Glendale City Council
November 18, 2025

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................ 3

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................................ 3

1.1 Purpose and Scope.................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Alignment with City of Glendale’s General Plan and Policies........................................................................ 4

1.3 Community Experience and Feedback ....................................................................................................... 4

2. Existing Roadway Classification System and Functional Characteristics (Circulation Element)................. 5

2.1 Arterial Streets (Major and Minor) ............................................................................................................... 5

2.2 Collector Streets ....................................................................................................................................... 5

2.3 Local Streets ............................................................................................................................................. 5

3. Proposed Roadway Classification System (Mobility Element) ................................................................. 6

3.1 Major Mobility Thoroughfares ..................................................................................................................... 6

3.2 Collector Streets ....................................................................................................................................... 6

3.3 Local Streets ............................................................................................................................................. 7

3.4 Signature Streets ....................................................................................................................................... 7

4. Street Design Criteria by Roadway Type................................................................................................. 8

4.1 Major Mobility Thoroughfares ..................................................................................................................... 8

4.2 Collector Streets Design .......................................................................................................................... 11

4.3 Local Streets Design................................................................................................................................ 14

5. Lane Repurposing Guidelines............................................................................................................. 16

5.1 Criteria for Considering Lane Reductions ................................................................................................. 16

5.2 Best Practices for Implementing Lane Reductions .................................................................................... 20

5.3 Lane Reductions: Examples, Case Studies, and False Impressions ........................................................... 26

6. Next Steps and Future Considerations ................................................................................................ 29

6.1 When to Reference the Roadway Design Policies ...................................................................................... 29

6.2 Deferring Multimodal Enhancements ....................................................................................................... 31

6.3 Balancing the Community’s Wants and Needs.......................................................................................... 31

7. Appendix .......................................................................................................................................... 34

7.1 Glossary of Terms .................................................................................................................................... 34

7.2 Reference Materials and Further Reading ................................................................................................. 36

7.3 Attachments ........................................................................................................................................... 38 210 of 449

Executive Summary
This Glendale Roadway Design Policy represents a strategic initiative by the Glendale Public Works Department to establish comprehensive, community-centered guidelines for street design that align with the City’s broader transportation goals and vision for equitable, multimodal mobility. It provides a framework to balance safety, mobility, and community livability across all roadway types. The policy outlines the current roadway classifications, the proposed classifications, and details design criteria for each. Key elements include recommended lane width standards, guidance on median and turn lane design for safety and access management, and incorporation of bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The policy highlights the importance of maintaining emergency vehicle access even after lane reductions or traffic calming measures. It prioritizes multimodal considerations, improving conditions for cyclists, pedestrians, and transit riders while meeting Glendale’s General Plan objectives for reducing congestion and providing transportation alternatives. Detailed lane reconfiguration guidelines are provided, including criteria for when a travel lane may be removed and how to repurpose the roadway space effectively. The policy reflects what we’ve heard from the community from various projects spanning many years and lessons from peer cities. Best practices and case studies from federal guidance and neighboring cities are incorporated.

With this document, every street improvement can be consistent and predictable. Residents can expect a “safety first” design principle: decisions that prioritize reducing crash risk and improving walking and biking conditions.

The document covers implementation strategies to put the policy into action. It calls for coordination with community stakeholders and emergency responders in planning street changes, use of pilot projects and monitoring to evaluate outcomes, and integration of these design standards into Glendale’s project development process. A glossary of technical terms and a reference list of sources and further reading are included in the appendix for clarity. Glendale aims to create complete streets that enhance safety and are more accessible for everyone, including drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders, while still supporting efficient traffic flow and emergency response. This policy aligns with the City’s vision to preserve quality of life, support commerce, protect neighborhoods, and minimize environmental impacts. Finally, it is intended to serve as a valuable resource for guiding current and future planning initiatives, with a focus on delivering practical, community-oriented, and actionable recommendations.

1. Introduction

1.1 Purpose and Scope
The purpose of the Glendale Roadway Design Policy is to establish clear standards and guidelines for street design and lane configurations citywide. This policy will guide the planning, design, and implementation of roadway projects ranging from minor striping changes to full corridor reconfigurations. It covers varying design scenarios across the city, including residential streets, commercial corridors, and multimodal thoroughfares. The scope includes geometric design elements, accommodations for all travel modes, and operational considerations. By compiling these standards into one document, Glendale aims for consistency in how streets are redesigned to meet modern transportation goals while considering community feedback.

This policy is intended for use by City engineers, planners, and consultants during every phase of project development, as well as by decision-makers evaluating roadway improvement proposals. It provides technical guidelines but also includes explanatory sections. Multimodal corridor design is a key focus. The policy outlines how to integrate car, transit, bicycle, and pedestrian needs in street redesigns. The overarching objective is to create “Complete Streets” that safely serve all users and improve the community's quality of life. The policy also 211 of 449

includes design solutions that are tailored for different areas of the city, from quiet neighborhoods to busy downtown streets.

1.2 Alignment with City of Glendale’s General Plan and Policies This roadway design policy aligns closely with Glendale’s General Plan, particularly the Circulation Element (1998), to be replaced by the proposed Mobility Element (adoption pending 2026), and other related policies. Glendale’s General Plan Circulation Element establishes goals of preserving neighborhood character, reducing congestion and vehicle impacts, and promoting alternative transportation modes. This design policy serves as an implementation tool to advance those goals through concrete street design practices. The design policy incorporates traffic calming measures on local streets to fulfill this objective, directly supporting the General Plan directives. This policy responds by prioritizing the addition of pedestrian, bike, and transit accommodations during roadway projects whenever a street is reconfigured or resurfaced, and sufficient right-of-way is available or can be reasonably acquired.

The policy also aligns with the Safety Element of Glendale’s General Plan (adopted 2025), which emphasizes maintaining adequate emergency access routes citywide while minimizing the impacts to emergency response capabilities. The Roadway Design Policy is grounded in adopted city policies. It translates the broad goals of Glendale’s General Plan into detailed standards for street design. Consistency with local design guidelines and regional plans is also maintained. For example, concepts from the City of Los Angeles Complete Streets Design Guide and SCAG’s Regional Transportation Plan are reflected in Glendale’s streets to tie into broader regional networks.

The Roadway Design Policy was also developed to be consistent with the City’s commitment to safety as embodied in the forthcoming Vision Zero Action Plan (VZAP). While the specific tools and analyses are not yet incorporated into this Policy, the overall framework and goals are aligned. The policy’s emphasis on designing for pedestrian and bicyclist safety, speed management, and collision reduction supports the Vision Zero goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries.

1.3 Community Experience and Feedback
This policy reflects extensive community input and City experience regarding traffic and safety. Residents have voiced concerns about speeding, cut-through traffic, and pedestrian safety in neighborhoods. This feedback reflects general community comments collected over the years, rather than comments directed specifically at the Roadway Design Policy. In response, Glendale has developed programs, like the Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program, to implement measures such as speed humps and curb extensions on local streets. Lessons learned from past projects, including road diets, bike lane installations, and streetscape improvements, helped inform these guidelines. For instance, previous Glendale projects have shown that narrowing or removing travel lanes can reduce vehicle speeds while causing congestion and increasing cut-through traffic.

This Roadway Design Policy is intended as a guiding document that is practical while addressing real-world conditions. Community feedback has reinforced the need for balanced solutions: residents expect safe crossings and bike lanes, but also efficient emergency response and reasonable traffic flow. This policy takes a contextsensitive approach, seeking designs that improve safety and multimodal options while respecting the functional needs of each street type and community.

By clearly defining standards and criteria, the Glendale Roadway Design Policy provides a transparent framework for making roadway decisions. This will help City staff, developers, and the public understand how street improvements are evaluated and designed in a way that supports a safe, livable, and accessible city for all. 212 of 449

2. Existing Roadway Classification System and Functional Characteristics (Circulation Element)
Glendale’s current street classification system, as defined in the City’s existing Circulation Element of the General Plan, groups roadways by their function and capacity. Each class of street has distinct characteristics in terms of typical traffic volumes, connectivity, and role in the network. The three primary classifications in the existing system are Arterial Streets, Collector Streets, and Local Streets.

2.1 Arterial Streets (Major and Minor)
These are the City’s major thoroughfares, built to carry high traffic volumes and longer-distance trips. Major arterials in Glendale are typically four to six travel lanes wide and handle up to ~45,000 vehicles per day. They provide continuous, efficient routes across the City and connect to freeways, other arterials, and major activity centers. Minor arterials, which usually have four lanes and traffic volumes up to ~30,000 vehicles per day, supplement the major arterial network. Both major and minor arterials prioritize mobility over land access; driveway access is limited, and intersections are usually signalized or otherwise controlled to favor traffic flow.

Arterial street cross-sections typically include wider travel lanes (10-12 feet), bike lanes where feasible, and parking lanes or shoulders (8 feet minimum) as space allows. These dimensions align with typical state highway design standards and accommodate transit buses and trucks. Examples of Glendale’s arterial corridors include Brand Boulevard, Central Avenue, Glendale Avenue, San Fernando Road, and Foothill Boulevard, which serve as primary routes for cross-town traffic and regional connectivity. Arterials are often designated truck routes and typically have the highest transit service frequency, reflecting their role in moving large numbers of people. Land uses along arterials are often commercial or high-density residential, and access control measures such as raised medians or turn restrictions are used to improve safety and capacity.

2.2 Collector Streets
Collector roads form the intermediate network that channels traffic from local streets to the arterial system.

Glendale’s current Circulation Element further distinguishes collectors by context, categorizing urban collectors in denser commercial/mixed-use areas, community collectors in suburban residential areas, and neighborhood collectors within neighborhoods. They all serve a similar function of balancing mobility and access. Collectors are typically two-lane roadways with one travel lane in each direction and carry moderate traffic volumes, generally around 10,000 vehicles per day. Because adjacent land uses vary, treatment of collectors can differ. Urban collectors may see more traffic and transit service, whereas neighborhood collectors traverse residential areas with lower volumes and usually allow full access to driveways and street parking. Glendale’s design standards for collectors generally mirror a scaled-down arterial: 10 to 11-foot travel lanes, 8-foot parking lanes, and possibly bike lanes if right-of-way allows. The City expects slower speeds on collectors than arterials, and in some cases has implemented traffic calming measures where appropriate. Examples of collector streets in Glendale include Kenneth Road, Grandview Avenue, and Lexington Drive.

2.3 Local Streets
Local streets comprise the majority of Glendale’s street network by mileage and primarily provide access to adjacent properties and various land uses. They are low-volume, low-speed roads intended for short trips within 213 of 449

neighborhoods. A typical local street in Glendale carries on the order of a few hundred vehicles per day. Through traffic should be discouraged on local streets since these roads are not meant as shortcuts for cross-town traffic.

Design features of local streets focus on accommodating residential traffic, pedestrians, and cyclists in a safe environment. Local streets are normally two lanes total, with one travel lane in each direction and with abundant on-street parking. Intersections are often controlled by stop signs rather than signals. Where speeding or cutthrough issues arise, the City applies traffic calming measures to slow vehicles and restore a quiet neighborhood character. In designing local street improvements, maintaining the residential character is important: features like parkways, street trees, pedestrian-scaled street furniture, and sidewalks are encouraged to enhance walkability and aesthetics.

3. Proposed Roadway Classification System (Mobility Element) The proposed Mobility Element is a comprehensive update to the Circulation Element, which redefines street classifications to better align with multimodal transportation goals and contemporary planning concepts. As part of this update, the traditional roadway classifications are being refined into a framework that better accounts for multimodal travel and street context. The proposed roadway classification system introduces a new set of categories.

3.1 Major Mobility Thoroughfares
This category corresponds generally to the current arterials, encompassing Glendale’s primary corridors for moving people and goods. Major Mobility Thoroughfares are the major streets that provide access to freeways, state highways, and regional destinations both within and outside Glendale. They remain the widest and highestcapacity city streets (typically 4 or more travel lanes for vehicles) but the definition of “mobility” on these thoroughfares is broadened. Rather than focusing solely on vehicle throughput, the City recognizes that moving more people can sometimes be achieved by multimodal enhancements. A Major Mobility Thoroughfare might feature transit priority lanes or high-quality bikeways in addition to general traffic lanes, especially on corridors designated as transit or bicycle priority routes in City plans. The intent is to increase person-carrying capacity even if it means repurposing some road space from cars to buses or bikes. Major Mobility Thoroughfares will continue to serve high traffic volumes, but their design will be context-sensitive: in some areas, wider sidewalks and transit amenities may be emphasized to support dense commercial land uses, whereas in others the priority might be maintaining efficient car travel. The key distinguishing factor of this class is its regional importance. These streets form the backbone of Glendale’s transportation network and must balance high demand and community support from all modes.

3.2 Collector Streets
In the new framework, “Collector Streets” connect neighborhoods to key destinations and to the Major Mobility Thoroughfares. They are typically two vehicular lanes with one per direction, but with added emphasis on supporting multiple travel modes. For instance, a collector might include bike lanes or bicycle boulevards if it is part of a bike route, or bulb-outs and crossing islands if it has heavy pedestrian activity. The updated Mobility Element envisions that person throughput on collectors can also be augmented with quality bicycle or transit treatments. This means if a particular collector is designated as a Bicycle Priority corridor, the City may consider a road diet or lane narrowing to install buffered bike lanes. If it’s a Transit Priority collector, improvements like bus 214 of 449

shelters, curb extensions at bus stops, or transit signal priority might be applied. The functional role of collectors is to handle moderate traffic volumes and link local streets with larger roads while supporting Glendale’s goals for improved bike/pedestrian travel and first-mile/last-mile transit connectivity. Under the new classification, the three subtypes may be consolidated for simplicity, but design guidance will still consider adjacent land use context. For example, a collector in a commercial district may get different sidewalk treatments than one in a purely residential area.

3.3 Local Streets
In the new framework, “Local Streets” remain the small-scale roads that form the backbone of Glendale’s residential areas, focusing on local access and neighborhood connectivity rather than serving through traffic. They are typically two-lane streets with low vehicle volumes and slow speeds appropriate for neighborhood activity, providing direct access to homes, schools, parks, and other community destinations. Local Streets primarily connect residential areas internally and link neighborhoods to the broader roadway network via Collector Streets.

They are not intended as shortcuts for cross-town travel; instead, these streets provide a safe, quiet environment, often featuring on-street parking, sidewalks, street trees, and frequent stop signs or other traffic calming measures—such as speed humps or traffic circles—to slow vehicles and discourage cut-through driving. The updated Mobility Element reinforces the importance of maintaining the residential character of Local Streets and supports Glendale’s goals for livable, walkable neighborhoods. These streets naturally encourage walking and casual bicycling, and the City will continue to implement context-sensitive traffic calming or pedestrian improvements where needed. While they carry far fewer vehicles than higher-tier roadways, Local Streets play a crucial first-mile/last-mile role in the transportation system by collecting trips at their origin or destination and guiding travelers to the nearest collector or thoroughfare.

3.4 Signature Streets
A Signature Street is not a separate functional class in terms of traffic volume or capacity, but rather an overlay for streets that have a unique civic or commercial identity and where placemaking and pedestrian experience are a top priority. These are often found in areas like downtown and retail districts, historic centers, or other specialty areas. Signature Streets typically feature distinctive streetscape designs. These include special paving, public art, consistent street furniture, pedestrian lighting, landscaping, and curb extensions for sidewalk dining or gathering.

They tend to have a high level of pedestrian activity and “Main Street” character. Auto traffic is still accommodated, but slower speeds and frequent pedestrian crossings are expected and encouraged to create a vibrant street life. A Signature Street might be a segment of a thoroughfare or collector that goes through a major shopping/dining area (for example, Brand Blvd in downtown, or Honolulu Avenue in Montrose). On such streets, design standards may call for wider sidewalks, angled parking to support retail, and aesthetic elements that reinforce the unique identity of the district. Importantly, safety for all users is critical on Signature Streets: features like high-visibility crosswalks, mid-block crossings, pedestrian refuges, and curb radius reductions are typically design considerations to make these areas pedestrian-friendly. While vehicle capacity may be second to ambience on a Signature Street, the policy will still consider loading zones and traffic management for peak times so that deliveries and circulation needs are met.
215 of 449

4. Street Design Criteria by Roadway Type
Design guidelines are provided for each roadway classification to direct how improvements or modifications shall be implemented. The following sub-sections detail design criteria for Major Mobility Thoroughfares, Collector Streets, and Local Streets. Each includes considerations such as lane configurations and widths, provisions for parking, pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure, emergency vehicle access, and typical capacity ranges. These guidelines apply both to maintaining existing streets and to reconfiguring streets.

4.1 Major Mobility Thoroughfares
Even when lane reconfigurations or “road diets” are applied, Major Mobility Thoroughfares must continue to fulfill their primary function of carrying high volumes of traffic safely and efficiently. The design criteria below provide standards and best practices for Glendale’s Major Mobility Thoroughfares to balance capacity with safety and multimodal needs:
• Travel Lane Configurations: On Major Mobility Thoroughfares, standard travel lane widths shall be in the range of 10 to 12 feet. A 12-foot lane is desirable on routes with frequent large vehicles to provide extra clearance such as transit buses or fire trucks. However, 11 feet is an acceptable minimum general-purpose lane width that can improve safety by encouraging slightly lower speeds without significantly hindering truck or bus operations. The City uses 10-foot lanes as a baseline, using 11-foot lanes for the outside curb lanes on those corridors that serve bus lines or heavy truck routes, or where there are high volumes of large vehicles. A Truck Route Map (Goods Movement Network Map) in the upcoming Mobility Element will aim to reduce truck congestion on City streets and provide further information on appropriate locations for bike lanes. If adding bike lanes by narrowing existing lanes, lane widths shall not be reduced to less than 10 feet with at least one 11-foot lane in each direction for emergency and large vehicles. In more urbanized roadway segments, like downtown areas, 10-foot lanes might be considered for inside lanes to calm traffic, especially if data showed it would reduce speeding while still accommodating traffic. Notably, the City of Pasadena’s design guidance uses 10-foot through lanes and 11-foot outer lanes on many city streets to successfully manage speeds. In Pasadena’s tests, narrowing lanes from 12 feet to 10 feet led to measurable speed reductions.

Summary: 11–12 feet is the desired lane width, with 10-foot widths as a minimum, that can reduce speeding and allocate space for other uses where appropriate. At least one 11-foot lane in each travel direction is required for emergency vehicles.
• Median and Turn Lane Configurations: Major Mobility Thoroughfares often benefit from a center median or center turn lane to manage left-turn movements and improve safety. Glendale’s design policy provides guidance on when to include such configurations. If a thoroughfare currently lacks a median and experiences a high volume of mid-block left turns or a history of left-turn-related and rear-end collisions, adding a center two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) or dedicated left-turn pockets at intersections should be considered on a case-by-case basis. A TWLTL can greatly reduce rear-end and sideswipe crashes by removing turning vehicles from the through lanes. It also provides a refuge for drivers waiting to turn and can double as an emergency bypass lane when clear. For instance, converting a four-lane undivided thoroughfare into a three-lane (two through lanes + center turn lane) is an example of a road diet strategy that may be feasible on appropriate thoroughfares (see Vehicle Capacity and Volumes Section below) to improve safety and access. On the other hand, if fewer driveways and higher speeds are present, a raised 216 of 449

median may be preferable to a TWLTL. Raised medians offer additional benefits: they can physically separate opposing traffic by reducing head-on collision risk, provide pedestrian refuge at crossings, and aesthetically enhance the street with landscaping. When implementing raised medians, the design must still accommodate necessary left-turn pockets at key intersections, minimize access impacts to driveways in business districts, or U-turn slots for property access. Design treatments for left-turn pockets include adequate storage length and bay taper based on traffic volumes to provide clear sightlines.

Summary: Glendale’s thoroughfares should incorporate a median or center turn lane whenever feasible for both operational flow and safety. In a road diet scenario, adding a center turn lane is a primary safety improvement to reduce left-turn conflicts. Where continuous two-way left-turn lanes exist, converting portions to raised medians with strategic openings could be a recommended solution. • Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: All Major Mobility Thoroughfare projects shall incorporate complete streets features, meaning accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians to the extent reasonably practical. If a lane reduction is feasible, the preferred use of the available roadway space is often to add or enhance bike lanes and improve pedestrian infrastructure. On such reconfigured thoroughfares, a protected Class IV bike lane is the preferred design where space allows and where it’s contextually appropriate (see Section 5 for bicycle facility guidelines). At minimum, buffered Class II bike lanes shall be considered to increase cyclist safety on Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Bicycle Priority) that have sufficient right-of-way and are identified in Glendale’s proposed Bicycle Transportation Plan. This aligns with the City’s plan to improve the bikeway system and provide safe bicycle connectivity even along busy corridors.

In cases where adding bike lanes is not immediately feasible due to constrained width or other priorities, parallel bicycle routes on nearby streets or off-street bike routes may be considered.

For pedestrians, thoroughfare projects must improve crosswalks and sidewalks where feasible. When a thoroughfare is reconfigured, the reduction in crossing distance is an added benefit. Pedestrians have fewer lanes of traffic to cross which improves safety and can shorten signal cycles needed for pedestrian crossing. The Public Works Department recommends the installation of pedestrian refuge islands where appropriate. These refuges allow a two-stage crossing and are especially helpful on wide roads or for slower-moving pedestrians. Curb extensions may be used at intersections along thoroughfares to shorten the crossing distance and improve pedestrian visibility. Bulb-outs can be feasible on thoroughfares, particularly where on-street parking is present and can be extended at corners without removing travel lanes. Their design must accommodate turning vehicles and they should not extend so far as to impede the turning path of buses or trucks. All new or modified signalized intersections must include high-visibility “continental” or creative art-inspired crosswalk markings and countdown pedestrian signal phases. Timing adjustments like leading pedestrian intervals (LPIs) can be implemented to give pedestrians a head start crossing before cars get a green light, improving safety at busy crossings. Mid-block crosswalks are encouraged on long thoroughfare blocks, especially near transit stops or major pedestrian generators, provided that appropriate traffic control is installed. Whenever a thoroughfare undergoes redesign, sidewalk conditions must be assessed: replace missing sidewalk segments, substandard narrow sidewalks widened if right-of-way permits, and obstructions relocated out of the clear walking path. The City will incorporate ADA-compliant upgrades during these projects, specifically every corner receiving modern curb ramps with tactile warnings and any non-compliant slopes or barriers made compliant.

Summary: Bicyclists and pedestrians are integral to Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Bicycle Priority) design, transforming them into multimodal corridors. Projects will incorporate complete streets features to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians, as proposed in the Mobility Element and Bicycle Transportation Plan, if feasible.
217 of 449

• Large and Emergency Vehicle Access: Glendale’s Major Mobility Thoroughfares are often primary emergency response routes for fire trucks and ambulances, as well as main corridors for transit and commercial trucks. Maintaining adequate access and maneuverability for large vehicles is a critical requirement. A minimum travel lane of roadway width of 11 feet must be maintained such that emergency vehicles can safely travel. In practical terms, even after a lane reconfiguration, there shall be at least two lanes in each direction during emergencies. This might include one travel lane and one center turn lane.

Turning radii at intersections on a thoroughfare must accommodate the City’s largest emergency vehicle.

Projects shall coordinate with the Fire Department early in the design of any thoroughfare lane reconfiguration and the Fire Department will have the opportunity to review all stages of the design plans.

This policy document makes it clear that fire and life safety access is an essential priority, and any thoroughfare redesign must demonstrate that it preserves or improves emergency response capability.

Summary: Major Mobility Thoroughfare (Transit Priority) designs will address lane width requirements for fire trucks, ambulances, buses, and large freight vehicles to travel and turn safely and effectively. This includes verifying that curb radii, lane widths, and intersection layouts accommodate a turning fire engine, that hydrants remain accessible, and that nothing in the design would permanently impede emergency vehicle passage.
• Vehicle Capacity and Volumes: While Glendale is focusing on safety and multi-modal enhancements, understanding and respecting a thoroughfare vehicle capacity remains important. Each thoroughfare has a typical range of traffic volume it is expected to carry. The standard unit of measurement is vehicles per day (vpd), referred to as Average Daily Traffic (ADT). A roadway segment’s ADT represents the total two-way traffic volume. For design purposes, Glendale will reference these ranges to decide what modifications are suitable. Major Mobility Thoroughfares in Glendale have the following Maximum Capacity and Acceptable Operational ADTs:
6 Travel Lanes
• Maximum = 55,300 vpd
• Acceptable = 48,350 vpd
4 Travel Lanes
• Maximum = 36,800 vpd
• Acceptable = 32,000 vpd
2 Travel Lanes
• Maximum = 18,300 vpd
• Acceptable = 16,000 vpd
If traffic volumes approach these upper limits of Acceptable ADTs which equate to a level of service (LOS) D, certain design changes are not advisable without mitigating measures, due to the risk of excessive congestion. This is consistent with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance, which suggests road diets are most suited for roadways with ADTs of 20,000 or less and should be evaluated for feasibility. If a thoroughfare has relatively lower volumes (less than 16,000 ADT), it might function adequately with fewer lanes and be a potential candidate for a road diet without causing undue congestion and significant diversion of traffic.
218 of 449

For conversions from four lanes (two in each direction) to three lanes (one in each direction plus a center turn lane):
o ≤16,000 ADT is likely feasible for reducing lanes; for 4 lane to 2-3 lane conversions o >16,000 is not feasible
For roadways with 6 or more travel lanes, a road diet in the higher ADT ranges may work in some cases but Glendale will only proceed with additional analysis and perhaps a pilot test in such scenarios. In addition to daily volumes, peak hour capacity is another important metric. A thoroughfare might carry 16,000 ADT but if peak hour volumes are very high, reducing lanes could cause severe delays during those hours. An examination of peak hour volume per lane is required. Another metric to determine the feasibility of a road diet is the peak hourly flow per direction per lane. If projected future peak volumes exceed what a single lane can accommodate, a lane removal is not feasible.

Summary: Roadways must maintain acceptable levels of operation for the thoroughfare’s intended function. This policy continues that approach: projects on thoroughfares must not intentionally create failing conditions during typical peak periods. However, slight reductions in vehicle capacity are acceptable accommodations if they yield large safety and multimodal benefits, as long as overall network function remains reasonable and diverting traffic can be mitigated. Major Mobility Thoroughfares with ADTs less than 16,000 vehicles per day are feasible candidates for a 4 lane to 2-3 lane conversion.

4.2 Collector Streets Design
Collector streets serve as the connectors between local streets and thoroughfares, they can handle moderate traffic volumes while also blending into neighborhood settings. Collector streets are efficient conduits for local traffic and transit, but also safe and pleasant for community use. Key guidelines for collector streets include:
• Travel Lane Configurations: Most collector streets in Glendale have a two-lane configuration (one travel lane in each direction) which is generally sufficient for their traffic volumes. Under typical conditions, a collector street can carry approximately 12,200 vehicles per day with acceptable operational volumes of 10,675 vehicles per day. If a collector has frequent left-turns, adding a center two-way left-turn lane for a stretch can improve flow by allowing left turners to wait outside of the through lane. The introduction of a center turn lane might also be part of a road diet on a wider collector. For example, if a collector currently has four lanes but low traffic, it might be converted to one lane each way plus a center lane.

Summary: Maintaining one travel lane in each direction is the baseline for collector streets and any added lanes are optional enhancements based on conditions.
• On-Street Parking Provisions: Many collector streets run through residential or mixed-use areas where on-street parking is valued. When reconfiguring a collector, retain or formalize parking if it is in demand and space allows. For instance, if a collector’s curb-to-curb width is approximately 38 feet, it could accommodate two 11-foot travel lanes and two 8-foot parking lanes on each side. If parking demand is low or the street is narrow, parking might be restricted to one side to free space for other uses on the other side.

Angled parking is most common near commercial districts, like Honolulu Avenue. Angled parking occupies more roadway width and can pose visibility issues when vehicles back out. This policy suggests that if angled parking exists on a collector and a lane reconfiguration is planned, Glendale could consider converting angled parking to parallel parking for improved safety, rather than removing travel lanes to retain 219 of 449

a larger angled parking footprint, as long as a parking utilization study is conducted and results in sufficient parking supply after the reconfiguration. If a collector has extensive angled parking and insufficient width, lane reductions are not recommended because the combination of angled parking and fewer lanes can severely constrain traffic flow and potentially create hazardous conditions. Each collector street’s parking usage shall be studied during design. This policy encourages conducting a parking occupancy survey to see if all the provided on-street parking is being utilized. These provisions are also applicable to Major Mobility Thoroughfares on a case-by-case basis.

Summary: The City will integrate on-street parking and provide it where needed, manage or modify parking where it conflicts with safety, and communicate parking changes to affected residents and businesses as part of the project.
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities: Collector streets are often ideal candidates for enhancing pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure because they usually have lower speeds and volumes than thoroughfares.

Where feasible, sidewalks on both sides of all collector streets are recommended. If a collector street currently lacks a sidewalk on one or both sides, any roadway improvement project on that street must include adding the missing sidewalk segments where feasible or at minimum, plan for sidewalks and seek funding to do so concurrently. This is critical for walkability, as collectors connect neighborhoods to schools, parks, and transit stops. The sidewalk width on collectors should have a minimum of 5 feet of clear walking space in residential areas, and if feasible wider along commercial segments. If the existing accessible pedestrian path is less than 60 inches, this policy requires widening it or providing curb extensions at key locations to create safer waiting or passing areas for pedestrians. Enhanced crosswalks on collectors, especially at intersections with high pedestrian crossing demand or near community facilities shall be included in the design plans. These enhancements include high-visibility striping, warning signage, and flashing beacons/pedestrian hybrid beacons (RRFB/PHB) for mid-block crossings.

For bicyclists, the City will evaluate adding bike lanes or shared lane markings as proposed in the Mobility Element and Bicycle Transportation Plan if considered feasible, dependent on various factors like volumes, lane capacity, speeds, and community feedback. The policy recognizes that not all collectors need striped bike lanes. On a neighborhood collector with ADTs less than 3,000 and no greater than 25 MPH speeds, Class III sharrows might be sufficient. However, for many collectors with higher volumes and speeds exceeding 25 MPH, a dedicated Class II or Class IV bike lane is preferable for cyclist safety and comfort.

Glendale will use collected data and residents’ input to determine the feasibility of bicycle infrastructure installations. This is consistent with the idea of Level of Traffic Stress (LTS) for bicyclists, where higher traffic volume and speed roads without bike lanes result in high stress LTS 3 or 4. The City should aim to bring collectors down to LTS 2 or better where feasible, which often means providing a striped lane or other separation. In some cases, Glendale might choose to implement a bike boulevard treatment on a collector:
this could involve route signage, traffic calming elements, and crossing improvements at key intersections to help cyclists.

Collector streets are well-suited for pedestrian safety improvements such as enhanced crosswalks and pedestrian bulb-outs at intersections, which help reduce crossing distances and slow turning vehicles.

These features can often be implemented by repurposing corner-adjacent parking spaces. The City will also evaluate traffic-calming measures on long, straight collector segments where speeding is documented. Additionally, mid-block traffic-calming treatments may be considered near schools to enhance pedestrian safety.
220 of 449

Summary: Pedestrian and bicycle improvements on collectors should be aimed at making these streets safe for all roadway users across the City. The goal is to minimize gaps in sidewalks and to establish a cohesive bike network using collectors as key links. All such enhancements will be considered in context.

For instance, a quiet hillside collector might need pedestrian improvements more than bike lanes due to steep grades, whereas a flat collector through town might become a bike corridor. • Large and Emergency Vehicle Access: Collector streets often serve as secondary routes for emergency response. If a thoroughfare is congested or closed, emergency vehicles might divert through a collector to reach a destination. Some collectors are also the primary fire access routes into certain residential areas, particularly hillside neighborhoods where only collectors lead in. The City will maintain sufficient street width and operational considerations on collectors to allow emergency vehicles to travel. The policy sets a guideline that even after adding features like bike lanes or curb extensions, a minimum lane width of 11 feet in both travel directions shall be available. However, certain traffic calming measures could inadvertently narrow the usable roadway and if used on a collector, they must be designed such that the remaining travel lane still leaves enough room for a fire truck to navigate. The Fire Department will review collector designs that introduce significant horizontal deflection like diverters or vertical deflection like speed humps, to assess the impact on response times. Generally, the Fire Department in Glendale can tolerate speed humps on residential streets but will restrict them on collectors that are important for emergency access. Another emergency consideration is turnaround and connectivity. Some collectors end in cul-de-sacs or dead ends. Adequate turnaround space for fire apparatus is required in these scenarios.

The policy established the need for a 20-foot minimum clear path for emergency vehicles if curb extensions or chokers are added.

Summary: Collectors must support emergency access allowing emergency vehicles the ability to travel with minimal hindrance. If lane repurposing is proposed on a collector street, the City will verify that emergency vehicle maneuverability is not hindered. Coordination with emergency services is essential when modifying collectors to minimize any potential increases to emergency response times. • Vehicle Capacity and Volumes: Collector streets carry intermediate volumes, typically around 12,200 vehicles per day. For design, this policy suggests typical capacity ranges: a standard two-lane collector without turn lanes can usually accommodate roughly 10,675 ADT at a Level of Service (LOS) of D, depending on intersection controls. The City will use these figures to decide on road diets or traffic calming. If a collector has low volumes relative to capacity, it could potentially tolerate traffic measures that have minor capacity impacts. Conversely, if a collector is near its capacity, adding any measure that reduces effective capacity might push the street over acceptable congestion levels.

The roadway characteristics and typical users of collector roads are different than those of thoroughfares.

Reducing lanes on collector streets, which often serve as vital connectors between local roads and thoroughfares, could lead to traffic diversion onto adjacent local streets. This may increase congestion and potentially compromise safety in residential areas not designed to tolerate higher traffic volumes.

Additionally, lane reductions on collectors without community engagement may disproportionately affect certain neighborhoods, particularly those with limited alternative routes. This could raise concerns and community opposition.

Summary: Design considerations for collectors are configurations that can handle projected traffic and do not introduce changes that would cause undue queuing or diversion. This policy frames capacity in terms of flexible response: design for expected typical volumes plus some growth, use extra space for safety 221 of 449

where possible, avoid reducing capacity below the demand, and prevent the redistribution of traffic onto smaller local streets. Collector roadways with ADTs exceeding 10,675 vehicles per day may not be feasible candidates for a 4 lane to 2-3 lane conversion.

4.3 Local Streets Design
Local streets are at the heart of Glendale’s neighborhoods. Design guidelines for local residential streets focus on enhancing safety, livability, and neighborhood character, rather than increasing capacity. Key aspects of local street design include traffic calming measures, shared space considerations, and emergency access. • Traffic Calming Measures: For local streets, controlling vehicle speeds and discouraging cut-through traffic is a top priority. This policy document emphasizes using design features to naturally slow down cars and reduce collision risk, to discourage high speeds on residential streets. Unlike thoroughfares or collectors, local streets usually do not have extra lanes to remove, and it is common to implement measures included in the City’s Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (adopted 2023). Any proposed modifications on local streets should be coordinated with residents through community-led efforts.

Summary: Local streets should operate at 25 MPH or less and drivers should expect calming features. If local streets are part of school routes, additional enhancements like high-visibility crosswalks, crossing guards, or feedback signs might be implemented.
• Shared Space Considerations: In select low-volume local or neighborhood streets, the City may consider adopting a “shared street” or “bicycle boulevard” approach. A shared street is where the distinction between modes is minimized. Cars, bicycles, and pedestrians all share the space with very low speed limits and minimal traffic control devices. This concept can be appropriate for short local streets or alleylike streets in commercial areas, or for designated neighborhood greenways. The policy suggests that for some local/neighborhood streets, especially those with very low traffic volumes (<1,000 ADT) and a community desire for a walkable environment, a shared street design could be implemented. This might involve removing lane markings, using special pavement treatments, and adding planters or street furniture to indicate it’s a pedestrian-priority space. In residential areas, bike boulevards are local streets optimized for bicycle travel and crossings. These treatments could include diverters, pavement markings, and signs that emphasize bike presence. Bicycle boulevards encourage a mix of bikes and local cars in a slow-speed setting.

In unique commercial contexts, a local street might include shared elements for a few blocks or designing a curb-less street where the entire right-of-way is a pedestrian promenade. The City can consider a pilot program for areas with high foot traffic and business support. To implement a shared street, the vehicle volumes and speeds must be very low. If considering converting a typical local street into a shared street, coordination with and support from residents is required.

Summary: While the typical local street is a conventional street with sidewalks and narrow lanes, this policy includes shared-space solutions in appropriate locations. The purpose is to enhance walkability/bikeability and community character by treating the street as a shared space, not just for vehicles. The City will identify candidate streets for such treatments through its planning processes and community input.
222 of 449

• Large and Emergency Vehicle Access: Traffic calming or any street modifications must not impede Fire Department and emergency access, even on local streets. Local residential streets, especially in hillside areas of Glendale, often have constrained widths, so any additional obstructions must be carefully reviewed. A 20-foot unobstructed path for fire apparatus access is a requirement. For any local street where curb extensions or parking changes are planned, the design must be reviewed for emergency vehicle access. Cul-de-sacs or dead-end streets need special consideration. They must have adequate turnaround space for fire trucks. If a street is a dead-end without a proper cul-de-sac, alternate turnarounds like a “Y” or hammerheads that accommodate a large fire truck could be provided. This policy emphasizes that even as the City adds features like landscape elements or traffic circles, the ability of a fire engine to reach every house and local fire hydrants must not be impeded.

Summary: No traffic calming or local street modification shall compromise emergency response.

Glendale’s practice is to continue to provide the Fire Department the ability to review and comment on all street modification plans.
• Residential Character and Right-of-Way Enhancements: Local streets offer a great opportunity to improve aesthetics and walkability through enhancements in the right-of-way. The City encourages adding features like green parkways, street trees, and continuous sidewalks as part of local street improvements.

Even if roadway space is being reallocated for calming, the policy looks to incorporate beautification simultaneously. For example, a traffic calming project that adds bulb-outs could include planters or landscaping on those bulb-outs, contributing to the neighborhood’s appearance. Planting street trees along local streets is highly encouraged. Not only do trees provide shade and beautification, but they also have a traffic calming effect by visually narrowing the street and providing a physical buffer between the roadway and the sidewalk.

Certain neighborhoods may have very narrow or missing sidewalks. This policy calls for completing sidewalks wherever possible and practical. While some local streets might have very low pedestrian use, the City’s long-term goal is walkable and bikeable neighborhoods. Parkways are valued on local streets for their greenery and as a buffer between pedestrians and vehicles. Maintaining or creating parkways where right-of-way width permits is recommended. Features like decorative streetlamps, benches, or community identifiers could be placed on local streets to build a sense of community identity. Another aspect is stormwater management. The City can incorporate green infrastructure like bioswales on local streets. A curb extension can double as a rain garden that captures street runoff. This contributes to environmental goals and adds to the visual appeal.

Summary: Local streets serve as pleasant public spaces on a small scale. This means integrating landscaping, street furniture, and pedestrian amenities in local street design. If the right-of-way can accommodate these enhancements, doing so will improve walkability, improve environmental quality, and provide a unique residential character to each neighborhood’s look and feel. • Vehicle Capacity and Volumes: Local streets typically accommodate very low volumes with ADT limits generally not exceeding 2,000–2,500 vehicles per day. If a local street is found to carry more than that regularly, the City can investigate measures to reduce through traffic. Local street designs should not intentionally increase capacity. In new development projects, this policy would advise designing the local street network to disperse traffic rather than concentrating it on a few local streets. 223 of 449

Summary: Local streets are meant for local traffic only. This policy supports designs that encourage local streets to prioritize quality of life over capacity.

5. Lane Repurposing Guidelines
Lane repurposing, often termed a “lane reduction” or “road diet”, is a design strategy used to reconfigure roadway space by removing or re-purposing existing roadway lanes. The primary goals of lane reductions are to improve safety, calm traffic, and provide space for other uses such as turn lanes, bicycle lanes, wider sidewalks, or parking.

This section outlines the criteria for considering a lane reduction and the best practices to implement such a reconfiguration effectively while aligning with the City’s multi-modal transportation goals.

5.1 Criteria for Considering Lane Reductions
When evaluating whether a roadway is a good candidate for a lane reduction, the following criteria and factors shall be considered for every project. Each project must be assessed on a case-by-case basis, but generally a lane reduction may be feasible and beneficial if several of these conditions are met:
• Traffic Volume Thresholds: Lane reductions are typically considered on streets with moderate traffic volumes. Roadways with no more than two travel lanes in each direction carrying no more than 16,000 vehicles per day are potential candidates for lane repurposing and should be reviewed for other roadway metrics like peak-hour traffic rates and traffic diversion onto local streets. Streets that have more than two travel lanes in each direction with volumes between 16,000 and 32,000 vehicles per day will require a detailed analysis, especially to manage peak-hour congestion. At the discretion of the City Engineer, borderline scenarios may still be evaluated for a lane reduction if a detailed capacity analysis indicates the conversion can maintain acceptable traffic operations. The intent of this policy is not to establish inflexible cutoffs. For instance, if a street has 16,200 ADT but other factors suggest a road diet could work, staff can choose to analyze it further. However, roadways with volumes above 32,000 vehicles per day will not operate acceptably with fewer lanes and are not considered feasible. Every lane reduction analysis shall include countermeasures, such as parallel route improvements and diversion management strategies, to mitigate the capacity reduction. All volume thresholds must account for current and future volumes with the appropriate growth factor. A thorough review of peak-hour traffic flow is critical and required. Examining intersection performance and turn movements can identify whether a reduction in through lanes will still allow acceptable Levels of Service (A-D). Lane reductions may be feasible when peak hourly flow per direction is less than 750 vehicles.
• Safety and Collision History: Improving safety is a key motivator for lane reductions. High collision rates or patterns of crashes that could be mitigated by fewer lanes strongly support consideration of a lane reconfiguration. These patterns include collisions from excessive speeding, frequent rear-end or sideswipe crashes, or collisions involving pedestrians and bicyclists. For example, a four-lane undivided road with frequent left-turn crashes can often see improved safety by converting to a three-lane configuration with a center turn lane. Reducing the number of travel lanes can also reduce conflict points and encourage lower vehicle speeds, contributing to an enhanced environment for all users. Specific streets with documented speeding problems or a history of severe collisions, especially those involving pedestrians or cyclists, are prime candidates for a road diet as a safety countermeasure.

Once a corridor’s feasibility for lane reduction is determined, a data-driven safety analysis of each design alternative is required. Using the Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM) methodology, the City will estimate the expected safety benefit of each proposed reconfiguration by applying proven crash reduction factors to 224 of 449

the corridor’s crash history. This process quantifies how many crashes, by type and severity, each alternative could eliminate. The reduction in predicted crashes is then converted to an economic safety benefit value using standard crash cost figures to allow comparison. In tandem, planners and engineers will prepare planning-level cost estimates for each alternative so that a Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR) can be calculated. The BCR is computed by dividing the alternative’s annualized safety benefit by its implementation cost, yielding a measure of cost-effectiveness. While a minimum BCR of 15.0 is recommended, it is not required; however, a higher BCR improves the likelihood of success for grant and funding applications, such as the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP). The City will prioritize roadway reconfiguration alternatives by their safety impact, favoring the option with the highest BCR and greatest crash reduction potential. An alternative with a higher BCR indicates it achieves more safety benefit per dollar spent, aligning with the City’s safety-first and fiscally responsible approach. • Pedestrian and Bicycle Activity: Lane reductions offer an opportunity to enhance conditions for nonmotorized users, particularly where pedestrian volumes are high, such as near schools, parks, and commercial centers. They help shorten crossing distances and provide the space needed for bike lanes or buffered shoulders. When a corridor is included in the City’s adopted bicycle or pedestrian plans, converting a travel lane may be a key strategy to achieve plan goals. However, such decisions must be supported by an evaluation of both existing and future traffic volumes to confirm that operational and safety impacts do not outweigh the projected benefits. To qualify, corridors should meet the minimum feasibility thresholds defined in this policy, balancing safety, mobility, and long-term network performance. • Community Context and Support: Community character and input must be considered early in the evaluation process. Lane reconfiguration is most successful where the surrounding community supports a more livable and walkable street environment while understanding and accepting the effects of potential increases in traffic congestion levels. In areas where residents or businesses have expressed concerns about speeding or difficulty crossing the street, a lane reduction can be a potential solution. Conversely, if a proposed lane removal might divert traffic to residential streets or is opposed by the community, these impacts must be carefully weighed and mitigated. Projects should be consistent with the City’s adopted plans and policies.
• Parking and Curbside Needs: Where on-street parking is desired or needed to support local businesses or residents, removing a travel lane can create additional curb parking or allow retention of parking that might otherwise be removed for traffic capacity. If a corridor lacks sufficient parking or loading zones, a lane reduction could free up space to provide these amenities. The presence of frequent driveways or turning movements along the street is also a consideration. Adding a center two-way left-turn lane (TWLTL) as part of a road diet can improve access to properties and reduce conflicts with through traffic. Evaluate if the benefits of added parking or turn lanes would outweigh the reduction in through capacity. • Emergency Vehicle, Transit, and Freight Route Considerations: Streets that serve as emergency response corridors, transit routes, or designated truck routes must be carefully evaluated before any lane reduction is implemented. Maintaining reliable access for emergency services is a critical design priority.

While lane reductions may be feasible on certain corridors, they should not impede emergency response times or operational performance. The City has determined that 10-foot lanes present challenges for emergency vehicles and a minimum lane width of 11 feet is required on Critical Emergency Response routes and thoroughfare streets where sufficient roadway space is available. Accommodations like bus turnouts or signal priority should be included on streets that serve public transit. Close coordination with transit agencies and emergency services is required to address any operational concerns before moving forward with the lane reduction.
225 of 449

• Overall Network and Congestion Impact: A proposed lane reduction should be evaluated in the context of the broader road network. Analyze whether removing a lane on the target street will likely divert more than 10% amount of the traffic to parallel streets, and if so, assess those streets’ ability to handle the diverted traffic. If the adjacent network provides good alternative routes or if the majority of trips are local, a road diet may have minimal adverse impact. It’s also important to consider intersection throughput at major junctions, analyzing if a road diet creates a bottleneck at a key intersection. Traffic modeling and before/after studies must be used to confirm that post-reduction traffic operations will be acceptable and not create excessive queuing or delay beyond acceptable levels. • Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and Diversion: The City is mindful of broader traffic effects of lane reductions, including how they might redistribute traffic and implications for VMT, a metric under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for transportation impacts in California (SB 743). A road diet that causes significant traffic to divert to longer routes and increase congestion would increase VMT, which is undesirable for environmental and quality of life reasons. As part of road diet feasibility, the City must analyze whether traffic is likely to shift to parallel residential streets and whether any increases in delay might cause longer trip lengths. A road diet shall be accompanied by measures that mitigate diversion. If the VMT model indicates that more than 25% of trips would reroute off the intended thoroughfare and onto local roads, that alternative is not feasible. Another consideration is business access and verifying that reducing lanes won’t discourage patrons from reaching commercial destinations. Avoiding the movement of traffic volumes elsewhere is a successful road reconfiguration strategy since it solves more problems than it creates.
226 of 449

If a lane reduction is deemed feasible, there can be multiple design alternatives within a consistent right-of-way width. The following four cross sections show a few possible configurations of a four-lane roadway.

Current conditions with 4 travel lanes.

Current Conditions
Alternative 1 - One travel lane in each direction with bike lanes.

Feasible Alternative 1
Alternative 2 - Space reallocated for outdoor dining, transit stops, and a center turn lane.

Feasible Alternative 2
Alternative 3 - One travel lane in each direction with a Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lane.

Feasible Alternative 3
227 of 449

5.2 Best Practices for Implementing Lane Reductions
Once a roadway is determined to be a feasible candidate for a lane reduction, careful planning and design are required for the conversion to achieve its intended benefits. The following best practices represent a list of considerations and strategies for implementing lane reductions:
• Comprehensive Analysis and Planning: A thorough analysis of the proposed reconfiguration shall be conducted including other feasible alternatives. This includes but is not limited to, traffic volume analysis, intersection capacity calculations, and queuing analysis for key locations. Use traffic simulation modeling to predict how the new configuration will perform during current and future peak periods. It is also required to conduct a safety study of existing conditions and forecasted conditions after the lane reduction. These planning phase documents will identify potential critical improvement areas and the expected benefits such as Benefit-Cost Ratios, lower speeds, and improved pedestrian crossings. Clear documentation of the analysis will help communicate the rationale to stakeholders and provide a baseline for future performance evaluation.
• Consider Traffic Operational Impacts: When reconfiguring the roadway, incorporate design elements that minimize any negative impacts on traffic flow. A common conversion is from four lanes to three lanes with one travel lane in each direction plus a center turn lane. In this scenario, it is important to provide a continuous center two-way left-turn lane or dedicated left-turn pockets at intersections to remove turning vehicles from the through lanes and improve intersection safety. This maintains traffic flow and prevents through vehicles from queueing behind left-turning vehicles. Adjustment of traffic signal timing and phasing should be considered to optimize new lane configuration patterns. The goal is to maintain an acceptable level of service after the reconfiguration by proactively addressing choke points in the design. • Repurpose Road Space Effectively: A key benefit of lane reductions is the opportunity to reallocate roadway space for other uses. Plan how the newly available space will be used to enhance the corridor.

Possible re-purposing options include:
o Bicycle Lanes – Install bike lanes or protected cycle tracks where appropriate. For example, a 4-to-3 lane conversion often uses the extra space to add bike lanes in both directions. Design any new bike facilities to meet current standards for width, striping, and utilizing buffers or physical separation where feasible to maximize cyclist safety.
▪ Class IV Bikeway widths – minimum 5-foot lane with 2-foot buffer ▪ If adjacent to on-street parking, a minimum 3-foot buffer is required. ▪ Class II Bikeway widths – minimum 5-foot lane
▪ If adjacent to on-street parking, a minimum 18-inch buffer is required. ▪ Class III bike lanes are recommended for posted speed limits of 25 MPH or less. ▪ Class II bike lanes are recommended for posted speed limits of 30 MPH or less. ▪ Only Class IV bike lanes are recommended for posted speed limits of 35 MPH or above. o Pedestrian Enhancements – Use excess roadway width to improve the pedestrian environment.

This could involve widening sidewalks, adding landscaped buffers or parkways, and constructing curb extensions (bulb-outs) at intersections or mid-block crossings. Curb extensions shorten crossing distances for pedestrians and improve their visibility to drivers. ADA-compliant curb ramps shall be installed where feasible if not already present throughout the project. Where a center turn 228 of 449

lane is not needed along certain segments, consider installing pedestrian refuge islands or medians, which offer a safe midpoint for crossing and can be landscaped to beautify the street. ▪ Minimum accessible pedestrian path widths – 60 inches or more o On-Street Parking and Loading – If parking demand exists, the space from a removed travel lane can be converted to parking bays. Providing additional on-street parking can support local businesses and calm traffic by creating a buffer between moving cars and the sidewalk. Similarly, designated loading zones for deliveries or passenger drop-off can be added where appropriate to serve adjacent land uses, especially in commercial areas by clearly marking any new parking or loading areas adjacent to the remaining travel lanes.
▪ Minimum parking stall widths – 8 feet
▪ Maintain or increase the capacity of existing short-term parking and loading zones ▪ Maintain or increase the capacity of existing ADA-compliant parking stalls ▪ Ratio of 1 accessible space per 25 stalls that are metered or designated by signs or pavement markings
▪ Minimum angled parking stall length including buffer space – 25 feet o Emergency and Transit Routes – Coordinate with emergency service and transit providers to maintain or enhance operations as part of the project. For instance, the lane reduction design could include bus pull-out bays or “bus bulbs” so that buses can service passengers without impeding the single through lane. The design must maintain or improve emergency and transit service reliability even after removing a vehicular lane. ▪ Minimum lane width for Emergency vehicles and Transit– one 11-foot travel lane per direction
o Urban Greening and Placemaking – The reduction of pavement space presents an opportunity to incorporate aesthetic and green infrastructure elements, including heat island reduction strategies.

Consider adding features like landscaped medians, stormwater capture systems, street trees, parklets, or sidewalk seating areas where feasible. Such improvements can transform the look and feel of the street, providing shade and visual interest, which in turn can support economic activity and community enjoyment of the corridor. Any greening elements should be designed to maintain adequate sightlines and not obstruct drivers’ view of pedestrians or intersecting traffic. A consistent theme should be used along a project corridor.

The desired and minimum dimensions listed above shall be evaluated per project and are subject to current local, state, and federal requirements.
• Prioritize Safety in Design Details: Every aspect of the redesigned roadway should enhance safety for all users. Lane markings, crosswalks, and bike lane delineations shall be high-visibility and applied consistently. Install adequate signage in advance of and through the project limits to alert drivers of the new traffic pattern (for example, “Lane Ends, Merge Ahead” signs and directional arrows guiding traffic into the correct lanes). If the lane reduction introduces any new conflict points (such as vehicles merging), consider supplemental safety measures like adding reflectors, surface markings (e.g., merge arrows or yield lines), or even warning signs if warranted. Intersection crossings should ideally be enhanced with measures such as high-visibility crosswalk striping, timing adjustments like Leading Pedestrian Intervals (LPI), and accessible curb ramps if not already present. For bike lanes, use green colored pavement in 229 of 449

conflict zones and across driveways or merging areas to increase awareness of cyclists. The vertical elements of a Class 4 bike lane should be considered for segments of a roadway with few or no driveways to allow for a continuous and consistent Class 4 facility. For a segment with a significant number of driveways and cross streets, a Class 2 bike lane would be more appropriate. The overall design should aim to calm traffic speeds. Narrower effective roadway width and the presence of bikes and pedestrians tend to encourage drivers to slow down, which improves reaction times and reduces crash severity. Throughout the design process, traffic engineers and planners must apply current best-practice design guidelines for roadway reconfigurations (such as state and national design standards for complete streets) to meet safety objectives identified in the project.

Once a preferred lane-reconfiguration design is selected, the detailed engineering and design phase must implement the safety countermeasures that drove its selection. The LRSM provides a list of proven safety countermeasures and should be used to integrate the highest safety impact measures into the final plans.

For example, the LRSM identifies a “Road Diet” treatment, reducing a four-lane undivided road to three lanes with a center left-turn lane and bike lanes, as capable of reducing total crashes by approximately 35%. If the chosen alternative relies on such a configuration, the design will include all associated safety features—continuous two-way left-turn lanes, new or widened bike lanes, and improved lane markings—to realize that predicted benefit. Similarly, if the safety analysis showed that adding pedestrian refuge islands or upgrading signal timing, such as implementing LPI, would yield substantial crash reductions, those elements must appear in the design plans. Every design detail should tie back to a safety purpose: highvisibility crosswalks, green paint in bike lane conflict zones, advanced warning signage, and other bestpractice treatments should be specified in the final design to address the crash patterns identified. The highest-priority safety countermeasures that contribute the most to crash reduction should be implemented first. The following recommendations will help determine specific countermeasures appropriate for each project.
o Collision Density: Focus on collision “hotspots” within a corridor. o Severity of Collisions: Prioritize the mitigation of fatal or serious injury collisions. o Vulnerable Users: Prioritize the mitigation of collisions involving pedestrians or bicyclists. o 10 Year Collisions History: Expand the date range beyond the standard 5 years. o Collision Patterns: Analyze recurring crash types or other patterns like time of day. • Transit, Freight, and Emergency Access: While implementing a lane reduction, accommodation of large vehicles is required. For transit buses, verify that turning movements at intersections are still possible with one fewer lane (this might involve adjusting curb radii and confirming no new obstacles prevent wide turns). It may be necessary to slightly widen the remaining lanes. Coordinate with the Fire Department and other emergency services to confirm that fire trucks and ambulances can navigate the new street configuration. Where on-street parking or bulb-outs are added, maintain adequate clear width so that emergency apparatus are not obstructed.
• Community Engagement and Pilot/Quick-Build Implementation: Engaging the community is crucial for the success of any lane reduction project. Communicate the purpose and expected benefits of the lane reduction early and often to residents, business owners, legislative bodies, and other stakeholders along the corridor. Outreach efforts include but are not limited to public workshops, community meetings, informational materials, and door-to-door canvassing that explain how the new street configuration will look and function. It is often helpful to highlight examples of successful lane reductions in similar communities to build public understanding. Pilot testing can be an effective tool for evaluating the impact of a proposed lane reduction and building public support. Interim materials such as paint, flexible posts, and temporary signage can be used to simulate the reconfigured street layout before investing in 230 of 449

permanent construction. However, pilot implementation should only occur on corridors already scheduled for resurfacing within the next three years. Any surface wear or pavement damage resulting from the pilot treatment can be addressed as part of the planned capital improvement project. A pilot phase offers an opportunity to observe how the new traffic pattern affects behavior, congestion, and safety. Feedback collected during the demonstration period can inform refinements to the final design, minimizing risk and helping build community trust in the reconfiguration.

While coordinating a pilot with a planned resurfacing can be cost-effective, the City may also implement quick-build projects at any time to test traffic lane reconfigurations or other safety improvements. These quick-build options use temporary materials (for example, paint, flexible delineators, or removable barriers) to allow rapid deployment and easy adjustment. By permitting quick-build reconfigurations outside of the paving schedule, the policy enables timely testing of safety and operational improvements. • Monitoring and Follow-Up: After a lane reduction is implemented, staff should actively monitor the corridor to determine if operations are performing as intended. Key performance indicators include vehicle speeds, traffic volumes (to detect any significant diversion to other streets), intersection delays or queues, and safety outcomes (number and severity of crashes involving all road users). To enable meaningful comparison, baseline traffic and safety conditions must be documented through data collection within six months prior to construction. Post-implementation evaluations should occur at regular intervals (three months, six months, and one year) to compare against the “before” conditions. If the data shows improvements (e.g., lower speeds and collision reductions) with only minimal increases in travel delay, those successes should be documented and communicated to stakeholders. If issues are observed, be prepared to implement mitigation measures or minor design adjustments.

All lane reduction projects must align with the broader goals outlined in the City’s Roadway Design Policy:
enhancing safety, promoting sustainable mobility for all travel modes, and supporting community vitality. By carefully applying the above criteria and best practices, lane reductions can provide more balanced roadways that serve drivers, pedestrians, bicyclists, transit riders, and businesses alike. Each project should be documented as a case study for continued learning and contributing to a library of local examples that should inform future design decisions. Lane reconfiguration is one of many tools in the City’s toolkit that can advance the City’s transportation and safety objectives when executed with sound analysis and community buy-in. 231 of 449

*If a study is required, a lane reduction is not initially recommended and shall not be considered as a feasible option in any other City document unless the study has been completed or reviewed by Public Works. At the discretion of the City Engineer, borderline scenarios may still be evaluated for a lane reduction.

Table 1: Primary Criteria for Considering Lane Reductions.

Primary Criteria Feasible Not Feasible Notes
Traffic Volumes (ADT)
For typical 4 travel lane roadways
Total two‑way traffic volumes
Traffic Volumes (ADT)
6 or more travel lanes
Total two‑way traffic volumes
Peak Hour Volumes
For typical 4 travel lane roadways
On-Street Parking Stall Width 8 ft Minimum < 8 ft*
*Study adjacent lane widths N/A
Class II Bicycle Lane Width
After roadway reconfiguration
Class IV Bicycle Lane Width
After roadway reconfiguration
Sidewalk Walkway Width
Maintain or improve existing
accessible pedestrian path
≥ 60 inches
< 60 inches of accessible pedestrian
path*
*Refer to current ADA standards for
minimum width exemptions
Angled Parking – Stall Details Length ≥ 25 ft
8 ft Minimum stall width
Class II ≥ 5 ft
Criteria for Considering Lane Reductions
Maintain or increase capacity of
existing ADA compliant parking
stalls
Reduce capacity of existing ADA
compliant parking stalls
Ratio of 1 accessible space per 25
stalls that are metered/designated
by signs or pavement markings
Class IV: ≥5ft lane + *≥2ft buffer Class IV: <5ft lane or <2ft buffer *3ft buffer is required if Class IV is adjacent to on street parking
≤ 10%
> 25%
If between 11-25%, initiate mitigation and
traffic calming process
Total % of vehicles diverted to
adjacent local streets
≥ 11 ft travel lane
at least 1 in each direction
All travel and TWLTL less than 11 ft*
*Study required if TWLTL is the only 11ft
lane TWLTL = Two-Way Left Turn Lanes
≤ 16,000 vpd > 16,000 vpd Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Vehicles per day (vpd)
≤ 750 vph per direction > 750 vph per direction vehicles/hour (vph) per direction of flow
≤ 16,000 vpd > 32,000 vpd
*Study if between 16,000 - 32,000 vpd
Average Daily Traffic (ADT)
Vehicles per day (vpd)
Class II <* 5 ft
*4ft Class II lane if not adjacent to on
street parking or gutter
Buffered Class II = 18 inch minimum
buffer
< 23 ft*
*Study adjacent lane widths
if between 23-25ft
Assuming 60 degree stall and length
includes buffer (curb to edge of
travel lane)
VMT and Local Cut-Through
Traffic Diversion
Emergency/Transit Lane Width
ADA Parking Provision
232 of 449

*If a study is required, a lane reduction is not initially recommended and shall not be considered as a feasible option in any other City document unless the study has been completed or reviewed by Public Works. At the discretion of the City Engineer, borderline scenarios may still be evaluated for a lane reduction.

Table 2: Supplemental Criteria for Considering Lane Reductions.

Supplemental Criteria Desirable May Consider Not Desirable Critical Emergency Route
Is the segment a Critical Emergency
Route?
Level of Service (LOS) A, B, or C – acceptable operations. D E & F Parking Removal Impact No removal of existing stalls ≤ 10% existing stalls removed (Parking utilization study may be required) > 10% existing stalls removed Other Parking Provision
Green/Yellow/White Curbs
Benefit–Cost Ratio (BCR)
Safety Benefits vs. Cost
Bicycle Facilities by Posted
Speed Limit
Only Class IV Bicycle Facilities
should be considered for roads ≥
35 MPH
Class II ≤ 30 MPH
Class III ≤ 25 MPH N/A
Between 10.0 - 15.0 ≤ 10.0
NO YES
(at GFD discretion) N/A
Increase capacity of existing shortterm parking and loading zonesMaintain capacity of existing short-term parking and loading zones
Eliminate or reduce capacity of
existing short-term parking and
loading zones
≥ 15.0
Criteria for Considering Lane Reductions 233 of 449

5.3 Lane Reductions: Examples, Case Studies, and False Impressions Lane Reduction Examples
Many cities have implemented road diet projects on multi-lane streets to improve safety and support multimodal travel. The following examples below highlight projects with positive outcomes that approximately match the various criteria listed in this policy document.

Pasadena, California – Cordova Street: In 2010, Pasadena transformed a 0.5-mile segment of Cordova Street, which carried approximately 11,000 vehicles daily. The project reconfigured the roadway from four lanes to three, adding bicycle lanes and curb extensions at intersections. This redesign aimed to address speeding issues and improve pedestrian crossings. Post-implementation studies indicated reduced vehicle speeds, improved compliance with speed limits, and enhanced bicycle level of service, all without negatively impacting vehicular or pedestrian levels of service.

FHWA’s Road Diet Case Studies: The table below synthesizes information from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Road Diet Case Studies report, which details objectives, design features, and the results of road diet implementations nationwide. Each case’s data (city, segment, ADT, outcomes, etc.) is drawn directly from those case studies. 14 of the 16 (87.5%) street segments with reported ADTs have fewer than 16,000 vehicles per day.

The consistent findings across these diverse locations provide evidence in support of the Roadway Design Policy’s criteria for considering lane reductions.

Table 3: Summary of Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Road Diet Case Studies.

Source: https://highways.dot.gov/safety/other/road-diets/road-diet-case-studies City, State Street Segment Length Year (Installation) ADT (vpd) Genesee County, MI Multiple corridors (county-wide program) N/A 2009 10,500 (avg) Grand Rapids, MI Division St (I-196 to Wealthy St) 1 mile 2012 15,000 Grand Rapids, MI Burton St (Division St to Plymouth Ave) 2.0 miles 2012 15,000 Chicago, IL 55th St (Cottage Grove Ave to Dorchester Ave) 0.8 miles 2011 N/A Chicago, IL Franklin Blvd (Sacramento Blvd to Central Park Ave) 0.75 miles 2010 3,000 Chicago, IL Wabash Ave (Cermak Rd to Harrison St) 1.5 miles 2013 N/A Pasadena, CA Cordova St (Lake Ave to Hill Ave) 0.5 miles 2010 11,000 Santa Monica, CA Ocean Park Blvd (Lincoln Blvd to Cloverfield Blvd) 1.1 miles 2008 23,000 Los Angeles, CA Seventh St (Bixel St to Catalina St) 2.0 miles 2011 16,000 Reston, VA (VDOT) Lawyers Rd (Fox Mill Rd to Myrtle Ln) 2.0 miles 2009 10,000 Reston, VA (VDOT) Soapstone Dr (Sunrise Valley Dr to Lawyers Rd) 2.0 miles 2011 4,500 (avg) Dunn Loring, VA (VDOT) Oak St (Gallows Rd to Sandburg St) 0.25 miles 2013 3,000 Des Moines, IA Ingersoll Ave (Polk Blvd to MLK Jr. Pkwy) 2.0 miles 2011 14,000 (avg) Reno, NV (Washoe RTC) California Ave (Mayberry Dr to S. Virginia St) 1.4 miles 2011 9,900 Reno, NV (Washoe RTC) Wells Ave (Stewart St to S. Virginia St) 1.0 mile 2003 16,000 Staten Island, NY Luten Ave (Tottenville HS area) 0.3 miles 2013 N/A Manhattan, NY Ninth Ave (W 23rd St to W 16th St) 0.3 miles 2007 N/A Brooklyn, NY Empire Blvd (Utica Ave to Bedford Ave) 1.4 miles 2009 N/A Brooklyn, NY West Sixth St (Surf Ave to Bensonhurst) 1.5 miles 2010 N/A Seattle, WA Dexter Ave (Downtown to Fremont) 2.0 miles 2011 9,050 (avg) Seattle, WA Nickerson St (13th Ave W to Florentia St) 1.2 miles 2010 18,500 Seattle, WA Stone Way (N 34th St to N 45th St) 0.9 miles 2007 13,000 234 of 449

LADOT Lane Reconfiguration Projects: This table summarizes 11 road diet corridors implemented by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT), showing project extents, length, installation date, and daily traffic volumes before and after lane reconfiguration. Lane Reconfigurations completed in the past 10 years, that are approximately 0.5 mile or longer, and that converted from 2 lanes in each direction to 1 lane in each direction were included in this analysis. Of the eleven corridors summarized, only one shows a post-project ADT greater than 16,000 vpd; while several corridors had preproject ADTs above 16,000 vpd, the observed post-project demand typically falls below this threshold. Taken together, these results indicate that a single travel lane in each direction (with a center turn lane) generally operates within the Roadway Design Policy’s criteria for lane reductions.

Table 4: LADOT Lane Reconfiguration Projects over ~0.5 miles completed in the last 10 years.

The complete LADOT Road Diet Inventory can be found in the Design Element: Lane Reconfiguration Guidelines (April 2023) – https://ladot.lacity.gov/sites/default/files/2024-09/lane-reconfiguration-guidelines-update-april-2023.pdf Street Limit 1 Limit 2 Length (mi) Installation Date W/N E/S Total W/N E/S Total Foothill Boulevard Balboa Boulevard Filbert Street 0.74 6/9/2014 4,399 4,238 8,637 4,928 3,332 8,260 Clybourn Avenue Victory Boulevard Chandler Boulevard 1.47 9/11/2014 745 1,947 2,692 944 2,612 3,556 Pacific Avenue 15th Street O'Farrell Street 1.05 9/10/2015 10,530 8,588 19,118 9,277 8,039 17,316 Fletcher Drive Avenue 36 Delay Drive 0.56 8/2/2016 6,230 7,622 13,852 6,309 4,017 10,326 Foothill Boulevard Wentworth Avenue Sunland Avenue 0.67 3/9/2017 6,984 6,589 13,573 La Tuna Canyon Road Honolulu Avenue 7600' W/O S. La Tuna Canyon 1.87 6/8/2018 6,484 5,290 11,774 6,086 8,370 14,456 Alhambra Avenue Druid Street Lowell Avenue 1.1 6/28/2018 Chatsworth Street Arleta Avenue Chatsworth Drive 0.67 10/31/2018 4,509 7,983 12,492 Hoover Street Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd Vernon Avenue 0.49 3/6/2019 7,941 5,643 13,584 7,608 5,111 12,719 Avalon Boulevard Manchester Avenue 35th Street 3.71 10/15/2020 12,841 11,460 24,301 7,337 6,209 13,546 Adams Boulevard Fairfax Avenue Crenshaw Boulevard 2.04 10/1/2021 10,033 11,835 21,868 7,629 6,675 14,304 Data Not Available
LADOT Lane Reconfiguration Projects Pre-Project ADT (vpd) Post-Project ADT (vpd) Data Not Available
Data Not Available Data Not Available
235 of 449

North Brand Boulevard: A Demonstration in Street Redesign In 2024, the City of Glendale embarked on a temporary project to reimagine a half-mile stretch of North Brand Boulevard, aiming to enhance safety and promote alternative modes of transportation. This initiative, known as the North Brand Boulevard Complete Streets Demonstration Project, sought to transform the corridor between Glenoaks Boulevard and Mountain Street into a more pedestrian- and cyclist-friendly environment. The redesign reduced the number of vehicle lanes from four to two, introducing a central turn lane to facilitate smoother traffic flow. Protected bike lanes were added on both sides of the street, separated from vehicular traffic by concrete barriers. Additionally, colorful curb extensions and high-visibility crosswalks were implemented to improve pedestrian safety and visibility. Community engagement was a cornerstone of the project. The City conducted extensive outreach, including public meetings and surveys, to gather feedback from residents and businesses.

While many appreciated the efforts to enhance safety and promote active transportation, others expressed concerns about increased traffic congestion and challenges with parking and driveway access.

Data collected during the demonstration period indicated a reduction in vehicle speeds and an increase in pedestrian activity. However, bicycle usage did not rise as anticipated and drivers diverted to parallel streets to avoid the reconfigured segment. Emergency response times were also a point of concern, given the reduced number of travel lanes. After evaluating the project's outcomes and considering public feedback, the City decided to revert North Brand Boulevard to its original configuration. This decision underscored the importance of aligning infrastructure changes with community needs and expectations. The North Brand Boulevard demonstration highlighted both the potential benefits and challenges of street redesigns aimed at promoting multimodal transportation. While the project achieved certain safety improvements, it also revealed the complexities involved in altering established traffic patterns. Future initiatives will benefit from the lessons learned, emphasizing the need for comprehensive planning, clear design guidelines, and community involvement.

Culver City – Downtown Corridor (MOVE Culver City Pilot):

In late 2021, Culver City launched a 1.3-mile pilot reconfiguration of its downtown corridor, converting one travel lane in each direction on Culver and Washington Boulevards into dedicated bus and bike lanes separated by paint, bollards, and bus boarding platforms. The corridor carried approximately 14,000 vehicles per day before the pilot, a volume that dropped to about 12,000 vehicles per day during the trial period. This “quick build” project was intended to improve safety and expand mobility options, and results showed measurable benefits: bus ridership on the corridor increased by roughly 36 percent compared to pre-implementation, cycling activity rose by about 57 percent relative to pre-pandemic levels, and pedestrian volumes also grew. Bus travel times improved, with certain routes running up to four minutes faster in the peak period, while auto travel remained manageable—morning peak trips moved faster than in 2019, and afternoon trips averaged only two minutes longer. Emergency response times were unaffected, as fire crews were able to use the mobility lane when necessary.

Despite these positive multimodal outcomes, public sentiment was divided. While many residents and businesses supported the enhanced safety for walking and biking, a majority expressed concern about traffic congestion, cutthrough driving, and delivery access along the corridor. A citywide survey found that six in ten respondents favored continuing the project, but most preferred modifications to address operational impacts. In April 2023, the City Council voted 3–2 to scale back the pilot. The modified design restored a second general-purpose lane in each direction and replaced the separated bike lane with a shared bus/bike lane. By late 2024, the corridor was restriped to reflect this compromise approach, reintroducing vehicle capacity while preserving a scaled-down version of the mobility lane concept. The MOVE Culver City Pilot Project illustrates that lane reconfiguration can yield significant safety and mobility gains with minimal impact on traffic operations, but success depends on 236 of 449

robust community engagement. Even when performance data demonstrates benefits, sustained public support is essential for the success of any multimodal project.

Understanding the Limitations of Lane Reductions
Although road diets are strategies employed to enhance road safety and promote alternative modes of transportation, it is essential to recognize that they are not universally effective and may present challenges if not carefully planned and executed.
• Safety Consideration: Reducing the number of travel lanes can lead to decreased vehicle speeds and fewer collisions, particularly on roads with moderate traffic volumes. However, on high-speed or high-volume corridors, simply narrowing the roadway without implementing additional safety measures—such as improved signage, pedestrian crossings, or protected bike lanes—may not sufficiently mitigate risks. In some cases, inadequate planning can result in unchanged or even increased accident rates, especially if the new design fails to accommodate the needs of all users effectively. Moreover, introducing new pedestrian and bicycle facilities can encourage more people to walk or cycle. While this shift supports sustainable transportation goals, it also increases the number of vulnerable road users exposed to traffic, potentially elevating the risk of accidents if appropriate safety measures are not in place. • Traffic Flow and Diversion: A common concern with lane reductions is the potential for increased congestion and traffic diversion to adjacent streets. If a road diet is applied to a corridor already operating near its capacity, the reduced lanes may not handle the existing traffic volume efficiently, leading to longer travel times and prompting drivers to seek alternative routes through residential neighborhoods. Such outcomes can undermine the intended benefits of the project and may necessitate further interventions to manage the redistributed traffic load. Increased traffic on residential streets can raise safety risks for local communities. Higher traffic volumes on streets not designed for heavy use can lead to more accidents and diminish the quality of life for residents.
• Cyclist Preferences: Introducing bike lanes is a frequent component of road diet projects, aiming to encourage cycling by providing dedicated space for cyclists. While many riders appreciate these facilities, preferences can vary. Novice cyclists often prefer bike lanes for the sense of security they provide.

However, experienced cyclists may find certain bike lane designs restrictive, especially when vertical elements like bollards are present. These features can limit maneuverability and may be accompanied by obstacles such as debris or pedestrians, leading some seasoned riders to opt for general traffic lanes instead.

6. Next Steps and Future Considerations

6.1 When to Reference the Roadway Design Policies
City planners, street designers, and consultants in Glendale should treat the Roadway Design Policy as a core reference throughout all stages of a project. During early planning, referring to this document helps align proposals with the City’s transportation objectives and maintain compliance with local standards. As design work progresses, the technical guidance, such as lane widths, should inform project layouts and choices. When pursuing funding or grants, referencing the policy reinforces that a proposal supports plans such as the General Plan’s Mobility Element, Bicycle Transportation Plan, and the Pedestrian Plan. In later review phases, City staff and consultants should verify that submitted designs follow the policy’s recommendations. Using this document 237 of 449

consistently provides a shared framework across departments and project teams, promoting consistent and goalaligned infrastructure improvements. This document also serves to coordinate local decision-making with Glendale’s broader transportation strategy.

The policy translates high-level objectives from the City’s General Plan into practical street design direction. It supports Glendale’s commitment to creating safe, multi-use streets that serve all travel modes. The guidance here also complements Glendale’s Bicycle Transportation Plan, which aims to broaden the City’s existing bike network and make cycling more accessible. To meet these goals, teams are encouraged to consult the Roadway Design Policy together with these broader plans when choosing features like sidewalks, bus amenities, or bike facilities.

Standardizing practices across neighborhoods helps reduce inconsistencies and supports smooth implementation. Cities across the country have adopted similar design frameworks to align their capital projects with community expectations and improve safety. In Glendale, referencing this policy regularly will help every project contribute to the City’s transportation vision while streamlining the planning and design components of a project.

This document includes Table 1: Lane Reduction Feasibility Matrix at the end of Section 5.2. This matrix serves as a practical checklist to help planners, designers, and reviewers quickly assess whether a roadway segment meets the minimum conditions for a road diet. By referencing the criteria listed in the Matrix, project teams can determine early on whether a proposed lane reduction is likely to qualify as feasible, require further study, or be considered not feasible under current standards. Using this matrix can help expedite the design and review process by identifying clearly eligible corridors early, reducing the need for repeated traffic studies or extended public outreach for each individual project. When applied the matrix can improve the community’s support of a project by following a more targeted and transparent design approach.

It is important to note that the design criteria and lane repurposing guidelines in this document are not mandates.

They establish a consistent, streamlined process for evaluating potential street modifications, but they do not automatically trigger any lane removal without additional case-by-case analysis and approval. The purpose of setting criteria is to flag feasible opportunities and filter out clearly unsuitable scenarios, thereby saving time and resources. However, engineering judgment and context considerations will always play a role. Meeting a criterion does not guarantee a lane reduction will be implemented; it simply means the option can be explored further.

Conversely, if a proposal slightly exceeds a guideline, it may still be considered if other factors point to a beneficial outcome. In such cases, the City Engineer has discretion to require further study.

If a certain project corridor requires a study to determine the feasibility of a lane reduction, the study should include but not be limited to:
• Current and Future traffic forecast (Opening + 10 years) o Existing ADT (24-hour counts)
o Peak hour volumes (by direction)
o Intersection turning movement counts
• 85th percentile speed data
• End-to-end travel time
o Current (field measured) and forecasted (modeled)
• Intersection queue length
o Current (field measured) and forecasted (modeled)
o Visual/Video outputs from queuing forecasts (e.g., SimTraffic) • Collision History with Benefit to Cost Analysis
o 5 or 10-Year Collision Pattern and Density Analysis
• Segment and Intersection LOS (existing & future)
• Parking Utilization (occupancy counts)
238 of 449

• Loading and Short-Term Parking Zone Inventory
• ADA Parking Inventory
• Curbside activity assessment
• VMT analysis
o Mode shift potential (bike, walk, transit)
• Traffic diversion potential (parallel routes, local streets) • Preliminary geometric layout and concept plan
• Emergency access assessment (lane width, turn radii)
• Design vehicle accommodation (buses, fire trucks)
• Consistency with City plans (e.g., General Plan, Bike/Ped, Vision Zero) • Community/stakeholder engagement Strategies
• Pilot test feasibility (if applicable)
o Before and after study
o Post-project monitoring plan
• Summary of alternatives and trade-offs

6.2 Deferring Multimodal Enhancements
The City recognizes that maintaining roadway pavement in good condition is critical and sometimes must take precedence when resources are limited. To support this, this policy allows temporary deferral of multimodal infrastructure enhancements (e.g., pedestrian, bicycle, or transit-related features). This approach lets urgent pavement needs be addressed without permanently compromising Glendale’s Complete Streets objectives.

Deferral of bike lanes, sidewalks, transit amenities, or other Complete Streets elements is permitted only when all the following criteria apply. If full multimodal enhancements are not immediately feasible due to physical or funding constraints, the City may pursue a phased implementation rather than indefinite deferral • Pavement Condition Threshold: The street’s Pavement Condition Index (PCI) must be within the ranges below and treatments shall include only crack sealing, slurry sealing, and ARAM (Asphalt Rubber Aggregate Membrane) System 1.
o PCI below 91 but above 65 for Thoroughfare and Collector Roads o PCI below 86 but above 60 for Local Roads
• Funding: Deferral is allowed only when budget limitations or physical constraints make full implementation of Complete Streets elements unfeasible at the time of the pavement project. In practice, this means that if insufficient funds make it impossible to include all planned bike, pedestrian, or transit facilities, the City may consider phasing or postponing those enhancements.
• Documentation of Justification: Any deferred multimodal enhancements must be fully documented, including specific reasons such as budget shortfalls, design constraints, or pavement preservation needs that led to the decision.
• Future Implementation Plan: All deferred enhancements shall be tracked for future implementation in the City’s planning processes with approximate timelines. The postponed bike, pedestrian, or transit features will be incorporated into upcoming Capital Improvement Projects when feasible, assuming field conditions will not change.

6.3 Balancing the Community’s Wants and Needs
Looking beyond immediate design projects, Glendale recognizes the need for a broader shift toward multimodal transportation and strategic mobility planning in the coming years. This future vision emphasizes Complete Streets 239 of 449

and context-sensitive design for roadways that are safe and accessible for all users—drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, and transit riders alike. Policies like road diets, traffic calming measures, and enhanced pedestrian crossings will be systematically implemented to rebalance streets for safety and livability. Glendale also plans to expand its multimodal network by creating better infrastructure for active transportation. This includes exploring Transit Priority lanes or Bus Rapid Transit corridors for high-frequency bus lines, adding protected bicycle infrastructure and pedestrian pathways, and strengthening first/last-mile connections to transit. By encouraging mixed-use and walkable developments near transit hubs, Glendale can foster neighborhoods that support transit use and walking. This integrated approach will reduce reliance on single-occupancy vehicles and set the foundation for a more sustainable and efficient transportation system citywide.

Another key focus for Glendale’s future mobility planning is equity, accessibility, and sustainability. As identified in the Environmental Justice Element, the City will invest in communities to improve transit options and neighborhood infrastructure. All street projects will be designed to meet or exceed ADA standards so that seniors and persons with disabilities can travel comfortably and safely. At the same time, Glendale’s transportation strategies will align with climate action goals by promoting low-carbon travel modes. Embracing smart mobility technologies is another future consideration: the City will look to deploy intelligent traffic management systems, smart signals, and real-time data tools to optimize traffic flow and transit efficiency. Support for emerging mobility options, like rideshare and micro transit, will be integrated in a way that complements public transit and reduces vehicle trips. By coupling technological innovation with an emphasis on equity and sustainability, Glendale aims to create a transportation network that is not only efficient but also inclusive and resilient in the face of future challenges.
2025 Community Survey Results
Community feedback plays a key role in how Glendale shapes its street design decisions, and the results of the 2025 Glendale Community Survey reveal important preferences. Residents expressed low interest in trade-offs that limit vehicle travel, including the removal of travel lanes for protected bike lanes which ranked second to last among a list of improvement priorities. At the same time, the community signaled that safety on Glendale’s roads remains a high concern: unsafe driving, speeding, and related dangers were identified as among the most serious problems facing the City. The survey also revealed that pedestrian safety received more support than bicyclerelated improvements, highlighting that while some support exists for active transportation infrastructure, many residents place stronger importance on pedestrian improvements than on bicycle improvements. These findings illustrate a complex set of views: while people want enhanced safety, they remain cautious about changes that affect traffic flow and car travel.

Glendale must consider this range of viewpoints when evaluating which street improvements to pursue. Residents clearly want action on traffic safety. Curb extensions, crosswalk enhancements, and lane edge lines all offer ways to slow traffic and potentially increase safety without immediately removing vehicle lanes. Meanwhile, efforts to enhance cycling safety will continue in appropriate areas, using designs that minimize the effect on drivers, transit, and emergency services. Community engagement and flexibility will be essential, especially for projects that propose reconfiguring travel lanes. For pedestrian improvements which ranked as a higher concern than bike improvements, the City may prioritize measures like new crosswalks, ADA-compliant curb ramps, and sidewalk repairs. For bike improvements, Glendale can focus on low-traffic corridors, off-street improvements, or implementing trial projects. In all cases, transparent communication about how safety solutions address the concerns raised in the survey will be critical.

Moving Forward Together
Public engagement and regional collaboration are viewed as essential next steps. Glendale will continue to conduct community outreach to involve residents, businesses, and other stakeholders in transportation decisions, 240 of 449

recognizing that public support and feedback are critical for lasting change. The City will also partner with neighboring jurisdictions and regional transit agencies to coordinate improvements like aligning bike networks and transit routes across city borders to share data and best practices for traffic management. Through this collaborative and transparent approach, Glendale’s mobility evolution will be guided by both expert analysis and community values. As Glendale implements its Roadway Design Policy, it will continue to coordinate safety improvements with public priorities. This document provides the tools to do so with consistency and careful consideration for the residents and the communities they live in. By grounding decisions in both technical analysis and meaningful public feedback, Glendale can build more welcoming streets that reflect the shared values of the community.
241 of 449

7. Appendix

7.1 Glossary of Terms
• ADT (Average Daily Traffic): The average 24‑hour, two‑way vehicle volume on a roadway segment, expressed in vehicles per day (vpd). It is a measure of traffic demand. • Arterial/Thoroughfare: A major road designed for high capacity and longer-distance travel. Usually have 4–6 lanes and carry heavy traffic.
• Buffered Bike Lane: A Class II bike lane with additional painted buffer space (18 inch minimum) separating it from the adjacent travel lane and/or parking lane.
• Benefit-Cost Ratio (BCR): A measure of the cost-effectiveness of a transportation project, calculated by dividing the total estimated safety or societal benefit by the total project cost. A higher BCR indicates greater return on investment.
• Class I Bikeway (Bike Path): An off-street paved path completely separated from motor vehicles, for use by bicyclists (and often pedestrians). Examples might be paths through parks or along a river. • Class II Bikeway (Bike Lane): An on-street striped lane for one-way bike travel on either side of the road.

Marked by painted lines and bike symbols, sometimes with a painted buffer. Cyclists have their own designated space but no physical barrier to cars.
• Class III Bikeway (Bike Route): An on-street shared facility where bicycles and cars share the lane.

Designated by signs or pavement markings (sharrows), but no exclusive lane for bikes. • Class IV Bikeway (Separated Bike Lane): An on-street bike lane with physical separation from moving traffic.

Separation can be flexible posts, parked cars, a curb, etc. • Collector: A road of intermediate scale that connects local streets to thoroughfares. Generally two lanes, they carry moderate volumes and often traverse neighborhoods. They can be residential or commercial in character.
• Complete Streets: A design philosophy that calls for streets to be planned, designed, and operated for safe use by all modes and all ages/abilities including drivers, transit riders, pedestrians, and cyclists. • Curb Extension (Bulb-out): A horizontal extension of the curb into the street, typically at intersections or mid-block crosswalks, that reduces roadway width. Bulb-outs shorten pedestrian crossing distance and improve visibility by making pedestrians more prominent and slowing turning vehicles. • FHWA: Federal Highway Administration – a U.S. agency that provides research and guidance on road safety and design (for example, the FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide which offers evidence and best practices).
• Leading Pedestrian Interval (LPI): A traffic signal timing strategy that provides pedestrians with a head start of typically 3 to 7 seconds to begin crossing the street before parallel vehicular traffic receives a green light. • Level of Service (LOS): A qualitative A–F rating of traffic flow and congestion at an intersection or road segment. LOS A means free-flow conditions; LOS E or F indicates significant delays and congested conditions (vehicles may wait through multiple signal cycles). 242 of 449

• Level of Traffic Stress (LTS): A rating of bicyclist comfort/stress on a road, from 1 (very low stress, suitable for children) to 4 (high stress, only experienced riders). LTS considers factors like traffic speed, volume, number of lanes, and presence of bike facilities.
• Local Roadway Safety Manual (LRSM): A planning and evaluation tool developed to help local jurisdictions identify, analyze, and prioritize roadway safety improvements using proven crash reduction strategies. • Local Street: A smaller road primarily providing access to adjacent properties (homes, businesses). Local streets carry low volumes (usually less than 2,500 vehicles/day) at low speeds. • Peak Hour Volume: The number of vehicles observed in the busiest hour of travel (often morning or evening rush) on a road. This is used alongside ADT to understand capacity needs. • Protected Bike Lane (Cycle Track): A Class IV bikeway that has physical separation from motor traffic using barriers like bollards, curbs, parked cars, or planters. Also called a “separated bikeway” or “cycle track.” • Quick-Build: A project delivery approach that uses temporary, low-cost materials to rapidly implement street design changes before making permanent improvements. • Road Diet: A roadway reconfiguration that reduces the number of travel lanes (usually from 4 lanes to 2 plus a center turn lane) to improve safety and provide space for other uses. • SCAG: Southern California Association of Governments – the regional metropolitan planning organization. • Two-Way Left-Turn Lane (TWLTL): A center lane shared by traffic in both directions for making left turns. It is typically painted (not raised) with turn arrows and provides refuge for cars waiting to turn left. • Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT): A transportation metric that quantifies the total miles driven by all vehicles within a specific geographic area over a defined period, typically one year. VMT is calculated by multiplying the number of vehicles by the distance each vehicle travels. 243 of 449

7.2 Reference Materials and Further Reading

1. City of Glendale General Plan – Circulation Element (1998). City of Glendale, CA.

The adopted Circulation Element outlines Glendale’s transportation goals and street classification system.

Contains policies, street design standards, traffic calming, and bicycle facility implementation.

Status: Adopted (Update in progress)

2. City of Glendale General Plan – Mobility Element (forthcoming). City of Glendale, CA.

The Mobility Element, previously known as the Circulation Element, is undergoing an update to provide a comprehensive framework for a multimodal transportation network that accommodates all users, including pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and motorists.

Status: Under Development

3. City of Glendale General Plan – Land Use Element (1986). City of Glendale, CA.

The Land Use Element outlines the long-term vision for land use and development in Glendale, specifying the desired mix of residential, commercial, and industrial areas across the city.

Status: Adopted (Update in progress)

4. City of Glendale Bicycle Transportation Plan (2012). City of Glendale, CA.

The citywide bicycle master plan provides a 20-year blueprint for expanding and improving the bicycle network, including new bike lanes, paths, parking facilities, and education programs.

Status: Adopted (Update in progress)

5. City of Glendale Citywide Pedestrian Plan (2021). City of Glendale, CA.

A comprehensive plan to improve pedestrian safety and make Glendale more walkable. The plan (in two parts) assesses current walking conditions and recommends infrastructure improvements (such as sidewalks, crosswalks, and traffic signals) and policies to promote walking as a viable mode.

Status: Adopted

6. City of Glendale Vision Zero Action Plan (forthcoming). City of Glendale, CA.

A traffic safety action plan was launched to eliminate traffic-related fatalities and serious injuries on Glendale streets. It builds on the Pedestrian and Bicycle Plans and focuses on data-driven strategies in engineering, enforcement, and education.

Status: Under Development

7. City of Glendale Safe & Healthy Streets Plan (2011). City of Glendale, CA.

An active transportation and public health plan to encourage walking and biking. It outlines policies and street design changes to enhance safety and create a more inviting environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

Status: Adopted

8. City of Glendale Transportation Analysis Guidelines (2020). City of Glendale, CA.

Updated technical guidelines for evaluating transportation impacts of development projects under CEQA.

The City’s guidelines were revised to require a Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) analysis (replacing the old levelof-service metric) in compliance with SB 743, ensuring that traffic studies focus on reducing driving distance and greenhouse gas emissions.

Status: Adopted

9. Glendale Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program (2023). City of Glendale, CA.

Internal City program documentation outlining procedures and acceptable measures for traffic calming on 244 of 449

local/collector streets.

Status: Adopted

10. FHWA Road Diet Informational Guide (2014). Federal Highway Administration, FHWA-SA-14-028. – A comprehensive guide to planning and implementing road diets. Summarizes safety benefits, operational considerations, and case studies nationwide.

11. City of Pasadena Street Design Guide (2017). Pasadena Department of Transportation. – A modern street design manual from a neighboring city.

12. City of Los Angeles Complete Streets Design Guide (2018). Los Angeles City Planning & LADOT. – LA’s reference for complete streets elements, covering everything from lane configurations to pedestrian plazas. Provides context on design vehicles and emergency access. Illustrates traffic calming measures and their design considerations.

13. City of Los Angeles Supplemental Street Design Guide (2020). Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering & LADOT. – A technical supplement focusing on details like corner radii, curb extensions, and design vehicle standards.

14. Caltrans Complete Streets Action Plan (2024–25). California Department of Transportation. - This plan outlines the highest-priority actions over a two-year period (2024–2025) to implement the Complete Streets policy statewide.

15. Caltrans Highway Design Manual, Chapter 1000: Bikeway Planning and Design (2015). California Dept. of Transportation. – State guidelines defining Class I–IV bikeways and design criteria. Serves as the basis for bikeway standards in California cities.

16. FHWA Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) – California Supplement (latest). – The MUTCD provides standards for signage, striping, and signals. California’s version is referenced for crosswalk markings, bike lane symbols, and signal warrants.

17. U.S. Access Board – Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines (PROWAG). – Guidelines for ADAcompliant street design. Referenced for federal accessibility requirements for curb ramps, sidewalk clear widths, and crosswalk treatments.

18. NACTO Urban Street Design Guide & NACTO Urban Bikeway Design Guide. – Design guides from the National Association of City Transportation Officials, offering innovative urban street treatments and bike facility designs.

19. Federal Highway Administration. Road Diet Case Studies. U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Safety. 2015.– Contains 24 national and California-based examples of road diet implementations, including safety results, ADTs, outreach efforts, and trade-offs.

20. Environmental Science, Engineering. An Evaluation of “Road Diet” Projects on Five Lane and Larger Roadways. 2016. – Summarizes findings from multi-city case studies of lane reductions on 5+ lane roads.

Includes traffic volume, safety, LOS, and public response data.

21. City of Glendale. North Brand Boulevard Complete Streets Demonstration Project Report. December 2024. – Provides detailed evaluation of Glendale’s pilot road diet project, including public engagement, measured outcomes, and final conclusions.
245 of 449

7.3 Attachments
246 of 449
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 4.3

28.1 17.2

7.3 24
5 5.

24.2 5.2 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 1.67.7
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 7.3 15.8

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 4

12.9 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

23.3 21.8

18.2 8.8

7.5 33

38.2 12.8

10.9 3

6.1 10.9

8.1 5.7

4.5 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
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
Existing Daily Vehicle Traffic Volumes (in thousands)

CITY OF GLENDALE
Source: Kittelson & Associates, Inc.
247 of 449
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Acacia Ave Chevy Chase Dr Verdugo Rd U 2 5707
Adams St Chevy Chase Dr Palmer Ave U 2 4240
Adams St Lexington Dr California Ave U 2 5210
Adams St Wilson Ave Broadway U 2 5233
Adams St California Ave Wilson Ave U 2 5475
Adams St Doran St Lexington Dr U 2 5476
Adams St Maple St Chevy Chase Dr U 2 6089
Adams St Colorado St Maple St U 2 6138
Adams St Harvard St Colorado St U 2 6199
Adams St Broadway Harvard St U 2 6610
Adams St Palmer Ave South City border C 2 6919
Air Way Grandview Ave Flower St M 2 978
Air Way Sonora Ave Grandview Ave M 2 2001
Alameda Ave Bel Aire Dr Kenneth Rd C 2 1963
Alameda Ave Kenneth Rd Glenoaks Blvd C 2 3611
Allen Ave Lake St Victory Blvd U 2 1236
Allen Ave Flower St Lake St U 2 1632
Allen Ave Bel Aire Dr Kenneth Rd C 2 2627
Allen Ave Glenoaks Blvd San Fernando Rd U 2 4185
Allen Ave Kenneth Rd Glenoaks Blvd C 2 5790
Arden Ave Pacific Ave Central Ave U 2 4066
Artsakh Ave Wilson Ave Broadway M 2 2414
Artsakh Ave Broadway Harvard St M 2 3617
Boston Ave Santa Carlota St Foothill Blvd C 2 3456
Boston Ave Foothill Blvd I-210 C 2 3887
Boston Ave I-210 Honolulu Ave C 2 4122
Brand Blvd Kenneth Rd Mountain St M 2 4927
Brand Blvd Mountain St Stocker M 4 5195
Brand Blvd Stocker St Glenoaks Blvd M 4 13068
Brand Blvd Glenoaks Blvd Monterey Rd A 6 19767
Brand Blvd Wilson Ave Broadway A 5 20992
Brand Blvd Broadway Harvard St A 5 21071
Brand Blvd Los Feliz Blvd Cerritos Ave A 4 21247
Brand Blvd Harvard St Colorado St A 5 21337
Brand Blvd Cerritos Ave San Fernando Rd A 4 21341
Brand Blvd California Ave Wilson Ave A 4 21767
Brand Blvd Chevy Chase Dr Los Feliz Blvd A 4 21843
Brand Blvd Colorado St Maple St A 4 22446
Brand Blvd Lexington Dr California Ave A 4 22490
Brand Blvd Maple St Chevy Chase Dr A 4 23304
Brand Blvd Milford St Lexington Dr A 5 24248
Brand Blvd Doran St Milford St A 6 25515
Brand Blvd Goode Ave Sanchez Dr A 5 28223
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
St
ta St ta St
248 of 449
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
Brand Blvd San Fernando Rd South City border A 6 29035
Brand Blvd Sanchez Dr Doran St A 6 32493
Broadview Dr Ocean View Ave Verdugo Blvd C 2 4107
Broadview Dr Verdugo Blvd Valihi Way C 2 4461
Broadway San Fernando Rd Pacific Ave M 4 7709
Broadway Chevy Chase Dr Verdugo Rd M 4 12425
Broadway Columbus Ave Central Ave M 4 12724
Broadway Adams St Chevy Chase Dr M 4 13115
Broadway Glendale Ave Adams St M 4 13377
Broadway Pacific Ave Columbus Ave M 4 13448
Broadway Louise St Jackson St M 4 14104
Broadway Jackson St Glendale Ave M 4 14197
Broadway Maryland Ave Louise St M 4 14834
Broadway Verdugo Rd Wilson Ave M 4 15769
Broadway Brand Blvd Maryland Ave M 4 16605
Broadway Central Ave Orange St M 4 16849
Broadway Orange St Brand Blvd M 4 17203
California Ave San Fernando Rd Concord St U 2 1812
California Ave Chevy Chase Dr Verdugo Rd U 2 2221
California Ave Concord St Pacific Ave U 2 3692
California Ave Pacific Ave Columbus Ave U 2 4583
California Ave Adams St Chevy Chase Dr U 2 4819
California Ave Columbus Ave Central Ave U 2 6348
California Ave Maryland Ave Louise St U 2 6720
California Ave Glendale Ave Adams St U 2 6968
California Ave Louise St Jackson St U 2 7024
California Ave Central Ave Orange St U 2 7893
California Ave Brand Blvd Maryland Ave U 2 8101
California Ave Jackson St Isabel St U 2 8276
California Ave Orange St Brand Blvd U 2 8994
California Ave Isabel St Glendale Ave U 2 9749
Camino San Rafael Foxkirk Road Calle Amable C 2 6624
Canada Blvd Verdugo Rd (N) Opechee Way A 4 20632
Canada Blvd Opechee Way Wabasso Way A 4 21096
Canada Blvd Wabasso Way Verdugo Rd (S) A 4 22056
Central Ave San Fernando Rd South City border M 2 2192
Central Ave Kenneth Rd Mountain St U 2 5534
Central Ave Mountain St Stocker St U 2 9690
Central Ave Los Feliz Blvd San Fernando Rd A 4 10068
Central Ave Stocker St Glenoaks Blvd M 2 10397
Central Ave Chevy Chase Dr Los Feliz Blvd A 4 18224
Central Ave Glenoaks Blvd Arden Ave A 4 19538
249 of 449
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
Central Ave Maple St Chevy Chase Dr A 4 20559
Central Ave Arden Ave Goode Ave A 5 20640
Central Ave Colorado St Maple St A 4 20914
Central Ave Broadway Americana Wy A 6 21794
Central Ave Americana Wy Colorado St A 6 22473
Central Ave Wilson Ave Broadway A 6 24045
Central Ave California Ave Wilson Ave A 4 25821
Central Ave Lexington Dr California Ave A 4 27004
Central Ave Goode Ave Sanchez Dr A 4 27734
Central Ave Milford St Lexington Dr A 5 28076
Central Ave Doran St Milford St A 5 29538
Central Ave Sanchez Dr Doran St A 6 32795
Cerritos Ave Gardena Ave San Fernando Rd M 2 1586
Cerritos Ave San Fernando Rd Brand Blvd M 2 2911
Cerritos Ave Brand Blvd Glendale Ave M 2 3407
Chevy Chase Dr North-East City border Emerald Isle Dr C 2 2664 Chevy Chase Dr Emerald Isle Dr Linda Vista Rd C 2 3315
Chevy Chase Dr Glenoaks Blvd Verdugo Rd M 4 4560
Chevy Chase Dr San Fernando Rd West City border M 4 7298 Chevy Chase Dr Harvey Dr Glenoaks Blvd C 2 7648
Chevy Chase Dr SR-2 Lilac Ln C 2 8981
Chevy Chase Dr SR-2 Harvey Dr C 2 9524
Chevy Chase Dr Maple St Acacia Ave M 4 10880
Chevy Chase Dr California Ave Wilson Ave M 4 12110
Chevy Chase Dr Verdugo Rd California Ave M 4 12765
Chevy Chase Dr Acacia Ave Adams St M 4 13019
Chevy Chase Dr Wilson Ave Broadway M 4 13491
Chevy Chase Dr Central Ave Columbus Ave M 4 13543
Chevy Chase Dr Columbus Ave San Fernando Rd M 4 14513
Chevy Chase Dr Brand Blvd Central Ave M 4 15794
Chevy Chase Dr Colorado St Maple St M 4 15801
Chevy Chase Dr Harvard St Colorado St M 4 16481
Chevy Chase Dr Broadway Harvard St M 4 16930
Chevy Chase Dr Glendale Ave Brand Blvd M 4 17779
Chevy Chase Dr Adams St Glendale Ave M 4 19867
Colorado St San Fernando Rd I-5 Fwy Entry/Exit A 4 10007 Colorado St Adams St Chevy Chase Dr A 4 20989
Colorado St Glendale Ave Adams St A 4 22283
Colorado St Verdugo Rd East City border A 4 22806
Colorado St Chevy Chase Dr Verdugo Rd A 4 23450
Colorado St Jackson St Glendale Ave A 4 24483
Colorado St Louise St Jackson St A 4 25969
250 of 449
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
Colorado St Brand Blvd Louise St A 4 26664
Colorado St Central Ave Brand Blvd A 6 29335
Colorado St Pacific Ave Columbus Ave A 4 29365
Colorado St Columbus Ave Central Ave A 5 30867
Colorado St I-5 Fwy Entry/Exit Pacific Ave A 4 35001
Columbus Ave Doran St Lexington Dr U 2 2278
Columbus Ave Lexington Dr California Ave U 2 3056
Columbus Ave Colorado St Riverdale Dr U 2 4000
Columbus Ave California Ave Wilson Ave U 2 4091
Columbus Ave Riverdale Dr Chevy Chase Dr U 2 4480
Columbus Ave Wilson Ave Broadway U 2 5517
Columbus Ave Broadway Harvard St U 4 8371
Concord St Glenwood St Stocker St C 2 1861
Concord St Stocker St Glenoaks Blvd C 2 2417
Concord St Wilson Ave Broadway U 2 2860
Concord St California Ave Wilson Ave U 2 4559
Concord St Doran St California Ave U 2 7434
Concord St Glenoaks Blvd Fairmont Ave C 2 11603
Concord St Fairmont Ave Doran St U 4 14254
Doran St Columbus Ave Central Ave U 2 2045
Doran St Pacific Ave Columbus Ave U 2 3374
Doran St Concord St Pacific Ave U 2 3864
Doran St Louise St Jackson St U 2 5987
Doran St Geneva St Glendale Ave U 2 6434
Doran St Maryland Ave Louise St U 2 6819
Doran St Glendale Ave Adams St U 2 6945
Doran St Jackson St Isabel St U 2 7082
Doran St Central Ave Orange St U 4 7270
Doran St Isabel St Geneva St U 2 7379
Doran St San Fernando Rd Concord St U 2 7974
Doran St Orange St Brand Blvd U 4 8432
Doran St Brand Blvd Maryland Ave U 3 9810
Dryden St Everett St Cedar St N 2 2073
Dryden St Brand Blvd Louise St N 2 5054
Dunsmore Ave I-210 Honolulu Ave C 2 2241
Dunsmore Ave Foothill Blvd I-210 C 2 2440
Dunsmore Ave Santa Carlota St Foothill Blvd C 2 3330
Elk Ave San Fernando Rd I-5 Fwy Entry/Exit M 2 6055
Emerald Isle Dr Camino San Rafael Chevy Chase Dr C 2 1402 Ethel St La Zanja Dr Moncado Dr N 2 1769
Ethel St Glenoaks Blvd Viscano Dr N 2 2648
Fairmont Ave San Fernando Rd Concord St M 3 8848
251 of 449
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
Fern Ln Verdugo Rd SR-2 C 2 3440
Figueroa St North-East City border San Augustine Rd C 2 1996 Flower St Air Way San Fernando Rd M 4 1822
Flower St Grandview Ave Air Way M 4 6806
Flower St Allen Ave Western Ave M 4 7141
Flower St West City border Allen Ave M 4 7265
Flower St Sonora Ave Grandview Ave M 4 7352
Flower St Western Ave Sonora Ave M 4 11090
Foothill Blvd Boston Ave Dunsmore Ave A 4 22977
Foothill Blvd Lowell Ave Boston Ave A 4 23368
Foothill Blvd Dunsmore Ave New York Avenue A 4 25479
Foothill Blvd New York Avenue Pennsylvania Ave A 4 26961 Gardena Ave Central Ave Cerritos Ave M 2 1708
Geneva St Monterey Rd Doran St U 2 3339
Geneva St Glenoaks Blvd Monterey Rd U 2 6674
Glendale Ave Cerritos Ave San Fernando Rd A 3 12058
Glendale Ave Los Feliz Blvd Cerritos Ave A 4 14640
Glendale Ave Maple St Chevy Chase Dr A 4 20037
Glendale Ave Colorado St Maple St A 4 23983
Glendale Ave Palmer Ave Los Feliz Blvd A 4 24087
Glendale Ave Harvard St Colorado St A 4 24667
Glendale Ave Chevy Chase Dr Palmer Ave A 4 24791
Glendale Ave Broadway Harvard St A 4 25098
Glendale Ave Wilson Ave Broadway A 4 26482
Glendale Ave California Ave Wilson Ave A 5 26986
Glendale Ave Glenoaks Blvd Monterey Rd A 6 27738
Glendale Ave Verdugo Rd Glenoaks Blvd A 4 27823
Glendale Ave Lexington Dr California Ave A 4 28315
Glendale Ave Doran St Lexington Dr A 4 31782
Glendale Ave Monterey Rd Doran St A 5 38418
Glenoaks Blvd Glendale Ave Verdugo Rd M 2 6463
Glenoaks Blvd Harvey Dr SR-2 C 2 6609
Glenoaks Blvd Verdugo Rd Chevy Chase Dr C 2 6875
Glenoaks Blvd Chevy Chase Dr Harvey Dr C 2 7314
Glenoaks Blvd Geneva St Rossmoyne Ave M 2 8137
Glenoaks Blvd Mt Carmel Dr Waltonia Dr C 2 8165
Glenoaks Blvd Jackson St Geneva St A 4 11424
Glenoaks Blvd Rossmoyne Ave Glendale Ave M 2 11890
Glenoaks Blvd Louise St Jackson St A 4 16323
Glenoaks Blvd Brand Blvd Louise St A 4 19013
Glenoaks Blvd Central Ave Brand Blvd A 6 21985
Glenoaks Blvd Pacific Ave Central Ave A 6 23551
252 of 449
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
Glenoaks Blvd West City border Allen Ave A 6 27176
Glenoaks Blvd Allen Ave Western Ave A 6 28715
Glenoaks Blvd Kenilworth Ave Pacific Ave A 6 29494
Glenoaks Blvd Concord St Kenilworth Ave A 6 29686
Glenoaks Blvd Western Ave Sonora Ave A 6 31209
Glenoaks Blvd Sonora Ave Grandview Ave A 6 32971
Glenoaks Blvd Highland Ave Concord St A 6 33374
Glenoaks Blvd Grandview Ave Highland Ave A 6 33817
Glenwood Rd Highland Ave Concord St C 2 3939
Glenwood Rd Concord St Pacific Ave C 2 4344
Glenwood Rd Grandview Ave Highland Ave C 2 5058
Goode Ave Central Ave Brand Blvd A 2 10751
Grandview Ave San Fernando Rd Air Way M 4 1222
Grandview Ave Air Way Flower St M 4 1374
Grandview Ave Cumberland Rd Sonora Ave C 2 4224
Grandview Ave Kenneth Rd Glenwood St C 2 4650
Grandview Ave Glenoaks Blvd San Fernando Rd M 4 5282
Grandview Ave Sonora Ave Kenneth Rd C 2 5747
Grandview Ave Glenwood St Glenoaks Blvd C 2 7001
Harvard St Chevy Chase Dr Verdugo Rd U 2 2022
Harvard St Adams St Chevy Chase Dr U 2 2657
Harvard St Glendale Ave Adams St U 2 3740
Harvard St Maryland Ave Louise St U 2 5026
Harvard St Louise St Jackson St U 2 5316
Harvard St Jackson St Glendale Ave U 2 6095
Harvard St Brand Blvd Maryland Ave U 2 6528
Harvey Dr Chevy Chase Dr Glenoaks Blvd M 4 7074
Harvey Dr Glenoaks Blvd Holly Dr A 4 12805
Harvey Dr Holly Dr Wilson Ave A 4 20920
Highland Ave Kenneth Rd Glenwood St C 2 2245
Highland Ave Glenoaks Blvd San Fernando Rd C 2 5401
Highland Ave Glenwood St Glenoaks Blvd C 2 6764
Holly Dr Harvey Dr SR-2 M 4 18882
Honolulu Ave Ocean View Ave Verdugo Rd/ Montrose Ave U 2 6844 Honolulu Ave Rosemont Ave Ocean View Ave U 2 8692
Honolulu Ave La Crescenta Ave Rosemont Ave U 4 8807
Honolulu Ave Boston Ave Dunsmore Ave M 4 9687
Honolulu Ave Dunsmore Ave New York Avenue M 4 10433
Honolulu Ave Lowell Ave Boston Ave A 4 10554
Honolulu Ave New York Avenue Pennsylvania Ave M 4 11624 Honolulu Ave Pennsylvania Ave Ramsdell Ave M 4 12813
Honolulu Ave Ramsdell Ave La Crescenta Ave M 4 14076
253 of 449
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
Isabel St Doran St Lexington Dr U 2 1641
Isabel St Lexington Dr California Ave U 2 2449
Isabel St California Ave Wilson Ave U 2 3671
Jackson St Harvard St Colorado St U 2 3095
Jackson St Broadway Harvard St U 2 3892
Jackson St Wilson Ave Broadway U 2 5727
Jackson St California Ave Wilson Ave U 2 6181
Jackson St Lexington Dr California Ave U 2 7185
Jackson St Doran St Lexington Dr U 2 7683
Jackson St Glenoaks Blvd Monterey Rd U 2 8749
Jackson St Monterey Rd Doran St U 2 9855
Kenilworth Ave Concord St Glenoaks Blvd C 2 2283
Kenneth Rd Alameda Ave Allen Ave C 2 5149
Kenneth Rd Central Ave Brand Blvd C 2 5688
Kenneth Rd Allen Ave Western Ave C 2 6522
Kenneth Rd Western Ave Sonora Ave C 2 7332
Kenneth Rd Sonora Ave Grandview Ave C 2 8674
Kenneth Rd Pacific Ave Central Ave C 2 10398
Kenneth Rd Grandview Ave Highland Ave C 2 10471
Kenneth Rd Highland Ave Pacific Ave C 2 10901
La Crescenta Ave Montrose Ave Honolulu Ave A 4 11229
La Crescenta Ave Oakmont View Dr Roselawn Ave A 4 11623 La Crescenta Ave Roselawn Ave Verdugo Rd A 4 12385
La Crescenta Ave Honolulu Ave Oakmont View Dr A 4 12839 La Crescenta Ave I-210 Montrose Ave A 4 14212
Lake St Western Ave Sonora Ave C 2 2072
Lake St Allen Ave Western Ave C 2 2133
Lake St West City border Allen Ave C 2 2272
Lexington Dr Pacific Ave Columbus Ave U 2 2984
Lexington Dr Columbus Ave Central Ave U 2 3412
Lexington Dr Glendale Ave Adams St U 2 4589
Lexington Dr Adams St Verdugo Rd U 2 5003
Lexington Dr Louise St Jackson St U 2 5577
Lexington Dr Central Ave Orange St U 2 5954
Lexington Dr Maryland Ave Louise St U 2 5976
Lexington Dr Isabel St Glendale Ave U 2 6072
Lexington Dr Jackson St Isabel St U 2 6371
Lexington Dr Brand Blvd Maryland Ave U 2 6455
Lexington Dr Orange St Brand Blvd U 2 6573
Linda Vista Rd Chevy Chase Dr Figueroa St C 2 1521
Linda Vista Rd Figueroa St North-East City border C 2 1601 Los Feliz Blvd Brand Blvd Glendale Ave A 4 13030
254 of 449
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
Los Feliz Blvd Central Ave Brand Blvd A 4 16181
Los Feliz Blvd San Fernando Rd Central Ave A 4 21335
Los Feliz Blvd West City border San Fernando Rd A 4 29065 Louise St California Ave Wilson Ave U 2 5798
Louise St Broadway Harvard St U 2 5844
Louise St Lexington Dr California Ave U 2 5903
Louise St Harvard St Colorado St U 2 5972
Louise St Doran St Lexington Dr U 2 6353
Louise St Wilson Ave Broadway U 2 7526
Louise St Glenoaks Blvd Monterey Rd U 2 7709
Louise St Monterey Rd Doran St U 2 8383
Lowell Ave Santa Carlota St Foothill Blvd M 2 3283
Lowell Ave Foothill Blvd Honolulu Ave M 2 11646
Maple St Central Ave Brand Blvd U 2 1181
Maple St Adams St Chevy Chase Dr U 2 2611
Maple St Glendale Ave Adams St U 2 2698
Maple St Chevy Chase Dr Verdugo Rd U 2 2969
Maple St Brand Blvd Glendale Ave U 2 5350
Maryland Ave California Ave Wilson Ave U 2 3584
Maryland Ave Lexington Dr California Ave U 2 4306
Maryland Ave Milford St Lexington Dr U 2 4631
Maryland Ave Doran St Milford St U 2 5168
Milford St Orange St Brand Blvd U 4 2942
Milford St Brand Blvd Maryland Ave U 2 3462
Milford St Central Ave Orange St U 4 5199
Monterey Rd Louise St Jackson St M 2 4519
Monterey Rd Brand Blvd Louise St M 3 4634
Monterey Rd Jackson St Geneva St M 2 6795
Monterey Rd Glendale Ave Verdugo Rd U 2 7420
Monterey Rd Geneva St Glendale Ave M 2 12658
Montrose Ave Pennsylvania Ave Ramsdell Ave M 2 7428
Montrose Ave La Crescenta Ave Rosemont Ave M 2 7504
Montrose Ave Ramsdell Ave La Crescenta Ave M 2 9157
Montrose Ave North City border Verdugo Blvd/ Honolulu Ave A 4 16039 Mountain St Central Ave Brand Blvd C 2 3540
Mountain St Jackson St Rossmoyne Ave C 2 3822
Mountain St Rossmoyne Ave Verdugo Rd C 2 4308
Mountain St Brand Blvd Jackson St C 2 5440
Mountain St Verdugo Rd SR-2 A 5 21554
Mt. Carmel Dr Holly Dr Glenoaks Blvd M 2 3983
New York Ave I-210 Honolulu Ave C 2 2591
New York Ave Foothill Blvd I-210 C 2 3424
255 of 449
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
New York Ave Santa Carlota St Foothill Blvd C 2 3441
Ocean View Ave Broadview Dr Verdugo Rd M 2 6188
Ocean View Ave Honolulu Ave Broadview Dr M 2 8412
Ocean View Ave North City border Honolulu Ave M 4 9319
Opechee Way Canada Blvd Verdugo Rd C 2 593
Orange St Milford St Lexington Dr U 2 4296
Orange St Wilson Ave Broadway U 2 5085
Orange St Doran St Milford St U 2 5150
Orange St California Ave Wilson Ave U 2 5683
Orange St Lexington Dr California Ave U 2 6605
Pacific Ave Cumberland Rd Kenneth Rd C 2 6,144
Pacific Ave Kenneth Rd Glenwood St C 2 8643
Pacific Ave Riverdale Dr San Fernando Rd M 2 10179
Pacific Ave Glenwood St Stocker St M 2 12746
Pacific Ave Colorado St Riverdale Dr M 2 12933
Pacific Ave Broadway Colorado St M 4 20241
Pacific Ave Wilson Ave Broadway M 4 21621
Pacific Ave Stocker St Glenoaks Blvd M 2 22200
Pacific Ave California Ave Wilson Ave M 4 22862
Pacific Ave Lexington Dr California Ave M 4 23767
Pacific Ave Glenoaks Blvd Arden Ave A 4 26226
Pacific Ave Doran St Lexington Dr M 4 26293
Pacific Ave SR-134 Doran St M 4 27344
Pacific Ave Arden Ave SR-134 A 4 28374
Palmer Ave Glendale Ave Adams St U 2 7272
Pennsylvania Ave Santa Carlota St Foothill Blvd M 2 10523 Pennsylvania Ave I-210 Montrose Ave A 4 13670
Pennsylvania Ave Montrose Ave Honolulu Ave M 4 13985
Pennsylvania Ave Foothill Blvd I-210 A 4 18826
Ramsdell Ave Montrose Ave Honolulu Ave C 2 1932
Ramsdell Ave I-210 Montrose Ave C 2 4496
Riverdale Dr San Fernando Rd Pacific Ave U 2 3870
Riverdale Dr Columbus Ave Central Ave U 2 4186
Riverdale Dr Pacific Ave Columbus Ave U 2 5425
Riverside Dr West City border Western Ave C 2 5665
Riverside Dr Western Ave Sonora Ave C 2 8481
Roselawn Ave Broadview Dr La Crescenta Ave C 2 1871
Rosemont Ave Montrose Ave Honolulu Ave C 2 3731
Rosemont Ave Honolulu Ave Broadview Dr C 2 3822
San Fernando Rd West City border Allen Ave A 4 15551
San Fernando Rd Grandview Ave Flower St A 4 16241
San Fernando Rd Los Feliz Blvd Central Ave A 4 16531
256 of 449
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
San Fernando Rd Broadway Colorado St A 4 16974
San Fernando Rd Allen Ave Western Ave A 4 17096
San Fernando Rd Sonora Ave Grandview Ave A 4 17268
San Fernando Rd Wilson Ave Broadway A 4 17721
San Fernando Rd California Ave Wilson Ave A 4 18493
San Fernando Rd Flower St Highland Ave A 4 18519
San Fernando Rd Doran St California Ave A 4 19030
San Fernando Rd Riverdale Dr Pacific Ave A 4 19651
San Fernando Rd Western Ave Sonora Ave A 4 20261
San Fernando Rd Colorado St Riverdale Dr A 4 21517
San Fernando Rd Cerritos Ave Brand Blvd A 4 21538
San Fernando Rd Highland Ave Fairmont Ave A 4 22258
San Fernando Rd Chevy Chase Dr Los Feliz Blvd A 4 22309 San Fernando Rd Fairmont Ave Doran St A 4 22826
San Fernando Rd Central Ave Cerritos Ave A 4 22932
San Fernando Rd Brand Blvd Glendale Ave A 4 24343
San Fernando Rd Pacific Ave Chevy Chase Dr A 4 26272
San Fernando Rd Glendale Ave South City border A 4 31159 Sanchez Dr Central Ave Brand Blvd A 2 11501
Santa Carlota St Boston Ave Dunsmore Ave C 2 2282
Santa Carlota St Lowell Ave Boston Ave C 2 2362
Santa Carlota St New York Avenue Pennsylvania Ave C 2 3065 Santa Carlota St Dunsmore Ave New York Avenue C 2 3594
Sherer Lane Verdugo Rd SR-2 C 2 1077
Sonora Ave Grandview Ave Kenneth Rd C 2 1596
Sonora Ave Kenneth Rd Glenoaks Blvd C 2 3520
Sonora Ave Glenoaks Blvd San Fernando Rd U 2 11378
Sonora Ave San Fernando Rd Air Way U 4 13970
Sonora Ave Lake St Victory Blvd C 4 15153
Sonora Ave Air Way Flower St U 4 15685
Sonora Ave Flower St Lake St U 4 16736
Stancrest Dr Broadview Dr SR-2 C 2 999
Stocker St Everett St Cedar St N 2 2616
Stocker St Concord St Pacific Ave C 2 3489
Stocker St Brand Blvd Jackson St C 2 4797
Stocker St Pacific Ave Central Ave C 2 7608
Stocker St Central Ave Brand Blvd C 2 8298
Valihi Way Verdugo Blvd Broadview Dr C 2 2529
Verdugo Blvd SR-2 La Tour Way C 4 17563
Verdugo Blvd Montrose Ave Valihi Way C 4 23078
Verdugo Blvd Valihi Way SR-2 C 4 25447
Verdugo Rd Canada Blvd North Fern Lane M 4 8438
257 of 449
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
Verdugo Rd Fern Lane Opechee Way M 4 9701
Verdugo Rd Opechee Way Wabasso Way M 4 10410
Verdugo Rd Wabasso Way Sherer Ln M 4 10929
Verdugo Rd Glendale Ave Glenoaks Blvd A 4 11550
Verdugo Rd Glenoaks Blvd Monterey Rd A 4 12273
Verdugo Rd Broadview Dr Ocean View Ave A 6 12620
Verdugo Rd Honolulu Ave/ Verdugo Blvd Broadview Dr A 6 13493 Verdugo Rd Ocean View Ave La Crescenta Ave A 6 13830
Verdugo Rd Chevy Chase Dr California Ave A 4 14071
Verdugo Rd Sherer Ln Canada Blvd South M 4 14157
Verdugo Rd Maple St Acacia Ave A 4 14395
Verdugo Rd Wilson Ave Broadway A 4 14616
Verdugo Rd Colorado St Maple St A 4 15126
Verdugo Rd California Ave Wilson Ave A 4 15307
Verdugo Rd Monterey Rd Chevy Chase Dr A 4 17939
Verdugo Rd Harvard St Colorado St A 4 20195
Verdugo Rd Broadway Harvard St A 4 20550
Verdugo Rd La Crescenta Ave Canada Blvd North A 6 25495 Verdugo Rd Mountain St Glendale Ave A 5 38243
Verdugo Rd Canada Blvd South Mountain St A 8 41558
Victory Blvd Allen Ave Western Ave M 4 13095
Victory Blvd West City border Allen Ave M 4 13353
Victory Blvd Western Ave Sonora Ave M 4 17248
Wabasso Way Canada Blvd Verdugo Rd C 2 848
Western Ave Bel Aire Dr Kenneth Rd C 2 2807
Western Ave Victory Blvd Riverside Dr M 2 3401
Western Ave Kenneth Rd Glenoaks Blvd C 2 6006
Western Ave Lake St Victory Blvd A 2 14857
Western Ave Glenoaks Blvd San Fernando Rd A 4 17635
Western Ave Flower St Lake St A 4 19132
Western Ave San Fernando Rd Flower St A 4 27163
Wilson Ave San Fernando Rd Concord St M 2 1655
Wilson Ave Concord St Pacific Ave M 2 3096
Wilson Ave Pacific Ave Columbus Ave M 2 5329
Wilson Ave Columbus Ave Central Ave M 2 6139
Wilson Ave Central Ave Orange St M 2 9404
Wilson Ave Chevy Chase Dr Verdugo Rd M 2 9782
Wilson Ave Orange St Brand Blvd M 2 10234
Wilson Ave Maryland Ave Louise St M 2 10755
Wilson Ave Louise St Jackson St M 2 10915
Wilson Ave Adams St Chevy Chase Dr M 2 11201
Wilson Ave Verdugo Rd Broadway M 2 11247
258 of 449
Corridor From To
Street
Classification Total Lanes Total ADT
Glendale - 2024 Citywide ADTs
Wilson Ave Glendale Ave Adams St M 2 11275
Wilson Ave Brand Blvd Maryland Ave M 2 11328
Wilson Ave Jackson St Isabel St M 2 12912
Wilson Ave Isabel St Glendale Ave M 2 15211
Street Classification:

F= Freeway, A= Major Arterial, M= Minor Arterial, U= Urban Collector, C= Community Collector, N= Neighborhood Collector Freeway 22500
Major Arterial 9000
Minor Arterial 8000
Urban Collector 7000
Community Collector 6500
Neighborhood Collector 6500
Baseline ADT Capacity (per lane)
259 of 449
9c
25-89075

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Wilson Mini Park Playground Replacement Project

1. Motion to approve the final design for the Wilson Mini Park playground.

2. Resolution to dispense with competitive bidding for the purchase of playground equipment and authorize the Deputy Director of Finance – Purchasing or a designee to execute a Purchase Order with KOMPAN California, Inc. (KOMPAN) for the Wilson Mini Park Playground Replacement Project in the amount of $246,597.68, plus a 10% contingency of $24,659.68, for a total amount not to exceed $271,257.36.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for November 18, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The playground equipment at Wilson Mini Park has exceeded its recommended lifespan, with original installation dating back to 2008. To meet evolving community needs and comply with current safety and accessibility standards, this site requires a playground replacement and site upgrades. The City has been allocated $300,000 from LA County Regional Park and Open Space District (RPOSD) Measure A Funds to support completion of the playground replacement and site improvements.

Staff collaborated with two vendors to develop four different playground design options and conducted community engagement to determine the new playground design.

Through online survey results—available from June 2 through June 30, 2025—most respondents prefer the “Café and Ice Cream Store” design by KOMPAN California, Inc. (KOMPAN).

To complete project delivery, staff proposes using a national cooperative purchasing organization’s (OMNIA Partners) cooperative contracting process, ensuring contract compliance with public purchasing laws, efficiency with procurement process, and best value.
260 of 449
9c 2
25-89075

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the design, purchase, and installation of the Wilson Mini Park playground replacement in the amount of $246,597.68, plus a 10% contingency; and dispense with competitive bidding and authorize the Deputy Director of Finance – Purchasing, or a designee, to execute a purchase order with KOMPAN for playground equipment and site improvements, for a total project cost of $300,000.

ANALYSIS
In an ongoing effort by the Community Services & Parks Department (CSP) to provide safe recreational opportunities, facilities, and amenities, CSP is proposing to replace the outdated playground at Wilson Mini Park, originally installed in 2008. The new design will feature modern play equipment with enhanced accessibility, expanded sensory and imaginative play opportunities, and a new poured-in-place (PIP) safety surface.

Integrated shade structures will also be included to improve comfort and usability for park visitors. Additional site improvements include replacement of multiple park tables and benches, replacement of a drinking fountain, additional shade tree plantings, and landscaping enhancements.

CSP recommends that the City Council dispense with the traditional bidding process set forth in Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) Section 4.12.010(A)(1) and 4.12.010(A)(3), and authorize the Deputy Director of Finance – Purchasing, or a designee, to execute a purchase order with KOMPAN for playground equipment and site improvements. This process will result in quicker replacement of the aging playground and selection of the community-preferred design.

This playground replacement project is funded by Los Angeles County 2016 Measure A through the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District (RPOSD).

Measure A Funding:

After Proposition A ended, LA County completed a Parks and Recreation Needs Assessment (PNA), dividing the county into 188 Study Areas to identify park needs. In November 2016, 75% of LA County voters approved the Los Angeles County Safe, Clean Neighborhood Parks and Beaches Measure of 2016 (Measure A) – replacing Proposition A funding – to support parks, recreation, and open space projects/maintenance in perpetuity through a parcel tax that generates over $90 million annually.

Measure A provides funding through two programs: Annual Allocations, based on Study Area formulas, and Competitive Grants open to public agencies, nonprofits, and schools. Glendale benefits through Category 1 (Community-Based Park Investment), which supports projects like park upgrades and safety improvements, and Category 2 (Neighborhood Parks, Healthy Communities & Urban Greening), which focuses on highneed areas such as souths Glendale. 261 of 449
9c 3
25-89075
The City is utilizing Measure A annual allocations for Wilson Mini Park (Category 2) playground replacement project.

Community Engagement:

Staff released an online survey to gather the public’s preferences on playground designs and elements—made available in English, Armenian, and Spanish—from June 2 through June 30, 2025. The online survey featured four (4) playground designs (Exhibit 1), two (2) of which were created by KOMPAN and two (2) by Landscape Structures, Inc.

CSP promoted the Playground Replacement Community Survey through its June 2025 newsletter, social media platforms, and an outreach poster displayed at Wilson Mini Park. The poster showcased the four (4) design options and directed community members to the online survey.

Each of the four (4) proposed designs (“Hideaway Treehouse,” “Cloud Chaser,” “Café and Ice Cream Store,” “Happy Heights Climber”) offer a variety of themed play experiences, sensory features, mobility-friendly elements, and creative shade solutions.

Survey participants were asked to select their preferred design and provide additional comments.

A total of 122 responses were received (Exhibit 1). KOMPAN’s “Café and Ice Cream Store” design received the most support, with 44% of the votes. Feedback was positive, with many respondents highlighting the design’s creativity, accessibility, and unique theme.

A consistent theme in the community feedback was the need for shade and seating.

Many residents emphasized the importance of shaded areas to ensure comfort and safety, along with additional seating for parents within the play space. In response, KOMPAN incorporated a custom shade feature into the play tower structure and added an additional shade element based on site evaluations and the presence of existing trees. KOMPAS also conducted a sun exposure analysis to guide the strategic placement of the shade structure. Additionally, KOMPAN proposed innovative seating solutions that integrate seamlessly into the playground design, enhancing both functionality and aesthetics. These enhancements reflect the community’s input and have been thoughtfully integrated into the evolving design.

Cost Breakdown:

The estimated total cost for the community-preferred playground replacement for Wilson Mini Park is $246,597.68, plus a 10% contingency in the amount of $24,659.76, including demolition and recycling/disposal of the existing equipment, the purchase and installation of new equipment, poured-in-place rubberized safety surfacing, and shade elements.

Following a site assessment, staff identified the need for additional improvements at 262 of 449
9c 4
25-89075
Wilson Mini Park to address the condition of existing furniture and fixtures. New site tables and benches, a drinking fountain, tree plantings, and landscape enhancements will be planned and procured for the site. These enhancements will improve the park’s visual appeal, and long-term usability and are intended to enhance the visitors experience of this heavily utilized neighborhood park. The cost for these furniture, landscaping and signage will be $28,742.56 ($27,621.67+$1,120.89) and have already been appropriated by the City Council in the project budget.

See cost breakdown below:

Wilson Mini Playground Replacement
Products (Playground, 1 Shade Element) $ 86,355.06
Surfacing $ 45,396.29
Sitework & Installation (Including Security Pole) $ 85,136.64 Freight & Tax $ 28,209.69
CPSI Inspection $ 1,500
Payment & Performance Bond $ 5,388.69
Total Net Cost $ 246,597.68
10% Construction Contingency $ 24,659.76
Site Furniture + Landscape Improvements $ 27,621.67
Signage (Funder + City Regulatory) $ 1,120.89
Total Project Cost $ 300,000.00
The Glendale community was inspired by KOMPAN’s distinctive and imaginative play features, which are designed to foster inclusive play experiences. These elements support a wide range of developmental needs—social-emotional, cognitive, and physical—ensuring engaging opportunities for children of all abilities (Exhibit #3).

Founded in 1970 in Denmark by sculptor Tom Lindhardt, KOMPAN Inc. is a global leader in outdoor play and an OMNIA partner. Lindhardt pioneered the concept of play sculptures, and KOMPAN’s legacy designs continue to offer timeless, imaginative structures that become iconic features in any neighborhood.

Because this playground design was the community’s preferred choice and cannot be replicated by other vendors, staff recommends proceeding with the OMNIA cooperative contracting process without further competitive bidding. OMNIA Partners uses a “lead agency” model where a public agency competitively solicits and awards a master cooperative contract, allowing member organizations (the City has been a registered member of OMNIA Partners since 2012) to use pre-negotiated master contracts to purchase goods and services without having to conduct their own bids, and ensures contract compliance with public purchasing laws, efficiency with procurement process, and best value.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
263 of 449
9c 5
25-89075
The new playground design for Wilson Mini Park, prepared by KOMPAN, meet the requests and preferences of the Glendale community. The engagement process, consisting of a public online survey (Exhibit 1), provided the public with four (4) unique playground design concepts to consider for their community.

The public favored KOMPAN’s “Café and Ice Cream Store” for Wilson Mini Park (Exhibit 2), which was presented to the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Commission for its review and recommendation to the City Council for approval. The Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Commission was in support of and approved the recommendation of the community-preferred custom designs proposed by KOMPAN at the August 18, 2025, Commission Meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT
The playground replacement project at Wilson Mini Park will cost $246,597.68, plus a 10% contingency in the amount of $24,659.76.

City Council approved funding in the amount of $300,000 is currently available as follows:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$300,000 GL: 51200-4130-CSP-0020-P0000
PL: CSP01483AG
Measure A
Department Cost Center Program
Community
Services &
Parks
Projects

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The activity under consideration is categorically exempt either as a Class 1 project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301, which consists, among other things, of the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public structures, facilities, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of former use; or, in the alternative, as a Class 2 project pursuant to section 15302, which consists, among other things, of the replacement of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. 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 264 of 449
9c 6
25-89075
attached in Exhibit 4, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Direct CSP to use the traditional bidding process for equipment, installation, and site improvements at Wilson Mini Park. Traditional bidding would extend the bidding schedule and risk additional delays for design and scoping by a consultant. Additionally, this process could limit design options and forgo community-preferred playgrounds.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services & Parks Prepared by:

Joseph Gonzalez, Park Planner
Cindy Camberos, Assistant Project Manager
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Survey Results
Exhibit 2: Wilson Mini Park Playground Final Design
Exhibit 3: KOMPAN Product Information
Exhibit 4: Campaign Finance Ordinance Form
265 of 449
1 MOTION
Moved by Council Member __________________________________________, seconded by Council Member ________________________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby approves the conceptual plans prepared by KOMPAN California, Inc. depicting the replacement and layout of playground equipment at Wilson Mini Park, as more fully described in—and as shown in the Exhibits accompanying—the report of the Director of Community Services & Parks dated November 18, 2025.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
266 of 449
RESOLUTION NO. _____________________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, DISPENSING WITH COMPETITIVE BIDDING; AND AUTHORIZING THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE – PURCHASING OR A DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE A PURCHASE ORDER WITH KOMPAN CALIFORNIA, INC. FOR THE

WILSON MINI PARK PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $271,257.36.

WHEREAS, the playground equipment at Wilson Mini Park was installed 17 years ago in 2008 and has become outdated; and
WHEREAS, the playground equipment at Wilson Mini Park requires replacement to meet evolving community needs and to comply with current safety and accessibility standards; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Community Services and Parks has recommended the purchase and installation of playground equipment manufactured by KOMPAN California, Inc; and
WHEREAS, KOMPAN California, Inc. designs, manufactures, and installs commercial playground equipment to foster inclusive play experiences that support social-emotional, cognitive, and physical needs of children with all abilities; and WHEREAS, KOMPAN California, Inc. is well-qualified and has the capacity, resources, personnel, and desire to provide the City with playground equipment; and WHEREAS, KOMPAN California, Inc. is committed to sustainable practices with significant percentages of pre-consumer and post-consumer recycled products, the use of which further enhances the City’s efforts in sustainability; and WHEREAS, KOMPAN California, Inc. is a supplier registered with OMNIA Partners, a nationwide purchasing cooperative, of which the City of Glendale is a member, that enables public agencies to pool their purchasing power through competitively bid, nationally solicited contracts; and
WHEREAS, entering into a Purchase Order with KOMPAN California, Inc. will enable the playground equipment manufacturer to furnish cost-effective playground equipment; and
WHEREAS, the Wilson Mini Park Playground Replacement Project is funded by the Los Angeles County Safe, Clean Neighborhood Parks and Beaches Measure of 2016 (Measure A) through the Los Angeles County Regional Park and Open Space District; and
267 of 449
WHEREAS, sufficient funds exist to authorize the Deputy Director of Finance – Purchasing to execute a Purchase Order with KOMPAN California, Inc. for the purchase of playground equipment for installation at Wilson Mini Park; and WHEREAS, during an extensive community engagement process, members of the public favored a playground design by KOMPAN California, Inc.; and WHEREAS, authorizing the Deputy Director of Finance – Purchasing to execute a Purchase Order with KOMPAN California, Inc. for playground equipment and site improvements will result in the replacement of aging equipment with a design favored by the community; and
WHEREAS, given that outdated playground equipment must be replaced to meet evolving needs and standards in a cost-effective manner, it appears that adequate justification exists and it is in the City’s best interest—upon the recommendation of the Director of Community Services & Parks—to dispense with competitive bidding and authorize the Deputy Director of Finance – Purchasing to execute a Purchase Order with KOMPAN California, Inc. for the Wilson Mini Park Playground Replacement Project in an amount not to exceed $271,257.36.

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

1. The foregoing facts are deemed to be true and correct and are a basis for dispensing with competitive bidding and authoring the execution of a contract with a single source for the purchase and installation of playground equipment.

2. The Council hereby:

A. Dispenses with competitive bidding; and
B. Authorizes the Deputy Director of Finance – Purchasing or a designee to execute a Purchase Order with KOMPAN California, Inc. for the purchase and installation of playground equipment at Wilson Mini Park in the amount of $246,597.68, plus a 10% contingency of $24,659.68, for a total amount not to exceed $271,257.36.

Adopted this _______ day of _____________, 2025.
_____________________
Mayor
268 of 449
ATTEST:
_______________________
City Clerk

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 _______________, 2025, and that same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
__________________________
City Clerk
269 of 449
Help us pick
the next
playground
design for
Wilson Mini
Park by
taking a
quick survey!
Or scan the QR code
to complete the survey
Hideaway Treehouse
Cloud Chaser
Cafe and Ice Cream Store
Happy Heights Climber
A
B
C
D
 





 


Community Services
& Parks THE JEWEL C TY I

INCORPORATED
1906
Complete the Survey at:
ιϳϔϴϳϘϷϣϔϳϴϫϵϧϛϣϘϲϿϨϔϟϣϔϰϴϘϫϱ:

Complete la Encuesta en:

GlendaleCA.gov/Playgrounds
Exhibit 1
270 of 449
Help Pick the Playground for Wilson Mini Park

23.77% 29

44.26% 54

22.13% 27

9.84% 12
Q1 Which of the playground options do you prefer?
Answered: 122 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 122
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

HIDEAWAY

TREEHOUSE
(View
All Images)

CAFE AND ICE

CREAM STORE
(View All...

CLOUD CHASER
(View All
Images)

HAPPY HEIGHTS
CLIMBER (View
All Images)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
HIDEAWAY TREEHOUSE (View All Images)
CAFE AND ICE CREAM STORE (View All Images)
CLOUD CHASER (View All Images)
HAPPY HEIGHTS CLIMBER (View All Images)
Exhibit 1
271 of 449
Help Pick the Playground for Wilson Mini Park
Q2 Please provide any other comments on the design options.

Answered: 62 Skipped: 60
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Add a swing. 6/29/2025 6:24 PM
2 Please add more shade and a swing for both infants and toddlers 6/29/2025 6:23 PM 3 Please add a swing & more shade. 6/29/2025 6:22 PM
4 I think a pair of swings would be a great addition as well. Should balance areas for kids to use all parts of their body for entertainment and consequently appropriate active/muscle use 6/29/2025 9:05 AM
5 Any with more shade is always good 6/27/2025 6:29 PM
6 Cafe and Ice cream design will allow for the most creative and imaginative play. There’s many areas where different groups of kids can play and nobody will get in each others way, there’s enough areas to play and be creative. As a mother of two I love this playground the most!! 6/25/2025 11:47 PM
7 I love that the Cloud Chaser and Happy Heights options provide shade! The sun really beats down on the playground during the day. Shade makes a huge difference. The more the better! I wish that one of the options had a spiral slide. My daughter loves the spiral slide at the current playground. I would also have loved to see swings! My daughter loves swings too. Thank you for involving the community in this decision.
6/25/2025 9:39 PM
8 Add more shade please. - Miriam and Ines, age 6 6/25/2025 3:56 PM 9 Հետաքրքիր է 6/22/2025 9:10 PM
10 Can you please adjust more swings? 6/22/2025 7:48 PM 11 Different and so beautiful 6/21/2025 7:25 PM
12 This is so modern and beautiful 6/21/2025 7:24 PM
13 Love this! 6/21/2025 1:57 PM
14 Բարձրունքների ուրախ խոյան 6/18/2025 8:02 PM
15 Would like to see better shade options for the Cafe and Ice Cream design. Shade is very important!
6/12/2025 7:24 PM
16 I think adding another slide and including swings would make it better. 6/12/2025 6:27 AM 17 The shops are very cute! 6/10/2025 8:31 AM
18 My granddaughter Addison loves it. 6/9/2025 4:10 PM
19 The treehouse makes it seem like a park and helps it blend in to the natural surroundings.

Unrelated, hope you can do something about all the people who gather in the park to smoke. 6/9/2025 1:24 PM
20 Love the ice cream cart and the imaginitive play it allows for all kids 6/9/2025 7:19 AM 21 We like the swings and the look of a cafe! Could you keep the green slide? 6/8/2025 9:42 PM 22 Would like a design similar to Glenoaks Parks or Maple parks including shade options over the playground.
6/8/2025 9:17 PM
23 Purple not blue color please 6/8/2025 11:02 AM
24 I don't really like any of them, but the hideaway treehouse seems the best option. 6/7/2025 8:40 PM 25 Please put gate also so kids can be safe. Thank you. 6/7/2025 8:16 PM 26 Ավելի շատ խաղեր և ցանկապատ 6/7/2025 8:13 PM
27 Please close the playground with the gates so that he ball does not go out. Also please put the 6/7/2025 8:06 PM 272 of 449
Help Pick the Playground for Wilson Mini Park
plogs
28 More playground 6/7/2025 8:05 PM
29 Putting gates to make it secured. Regular maintenance for safer and clean place for kids. 6/6/2025 6:47 PM 30 No commets 6/6/2025 6:27 PM
31 The Cafe and Ice Cream store has more features and is more spread out so that more kids can play more comfortably. Also those features are more accessible to handicapped children. 6/6/2025 12:31 PM
32 My four children want to vote for the Cafe as well, but they don't have emails! 6/6/2025 9:40 AM 33 I like the café theme, my daughter loves to play restaurant at the park. It epithelial be nice to see more climbing options around the café for those who don't play restaurant. 6/6/2025 5:20 AM
34 I am just wondering why is the city changing all the playgrounds when there is nothing wrong with the old ones. A lot of kids miss their old structures. And it is so much money that these things cost. I wish the City acted a bit more wisely on these matters. 6/5/2025 10:07 PM
35 What a cute design and theme. I used to love playing pretend cafe when I was a kid. think the kids would enjoy this one the most.
6/5/2025 5:54 PM
36 The treehouse would be my 2nd pick, both of these options look like they provide more shade which is essential as our weather gets hotter.
6/5/2025 5:02 PM
37 The Cafe has a lot of creative play value. Supper cute! 6/5/2025 3:26 PM 38 Na 6/5/2025 3:18 PM
39 Needs more shade coverage 6/5/2025 2:29 PM
40 Such an awesome design! 6/5/2025 2:21 PM
41 love the creativity of the both the cafe and the treehouse but think the treehouse is the best choice!
6/5/2025 2:14 PM
42 Se ve hermoso y divertido 6/5/2025 2:09 PM
43 Everyone loves a treehouse! Add a ladder, a rope swing, and a peak a boo window 6/5/2025 2:06 PM 44 Love the hot air balloon also. 6/5/2025 1:56 PM
45 Love the tree house as well! 6/5/2025 1:26 PM
46 Love the tree house as it seems to be a place where children can hide, climb, use their imagination and have fun.
6/5/2025 1:08 PM
47 I actually would prefer the other designs but none of them have enough shade, truth is I don’t take my kid to the playgrounds that don’t have shade regardless of how cool they are. If the hot air balloon design had adequate shade I would vote for it. 6/5/2025 12:20 PM
48 This is my home park that my 2.5 year old daughter visits regularly so I am very excited. My biggest concern would be having the gate go all the way around the park with a gate you can open and close so kids don't run out.
6/5/2025 11:12 AM
49 the bright color is inviting, and who doesn't want to be on "cloud 9" 6/5/2025 11:03 AM 50 It needs to be bigger 6/4/2025 8:02 PM
51 I notice kids use the bathroom entrance wall to play hand ball or as a goal when playing soccer, can we add a designated spot for that behind the playground? 6/4/2025 9:44 AM
52 The one with the most shade please. 6/4/2025 5:21 AM 53 There should be swings at the park. Also there are two cafe elements for pretend play, both the main climb structure and the separate cafe. This seems a bit redundant, better to have two swings in the standalone cafe area.
6/4/2025 5:04 AM
54 Love the shade this is what parents are looking for and happy heights seems safe not too high not too low and more activity to do
6/3/2025 10:58 PM
55 There needs to be more shade coverings. During the summer heat while the kids want to be 6/3/2025 10:14 PM 273 of 449
Help Pick the Playground for Wilson Mini Park
outside the parks are unfortunately not feasible due to not enough shade. While updating is appreciated it is useless without proper shade. The shade coverings I see in all of the designs are not enough. Thank you to everyone involved in making our Glendale parks beautiful, fun, accessible and shady.
56 I chose the design with the most shade. I'm also a pediatric PT. The more climbing surfaces the better. Thanks for allowing my input.
6/3/2025 10:09 PM
57 This mini park is a great fun for so many apartment living kids - it needs things for the 2-3 year set but also for the 5-7.
6/3/2025 8:57 PM
58 Cloud chaser is very unique. But maybe add another slide do more kids can enjoy. Or swings. 6/3/2025 6:27 PM 59 Please make sure there are benches in the actual play area! Right now all the benches are outside the play area and parents can’t sit and watch their kids at a good angle 6/3/2025 6:26 PM
60 I would vote for cafe and ice cream but I think it lacks shade 6/3/2025 4:58 PM 61 These are all lovely! Please do incorporate as much shade as possible. My 4 year old was most interested in cafe and cloud, especially because they are different than other playgrounds we're at a lot. But I LOVE the shade in happy climber, even though that one seems more basic playground.
6/3/2025 3:19 PM
62 It would be nice to add a little swing set 6/2/2025 6:45 PM 274 of 449
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Legend
Glendale Boundary
Zip Codes
Survey Tally
0 - 1
2 - 4
5 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 43
Community Survey Responses - Location Density
275 of 449
Exhibit 2
276 of 449
277 of 449
278 of 449
Exhibit 3
279 of 449
280 of 449
281 of 449
282 of 449
283 of 449
284 of 449
285 of 449
286 of 449
287 of 449
288 of 449
289 of 449
290 of 449
291 of 449
292 of 449
293 of 449
294 of 449
295 of 449
296 of 449
297 of 449
City of Glendale DISCLOSURE - CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5744, “Campaign Finance Ordinance,” which became effective on September 9, 2011, and subsequently amended it with Ordinance No. 5768, which became effective on March 15, 2012 and Ordinance No. 5885, which became effective on November 3, 2016 (“the Ordinance”). The Ordinance prohibits: (1) A contractor* (including a subcontractor** the Successor Agency (“SA”), or the Housing Authority of the City of Glendale (“HA”) and that contract is subject to approval by the City Council, SA uncil member, SA member, HA member, ; and (2) Council members, SA members, and HA members from voting on matters concerning a contract with a person who has provided a campaign contribution. The Ordinance applies to a contractor whose contract requires the City Council’s, SA’s, or HA’s approval. A contract with the City, S Contract.” The Ordinance also applies to a subcontractor who has a subcontract through a City Contract. The Ordinance excludes a competitively bid contract awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. To assist members of the City Council, SA, and HA before they vote on a matter regarding a City Contract, the Ordinance requires City staff to prepare this report which discloses certain information about: the contractor receiving the City Contract, and the subcontractor(s) under the City Contract. A contractor must provide the information listed below when: A subcontractor must provide the information listed below when: The City Contract is subject to City Council approval; or The subcontract through a City Contract has a total anticipated or actual value of $25,000 or more; or A combination or series of City Contracts totaling $50,000 or more is subject to Council approval. A combination or series of subcontracts, for the same or different projects, have an aggregate value of $25,000 or more. Information that must be disclosed: Name of the person, entity, or organization (i.e., the Contractor or Subcontractor) Name of the Chief Executive Officer/President Chief Operating Officer Chief Financial Officer Chairperson All members of the Board of Directors All persons who own more than 10% of the person, entity, or organization Name of any campaign committee owned or controlled by the person, entity, or organization Please complete the following disclosure form: Contractor(s)*: Name Address Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip Chairperson Chief Executive Officer / President Chief Operating Officer Chief Financial Officer Board of Directors More than 10% interest owner * “Contractor” is the person, entity, or organization that is the party, or prospective party, to the contract with the City, SA, or HA or any member of that person’s, entity’s, or organization’s Board of Directors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization. Above please disclose these persons’ name and business address. Exhibit 4 298 of 449 299 of 449
300 of 449
9d
25-89087

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Elk Mini Park Playground Replacement Project

1. Motion to approve the final design for the Elk Mini Park playground.

2. Resolution to dispense with competitive bidding for the purchase of playground equipment and authorizing the Deputy Director of Finance – Purchasing or a designee to execute a Purchase Order with Great Western Recreation for the Elk Mini Park Playground Replacement Project in the amount of $369,839.00, plus a 5% contingency of $18,491.95, for a total amount not to exceed $388,330.95.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for November 18, 2025 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Elk Mini Park Playground Replacement Project aims to upgrade the existing playground, originally installed in 2004. The new design, integrated into a roughly 1,444 square foot play area, will feature modern play equipment with enhanced accessibility, expanded sensory and imaginative play opportunities, and a new poured-in-place (PIP) safety surface. Integrated shade structures will also be included to improve comfort and usability for park visitors.

To develop design concepts, CSP staff partnered with two vendors – Landscape Structures, Inc. and Great Western Recreation – to create four unique playground design options. Community input was gathered through an online survey available in English, Armenian, and Spanish, which was open to the public from October 3 to October 17, 2025.

The City is utilizing CDBG funds for the Elk Mini Park playground replacement project.

Additionally, staff partnered with Great Western Recreation as a result of successfully receiving funds through the 2025 California Parks and Recreation Society (CPRS) Statewide Healthy Play Funding Initiative so that Elk may become a National Demonstration Site and utilize a Play On! playground design, which promotes physical activity and fitness through active play (Exhibit 4), and receives a roughly 10% discount.

To complete project delivery, staff proposes using a national cooperative purchasing 301 of 449
9d 2
25-89087
organization’s —OMNIA Partners— cooperative contracting process, ensuring contract compliance with public purchasing laws, efficiency with the procurement process, and best value.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the design, purchase, and installation of the Elk Mini Park playground replacement in the amount of $369,839.00, plus a 5% contingency; and dispense with competitive bidding and authorize the Deputy Director of Finance – Purchasing, or a designee, to execute a purchase order with Great Western Recreation for playground equipment and site improvements.

ANALYSIS
In an ongoing effort by the Community Services & Parks Department (CSP) to provide safe recreational opportunities, facilities, and amenities, CSP is proposing to replace the outdated playground, originally installed in 2004. The new design will feature modern play equipment with enhanced accessibility, expanded sensory and imaginative play opportunities, and a new poured-in-place (PIP) safety surface. Integrated shade structures will also be included to improve comfort and usability for park visitors.

Additional site improvements anticipated include replacement of multiple park tables and benches and landscaping enhancements.

CSP recommends that the City Council dispense with the traditional bidding process as set forth in Glendale Municipal Code (GMC) Section 4.12.010(A)(1) and 4.12.010(A)(3), and authorize the Deputy Director of Finance – Purchasing, or a designee, to execute a purchase order with Great Western Recreation for playground equipment and site improvements. This process will result in quicker replacement of the aging playground and allow for the implementation of the community-preferred design.

This playground replacement project is budgeted at $400,000 for design and development through CDBG funds. Additionally, staff partnered with Great Western Recreation as a result of successfully receiving funds in the form of a 10% grant discount through the 2025 California Parks and Recreation Society (CPRS) Statewide Healthy Play Funding Initiative so that Elk may become a National Demonstration Site and utilize a Play On! playground design, which promotes physical activity and fitness through active play.

Community Engagement and Outreach
The Department promoted the Playground Replacement Community Survey through its October 2025 newsletter, social media platforms, and outreach posters displayed at Elk Mini Park. The posters showcased the four design options and directed community members to the online survey (Exhibit 1).

Each of the four proposed designs (“Bear Cub Hideout,” “Lilypad Landing,” “Mother Tree Grove,” “Wild Grove Woods”) offered a variety of themed play experiences, sensory features, mobility-friendly elements, and creative shade solutions. Survey participants 302 of 449
9d 3
25-89087
were asked to select their preferred design and provide additional comments. The survey was open to the public from October 3 to October 17, 2025, and available in English, Armenian, and Spanish.

A total of 98 responses were received (Exhibit 1). Great Western Recreation’s “Mother Tree Grove” (Exhibit 2) design received the most support, with 75.51% of the votes.

Feedback was positive, with many respondents highlighting the design’s creativity, shade, and nature-based theme.

The “Mother Tree Grove” design showcases a custom nature-themed play structure for ages 2–5, centered around a landmark Mother Tree. The space includes playful elements like lumberjack steps, a life-sized inchworm, a spinning leaf seat, a log balance beam, and a vibrant PIP surface featuring flowers and lilypads. As a response to community feedback and parental requests throughout CSP playground replacement projects, five 10’ x 10’ umbrella canopies have been integrated to provide shade throughout the area. At ground level, a variety of interactive play panels offer educational and sensory experiences, including Sounds of Water, Nature Find Me, Musical Composer, and a Frog Slide Puzzle (Exhibit 3).

Great Western Recreation
Great Western Recreation represents GameTime, a leading maker of inclusive, research-based playground equipment designed to support physical, social, and emotional development for all ages and abilities. Their PlayOn! program, developed with SHAPE America, offers 125 standards-based activities focused on six key play elements to promote physical activity and reduce childhood obesity.

GameTime emphasizes universal accessibility, multi-generational play, and sustainable design using recycled, durable materials that support LEED certification and environmental responsibility.

Staff recommends approval for the community-selected “Mother Tree Grove” design by GameTime for the Elk Mini Park Playground Replacement Project. This selection would allow the use of Healthy Play Initiative funding for implementation.

Cost Breakdown:

The estimated total cost for the community-preferred playground replacement for Elk Mini Park is $369,839, including demolition and recycling/disposal of the existing equipment, the purchase and installation of new equipment, poured in place rubberized safety surfacing, and shade elements, plus 5% contingency.

Following a site assessment, staff identified the need for additional improvements at Elk Mini Park to address the condition of existing furniture and landscaping. A new drinking fountain, site tables and benches, and landscaping enhancements will be planned and procured for the site as part of the project for a total cost of $11,669.05 303 of 449
9d 4
25-89087
($9,048.16+$1,500+$1,120.89). These enhancements will improve the park’s visual appeal and long-term usability and are intended to enhance the visitor experience of this neighborhood park.

See cost breakdown below:

Elk Mini Playground Replacement
Products (Playground, 5 Shade Elements) $ 225,972.47
Surfacing $ 55,417.88
Sitework & Installation $ 90,994.94
Freight & Tax $ 30,331.36
Payment & Performance Bond $ 5,840.00
Statewide Initiative Funding Discount $ (38,717.65)
Total Net Cost $ 369,839.00
5% Construction Contingency $ 18,491.95
Site Furniture + Landscape Improvements $ 9,048.16
CPSI Inspection $ 1,500.00
Signage (Funder + City Regulatory) $ 1,120.89
Total Project Cost $ 400,000.00
Because this playground design was the community’s preferred choice and Great Western Recreation/GameTime is an OMNIA Partners-registered supplier, staff recommends proceeding with the OMNIA cooperative contracting process without further competitive bidding. OMNIA Partners uses a “lead agency” model where a public agency competitively solicits and awards a master cooperative contract, allowing member organizations (the City has been a registered member of OMNIA Partners since 2012) to use pre-negotiated master contracts to purchase goods and services without having to conduct their own bids, and ensures contract compliance with public purchasing laws, efficiency with procurement process, and best value.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The new playground design for Elk Mini Park, prepared by Great Western Recreation, meet the requests and preferences of the Glendale community. The engagement process, consisting of a public online survey (Exhibit 1), provided the public with four (4) unique playground design concepts to consider for their community.

The public voted in favor of Great Western Recreation’s “Mother Tree Grove” for Elk Mini Park (Exhibit 2), which was presented to the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Commission for its review and recommendation to the City Council for approval. The Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Commission was in support of and approved the recommendation of the community-preferred custom designs proposed by Great Western Recreation at the October 22, 2025, Special Commission Meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT
304 of 449
9d 5
25-89087
The playground replacement project at Elk Mini Park will cost $369,839, with an additional 5% contingency, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $388,330.95. Additional site improvements in the amount of $11,669.05 include signage, site furniture, and landscape improvements, for a total project budget of $400,000.

Funding in the amount of $400,000, as approved by City Council, is currently available as follows:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$400,000 GL: 52100-2010-CSP-0020-P0000
PL: CSP01432AG
CDBG
Department Cost Center Program
Community
Services &
Parks
Projects

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The activity under consideration is categorically exempt either as a Class 1 project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301, which consists, among other things, of the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public structures, facilities, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of former use; or, in the alternative, as a Class 2 project pursuant to section 15302, which consists, among other things, of the replacement of existing structures and facilities where the new structure will be located on the same site as the structure replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity as the structure replaced. 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 4, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Direct CSP to use the traditional bidding process for equipment, installation, and site improvements at Elk Mini Park. Traditional bidding would extend the bidding schedule and risk additional delays for design and scoping by a consultant. Additionally, this process could limit design options and forgo community-preferred playgrounds.

Alternative 2: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff. 305 of 449
9d 6
25-89087

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Onnig Bulanikian, Director of Community Services & Parks Prepared by:

Joseph Gonzalez, Park Planner
Cindy Camberos, Assistant Project Manager
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Survey Results
Exhibit 2: Elk Mini Park Playground Final Design
Exhibit 3: Great Western Recreation Product Information Exhibit 4: CPRS NDS Recognition
Exhibit 5: Campaign Finance Ordinance Form
306 of 449
1 MOTION
Moved by Council Member __________________________________________, seconded by Council Member ________________________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby approves the conceptual plans prepared by Great Western Recreation depicting the replacement and layout of playground equipment at Elk Mini Park, as more fully described in—and as shown in the Exhibits accompanying—the report of the Director of Community Services & Parks dated November 18, 2025.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
307 of 449
RESOLUTION NO. _____________________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, DISPENSING WITH COMPETITIVE BIDDING; AND AUTHORIZING THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE – PURCHASING OR A DESIGNEE TO

EXECUTE A PURCHASE ORDER WITH GREAT WESTERN RECREATION FOR THE

ELK MINI PARK PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENT PROJECT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $388,330.95.

WHEREAS, the playground equipment at Elk Mini Park was installed in 2004, more than 20 years ago, and has become outdated; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Community Services and Parks has recommended the purchase and installation of playground equipment manufactured by GameTime, represented by Great Western Recreation; and
WHEREAS, GameTime manufactures inclusive, research-based playground equipment designed to support physical, social, and emotional development for all ages and abilities; and
WHEREAS, developed in collaboration with the Society of Health and Physical Educators (SHAPE America), GameTime’s Play On! program offers 125 standardsbased activities focus on six key play elements to promote physical activity and reduce childhood obesity; and
WHEREAS GameTime emphasizes universal accessibility, multi-generational play, and sustainable design using recycled, durable materials that support Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification and environmental responsibility; and
WHEREAS, Great Western Recreation is well-qualified and has the capacity, resources, personnel, and desire to provide the City with playground equipment; and WHEREAS, Great Western Recreation is a supplier registered with OMNIA Partners, a nationwide purchasing cooperative, of which the City of Glendale is a member, that enables public agencies to pool their purchasing power through competitively bid, nationally solicited contracts; and
WHEREAS, by partnering with Great Western Recreation to utilize a Play On! playground design, the City has received funding from the California Parks and Recreation Society (CRPS), 2025 Statewide Healthy Play Funding Initiative, in the form of a 10% grant discount; and
308 of 449
WHEREAS, entering into a Purchase Order with Great Western Recreation will enable the playground equipment manufacturer to furnish cost-effective playground equipment; and
WHEREAS, sufficient funds exist to authorize the Deputy Director of Finance – Purchasing to execute a Purchase Order with Great Western Recreation for the purchase of playground equipment for installation at Elk Mini Park; and WHEREAS, during an extensive community engagement and outreach process, members of the public significantly favored a playground design offered by Great Western Recreation; and
WHEREAS, authorizing the Deputy Director of Finance – Purchasing to execute a Purchase Order with Great Western Recreation for playground equipment will result in the replacement of aging equipment with a design favored by the community; and WHEREAS, given that outdated playground equipment must be replaced to meet evolving needs and standards in a cost-effective manner, it appears that adequate justification exists and it is in the City’s best interest—upon the recommendation of the Director of Community Services & Parks—to dispense with competitive bidding and authorize the Deputy Director of Finance – Purchasing to execute a Purchase Order with Great Western Recreation for the Elk Mini Park Playground Replacement Project in an amount not to exceed $388,330.95.

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

1. The foregoing facts are deemed to be true and correct and are a basis for dispensing with competitive bidding and authoring the execution of a contract with a single source for the purchase and installation of playground equipment.

2. The Council hereby:

A. Dispenses with competitive bidding; and
B. Authorizes the Deputy Director of Finance – Purchasing or a designee to execute a Purchase Order with Great Western Recreation for the purchase and installation of playground equipment at Elk Mini Park in the amount of $369,839.00, plus a 5% contingency of $18,491.95, for a total amount not to exceed $388,330.95.

Adopted this _______ day of _____________, 2025.
_____________________
Mayor
309 of 449
ATTEST:
_______________________
City Clerk

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 _______________, 2025, and that same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
__________________________
City Clerk
310 of 449
Help us pick
the next
playground
design at Elk
Mini Park
by taking a
quick survey!
Complete the Survey at:
ιϳϔϴϳϘϷϣϔϳϴϫϵϧϛϣϘϲϿϨϔϟϣϔϰϴϘϫϱ:

Complete la Encuesta en:

GlendaleCA.gov/ElkPlayground
Mother Tree Grove
Bear Cub Hideout
Lilypad Landing
Wild Grove Woods
Or scan the QR code
to complete the survey
A
B
C
D
Exhibit 1
311 of 449
Help Pick the Playground for Elk Mini Park
1 / 6

75.51% 74

6.12% 6

16.33% 16

2.04% 2
Q1 Which of the playground options do you prefer?
Answered: 98 Skipped: 0
TOTAL 98
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

MOTHER TREE
GROVE (View All
Images)

BEAR CUB
HIDEOUT (View
All Images)

LILYPAD
LANDING (View
All Images)

WILD GROVE
WOODS (View All
Images)

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES
MOTHER TREE GROVE (View All Images)
BEAR CUB HIDEOUT (View All Images)
LILYPAD LANDING (View All Images)
WILD GROVE WOODS (View All Images)
312 of 449
Help Pick the Playground for Elk Mini Park
2 / 6
Q2 Please provide any other comments on the design options.

Answered: 37 Skipped: 61
# RESPONSES DATE
1 Lily pad design having the over top coverage (umbrellas) is pinnacle for year round play, however could the design just be one large all encompassing umbrella/tent/canopy option 10/14/2025 11:18 AM
2 And a seesaw maybe? 10/14/2025 9:49 AM
3 Great design, very interactive, good shade. 10/14/2025 8:42 AM 4 Lilypad Landing and Mother Tree Grove (both awesome) provide the most shade for kiddos as they play. I think this is extremely important.
10/14/2025 8:37 AM
5 Like all the shading and the caterpillar. 10/11/2025 10:03 AM 6 Would love a see-saw, spinner, or one more animal to climb. 10/9/2025 1:49 PM 7 LOVE the caterpillar! 10/9/2025 9:25 AM
8 all are beautiful and will be a great addition 10/8/2025 5:18 PM 9 Really cool! 10/8/2025 12:48 PM
10 The Mother Tree Grove looks really fun with some unique play areas. 10/8/2025 11:34 AM 11 Mother Tree Grove is the most unique looking one of the group with the large tree stump 10/8/2025 10:20 AM 12 Love, love, love the treehouse theming, looks so real. The caterpillar is amazing, and the shade will be so nice. The other designs are nice but fail in comparison to the Mother Tree! 10/8/2025 10:08 AM
13 lots of shade! 10/8/2025 9:56 AM
14 Hi- I really like Mother Tree Grove 10/8/2025 9:46 AM 15 love the worm! Super cute! 10/8/2025 9:13 AM
16 My kids Love the play value and fun caterpillar 10/8/2025 9:06 AM 17 Love the shade and inchworm 10/8/2025 9:04 AM
18 Very close second is lilypad landing. 10/8/2025 9:03 AM 19 Love Mother Grove playground. One observation I’ve had, both as a parent of several children and from my experience running a daycare, is that the panel games (such as tic-tac-toe etc.) are rarely used by kids. In my experience, these types of features often don’t capture children’s interest for long and may not be the best use of budget or space — especially since the playground already includes a great musical sensory element. Instead, I’d like to suggest considering equipment that encourages more active and social play — such as a playground spinner or a see-saw. These are consistently popular with children and tend to get much more use and engagement. Thank you for your time and for continuing to invest in such valuable community spaces.
10/8/2025 8:56 AM
20 love the real life looking tree! 10/8/2025 8:33 AM
21 I like the realistic nature theming on the "mother tree grove" 10/8/2025 8:27 AM 22 Mother Tree Grove is super cute! 10/8/2025 8:25 AM
23 Lilypad Landing is my favorite. The Mother Tree Grove is cool too but the frog beat out the caterpillar for me.
10/8/2025 8:24 AM
24 "Mother tree grove" looks like a best option, so creative and nature themed. 10/8/2025 8:24 AM 25 Love the PIP and unique nature theme 313 of 449 10/8/2025 8:24 AM Help Pick the Playground for Elk Mini Park
3 / 6
26 Add a restroom please 10/7/2025 8:57 PM
27 Love the little worm 10/7/2025 8:34 PM
28 N/A 10/7/2025 6:35 PM
29 Maybe add a swing? Like 2. Would make it nicer and a full playground. 10/7/2025 5:46 PM 30 Option 3 has abundant shade and the custom rock Slide Tower/landing gives it a premium feel. 10/7/2025 11:55 AM 31 Love the shade! 10/7/2025 10:46 AM
32 Love the tree! 10/7/2025 10:27 AM
33 Whichever design is picked. I think it's important to have plenty of shade 10/7/2025 8:09 AM 34 Please provide more shade wherever possible. If the designs of the shades account for the position of the sun throughout the day it would be ideal. 10/4/2025 11:40 AM
35 The park really needs swings. We've lived here 14 years and my kids have always complained about there not being swings
10/3/2025 10:41 PM
36 This design providers more shade than the other options & that weighed on my vote. There are plenty of options for multiple kids on this playground. While the other options cater to 2-4 kids tops.
10/3/2025 4:47 PM
37 it is missing at least one swing and monkey bars 10/3/2025 8:32 AM 314 of 449
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Legend
Glendale Boundary
Zip Codes
Survey Tally
0 - 1
2 - 4
5 - 6
7 - 12
13 - 43
Community Servey Responses - Location Density
315 of 449
Proposal for
City of Glendale
Prepared by
10-30-2025
Job # 115451-01
Elk Mini Park Playground Option 5
435-901-9544 | www.gwpark.com
Exhibit 2
316 of 449
317 of 449
318 of 449
319 of 449
320 of 449
321 of 449
322 of 449
323 of 449
324 of 449
325 of 449
326 of 449
327 of 449
gametime.com 800.235.2440

WARRANTY
GameTime offers a comprehensive warranty on all of our products.

For the purpose of this warranty, “lifetime” encompasses no specific term of years, but rather that the Seller warrants to its original customer for as long as the original customer owns the product, and uses the product for its intended purpose, that the product and all its parts will be free from defects in material and manufacturing workmanship.
• Lifetime limited warranty on PowerScape®, PrimeTime®, Xscape® & IONiX® and Modern City® uprights. • Lifetime limited warranty on Tru-Loc® connections and upright bolt-through connections. • Lifetime limited warranty on all hardware.
• Twenty-Year limited warranty on Timber Décor & Timbers recycled plastic lumber. • Fifteen-Year limited warranty on metal decks, pipes, rungs, rails, loops, braces, and footbucks. • Fifteen-Year limited warranty on rotationally-molded products. • Fifteen-Year limited warranty on VistaRopeTM nylon bearings and ring junction pieces. • Ten-Year limited warranty on GTFit®, THRIVE® and Challenge Course posts & bars. • Ten-Year limited warranty on site furnishings against structural failure. • Ten-Year limited warranty on SunBlox products.
• Ten-Year limited warranty on fiberglass and DHPL signage. • Ten-Year limited warranty on VistaRopeTM WeaveTechTM cables. • Five-Year limited warranty on Tuff Forms® structures, including TuffCrete and PolyShield. • Five-Year limited warranty on nylon-covered cable net climbers and components. • Five-Year limited warranty on GT Symphony FreenotesTM Harmony Park components. • Five-Year limited warranty on Super Seats.
• Five-Year limited warranty on premature wear of VistaRope cables. • Three-Year limited warranty on EveryBODY Plays® polyurea coated foam & rubber strips. • Three-Year limited warranty on SaddleMates rubber and “C”-springs. • Three-Year limited warranty on rubber seat and rubber mats for net events. • One-Year limited warranty on Challenge Course timing components. • One-Year limited warranty on all other GameTime products.

TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, THESE WARRANTIES ARE EXPRESSLY IN LIEU OF ANY OTHER

IMPLIED OR EXPRESSED WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS BY ANY PERSON, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS. Warranties do not cover damage caused by vandalism or abuse. Warranty claims must be filed within the applicable warranty period and accompanied by a copy of the original invoice or GameTime invoice number.
328 of 449
Exhibit 3
329 of 449
330 of 449
Statewide
Initiative
Recognition
Report prepared July 2025 by:

C O N G R AT U L AT IO N S O N Y O U R U P C O M IN G

N AT I O N A L D E M O N S T R AT I O N S IT E
Elk Mini-Park
Glendale, CA
Exhibit 4
331 of 449
2 PlayCore’s Center for Outreach, Research, and
Education (CORE) uses research and advocacy to
help build healthy communities through play and
recreation. CORE and our Data Service Lab
developed the Community Vitality Framework for
an evidence-based approach, grounded in
comprehensive and validated research that
organizes and communicates the seven indicators
of a vital community.

SO C IAL & EM O T IO NAL H EAL T H
Total community well-being including social, emotional, and mental wellness.

PH YS ICAL H EAL T H & L IF ES TY L E B EHA VIO RS
Health status of the community and a wide variety of health behaviors.

DI VER SIT Y , E QU IT Y & IN CL USI ON
Social determinants of health to ensure diverse, equitable, and economically balanced populations have opportunities to be healthy.

CO M M UNI TY EN G AG EM EN T
Active participation from community members to create a strong sense of connection and nurture creative opportunities for residents.

PU BL IC SER VIC ES
Factors and perceptions of the local services and public spaces.

EN VIR O NM ENT
Natural and built environments supporting health and safety which are essential to a sustainable community.

ED UCA TI ON
Participation and educational attainment of community from early childcare to adult learning.

Community Vitality
S t a t ew i d e In i t i at i v e P r og r am I C P R S 2 02 5 Indicator
Use this recommendation to
see how your site’s outcome
data connects to the health
and vitality of your community.

Use the Community Vitality
Framework to help you tell
your impact story.
.
332 of 449
3 State Data for Impact
S t a t ew i d e In i t i at i v e P r og r am I C P R S 2 02 5 This table provides a comparison between state and national averages. This data is summarized by different geographic scales that are defined by population size.

Your site can play a vital
role in the community by
providing a high-quality
outdoor space for physical
activity and mental reprieve
for all ages and abilities to
develop meaningful
connections.
.

Map featuring 2022 population counts by county. It was created using CORE Data Lab’s Data Explorer & Mapping tool.

Metric
Community Vitality Indicator
State
Average
National
Average
Metric Definition
Geographic Scale of Your NDS Site Area Data, Source
Adult Poor Mental Health
Social & Emotional Health 17% 17%
Percent of adults reporting poor mental health for
two weeks or more.

Census Tract, CDC1
Adult Obesity
Physical Health & Lifestyle Behaviors
30% 38% Percent of adults with obesity.

Census Tract, CDC1
Youth Disability
Diversity, Equity & Inclusion 4% 5%
Estimated number of people under age 18 with
one or more disabilities.

Census Tract, Census2
Families in Poverty
Diversity, Equity & Inclusion 9% 11%
Estimated percent of all families that live in
poverty.

Census Tract, Census3
Walkability Index
Environment

12.2 Above
Average
10 Areas with mixtures of land use and transportation
infrastructure that promote walking.

Block Group, EPA4
California was home to 39,538,223 people in
2022.
333 of 449
Based on your community’s needs, we recommend the following National Demonstration Site design best practice to address the community vitality goals identified for your site.

National Demonstration Site Design Recommendation
S t a t ew i d e In i t i at i v e P r og r am I C P R S 2 02 5 Organization: City of Glendale
Site Name: Elk Mini-Park City: Glendale, CA
Top Community Vitality Goals Identified for YOUR Site in Application:

Physical Health Outcomes: active play at a variety of challenge levels Public Service Outcomes: publicly available, well-maintained, and drives public satisfaction
By organizing NDS designations around your site’s Community Vitality goals, you become equipped to turn research into practice to tell the unique story of your site’s impact.

PlayOn! Designs Encourage More Physical Activity and Enables Children to Learn New Motor Skills
Each additional play element can result in 50% more physical activity.5 Moreover, exposure to playgrounds can lead to over a 40% improvement in motor skill competencies.6
Pathways for Play Designs Educate Visitors about their Community Leading to Stronger Community Connections.

Trail users express stronger place attachment & community connectedness.12 Literary trails contribute to an understanding of the outdoor space and connects its heritage to a larger idea of the community.13 Inclusive Designs Provides Places to Play & Recreate for All Ages and Abilities – Improving Social & Mental Health
Inclusive play spaces that fosters multigenerational interactions across all ages and abilities can support children’s independent mobility and individual social and creative skills.7
Outdoor Fitness Designs Serve as Publicly Accessible Physical Activity Spaces Which Can Increase Visit Frequency
Fitness in park settings increases recognition of parks as settings for physical activity.8 Park users moderate to vigorous physical activity can increase up to 40% after an outdoor fitness install.9
NatureGround Designs Create Opportunities to Improve Mood & Social Development through Nature Interactions
Natural playgrounds supports children’s cognitive, physical, social and emotional development.10 Natural features facilitate group play, communication, and collaboration.11
334 of 449

REFERENCES
, 2023, All Rights Reserved.

PlayCore established the Center for Outreach, Research, and Education (CORE) to help communities turn research into practice by researching and advocating for the impact of play and recreation on a community’s vitality and why it’s valuable to invest in community health and wellness.

CORE Data Service Lab uses data-driven strategies specific to your community to enable actionable recommendations and personalized support, maximizing your positive impacts on your community.

For general information on the National Demonstration Site program, go to www.playcore.com/nds.

For access to your National Demonstration Site online portal, go to app.coredataservicelab.com.

For further assistance, please email [email protected]. 1Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey. Available at cdc.gov/BRFSS.
2U.S. Census Bureau (2021). American community survey: Disability characteristics, S1810. Retrieved from https://data.census.gov/table?q=S1810
3U.S. Census Bureau (2021). American community survey, Selected population profile in the United States, S0201.

Retrieved from https://data.census.gov/table?q=S0201
4U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2021). Smart location mapping: Interactive maps and data for measuring location efficiency and the built environment. Retrieved from https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smart-location-mapping. 5Nelischer, C., & Loukaitou-Sideris, A. (2023). Intergenerational public space design and policy: A review of the literature.

Journal of Planning Literature, 38(1), 19-32.
6Cohen, D. A., Han, B., Williamson, S., Nagel, C., McKenzie, T. L., Evenson, K. R., & Harnik, P. (2020). Playground features and physical activity in US neighborhood parks. Preventive Medicine, 131, 105945. 7Tortella, P., Haga, M., Loras, H., Sigmundsson, H., & Fumagalli, G. (2016). Motor skill development in Italian pre-school children induced by structured activities in a specific playground. PloS one, 11(7), e0160244. 8Sibson, R., Scherrer, P., & Ryan, M. M. (2018). ‘I think it adds value, but I don’t use it’: use, perceptions and attitudes of outdoor exercise equipment in an urban public park. Annals of Leisure Research, 21(1), 58-73. 9Cranney, L., Phongsavan, P., Kariuki, M., Stride, V., Scott, A., Hua, M., & Bauman, A. (2016). Impact of an outdoor gym on park users’ physical activity: A natural experiment. Health & Place, 37, 26-34. 10Victoria Carr & Eleanor Luken (2014) Playscapes: A pedagogical paradigm for play and learning. International Journal of Play, 3(1), 69-83
11Coe, D. P., Flynn, J. I., Wolff, D. L., Scott, S. N., & Durham, S. (2014). Children’s physical activity levels and utilization of a traditional versus natural playground. Children, Youth and Environments, 24(3), 1-15. 12Moore, R. L., & Scott, D. (2003). Place attachment and context: Comparing a park and a trail within. Forest Science, 49(6), 877-884.
13Saretzki, A. (2013). Literary trails, urban space and the actualization of heritage. Almatourism –Journal of Tourism, Culture and Territorial Development, 4(8), 61-77.
335 of 449
City of Glendale

DISCLOSURE - CAMPAIGN FINANCE ORDINANCE
The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 5744, “Campaign Finance Ordinance,” which became effective on September 9, 2011, and subsequently amended it with Ordinance No. 5768, which became effective on March 15, 2012 and Ordinance No. 5885, which became effective on November 3, 2016 (“the Ordinance”). The Ordinance prohibits: (1) A contractor* (including a subcontractor**)― who has a contract with the City of Glendale (“City”), the Successor Agency (“SA”), or the Housing Authority of the City of Glendale (“HA”) and that contract is subject to approval by the City Council, SA, or HA― from making a contribution to a City Council member, SA member, HA member, City Clerk, or City Treasurer; and (2) Council members, SA members, and HA members from voting on matters concerning a contract with a person who has provided a campaign contribution.

The Ordinance applies to a contractor whose contract requires the City Council’s, SA’s, or HA’s approval. A contract with the City, SA, or HA is known as a “City Contract.” The Ordinance also applies to a subcontractor who has a subcontract through a City Contract. The Ordinance excludes a competitively bid contract awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.

To assist members of the City Council, SA, and HA before they vote on a matter regarding a City Contract, the Ordinance requires City staff to prepare this report which discloses certain information about: the contractor receiving the City Contract, and the subcontractor(s) working under the City Contract.

A contractor must provide the information listed below when: A subcontractor must provide the information listed below when:
• The City Contract is subject to City Council approval; or • The subcontract through a City Contract has a total anticipated or actual value of $25,000 or more; or
• A combination or series of City Contracts totaling $50,000 or more is subject to Council approval.
• A combination or series of subcontracts, for the same or different projects, have an aggregate value of $25,000 or more.

Information that must be disclosed: ● Name of the person, entity, or organization (i.e., the Contractor or Subcontractor) ● Name of the Chief Executive Officer/President
● Chief Operating Officer
● Chief Financial Officer
● Chairperson
● All members of the Board of Directors
● All persons who own more than 10% of the person, entity, or organization ● Name of any campaign committee owned or controlled by the person, entity, or organization Please complete the following disclosure form:

Contractor(s)*:

Name Address
PlayCore Wisconsin, Inc. DBA GameTime 150 PlayCore Drive SE, Fort Payne, AL 35967 Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Roger Posacki Chief Executive Officer / President 544 Chestnut Street Chattanooga TN 37402 Chief Operating Officer
Richard E. Ruegger Chief Financial Officer 544 Chestnut Street Chattanooga TN 37402 Board of Directors
Court Square Capital Partners More than 10% interest owner 55 East 52nd Street, 34th Floor New York NY 10055 * “Contractor” is the person, entity, or organization that is the party, or prospective party, to the contract with the City, SA, or HA or any member of that person’s, entity’s, or organization’s Board of Directors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization. Above please disclose these persons’ name and business address.

Exhibit 5
336 of 449
Rev. 11/8/17
Subcontractor(s)**:

Name Address
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
** “Subcontractor” is the person, entity, or organization that has entered into a contract for the performance of all or a portion of the work undertaken under an agreement with an architect, design professional, engineer, or general or prime contract, usually by a general or prime contractor. Subcontractor includes any member of that person’s, entity’s, or organization’s Board of Directors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operating Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entity, or organization, and any campaign committee that is owned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization. Above please disclose these persons’ name and business address.

Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:

Title Business Address City State Zip

CERTIFICATION
On behalf of the above-named Contractor Subcontractor:
• I acknowledge that I have a continuing obligation to update this disclosure form if I substitute― or if I select additional― architects, design professionals, contractors, or subcontractors within ten (10) days of the selection or change; and • I hereby certify that:
▪ I have identified all persons for which the Ordinance requires disclosure; ▪ The information in this disclosure form (and any attachment to this form) is true, accurate, correct, and complete; and ▪ I have been legally authorized to submit this disclosure form.

In total, this disclosure form (including attachments) is 2 pages.

Executed on: October 30 , 20 25 , at: Fort Payne , Alabama Signature: Print Full Name: Clint Whiteside
Address: 150 PlayCore Drive SE, Fort Payne, AL 35967
Phone Number: (256) 845-5610 E-mail Address: [email protected] 337 of 449
10a

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive: Consideration of Glendale Register Nomination and Request for a Mills Act Historic Property Contract.

1. Resolution to designate the residential property at 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive as a historic resource in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act Historical Property Contract with the property owner.

2. Motion to deny the request of the property owner to designate the residential property at 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive as a historic resource in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for November 18, 2025 Calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owner of 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive requests that City Council list the property in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and authorize a Mills Act historical property contract. The one-story, single-family residence was built in 1923 and is a distinctive and exemplary example of Tudor Revival style architecture.

On October 16, 2025, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the nomination and voted unanimously (4-0) to recommend to the City Council that the property at 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive be listed in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. In keeping with the City’s naming protocol, HPC recommends that the property at 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive be referred as MacBride House. HPC also recommended that the City Manager be authorized to enter into a Mills Act historic property contract with the property owner, including the work conditions approved by the commission, under Section 15.20.070A of the Glendale Municipal Code. 338 of 449
2 10a

RECOMMENDATION
That City Council list 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under designation Criterion 3 and authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act historic property contract, with the conditions approved by HPC, between the City and the property owner under Section 15.20.070A of the Glendale Municipal Code.

BACKGROUND
Historical Background
1855 Verdugo Knolls was built in 1923 for Ruth Kirker MacBride by contractor Henry Nash for a cost of $8,000. The land where the property sits was subdivided in 1922 by real estate broker Thomas B Nichols and Harry Silas Graul. The first sale of the northwest portion of the irregularly shaped lot was to Thomas Minford on April 11, 1923.

A May 1923 deed indicated that the remaining portion of the lot was transferred to a widow by the name of I.D. Cook. The sale must have fallen through, because Nichols and Graul transferred that portion of the lot to Ruth K. MacBride in November of 1923.

Ruth MacBride was born on April 11, 1880 in Jersey City, New Jersey as the second of four daughters and a son born to Irish-born Nathaniel and New York-born Jessie (Kirker) MacBride. Besides basic biographical information, there is not much information found about her. In 1922, she was issued a United States passport for a three month trip to China, Korea and Japan. Upon her return to the United States, she pulled permits for the construction of her residence in Glendale.

The builder of the house, Henry Edward Nash, Sr., was born in Middlesex, England, on June 18, 1878 as the fourth son of nine children born to William and Sarah Gale Nash.

By 1900, he was living in Philadelphia with his widowed mother. By 1910, Nash, his wife Elizabeth, and their son Henry, were living in Eagle Rock where he worked as a movie studio carpenter. Eventually he established his contracting business but also kept working in the film industry.

MacBride lost the house in a foreclosure during the Great Depression, and the property was deeded to Ernest LeRoy, a patent attorney, and his wife Mae S. Wallace on June 2, 1932. In 1936 Mae Wallace sold the house to Carroll and Nancy Collins who lived there until 1948, when they sold it to Vincent A. and Annette M. Murphy. The property was sold again and had multiple owners until it was eventually purchased by the current owner. Full biographical information about the owners is available in the application attached to this staff report as Exhibit 1.

Despite changing ownership so many times since its construction, the house has remained virtually unaltered. The MacBride residence is a significant example of a custom Tudor Revival style home that incorporates many whimsical, unique, and cottage-like features that sets it apart from other typical Tudor Revival properties of its time. Research does not indicate that any of the property owners were significant in the history of Glendale or the nation.

Additional information about the history of the property, owners and occupants can be found in the nomination attached to this report (Exhibit 1). Based on information 339 of 449
3 10a
provided in the nomination and referred to in this staff report, HPC believes the property is eligible under Criterion 3 due to the quality of its architectural design, as detailed in the “Findings of Eligibility” section below.

Architectural Description
1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive is a Tudor Revival style single-story, single-family house built in 1923 in the Verdugo Woodlands neighborhood of North Glendale. The home sits atop a small hill above Verdugo Knolls Drive. The house has an irregular, crescentshaped plan built in three sections that encircles the rear yard. The home has many unique, irregular, and whimsical features that give the appearance as if it was built over time, which further accentuates the storybook and cottage-like character.

Each section has rounded gabled ends with a smaller roof over the kitchen area and exposed rafter tails. When viewed from the rear, the roofline has a dramatic curved appearance. The house is clad in stucco with exposed brick details along the façade.

There are various stucco chimneys, but two chimneys are visible when viewed from the rear yard – one projecting on the outside wall at the rear, and one with a double flue poking through the roof.

The custom wood windows include a variety of casement, fixed, and double hung configurations. Some windows are angular shapes that follow the sloping down curves of the roofline, while others have a more typical rectangular shape. Window detailing includes divided lights, leaded glass, and stained glass. All windows have wood sills and are topped by heavy wooden lintels. The original plank wood door has large extended hinges and original hardware.

The detached garage shares a similar roof line, material and exposed brick detailing and is accessed off the street. A brick, concrete, and stone staircase off the south side of the garage leads up to the primary entrance of the residence. The original garage door was replaced sometime in the 1960s-1970s and was recently replaced again.

Notable character-defining features of 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive include:
• One-story massing
• Crescent-shaped irregular plan
• Curved gabled roof
• Wood plank door with wrought iron details
• Stucco cladding with exposed brick details
• Stucco chimneys
• Various window styles including casement, fixed, double hung, leaded and stained glass
Alterations and Integrity
Overall, 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive has a high degree of historic integrity and remains virtually unaltered since its original construction in 1923. Due to the minimal level of 340 of 449
4 10a
alterations, the property continues to retain its integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, and feeling.

HPC and staff recommend the following Mills Act conditions:

1. Replace the garage door with a more compatibly styled wood door as a condition of approval for a Mills Act contract.

2. Remove the portion of the gate at the top of the exterior stairway that does not match the original gate.

ANALYSIS
Finding of Eligibility
After reviewing the nomination submitted by the owner and its supporting documentation, as well as visiting the site, Planning Division staff conclude that the property appears to meet Criterion 3 of the eligibility criteria for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.

Architectural Significance [Criterion 3]
To meet Criterion 3, a property must “embody the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of an architectural style, architectural type, period, or method of construction; or represent a notable work of a master designer, builder or architect whose genius influenced his or her profession; or possess high artistic values.”
HPC found that 1855 Verdugo Knolls is eligible for designation under Criterion 3 as a distinctive and exemplary example of a storybook Tudor Revival style home.

The home features many unique characteristics that set it apart from other typical Tudor Revival style homes that gained popularity in the 1920s. The home has an irregular, somewhat crescent shaped plan and sits atop a hilltop overlooking Verdugo Knolls Drive. Each volume has rounded gabled ends and there is a smaller gabled roof over the kitchen area. It is clad in stucco and has brick detailing with stained wood posts at the corners of the house. A combination of casement, fixed, and double hung windows that have a variety of angular shapes and arrangements, some with divided lights, leaded glass or stained glass also emphasize the home’s charm as a whimsical Tudor Revival style. The property also retains high integrity of materials, design, workmanship, location, setting, and feeling.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
There are no stakeholders other than the property owner.

FISCAL IMPACT
Listing historic properties in the Glendale Register has no fiscal impact. However, future property tax savings to private owners of listed historic properties under Mills Act contracts will slightly reduce City property tax revenues from the general County tax levy received from each Mills Act property.
341 of 449
5 10a

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project is exempt from CEQA as a Class 8 “Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment” exemption and a Class 31 “Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation” exemption pursuant to Sections 15308 and 15331 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it involves the designation and restoration of a historic resource.

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 4, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Reject designation/listing of 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, finding that the property does not meet Criterion 3 or any other criteria.

Alternative 2: Any other alternative chosen by City Council.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Ani Mnatsakanyan, Planner
Reviewed by:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Glendale Register Nomination
Exhibit 2: Photographs
Exhibit 3: Mills Act Application
Exhibit 4: Campaign Disclosure
342 of 449
1 RESOLUTION NO. _____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, TO DESIGNATE THE RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1855 VERDUGO KNOLLS DRIVE AS A

HISTORIC RESOURCE ON THE GLENDALE REGISTER OF

HISTORIC RESOURCES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER

TO ENTER INTO A MILLS ACT HISTORICAL PROPERTY

CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the owner of record of the residential property located at 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive (the “Property”) has consented to, and requests that the Property be designated as a historic resource on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.20.060 of the Glendale Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission, at a regularly scheduled meeting on October 16, 2025, unanimously recommended designation of the Property for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources by a vote of 4-0; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.20.060 of the Glendale Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Glendale, pursuant to Sections

15.20.050 and 15.20.060, finds based on information in the record that the Property is eligible for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources because it qualifies under Criterion 3 (embody the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of an architectural style, architectural type, period, or method of construction; or represent a notable work of a master designer, builder or architect whose genius influenced his or her profession; or possess high artistic values) in that it is a distinctive and exemplary example of a storybook Tudor Revival style home; it features many unique characteristics that set it apart from other typical Tudor Revival style homes that gained popularity in the 1920s (i.e., each volume has rounded gabled ends and there is a smaller gabled roof over the kitchen area, it is clad in stucco and has brick detailing with stained wood posts at the corners of the house, a combination of casement, fixed, and double hung windows that have a variety of angular shapes and arrangements, some with divided lights, leaded glass or stained glass also emphasize the home’s charm as a whimsical Tudor Revival style); it has an irregular, somewhat crescent shaped plan and sits atop a hilltop overlooking Verdugo Knolls Drive; and it retains high integrity of materials, design, workmanship, location, setting, and feeling, as further described in the November 18, 2025 Staff Report regarding the Property; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Glendale further finds that because the Property qualifies for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, among other factors, that entering into a Mills Act contract with the Property owner is appropriate based on all of the information in the record.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE AS FOLLOWS:
343 of 449
3 Section 1. The recitals above are incorporated herein by this reference.

Section 2. That the property located at 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive is to be designated as a historic resource in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.

Section 3. That the City Manager is authorized to enter into a Mills Act historical property contract with the Property owner subject to the following conditions:

1. Replace the garage door with a more compatibly styled wood door as a condition of approval for a Mills Act contract.

2. Remove the portion of the gate at the top of the exterior stairway that does not match the original gate.

Section 4. That the designation of the Property as a Historic Resource for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and entering into a Mills Act contract with the Property owner is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 CCR Sections 15331 (preservation of historic resources) and 15308 (actions by regulatory agencies for protection of the environment).

Adopted this _______ day of __________________________, 2025. ______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.

CITY OF GLENDALE )
344 of 449
4 I, SUZIE ABAJIAN, Ph.D., 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 the ______day of _________, 2025, and that same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
_________________________
City Clerk
345 of 449
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ____________________________, that upon review and consideration of all documents, materials and exhibits relative to the request of the owner of record of the residential property located at 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive (the “Property”) to list the Property on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, and after having conducted a public hearing on said request and receiving testimony, the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, based upon all of the evidence in the record, hereby denies the request of the owner of record of the Property to list the Property on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources pursuant to the provisions of Section

15.20.060 of the Glendale Municipal Code and denies the request of the owner of record of the Property to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act historical property contract with the Property owner. This denial is based on the Council’s determination, pursuant to Glendale Municipal Code Sections 15.20.050 and 15.20.060, that, based on information in the record, the Property is not eligible for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources because it does not meet any of the criteria enumerated in Glendale Municipal Code Section 15.20.050.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
346 of 449
347 of 449
348 of 449
349 of 449
350 of 449
351 of 449
352 of 449
MacBride Residence
Architectural Description
The MacBride Residence is a whimsical asymmetrical Tudor Revival house built on an irregular, somewhat crescent shaped plan sitting on a hilltop above the street.

Built in three sections, each with rounded gabled ends, along with a smaller gabled roof over the kitchen area, the stucco clad house is accented with Tudor style half timbering on the interior, only. However, the building corners are stained wood posts
The custom wooden windows are in casement, fixed pane and double hung configurations with leaded glass lights, some stained, and muttons defining others.

Many are angular with various arrangements of leaded glass and wooden muttons.

Two small angular fixed pane windows are at different levels, under the eaves on the street facing gable above the single story kitchen wing. All of the windows have wooden sills and are topped by heavy wooden lentils. Red bricks in small groupings are found at various point on the facade, hinting at exposed bricks on an adobe structure. The roof has two small glassed eyebrow dormers above the two-story living room. There are two chimneys, one along the outside wall, the other with a double roofed flue, is poking through the roof. The plank front door has large extended hinges.

Interior details include angular hardwood flooring, open beamed ceilings in the living and dining rooms, some half-timbering with a large brick fireplace and hearth.

A stucco two-car garage (built concurrent with the house) at the front of the property. The garage door was replaced in the 1960s or 1970s and has recently been replaced again as it was not operational.
353 of 449
MacBride Residence
Significance Statement
The MacBride Residence was built in 1923 for Ruth Kirker MacBride by contractor Henry Nash, in the Verdugo Woodlands area of Glendale, on a portion of Lot 5 of Tract No. 4873, at a cost of $8,000.00. The architect is not known as Glendale permits did not list architects at the time of construction.

The resource is located in the Verdugo Woodlands community of Glendale.

Verdugo Woodlands has a rich history that reaches back to 1784, when Jose Maria Verdugo received a land grant of 36,403 acres, known as Rancho San Rafael. The rancho includes the present day cities of Glendale (including the communities of, La Crescenta, Montrose and Verdugo City), Burbank, La Cañada-Flintridge, and the city of Los Angeles communities of Atwater Village, Cypress Park, Eagle Rock, Garvanza, Glassell Park, Highland Park, and Mount Washington.

Tract No. 4873 is a subdivision of a portion of Lot 7 of the Verdugo Estate, a portion of the 2,629 Acre Tract of the Rancho San Rafael allotted to Teodoro and Catalina Verdugo after court action forced the dividing of the rancho in 1869. The tract was filed on May 18, 1922 and was listed under the ownership of Harry and Josephine B. Graul and Thomas B. and Edith N. Nichols. On November 1, 1923, a portion of Lot 5 was deeded to Ruth MacBride who took out a building permit to construct the Tudor Revival house was on December 8, 1923. For some reason, the grant deed to MacBride was not recorded until April 8, 1924.

MacBride was born on April 11, 1880 in Jersey City, New Jersey as the second of four daughters and finally a son born to Irish-born Nathaniel and New York-born Jessie (Kirker) MacBride. Not much else has been found on Ruth MacBride other than four different spellings of her last name (MacBride, McBride, MacBryde and McBryde). The building permits were under “McBride”, city directory was under “MacBride”, voter registration was “MacBride”, as is her headstone at Valhalla Memorial Park in Burbank. In 1922 she was issued a United States passport for a 354 of 449
three month trip to China, Korea and Japan. It was upon her return from that trip that she took out the permit to build her house in Glendale.

As noted, Tract No. 4873 was a subdivision on a portion of the 54.55 acre Lot 7 of the Verdugo Estate within the Rancho San Rafael. It was subdivided in 1922 by real estate broker Thomas B. Nichols and Harry Silas Graul, a paving contractor. Lot 5 of the tract was an irregular shaped one, resembling the shape of a long pennant.

The first sale that effected lot 5 was that of the Northwest triangular portion of the lot to a Thomas Minford on April 11, 1923 by Nichols and Graul and their respective wives, Edith N, Nichols and Josephine Bont Graul. A deed recorded on May 23, 1923 shows the remaining portion of the lot being transferred to a widow named I. D. Cook. The only possibility found in local city directories was an Isabelle D. Cook, a widow, who appears in the 1923 Los Angeles City Directory. A search in Ancestry.com found no other information on her.

That sale must have fallen through as a deed recorded on May 26, 1923 has Mrs.

Cook transferring the property back to Nichols and Graul, along with Lot 9 of the same Tract. A subsequent deed, recorded on November 1n 1923, shows the Grauls transferring the Westerly 165 Feet of Lot 5 to Ruth K. MacBride, excepting the Northwesterly portion previously deeded to Thomas Minford. The lot was later split to its current size of 9,680± square feet parcel. The deed noted covenants that the property was to be used for residential purposes only and that any house built on the land must cost at not less than $5,000.00. The deed went on to state that any violation of said covenants would cause the property to immediately revert to the grantor, their heirs or assigns. This covenant remained in effect until January 1, 1945. According to the original building permit, issued on December 8, 1923, the house cost $8,000.00 to construct.

The contractor, Henry Edward Nash, Sr., was born in Middlesex, England, on June 18, 1878 as the fourth son of nine children born to William and Sarah Gale Nash.

He arrived in the United States with his family. By 1900, he was living in Philadelphia with his widowed mother. He married Elizabeth Medley in Philadelphia in 1904 and their son, Henry Edward Nash, Jr., was born there on January 21, 1906. By 1910, the family was living in the then city of Eagle Rock, with Henry working as a movie studio carpenter. He eventually established his 355 of 449
contracting business, but continued working in the film industry. While it is presently unknown if he actually designed the MacBride Residence, the unusual design of the house, especially the windows, would lend credence to that possibility. Henry Nash passed away at his Eagle Rock home on December 30, 1951, at the age of 73.

Ruth MacBride took out a loan with Bank of Italy (now Bank of America) on September 12, 1928. In 1932, after the Great Depression had kicked in, Ruth MacBride went into delinquency on that mortgage and subsequently lost the house by foreclosure the following month. Bank of America subsequently deeded the property to Ernest LeRoy and Mae S. Wallace on June 2, 1932. Ernest Wallace, who was a patent attorney, passed away at the age of 55 on April 18, 1934.

Mae Wallace sold the house to Carroll Collins, Jr. and his wife Nancy Crank Collins on January 29, 1936. An insurance adjuster by profession, Carroll was a native of Darlington, Wisconsin, where he was born on June 23, 1893. His wife, the former Nancy Crank, hailed from Missouri, where she was born around 1891. The Collins’ 20 year old son, James Wellington Collins, died on October 18, 1947. The following year, his parents sold their home to Vincent A. and Annette M. Murphy on June 16, 1948. It appears that the Collins owed for delinquent property taxes at the time of the sale. On March 4, 1949, there was a subsequent deed from the Los Angeles County Tax Collector to the Murphys.

The Murphys transferred the property to Leonard H. and Helen F. Shelley on June 29, 1953. There appear to have been at least three Leonard Shelleys in the Los Angeles area and there were two marriage dates for Leonard and Nancy Shelley.

The first was in Inglewood on August 18, 1943 and the in an unlisted part of Los Angeles County on November 23, 1945. It’s possible that the first marriage license was not consummated due to his being deployed during World War II, with the ceremony actually taking place in 1945. The 1963 Glendale City Directory lists Leonard as the owner of “Shelley’s Appliances”. In 1969 the Shelleys sold the Western portion of their land. The new house built on that new lot retained the existing address of 1845 Verdugo Knolls. The existing house was assigned a new address of 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive.
356 of 449
The Shelleys appear in city directories and voter registration records at the Verdugo Knolls address until they sold the property to Paul L. Effler, Jr and Hariann J. Effler on March 11, 1971. Other than Paul L. Effler, Jr. being born on January 26, 1942, not much has been found on him or his wife. They moved to Long Beach after they sold the house to Vincent L. and Yvonne Y. Longo on June 9, 1987.

Vincent L. Longo and Yvonne Y. (Pannici) Longo, who were married in Orange, California on July 15, 1978 at 31 and 25 years of age, respectively. They were to live in the subject house for the next 36 years, making them the longest term owners to be there. On October 18, 2023, the Longos deeded the property to the current owner. Incredibly, the house has remained virtually unaltered in spite of its many occupants over the last 102 years.

Architecturally, the MacBride Residence is a significant example of a custom Tudor house, utilizing many of the design attributes of the style, such as overall massing and unique window designs, while not being covered with the exterior halftimbering traditionally found in Tudor houses. The half timbering is found, however, on the interior walls. While the Tudor style is generally associated with exterior half-timbering, many examples do not have that design element. The actual massing of the building with its steep gable roofs is the main attribute of a Tudor style house.

The Tudor architectural style is the final development of medieval architecture in England and Wales, during the Tudor period (1485–1603) and even beyond, and also the tentative introduction of Renaissance architecture to Britain. It followed the Late Gothic Perpendicular style and, gradually, it evolved into an aesthetic more consistent with trends already in motion on the continent, evidenced by other nations already having the Northern Renaissance underway such as Italy, and especially in France, which was already well into its revolution in art, architecture, and thought.

The MacBride Residence is significant for its custom Tudor architecture as well as being one of the earliest homes in its residential neighborhood in the Verdugo Woodlands community of Glendale.
357 of 449
Building Permit History
1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive
Glendale
December 8, 1923: Building Permit No. 9994 to construct a 2-story frame and stucco dwelling and garage at 1845 (now 1855) Verdugo
Knolls Drive on a portion of Lot 5 of Tract No. 4873.

Owner: R. K. McBryde
Architect: Not Listed
Contractor: Henry Nash
Cost: $8,000.00
December 26, 1923: Plumbing Permit No. 14360 to install and connect plumbing.

Owner: R. K. McBryde
Architect: None
Contractor: Stice Company
Cost: $968.00
February 13, 1924: Plumbing Permit No. 15248 to install septic tank for new residence.

Owner: R. K. McBryde
Architect: None
Contractor: V. Swan
Cost: Not Shown
February 19, 1924: Electrical Permit No. 13658 to install electrical wiring in new residence.

Owner: R. K. McBryde
Architect: None
Contractor: Steve Moliner
Cost: Not Shown
358 of 449
May 5, 1924: Electrical Permit No. 14765 to install additional wiring in new residence.

Owner: R. K. McBryde
Architect: None
Contractor: J. A. Newton
Cost: Not Shown
May 26, 1933: Plumbing Permit No. 20101 to install sewer line and hook up existing house to city sewer.

Owner: U. B. Murphy
Architect: None
Contractor: Earl O. Stice
Cost: Not Shown
October 5, 1934: Plumbing Permit No. 25221 to install bath tub and water closet.

Owner: U. B. Murphy
Architect: None
Contractor: D. A. Fox
Cost: Not Shown
February 11, 1936: Electrical Permit No. 14109 to upgrade wiring.

Owner: U. B. Murphy
Architect: None
Contractor: Public Service
Cost: Not Shown
July 14, 1938: Building Permit No. 11972 to construct a retaining wall.

Owner: U. B. Murphy
Architect: None
Contractor: H. L. Currier
Cost: $75.00
December 14, 1948: Heating Permit No. 85903 to install a floor furnace.

Owner: U. B. Murphy
Architect: None
Contractor: Payne Furnace
Cost: Not Shown
359 of 449
December 14, 1948: Electrical Permit No. 53995 to install wiring for floor furnace.

Owner: U. B. Murphy
Architect: None
Contractor: Payne Furnace
Cost: Not Shown
December 17, 1948: E;ectrical Permit No. 54070 to install wiring for electric oven.

Owner: U. B. Murphy
Architect: None
Contractor: Montrose Electric
Cost: Not Shown
January 25, 1949: Sewer Permit No. 86484 to fill in cesspool.

Owner: U. B. Murphy
Architect: None
Contractor: H. L. Moe
Cost: Not Shown
December 14, 1976: Electrical Permit No. 30046 to install a 150 amperage circuit panal.

Owner: Mr. Effler
Architect: None
Contractor: E. R. Prout Electric
Cost: Not Shown
360 of 449
MacBride Residence
1855 Verdugo Knolls Road
October 2025
361 of 449
MacBride Residence, 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive, Glendale, CA, March 22, 2024 362 of 449
MacBride Residence, 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive, Glendale, CA, March 22, 2024. 363 of 449
MacBride Residence, kitchen entry, 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive, Glendale, CA, March 22, 2024 364 of 449
MacBride Residence, 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive, Glendale, CA, March 22, 2024 365 of 449
MacBride Residence, rear courtyard, 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive, Glendale, CA, MLS photo. 366 of 449
MacBride Residence, 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive, Glendale, CA, March 22, 2024 367 of 449
MacBride Residence, 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive, Glendale, CA, MLS photo 368 of 449
MacBride Residence, 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive, Glendale, CA, March 22, 2024 369 of 449
MacBride Residence, 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive, Glendale, CA, March 22, 2024. 370 of 449
MacBride Residence, West facade, 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive, Glendale, CA, March 22, 2024 371 of 449
MacBride Residence, 1st chimney, 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive, Glendale, CA, March 22, 2024 372 of 449
MacBride Residence, 2nd chimney, 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive, Glendale, CA, March 22, 2024 373 of 449
MacBride Residence, 3rd chimney, 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive, Glendale, CA, March 22, 2024 374 of 449
MacBride Residence, porch light, 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive, Glendale, CA, March 22, 2024 375 of 449
MacBride Residence, kitchen wing, 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive, Glendale, CA, March 22, 2024 376 of 449
MacBride Residence, custom windows, 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive, Glendale, CA, March 22, 2024 377 of 449
MacBride Residence, “exposed” brick insert, 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive, Glendale, CA, March 22, 2024 378 of 449
MacBride Residence, “exposed” brick insert, 1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive, Glendale, CA, March 22, 2024 379 of 449
380 of 449
381 of 449
1855 Verdugo Knolls Drive
Plumbing
15,785.00 2025
Replace pipes, reinstall fixtures, install 2 tankless water heaters. Plumbing repaires and upgrades in bathrooms and
Exterior Paint
29,500.00 2025
Windows
863.00 2025
Pressure wash exterior of house. Primer plus 2 coats of exterior paint. Repaint exterior windows after reglazing. Paint exterior trim.

Soil
6,700.00 2025
Geologic and Soils Engineering Exploration for Proposed Foundation Underpinning. 382 of 449

10b

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: 1502 Royal Boulevard: Consideration of Glendale Register Nomination and Request for a Mills Act Historic Property Contract.

1. Resolution to designate the residential property at 1502 Royal Boulevard as a historic resource in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act Historical Property Contract with the property owner.

2. Motion to deny the request of the property owner to designate the residential property at 1502 Royal Boulevard as a historic resource in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for November 18, 2025 Calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The owners of 1502 Royal Boulevard request that City Council list the property in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and authorize a Mills Act historical property contract. The two-story, single-family residence was built in 1965 and is an excellent example of American Colonial Revival-style architecture as designed by Gerard Colcord, a significant architect whose work was highly sought after for several decades in Southern California and who influenced the design profession.

On September 18, 2025, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) reviewed the nomination and voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend to the City Council that the property at 1502 Royal Boulevard be listed in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. In keeping with the City’s naming protocol, HPC recommends that the property at 1502 Royal Boulevard be referred as the Brown House. HPC also recommended that the City Manager be authorized to enter into a Mills Act historic property contract with the property owner, including the work conditions approved by the commission, under Section 15.20.070A of the Glendale Municipal Code. 386 of 449
2 10b

RECOMMENDATION
That City Council list 1502 Royal Boulevard in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources under designation Criterion 3 and authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act historic property contract, with the conditions approved by HPC, between the City and the property owner under Section 15.20.070A of the Glendale Municipal Code.

BACKGROUND
Historical Background
1502 Royal Boulevard is an American Colonial Revival-style single-family house built in 1965. Interestingly, the current garage was actually built in 1948. It served as a rumpus room and workshop despite there being no house on the lot. The current brick barbeque was built at this time, but a badminton court was later removed, perhaps when the house was built. The two buildings sit on a relatively flat lot at the intersection of Royal and Puebla Drive and are highly visible from these streets. The property is a non-contributor to the Royal Boulevard Historic District because it was built outside the district’s period of significance.

The story of why a rumpus room, workshop, and badminton court were built almost twenty years before a house appeared on the property may be an interesting one but is unfortunately a mystery. The only known record of this event is the 1948 County Assessor’s record of the construction. The building appears on the 1965 Colcord drawings, but it is shown with unshaded walls, as opposed to the darkened walls of the new house, suggesting it was an existing structure. There is no indication that Colcord designed the garage nor any that he didn’t, so another mystery.

The first owners of the new house were Thomas O. and Arlene M. Brown. Mr. Brown was a trucking company sales manager and he and his wife lived there from 1965 until approximately 1990. Subsequent owners included Edward and Seda Boudaghian (1990-1995), Helen Arouzman and Jasmine Hashik Champagne (1995-2022), and the current owners, Suzanne and Mark Saklawi (2022-present). It does not appear that the property or any of its owners have been associated with any broad patterns or events important in history or made significant individual contributions to local, state, or national history. Therefore, the property does not appear eligible for listing in the Glendale Register under either Criterion 1 or 2.

The property is of considerable architectural interest, primarily for its association with Gerard Colcord (1900-1984), a notable architect in the Los Angeles area whose career spanned from the 1920s to the 1970s. He designed hundreds of notable homes with a special focus on, and talent for, the various Period Revival styles, along with the Hollywood Regency style that was locally popular. The nomination provides a brief, but detailed, biography prepared by Tim Gregory that establishes Colcord’s reputation as a 387 of 449
3 10b
“society architect” and “architect to the stars.” A solid traditionalist who was educated at USC, he created grand houses that remained “homey” and was especially known for his “farmhouse,” aka “Country Colonial,” designs of which 1502 Royal is an example. It is a rather late example, both of the Colonial Revival style and within the context of Colcord’s career. This primarily appears evident in the simplification of some design details, such as the portico, entry surround, and recessed porch, that would perhaps have been more robust or elaborate in a design from the 1920s or 30s. This is more of an observation than a criticism because the house abounds in interesting features and has an especially loose and playful massing. Council may note that if it is designated, the house would be one of only two postwar Glendale Register properties designed in a traditional Period Revival style. The other is the Webb House (GR No. 101), a Tudor Revival built in 1950. Colcord was widely published in the architectural press of his day and had an influence among designers that extended beyond Southern California. At this time, only one other house in Glendale, located at 2310 E. Chevy Chase Drive, is known to be designed by him.

Architectural Description
The varied massing and roof forms seen at the house suggest an intentional, and picturesque, effort on the part of noted architect Gerard Colcord to emulate how early American houses often grew organically over generations, with multiple additions being built at various times that reflected growing families and changing tastes and economic fortunes. At 1502 Royal, the principal two-story volume features a red brick-clad ground floor capped by a steeply pitched side-gabled roof that completely encloses the second floor, with the exception of four evenly spaced dormers projecting toward the street.

This block is four bays wide, with the front entry placed asymmetrically in the second bay. The entry and ground floor windows align with the dormers above. The entry portico features a simple triangular pediment supported by pairs of turned wood columns at each side of a shallow brick porch. The wood entry door features four simple panels and four short, glazed openings at the top. The wood door surround has a simple design, with two flat pilasters flanking the opening. The wing to the left defers to the primary mass, stepping inward and down, with this sense being enhanced by a shallow recessed porch with simple square posts and segmentally arched lintels supporting the roof, which features another dormer. This wing connects to the perpendicular living room wing that extends toward the street and features a large double-shouldered chimney on its windowless street-facing gable wall. The front composition is completed by a small projecting wing on the right side, even more deferential, that consists of a simple one-story volume with a shed roof that is set back and attached to the side facade.

The right-side façade and a large part of the rear of the house are visible from Puebla Drive. The shed roof projection features a wood rear door that opens to the side yard. It 388 of 449
4 10b
is next to a projecting chimney shoulder that emerges from the side façade cladding, with the large, square chimney itself only being revealed when it emerges from the roof.

The steep roof pitch from the front only returns at the narrow slice along the end-wall, where the chimney is located. Much of the rest of the rear façade is two stories high, with the roof pitch becoming much shallower. This maintains the idea of the house being built in stages over time and suggests the appearance of multiple additions added to the rear of the main body of the house despite all being original. A small, one-story wing projects away from the rear façade and a long breezeway connects the house to the detached garage.

The overall material palette is fairly simple and in keeping with Colonial Revival precedent. As noted, red brick cladding is only found at the first floor of the main volume. The rest of the house is clad with simple wood clapboard siding. The roofs are clad with appropriate asphalt shingles. Multi-light wood windows are employed throughout, in varying configurations including 6/6, 6/9, and 8/8. Most openings have wide wood surrounds and some have decorative louvered shutters. The landscaping at the front and side yards consists of lawn areas, low perimeter hedges, foundation plantings, and several mature trees. A nicely designed wood gate opens from the sidewalk to the brick entry path. The rear yard has similar landscaping, along with the brick barbeque mentioned previously. The wood pergola structure, dating to the construction of the house and referred to as a “garden house” by Colcord, remains in the backyard. The wide wood gate under the breezeway is a recent replacement of the original shorter wood gate that had a more graceful design.

The garage is interesting because its earlier construction date makes it different from the house while remaining compatible. It features a hipped roof, which is a form not found among the various roof styles of the later building. This roof features a charming vented cupola with a metal roof and weathervane. The wide drop siding at the garage walls differs from the clapboards at the house, creating horizontal grooves that create a very different look and offering a clue about the different construction dates. The original garage door used the same material, allowing the horizontal lines to run around all four facades. That door also featured a small multi-light window with similarly small shutters.

Alterations and Integrity
Overall, 1502 Royal has a high degree of historic integrity, with few changes being made since its construction. HPC did recommend Mills Act conditions to address several alterations that diminish the home’s historic integrity:
• Den Windows
At some point, the windows facing the rear yard from the den were replace with inappropriate windows with internal grids.
389 of 449
5 10b
• Garage Windows
The current owners replaced the windows at the garage with new vinyl windows, which are not in keeping with the wood, two-over-two double-hung windows with horizontal muntins seen in earlier photographs.
• Garage Door
The current owners replaced the original wood garage door, which featured a small central window flanked by shutters, with a relatively plain new door. The original design can be seen in earlier images..

HPC and staff recommend the following Mills Act conditions:

1. Replace the den windows with recessed, six-over-six hung wood windows to allow this area to better match the rest of the rear façade.

2. Replace all garage windows with new two-over-two hung recessed wood windows to match the windows seen in the earlier photographs.

3. Replace the garage door with a new, hinged lift-up door with horizontal wood siding to match the existing garage siding, along with a window and shutters, so that the overall appearance of the door matches that of the door seen in the earlier photographs.

ANALYSIS
Finding of Eligibility
After reviewing the nomination submitted by the owner and its supporting documentation, as well as visiting the site, Planning Division staff concludes that the property appears to meet Criterion 3 of the eligibility criteria for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.

Architectural Significance [Criterion 3]
To meet Criterion 3, a property must “embody the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of an architectural style, architectural type, period, or method of construction; or represent a notable work of a master designer, builder or architect whose genius influenced his or her profession; or possess high artistic values.”
HPC found that 1502 Royal Boulevard appears eligible for designation under Criterion 3 as a distinctive and exemplary late example of the American Colonial Revival style and, especially, as a work by the notable architect Gerard Colcord. It has a distinctive massing that reflects the architect’s interest in taking traditional Colonial Revival design concepts and loosening up some of the rigidity often associated with the style to provide a more informal appearance that may be based on the precedent of centuries-old houses morphing over time. Many design concepts are used, including the entry portico, recessed porch, dramatic chimneys, and the unusually long breezeway, that are skillfully blended into a coherent overall design. As one of only two known works by the influential architect Gerard Colcord 390 of 449
6 10b
in the city, it takes on special significance because of his esteemed position among local architecture fans and scholars. The property also retains high integrity of materials, design, workmanship, location, setting, and feeling.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
There are no stakeholders other than the property owner.

FISCAL IMPACT
Listing historic properties in the Glendale Register has no fiscal impact. However, future property tax savings to private owners of listed historic properties under Mills Act contracts will slightly reduce City property tax revenues from the general County tax levy received from each Mills Act property.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The project is exempt from CEQA as a Class 8 “Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment” exemption and a Class 31 “Historical Resource Restoration/Rehabilitation” exemption pursuant to Sections 15308 and 15331 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it involves the designation and restoration of a historic resource.

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 5, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Reject designation/listing of 1502 Royal Boulevard on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, finding that the property does not meet Criterion 3 or any other criteria.

Alternative 2: Any other alternative chosen by City Council. 391 of 449
7 10b

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Ani Mnatsakanyan, Planner
Reviewed by:

Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Glendale Register Nomination
Exhibit 2: Photographs
Exhibit 3: Mills Act Application
Exhibit 4: Architectural Drawings
Exhibit 5: Campaign Disclosure
392 of 449
1 RESOLUTION NO. _____________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, TO DESIGNATE THE RESIDENTIAL
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1502 ROYAL BOULEVARD AS A

HISTORIC RESOURCE ON THE GLENDALE REGISTER OF

HISTORIC RESOURCES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER

TO ENTER INTO A MILLS ACT HISTORICAL PROPERTY

CONTRACT
WHEREAS, the owner of record of the residential property located at 1502 Royal Boulevard (the “Property”) has consented to, and requests that the Property be designated as a historic resource on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.20.060 of the Glendale Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Commission, at a regularly scheduled meeting on September 18, 2025, unanimously recommended designation of the Property for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources by a vote of 5-0; and WHEREAS, the City Council has conducted a duly noticed public hearing pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.20.060 of the Glendale Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Glendale, pursuant to Sections

15.20.050 and 15.20.060, finds based on information in the record that the Property is eligible for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources because it qualifies under Criterion 3 (embody the distinctive and exemplary characteristics of an architectural style, architectural type, period, or method of construction; or represent a notable work of a master designer, builder or architect whose genius influenced his or her profession; or possess high artistic values) in that it is a distinctive and exemplary late example of the American Colonial Revival style and, especially, as a work by the notable architect Gerard Colcord; it has a distinctive massing that reflects the architect’s interest in taking traditional Colonial Revival design concepts and loosening up some of the rigidity often associated with the style to provide a more informal appearance that may be based on the precedent of centuries-old houses morphing over time; it has special significance because it is one of only two known works by the influential architect Gerard Colcord in the city; and it retains high integrity of materials, design, workmanship, location, setting, and feeling, as further described in the November 18, 2025 Staff Report regarding the Property; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Glendale further finds that because the Property qualifies for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, among other factors, that entering into a Mills Act contract with the Property owner is appropriate based on all of the information in the record.

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

Section 1. The recitals above are incorporated herein by this reference. 393 of 449
2 Section 2. That the property located at 1502 Royal Boulevard is to be designated as a historic resource in the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.

Section 3. That the City Manager is authorized to enter into a Mills Act historical property contract with the Property owner subject to the following conditions:

1. Replace the den windows with recessed, six-over-six hung wood windows to allow this area to better match the rest of the rear façade.

2. Replace all garage windows with new two-over-two hung recessed wood windows to match the windows seen in the earlier photographs.

3. Replace the garage door with a new, hinged lift-up door with horizontal wood siding to match the existing garage siding, along with a window and shutters, so that the overall appearance of the door matches that of the door seen in the earlier photographs.

Section 4. That the designation of the Property as a Historic Resource for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources and entering into a Mills Act contract with the Property owner is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Title 14 CCR Sections 15331 (preservation of historic resources) and 15308 (actions by regulatory agencies for protection of the environment).

Adopted this _______ day of __________________________, 2025. ______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
___________________________
City Clerk
394 of 449
4 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, SUZIE ABAJIAN, Ph.D., 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 the ______day of _________, 2025, and that same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
_________________________
City Clerk
395 of 449
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ____________________________, that upon review and consideration of all documents, materials and exhibits relative to the request of the owner of record of the residential property located at 1502 Royal Boulevard (the “Property”) to list the Property on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources, and after having conducted a public hearing on said request and receiving testimony, the City Council of the City of Glendale, California, based upon all of the evidence in the record, hereby denies the request of the owner of record of the Property to list the Property on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources pursuant to the provisions of Section

15.20.060 of the Glendale Municipal Code and denies the request of the owner of record of the Property to authorize the City Manager to enter into a Mills Act historical property contract with the Property owner. This denial is based on the Council’s determination, pursuant to Glendale Municipal Code Sections 15.20.050 and 15.20.060, that, based on information in the record, the Property is not eligible for listing on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources because it does not meet any of the criteria enumerated in Glendale Municipal Code Section 15.20.050.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
396 of 449
397 of 449
398 of 449
399 of 449
400 of 449
401 of 449
402 of 449
403 of 449
1502 ROYAL BOULEVARD

GLENDALE
Style: Colonial Revival
Year of Completion: 1965
Original Building Permit: #92442, issued by the City of Glendale on April 14, 1965 for a twostory, seven-room residence. The house, to encompass 3,380 square feet, would have walls of brick and wood siding over a wood frame and a roof covered with cedar shingles. The City indicated there was already a garage at the rear of the lot.

A copy of this permit is attached on pages 20 and 21.

Cost to Build: $42,000—a typical cost for a house of this size at the time.

Architect: Gerard R. Colcord, a celebrated Los Angeles architect. Please see the attached biographical materials on pages 5 through 16.

Builder: The Nelson Brothers, Glendale. Additional biographical material is attached on pages 17 through 19.

First Owner: Thomas O. Brown, a trucking company sales manager, who shared the house with his wife Arlene M. Brown.

Thomas Owen Brown (1913-1999) was born in St. Louis, Missouri, the son of William Young Brown, a railway supervisor, and Florence Mary Ann (Francis) Brown, a native of England.

Thomas attended Washington University and the University of Texas. He then found employment as a traffic manager for the A. P. Green Firebrick 404 of 449
2 Company of St. Louis where he lived with his widowed mother. After service in World War II as an Army captain, Mr. Brown married the former Arlene Mildred Darling of Cherokee, Iowa (1919-1991). She was the daughter of Lloyd B. Darling, a grain elevator manager, and Belle (Kuipers) Darling.

By 1954 Mr. and Mrs. Brown were living in Los Angeles where Mr. Brown was an employee of the Coast Counties Express Company.

They had moved to Burbank by 1957 and resided there before moving into their new Glendale home. The Browns later relocated to Escondido, where Mrs. Brown passed away at age 71. Mr. Brown lived to age 86 and is interred at Forest Lawn. The Browns evidently had no surviving children.

Other Building Permits: This house has remained virtually unchanged since it was first built.

The building permits on file with the City are mostly for maintenance.

A permit was issued in May 1966 for a lawn sprinkling system.

A new 137,000-BTU forced-air heating unit and an air-conditioning compressor were installed in September 1977.

The house was re-roofed with cedar shingles in August 1984 for $10,900.

The house was re-roofed again in July 2007 for $9,000. Class A composition shingles were to be used.

A permit was issued in May 2022 to replace kitchen cabinets and bathroom vanities with no changes in fixtures or to the exterior of the house. This permit was later marked “expired.” (Note: Permits for very minor alterations, such as water heater replacement, are not included.

Also not included are permits missing from the file or whose microfilmed or digital copies are indecipherable and not otherwise recorded or described in Assessor’s records.) Assessor’s Records: The Los Angeles County Assessor first visited the property on November 8, 1948 and recorded a newly-built 620-square-foot building at the rear of the lot that housed a rumpus room and a workshop. The structure, valued at $900, had a concrete foundation, walls of wood siding over a wood frame, and a shingled hipped roof. The workshop, measuring 12 by 20 feet, had a concrete floor, gumwood walls, and no ceiling. The adjoining rumpus room, measuring 18 by 20 feet, had an asphalt-tile floor, a board ceiling, and combed plywood walls. The lot also contained a 20-by-40-foot asphalt badminton court, two doublereflecting light standards, and a brick barbecue.

The Assessor returned on November 4, 1966 and recorded a newly-built two-story, Colonialstyle residence. It had a raised concrete foundation, wood-frame walls covered in wood siding, wood and brick trim, a medium-pitched roof covered in wood shingles, and double-hung and casement windows. Heat was provided by two fireplaces and a forced-air perimeter heating 405 of 449
3 system. There were fourteen plumbing fixtures, including a wet bar. The Assessor rated the architecture, workmanship, and general quality of the house as “good.” The Assessor estimated the square footage of the house at 2,530. On the first floor were an entry hall; a living room with “good” molding and detailed wood paneling; a dining room with built-in cupboards; a den with paneled walls, cupboards, and a beamed ceiling; a half-bathroom; a utility room with built-in cabinets; and a kitchen with 14 linear feet of white pine cabinets, ceramic-tile counters, a “special” cooking fireplace, and built-in appliances. The second floor contained two bedrooms, and one and three-quarters bathrooms. There was also a screened porch with a brick floor and a stucco ceiling and a patio that had a brick floor, a gabled shingled roof, and one wall of wood.

The Los Angeles County Assessor still currently estimates the square footage of the house at 2,530 with two bedrooms and three bathrooms.

Copies of the Assessor’s building records are attached on pages 22 through 27.

Some Other Owners and Residents: By 1995, the owner was the Edward B. Boudaghian Trust. Mr. Boudaghian, a native of Iran, resided in the house with his wife Seda Boudaghian.

Helen Arzouman and Jasmine Hasmik Champagne had gained title by 2022.

The current owners are Mark and Susan Saklawi.

406 of 449
4 Sources:

City of Glendale, Building Department
Los Angeles County Assessor (Sylmar district office)
Los Angeles Public Library
Gebhard, David and Robert Winter. An Architectural Guidebook to Los Angeles, 6 th ed.

Santa Monica, Angel City Press, 2018.

McAlester, Virginia Savage. A Field Guide to American Houses. 2nd ed.

New York, Knopf, 2013.

City Directories: 1965-
Internet Resources, including California Index, California Death Index, Gale Biography Master Index, Ancestry.com, and Historic Los Angeles Times Database.

Tim Gregory
The Building Biographer
400 East California Blvd., #3
Pasadena, CA 91106-3763
626-792-7465 (office)
626-241-4471 (cell)
[email protected]
www.buildingbiographer.com
Copyright December 2023
by Tim Gregory

407 of 449
5 GERARD R. COLCORD
Architect
Sometimes referred to as “Hollywood’s society architect,” Gerard Rae Colcord was born into a wealthy family in St. Louis, Missouri on November 1, 1900. His father Walter was the proprietor of the Colcord-Wright Machinery & Supply Company, a dealer in metalworking machines, and his mother Meta was an artist.

After graduating from the Culver Military Academy in Indiana, Gerard moved with his family to Beverly Hills around 1920 and enrolled in the University of Southern California’s School of Architecture where he belonged to the Architecture Club. In 1923, he traveled to Europe, touring England, Italy, and France, participating in a one –year apprenticeship program at the Ecole des Beaux-Arts at Fontainebleau. It was here he learned the skill of blending various architectural features from different historical eras into a unified design.

In 1924, Gerard (or “Gerry,” as he was often referred to) returned to Southern California.

Having been granted a Provisional Certificate from the State Board of Architectural Examiners, he apprenticed with well-known architects Asa Hudson and John C. Austin. He received his State Certificate in 1930, whereupon he established his own office. He never let his staff grow very large, but made use of foreign-born artisans and craftsmen who were looking for work. His office was at 275 South Beverly Drive in Beverly Hills, but by the 1970s it was located at 9538 Brighton Way.

Colcord must have inherited his mother’s artistic talents, for his drawings were exact and detailed even when prepared quickly. Although he is most remembered for his Eastern farmhouse designs, often featuring fieldstone-veneered walls, gabled dormers, and spacious front porches (“Pennsylvania goes west,” as one critic put it), Colcord was equally adept at a multitude of styles, including Spanish, Monterey, Italian, English, French, and Hollywood Regency. His property types ranged from comfortable, cozy family-oriented homes to grand estate-sized authentic interpretations of Old World traditions. He himself was largely a traditionalist whose output included few contemporary works. Many of his design ideas were said to have been inspired by what he had seen pictured in architectural journals and popular home magazines. He often supervised the construction of his own projects and dealt with builders and vendors who knew exactly what this perfectionist architect wanted. He worked closely with property-owners and is said to have been flexible in incorporating elements into his designs that he himself did not particularly fancy in order to accede to clients’ wishes.

Colcord’s work was publicized by the Barker Brothers home furnishings chain who asked him to come up with idealized “dream home” designs for their displays, by the Los Angeles Times which often highlighted his plans in its home sections, and by the Architectural Digest which featured lavish photographic spreads of the exteriors and interiors of over 23 of his residences—a record for that magazine. Photos reveal that Colcord preferred formal, stately 408 of 449
6 interiors for his large homes, but used much wood paneling and unique touches like antique hearths for his farmhouse styles.

In the early 1930s Colcord married the first of his three wives: Jeanne Marie Dumas. They were prominent on the Southern California social scene and belonged to the Bel-Air Bay Club. In 1944, while assisting the war effort with the design of industrial buildings for Douglas Aircraft, Colcord divorced Jeanne and married Mary Akin Carewe. She died in 1954.

By the end of the 1940s, Colcord had become a “brand name,” his signature “farmhouse” residences (sometimes called “Country Colonials”) becoming popular with well-to-do business people and celebrities (such as actors Alan Ladd and Debbie Reynolds) in communities like BelAir, Holmby Hills, and Beverly Hills. His fame also spread beyond California, with clients calling on him from such places as Georgia, Texas, and Florida. His interiors were even used as inspiration for set designs for such television programs as I Love Lucy, Leave It to Beaver, and Father Knows Best.

By the end of his career, Colcord had designed nearly four hundred homes and about one hundred residential remodels. As his health slowly deteriorated in the 1970s, he hired Liza Kent who became his skilled assistant, finishing the plans and supervising the construction of houses he was too ill to attend to. Gerard Colcord died in Encino on February 19, 1984 at the age of 83.

He had no children but was survived by his third wife Virginia Alice Singer whom he had married in 1960. No obituary was published for him in the Times. Ms. Kent closed his office permanently in 1989 but maintained the Colcord archives. Passionate followers of Colcord’s work are still much in evidence today. One Realtor commented that Colcord’s houses “have a great sense of proportion and a level of craftsmanship and quality that isn’t easy to find these days.”
Bret Parsons in his book on Colcord (see “Sources” section) includes historical and contemporary illustrations of seventeen of the architect’s most well-known works ranging from 1930 to 1972.

Sources:

Parsons, Bret. Colcord Home. Santa Monica, Angel City Press, 2008.

Los Angeles Times: October 3, 2004; February 4, 2005; October 11, 2008 Internet Resources, including California Index, California Death Index, Gale Biography Master Index, Ancestry.com, and Historic Los Angeles Times Database.

Tim Gregory
The Building Biographer
400 East California Blvd., #3
Pasadena, CA 91106-3763
626-792-7465
[email protected]
www.buildingbiographer.com
Copyright June 2016
by Tim Gregory
409 of 449
7 Los Angeles Times: November 3, 2004
Continued…
410 of 449
8 411 of 449
9 Los Angeles Times
February 24, 2005
Continued…
412 of 449
10 413 of 449
11 414 of 449
12 415 of 449
13 416 of 449
14 417 of 449
15 418 of 449
16 Los Angeles Times
October 11, 2008
419 of 449
17 THE NELSON BROTHERS
Builders
The Nelson Brothers was a partnership between Martin Nelson and Nels Hans (known as Hans) Nelson–siblings who had been born in Sweden. (They also had an older brother Per Algot Nelson who evidently did not participate in the company.) Martin, who was the youngest brother, seems to have taken the lead in organizing the firm and remained the head of it until his retirement.

Martin Nelson, born in November 1885, immigrated to the United States in 1906. He later became a naturalized citizen. His first six years in America were spent largely in Minnesota and Colorado. He came to California in 1912 where his first job appears to have been as a gardener for a Los Angeles hotel. Martin and Hans formed Nelson Brothers Construction while living in San Francisco. By 1922 Martin had arrived in Glendale and was identified by directories of that era as a builder and contractor. He lived at 622 North Jackson Street with his wife Betty, also a native of Sweden. The family later lived at 1428 Andenes Drive. Mr. and Mrs. Nelson had three sons: Martin Phillip–known as “Phil” (born 1914), Hugh Kermit (1920-1956), and Francis M. (born 1933). Hugh became a well-known baritone soloist in musical comedies who appeared in national road companies and a number of times at the Greek Theater in Griffith Park.

By 1925, Martin had become the sole owner and operator of Nelson Brothers. The firm specialized in single-family residential construction in the Glendale/Burbank area. It was said that Nelson Brothers built over two hundred homes and was listed as one of the seven leading sub-dividers of the Glendale foothills in 1926. Martin Nelson was active in his profession, serving on the board of the Building Contractors Association of California in the late 1930s and as president of its Glendale-Burbank chapter. He was also a member of Rotary, the Elks, and the First Lutheran Church. Mr. Nelson served as president of the Swedish Club of Los Angeles and was active in the California Lutheran Hospital Society.

Following an education at U.C. Berkeley and service in World War II, Phil Nelson joined his father in the family construction business. Martin died in May 1958 at the age of 72. His obituaries from the Los Angeles Times and Glendale News-Press are attached. Martin’s brothers Hans and Per, having moved elsewhere in California at an unknown date, appear to have also both died in the 1950s. Phil Nelson continued to operate the business until 1975 when he retired from construction to pursue a real estate investment and sales career. He passed away in 1998.

As well as working with professional architects or building designers, the Nelsons were also responsible for the planning of many of their own houses–both those they built on speculation and those custom-built for clients. They may have purchased or “borrowed” plans and specifications from publications. A number of residences appear to have been influenced by designs published in house pattern-books and in popular magazines including Good Housekeeping, The Ladies’ Home Journal, and House and Garden. Once the plans were purchased, builders might then embellish them according to their own or their clients’ tastes. 420 of 449
18 Some builders were known to consult with established architects who, for a set fee, might quickly sketch out a few ideas for the builder to enlarge upon, without taking credit for the actual design. In other instances, the builder might engage the services of a non-professional designer or perhaps an un-licensed architect who, for one reason or another, wished to remain anonymous. (By the mid-1920s, state licensing laws prevented un-certificated designers from putting their names on building permits.) Some very successful builders employed architects on their staffs, but unfortunately their names were rarely included on the plans or building permits. Often these were designers just starting their careers, many of whom would later set up their own private practices. A number of important Southern California architects, such as Wallace Neff and Paul Williams, began their professional lives working for builders and real estate developers.

However, it must be emphasized that many experienced and talented builders, like Nelson Brothers, did not always engage architects but did their own design work. A builder who had worked with a number of well-known architects might “borrow” stylistic elements that he fancied or felt were marketable and incorporate them into his own buildings.

Tim Gregory
The Building Biographer
400 East California Blvd., #3
Pasadena, CA 91106-3763
626-792-7465
[email protected]
www.buildingbiographer.com
Copyright
June 2014

421 of 449
19 422 of 449
20 423 of 449
21 424 of 449
22 425 of 449
23 426 of 449
24 427 of 449
25 428 of 449
26 429 of 449
27 430 of 449
1502 Royal Boulevard
Photographs
431 of 449
432 of 449
433 of 449
434 of 449
435 of 449
436 of 449
437 of 449
Alteration:
windows and doors at den
438 of 449
Alteration:

New garage door and
driveway gate
439 of 449
Alteration:
440 of 449 garage windows
Alteration:
metalwork at living
room window
441 of 449
442 of 449
443 of 449
444 of 449
445 of 449
446 of 449
447 of 449
448 of 449
449 of 449