-9 Disaster Preparedness, Recovery and Emergency Response*
Update Action M-5a - Add reference for recently adopted Climate Action Adaptation Plan.*
Review the level of detail in Goal M-1 Complete Streets in comparison to the other goals; to improve consistency and clarity, staff recommends separating the street classifications into a standalone section.
Minor updates and edits aside, key takeaways from the TPC meeting also included:
Significant concern regarding the level of public outreach. Draft Mobility Element currently too technical to be easily understood by the general public (comment from public speakers).
10 of 56
8 6
3 7
2 Response to Public Comment & Outreach Comments:
The extensive public outreach efforts are detailed in the next section, Stakeholders & Outreach. To date, almost 1,000 comments have been received on the three draft elements since the release of the Land Use and Environmental Justice Elements on June 30th. Most of these comments focus on the proposed Land Use Element. In comparison, relatively few written comments have been submitted on the Draft Mobility Element (see details in next section below). Since the beginning of September, the rate of comment submission has slowed, with only 70 comments received since then. Staff will continue with additional public outreach efforts planned for the future to promote the Draft Mobility Element and its review and comment period.
Response to Document’s Accessibility Comments:
The Mobility Element is a technical planning document subject to state regulations and transportation planning requirements. The next draft will incorporate visual tools, such as graphics, infographics, and/or images, to enhance accessibility, user-friendliness, and clarity for the general public, while maintaining consistency with state regulations and transportation planning requirements. Such visuals in the Final Mobility Element are intended to provide a clearer understanding of key concepts, infrastructure improvements and policy directives.
PUBLIC COMMENT SUBMITTAL
As of October 8th, staff has received a total of 16 comments regarding the Draft Mobility Element. Several of these comments address the relationship between the Mobility Element and the Land Use Element.
Concerns include:
Consistency of the Mobility Element with other plans
Impacts of increased density on traffic flow and emergency response Effects of repurposing traffic lanes for multimodal facilities Support includes:
Expanding transit service and infrastructure
Enhancing pedestrian infrastructure and safety, such as installing missing sidewalks and longer crossing intervals
Implementing strategies to reduce speeding
The public comment period is still open and comments on the Draft Land Use and Mobility Elements 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
11 of 56
9 6
3 7
2 Mail or In-Person Delivery: Address to
Long Range Planning Section / General Plan Comments
633 E. Broadway, Room 103
Glendale, CA 91206.
Community feedback gathered during the public comment period will guide staff in shaping final recommendations to the City Council.
The comment period for both Elements will be closing on November 21, 2025, thirty days after the Council meeting.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
An extensive public outreach campaign to gather public input is underway as part of the comprehensive update of the Land Use and Mobility Elements. Outreach efforts have included a mix of online engagement, community events, and targeted activities, such as scheduled meetings with individual stakeholder groups, notices on the City’s main website, email update blasts to GlendalePlan subscribers, and providing the public with the list of “Get Involved” opportunities. Ways to provide feedback, a subscriber sign-up feature, and notices for all public meetings are listed on the City’s GlendalePlan.com website.
Planning staff have actively engaged with the community by hosting booths, providing presentations and attending meetings to answer questions and collect feedback. Key activities include:
Community events: Cruise Night (7/19), National Night Out (8/5), Women’s Equality Day at the Alex Theater (9/10), Montrose Oktoberfest (10/4), Fremont Park Grand Re-opening (10/11), GPD Open House and Touch-A-Truck Event (10/18)
Meetings with HOA and POA Boards: including Rossmoyne Mountain (8/6), Verdugo Woodlands West (8/7), Northwest Glendale (8/11), Royal Canyon (8/13), Crescenta Valley (8/28), Royal Canyon/Rossmoyne Mountain (9/20), etc. Meetings with business associations: Montrose Shopping Park (four meetings – 8/7, 9/13, 9/17, 9/23), Northeast Regional Roundtable – Building Owners and Managers Association (8/4), and Glendale Association of Realtors (9/4) Additional Outreach: Attendance and flyer handouts at Montrose Harvest Market (9/7), LA Riverwalk Workday (9/13, 10/11), Walk to School Day (10/1), Coffee with a Cop Day (10/1)
Planning staff will also be hosting public outreach booth and collecting public comments at the upcoming Annual Fall Festival at Pacific Park on October 25th. 12 of 56
10 6
3 7
2 The Mobility Element’s Public Review Comment Period was widely promoted via:
City press release and subsequent publication in the paper Email blasts to all GlendalePlan.com subscribers and Planning contact list (including all neighborhood associations),
Posts on CDD’s and the City’s social media platforms,
Announcements on GlendalePlan.com, the City’s main website (banner) and GTV
Distributions via PeachJar to all Glendale Unified School District subscribers (24,914 recipients, including parents, teachers and GUSD staff) At every event and meeting, as well as in each flyer and announcement, the public has been encouraged to subscribe to GlenalePlan.com to receive updates and outreach opportunities. Staff have also continued sending email blasts encouraging public comments following the initial announcement, along with notices for the October 21st Special City Council meeting presentation.
As previously noted, the official Public Comment Period for the Draft Land Use and Mobility Elements is scheduled to close November 21st, though comments may be submitted after that date as well.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Staff will return to Council in the future to discuss further impacts associated with a potential Transportation Impact Fee.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
No environmental review is required at this time.
In accordance with State and Local CEQA Guidelines, environmental review is being conducted as part of the Project; the Final Drafts of the Elements are being evaluated in a Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The Draft Program EIR will be circulated for public comment in early 2026.
The Final Draft of the Mobility Element, along with the Final Program EIR and technical background reports, including the Transportation Impact Analysis, will be presented to the Planning Commission and Transportation and Parking Commission for review and recommendation to City Council, and ultimately to the Council for adoption, along with the Draft Land Use and Environmental Justice Elements later in 2026.
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements. 13 of 56
11 6
3 7
2 ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1. City Council may comment on the Draft Mobility Element.
2. The City Council may consider any other alternative not 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 Fred Zohrehvand, Principal Planner/Mobility Division
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Mobility Element
14 of 56
c:\pgcompilerservicerelease\temp\glendale\meetingid_10673\packet\pdf\59926\15713\1.docx MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by
Council Member _________________________, that the City Council hereby accepts the staff’s presentation of the draft Mobility Element as described in the October 21, 2025 staff report from the Director of Community Development, subject to any City Council comments thereon.
Vote as follows:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
15 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-1
Introduction to Mobility
The Mobility Element provides the framework for decisions concerning the City’s multimodal transportation system, which includes vehicular, public transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and rail modes of travel , plus parking, goods movement, and recent trends in transportation services such as micromobility. The Mobility Element builds on the City’s recent transportation planning efforts such as the Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Citywide Pedestrian Plan. The Mobility Element also provides for coordination with the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro), which serves as the coordinating agency for transportation funding for Los Angeles County and strives to help plan a better street environment for all types of users , as exemplified by the LA Metro Complete Streets Policy.
State law (California Government Code Section 65302(b)) mandates that the Mobility Element contain the general location and extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation routes, terminals, military airports and ports, and other public utilities and facilities, to the extent these items exist in the planning area. The Mobility Element reflects the City’s desire to provide for complete streets, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities in Glendale. The Mobility Element also furthers th e City’s aspirations to support the success of regional transit service in Glendale and to support the application of forward -thinking transportation technologies and best practices in the City.
Organization of Element
The Mobility Element will address each of the topics below as they relate to Glendale.
The goals, policies, and actions of this element are organized around the following topics:
• Complete Streets
• Walking and Bicycling
• Public Transit, Ridesharing, and
Carpooling
• Existing and Future Local and
Regional Traffic Demand
• Environmental Health and Air
Quality
• Parking
• Goods Movement
The goals, policies, and actions in this element address the proposed network of facilities to accommodate the needs of vehicles, walking, bicycling, public transit, ridesharing, goods movement, and other travel modes . Topics identified by State law that are not relevant to Glendale include military airports and ports.
Contents:
+ Complete
Streets
+ Active
Transportatio:
Walking and
Bicycling
+ Public Transit,
Ridesharing,
and Carpooling
+ Existing and
Future Local
and Regional
Traffic Demand
+ Environmental
Health and Air
Quality
+ Parking
+ Goods
Movement
16 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-2
How to Read the Mobility Element
The Mobility Element contains a brief introduction, goals with related policies, and specific actions that the City will undertake to accomplish identified goals.
For policies and actions to be effective, they need to be clearly defined. However, they may range in terms of commitment of resources, importance, and expected results.
Therefore, it is important to understand the distinctions between various levels of policy and implementation action when interpreting and applying this Mobility Element.
Goals: A goal in the General Plan is the broadest statement of community values. Goals are generalized ideals which provide a sense of direction for action. They are overall statements of desired future conditions.
Policies: The essence of the Mobility Element is contained within its 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 gui des for decision makers, not decisions themselves.
Actions: The associated implementation 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.
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 wh ere 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.
17 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-3
The following is a list of additional terms used in goals, policies, and actions within the Mobility Element. Other key terms related to mobility are defined in callout boxes throughout this Element.
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) : The ADA is a federal civil rights law to protect people with disabilities from discrimination. As it relates to transportation, the ADA guarantees people with disabilities equal access to public transportation and requires transportation facilities to be accessible and useable by persons with disabilities.
• Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) : BRT is a high -quality bus-based transit system that delivers fast and efficient service that may include dedicated bus lanes, transit signal priority, off -board fare collection, elevated platforms, and enhanced stations.
• Carshare: Carshare is a system of automobile rental services intended to substitute for private vehicle ownership. Carshare is usually priced by the hour, with convenient (smartphone-based) pick-up and drop-off procedures. • First/last mile improvements: First/last mile improvements cover the portion of a person’s transit trip from the stop or station to their home, work, or other destination. Safe and convenient walking and bicycling facilities that connect to transit improve the transit rider experienc e for the full length of the trip and encourage transit use by people of all ages and abilities. • Goods movement facilities: Goods movement (or freight) facilities consist of the roads, rail lines, water routes, and supporting facilities for moving goods between airports, water ports, and other destinations. In Glendale, goods movement facilities for trucks include arterial st reets that connect to regional freeways, which themselves are Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) official truck routes as part of the state highway system. In addition, rail goods movement is also accommodated through Gle ndale, sharing facilities with passenger rail service.
• Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) : ITS consists of the integration of advanced communications technologies into the transportation infrastructure and in vehicles in order to improve transportation safety and mobility and enhance productivity.
• Micromobility: Micromobility refers to small, low -speed, human - or electric - powered transportation device s, including bicycles, scooters, electric -assist bicycles, electric scooters (e -scooters), and other small, lightweight, wheeled conveyances.
• Microtransit: Microtransit is a technology -enabled service that uses multi - passenger vehicles to provide flexible, on-demand services without fixed routing.
These services are traditionally provided in designated service areas. • Minimum parking requirements : As laid out in the Municipal Code, minimum parking requirements consist of the minimum number of off -street parking spaces a land use development project must provide, and is usually tied to the use, number of dwelling units (for residential projects) or square feet (for non - residential projects).
• Mobility hub: A mobility hub is a transportation terminal, such as a public transit station, which is designed to integrate multiple travel options including walking, bicycling, rideshare, and/or micromobility. Mobility hubs can include information related to transportation services as well as on-site amenities such as shops and restaurants.
• Park-and-ride: Park-and-ride lots offer a convenient and safe location to transfer from a single passenger vehicle to a local or regional transit bus, carpool, or vanpool.
• Peak commute hours : This refers to the times of day when the demand for transportation services is at its highest, due to people traveling to work (during the weekday morning) or from work (during the weekday afternoon/evening). 18 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-4
• Rideshare: Rideshare refers to carpooling and vanpooling, in which a vehicle carries additional passengers when making a trip, without resulting in additional vehicle miles of travel per person . Carpooling generally uses participants’ own automobiles, while vanpooling generally uses rented vans (often supplied by employers, non-profit organizations, or government agencies). • Traffic calming: Traffic calming consists of roadway design features intended to reduce vehicle traffic speeds and volumes on a particular roadway , improving the walking and bicycling environment.
• Transit priority treatments : Transit -supportive treatments incorporate a mix of roadway infrastructure improvements and/or traffic signal modifications to improve transit travel times and reliability.
• Transportation Demand Management (TDM) : TDM is a suite of incentives, information, and encouragement programs to reduce the use of single-occupant vehicles and consequently decrease vehicle travel and traffic congestion. These programs help people use modes other than driving and also encourage a shift to driving during off -peak periods. TDM measures may be implemented by governments or employers
• Vehicle miles traveled (VMT): VMT is a measure of the amount of vehicle travel that may be generated by a land use project or within a specific area. It is calculated by multiplying the number of vehicles by distance; one VMT is equivalent to one vehicle traveling on a road for one m ile. VMT can also be averaged for the number of residents and/or employees in an area. • Wayfinding: Directional guidance for road users including bicyclists and pedestrians, including signs, maps, and kiosks.
19 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-5
COMPLETE STREETS
A network of aesthetically pleasing complete streets that is sustainable, safe, and accessible for all users.
M-1 Policies
M-1.1 Complete Streets Network. Connect communities and provide safe and convenient access to key destinations for all modes and users of all ages and abilities.
M-1.2 Complete Streets Design. Apply complete streets design standards to future projects in the public right-of-way and on private property.
M-1.3 Maintenance. Maintain the City’s transportation network in a manner that preserves usability for all users and modes.
M-1.4 Sustainability. Provide a network of complete streets with a suite of multimodal facilities that encourage reduced driving and improved environmental health and air quality.
M-1.5 Visual Enhancement . Provide walking, bicycling, transit, and vehicular facilities that visually enhance the streetscape.
M-1.6 Safety. Build upon efforts such as the City’s Local Roadway Safety Plan by a ddressing speeding and other safety -related issues through equitable enforcement of regulations and roadway design, including adjusting speed limits.
M-1.7 Neighborhood Streets . Discourage cut -through traffic, large trucks, speeding, noise, and other negative effects along the City's neighborhood streets through the City’s Traffic Calming Program.
M-1.8 Multimodal Priority Streets. Design and maintain a network of priority streets for vehicles, transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists to provide a complete, connected network for all modes.
M-1.9 Wayfinding. Maintain a system of wayfinding to/from key destinations that meets the needs of all users and modes.
M-1.10 Education. Educate residents on safe walking, bicycling, and driving.
M-1.11 Public Health . Support public health by encouraging active lifestyles with increased walking and bicycling for commuting for errands, school, and recreation trips as well as for exercise.
M-1.12 Street Trees and Landscaping : Promote the planting of locally native trees in the public right -of-way, including street trees and park trees, to provide shaded pathways,
neighborhood cooling, and other benefits.
Complete street
networks are designed
considering the full
range of user abilities
and modes. Complete
streets may include
sidewalks, bike lanes,
transit lanes, frequent
and quality pedestrian
crossing facilities, and
other transportation
facilities in addition to
vehicular travel lanes.
Complete streets are
context-sensitive,
reflecting the land use
and travel needs of
users and vehicles at a
particular location.
While complete streets-
sensitive design does
not mean that every
roadway in the city will
have the full suite of
multimodal
improvements, the
City’s network should
connect communities
and provide safe and
convenient access to
key destinations for all
modes and users of all
ages and abilities.
COMPLETE
STREETS
20 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-6
M-1 Actions
M-1a Establish a network of multimodal major mobility thoroughfares and collector streets as shown in Figure M -1. Facilitating walking access should be prioritized on both bicycle and transit -priority streets. The street classifications and sub -classifications that form Glendale’s multimodal transportation network are described below . Note, treatments, modifications, and dimensions will be evaluated, designed, and reviewed as projects are proposed; this will include being studied for engineering feasibility , operating conditions, and consistency with the City's Roadway Design Policy (RDP) by the Public Works Department.
Major Mobility Thoroughfare : Major mobility thoroughfares (such as Brand Boulevard between Glenoaks Boulevard and Broadway ) are the corridors that form the backbone of Glendale’s multimodal transportation network; they transport the largest volume of people, vehicles, and goods within and through the city. These streets provide access to freeways, highways, major activity centers, and regional destinations both within and outside Glendale; they also connect freeways/highways and collector streets. Major mob ility thoroughfares generally consist of 4 to 6 vehicle lanes (2 to 3 lanes in each direction) and include a landscaped and/or painted median with left-turn pockets or a two-way center left-turn lane.
• Travel Lanes: Between 4 and 6
• Daily Vehicle Volumes: Up to 36,800 (4 lanes) or 55,300 (6 lanes)1 • Acceptable Operational Volumes: 32,000 (4 lanes) or 48,350 (6 lanes) • Maximum Desirable Speed: 40mph
• On-Street Parking : Curbside parking on both sides of the street (where feasible and consistent with the City’s RDP)
• Bicycle Facilities: Bike lanes, with improved bike lanes where feasible and consistent with the City’s RDP
• Transit Facilities: Bus stops and curbside amenities (where transit service is available) • Pedestrian Facilities: Sidewalks with landscaped buffer on both sides of the street However, as an alternative to vehicle capacity, mobility can also be achieved along Major Mobility Thoroughfares by reallocating street space to other modes. With the implementation of high-quality bicycle facilities and transit treatments, person throughput can be increased on streets designated as Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Bicycle Priority) and Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Transit Priority), as follows:
Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Bicycle Priority) : Major mobility thoroughfares that are designated as Bicycle Priority (such as Verdugo Road north of Canada Boulevard) ) are streets that achieve significant person throughput with the implementation of both vehicle lanes and context -appropriate high-quality bicycle facilities. On these streets, wider bike lanes with horizontal and/or vertical separation can be achieved thr ough the reallocation or resizing of street elements such as travel lanes, parking lanes, or medians and center left-turn lanes.
• Travel Lanes : Between 2 and 4 (depending on bike facility type and available right-of-way)
• Daily Vehicle Volumes: Up to 18,300 (2 lanes) or 36,800 (4 lanes) • Acceptable Operational Volumes: 16,000 (2 lanes) or 32,000 (4 lanes) • Maximum Desirable Speed: 30mph
• On-Street Parking : Curbside parking (where feasible and consistent with the City’s RDP, as part of parking -adjacent buffered bike lanes or parking -separated protected bike lanes)
1 The daily volume capacities for the street classifications and sub -classifications is based on state of the practice research published by the Transportation Research Board and local traffic patterns. 21 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-7
• Bicycle Facilities: Buffered bike lanes or separated bike lanes • Transit Facilities : Bus stops and curbside amenities (where transit service is available)
• Pedestrian Facilities : Sidewalks with landscaped buffer on both sides of the street
Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Transit Priority) : Major mobility thoroughfares that are designated as Transit Priority (such as Colorado Street east of Pacific Avenue) are streets that achieve significant person throughput with the implementation of both vehicle lanes and high -quality transit service and facilities. On these streets, street space can be reallocated or resized to provide bus -only lanes and/or other transi t priority treatments to improve bus transit speed and reliability.
• Travel Lanes : Between 2 and 4 (depending on transit priority treatment and available right-of-way)
• Daily Vehicle Volumes: Up to 18,300 (2 lanes) or 36,800 (4 lanes) • Acceptable Operational Volumes: 16,000 (2 lanes) or 32,000 (4 lanes) • Maximum Desirable Speed: 35mph
• On-Street Parking: Curbside parking (excluding corridors with transit-only lanes) • Bicycle Facilities : Bike lanes, with improved bike lanes where feasible and consistent with the City’s RDP
• Transit Facilities: Bus-only lanes or other transit priority treatments (depending on available road space)
• Pedestrian Facilities : Sidewalks with landscaped buffer on both sides of the street
Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Bicycle and Transit Priority) : On some thoroughfares, both bicycle and transit throughput may be prioritized – for example, streets where City plans identify high -quality bike lanes and where high -quality bus transit services are operated. Major mobility thoroughfares that are designated as Bicycle and Transit Priority (such as Glenoaks Boulevard west of Brand Boulevard) are streets that achieve significant person throughput with the implementation of both vehicle lanes, high -quality bicycle facilities, and high-quality transit service and facilities. On these streets, street space can be reallocated or resized to provide and balance high -quality facilities for multiple priority modes.
• Travel Lanes: Between 2 and 4 (depending on bike and transit facility types and available right-of-way)
• Daily Vehicle Volumes: Up to 18,300 (2 lanes) or 36,800 (4 lanes) • Acceptable Operational Volumes: 16,000 (2 lanes) or 32,000 (4 lanes) • Maximum Desirable Speed: 30 mph
• On-Street Parking: No (curbside space allocated to bike and transit lanes) • Bicycle Facilities: Buffered bike lanes (paired with bus -only lanes) or separated bike lanes (paired with other transit priority treatments) • Transit Facilities: Bus-only lanes or other transit priority treatments (depending on available road space)
• Pedestrian Facilities : Sidewalks with landscaped buffer on both sides of the street
Collector Street: Collector streets (such as Chevy Chase Drive east of Glenoaks Boulevard ) are the connections between Glendale’s major mobility thoroughfares and its local streets; they primarily serve local traffic primarily consisting of the city’s residents. These streets link residential neighborhoods to key local destinations and the higher-capacity thoroughfares that provide access to major and regional attractions and destinations. Collector streets generally consist of 2 vehicle lanes (1 lane in each direction) and may include a two -way center left-turn lane depending on the local land use context and available curb-to-curb space. 22 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-8
• Travel Lanes: 2
• Daily Vehicle Volumes: Up to 12,200 (without center turn lane) or 18,300 (with center left- turn lane)
• Acceptable Operational Volumes: 10,675 (without center turn lane) or 16,000 (with center left-turn lane)
• Maximum Desirable Speed: 30mph
• On-Street Parking : Curbside parking on both sides of the street (where feasible and consistent with the City’s RDP)
• Bicycle Facilities: Bike route (with sharrows)
• Transit Facilities: Bus stops and curbside amenities (where transit service is available) • Pedestrian Facilities: Sidewalks on both sides of the street (where feasible and consistent with the City’s RDP)
In addition to vehicle facilities, local mobility can be supported along Collector Streets by reallocating street space to other modes or implementing traffic calming treatments to support the shared use of the street by multiple travel modes. With the imp lementation of high-quality bicycle facilities and transit treatments, person -throughput can be increased on streets designated as Collector Street (Bicycle Priority) and Collector Street (Transit Priority).
Collector Street (Bicycle Priority) : Collector streets that are designated as Bicycle Priority (such as Santa Carlotta Street ) are streets that support local person throughput with the implementation of both vehicle lanes and context -appropriate high-quality bicycle facilities. On these streets, bike lanes can be achieved through narrowing travel lanes or reallocating street space from elements such as center left-turn lanes or parking lanes; alternatively, low -stress bike boulevards can be implemented alongside traffic calming treatments to lower vehicle speeds and support the shared use of travel lanes by both vehicles and bicycles.
• Travel Lanes: 2
• Daily Vehicle Volumes : Up to 12, 200 (without center turn lane) or 18, 300 (with center left-turn lane)
• Acceptable Operational Volumes: 10,675 (without center turn lane) or 16,000 (with center left-turn lane)
• Maximum Desirable Speed: 25mph
• On-Street Parking: Curbside parking on both sides of the street (where feasible and consistent with the City’s RDP)
• Bicycle Facilities: Bike boulevard (with traffic calming) or bike lanes • Transit Facilities : Bus stops and curbside amenities (where transit service is available)
• Pedestrian Facilities: Sidewalks on both sides of the street (where feasible and consistent with the City’s RDP)
Collector Street (Transit Priority): Collector streets that are designated as Transit Priority (such as Columbus Avenue between Broadway and Colorado Street) support local person throughput with the implementation of both vehicle lanes and high -quality transit service and facilities. On these streets, portions of the curb lane can be reallocated to provide high- quality bus stops and treatments to facilitate transit speed and service. • Travel Lanes: 2
• Daily Vehicle Volumes : Up to 12, 200 (without center turn lane) or 18, 300 (with center left-turn lane)
• Acceptable Operational Volumes: 10,675 (without center turn lane) or 16,000 (with center left-turn lane)
• Maximum Desirable Speed: 30mph
• On-Street Parking: Curbside parking on both sides of the street (where feasible and consistent with the City’s RDP)
23 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-9
• Bicycle Facilities: Bike boulevard
• Transit Facilities: Bus stops and transit priority treatments • Pedestrian Facilities: Sidewalks on both sides of the street (where feasible and consistent with the City’s RDP)
Local Streets: Local streets (in terms of mileage) make up the largest component of Glendale’s street network. These residential streets connect the city’s single - and multi-family housing to its collector streets. Local streets facilitate very short trips, since they provide a direct connection to resident trips’ start and end points. Given the unique nature of Glendale’s many neighborhoods, the specific layouts and dimensions of local streets can vary based on the local context, but vehicle capacity is not prioritized. Traffic calming measures can be used to discourage cut -through traffic from using local streets.
• Travel Lanes: 2
• Daily Vehicle Volumes: Up to 2,500 vehicles per day
• Acceptable Operational Volumes: 2,185 vehicles per day • Maximum Desirable Speed: 25mph
• On-Street Parking: Curbside parking on one or both sides of the street (where feasible and consistent with the City’s RDP)
• Bicycle Facilities: Bike route (with sharrows) or bike boulevard • Transit Facilities: No (unless local service is provided) • Pedestrian Facilities: Sidewalks with landscaped buffer on both sides of the street (where feasible and consistent with the City’s RDP)
Signature Streets: Signature Streets are defined by unique identities centered around specialty retail, dining, and other context-driven uses, offering distinct streetscapes and pedestrian -focused facilities and amenities. Unlike Major Mobility Thoroughfares, Collector Stree ts, and Local Streets, Signature Streets are not a standalone street classification in Glendale, but rather an overlay applied to select corridors with treatments informed by the local context, environment, and character. As such, a stre et can be both a Signature Street and part of an existing multimodal classification. Street layouts and dimensions are thoughtfully designed to reflect and enhance the surrounding character, and may include branding and elements unique to each corridor. Signature Streets in Glendale consist of Brand Boulevard (Glenoaks Boulevard to Colorado Street) , Broadway (Central Avenue to Glendale Avenue), Honolulu Avenue (Verdugo Road to Las Palmas Avenue), and Kenneth Road (Sonora Avenue to Bruce Avenue).
24 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-10
Table M-1 Street Classifications Summary
Street
Classification (1)
Description Number and
Typical Width of
Travel Lanes (2)
Median or Center
Left-Turn Lane
Width
Daily Vehicle
Volumes
Maximum
Desirable
Speed
Curbside Parking
Lane and Width (3)
Bicycle Facilities Transit Facilities Pedestrian
Facilities (4) (5)
Traffic Calming
Eligibility
Minimum Curb-
to-Curb Width /
Right-of-Way
Width (6)
Major Mobility
Thoroughfare
Provide access to
freeways, highways,
major activity centers, and
regional destinations both
within and outside
Glendale; they also
connect
freeways/highways and
collector streets.
4-6 travel lanes,
10’-11’
10’-14’ (based on
available right-of-
way)
Up to 36,800 (4
lanes) to 55,300 (6
lanes) / acceptable
operational volumes
of 32,000 (4 lanes) or
48,350 (6 lanes)
40mph 8’ curbside parallel
parking on both sides
of the street (where
feasible and
consistent with the
City’s RDP)
Bike lanes where
feasible and
consistent with the
City’s RDP
Bus stops and
curbside amenities
(where transit service
is available)
10’ sidewalk +
parkway with
landscaped
buffer on both
sides of the
street
78’ / 98’ (4
lanes), 102’ /
122’ (6 lanes)
Major Mobility
Thoroughfare
(Bicycle Priority)
Streets that achieve
significant person
throughput with the
implementation of both
vehicle lanes and context-
appropriate high-quality
bicycle facilities.
2-4 travel lanes,
10’-11’
(depending on
bike facility type
and available
right-of-way)
10’-14’ (based on
available right-of-
way)
Up to 18,300 (2
lanes) to 36,800 (4
lanes) / acceptable
operational volumes
of 16,000 (2 lanes) or
32,000 (4 lanes)
30mph 8’ curbside parallel
parking (where
feasible and
consistent with the
City’s RDP, as part of
parking-adjacent
buffered bike lanes or
parking-separated
protected bike lanes)
9’-12’ (including
buffers and
delineators)
buffered bike
lanes or separated
bike lanes
Bus stops and
curbside amenities
(where transit service
is available)
10’ sidewalk +
parkway with
landscaped
buffer on both
sides of the
street
78’ / 98’ (with
center lane or
median), 64’ / 84’
(without center
lane or median)
Major Mobility
Thoroughfare
(Transit Priority)
Streets that achieve
significant person
throughput with the
implementation of both
vehicle lanes and high-
quality transit service and
facilities.
2-4 travel lanes,
10’-11’
(depending on
transit priority
treatment and
available right-of-
way)
10’-14’ (based on
available right-of-
way)
Up to 18,300 (2
lanes) to 36,800 (4
lanes) / acceptable
operational volumes
of 16,000 (2 lanes) or
32,000 (4 lanes)
35mph 10’ curbside parallel
parking (if feasible on
corridors with bus-
only lanes and
consistent with the
City’s RDP)
Bike lanes where
feasible and
consistent with the
City’s RDP
11’ bus-only lanes or
other transit priority
treatments (depending
on available road
space)
10’ sidewalk +
parkway with
landscaped
buffer on both
sides of the
street
78’ / 98’ (with
center lane or
median), 64’ / 84’
(without center
lane or median)
Major Mobility
Thoroughfare
(Bicycle and
Transit Priority)
Streets that achieve
significant person
throughput with the
implementation of both
vehicle lanes, high-quality
bicycle facilities, and high-
quality transit service and
facilities.
2-4 travel lanes,
10’-11’
(depending on
bike and transit
facility types and
available right-of-
way)
10’-14’ (based on
available right-of-
way)
Up to 18,300 (2
lanes) to 36,800 (4
lanes) / acceptable
operational volumes
of 16,000 (2 lanes) or
32,000 (4 lanes)
30mph No (curbside space
allocated to bike and
transit lanes)
9’-12’ (including
buffers and
delineators)
buffered bike
lanes or separated
bike lanes
11’ bus-only lanes or
other transit priority
treatments (depending
on available road
space)
10’ sidewalk +
parkway with
landscaped
buffer on both
sides of the
street
78’ / 98’ (with
center lane or
median), 64’ / 84’
(without center
lane or median)
Collector Street Connect residential
neighborhoods to key
local destinations and the
higher-capacity
thoroughfares that can
connect residents to
major and regional
attractions and
destinations.
2 travel lanes, 11’ 12’ two-way center
left-turn lane (based
on local land use
context and
available space)
Up to 12,200 (without
center turn lane) to
18,300 (with center
turn lane) /
acceptable
operational volumes
of 10,675 (without
center turn lane) or
16,000 (with center
left-turn lane)
30mph 8’ curbside parallel
parking on both sides
of the street (where
feasible and
consistent with the
City’s RDP)
Bike route (with
sharrows) (7)
Bus stops and
curbside amenities
(where transit service
is available)
8’ sidewalk +
parkway on both
sides of the
street (where
feasible and
consistent with
the City’s RDP)
Individual streets
may be deemed
appropriate for
traffic calming
treatments based
on features such
as a lack of high-
quality transit
service, significant
levels of heavy
vehicles, or
adjacency to
commercial,
industrial, and/or
higher-density
multi-family
residential uses.
40’ / 56’
25 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-11
Street
Classification (1)
Description Number and
Typical Width of
Travel Lanes (2)
Median or Center
Left-Turn Lane
Width
Daily Vehicle
Volumes
Maximum
Desirable
Speed
Curbside Parking
Lane and Width (3)
Bicycle Facilities Transit Facilities Pedestrian
Facilities (4) (5)
Traffic Calming
Eligibility
Minimum Curb-
to-Curb Width /
Right-of-Way
Width (6)
Collector Street
(Bicycle Priority)
Streets that support local
person throughput with
the implementation of
both vehicle lanes and
context-appropriate high-
quality bicycle facilities.
2 travel lanes, 11’ 12’ two-way center
left-turn lane (based
on local land use
context and
available space)
Up to 12,200 (without
center turn lane) to
18,300 (with center
turn lane) /
acceptable
operational volumes
of 10,675 (without
center turn lane) or
16,000 (with center
left-turn lane)
25mph 8’ curbside parallel
parking on both sides
of the street (where
feasible and
consistent with the
City’s RDP)
Bike boulevard
(with traffic
calming) or 6’ bike
lanes
Bus stops and
curbside amenities
(where transit service
is available)
8’ sidewalk +
parkway on both
sides of the
street (where
feasible and
consistent with
the City’s RDP)
Individual streets
may be deemed
appropriate for
traffic calming
treatments based
on features such
as a lack of high-
quality transit
service, significant
levels of heavy
vehicles, or
adjacency to
commercial,
industrial, and/or
higher-density
multi-family
residential uses.
50’ / 66’
Collector Street
(Transit Priority)
Support local person
throughput with the
implementation of both
vehicle lanes and high-
quality transit service and
facilities.
2 travel lanes, 11’ 12’ two-way center
left-turn lane (based
on local land use
context and
available space)
Up to 12,200 (without
center turn lane) to
18,300 (with center
turn lane) /
acceptable
operational volumes
of 10,675 (without
center turn lane) or
16,000 (with center
left-turn lane)
30mph 8’ curbside parallel
parking on both sides
of the street (where
feasible and
consistent with the
City’s RDP)
Bike boulevard
(with traffic
calming)
Bus stops and transit
priority treatments
8’ sidewalk +
parkway on both
sides of the
street (where
feasible and
consistent with
the City’s RDP)
Individual streets
may be deemed
appropriate for
traffic calming
treatments based
on features such
as a lack of high-
quality transit
service, significant
levels of heavy
vehicles, or
adjacency to
commercial,
industrial, and/or
higher-density
multi-family
residential uses.
36’ / 56’
Local Street Residential streets that
connect the city’s single-
and multi-family housing
to its collector streets.
Local streets facilitate
very short trips, since they
provide a direct
connection to resident
trips’ start and end points.
2 travel lanes, 10’ No Up to 2,500 /
acceptable
operational volumes
of 2,185
25mph 8’ curbside parallel
parking on one or
both sides of the
street (where feasible
and consistent with
the City’s RDP)
Bike route (with
sharrows) or bike
boulevard
None (unless local
service is provided)
5’ sidewalks with
landscaped
buffer on both
sides of the
street (where
feasible and
consistent with
the City’s RDP)
Local streets may
be eligible to
undergo traffic
calming
treatments.
36’ / 46’
Notes:
1) Streets located in mountainous areas with steep grade and constrained right-of-way may require reduced dimensions for some facilities. 2) Travel lanes can be narrowed to 10 feet for some or all lanes depending on truck volumes and the presence of curbside park ing or bike lanes. 3) Diagonal or perpendicular on-street parking may be considered should there be sufficient right-of-way and other considerations per the City’s RDP. 4) The combined sidewalk and parkway width can vary within the Downtown Specific Plan (10'-18') and in TOD zones (12'-15'), and could include a required building adjacent zone. 5) Collector Streets in locations with limited right-of-way or mountainous terrain may require exclusion of parkways and/or narrower sidewalks . 6) Local Streets with constrained right-of-way or within hillside areas (e.g., with curb-to-curb width less than 36 feet) may require the exclusion of parkways, narrower sidewalks, limited travel lanes, or reduced street parking capacity. 7) Effective January 1, 2026, per California Senate Bill 1216, bike routes are not permitted on streets with speed limits exceeding 25mph . 26 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-12
M-1b As part of the Community Development Department’s development review process, require applicable projects to study their effects on the walking, bicycling, and public transit networks and users (consistent with the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines) and contribute their appropriate fair share to multimodal transportation network improvements , following adoption of the Transportation Impact Fee.
M-1c Apply Complete Streets principles and national best practices when designing and implementing the City’s transportation projects to fulfill the needs of all roadway users and all abilities, appropriate with the surrounding land use and transportation context.
M-1d Continue to work with GUSD and other stakeholders to establish safety education and outreach campaigns and to pursue Safe Routes to School opportunities, encouraging parents and children to walk or bike to schools within the City, paired with education campaigns for drivers.
M-1e Evaluate opportunities to reduce speed limits on residential streets.
M-1f Work with community-based organizations (such as Glendale Healthier Community Coalition and Walk Bike Glendale) to implement outreach and encouragement efforts that encourage residents of all ages and backgrounds to walk and bike for commute and non -commute trips as well as for recreation and exercise.
M-1g Update the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program guidance documentation to focus the implementation of traffic calming measures on Collector Streets where they are appropriate, such as Collector Streets with out high-quality transit service, significant levels of heavy vehicles, or adjacency to commercial, industrial, and/or higher-density multi-family residential uses.
M-1h Utilize the City's Roadway Design Policy , which contains minimum and feasible design standards for the City's street network. As roadway modifications or development projects are proposed, conduct engineering feasibility assessments for various multimodal elements as required by the RDP.
M-1i Study the feasibility of implementing alternative roadway network treatments such as one -way couplets in Downtown Glendale and other areas of the City , including potential effects on vehicle operations, multimodal connectivity, and emergency vehicle access . Update the City’s RDP as needed to incorporate the findings of this study.
27 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-13
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION: WALKING AND BICYCLING
A safe and comfortable walking, bicycling, and rolling environment that provides access to community destinations for users of all ages and abilities.
M-2 Policies
Mobility Needs . Provide sidewalks, crosswalks, curb
ramps, and pedestrian traffic signal treatments, including ADA-compliant facilities, that are safe and accessible for users of all abilities.
Bikeway Network . Expand current bikeway facilities to
form a more comprehensive and complete bikeway network
based on the City’s Bicycle Transportation Pl an and
connecting to existing and planned bikeways in adjacent jurisdictions.
Facility Improvements . Prioritize pedestrian and bikeway improvements to popular destinations, employment centers, high-quality transit stops, and other areas of high demand.
Interjurisdictional Coordination . Continue to coordinate with adjacent jurisdictions and regional partners in the development of connected bicycle and pedestrian facilities and regional trails.
Business Support . Encourage businesses to provide
easily-accessible active transportation amenities, such as bike parking, for employees and customers.
Micromobility. Explore partnerships with LA Metro and
other organizations to expand regional shared mobility programs, such as bikeshare and scootershare , into
Glendale.
Freeway Ramps . Coordinate with Caltrans to improve
pedestrian and bicycle facilities at freeway ramps.
Technology. Explore ways to use technology to improve
pedestrian and bicycle safety and connectivity.
Off-Street Facilities . Explore opportunities to provide comfortable off-street active transportation facilities, such as part of the Verdugo Wash initiative and the Garden River Bridge Project.
ACTIVE
TRANSPORTATION
Safe, comfortable, and
accessible walking, biking,
and rolling facilities can help
improve mobility for
individuals who cannot or
choose not to drive to their
destinations.
Walking facilities can include
sidewalks, trails, bridges,
crosswalks, pedestrian
signals, and pedestrian
lighting. Bicycle facilities can
include the following:
Class I Bike Path: An off-
street paved right-of-way for
bicycle travel that is
completely separate from any
street or highway.
Class II Bike Lanes: A
striped and stenciled lane for
one-way bicycle travel on a
street. A climbing bike lane
supports bicycles traveling
uphill slower than other
traffic.
Class III Bike Route: A
street where the bicyclist
shares the right-of-way with
motor vehicles. A Class IIIb
bike boulevard is further
designated and designed to
prioritize bicycle travel
through vehicle speed and
volume management.
Class IV Protected Bike
Lanes: A bike lane that
includes a physical
separation from vehicular
traffic.
28 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-14
M-2 Actions
M-2a Implement the bicycle and pedestrian improvements as detailed in the City ’s Bicycle Transportation Plan and Citywide Pedestrian Plan shown in Figure M-2 and Figure M-3, including through incorporating into other plans prepared or reviewed by the Community Development Department, or infrastructure improvements designed or reviewed by the Public Works Department.
M-2b Incorporate state and national best practices when designing and implementing improvements to enhance pedestrian and bicyclist comfort , such as those required by Public Right -of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG) and recommended by Caltrans and the National Association of Transportation Officials (NACTO).
M-2c Install secure bicycle parking at City -owned facilities where feasible and warranted ; methods to monitor and install bicycle parking as needed include as part of the Community Services & Parks Department’s facility maintenance and planning.
M-2d As part of the Community Development Department’s development review process, require that new developments:
• Provide project design features that support walking and biking and connect to the City’s current and planned walking and biking network.
• Provide sidewalks and pedestrian ramps, repair or replace damaged sidewalks, and implement right-of-way improvements identified in adopted City plans. • Construct and/or contribute to off -site improvements that enhance the pedestrian experience, including human -scale lighting, streetscaping, and accessible sidewalks adjacent to the site.
• Provide supportive amenities such as safe, secure, and convenient bicycle parking.
M-2e Prioritize active transportation improvements in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP ) and facilitate and prioritize implementation of Bicycle Transportation Plan and Citywide Pedestrian Plan projects.
M-2f Repurpose on-street parking with low utilization to implement walking and biking improvements, consistent with the RDP. Determine locations that are suitable for repurposing parking through a parking utilization study or review of anticipated land use changes , while remaining consistent with RDP standards (such as avoiding parking loss that exceeds 10%).
M-2g Prioritize sidewalk, curb ramp, and other pedestrian improvements which address gaps in the City’s ADA-accessible walking network and avoid pinch points and other barriers and hazards for users.
M-2h Develop a citywide Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan that is applicable to all new development projects, to be prepared and updated by the Community Development Department.
M-2i Require development projects to dedicate right-of-way for implementation of near -term and/or future active transportation infrastructure consistent with Assembly Bill 3177.
29 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-15
PUBLIC TRANSIT, RIDESHARING, AND CARPOOLING
Maximized use of existing and future investments in public transit, ridesharing, and other alternative travel modes with increased ridership and decreased private automobile use.
M-3 Policies
M-3.1 Transit Priority. Prioritize public transit service along corridors and in areas of high transit demand, building upon Glendale Beeline service and coordinating with
other agencies such as LA Metro and Metrolink, as
needed.
M-3.2 First/Last Mile Transit Access. Improve walking and bicycling access to transit in areas that currently have or are projected to have high -quality transit service , such as downtown, South Glendale, and West
Glendale, as shown in Figure M -4; partner with LA
Metro to provide seamless access to planned high -
quality transit service such as the LA Metro North
Hollywood-Pasadena Transit Corridor.
M-3.3 Bus Stop Amenities . Partner with LA Metro to
improve bus stops with seating, shelters, lighting, and other passenger amenities , prioritizing stops in high- quality transit areas and building on efforts such as
the Glendale Bus Stop Improvement Program ,
regularly reviewing the sufficiency of bus stop
amenities to serve anticipated bus service
expansions.
M-3.4 Transit Treatments . Explore opportunities to
improve transit service through transit -supportive
roadway treatments on streets which serve multiple
Glendale Beeline and LA Metro bus routes such as
Broadway, Brand Boulevard, Glenoaks Boulevard,
and San Fernando Road.
M-3.5 Transit-Oriented Development . Encourage mixed -
use developments near major transit stops and high -
quality transit corridors , including near planned Bus
Rapid Transit (BRT) stations for the LA Metro North
Hollywood-Pasadena Transit Corridor and the
Metrolink station at the Larry Zarian Transportation
Center.
M-3.6 Key Communities . Coordinate with LA Metro to
prioritize transit service and access improvements for
transit-dependent communities , including
disadvantaged communities and area s with low
vehicle ownership and higher proportions of residents
who are seniors and children.
Glendale is served by a network of
fixed-bus and rail transit service,
as well as demand-responsive
services such as:
• Glendale Beeline buses
• LA Metro buses
• Dial-a-Ride
• LA Metro Micro rideshare
• Metrolink and Amtrak trains
The Larry Zarian Transportation
Center, formerly known as the
Glendale Transportation Center,
serves as a hub for several transit
routes. In addition, portions of the
City currently are or are projected
to become areas of high-quality
transit, defined as the half-mile
area around high-quality stops:
• A major transit stop
(containing a rail transit station
or the intersection of two or
more major bus routes with a
combined frequency of service
interval of 20 minutes or less
during the morning and
afternoon peak commute
periods).
• A stop along a high-quality
transit corridor (a corridor with
fixed route bus service with
combined service intervals no
longer than 15 minutes during
peak commute hours).
High-quality transit in Glendale will
continue to expand through
projects such as the Noho-
Pasadena Transit Corridor BRT.
TRANSIT SERVICES
30 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-16
M-3.7 Park-and-Ride. Support the use of Caltrans-maintained park-and-ride lots in the City and the expansion of these types of facilities to encourage carpooling.
M-3.8 Employee Carpooling. Encourage local employers to increase employee carpooling.
M-3.9 Mobility Hubs. Enhance the Larry Zarian Transportation Center , BRT stations, and other key transit stops as mobility hubs with augmented first/last mile amenities for transit, rideshare, walking, and biking.
M-3.10 Rideshare. Continue to facilitate and expand rideshare use as part of existing and new development.
M-3.11 Microtransit. Support LA Metro in studying the feasibility of expanding on-demand microtransit services in Glendale and the region.
M-3.12 Curb Space Management. Improve the efficiency of and reallocate (as needed) the City’s on- street parking spaces, loading spaces, and other on-street curb spaces in areas of limited curb space and high demand such as the downtown area through curbside management (e.g., expanded passenger loading zones).
M-3.13 Car Share: Explore partnerships with public agencies and private organizations to implement car share programs in Glendale.
M-3 Actions
M-3a Continue to work with local and regional transit operators such as Glendale Beeline, LA Metro, and Metrolink to support integration and service between local bus, BRT, and rail service and stations and generally improve service, including frequency and reliability.
M-3b Work with Glendale Beeline and LA Metro to identify opportunities to implement transit preferential roadway treatments such as transit signal priority and transit-only lanes.
M-3c Analyze and incorporate the needs of rideshare and curbside management into the City’s transportation network planning and design.
M-3d As part of the Community Development Development’s development review process, require that new developments:
• Include design features that support public transit use. • Incorporate features that support and encourage ridesharing, carpooling, and similar travel modes.
M-3e Analyze opportunities to improve pedestrian access to and from the Larry Zarian Transportation Center by reducing crossing conflicts with other modes.
M-3f Coordinate with LA Metro to implement planned first/last mile improvements near planned BRT stations.
31 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-17
EXISTING AND FUTURE LOCAL AND REGIONAL
TRAFFIC DEMAND
Safe and efficient accommodation of local and regional traffic demand along the City’s street network, including optimization of existing infrastructure.
M-4 Policies
M-4.1 Roadway Operations. Accommodate current and future vehicular demand and strive for acceptable roadway
operations on City streets ; maintain roadway operations to provide connectivity to the freeway systems and key destinations.
M-4.2 Freeway Spillover . Coordinate with Caltrans to reduce the effects of freeway and highway traffic on local City street operations through freeway and ramp
improvements.
M-4.3 New Vehicle Technologies . Continue to monitor and study the implications of new technologies (such as
autonomous vehicles) on the City’s vehicular network and local roadway operations.
M-4.4 Intelligent Transportation Systems . Utilize intelligent transportation systems (ITS) and related technologies to increase vehicular network efficiency as an alternative to roadway widenings and to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety.
M-4.5 Emergency Vehicle Access . Provide connectivity and access for emergency vehicles on the local vehicle
network.
M-4.6 Circulation Improvement Plan . Maintain a
transportation network that balances the accommodation
of future growth with reducing vehicle miles traveled per capita and with equitably implementing complete streets.
M-4.7 Trip Reductions . Require trip reduction s through strategies such as Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) to reduce the traffic demand generated in Glendale and achieve reductions consistent with state goals, the City’s VMT reduction goals, and Glendale’s Climate
Action & Adaptation Plan.
M-4.8 Development Project Contributions : Require land use development projects to study their effects on local
transportation demands and contribute their fair share to improvements addressing congestion and VMT.
Vehicle operations on roadway
segments are analyzed by
applying a level of service (LOS)
grade ranging from LOS A to
LOS F based on a comparison of
daily volumes to capacity. LOS A
signifies free-flow traffic and LOS
F signifies operations that are
over roadway capacity. A
roadway segment’s daily
capacity is based on the number
of travel lanes available on that
segment.
Vehicle operations at
intersections are analyzed based
on the delay experienced by
vehicles during the weekday
morning and evening peak
commute hours. Intersections are
assigned an LOS grade ranging
from LOS A to LOS F. LOS A
signifies very slight delay while
LOS F signifies very high delays
and congestion as well as long
queues.
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is a
measure of the amount of vehicle
travel generated by a project or
within an area. At its simplest
level, VMT is calculated by
multiplying the number of
vehicles by distance. While not a
measure of vehicle operations,
increases in VMT can
correspond to higher traffic
demand and affect local traffic
delay.
LOS and VMT analyses in
Glendale are conducted using
near- and long-term traffic
forecasts developed using the
City’s transportation demand
forecasting model, which
estimates traffic volumes on
Glendale’s streets base on the
amount and location of different
land uses.
VEHICLE
OPERATIONS
32 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-18
M-4 Actions
M-4a Collect data and conduct operations studies (which can be citywide or focus on specific corridors) as part of monitoring roadway operations and vehicle flows on local roads, prepared by the Department of Public Works every five years, or corresponding with significant development projects; implement improvements to achieve the street classifications shown in Figure M-1 and listed below. Existing and General Plan Buildout (Year 2045) daily vehicle traffic levels are shown in Figure M-5 and Figure M-6, respectively. • Major Mobility Thoroughfare
• Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Bicycle Priority)
• Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Transit Priority)
• Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Bicycle and Transit Priority) • Collector Street
• Collector Street (Bicycle Priority)
• Collector Street (Transit Priority)
• Local Streets
M-4b As part of the Community Development Department’s development review process, require development projects to study and address their effects on local roadway operations , as required by the City Traffic Engineer.
M-4c In partnership with the Community Development Department, Public Works Department, Fire Department, and Police Department, monitor the City’s network of emergency response routes (Figure M-7) for sufficient throughput for emergency vehicles as part of both the development review process and general transportation system planning.
M-4d Develop and mandate a citywide trip reduction and TDM ordinance for development projects with targeted trip reduction goals; i mplement a monitoring and enforcement program for TDM plans fulfilling the ordinance.
M-4e Update the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines to include acceptable traffic operations standards and thresholds to be used when studying local transportation operations and congestion as part of the development review process through the Community Development Department.
M-4f Implement a transportation impact fee program that allows land use development projects to contribute their fair share to congestion -reducing infrastructure projects and programs , which could include capacity enhancements, traffic signal modifications, and non-SOV infrastructure, services, and programs.
33 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-19
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND AIR QUALITY
Contribute to regional and statewide greenhouse gas emission reduction and air quality targets.
M-5 Policies
M-5.1 Alternative Fuels . Encourage the expansion of low - and zero-emission fuel stations and other supporting
infrastructure to reduce vehicular emissions in the City.
M-5.2 Transportation Demand Management . Require
transportation demand management (TDM) strategies
related to parking, transit, and other modes to reduce air quality impacts caused by VMT.
M-5.3 Non-Vehicular Projects . Include transportation projects that increase non-vehicular capacity, encourage a reduction in VMT, and promote economic and environmental
sustainability as part of the City’s capital improvement program, such as quality pedestrian facilities, bikeways, and public transit amenities.
M-5.4 Supportive Land Uses . Encourage development projects that support reduced greenhouse gas emission s through
increased walking, biking, and transit use and shorter and fewer vehicle trips.
M-5 Actions
M-5a Continue to monitor implementation of the City’s Reach Code, other relevant local, State, and federal
requirements, and update local requirements to
accommodate shifting trends in electric vehicle charging needs.
M-5b Continue to r equire development projects to analyze potential VMT impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) based on the City ’s established
impact thresholds . Where significant VMT impacts are
identified, development projects mus t include mitigation measures through best-practice TDM strategies and
improvements that support non-vehicular travel modes.
M-5c Maintain the citywide travel demand model (currently maintained by the Community Development Department)
that allows for accurately estimating VMT within the City.
M-5d Develop and implement a standardized framework to assess and mitigate VMT impacts of new development and transportation projects in alignment with CEQA guidelines and the City’s adopted VMT thresholds , including both TDM strategies and infrastructure improvements , to be incorporated into the Community Development Department’s development review requirements.
The State of California has
increased its commitment to
reducing greenhouse gas
(GHG) emissions from
transportation and other
sources, through legislation
such as California Assembly
Bill (AB) 32, Senate Bill (SB)
375, and SB 743. One way
for local jurisdictions to
reduce transportation-
sourced GHG is to study and
reduce VMT generated from
land use and transportation
projects.
Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) is a suite
of incentives, information, and
encouragement programs to
reduce the use of single-
occupant vehicles and
consequently decrease traffic
congestion and VMT. These
programs help people use
modes other than driving and
also encourage a shift to
driving during off-peak
periods. TDM measures may
be implemented by
governments or employers.
REDUCING VMT
34 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-20
PARKING
Effective supply and management of vehicle parking with minimized spillover to the local community.
M-6 Policies
M-6.1 Vehicle Parking Supply and Demand . Require
residential and non -residential developments to provide adequate off -street parking supply and manage short-
term and long -term demand, while remaining in
conformance with State requirements that may restrict the location or required supply of parking.
M-6.2 Secondary Effects . Maximize the efficiency of the existing public and private vehicle parking supply and
reduce parking -related vehicle traffic through parking management strategies.
M-6.3 Multimodal Effects: Continue to comply with state laws addressing the effects of vehicle parking on the safety and convenience of non-vehicular travel modes.
M-6.4 Residential Parking . Effectively manage the existing public and private parking supply in residential areas and consider alternative approaches to meeting existing and future demand.
M-6.5 Community Outreach and Engagement . Engage with
affected individuals, organizations, and other
stakeholders when proposing changes to parking supply,
regulations, and/or configuration along corridors.
M-6.6 Accessible Parking: Provide sufficient, convenient, and accessible ADA -compliant parking at City parking lots, structures, and curbsides.
The City addresses vehicle
parking issues by requiring
parking for private
development, providing public
parking within the street right-
of-way, off-street in surface
lots and parking structures,
and managing public parking
through pricing and time
restrictions.
In neighborhoods that are
affected by parking
congestion from nearby
schools, businesses, or
multifamily residential
buildings, the City has
implemented a parking permit
system. In combination with
Police Department
enforcement, parking is
effectively managed in these
neighborhoods.
PARKING SUPPLY
35 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-21
M-6 Actions
M-6a Implement parking management strategies such as residential parking permits and parking time limits in residential neighborhoods to minimize the effects of spillover commercial parking.
M-6b Review opportunities for carshare parking and vehicles at key resident, worker, and visitor destinations.
M-6c Periodically review the City’s minimum vehicle parking requirements to determine if updates are needed to reflect shifts in parking demand , new types of parking supply, changes in State requirements, or to encourage transit -oriented development projects ; consider amendments, as necessary.
M-6d Develop and maintain a citywide parking management approach to better manage parking supply. Techniques to consider can include unbundling parking for residential uses, encouraging shared parking, and allowing for modified parking requirements in high -quality transit areas, and studying the feasibility of parking management strategies in high -demand areas. This program shall be developed through the Community Development Departments and include considerations for the City’s RDP through the Public Works Department.
M-6e Regularly monitor curbside parking utilization patterns in high-activity areas such as Downtown Glendale, including the effects of passenger and commercial loading/unloading occurring at parking spaces, to determine if changes to regulations or enforcement are necessary.
M-6f Continue to monitor state legislation governing the ability of the City to require off-street parking for new development projects, including projects located in the City’s high-quality transit areas. 36 of 56
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
Glendale | M-22
GOODS MOVEMENT
Local and regional goods movement facilities that minimize effects on other modes and the local community character.
M-7 Policies
M-7.1 Secondary Effects . Discourage truck traffic on
residential streets and reduce the effects of goods
movement on the community ; emphasize the use of the
regional freeway network (including I -5, I -210, SR -134, and SR -2) instead of City streets for goods movement
throughout the City.
M-7.2 Evolving Technologies . Maintain a transportation network which facilitates and integrates the needs of
evolving goods movement patterns and technologies by
continuing to monitor trends in goods movement
technologies.
M-7 Actions
M-7a Maintain a designated local truck route network that restricts truck movement to vehicle-focused corridors and discourages truck traffic on local streets with residential and other sensitive uses (as shown in Figure M -8) and prohibit heavy freight vehicles on other City streets . This map should be updated as-needed based on shifts in land uses and travel patterns . The network will be
implemented through a system of truck route signs to be developed and maintained by the City. The network shall be reviewed by and incorporate input and concerns from
multiple City Departments such as Community
Development, Economic Development, and Public
Works.
M-7b Regularly analyze and incorporate the needs of e - commerce into curbside management and transportation
network planning.
Trucks and trains are an
important means of moving
goods within the region. The
primary rail line through
Glendale runs parallel to I-5
and San Fernando Road and
connects to the interstate rail
network. This facility is
shared with passenger rail
service (Metrolink and
Amtrak).
Trucks use a number of City
streets for deliveries, such as
San Fernando Road,
Glendale Avenue, and
Foothill Boulevard. In
addition, I-5, SR-134, SR-2,
and I-210 are Surface
Transportation Assistance Act
(STAA) official truck routes as
part of the state highway
system (Caltrans).
Signed by the governor and
effective starting in 2026, AB
98 aims to limit the effects of
freight and logistics on
residential communities. This
includes a requirement for
local jurisdictions’ General
Plan Mobility Elements to
identify and establish specific
truck routes to safely
accommodate truck traffic
and avoid residential areas
and vulnerable populations.
Truck routes should maximize
use of highways, major
thoroughfares, and
predominantly commercial
streets.
TRUCKS AND RAIL
FREIGHT
37 of 56
B u r b a n kB u r b a n k
L a C a n a d aL a C a n a d a
F l i n t r i d g eF l i n t r i d g e
P a s a d e n aP a s a d e n a
U n i n c o r p o r a t e dU n i n c o r p o r a t e d
L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t yL o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y 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
LosAngelesRiver
Verdugo Wash
N Pacific Ave
N Central Ave
Brand Blvd
Broadway
N Verdugo Rd
Foothill Blvd
Canada Blvd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
Honolulu Ave
Western Ave
N Verdugo Rd
E Colorado St
S Glendale Ave
N Glendale Ave
W Glenoaks Blvd
E Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
San Fernando Rd
L E G E N D
Glendale City Boundary
Glendale Sphere of Influence
Glendale Planning Area
Other Incorporated Areas
Signature Streets
Major Mobility Thoroughfare
Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Bicycle Priority)
Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Transit Priority)
Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Bicycle & Transit Priority) Collector Street
Collector Street (Bicycle Priority)
Collector Street (Transit Priority)
Sources: City of Glendale; Los Angeles County. Map date: April 17, 2020.
CITY OF GLENDALE
GENERAL PLAN
MOBILITY ELEMENT
1 0 1½
Miles
Figure M-1:
Multimodal Street Classifications
NOTE: Multimodal street classifications are defined under Mobility Element Goal M-1.
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
38 of 56
B u r b a n kB u r b a n k
L a C a n a d aL a C a n a d a
F l i n t r i d g eF l i n t r i d g e
P a s a d e n aP a s a d e n a
U n i n c o r p o r a t e dU n i n c o r p o r a t e d
L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t yL o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y 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
GF
LosAngelesRiver
Verdugo Wash
N Pacific Ave
N Central Ave
Brand Blvd
Broadway
N Verdugo Rd
Foothill Blvd
Canada Blvd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
Honolulu Ave
Western Ave
N Verdugo Rd
E Colorado St
S Glendale Ave
N Glendale Ave
W Glenoaks Blvd
E Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
San Fernando Rd
L E G E N D
Glendale City Boundary
Glendale Sphere of Influence
Glendale Planning Area
Other Incorporated Areas
Bike Path
Bike Lanes
Colored Bike Lanes
Sharrows
Protected Bike Lanes
Sharrows NB / Bike Lane SB
Future Bike Facilities
Off-Street Active Transportation Facilities
Proposed Verdugo Wash Master Plan Project
GF Garden River Bridge Project
Sources: City of Glendale; Los Angeles County. Map date: April 17, 2020.
CITY OF GLENDALE
GENERAL PLAN
MOBILITY ELEMENT
1 0 1½
Miles
Figure M-2:
Bicycle Network
NOTE: The Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP) is
under review. This figure will be updated upon the
approval of changes to proposed bike facilities.
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
39 of 56
GF
LosAngelesRiver
Verdugo Wash
N Pacific Ave
N Central Ave
Brand Blvd
Broadway
N Verdugo Rd
Foothill Blvd
Canada Blvd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
Honolulu Ave
Western Ave
N Verdugo Rd
E Colorado St
S Glendale Ave
N Glendale Ave
W Glenoaks Blvd
E Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
San Fernando Rd
L E G E N D
Glendale City Boundary
Glendale Sphere of Influence
Glendale Planning Area
Other Incorporated Areas
Pedestrian Plan Safety Corridors
First Last Mile Transit Access Areas
GF Garden River Bridge Project
Sources: City of Glendale; Los Angeles County. Map date: April 17, 2020.
CITY OF GLENDALE
GENERAL PLAN
MOBILITY ELEMENT
1 0 1½
Miles
Figure M-3:
Pedestrian Plan
Improvement Corridors
and Areas
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
40 of 56
B u r b a n kB u r b a n k
L a C a n a d aL a C a n a d a
F l i n t r i d g eF l i n t r i d g e
P a s a d e n aP a s a d e n a
U n i n c o r p o r a t e dU n i n c o r p o r a t e d
L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t yL o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y 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
LosAngelesRiver
Verdugo Wash
N Pacific Ave
N Central Ave
Brand Blvd
Broadway
N Verdugo Rd
Foothill Blvd
Canada Blvd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
Honolulu Ave
Western Ave
N Verdugo Rd
E Colorado St
S Glendale Ave
N Glendale Ave
W Glenoaks Blvd
E Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
San Fernando Rd
L E G E N D
Glendale City Boundary
Glendale Sphere of Influence
Glendale Planning Area
Other Incorporated Areas
I2 Glendale Transportation Center
!( BeelineMajorTransitStops
Existing High-Quality Beeline Service
Other Beeline Service
Existing and Future High-Quality Transit Corridors
Existing and Future High-Quality Transit Areas
Planned LA Metro Noho-Pasadena Transit Corridor
!( Planned Noho-Pasadena Stations (Major Transit Stops) !( Other SCAG 2045 Major Transit Stops
Sources: City of Glendale; Los Angeles County. Map date: April 17, 2020.
CITY OF GLENDALE
GENERAL PLAN
MOBILITY ELEMENT
1 0 1½
Miles
Figure M-4:
High-Quality Transit Areas
NOTE: Glendale Beeline routes shown are current routes as of October 2024.
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
41 of 56
N Pacific Ave
N Central Ave
Brand Blvd
Broadway
N Verdugo Rd
Foothill Blvd
Canada Blvd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
Honolulu Ave
Western Ave
N Verdugo Rd
E Colorado St
S Glendale Ave
N Glendale Ave
W Glenoaks Blvd
E Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
San Fernando Rd
24.5 6.7
27.7 28.2
8.7 16.6
7.7 6
6.7 6.5
6.8 11.3
19.5 10.8
9.8 3.5
26.2 6.5
8.3 5
8.1 6.4
12.9 14.8
7.1 10.2
9 6.6
4.328.1
17.2 7.3
245.5
24.25.2 4.6
21.6 2.9
8.4 9.4
32.5 7.9
6 16.8
32.8 14.1
6.9 5.5
5.1 5.2
20.6 20.2
25.5 6.1
29.5 5.2
7.5 20.6
21.8 5.7
5.7 6.6
22.9 3.6
16.9 25.8
5.8 16.5
4.1 7.4
6.2 2.4
5.5 3.1
23.8 3.7
6.2 5.2
21.1 2.7
21 3.6
7.2 13.1
6 13.5
2.4 5.9
22.5 3.1
21.3 27
4.3 28.4
22.5 5.2
5.8 15.3
3.9 26.5
11.2 14.6
27 12.1
28.3 4.6
31.8 6
26.7 4.5
25.1 15.2
14.1 10.9
5.3 5.6
26 16.3
7 24.7
19 2.2
2.3 11.5
26.3 10.8
4.6 12.8
14.2 21.8
19.8 4.8
27.3 3.4
3 9.7
5.3 4.6
9.9 3.3
11.4 6.1
8.4 12.7
6.3 3.4
6.4 2
6.8 6.4 1.6
7.7 7
6.1 11.3
5 12.7
13.4 4.1
3.7 2.7
13.4 2.3
7.3 4.2
1.2 1.8
24.8 1.7
1.9 8.4
11.6 9.5
12.7 2.9
21.3 2.6
17.7 2.6
6.1 4.9
2.9 3.4
24.3 14
5.7 14.5
3.5 8.3
8.8 16
3.8 13.5
8.7 4.2
14.3 4.1
21.3 22.8
5.5 1.8
18.9 25.4
14.2 13.7
9.7 4.1
13 22.9
9.3 21
2.6 10.1
10.2 1.8
16.5 6.6
1.6 2.5
21.5 1.7
4.6 11.9
10 13
4.5 22
18.5 2.2
12.8 21.1
35 10.4
6.8 29.5
13.5 29.3
4.2 15.87.3
16.2 17.8
4 30.9
15.2 1.2
2.2 1
13.4 3.4
22.3 15.7
6.5 0.6
7.1 29.1
3.9 8.8
12.1 5.7
0.8 18.5
41.6 15.1
12.3 7.3
31.2 29.4
2.7 5.4
38.4 14.9
9.7 19.1
23.1 1.6
11.6 27.7
16.7 11.4
1.2 5.2
2 17.6
2.8 29
21.2 2.6
1.4 27.2
4.2 2.4
15.6 14.6
1.6 29.7
2.6 12.6
3.9 9.8
5.4 1
8 5.3
33.4 7.6
16.2 7
17.2 25.5
19.7 19
6.1 6.2
17.9 15.8
22.2 11.6
26.3 14.4
412.9
12.4 17.6
8.5 3.1
24.1 7.4
14 27.2
24 27.8
10.9 7.4
4.3 21.5
11.6 7.1
2.4 22.4
4.7 2
31.2 2.1
5.1 20.3
17.1 13.1
6.5 7.3
28.7 11.1
5.1 20.2
13.1 11.6
8.4 20.6
22.8 1.9
23.4 10.4
20.9 8.2
2.1 25.5
7.4 27
3.7 2.3
3.6 1.9
3.5 23
9.7 9.2
17 11.2
10.4 14.1
5.4 23.5
20.9 15.8
13.8 4.5
5.7 23.321.818.2
8.8 7.5
33 38.2
12.8 10.9
3 6.1
10.9 8.1
5.74.5 6.8
2.3 2.2
23.6 5.4
20 11.2
8.6 3.7
3.9 10.6
3.1 22.3
5.1 10.5
4.8 1.5
3.6 5.8
6.8 3.5
6 22.3
12.8 7.7
7.4 17.3
18.8 3.3
2 2.4
4.6 1.1
21.6 7.6
8.7 33.8
14.2 6.9
3.5 3.4
3.3 3.9
2.7 3.8
12.4 10.4
7.3 19.9
11.6 10.5
4.3 6.9
3.4 22.1
8.4 3.3
20.6 1.4
9 6.6
Daily Vehicle Volume
Up to 5,000
5,001 to 10,000
10,001 to 15,000
15,001 to 30,000
More than 30,000
Figure M-5a:
Existing Daily Vehicle Traffic Volumes (in thousands)
CITY OF GLENDALE
GENERAL PLAN
MOBILITY ELEMENT
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
42 of 56
Canada Blvd
N Pacific Ave
N Central Ave
Brand Blvd
Broadway
E Colorado St
S Glendale Ave
N Glendale Ave
San Fernando Rd
31.2 22.8
33.8 20.9
24.5 6.7
27.7 28.2
8.7 14.2
24.8 16.6
7.7 6
8.8 6.7
6.5 6.8
11.3 8.8
10.8 9.8
3.5 26.2
19.5 6.5
8.3 5.4
5 8.1
1.7 6.4
1.9 12.9
14.8 7.1
10.2 9
6.6 4.3
28.1 12.7
2.9 7.3
245.5
24.2 17.2
5.2 21.3
4.6 21.6
2.6 2.9
17.7 8.4
9.4 32.5
7.9 6
5.1 6.1
4.9 16.8
29 3.4
32.8 2.9
24.3 14.1
14.5 5.7
3.5 22.1
8.3 6.9
4.2 14.3
5.5 21.3
5.5 5.1
5.2 1.8
20.6 20.2
25.5 6.1
29.5 5.2
7.5 20.6
21.8 5.7
5.7 6.6
22.9 3.6
16.9 25.8
5.8 16.5
13 4.1
7.4 6.2
2.4 22.9
5.5 3.1
23.8 3.7
6.2 21
5.2 21.1
2.7 21
3.6 7.2
13.1 2.6
6 13.5
2.4 5.9
22.5 3.1
10.1 21.3
27 4.3
28.4 22.5
5.2 10.2
5.8 15.3
3.9 26.5
1.8 16.5
11.2 1.6
14.6 27
12.1 21.5
1.7 4.6
28.3 31.8
4.6 6
26.7 4.5
25.1 11.9
10 15.2
14.1 10.9
5.3 13
5.6 26
16.3 7
24.7 19
22 18.5
2.2 2.2
35 2.3
29.5 13.5
21.6 29.3
11.5 26.3
4.2 15.87.3
10.8 16.2
4.6 12.8
17.8 14.2
30.9 1.2
21.8 13.4
19.8 4.8
27.3 6.5
29.1 3.4
3 10.5
3.9 9.7
5.3 4.6
12.1 9.9 3.3
11.4 6.1
8.4 12.7
6.3 3.4
6.4 2
41.6 15.1
6.8 6.4 1.6
12.3 7.7
29.4 5.4
38.4 9.7
27.7 5.2
21.2 7
14.6 29.7
2.6 3.9
9.8 5.4
8 6.1
33.4 19
19.7 6.1
17.9 15.8
22.2 11.6
26.3 14.4
412.9
11.3 12.4
24.1 7.4
24 22.8
27.8 10.9
7.4 4.3
21.5 2.4
22.4 2
5.1 20.2
13.1 11.6
20.6 8.4
5 12.7
10.4 13.4
2.1 3.5
17 23.5
20.9 15.8
23.321.8
18.2 38.2
4.1 3.7
3 6.1
10.9 8.1
5.7 4.5
6.8 2.3
2.2 23.6
5.4 20
8.6 11.2
3.9 3.7
3.1 22.3
4.8 22.3
7.7 4.6
7.6 6.9
2.7 3.8
10.4 7.3
19.9 4.3
6.9 Daily Vehicle Volume
Up to 5,000
5,001 to 10,000
10,001 to 15,000
15,001 to 30,000
More than 30,000
Figure M-5b:
Existing Daily Vehicle Traffic Volumes (in thousands)
CITY OF GLENDALE
GENERAL PLAN
MOBILITY ELEMENT
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
43 of 56
N Pacific Ave
N Central Ave
Brand Blvd
Broadway
N Verdugo Rd
Foothill Blvd
Canada Blvd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
Honolulu Ave
Western Ave
N Verdugo Rd
E Colorado St
S Glendale Ave
N Glendale Ave
W Glenoaks Blvd
E Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
San Fernando Rd
47.6 8.9
30.7 39.5
17.5 23.3
13 12.9
15.6 16.6
10.4 19.9
24.4 17
15.2 3.2
32.1 11.6
18.4 13.1
19 15.6
21.7 20.7
3.2 19.1
17.6 12.8
11.928.1
33.4 11
41.28.9 40
5.1 10
33.1 10.4
19.4 56.6
11.5 7.8
31.9 41.4
22.8 7.4
6.5 7.8
11.6 25.8
39.1 43.3
18.5 31.2
12 13.5
38 36.7
14.1 13.7
9.2 35.4
9 21.3
29.2 12.5
16.6 13.4
4.1 8.8
6.2 7.7
10.9 38.2
7.7 12.4
7.1 36.5
10.5 37.5
8.1 13.6
16 14.5
18.1 6.9
12.3 44.8
7.6 32.3
28.9 33.9
15.4 38.4
13.4 23.4
13.7 42.3
16.3 24.4
50.9 14.4
47.5 8.1
48.1 3.8
50.3 16.7
37.1 24.7
20.1 19.5
16.4 13.9
45.6 18.6
16.9 34.9
29.5 6
6.9 16
40.4 16.4
12.7 19.5
22.5 41.5
28 13.2
42.9 5.7
5 20.5
5.1 10.6
16.2 4.9
14.4 14.6
9.1 21.4
10.5 6.5
2.1 4
13.1 15.4
1.515
16.6 11.4
18.5 12.1
18.1 15.7
3.5 11.5
5.8 30.6
5.7 22.2
5.9 0.9
7.7 41.8
1.7 4.1
18.2 18.3
17.4 21.3
7.5 25
2.7 32.4
6.1 10.3
4.9 5.9 4.9
38.9 17.2
5.7 29.3
12.1 13.6
18.4 34.6
6.1 24.8
14.8 4.3
24 11.1
32.8 39.2
14.8 1.1
42.6 43.2
26.9 22.7
24.8 6.4
17.1 34.8
22.1 38.4
4.6 26
9.7 2.8
18.8 11.9
2.6 3.7
292.7
9.3 17.6
9.6 18.2
9.5 30.3
34 3.8
15.8 33.6
49.2 25.5
11.6 35.7
20.8 48.6
7.5 27.210.3
20.4 27.7
6.4 47.8
27.6 5.1
7.6 1
30.5 2.4
36.7 20.4
15.6 0.6
10 42.3
5.2 18.4
28.9 7.1
0.8 32.8
76 30
25.8 12.2
39.3 42.7
5.8 8
55.9 23.3
10.5 35.4
43.7 5.1
18.3 45.5
29.6 13.3
7.1 12.3
1.5 26.1
4 51.5
35.9 2.5
24.7 3.5
9.2 33.5
29.7 1.8
32.2 5.9
23.6 9.7
18.9 10.6
1.4 9
3.7 36.8
15.5 28.2
8.8 33.5
48.4 33.1
34.7 8.6
14.1 32.3
13.4 28.8
29.2 34.7
29.4 13.5
12.7 11.9
21.5 12.8
9.8 40.2
9.5 34.1
41.7 39
40.7 9.4
13.4 8
35.5 17.7
21.7 3.1
39.9 6.8
8.4 31.2
5.5 6.7
35.8 34.8
6.3 29.8
12.7 12.9
25.9 23.2
11.5 26.3
22.5 14.5
24.5 39.4
37 2.9
39.1 12
46.4 13.3
4.3 37.8
14.8 38.3
6 10.5
3.5 5
36 11.7
17.7 24.6
20.7 16.4
19.1 6.5
37.7 39.7
24.9 32
6.6 9
40.14036.5
15.3 16.7
34.3 66.7
17.9 27.5
4.5 8.6
16.2 12
8.713.4
9.5 3.9
4 34.3
11.2 34.3
19.3 12.8
6.7 5.8
17.9 3.2
32.6 10.5
15.8 9.6
4.1 3.9
4.9 26.4
4.2 6.9
39.6 20.9
20.7 25.7
43.1 34.6
4.3 2.2
7.9 9.2
1.8 31.3
11.1 15.8
38.7 31
10.9 16.9
6.9 5.3
10.7 5.5
7 8.4
19.5 19.7
11.3 28.1
20.1 18
13.8 11.3
5.2 36.5
22.4 4.4
31.8 4
16.8 12.4
Daily Vehicle Volume
Up to 5,000
5,001 to 10,000
10,001 to 15,000
15,001 to 30,000
More than 30,000
Figure M-6a:
General Plan Buildout (Year 2045)
Daily Vehicle Traffic Volumes (in thousands)
CITY OF GLENDALE
GENERAL PLAN
MOBILITY ELEMENT
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
44 of 56
Canada Blvd
N Pacific Ave
N Central Ave
Brand Blvd
Broadway
E Colorado St
S Glendale Ave
N Glendale Ave
San Fernando Rd
39.3 39.2
38.7 46.4
47.6 8.9
30.7 39.5
17.5 31
41.8 23.3
13 12.9
18.4 15.6
16.6 10.4
19.9 18.4
17 15.2
3.2 32.1
24.4 11.6
18.4 6.5
13.1 19
1.7 15.6
4.1 21.7
20.7 3.2
19.1 17.6
12.8 11.928.1
21.3 7.5
11 41.2
8.9 40
33.4 5.1
25 10
33.1 2.7
32.4 10.4
19.4 56.6
11.5 7.8
10.5 10.3
4.9 31.9
51.5 4.9
41.4 5.9
38.9 22.8
29.3 5.7
12.1 36.5
13.6 7.4
4.3 24
6.5 32.8
14.8 7.8
11.6 1.1
25.8 39.1
43.3 18.5
31.2 12
13.5 38
36.7 14.1
13.7 9.2
35.4 9
21.3 29.2
12.5 16.6
17.1 13.4
4.1 8.8
6.2 34.8
7.7 10.9
38.2 7.7
12.4 38.4
7.1 36.5
10.5 37.5
8.1 13.6
16 4.6
14.5 18.1
6.9 12.3
44.8 7.6
26 32.3
28.9 33.9
15.4 38.4
9.7 13.4
23.4 13.7
42.3 2.8
18.8 16.3
2.6 24.4
50.9 14.4
29 2.7
8.1 47.5
48.1 9.3
3.8 50.3
16.7 37.1
17.6 9.6
24.7 20.1
19.5 16.4
18.2 13.9
45.6 18.6
16.9 34.9
29.5 30.3
34 3.8
6 49.2
6.9 35.7
20.8 31.3
48.6 16
40.4 7.5
27.210.3
16.4 20.4
12.7 19.5
27.7 22.5
47.8 5.1
41.5 30.5
28 13.2
42.9 15.6
42.3 5.7
5 15.8
5.2 20.5
5.1 10.6
28.9 16.2
4.9 14.4
14.6 9.1
21.4 10.5
6.5 2.1
4 76
30 13.1
15.4 1.5
25.8 15
42.7 8
55.9 10.5
45.5 12.3
35.9 16.6
29.7 32.2
5.9 9.7
18.9 10.6
9 11.4
36.8 34.7
33.1 8.6
32.3 13.4
28.8 29.2
34.7 29.4
13.5 12.7
18.5 11.9
40.2 9.5
39 37
40.7 9.4
13.4 8
35.5 3.1
39.9 8.4
6.7 26.3
22.5 14.5
39.4 24.5
12.1 18.1
12 15.7
4.3 5
24.6 37.7
39.7 24.9
40.140
36.5 66.7
3.5 11.5
4.5 8.6
16.2 12
8.7 13.4
9.5 3.9
4 34.3
11.2 34.3
12.8 19.3
5.8 6.7
3.2 32.6
9.6 39.6
20.7 9.2
11.1 10.9
5.5 8.4
19.7 11.3
28.1 13.8
11.3 Daily Vehicle Volume
Up to 5,000
5,001 to 10,000
10,001 to 15,000
15,001 to 30,000
More than 30,000
Figure M-6b:
General Plan Buildout (Year 2045)
Daily Vehicle Traffic Volumes (in thousands)
CITY OF GLENDALE
GENERAL PLAN
MOBILITY ELEMENT
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
45 of 56
B u r b a n kB u r b a n k
L a C a n a d aL a C a n a d a
F l i n t r i d g eF l i n t r i d g e
P a s a d e n aP a s a d e n a
U n i n c o r p o r a t e dU n i n c o r p o r a t e d
L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t yL o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y 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
LosAngelesRiver
Verdugo Wash
N Pacific Ave
N Central Ave
Brand Blvd
Broadway
N Verdugo Rd
Foothill Blvd
Canada Blvd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
Honolulu Ave
Western Ave
N Verdugo Rd
E Colorado St
S Glendale Ave
N Glendale Ave
W Glenoaks Blvd
E Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
San Fernando Rd
L E G E N D
Glendale City Boundary
Glendale Sphere of Influence
Glendale Planning Area
Other Incorporated Areas
Emergency Response Routes
Major Mobility Thoroughfares
Sources: City of Glendale; Los Angeles County. Map date: April 17, 2020.
CITY OF GLENDALE
GENERAL PLAN
MOBILITY ELEMENT
1 0 1½
Miles
Figure M-7:
Emergency Response Routes
Note: Major Mobility Thoroughfares shown on this map include streets designated as Major Mobility Thoroughfare, Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Bicycle Priority), Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Transit Priority), or Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Bicycle and Transit Priority).
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
46 of 56
B u r b a n kB u r b a n k
L a C a n a d aL a C a n a d a
F l i n t r i d g eF l i n t r i d g e
P a s a d e n aP a s a d e n a
U n i n c o r p o r a t e dU n i n c o r p o r a t e d
L o s A n g e l e s C o u n t yL o s A n g e l e s C o u n t y 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
LosAngelesRiver
Verdugo Wash
N Pacific Ave
N Central Ave
Brand Blvd
Broadway
N Verdugo Rd
Foothill Blvd
Canada Blvd
E Glenoaks Blvd
La Crescenta Ave
Honolulu Ave
Western Ave
N Verdugo Rd
E Colorado St
S Glendale Ave
N Glendale Ave
W Glenoaks Blvd
E Chevy Chase Dr
San Fernando Rd
San Fernando Rd
L E G E N D
Glendale City Boundary
Glendale Sphere of Influence
Glendale Planning Area
Other Incorporated Areas
STAA Routes
Rail
Local Truck Route Access
Sources: City of Glendale; Los Angeles County. Map date: April 17, 2020.
CITY OF GLENDALE
GENERAL PLAN
MOBILITY ELEMENT
1 0 1½
Miles
Figure M-8:
Goods Movement Network
PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT
47 of 56
2 25-88734
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Agreement with T2 Systems Canada, Inc. for the Operation and Maintenance of Digital Multi-Space Parking Meters.
1. Resolution dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the City Manager or his designee to extend an existing agreement with T2 Systems Canada, Inc. for a term of five years in the not-to-exceed amount of $784,750 for continued uninterrupted system operation and maintenance of digital multi-space parking meters.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for October 21, 2025 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
T2 Systems Canada, Inc. is responsible for the maintenance and operation of 73 digital multi-space parking meters in the downtown and Glendale Community College areas.
Services include operational support for the Digital IRIS software and maintenance of all parking meter components.
The intent of this item is for the City Council to dispense with competitive bidding and approve an extension to the existing agreement with T2 Systems Canada, Inc. (T2) for a total amount not-to-exceed $784,750.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution dispensing with competitive bidding and authorize the City Manager to execute an extension to the existing agreement with T2 for a total five-year term in the amount not-to-exceed $784,750 for continued uninterrupted system operation and maintenance of digital multi-space parking meters.
ANALYSIS
In March 2008, the City strategically invested in modernizing its on-street and off-street parking infrastructure, guided by the Mobility Study and stakeholder input from the downtown business community. In alignment with these priorities, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the acquisition of digital multi-space parking meters. T2 (formerly Digital Payment Technologies) was selected based on its ability to deliver a 48 of 56
22 25-88734
6 3
4 2
comprehensive meter solution tailored to meet the City's parking needs. On July 22, 2008, the City Council authorized an agreement with T2 for the initial deployment of digital multi- space meters on Brand Boulevard and downtown parking lots. This action paved the foundation for a long-term technology partnership and enhanced customer parking experience.
On July 16, 2013, the City Council adopted a resolution to dispense with competitive bidding and awarded an agreement to T2 for continued system operation, maintenance, and meter expansion. This approach ensured consistency in hardware and software platforms throughout the city, reduced integration costs, and enhanced the City's parking meter investment. To maintain system integrity and performance, the City Council approved an additional $340,000 on August 23, 2016, for the phased replacement of the aging Luke I pay stations with upgraded Luke II units, completed in 2018.
On June 9, 2020, the City Council gave its approval to dispense with competitive bidding and entered into a five-year agreement with T2 totaling $1,282,000, with the option of purchasing up to 25 Luke II digital multi-space parking meters to modernize the parking meter program in Montrose. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic and its effects on the parking program overall, this modernization effort was placed on hold until parking utilization returned to pre-pandemic levels.
The Luke II meters require maintenance and technical support to ensure optimal functionality. These services include real-time credit card processing, Payment Card Industry (PCI) compliance, remote diagnostics, and audit capabilities, all supported through T2’s Digital IRIS platform. As the original manufacturer of the meters, T2 is the sole provider capable of delivering the critical parts and specialized services necessary to maintain and support the system. Its offer also includes an extended warranty for replacement parts, which further protects the City’s investment and reduces long-term maintenance costs. The ongoing costs associated with software upgrades, system alerts, and technical support are essential for maintaining high service levels and ensuring continued regulatory compliance.
The Luke II meters are not yet at the end of their life and continue to function effectively with ongoing support and maintenance. Transitioning to a different vendor at this time would require a full system replacement, resulting in significant additional costs and operational disruption. Extending the current contract allows the City to maximize the value of its existing investment by continuing to utilize the current infrastructure while maintaining service quality.
The 73 Luke II meters generated approximately $2.2 million in revenue over the past year, reflecting strong overall usage of the parking program; however, some meters in specific locations are still underperforming. With the successful rollout of PayByPhone, customer payment habits are also shifting from physical meters to mobile transactions. In response, staff is actively evaluating both underperforming meters and evolving payment trends to further optimize the program and reduce reliance on Luke II meters where feasible. The contract with T2 is structured to support this transition as, once a meter is 49 of 56
23 25-88734
6 3
4 2
decommissioned, the associated monthly and annual fees are no longer billed to the City.
This structure supports a cost-effective transition strategy, allowing the City to gradually reduce meter infrastructure in advance of a future system replacement, which will be pursued through a competitive RFP process when appropriate.
T2 has agreed to extend its current discounted pricing for an additional five-year term with no increase, resulting in savings for the City. Furthermore, the annual contract cost has been reduced from $206,400 to $156,950, reflecting the cancellation of planned expansion into Montrose due to the Covid-19 pandemic. This extension represents the most advantageous option, providing budget certainty while ensuring uninterrupted access to high-quality services.
Table 1
Description Amount
Maintenance and Operation Costs FY 2025-26 (73 Meters)* $156,950 Maintenance and Operation Costs (additional 4 years) $627,800 Total $784,750
*Represents $2,150 annually per unit for 73 multi-space parking meters.
Over the past 17 years, T2 has demonstrated reliable performance and service as a technology partner. The City's long-term partnership with T2 has proven to be a sound strategic investment as the digital multi-space meters are user friendly, straightforward to maintain, cost effective, and reliable. As the City engages in future parking management strategies, continued collaboration with T2 supports both fiscal responsibility and customer service excellence.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
None.
FISCAL IMPACT
The extension of the Professional Services Agreement with T2, to maintain and operate digital multi-space parking meters, will cost a total of $784,750 for five years. The cost for year one of the agreement, $156,950, was approved as a part of the FY 2025-26 budget. No new appropriation is being requested at this time.
Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$156,950 43110-1010-PWD-7518-P0000 General Fund
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The action being considered does not constitute a “project” within the meaning of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15378(b)(2), as it constitutes continuing administrative or maintenance activity. Even if it is a “project,” the action is categorically 50 of 56
24 25-88734
6 3
4 2
exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301 in that it consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public facilities, mechanical, or topographical features, including existing streets and sidewalks; and, in any event, it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment; thus, it is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3).
CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report are attached in Exhibit #, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The City Council may reject the resolution to dispense with competitive bidding and not award an extension to T2 Systems Canada, Inc. which may disrupt key parking meter operations.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Daniel Hernandez, Director of Public Works
Prepared by:
Tad Dombroski, Parking Manager
Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Campaign Disclosure Form
51 of 56
2 25-88262
RESOLUTION NO. ________
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,
CALIFORNIA, DISPENSING WITH COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH T2 SYSTEMS CANADA, INC., FOR A TOTAL TERM OF FIVE YEARS, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $784,750, FOR CONTINUED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF DIGITAL MULTI-SPACE PARKING METERS.
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2020, the City Council adopted a Resolution to dispense with competitive bidding and award an Agreement to T2 Systems Canada, Inc. for the operation, maintenance and expansion of digital multi-space parking meters; and WHEREAS, T2 Systems Canada, Inc. is the manufacturer, Digital IRIS operational software and maintenance provider of the City’s Luke II digital multi-space parking meters; and
WHEREAS, as the original manufacturer of the meters, T2 Systems Canada, Inc. is the sole provider capable of delivering the critical parts and specialized services necessary to maintain and support the system; and
WHEREAS, T2 Systems Canada, Inc. offers an extended warranty for replacement parts that protects the City’s investment and reduces long-term maintenance costs; and
WHEREAS, T2 Systems Canada, Inc. has demonstrated reliable performance and service, and the digital multi-space meters are user friendly, cost effective, and reliable; and
WHEREAS, the existing Agreement with T2 Systems Canada, Inc. will expire on October 31, 2025; and
WHEREAS, an exemption to competitive bidding may be found where the City Council determines that it is in the best interest of the City to dispense with competitive bidding; and
WHEREAS, given the priorities to provide uninterrupted service and budgetary certainty by utilizing existing infrastructure, it appears that adequate justification exists and it is in the City’s best interest—upon the recommendation of the Director of Public Works—to dispense with competitive bidding and authorize the City Manager or a designee to enter into and execute an extension to the Agreement with T2 Systems Canada, Inc. for the operation and maintenance of digital multi-space parking meters.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA:
52 of 56
22 25-88262
1 5
2 8
2 1. The foregoing facts are deemed to be true and correct and are a basis for dispensing with competitive bidding and authorizing the expenditure of funding necessary to maintain uninterrupted system operation and maintenance of digital multi-space parking meters.
2. The Council hereby:
A. Dispenses with competitive bidding;
B. Authorizes the City Manager or a designee to enter into and execute an extension of the existing Agreement with T2 Systems Canada, Inc., subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, for a term of five years and in an amount not to exceed $784,750; and C. Authorizes the City Manager or a designee to enter into and execute any accompanying order forms and documents, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, to implement the Agreement extension referenced herein.
Adopted this _______ day of _____________, 2024.
_____________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________
City Clerk
53 of 56
23 25-88262
1 5
2 8
2 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on ________ day of _______________, 2024, and that same was adopted by the following vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
Abstain:
__________________________
City Clerk
54 of 56
55 of 56
56 of 56