10c
26-89738
CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM
Report: Consideration of Regulations for Personal Delivery Devices (PDDs) Operating Within the Public Right-of-Way
1) Motion providing direction regarding one of the following options:
a. Initiate development of a permanent ordinance regulating PDDs b. Direct staff to prepare a limited pilot program prior to adopting permanent regulations; or
c. Note and file this report and defer action pending further regional coordination and monitoring.
COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for March 31, 2026 calendar
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The City of Glendale is evaluating the establishment of regulations for PDDs, including remote-controlled and autonomous robotic delivery devices, to proactively address the emergence of this technology within the public right-of-way. These devices are increasingly being used for “last-mile” deliveries of food, groceries, and retail goods in urban environments and are anticipated to expand regionally.
Currently, Glendale does not have an ordinance governing the operation of these devices. Without a regulatory framework, PDD deployment could occur without defined standards for safety, accessibility, enforcement, or public accountability.
Select jurisdictions in the region have adopted structured approaches that establish operational standards, fleet limits, data-sharing requirements, accessibility protections, and operator agreements and/or permits to ensure that innovation is balanced with pedestrian safety and ADA compliance
This staff report introduces Council to this emerging technology, outlines potential regulatory pathways, and presents options for establishing a local framework that protects the public right-of-way while allowing flexibility for future innovation. 10c2
26-89738
6 6
9 7
RECOMMENDATION
That the Council provide direction regarding one of the following options:
a. Initiate development of a permanent ordinance regulating PDDs b. Direct staff to prepare a limited pilot program prior to adopting permanent regulations; or
c. Note and file this report and defer action pending further regional coordination and monitoring.
ANALYSIS
PDDs are small, robotic units designed to operate primarily on sidewalks to deliver goods over short distances. Cities that have moved forward with regulation typically focus on:
Protecting pedestrian access and ADA compliance
Establishing device speed and weight limits
Defining operational hours
Requiring operating agreements and/or permits
Mandating incident response protocols
Implementing data sharing for monitoring and enforcement Setting fleet size caps
Creating penalty structures for noncompliance
West Hollywood’s framework demonstrates how cities can regulate PDDs through municipal code provisions and operator agreements, incorporating accessibility standards, geofencing, reporting requirements, and enforcement authority.
Santa Monica has approached delivery innovation through sustainability-focused pilots emphasizing zero-emission delivery, highlighting the potential environmental benefits of reducing short vehicle trips while still prioritizing curb management and public safety Key considerations for Glendale include:
1. Public Right-of-Way Impacts
Sidewalk congestion, conflicts with pedestrians and mobility devices, and obstruction risks must be addressed through enforceable operational standards.
2. Accessibility
Any framework must prioritize ADA compliance, ensuring that devices do not impede persons with disabilities and that response protocols exist for stalled or obstructing units.
3. Safety and Enforcement
Clear authority is needed to regulate device behavior, establish penalties, and require prompt operator response to incidents.
10c3
26-89738
6 6
9 7
4. Environmental Benefits
PDDs may reduce short vehicle trips, contributing to greenhouse gas reduction goals if properly managed.
5. Administrative Oversight
Implementation would require interdepartmental coordination among Public Works (Traffic Engineering/Inspection), Community Development (Code Enforcement/Long Range Planning), City Manager (Economic Development), and Police Department.
Policy Options for include can include:
i. Option A – Permanent Ordinance Framework
Adopt a municipal code chapter establishing comprehensive regulations, permitting requirements, and operating agreements for PDD operators. ii. Option B – Pilot Program
Authorize a time-limited pilot to gather operational data and community feedback before permanent adoption.
iii. Option C – Monitor Only
Defer implementation while monitoring regional trends and regulatory outcomes in nearby cities.
Staff notes that Options A or B provide Glendale with proactive control over sidewalk usage rather than reacting to unregulated deployment.
STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
In an effort to approach this research with a business-friendly approach and to incorporate opinions or concerns from some entities that might be using or benefiting from this service, the City Manager’s Office Economic Development team conducted outreach to various stakeholders, including 33 restaurants across Glendale to assess awareness and impacts of autonomous delivery robots. Of those contacted, 13 currently use robotic delivery services and rated their usefulness positively (average
7.5 out of 10), citing reliability, efficiency, and positive customer reactions. The majority of restaurants not using the service cited platform availability rather than an active decision to opt out. Nearly all respondents reported no material impact to staffing, workflow, or order volume, and none raised safety concerns. Overall, feedback suggests the technology is currently viewed as a supplemental delivery option with limited operational impacts and cautious optimism as deployment expands.
Staff also solicited input on this matter from the Downtown Glendale Association, as well as the Glendale Chamber of Commerce, both centrally located and with 10c4
26-89738
6 6
9 7
membership and representation in the downtown area where the PPD devices are largely found and in use. Both organizations were supportive of this effort to look into the matter and for the City Council to take a proactive approach in considering various elements, including: exploring permitting/licensing options to 1) limit or manage this service, and 2) potentially generate revenue from this business model. Concerns were raised over public privacy and the use of technology/recording devices in public spaces, as well as over liability and customer service questions, should these devices be involved in pedestrian or traffic incidents.
If directed to proceed further, staff anticipates additional outreach to disability advocacy groups, additional representatives from the local business community, appropriate commissions, neighborhood associations, and potential PDD operators.
Other cities have engaged accessibility boards and business stakeholders early to address concerns related to sidewalk conditions, device interaction, and economic impacts. Future outreach in Glendale should similarly focus on balancing innovation with accessibility, safety, and quality-of-life considerations.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Should Council authorize ordinance development or a pilot program, future fiscal considerations may include:
Staff time for program administration and enforcement
Costs for data monitoring
Potential permitting or operating fees
Possible revenue from operator agreements
Other jurisdictions have structured fee programs to offset administrative costs and reinvest revenue into sidewalk and ADA infrastructure improvements.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The activity under consideration is not a “project” within the meaning of CEQA. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15378(b)(2), the term “project” does not include continuing administrative or maintenance activities, including general policy or procedure making (except as applied in specific instances).
Even if it is a “project,” this activity is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301, in that it consists of operation involving negligible or no expansion of former use of existing public facilities or topographical features, namely, existing streets and sidewalks. 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
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.
ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
10c5
26-89738
6 6
9 7
Do not provide staff policy direction either to prepare an ordinance or pilot program, or monitor regional trends and regulatory outcomes in nearby cities, which would potentially limit the City’s ability to ensure safety, accessibility, and operator accountability as the technology expands.
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:
Daniel Hernandez, Director of Public Works
Prepared by:
Sarkis Oganesyan, P.E., Assistant Director of Public Works/City Engineer Approved by:
Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None