Glendale City Council
June 9, 2026

EXHIBIT 6
384 of 1278

Report List
Report No. Year Title AffiliationAuthor(s) ResourcesOther IDs RVA2205
LA-08303 2007 Cultural Resources Record Search and Site Visit Results for Royal Street
Communications, Llc Candidate La0057b
(nextel-sperry), 4640 Sperry Street, Los
Angeles, Los Angeles County, California
Michael Brandman
Associates
Bonner, Wayne H. 19-186638
LA-10767 2010 Archaeological Monitoring for Cultural
Resources- the Los Angeles Zoo Parking Lot
Project, EW40023F, Phase 1, City of Los
Angeles, Los Angeles County, California
CRM TechHogan, Michael
LA-10768 2010 Identification and Evaluation of Historic Properties - Grade Crossing Safety
Improvement Program, San Fernando
Road/Broadway/Brazil Street, cities of
Glendale and Los Angeles, Los Angeles
County, California
CRM TechTang, Bai "Tom" and
Michael Hogan
LA-12120 2012 Cultural Resources Records Search and Site Visit Results for T-Mobile West, LLC
Candidate SV00019A (VY019 Aeroscopic)
5245 West San Fernando Road, Los
Angeles, Los Angeles County, California
MBABonner, Wayne and
Crawford, Kathleen
19-186638

EXHIBIT 6
385 of 1278

Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsType Age Attribute codes Recorded by
RVA2205
P-19-175297 OHP Property Number - 097813;
Resource Name - Griffith Park
LA-03554, LA-
11120, LA-11550,
LA-11813, LA-
11996, LA-12468,
LA-12809, LA-13252
District Historic HP31 1994 (McAvoy, Christy J., Historic Resource Group)
P-19-188087 Resource Name - Pomona Valley
Creamery
LA-09871, LA-09894Building Historic HP06; HP45 2006 (S. Carmack, LSA) P-19-190312 Resource Name - San Fernando
Road Bridge over Verdugo Wash;
Other - CA53C-0226;
Other - US Army Corps Bridge
B3241
LA-06722, LA-
12526, VN-03153
Structure Historic HP19 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR
Services);
2012 (Candace Ehringer, ESA)
P-19-190599 OHP Property Number - 126220;
Resource Name - General Aircraft
Co;
Other - 512 San Fernando Rd
(Historic)
LA-06722Building Historic HP06; HP08 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Services corp)
P-19-190600 OHP Property Number - 126221;
Resource Name - AirGas Inc
LA-06722Building Historic HP08 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Services corp)
P-19-190601 OHP Property Number - 126222;
Resource Name - ICC Co.

LA-06722, LA-12367Building Historic HP08 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Services corp)
P-19-190602 OHP Property Number - 126223;
Resource Name - R.A. Fisher Co.

LA-06722Building Historic HP08 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Services corp)
P-19-190603 Resource Name -
Commercial/Milford Streets
Industrial Historic District
LA-06722District Historic HP08 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Sercices Corp)
P-19-190604 OHP Property Number - 126224;
Resource Name - 801 Milford St
LA-06722Building,
Element of
district
Historic HP08 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Sercices
Corp)
P-19-190605 OHP Property Number - 126225;
Resource Name - Van Heuklyn &
Handy Cabinet Co
LA-06722Building,
Element of
district
Historic HP08 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Sercices
Corp)
P-19-190606 OHP Property Number - 126226;
Resource Name - Van Heuklyn &
Handy Cabinet Company
LA-06722Building,
Element of
district
Historic HP08 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Sercices
Corp)
P-19-190607 OHP Property Number - 126227;
Resource Name - Modern
Refrigerator Works
LA-06722Building,
Element of
district
Historic HP08

EXHIBIT 6
386 of 1278

Primary No. Trinomial
Resource List
Other IDs ReportsType Age Attribute codes Recorded by
RVA2205
P-19-190608 OHP Property Number - 126228;
Resource Name - Beverly Dairies
Addition
LA-06722Building,
Element of
district
Historic HP08 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Sercices
Corp)
P-19-190609 OHP Property Number - 126229;
Resource Name - 862 Grange St
LA-06722Building Historic HP02 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Sercices Corp)
P-19-190610 OHP Property Number - 126230;
Resource Name - 866 Grange St
LA-06722Building Historic HP02 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Sercices Corp)
P-19-190611 OHP Property Number - 126231;
Resource Name - 870 Grange St
LA-06722Building Historic HP02 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Sercices Corp)
P-19-190612 OHP Property Number - 126232;
Resource Name - 874 Grange St
LA-06722Building Historic HP03 2000 (Jan Ostashay, PCR Sercices Corp)
P-19-190897 Resource Name - Los Angeles
River Channel;
Resource Name - Glendale
Narrow Section;
Other - LAHCM No. 942
LA-13171, LA-13252Structure Historic HP20; HP22 2013 (Dana Slawson, Greenwood & Associates)

EXHIBIT 6
387 of 1278

M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

APPENDIX B

DEPARTMENT OF PARK AND RECREATION 523 FORMS
EXHIBIT 6
388 of 1278

State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # P-19-190897 DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial
NRHP Status Code
Other Listings
Review Code Reviewer Date

P1. Other Identifier:

*P2. Location:  Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County: Los Angeles and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)

*b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Burbank, California Date: 1972 T 1N; R 14W; Non-Sectioned; SBBM c. Address: City: Los Angeles Zip:
d. UTM: Zone: 11N 381963mE/ 3780200mN (NAD83); Elevation: 444’ AMSL e. Other Locational Data: This portion of the Glendale Narrows Segment of the Los Angeles River is located in the city of Los Angeles and the City of Glendale, immediately to the north of the John Ferraro Athletic Fields.

*P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements: design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, boundaries) This resource is a 300 by 326-foot concrete segment of the Los Angeles River Channel at the northwestern edge of Griffith Park, adjacent to Zoo Drive in the city of Los Angeles . This resource was originally recorded and evaluated by Dana Slawson in 2013. It was constructed from 1938 to 1939 (see Slawson 2013). Some patches of concrete have been repaired, but in general this portion of concrete that comprises the segment remains intact as originally recorded.

References:

Slawson, Dana. 2013. Site Record for P-19-190897. On File at the SCCIC. Fullerton, California.

*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP20 Canal. HP22 River.

P5b. Description of Photo: (View,
date, accession #) Photo 6: Site
Overview 11/15/2022

*P6. Date Built; Age and Source:
Historic
Prehistoric Both
1939 (Slawson 2013)

*P7. Owner and Address:

City of Los Angeles/Los Angeles
County Flood Control District/U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers

*P8. Recorded by:

George Brentner
BCR Consulting LLC
Claremont, CA 91711

P9. Date: 11/15/22
*P10. Survey Type: Intensive

*P11. Report Citation: Cultural
Resources Assessment of the Garden
River Bridge Project, Los Angeles,
California

*Attachments: NONE  Location
Map  Sketch Map  Continuation
Sheet Building, Structure, and
Object Record
Archaeological Record District
Record Linear Feature Record
Milling Station Record Rock Art
Record
Artifact Record Photograph
Record  Other (List):

DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information
P5a. Photo or Drawing (Photo required for buildings, structures, and objects.)

EXHIBIT 6
389 of 1278

EXHIBIT 6
390 of 1278

Page1of4*ResourceNameor#:LosAngelesRiverChannel, GlendaleNarrowSection P1.OtherIdentifier:
*P2.Location:NotforPublication1Unrestricted*a.County:LosAngeles and(P2bandP2corP2d.AttachaLocationMapasnecessary.)
*b.USGS7.5Quad:Burbank,CADate:1991TiN;R13W;unsectionedB.M. c.Address:Nonej+tk,:
.

LciSCity:LosAngelesZip:90039
d.UTM:Zone:uS;NWcr.382528mE/3777414mN;NEcr.382601mE/3777403mN;SWcr.382554mE/3777308mN;SECr. 382630mE/3777316mN
e.OtherLocationalData:PartiallywithintheboundariesofGriffithPark,boundedbyInterstate5onthewest,betweenRigali Ave.andVerdantSt.ontheeast(AtwaterVillage)side.Elevation:396-405 feetamsl. *p3a.Description:

TheGlendaleNarrowsisa7-milesectionofthe52-milelong LosAngelesRiverthatflowsbetweenthecommunityofBurbankand theCityofLosAngelesneighborhoodof ElysianValley.GriffthParkliestothewestoftheriver,andAtwaterVillageistotheeast.

GlendaleNarowsischannelized,andhasslopinggroutedrockandconcreteembankmentwallsandanaturalor“soft”bottomthat islargelycoveredbywater-worn rocks andcobbles.Flankingthenaturalriverbedoneithersideareflatconcrete-pavedmargins.

Typically,theriverdepthwithintheNarrowsis1-3feet.Abuild-upofsedimentnearthewestriverbankhascreatedalong,low islandthatsupportsabundantvegetation,includingavarietyofgrasses,reeds,bushes,andtrees.Flankingthewestsideofthe riverchannelisanasphaltpavedbikepath(LARiverBikePath)15feetwide,immediatelywestofwhichistheInterstate5Golden StateFreeway.Alsoadjoiningtheonthewestisanaccessrampforanequestriantunnelthatextends beneaththefreewayto GriffithPark.Earthenrampsthatallowequestrianaccesstotheriverbedhavebeencreatedontopoftheconcretebankson eitherside.Ontheeastsideofthechannel,theearthenriverberm/leveeiselevated8-10feetabovethesurroundinglandscape.

Atoptheleveeisagravelpedestrian/equestrianpathway10-15feetwide.(SeeContinuationSheets) *P3bResourceAttributes:HP2OCanal,HP22River
*4ResourcesPresent:BuildingIXiStructureflObjectESiteI:lDistrictEElementofDistrictEOther(Isolates,etc.) P5a.PhotoorDrawing
-P5b.DescriptionofPhoto:

GlendaleNarrowsectionofLA
River,viewtoNWfromNAtwater
Parkarea,8/29/13
*p6.DateConstructed/Ageand
Sources:Historic
EPrehistoricEBoth
*7Owner andAddress:

CityofLosAngeles/
LosAngelesCountyFloodControl
District/
USArmyCorpsofEngineers
*p8.Recordedby:

DanaSlawson
Greenwood andAssociates
725JaconWay
PacificPalisades,CA90272
*9DateRecorded:May29,2013
SurveyType:Intensive
Survey
*P11ReportCitation:D.Slawson.2013.HistoricPropertyEvaluationReport,NorthAtwaterCrossingProject.Greenwoodand Associates.SubmittedtoLARiverRevitalizationCorporationandUSArmyCorpsofEngineers,LosAngelesDistrict. *Aftachments:ENONEELocationMapESketchMap1ContinuationSheetBuilding,Structure,andObject Record EArchaeologicalRecordEDistrictRecordELinearFeatureRecordEMiIlingStationRecordERockArtRecord EArtifactRecordEPhotographRecordEOther(List):Documentationofisolates StateofCalifornia—TheResourcesAgencyPrimary#
DEPARTMENTOFPARKSANDRECREATIONHRI#
PRIMARYRECORDTrinomial
NRHPStatusCode
OtherListingsLAHistoric-CulturalMonumentNo.942
ReviewCodeReviewerDate
iI.I-
-—-.-“
DPR 523A(1195)*Requiredinformation
19-190897
EXHIBIT 6
391 of 1278

StateofCalifornia—TheResourcesAgencyPrimary#
DEPARTMENTOFPARKSANDRECREATIONHRI#
BUILDING,STRUCTURE,ANDOBJECTRECORDNRHPStatusCode
OtherListingsLAHistoric-CulturalMonumentNo.942
ReviewCodeReviewerDate
Page2of4*ResourceNameor#:LosAngelesRiverChannel,GlendaleNarrowSection Bi.HistoricName:

B2.CommonName:GlendaleNarrowsSectionoftheLosAngelesRiver B3.OriginalUse:RiverChannelB4.PresentUse:same
*B5.ArchitecturalStyle:Utilitarian,concreteandgroutedrock *B6.ConstructionHistory:(Constructiondate,alterations,anddateofalterations):Existingstructurewas completedin1939.

TheGlendaleNarrowswasstraightenedandconfinedwithinearthenleveesin1919-1921.Anearlier groutedstonechannel was constructedin1935-1936,rebuiltaftera1938flood.
*B7.Moved?NoLJYesDUnknownDate:OriginalLocation:
*B8.RelatedFeatures:GlendaleNarrowsispartofthe52-milelongLosAngelesRiverandanelementoftheLosAngeles CountyDrainageArea(LACDA)system.

B9a.Architect:USArmyCorpsofEngineersb.Builder:Unknown
*Blo.Significance:Theme:WaterConveyance Systems/FloodControlArea:LosAngeles PeriodofSignificance:1939PropertyType:RiverchannelApplicableCriteria:N/A (Discussimportanceintermsofhistoricalorarchitectural contextasdefinedbytheme,period,andgeographic scope.Also addressintegrity.)
TheGlendaleNarrowssegmentoftheLosAngelesRiverwas amongthefirstsectionsoftherivertobechannelized underthe supervisionoftheU.S.ArmyCorpsofEngineers(USACE)followingthehistoricfloodofMarch3,1938.UndertheCorps’ leadership,acomprehensivefloodcontrolschemewasconceivedthatwouldprotect theentire countyfromfuturefloodevents.

TheUSACEprogram calledforchannelizationofallthecounty’smajorrivers,nottheLosAngelesRiveralone,alongwitharange ofothermeasures.ConstructionoftheLosAngelesRiverchannelcommencedinlate1935andworkonthelastsegmentof channelwascompletedin1959.(SeeContinuationSheets)
Bi1.AdditionalResourceAttributes:(Listattributesandcodes) *B12References:

Gumprecht,Blake
1999TheLosAngelesRiverItsLife,Death,and PossibleRebirth.TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,Baltimore,Maryland.

Layne,J.G.
1957WaterandPowerforaGreatCity.CityofLosAngelesDepartmentofWaterandPower,LosAngeles,California.

Paul,Daniel,MeghanPotter, ElizabethWeaver, ChristopherHetzel,andMichaelEberts 2008Historic-CulturalMonumentApplicationforGriffithPark.ICF Jones&Stokes,LosAngeles,forsubmissiontotheCityof
LosAngelesCulturalHeritage Commission.

B13.Remarks:
*B14Evaluator:DanaSlawson
GreenwoodandAssociates
725JaconWay
PacificPalisades,CA90272
(310)454-3091
*DateofEvaluation:May29,2013
(Thisspacereservedfor officialcomments.)
DPR523B(1195)*Requiredinformation
19-190897
EXHIBIT 6
392 of 1278

StateofCalifornia—TheResourcesAgencyPrimary#
DEPARTMENTOFPARKSANDRECREATIONHRI#
CONTINUATIONSHEETTrinomial
Page3of4*ResourceNameor#(Assignedbyrecorder):LosAngelesRiverChannel, GlendaleNarrowsSection *Recordedby:DanaSlawson,GreenwoodandAssociates*Date:May29,2013iiContinuationUpdate *p3a.Description,continued:

Measuredfromthetopofeachslopedbank,theLosAngelesRiverchannelis309feetwideand22feetdeep.The naturalportion oftheriverbedisapproximately154feetwide,flankedbyhorizontalconcrete-paved apronsthat areroughly20feetwide.The GlennclaleNarrowsliesparitiallywithintheboundariesofGriffithPark.The parkinitsentiretywasdesignatedaLosAngeles Historic-CulturalMonument(No.942)in2009.
*B1o.Significance,continued:

Thissameperiodsaw the channelizationofallofthecounty’smajorriversandstreams,includingtheSanGabrielRiver,Rio Hondo,andBallonaCreek. The7-milelongGlendaleNarrowssectionoftheLosAngelesRiverhasthedistinctionofbeingthe onlyportionoftheriverwithconcrete banksandanaturalbottom.Thismodeofconfinementwasselectedbecausegroundwater forcesinthislocationrenderedcreationofapavedriverbedimpossible.

Reviewof USACEdocumentationforthissectionoftheLosAngelesRiverchannel indicatesthatthechannelbedisessentiallyas itwasconstructedinthelate1930s.Workonthissectionoftheriverchannelhasbeenconfinedtoroutinemaintenanceactivities, suchasrepairingdamagedareasoftheinteriorchannelsurfaceswithcomparablematerials.Thelevelofhistoricalintegrityfor thissectionoftheriverchannelisconsideredverygood,relativetolocation,design,materials,workmanship,feeling,and association.Thehistoricalsettingoftheresourcewassignificantlycompromisedbyconstructionofthe1-5GoldenStateFreeway inthelate1950s.Constructionofthe 10-lane freewaydirectlyadjacenttotheriverchannelseveredtheconnectionbetweenthe naturalenvironmentofGriffithParkandthewaterwaythathadexisteduntilthattime.

TheGlendaleNarrowssectionoftheLosAngelesRiverchanneldoesnotappeareligibleforinclusionintheNationalRegister underCriterionA(AssociationwithEvents),nordoesitappeareligibleforstateor localhistoricdesignationbymeritofits associationwithimportanthistoricaleventsorpatternsofevents.Theriverchannelisassociatedwithfloodcontroleffortswithin LosAngelesCountyintheimmediatepreandpostWorldWarIIera, directedbytheUSArmyCorpsofEngineers, andthe developmentoftheLosAngelesCountyDrainageArea(LACDA).Thefloodcontrolandchannelizationprogram hadadramatic impactwithinLosAngelesCountyontheappearanceofthelandscapeandalterationofthe naturalandbuiltenvironment,aswell asitsimpactonthedevelopmentoftheregionbroughtbyessentiallyeliminatingthefearof flooding.Theeffortopenedforuse thousandsofacrespreviouslydeemedunsafe.

Whilethe systemasawholemaybeviewedashistoricallyimportant,thisparticularsectionoftheLosAngelesRiverchannel doesnotpossessanyspecialornoteworthyassociationswiththefloodcontrolprogramdevelopedand implementedbythe USACE,theorganizationprimarilyresponsibleforitsimplementation.

Similarly,thissectionoftheLosAngelesRiverchanneldoesnotappeareligibleforNationalRegisterlistingunderCriterionB (AssociationwithPersonsofHistoricalImportance),nordoesitmeetthecriteriaforstateorlocaldesignationinthiscategory.The efforttochannelizetheriverwasledbytheUSACELosAngelesDistrict.NoindividualmembersoftheUSACEwereidentifiedby theresearchwhobearparticularresponsibilityforthedesignandconstructionofthisportionoftheriverchannel,orfortheLACDA floodcontrolsystemgenerally.

ThissectionoftheLosAngelesRiverchanneldoesnotappeareligibleforNationalRegisterlistingunderCriterionC (Design/Construction),orunderstateandlocalhistoricaldesignationcriteriafordesign.TheGlendaleNarrowssectionoftheriver hasplayedanimportantroleinthehistoryoftheregion’sgrowthanddevelopment,particularlyinregardstotheCity’swater supply.Indeed,itwaswithintheNarrowsthatWilliamMuihollandandtheLosAngelesWaterCompanyexcavatedtheinfiltration gallerieswellsthatweretheCity’sprimarysourceofwaterandthereforesurvivalandgrowth,betweenthemid1880sandthe completionoftheLosAngelesAqueductin1913.Theappearanceoftheriversinceitstamingbywayofconstructionofthe currentconcretechannelinthe 1930sdoesnotevokehistoricalassociationswiththoseimportantevents.The existingchannelis ofstandarddesignand materials, andcomparableinappearanceandfunctiontotheonehundred-plusmilesofchannelswhich have carriedallofthecounty’sprincipalriverssincethemidtwentieth century.Thissegmentdisplaysnouniqueorinnovative designelements.-
DPR523L(1195)*Requiredinformation
19-190897
EXHIBIT 6
393 of 1278

StateofCalifornia—TheResourcesAgencyPrimary#
DEPARTMENTOFPARKSANDRECREATIONHRI#
CONTINUATIONSHEETTrinomial
Page4of4*ResourceNameor#(Assignedbyrecorder):LosAngelesRiverChannel,GlendaleNarrowsSection Photographs
DetailofGlendaleNarrowsriverbed,lookingsouthfromNAtwater Parkarea. tt
-‘
;...--..
--.‘-
...jg*::-:

GlendaleNarrows,westbank,lookingsouthfromNAtwaterPark/GriffithParkarea.LA RiverBikePath andInterstate5areonright.

DPR523L(1195)*Requiredinformation
19-190897
EXHIBIT 6
394 of 1278

M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

APPENDIX C

DETAILED PROJECT EXHIBIT

EXHIBIT 6
395 of 1278

EXHIBIT 6
396 of 1278

M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

APPENDIX D

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION SACRED LANDS FILE SEARCH

EXHIBIT 6
397 of 1278

STATE OF CALIFORNIA Gavin Newsom, Governor

NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION

December 9, 2022

David Brunzell
BCR Consulting, LLC

Via Email to: [email protected]

Re: Garden River Bridge (RVA2205) Project, Los Angeles County

Dear Mr. Brunzell:

A record search of the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) Sacred Lands File (SLF) was completed for the information you have submitted for the above referenced project. The results were negative. However, the absence of specific site information in the SLF does not indicate the absence of cultural resources in any project area. Other sources of cultural resources should also be contacted for information regarding known and recorded sites.

Attached is a list of Native American tribes who may also have knowledge of cultural resources in the project area. This list should provide a starting place in locating areas of potential adverse impact within the proposed project area. I suggest you contact all of those indicated; if they cannot supply information, they might recommend others with specific knowledge. By contacting all those listed, your organization will be better able to respond to claims of failure to consult with the appropriate tribe. If a response has not been received within two weeks of notification, the Commission requests that you follow-up with a telephone call or email to ensure that the project information has been received.

If you receive notification of change of addresses and phone numbers from tribes, please notify me. With your assistance, we can assure that our lists contain current information.

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at my email address: [email protected].

Sincerely,

Andrew Green
Cultural Resources Analyst

Attachment

CHAIRPERSON
Laura Miranda
Luiseño

VICE CHAIRPERSON
Reginald Pagaling
Chumash

SECRETARY
Sara Dutschke
Miwok

COMMISSIONER
Isaac Bojorquez
Ohlone-Costanoan

COMMISSIONER
Buffy McQuillen
Yokayo Pomo, Yuki,
Nomlaki

COMMISSIONER
Wayne Nelson
Luiseño

COMMISSIONER
Stanley Rodriguez
Kumeyaay

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

COMMISSIONER
[Vacant]

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
Raymond C.

Hitchcock
Miwok/Nisenan

NAHC HEADQUARTERS
1550 Harbor Boulevard
Suite 100
West Sacramento,
California 95691
(916) 373-3710
[email protected]
NAHC.ca.gov

EXHIBIT 6
398 of 1278

Fernandeno Tataviam Band of
Mission Indians
Rudy Ortega, Tribal President
1019 Second Street, Suite 1
San Fernando, CA, 91340
Phone: (818) 837 - 0794
Fax: (818) 837-0796
[email protected]
Tataviam
Gabrieleno Band of Mission
Indians - Kizh Nation
Andrew Salas, Chairperson
P.O. Box 393
Covina, CA, 91723
Phone: (626) 926 - 4131
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrieleno/Tongva San Gabriel
Band of Mission Indians
Anthony Morales, Chairperson
P.O. Box 693
San Gabriel, CA, 91778
Phone: (626) 483 - 3564
Fax: (626) 286-1262
[email protected]
Gabrieleno
Gabrielino /Tongva Nation
Sandonne Goad, Chairperson
106 1/2 Judge John Aiso St.,
#231
Los Angeles, CA, 90012
Phone: (951) 807 - 0479
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Robert Dorame, Chairperson
P.O. Box 490
Bellflower, CA, 90707
Phone: (562) 761 - 6417
Fax: (562) 761-6417
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Gabrielino Tongva Indians of
California Tribal Council
Christina Conley, Tribal
Consultant and Administrator
P.O. Box 941078
Simi Valley, CA, 93094
Phone: (626) 407 - 8761
[email protected]
u
Gabrielino
Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
Charles Alvarez,
23454 Vanowen Street
West Hills, CA, 91307
Phone: (310) 403 - 6048
[email protected]
Gabrielino
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla
Indians
Lovina Redner, Tribal Chair
P.O. Box 391820
Anza, CA, 92539
Phone: (951) 659 - 2700
Fax: (951) 659-2228
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Joseph Ontiveros, Cultural
Resource Department
P.O. BOX 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 663 - 5279
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
Soboba Band of Luiseno
Indians
Isaiah Vivanco, Chairperson
P. O. Box 487
San Jacinto, CA, 92581
Phone: (951) 654 - 5544
Fax: (951) 654-4198
[email protected]
Cahuilla
Luiseno
1 of 1
This list is current only as of the date of this document. Distribution of this list does not relieve any person of statutory responsibility as defined in Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code, Section 5097.94 of the Public Resource Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

This list is only applicable for contacting local Native Americans with regard to cultural resources assessment for the proposed Garden River Bridge (RVA2205) Project, Los Angeles County.

PROJ-2022-
007409
12/09/2022 11:18 AM
Native American Heritage Commission
Native American Contact List
Los Angeles County
12/9/2022
EXHIBIT 6
399 of 1278

M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

APPENDIX E

PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
EXHIBIT 6
400 of 1278

M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

Photo 1: Overview of W Boundary of Project Area From SW Corner

Photo 2: Overview of Project Area From SW Corner
EXHIBIT 6
401 of 1278

M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

Photo 3: Overview of Project Area From W of it on S Side of River

Photo 4: Overview of Project Area From N Side
EXHIBIT 6
402 of 1278

M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

Photo 5: Overview of Project Area From N Side

Photo 6: Overview of Project Area From N Side
EXHIBIT 6
403 of 1278

M A R C H 3 0 , 2 0 2 6 B C R C O N S U L T I N G L L C

C U L T U R A L R E S O U R C E S A S S E S S M E N T

G A R D E N R I V E R B R I D G E P R O J E C T

APPENDIX F

RESUMES OF PROJECT PERSONNEL
EXHIBIT 6
404 of 1278

DAVID BRUNZELL, M.A., RPA
Owner/Principal Investigator
BCR Consulting LLC
Claremont, California 91711
909/525-7078
[email protected]

EXPERTISE
Cultural Resource Project Management
National Environmental Policy Act Cultural Resource Compliance California Environmental Quality Act Cultural Resource Compliance National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Compliance Government Agency (Federal/State/Regional) Partnering, Streamlining, and Consultation Preliminary Environmental Assessment Coordination (i.e. Caltrans PEAR/PES) Technical Report Writing for Archaeology, History, and Architectural History NRHP/CRHR Evaluation of Pre/historic Archaeological, and Historic Architectural Resources Preparation of all DPR523 Site Records
Archaeological, Historical, and Architectural History Research Archaeological Excavation
Archaeological Survey
Architectural Survey
Lithic and Ground Stone Analysis
Global Positioning Systems / Archaeological Mapping and Orienteering Fossil Preparation
Laboratory Analysis
California SB18 and AB52 Native American Consultation
University/College Instruction: Anthropology, Archaeology, Architectural Evaluation

EDUCATION
California State University, Fullerton, M.A. Anthropology/Archaeology, 2002 Thesis Project: Cultural Resources Investigation and California Register of Historical Resources Architectural Evaluation of the Marymount College Campus, Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County California State University, Fullerton, B.A. Anthropology, 1997 California State University, Fullerton, Independent Graduate Research: Architectur al Change in Los Angeles, Jerusalem, Prague, and London 1999 California State University, Fullerton, Internship: Cultural Resource Management, Historic Preservation, and Architectural History at McKenna et al., Whittier, California 1998-1999 Pomona College Field School, Southern Oregon/Northern California, 1995 Edge of the Cedars Museum, Ancestral Pueblo Ceramic Identification Training 2001 Cultural Sensitivity Training, Native American Consultation, Riverside County, 2011, 09, 07 California State Univ. San Bernardino College of Extended Learning, Flint Knapping, 2007 National Preservation Institute NHPA Section 106 Training, 2004 EXHIBIT 6
405 of 1278

PERMITS
Bureau of Land Management Principal Investigator for Cultural Resource Investigations in California and the Great Basin (Both Current)
Nevada Antiquities Permit
California Department of Transportation Principal Investigator for Cultural Resources Authorized Researcher at Each of the Twelve California Archaeological Information Centers Authorized NVCRIS Researcher

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS, AWARDS, AND CERTIFICATIONS
2002-Present Member, Register of Professional Archaeologists 2000-Present Member, Society for American Archaeology
2012-15 Claremont Heritage, Historic Preservation Board of Directors 2011 Certified Archaeologist for Unincorporated Orange County 2000 McKenna Scholarship Award, 4th Recipient
1996-2002 Lambda Alpha Society, National Collegiate Honors Society for Anthropology 2008-09 Board of Directors, Pomona Valley Historical Society

FULLTIME PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Total time spent at each firm is indicated in Table A. Overlap periods between positions represent times when (a) two jobs were worked concurrently, or (b) absence -with- permission was taken from one firm to acquire valuable experience from another . Positions are all full-time unless otherwise noted. Table A also shows (per Code of Federal Regulations Title 36 Parks, Forests, and Public Property Chapter National Park Service, Department of the Interior Part 61 Procedures for Approved State and Local Government Historic Preservation Programs U.S. Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualifications Standards [PQS]) that fulltime professional experience exceeds one year . Also, more than a year of supervised field and analytic experience in general North American archaeology occurred between 1996 -1998 during Archaeological Field Director/Associate position with McKenna et al . Supervisory positions (exceeding one year -per PQS) are indicated in parentheses. Relevant s upervisory e xperience in prehistoric and historic archaeology, history, and architectural history are itemized by project in Tables B and C. For the purposes of this table, one week refers to 40 hours worked, and one month is four 40-hour weeks.

Table A. Employment
Employment
Date Range Position Title Total Duration of
Employment
2008-Present Owner and Principal Investigator. BCR Consulting LLC (Supervisory) 18 Years 2004-08 Senior Cultural Resource Project Manager/Archaeologist. LSA Associates, Inc., Riverside, California (Supervisory Position) 3 Years, 10
Months
2004-07 Adjunct Faculty. University of La Verne, La Verne, California 3 Years (part-time) 2004 Adjunct Faculty. Community College of Southern Nevada 6 Months (part- time)
2004 Archaeological Crew Chief. Native X, Reno, Nevada 6 Months 2003-04 Archaeological Project Manager. SWCA Environmental, Las Vegas, Nevada. 2003 to 2004 (Supervisory Position) 1 Year, 2 Months EXHIBIT 6
406 of 1278

Employment
Date Range Position Title Total Duration of
Employment
2003
Archaeological Crew Chief. Colorado State University Center for Environmental Management of Military Lands, Fort Greeley, Alaska. 2003 (Supervisory Position)
4 Months
2002 Archaeological Crew Chief (GS -9). Hammond Post Fire Assessment, Manti La Sal National Forest, Utah (Supervisory) 4 Months 1996-2002 Archaeological Field Technician/ Field Director/ Architectural H istorian, McKenna et al., Whittier, California (Supervisory after 1998) 5 Years 1999-2000 Archaeological/Paleontological Crew Chief. Keith Companies, Costa Mesa, California (Supervisory Position) 4 Months
1999 Internship. Cultural Resource Management, Historic Preservation, and Architectural History, McKenna et al. (Academic/Professional) 4 Months 1995 Archaeological Research Assistant. Siskiyou County, Oregon, with the BLM and Pomona College Field School, Claremont 2 Months

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE
The following tables depict selected projects to demonstrate Mr. Brunzell’s adherence to Professional Qualifications of the Secretary of Interior Standards for the fields of History, Archaeology, and Architectural History , as defined in the PQS. Mr. Brunzell served as project manager and first author for each project, except * =co-author/field director, **=contributing author/field director, or *** =crew chief/field director . Table B shows t ime spent on prehistoric or historic archaeology or history projects. Table C shows time spent on architectural history projects . Mr. Brunzell has completed many additional years in each field. Additional project experience will be provided upon request.

Table B. Select Principal Investigator Experience
Project Title (Project Duration) Prehistoric
Archaeology
Historic
Archaeology History
Cultural Resources Monitoring Program for the McFarland Solar Project, Yuma County, Arizona (2 Years)
2 years
(Principal) N/A N/A
Cultural Resources Assessment Gravesite Expansion and
Cemetery Improvements VA Project No. 914 CM3009, National Memorial Cemetery of Arizona, Phoenix, Arizona (10 Months) 2 Weeks
(Principal) 2 Weeks N/A
Archaeological Survey Report of Needles Hwy Project,
Needles/Unincorporated Portions of San Bernardino County, California, BLM, Lake Havasu, Arizona Jurisdiction (4 Months) 2 Weeks 1 Month 1 Month
Cultural Resources Assessment Baldy Mesa Solar Project
Adelanto, San Bernardino County (10 Months)
10 Months
(Principal) N/A N/A
Archaeological Monitoring Program Beacon Photovoltaic
Project: Project Sites 1, 3, and 4, Kern County, California Nine Months
(Principal) N/A N/A
Cultural Resources Inventory LSV Indian Springs, Nevada Four Months (Principal) N/A N/A
EXHIBIT 6
407 of 1278

Project Title (Project Duration) Prehistoric
Archaeology
Historic
Archaeology History
Cultural Resources Assessment of 3,168 Acre Solar
Development in the Mojave Desert, Kern County (2 Months) 6 Weeks
(Principal) 1 Week 1 Week
Cultural Resources Assessment of 2,882 Acre Solar
Development in the Mojave Desert, Kern County (2 Months) 6 Weeks
(Principal) 1 Week 1 Week
Cultural Resources Assessment of 661 Acre Solar
Development in the Mojave Desert, Kern County (2 Weeks) 2 Weeks
(Principal) N/A N/A
Cultural Resources Assessment of 328 Acres Solar
Development in the Mojave Desert, Kern County (2 Weeks) 2 Weeks
(Principal) N/A N/A
Historic American Building Survey, Pitzer Ranch Project, Claremont, California (1 Month) N/A N/A 1 Month
Historic American Building Survey, Schulte Road Bridge
Project, Monterey County, California (1 Month) N/A N/A 1 Month Cultural Resources Assessment of the Crown Castle USA
Southern California Metro PCS DAS Project, Orange and Los Angeles Counties, California (6 Weeks)
2 Weeks 2 Weeks 2 Weeks
Bureau of Land Management Monitoring of Class III
Recordation of Prehistoric Resources within Solar One Project, Unincorporated San Bernardino, Calif. (2 Months)
2 Months N/A N/A
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of Tentative Parcel Map No. 36229, APN 471-080-014, Reche Canyon,
Unincorporated Riverside County (1 Month; see also Table C) 1 Week 1 Week 1 Week
Addendum to a Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment and Paleontological Records Review of the Rio Santiago Specific Plan Project, City of Orange, Orange County (3 Weeks)
1 Week 1 Week 1 Week
Cultural Resources Assessment of a Proposed Single Family Residence, Unincorporated Castaic, LA County. (2 Weeks) 1 Week N/A 1 Week NR Eligibility Evaluation of the Coalinga Library Building, Coalinga, Fresno County (1 Month; see also Table C) N/A N/A 2 Weeks Archaeological Records Search, Shallan Residential Project in Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County (1 Week) N/A N/A 1 Week Cultural Resources Assessment and Evaluations for Habitat Conservation Plan of 100 Acres for North Pit Expansion, USFWS, Unincorporated San Bernardino County (1 Month )
2 Weeks 1 Week 1 Week
Cultural Resources Assessment and Evaluations East Los
Angeles College (1 Month, see Also Table C.) 1 Week N/A 1 Week Cultural Resources Assessment of 3,168 Acre Solar
Development in the Mojave Desert, Kern County (2 Months) 6 Weeks 1 Week 1 Week Cultural Resources Assessment of 2,882 Acre Solar
Development in the Mojave Desert, Kern County (2 Months) 6 Weeks 1 Week 1 Week Cultural Resources Assessment of 661 Acre Solar
Development in the Mojave Desert, Kern County (2 Weeks) 2 Weeks N/A N/A Cultural Resources Assessment of 328 Acres Solar 2 Weeks N/A N/A EXHIBIT 6
408 of 1278

Project Title (Project Duration) Prehistoric
Archaeology
Historic
Archaeology History
Development in the Mojave Desert, Kern County (2 Weeks) Cultural Resources Assessment of 649 Acre Solar
Development in the Mojave Desert, Kern County (2 Weeks) 2 Weeks N/A N/A Archaeological Monitoring/Excavations at the Dateland Project, Indio, Riverside County, California (1 Month)** 1 Month N/A N/A Member of the Board of Directors and Volunteer for the Pomona Valley Historical Society (1 Month; No Publication) N/A N/A 1 Month Cultural Resource Assessment and Evaluation of the Riverside Canal, Lateral No. 3, Riverside County, California (1 Month)** N/A 2 Weeks 2 Weeks Draft Archaeological ASR and HPSR (Caltrans) for the I- 15/Cajalco Interchange Project (2 Months) 2 Months N/A 2 Weeks Cultural Resources Assessment of the Starcrest Distribution Facility, City of Perris, Riverside County, California (2 Weeks) N/A N/A 2 Weeks Cultural Resource Assessment of the Ritz Tract Project, City of Grand Terrace, San Bernardino County, California (6 Weeks) 2 Weeks 1 Week 3 Weeks Cultural Resource Monitoring of the Temecula 32 Project, City of Temecula, Riverside County, California (3 Months) 3 Months N/A N/A Cultural Resource Assessment and Significance Evaluations at the Hacienda at Fairview Valley Specific Plan Project, San Bernardino County, California (3 Months)
1 Month 1 Month 1 Month
Cultural Resource Assessment/Evaluations of the Majestic Hills Specific Plan, San Bernardino County, California (4 Months, 2 Weeks; see Also Architectural Survey Section)
2 Months 1 Month 1 Month
Archaeological Survey Report for the Mid County Parkway, Riverside County, California (2 Months)** 2 Months N/A N/A Cultural Resource Test Excavations of the Temecula 32
Project, City of Temecula, Riverside County (2 Weeks) 1 Week N/A 1 Week Cultural Resources Assessment Box Springs Road Apartment Project, Moreno Valley, Riverside County (2 Weeks) 1 Week N/A 1 Week Cultural Resource Assessment/Significance Evaluations,
Murrieta Hills S.P., Murrieta, Riverside County (3 Months) 1 Month 1 Month 1 Month Cultural Resource Assessment and Significance of the
Skyward I Project, California City, Kern County (3 Months) 2 Months N/A 1 Month Cultural Resource Assessment of the Topaz Ranchero Project, City of Hesperia, San Bernardino County, California (3 Weeks) 1 Week 1 Week 1 Week Cultural Resource Assessment of the Deutsch Property
Specific Plan, City of Banning, Riverside County (2 Months) N/A 1 Month 1 Month Cultural Resource Assessment of the Jacqueline Cochran
Regional Airport, Community of Thermal, Unincorporated
Riverside County, California (3 Months)
2 Weeks 2 Weeks 2 Weeks
Evaluation of Prehistoric Resources Within the Jacqueline 2 Weeks N/A N/A EXHIBIT 6
409 of 1278

Project Title (Project Duration) Prehistoric
Archaeology
Historic
Archaeology History
Cochran Regional Airport, Community of Thermal,
Unincorporated Riverside County, California (2 Weeks)
Cultural Resource Assessment of the Simi Village Project, City of Simi Valley, Ventura County, California (3 Weeks) 1 Week 1 Week 1 Week Cultural Resources Assessment Hospitality Center Project, City of San Bernardino, San Bernardino County (1 Month) N/A N/A 1 Month Cultural Resource Assessment and Excavations at Stoneridge Ranch Project, Moreno Valley, Riverside County (3 Months) 1 Month 1 Month 1 Month Cultural Resources Assessment, Archaeological Testing, and Evaluations of the Bridle Path and N. Point Projects (2 Months) 2 Weeks 2 Weeks 1 Month Cultural Resource Assessment of the Harley John Road and Twyla Jane Lane Projects (1 Month) 2 Weeks 1 Week 1 Week Cultural Resource Assessment of the SC Edison San Gorgonio Hydroelectric Plant, Riverside County, California (2 Months) 2 Weeks 3 Weeks 3 Weeks Archaeological Monitoring of the Parkside Village Project, City of Yucaipa, San Bernardino County, California (2 Months) 2 Months N/A N/A Cultural Resource Assessment, Stein Project, City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California (3 Weeks) 1 Week 1 Week 1 Week Cultural Resources Assessment of the Garbani Road Project, TTM No. 33883, Riverside County, California (1 Month) 1 Week 1 Week 2 Weeks Cultural Resources Assessment of Cherry Valley, Nevada (2 Months)*** 1 Month 2 Weeks 2 Weeks
Cultural Resources Assessment and Site Evaluations of a 12 Mile Linear Survey on BLM Land Near Elko, Nevada (1 Month) 2 Weeks 1 Week 1 Week Cultural Res. Assessment, BLM, Lake Mead, NV (3 Weeks) 1 Week 1 Week 1 Week A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory of the Lassen Volcanic National Park Fuel Treatment Units in Lassen and Plumas County, California (2 Months)
1 Month 2 Weeks 2 Weeks
Cultural Resources Assessment and Prehistoric Site Evaluation for Mesa Project at Henderson, Nevada (1 Month) 2 Weeks N/A 2 Weeks A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory and Significance Eval's of the Whiskeytown National Recreation Area Fuel Treatment Units in Shasta County, California (5 Months; see Also Table C) 2 Months 1 Month 1 Month
Cultural Resources Assessment, Ft. Greeley, AK (4 Months)*** 3 Months 1 Month N/A A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Gallery Homes Property in Western Riverside County, California (1 Month)** 1 Month N/A N/A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of APN 958-060-005,a 20 Acre Parcel Located in Riverside County, California (1 Month)** 2 Weeks N/A 2 Weeks A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Esplanade Specific Plan Project, Riverside County, California (3 Weeks)** 1 Week 1 Week 1 Week EXHIBIT 6
410 of 1278

Project Title (Project Duration) Prehistoric
Archaeology
Historic
Archaeology History
Master’s Thesis Project: A Phase I Cultural Resources
Investigation and CRHR Architectural Evaluation of the
Marymount College Campus, Rancho Palos Verdes (4 Months- see also architecture section, below)
N/A N/A 2 Months
Results of a Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District Recycled Water
Feasibility Study, Los Angeles/Ventura Counties (2 Months)** 1 Month 2 Weeks 2 Weeks
A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of 500 Acres in the Bedford Canyon Area, Riverside County, California (1 Month)** 2 Weeks N/A 2 Weeks A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation for the Proposed Expansion of the W. Los Angeles College, Culver City, Los Angeles County, California (1 Month)**
N/A 2 Weeks 2 Weeks
A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Point Happy Project, La Quinta, Riverside County, California (1 Month)** N/A 2 Weeks 2 Weeks A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of the Milton Property in Hemet, Riverside County, California (1 Month)** 2 Weeks 1 Week 1 Week A Phase I Cultural Resources Survey of the Meadowview Golf Course, Temecula, Riverside County, California (1 Month)** 2 Weeks 1 Week 1 Week A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of “The Ranch” Project Located in the Community of La Quinta, Riverside County, California (3 Months)***
2 Months N/A 1 Month
A Phase I Prehistoric Cultural Resources Investigation of the Eastern Industry/Majestic Realty Project, City of Industry, Los Angeles, California (2 Months)**
1 Month N/A 1 Month

Table C. Selected Projects Showing Time Spent on Architectural History Projects Project Title Survey, Evaluation
and Research
Master’s Thesis Project, Produced in Partial Fulfillment of the Master of Arts Degree in Archaeology, California State University, Fullerton: Architectural Evaluation of the Marymount College Campus in the City of Rancho Palos Verdes, Los Angeles County, California (Committee Chair: Phylissa Eisentraut)
4 Months
Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Evaluation, Muscoy 86 Property, San Bernardino County, California 1 Month
Cultural Resources Assessment and View Shed Assessment for Historic Properties at the Crown Castle Pasadena SCL Old Town G1 and SCL Pasadena B2 Project, Pasadena, Los Angeles County, California
1 Month
Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Evaluation Caprock Warehouse Project, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California 1 Month Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Evaluation, El Paseo Project, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California 1 Month
Analysis for Potential Indirect Impacts to Historical Resources by the BNSF Ono Lead Track Extension Project, San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California 1 Month EXHIBIT 6
411 of 1278

Project Title Survey, Evaluation
and Research
Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Evaluation NEC Archibald and Limonite Project, Eastvale, Riverside County, California 1 Month Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Evaluation, Normandie Courtyard Project, City of Gardena, Los Angeles County, California 1 Month Historical Resources Evaluation, 743 Craig Avenue City of La Canada Flintridge 1 Month Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Evaluation, Sun Edison Hemet Project, City of Hemet, Riverside County, California 1 Month Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Evaluation, Pipeline Avenue Project, San Bernardino County, California 1 Month
National Register Eligibility Evaluation of the Coalinga Library Building, Coalinga, Fresno County, California (1 Month; see also Table B) 2 Weeks Cultural Resources Assessment and Evaluations East Los Angeles College (1 Month; see Also Table B) 2 Weeks
Cultural Resource Assessment and Architectural Evaluation for Ridgeline Equestrian Estates, City of Orange, Orange County, California 1 Month Proposal to Prepare Citywide Historic Context Statement and Reconnaissance Survey for the City of Napa, and Historic Context Statement and Detailed Property Survey for the Soscol Gateway/East Napa Neighborhood
2 Weeks
Cultural Resources Monitoring Program: Architectural Demolition Monitoring of the Historic P.I. Market, Pismo Beach, San Luis Obispo County, California 2 Weeks Cultural Resource Assessment/Evaluations of the Majestic Hills Specific Plan, San Bernardino County, California 2 Weeks
Research, Development, and Application of Archaeo-astronomy Course to Teach Architectural Survey Methods at Maya Sites in Honduras, Guatemala, and Belize, University of La Verne (Course Core 340: Archaeoastronomy and Maya Cosmology) 3 Months
A Phase I Cultural Resources Inventory/ Significance Evaluations of the Whiskeytown National Recreation Area Fuel Treatment Units in Shasta County, California 1 Month Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment Whitewater Preserve Levee Protection Project, Riverside County, California 1 Month
A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of 7179 East Avenue, Rancho Cucamonga, San Bernardino County, California** 2 Weeks
Demolition Monitoring and Documentation of the TAV Theater Project, Hollywood 1 Month Historic Building Evaluations in Laguna Beach, Orange County, California*** 2 Weeks Addendum Studies Historic Bridge Evaluations and NEPA Review, Historic Route 66*** 2 Weeks A Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation of Tract 16191 in the City of Fontana * 2 Weeks Architectural History: Review of the South Seas House in the City of Los Angeles ** 1 Month Historic Property Relocation Monitoring Program: The McLaughlin House, Oxnard, Ventura County, California** 2 Weeks
Historic American Bldg. Survey of Glendon Manor, Los Angeles, California*** 1 Month EXHIBIT 6
412 of 1278

Project Title Survey, Evaluation
and Research
Historic Property Evaluation; Ann Camarillo Petit House in Camarillo ** 2 Weeks Historic Property Evaluation: The Azusa Foothill Drive-In Theater, Azusa ** 2 Weeks Field Research/Historic Building Survey, Recordation/Ethnographic Analysis of Religious and State Buildings Research Conducted in Los Angeles, London, Dublin, Prague, Hradec Kralove (Czech Republic), Krakow, Jerusalem [No Publication] 4 Months
Historic American Building Survey: Cultural Resources Investigation of the Village at the Park, City of Camarillo, Ventura County, California *** 2 Months Historic American Building Survey: The Currier Ranch Complex Located in the City of Industry, Los Angeles County, California*** 2 Months
Academic Paper: Broken Windows and Spatial Theory: Applying Broken Windows Theory to Crime Prevention 2 Weeks
A Phase I Historic Cultural Resources Investigation and Architectural Descriptions for the Historic Alvan T. Currier Property, Industry, Los Angeles County, California** 2 Months Historic Building Survey, SPUSD, South Pasadena, Los Angeles County, California*** 2 Weeks

Table D. Client References
Eric Flodine
Vice President of Community Planning
Strata Equity Group
858-546-0900 x214; [email protected]
Cord Hute
Project Manager
Synthesis Environmental
415-328-7923; [email protected]
Jorge EstradaSenior Associate
[email protected]
714-966-9220 x2366

Darren Edgington
Environmental Programs Manager
Riverside County Planning Department
[email protected]; 951-955-2459

Table E. Government Agency References
Kurt Heidelberg
California Department of Transportation
909-388-7028
[email protected]
Jim Shearer
Bureau of Land Management
760-252-6034
[email protected]
Jocelyn Swain
City of Lancaster Planning Department
661-723-6100
[email protected]
Shannon Fitzgerald
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, EDA
206-220-7703
[email protected]

EXHIBIT 6
413 of 1278

NICHOLAS SHEPETUK, M.A./RPA
Archaeological Project Manager/Field Director (2017-Present) BCR Consulting LLC
310-469-2291
[email protected]
SKILLS
Project Management
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 Compliance California Environmental Quality Act Compliance
Technical Report Writing for Archaeology, History, and Architectural History Archaeological, Historical, and Architectural History Research Archaeological Excavation
Archaeological and Architectural History Survey
Lithic and Ground Stone Analysis Includi ng Typo-technologic al Analys is and Refitting Studies
Archaeological Mapping
Geoprocessing Using GIS Software
Laboratory Analysis
Human Osteological Analysis and Identification

EDUCATION
California State University, San Bernardino, M.A., Archaeology, 2024 University of California, Berkeley, B.A. Anthropology, 2017 Continuing Education
Maya Research Program, Archaeological Field School 2016 University of California, California Archaeology Laboratory, Excavation/Research 2016 University of California, Historical Archaeology Laboratory, Excavation/Research 2017 University of California, Geoarchaeology and Southwes t Asia Prehistor y Laboratory, Lithic Analysis 2016, 2017

SELECTED PROJECTS
Archaeological Monitoring of the Bayshore A Project, Lancaster, Los Angeles County, California
Archaeological Monitoring of the Park to Playa Project in Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles County, California
Archaeological Monitoring of the Bob Hope Crossing Project, Cathedral City, Riverside County, California
Archaeological Monitoring of the HP Communications Project in the City of Berkeley, Alameda County, California
EXHIBIT 6
414 of 1278

Phase II Archaeological Excavation of the Wawona Combined Evaluation Project in Wawona, Mariposa County, California

Archaeological Excavation of the Willits 17 Site Evaluation Project in Willits, Mendocino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Chubbuck Reclamation Project, Chubbuck, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Caprock Warehouse Project in Fontana, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Union Fontana Warehouse Project in Fontana, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of Assessor Parcel Number 3128-531-05-0000 in the City of Victorville, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Antelope North Solar Project, Lancaster, Los Angeles County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of Bench Ranch Solar Project, Lancaster, Los Angeles County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Lane Ranch Solar Project, Lancaster, Los Angeles County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Dewalt Project in Bakersfield, Kern County, California

Archaeological Survey for the Early Implementation Section 106 Project in Los Banos, Merced County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of Assessor’s Parcel Number 3128-531-05-0000 in the City of Hesperia, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Wyndham Hotels Project in Murrieta, Riverside County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Martin Homes Project, Tract 7318, Project in Bakersfield, Kern County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Sacramento T-Mobile Telecom Project, Sacramento County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Eco Plaza Commercial Center Project, Riverside, Riverside County, California

EXHIBIT 6
415 of 1278

GEORGE BRENTNER
Staff Historian/Archaeological Field Technician (2021-Present) BCR Consulting LLC
505 West 8th Street
Claremont, California 91711
310-882-1732
[email protected]

SKILLS
Historical and Architectural Historical Research
Archaeological and Architectural History Survey
Department of Park and Recreation 523 Forms
Archaeological Excavation
Archaeological Monitoring
Archaeological Site Identification and Recording
Lithic and Ground Stone Recognition
Global Positioning Systems
Geoprocessing Using GIS Software
Construction Site Safety
Proficient in Microsoft Office, Adobe, and Excel Software

EDUCATION
University of California, Los Angeles, Bachelor of Arts, History (2017) El Camino College (2013-2015)

SELECTED PROJECTS
Cultural Resources Assessment of the City of Industry - T3LA2524M1 Telecommunications Project, City of Industry, Los Angeles County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the SV00215 Telecommunications Project, Bakersfield, Kern County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the LA023193A Telecommunications Project, Mission Viejo, Orange County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the LA02430 Telecommunications Project, Paramount, Los Angeles County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the LA45477-A-01 Telecommunications Project, Whittier, Los Angeles County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the LA83258A Telecommunications Project, Inglewood, Los Angeles County, California

EXHIBIT 6
416 of 1278

Cultural Resources Assessment of the IE82049A Telecommunications Project, Orange County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Eligibility Evaluation of the Dale Evans Parkway Project, Apple Valley, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Eligibility Evaluation of the SRO Apartments Project, Gardena, Los Angeles County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Eligibility Evaluation of the Lemon Reservoir Project, Bradbury, Los Angeles County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Eligibility Evaluation of the Gateway 8 Project, San Bernardino, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Eligibility Evaluation of the Riverside Kmart, Riverside, Riverside County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment and Historical Resources Eligibility Evaluation of the Slover and Banana Project, Fontana, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Hesperia Charter School Project, Hesperia, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the SRG Lakewood Warehouse Project, City of Lakewood, Los Angeles County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Cottonwood and Pahute Project, Victorville, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Sycamore and Mesa Linda Project, Victorville, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the Vista Verde Project, Victorville, San Bernardino County, California

Cultural Resources Assessment of the APNs 0262-051-45 and 0262-051-47, Devore, San Bernardino County, California

Archaeological Test Excavations of the Oro Grande Cement Plan Expansion Project, San Bernardino County, California

Archaeological Monitoring of the Skechers Project, Manhattan Beach and Hermosa Beach, Los Angeles County, California

Archaeological Monitoring of the McFarland Solar Project, Dateland, Yuma County, Arizona

EXHIBIT 6
417 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden
River Bridge

NOISE ANALYSIS

CITY OF GLENDALE
PREPARED BY:

William Maddux
[email protected]
(619) 778-1971
MAY 19, 2025
14238-10 Noise Study.docx
EXHIBIT 7
418 of 1278

This page was intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT 7
419 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................................. I APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................................... II LIST OF EXHIBITS .................................................................................................................................. II LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................................................ ................... III LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS ............................................................................................................. III EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................... 1 Summary of CEQA Significance Findings ................................................................................................. 1 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Site Location .................................................................................................................................. 3

1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................................ 3 2 FUNDAMENTALS ......................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Range of Noise .............................................................................................................................. 9

2.2 Noise Descriptors ........................................................................................................................ 10

2.3 Sound Propagation ...................................................................................................................... 10

2.4 Noise Control .............................................................................................................................. 12

2.5 Noise Barrier Attenuation ........................................................................................................... 12

2.6 Land Use Compatibility With Noise ............................................................................................ 12

2.7 Community Response to Noise ................................................................................................... 12

2.8 Vibration ..................................................................................................................................... 13 3 REGULATORY SETTING .............................................................................................................. 15

3.1 State of California Noise Requirements ...................................................................................... 15

3.2 City of Glendale Noise Standards ................................................................................................ 15

3.3 City of Los Angeles ...................................................................................................................... 16 Construction Noise Standards ............................................................................................................... 16 Construction Vibration Standards ......................................................................................................... 16

3.7 Thresholds of Significance........................................................................................................... 17 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA ............................................................................................................ 19

4.1 Noise Level Increases (Threshold A) ........................................................................................... 19

4.3 Vibration (Threshold B) ............................................................................................................... 20

4.3 Evaluation Criteria Summary ...................................................................................................... 20 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS ................................................................................... 21

5.1 Measurement Procedure and Criteria ........................................................................................ 21

5.2 Noise Measurement Locations ................................................................................................... 21

5.3 Noise Measurement Results ....................................................................................................... 22 6 SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS ............................................................................................... 25 7 OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS ................................................................................................. 27 8 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS ......................................................................................................... 29

8.1 Construction Noise Levels ........................................................................................................... 29

8.2 Construction Reference Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 29

8.3 Construction Noise Analysis ........................................................................................................ 29

8.4 City of Glendale Construction Noise Level Compliance .............................................................. 32

8.5 City of Los Angeles Temporary Construction Noise Level Increases .......................................... 33 EXHIBIT 7
420 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
ii

8.6 Construction Vibration Impacts .................................................................................................. 33 9 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 35 10 CERTIFICATION .......................................................................................................................... 37

APPENDICES
APPENDIX 3.1: CITY OF GLENDALE NOISE ORDINANCE
APPENDIX 3.2: CITY OF LOS ANGELES NOISE ORDINANCE
APPENDIX 5.1: STUDY AREA PHOTOS
APPENDIX 5.2: NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS
APPENDIX 8.1: CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS

LIST OF EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP .............................................................................................................. 4 EXHIBIT 1-B: PROJECT SITE .................................................................................................................. 5 EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS .................................................................................................... 9 EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION ............................................................................. 13 EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION .......................................................... 14 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS ............................................................................... 23 EXHIBIT 6-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS ................................................................................................... 26 EXHIBIT 8-A: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS .................................................... 31

EXHIBIT 7
421 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
iii

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS .................................................................. 1 TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY ................................................................................. 20 TABLE 5-1: 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS .......................................................... 22 TABLE 8-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS ...................................................................... 30 TABLE 8-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY ..................................................... 32 TABLE 8-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE - CITY OF GLENDALE ..................................... 32 TABLE 8-4: TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL INCREASES (LEQ) - CITY OF LOS ANGELES ...... 33 TABLE 8-6: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT ........................................ 34 TABLE 8-7: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS ................................................................... 34

LIST OF ABBREVIATED TERMS
(1) Reference
ADT Average Daily Traffic
ANSI American National Standards Institute
Calveno California Vehicle Noise
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
dBA A-weighted decibels
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
INCE Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Leq Equivalent continuous (average) sound level
LACFCD Los Angeles County Flood Control District
LADWP Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
mph Miles per hour
OPR Office of Planning and Research
PPV Peak particle velocity
Project Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge
REMEL Reference Energy Mean Emission Level
RMS Root-mean-square
SCE Southern California Edison
VdB Vibration Decibels

EXHIBIT 7
422 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
iv
This page was intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT 7
423 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Urban Crossroads, Inc. has prepared this construc tion noise analysis to determine the potential noise impacts due to the proposed Glendale-L os Angeles Garden River Bridge development (“Project”). The Project site is generally located north of N. Zoo Drive, in the City of Los Angeles, and south of the intersection of Flower Street and Fairmont Avenue in the City of Glendale.

The Project is not noise-sensitive and would not be impacted by aircraft noise. This noise analysis has been prepared to satisfy the applicable Ci ty of Glendale and the City of Los Angeles construction noise standards and significance criteria based on Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. (1)

SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
The results of this Noise Analysis are summarized below based on the significance criteria in Section 4 of this report consis tent with Appendix G of the Ca lifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.(1) (1) Table ES-1 shows the fi ndings of significance for each potential noise and/or vibration impact under CEQA before and after any required mitigation measures.

TABLE ES-1: SUMMARY OF CEQA SIGNIFICANCE FINDINGS
Analysis Report
Section
Significance Findings
Unmitigated Mitigated
Operational Noise 9 No Impact -
Construction Noise 10 Less Than Significant -
Construction Vibration 10 Less Than Significant -

EXHIBIT 7
424 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
2 This page was intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT 7
425 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
3 1 INTRODUCTION
This noise analysis has been co mpleted to determine the construction noise impacts associated with the development of the proposed Glendale-L os Angeles Garden River Bridge (“Project”).

This noise analysis briefly describes the proposed Project, provides information regarding noise fundamentals, sets out the local regulatory setting, and presents the study methods and procedures for short-term construction noise and vibration impacts.

1.1 S ITE LOCATION
The Project site is generally located north of N. Zoo Drive, in the City of Los Angeles, and south of the intersection of Flower Street and Fairmont Avenue in the City of Glendale as shown in Exhibit 1-A. The proposed residential Project site is located within a commercial area, with the nearest existing single-family residential homes approxim ately 1,360 feet to the northeast. The John Ferraro Athletic Fields, Los Angeles Zoo, and ot her community resources within Los Angeles are located south of the Project site.

1.2 P ROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of Glendale, as lead agency, in cooperat ion with the City of Los Angeles, as responsible agency, proposes the constructi on of a three-span, curvilinear, landscaped bridge for use by pedestrians and bicyclists, as shown in Exhibit 1-B. The intent of this multi-community resource is to increase access to Glenda le Narrows Riverwalk, and Griffi th Park; to improve connections; and to increase the safety of paths used for pedestrians and cyclists. Dedicated access across the Los Angeles River at this key location would improve public safety and accessibility to important community resources by creating a connection between the Cities of Glendale and Los Angeles across the Los Angeles River for pedestrians and cyclists.

The proposed bridge would be concrete with two supporting piers in the Los Angeles River. It would feature extensive landscaping on the approa ches, as well as on the bridge itself, and is thus named the “Garden River Bridge.” A number of raised planting beds on the bridge would create dedicated zones for bicycle and pedestrian circulation, shade structures, canopied seating areas, dispersed gathering spaces, and scenic views of the Los Angeles River.

The City of Los Angeles owns, operates, and main tains the south side of the Los Angeles River, located within the southern portion of the proposed Project area; also within this area, Southern California Edison (SCE) holds a fifteen-foot ease ment along Zoo Drive and overhead facilities on Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (L ADWP) poles. On the north bank of the Los Angeles River, parcels within the northern portio n of the proposed Project limits are owned by the City of Glendale, the City of Los Angeles, and the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LACFCD). Furthermore, easements that cross the proposed Project area on the northern side are held by the City of Glendale for utility purpose s (e.g., poles, sewers and related structures), and for the existing Riverwalk pedestrian/bike trail.

EXHIBIT 7
426 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
4 EXHIBIT 1-A: LOCATION MAP

EXHIBIT 7
427 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
5 EXHIBIT 1-B: PROJECT SITE

EXHIBIT 7
428 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
6 The proposed Project would include overall temporary impacts of approximately 2.94 acres and approximately 1.4 acres of permanent impact s. Temporary impacts would include water diversion activities, excavation activities, and areas of access and staging. Permanent impacts would include the bridge, Riverwalk bike path reconstruction adjacent to the bridge, a new connection from the bridge to Zo o Drive, and the realignment of Zoo Drive; see Exhibit 2. The realignment of Zoo Drive would be to permit the construction of stairs and a ramp leading up to the LA River Bike Path and the proposed brid ge. Trees between Zoo Drive and the Los Angeles River Bike Path would be removed, and a new curb would be installed as part of proposed street improvements. Additionally, a sidewalk would be installed to facilitate access from the bridge to the John Ferraro Athletic Fields to the south via a new raised crosswalk across Zoo Drive.

Construction is anticipated to begin in the Fa ll of 2025 and would last a pproximately 2.5 years, ending in the Spring of 2028. The proposed Project would occur in six (6) phases, and shown and summarized below.

Phase 0: Mobilization – The initial phase of the proposed Project would include requests for information, preparing and reviewing submittals, and procuring materials.

Phase 1: North Abutment and Approaches – A pproach work, bike path work, and abutment work.

Phase 2: Bridge Substructure – Cons truct bents within the LA River.

Phase 3: South Abutment and Approaches – Co nstruct the south abutment and connections to Zoo Drive; realign Zoo Drive.

Phase 4: Bridge Superstructure – Construct the bridge superstructure using falsework within the LA River.

Phase 5: Architectural Elements/Landscaping – Construct the architectural elements (e.g., canopies, landscaping, etc.) on the bridge and approaches.

The bridge abutments would be co nstructed to be higher than the existing elevation of the channel walls and would not touch the levee walls. The abutments would be supported by deep foundations consisting of cast-in-drilled-hole concrete piles; the a butments would not be supported by the channel walls. In order to address drainage from the bridge deck, pipes would be hung inside of the bridge and tie into existing drainage pipes or water treatment features on both sides of the Los Angeles Ri ver channel. Activities associated with the realignment of Zoo Drive would include the removal of trees along the Los Angeles River Bike Path along Zoo Drive, within the southern portion of the proposed Project’s footprint in the City of LA.

The demolition and excavation phases of the proposed Project are expected to generate the most construction traffic and require the most equipment. In-river construction would occur during the dry season (April through October) when flood flows are very unlikely. The construction equipment used during different portions of th e proposed Project would include work trucks, concrete trucks, cast-in-drilled-hole concrete pile drilling rigs, mobile cranes, and excavators. The construction contractor would be required to lay down timber mats to protect the Los Angeles River bottom and prevent potential impacts to the Los Angeles River bottom during construction.

EXHIBIT 7
429 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
7 While variable, an average of 15 people would be on site daily for the dur ation of construction activities. Construction access to the proposed Project site would be provided from Zoo Drive on the City of Los Angeles side of the proposed Project and from Flower Street on the Glendale side of the Project, with intermittent temporary lane closures and or reduced access. Due to the lack of suitable access ramps within close proximity to the proposed Project site, the construction contractor may construct a temporary ramp from Zoo Drive down the sloped levee into the channel bottom. The temporary cons truction staging area would be located in the City of Los Angeles and the City of Glendale at the southern and northern areas of the proposed Project; specifically, one of the staging areas would be on the north side of Zoo Drive within the shoulder of the road. Additional staging would occur with in the Los Angeles Rive r's northern bank and southern bank during construction of the bridge’s piers. Any rights of entry and/or temporary easements would be negotiated as part of th e final design phase prior to the start of construction. Noise levels from construction activities would conf orm to the City of Glendale’s Municipal Code 8.36.080, which prohibits construction from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM every night and from 7:00 PM on Saturday to 7:00 AM on Monday. The existing pedestrian and bike path use on the Riverwalk and the Los Angeles River Bike Path would require temporary intermittent detours during construction activities. The City of Glenda le would be responsible for the construction of the proposed Project. The cities of Glendale and Los Angeles are currently negotiating an agreement to address shared ownership, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Project.

EXHIBIT 7
430 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
8 This page was intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT 7
431 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
9 2 FUNDAMENTALS
Noise is simply defined as "unwanted sound." Sound becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm, or when it has adverse effects on health.

Noise is measured on a logarithmic scale of so und pressure level known as a decibel (dB). A- weighted decibels (dBA) approximate the subj ective response of the human ear to broad frequency noise source by discriminating against very low and very hi gh frequencies of the audible spectrum. They are adjusted to reflect only those frequencies which are audible to the human ear. Exhibit 2-A presents a summary of the typical noise levels and their subjective loudness and effects, which are described in more detail below.

EXHIBIT 2-A: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Source: Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety (EPA/ONAC 550/9-74-004) March 1974.

2.1 R ANGE OF NOISE
Since the range of intensities that the human ear can detect is so large, the scale frequently used to measure intensity is a scale based on multiples of 10, the lo garithmic scale. The scale for measuring intensity is the decibel scale. Each interval of 10 decibels indicates a sound energy ten times greater than before, which is perceived by the human ear as being roughly twice as loud. (2) The most common sounds vary between 40 dBA (very quiet) to 100 dBA (very loud). Normal conversation at three feet is roughly at 60 dBA, while loud jet engine no ises equate to 110 dBA EXHIBIT 7
432 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
10 at approximately 100 feet, which can cause serious discomfort. (3) Another important aspect of noise is the duration of the sound and the way it is described and distributed in time.

2.2 N OISE DESCRIPTORS
Environmental noise descriptors are generally based on averages, rather than instantaneous, noise levels. The most used fi gure is the equivalent level (L eq). Equivalent sound levels are not measured directly but are calculated from so und pressure levels typically measured in A- weighted decibels (dBA). The equivalent sound level (L eq) represents a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over a given sample period (typically one hour). It is commonly used to describe the “energy aver age” noise levels within the environment.

While useful, peak hour or equi valent noise levels do not completely describe a given noise environment. Noise levels lower than peak hour may be disturbing if they occur when quiet is most desirable, namely evening and nighttime (sleeping) hours. The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), representing a composit e 24-hour noise level, is utilized to account for this. The CNEL is the weighted average of the intensity of a sound, with corrections for time of day, and averaged over 24 hours. The time-of-day corrections require the addition of 5 decibels to dBA L
eq sound levels in the evening from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and the addition of 10 decibels to dBA Leq sound levels at night betw een 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. These additions account for the noise-sensitive time periods during the evening and night hours when sound appears louder.

CNEL does not represent the actual sound level heard at any time but rather represents the total sound exposure. The City of Gl endale relies on the 24-hour CNEL level to assess land use compatibility with transportation-related noise sources.

2.3 S OUND PROPAGATION
When sound propagates over a distance, it changes in level and frequency content. Based on guidance from the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch, how noise reduces with distance depends on the following factors.

2.3.1 G

EOMETRIC SPREADING
Sound from a localized source (i.e., a stationary point source) propagates uniformly outward in a spherical pattern. The sound level attenuates (or decreases) at a rate of 6 dB for each doubling of distance from a point source. Highways consist of several localized noise sources on a defined path and hence can be treated as a line source, which approximates the effect of several point sources. Noise from a line source propagates ou tward in a cylindrical pattern, often referred to as cylindrical spreading. Sound leve ls attenuate at a rate of 3 dB for each doubling of distance from a line source. (2)
EXHIBIT 7
433 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
11 2.3.2 G ROUND ABSORPTION
The propagation path of noise from a highway to a receiver is us ually very close to the ground.

Noise attenuation from ground absorption and reflective wave canceling adds to the attenuation associated with geometric spreading. Tradit ionally, the excess attenuation has also been expressed in terms of attenuation per doubling of distance. This approximation is usually sufficiently accurate for distances of less than 200 ft. For acoustically hard sites (i.e., sites with a reflective surface between the source and the rece iver, such as a parking lot or body of water), no excess ground attenuation is assu med. For acoustically absorpti ve or soft sites (i.e., those sites with an absorptive ground surface between th e source and the receiver, such as soft dirt, grass, or scattered bushes and trees), an excess ground attenuation value of 1.5 dB per doubling of distance is normally assume d. When added to the cylindrical spreading, the excess ground attenuation results in an overall drop-off rate of 4.5 dB per doubling of distance from a line source. (4)

2.3.3 A TMOSPHERIC EFFECTS
Receivers located downwind from a source can be exposed to increased noise levels relative to calm conditions, whereas locations upwind can ha ve lowered noise levels. Sound levels can be increased at large distances (e.g., more than 500 feet) due to atmospheric temperature inversion (i.e., increasing temperature with elevation). Ot her factors, such as air temperature, humidity, and turbulence, can also have significant effects. (2)

2.3.4 S

HIELDING
A large object or barrier in the path between a noise source and a receiver can substantially attenuate noise levels at the receiver. The amount of attenuation provided by shielding depends on the size of the object and the frequency content of the nois e source. Shielding by trees and other such vegetation typically only has an “out of sight, out of mind” effect. That is, the perception of noise impact tends to decrease when vegetation blocks the line of sight to nearby residents. However, for vegetation to provide a substantial, or even noticeable, noise reduction, the vegetation area must be at least 15 feet in height, 100 feet wide, and dense enough to completely obstruct the line of sight between the source and the receiver. This size of vegetation may provide up to 5 dBA of noise reduction. Th e Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) does not consider the planting of vegetation to be a noise abatement measure. (4)

2.3.5 R EFLECTION
Field studies conducted by the FHWA have shown that the reflection from barriers and buildings does not substantially increase noise levels. (4) If all the noise striking a structure were reflected back to a given receiving point, the increase would be theoretically limited to 3 dBA. Further, not all the acoustical energy is reflected back to th e same point. Some of the energy would go over the structure, some is reflected to points other than the given receiving point, some is scattered by ground coverings (e.g., grass and other plants), and some is blocked by intervening structures and/or obstacles (e.g., the noise source itself). Additionally, some reflected energy is lost due to the longer path the noise must travel. FHWA measurements made to quantify reflective increases EXHIBIT 7
434 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
12 in traffic noise have not shown an increase of greater than 1-2 dBA; an increase that is not perceptible to the average human ear.

2.4 N OISE CONTROL
Noise control is the process of obtaining an ac ceptable noise environment for an observation point or receiver by controlling th e noise source, transmission path, receiver, or all three. This concept is known as the source-path-receiver conc ept. In general, nois e control measures can be applied to these three elements.

2.5 N OISE BARRIER ATTENUATION
Effective noise barriers can reduce noise levels by up to 10 to 15 dBA, cutting the loudness of traffic noise in half. A noise barrier is most e ffective when placed close to the noise source or receiver. Noise barriers, however, do have limitations. For a nois e barrier to work, it must be high enough and long enough to block the path of the noise source. (4)

2.6 L AND USE COMPATIBILITY WITH NOISE
Some land uses are more tolerant of noise than others. For example, schools, hospitals, churches, and residences are more sensitive to noise intrusion than are commercial or industrial developments and related activities. As ambien t noise levels affect the perceived amenity or livability of a development, so too can the mismanagement of noise impacts impair the economic health and growth potential of a community by reducing the area’s desirability as a place to live, shop, and work. For this reason, land use compatibility with the noise environment is an important consideration in the planning and desi gn process. The FHWA encourages State and Local government to regulate la nd development so that noise-sensitive land uses are either prohibited from being located adjacent to a hi ghway, or that the developments are planned, designed, and constructed so that noise impacts are minimized. (5)

2.7 C OMMUNITY RESPONSE TO NOISE
Community responses to noise vary depending upon everyone’s susceptibility to noise and personal attitudes about noise. Several factors are related to the level of community annoyance, including:
• Fear associated with noise-producing activities.
• Socio-economic status and educational level.
• Perception that those affected are being unfairly treated. • Attitudes regarding the usefulness of the noise-producing activity. • Belief that the noise source can be controlled.

Approximately ten percent of the population has a very low tolerance for noise and will object to any noise, not of their making. Consequent ly, even in the quietest environment, some complaints will occur. Twenty-f ive percent of the population w ill not complain even in very severe noise environments. Thus, a variety of reactions can be expected from people exposed to any given noise environment. (6) Surveys have shown that about ten percent of the people EXHIBIT 7
435 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
13 exposed to traffic noise of 60 dBA will report being highly annoyed with the noise, and each increase of one dBA is associated with approx imately two percent more people being highly annoyed. When traffic noise exceeds 60 dBA or aircraft noise exceeds 55 dBA, people may begin to complain. (6) Despite this variability in behavior on an individual level, the population can be expected to exhibit the following responses to changes in noise levels, as shown in Exhibit 2-B. A change of 3 dBA is considered barely perceptible, and changes of 5 dBA are considered readily perceptible. (4)
EXHIBIT 2-B: NOISE LEVEL INCREASE PERCEPTION

2.8 V IBRATION
Per the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual (7), vibration is the periodic oscillation of a medium or object. The rumbling sound caused by the vibration of room surfaces is called structure-borne noise. Sources of ground- borne vibrations include natural phenomena (e.g ., earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, sea waves, landslides) or human-made causes (e.g., explosions, machinery, traffic, trains, construction equipment). Vibration sources may be continuous, such as factory machinery, or transient, such as explosions. As is the case with airborne sound, ground-borne vibrations may be described by amplitude and frequency.

Several different methods are used to quantify vibration. The pe ak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of th e vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings but is not always suitable for evaluating human response (annoyance) because it takes some time for the human body to respond to vibration signals. Instead, the human body responds to average vibration amplit ude, often described as the root mean square (RMS). The RMS amplit ude is defined as the average of the squared amplitude of the signal and is mo st frequently used to describe the effect of vibration on the human body. Decibel notation (VdB) is commonly used to measure RMS. Decibel notation (VdB) serves to reduce the range of numbers used to describe human response to vibration. Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration. Sensitive receivers for vibration include structures (especially older masonry structures), people (esp ecially residents, the elderly, and the sick), and vibration- sensitive equipment and/or activities.
0123456789 1 0
Just Perceptible
Barely Perceptible
Readily Perceptible
Twice as Loud
Noise Level Increase (dBA)
EXHIBIT 7
436 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
14 The background vibration-velocity level in reside ntial areas is generally 50 VdB. Ground-borne vibration is normally perceptible to humans at approximately 65 VdB. For most people, a vibration-velocity level of 75 VdB is the approximate dividing line between barely perceptible and distinctly perceptible levels. Typical outdoor sources of percep tible ground-borne vibration are construction equipment, steel-wheeled trains, and traffic on rough roads. If a roadway is smooth, the ground-borne vibration is rarely perceptible. The range of interest is from approximately 50 VdB, which is the typical background vibration- velocity level, to 100 VdB, which is the general threshold where minor damage can occur in frag ile buildings. Exhibit 2-C illustrates common vibration sources and the human and structural response to ground-borne vibration.

EXHIBIT 2-C: TYPICAL LEVELS OF GROUND-BORNE VIBRATION

Source: Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual.

EXHIBIT 7
437 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
15 3 REGULATORY SETTING
To limit population exposure to physically and/or psychologically damaging as well as intrusive noise levels, the federal governme nt, the State of California, various county governments, and most municipalities in the state have established standards and ordinances to control noise. In most areas, automobile and truck traffic is the major source of environmental noise. Traffic activity generally produces an average sound level that remains constant with time. Air and rail traffic, as well as commercial and industrial acti vities, are also major sources of noise in some areas. Federal, state, and local agencies regu late different aspects of environmental noise.

Federal and state agencies generally set noise sta ndards for mobile sources such as aircraft and motor vehicles, while regulation of stationary sources is left to local agencies.

3.1 S TATE OF CALIFORNIA NOISE REQUIREMENTS
The State of California regulates freeway noise, sets standards for sound transmission, provides occupational noise control criteria, identifies no ise standards, and provides guidance for local land use compatibility. State law requires each county and city to adopt a General Plan that includes a Noise Element to be prepared per guid elines adopted by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). (8) Th e purpose of the Noise Element is to limit the exposure of the community to excessive noise levels . In addition, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires that all known environmental effects of a project be analyzed, including environmental noise impacts.

3.2 C ITY OF GLENDALE NOISE STANDARDS

CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS
To analyze noise impacts originating from the cons truction of the Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge within the City of Glendale, noise from construction activities is typically evaluated against standards established under a City’s Muni cipal Code. The City of Glendale Municipal Code, Section 8.36.080, include d in Appendix 3.1, states it is unlawful for any person within a residential zone, or within a r adius of 500 feet therefrom, to op erate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures or pr ojects within the city between the hours of 7:00 p.m. on one day and 7:00 a.m. of the next day or from 7:00 p.m. on Saturday to 7:00 a.m. on Monday or from 7:00 p.m. preceding a holiday, as designated in Chapter 3.08 of this code, to 7:00 a.m. following such holiday unless beforehand a permit therefor has been duly obtained from the building official. No permit s hall be required to perf orm emergency work as defined in this chapter. (9) While section 8.36.080, limits the hours of construction, it does not exempt construction from the noise limit of the noise ordinance.

VIBRATION STANDARDS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affe cted structures, and so il type. Construction vibration is generally associated with pile dr iving and rock blasting . Other construction EXHIBIT 7
438 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
16 equipment, such as air compressors, light trucks, hydraulic loaders, etc., generates little or no ground vibration. (3)
To analyze vibration impacts originating from th e operation and construction of the Project, vibration-generating activities are appropriat ely evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code. Section 8.36.210 states “Operating or permitting the operation of any device that creates a vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at one hundred fifty feet from the source if on a public space or public right-of-way shall be a violation.” The municipal code states “the perception shall be presumed to be a mo tion velocity of 0.01 in./sec. over the range of one to one hundred Hz .” Since this is based on the human perception threshold, the motion velocity threshold is assumed to be 0.01 RMS (in/sec), which can also be translated to

0.04 PPV (in/sec).

3.3 C ITY OF LOS ANGELES

CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS
Section 112.05 of the City’s Municipal Code identifies exterior noise level limits for construction equipment and states: in any residential zone or within 500 feet thereof, no person shall operate or cause to be operated any powered equipment or powered hand tool that produces a maximum noise level exceeding the following noise limits at a distance of 50 feet therefrom: (10) • 75dB(A) for construction, industrial, and agricultural machinery including crawler-tractors, dozers, rotary drills and augers, loaders, powe r shovels, cranes, derricks, motor graders, paving machines, off-highway trucks, ditchers, trenchers, compactors, scrapers, wagons, pavement breakers, compressors and pneumatic or other powered equipment.

The nearest residential zone to the Project site is 1,360 feet to the northeast. Therefore, the City of Los Angeles Municipal Code noise level limits do not apply to the Project.

CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION STANDARDS
Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground-borne vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affe cted structures, and so il type. Construction vibration is generally associated with pile dr iving and rock blasting . Other construction equipment, such as air compressors, light trucks, hydraulic loaders, etc., generates little or no ground vibration. Occasionally, large bulldoz ers and loaded trucks can cause perceptible vibration levels in close proximity.

To analyze vibration impacts originating from th e operation and construction of Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge, vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated against standards established under a City’s Municipal Code, if such standards exist. However, the City of Glendale does not identify specific vibration level limits. Therefore, for analysis purposes, the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual , (11 p. 38) Table 19, vibration damage is used in this noise analysis to assess potential temporary construction-related impacts at adjacent building locations.

EXHIBIT 7
439 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
17 The construction vibration damage potential cr iteria include consideration of the building conditions. (3 p. 182) Since the existing buildings in the Project vicinity can best be described as a combination of older residential structures, commercial buildings, or historic buildings representing a variety of structure types with se veral different construction methods, such as wood frame and unreinforced masonry with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.25 PPV (in/sec).

3.7 T HRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
In 2006, the City of Los Angeles adopted the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide that outlines significance thresholds to assist in determining whether a project’s impacts would be presumed to be significant under normal circumstances. According to Section I of the CEQA Thresholds Guide, a project would normally have a significant impact on noise levels from construction if:
• Construction activities lasting more than one day would exceed existing ambient exterior noise levels by 10 dBA or more at a noise-sensitive use; • Construction activities lasting more than 10 days in a three-month period would exceed existing ambient exterior noise levels by 5 dBA or more at a noise-sensitive use; or • Construction activities would exceed the ambient noise level by 5 dBA at a noise-sensitive use between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Friday, before 8:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, or at anytime on Sunday.

EXHIBIT 7
440 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
18 This page was intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT 7
441 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
19 4 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA
The following significance criteria are based on currently adopted guidance provided by Appendix G of the California Environmental Quality Act (CE QA) Guidelines. (12) For the purposes of this report, impacts would be potentially significant if the Project results in or causes:

A. Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
B. Generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels? C. For a project located within the vicinity of a pri vate airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

4.1 N OISE LEVEL INCREASES (THRESHOLD A)
Noise level increases resulting from the Projec t are evaluated based on the Appendix G CEQA Guidelines described above at the closest se nsitive receiver locations. Under CEQA, consideration must be given to the magnitude of the increase, the existing baseline ambient noise levels, and the location of noise-sensitiv e receivers to determine if a noise increase represents a significant adverse environmental impact. This approach recognizes that there is no single noise increase that renders the noise impact significant. (13) This is primarily because of the wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance and differing individual experiences with noise. Thus, an important way of determining a person’s subjective reaction to a new noise is the comparison of it to the existing environment to which one has adapted—the so-called ambient environment.

In general, the more a new noise exceeds the pr eviously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will typically be judged. The Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) (14) developed guidance to be used fo r the assessment of project-generated increases in noise levels that consider the ambient noise level. The FICON recommendations are based on studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, these recommendations are often used in environmental noise impact assessments involving the use of cumulative noise exposure metrics, such as the average-daily noise level (CNEL) and equivalent continuous noise level (L
eq).

The FICON guidance provides an established source of criteria to assess the impacts of substantial temporary or permanent increase in baseline ambient noise levels. Based on the FICON criteria, the amount to which a given noise level increase is considered acceptable is reduced when the noise levels without Project (baseline) are already shown to exceed certain land-use-specific exterior noise level criteria. The specific levels are based on typical responses to noise level increases of 5 dBA or readily perceptible, 3 dBA or barely perceptible, and 1.5 dBA depending on the underlying without Project noise levels for noise-sensitive uses. These levels of increase and EXHIBIT 7
442 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
20 their perceived acceptance are consistent with guidance provided by both the Federal Highway Administration (7) and Caltrans (15 p. 2_48).

4.3 V IBRATION (THRESHOLD B)
As described in Section 3.3, the vibration impacts originating from the construction of the Project, vibration-generating activities are appropriately evaluated by the thresholds of significance outlined in the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual, (11 p. 38) Since the existing buildings in the Project vicinity can best be described as a combination of older residential structures, commercial buildings, or historic buildin gs representing a variety of structure types with several different construction methods, such as wood frame and unreinforced masonry with a maxi mum acceptable continuous vi bration threshold of 0.25 PPV (in/sec).

4.3 E VALUATION CRITERIA SUMMARY
Noise impacts shall be considered significant if any of the following occur as a direct result of the proposed development. Table 4-1 shows the significance criteria summary matrix.

TABLE 4-1: SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA SUMMARY
Jurisdiction Analysis Condition(s)
Significance Criteria
Daytime Nighttime
City of
Glendale Construction Noise Level Threshold2 80 dBA Leq n/a Vibration Level Threshold3 0.25 PPV (in/sec) n/a
City of Los
Angeles
Los Angeles
Construction
Exterior Noise Level Standards Existing Ambient Noise Level plus 5 dBA Leq5
Vibration Level Threshold 0.25 PPV (in/sec) 4 n/a
1 Ficon 1995
2 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 3 Maximum continuous vibration levels for historic buildings representing a variety of structure types with several different construction methods, such as wood frame and unreinforced masonry. Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual, April 2020 Table 19.
4 City of Los Angeles Municipal Code, Section 112.05 (Appendix 3.1). 5 L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide 2006.
"Daytime" = 7:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:00 p.m. - 7:00 a.m.; "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity

EXHIBIT 7
443 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
21 5 EXISTING NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
To assess the existing noise level environment, 24-hour noise level measurements were taken at three locations in the Project study area. The receiver locations were selected to describe and document the existing noise environment within the Project study area. Exhibit 5-A provides the boundaries of the Project study area and the noise level measurement locations. To fully describe the existing noise conditions, noise level measurements were collected by Urban Crossroads, Inc. on Thursday, December 22, 2022. Appendix 5.1 includes study area photos.

5.1 M EASUREMENT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA
To describe the existing noise environment, the hourly noise levels were measured during typical weekday conditions over a 24-hour period. By collecting individual hourly noise level measurements, it is possible to describe the equivalent daytime and nighttime hourly noise levels. The long-term noise readings were recorded using Piccolo Type 2 integrating sound level meter and dataloggers. The Piccolo sound level meters were calibrated using a Larson-Davis calibrator, Model CAL 150. All no ise meters were programmed in "slow" mode to record noise levels in "A" weighted form. The sound level meters and microphones were equipped with a windscreen during all measurements. All nois e level measurement equipment satisfies the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard specifications for sound level meters ANSI S1.4-2014/IEC 61672-1:2013. (16)

5.2 N OISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS
The long-term noise level measurements were po sitioned as close to the nearest sensitive receiver locations as possible to assess the exis ting ambient hourly noise levels surrounding the Project site. Both Caltrans and the FTA recognize that it is not reasonable to collect noise level measurements that can fully represent every part of a private yard, patio, deck, or balcony normally used for human activity when esti mating impacts for new projects. This is demonstrated in the Caltrans general site location guidelines, which indicate that sites must be free of noise contamination by sources other than sources of interest. Avoid sites located near sources such as barking dogs, lawnmowers, pool pumps, and air conditioners unless it is the express intent of the analyst to measure these sources
. (2) Further, FTA guidance states, that it is
not necessary nor recommended that existing no ise exposure be determined by measuring at every noise-sensitive location in the project area. Rather, the recommended approach is to characterize the noise environment for clusters of sites based on measurements or estimates at representative locations in the community. (7)
Based on recommendations of Caltrans and the FTA, it is not necessary to collect measurements at each individual building or residence because each receiver measurement represents a group of buildings that share acoustical equivalence. (7 ) In other words, the area represented by the receiver shares similar shielding, terrain, and geometric relationship to the reference noise source. Receivers represent the location of noise-sensitive areas and are used to estimate future noise level impacts. Collecting reference ambi ent noise level measurements at the nearby sensitive receiver locations allows for a comparis on of the before and after Project noise levels EXHIBIT 7
444 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
22 and is necessary to assess potential noise impa cts due to the Project’s contribution to the ambient noise levels.

5.3 N OISE MEASUREMENT RESULTS
The noise measurements presented below focus on the equivalent or the hourly energy average sound levels (L eq). The equivalent sound level (L eq) represents a steady-state sound level containing the same total energy as a time-varying signal over a given sample period. Table 5-1 identifies the hourly daytime (8:00 a.m. to 10: 00 p.m.) and nighttime ( 10:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m.) noise levels at each noise level measurement location.

TABLE 5-1: 24-HOUR AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENTS
Location1 Description
Energy Average
Noise Level
(dBA Leq)2
Daytime Nighttime
L1 Located south of the Project site within the existing park. 65.3 64.2 L2 Located Northeast of the site near the residence located at 810 Pelanconi Ave. 62.6 62.1
L3 Located northwest of the site near the Office Complex located at 1000 Flower St. 65.6 60.0
1 See Exhibit 5-A for the noise level measurement locations. 2 Energy (logarithmic) equivalent levels. The long-term 24-hour measurement worksheets are included in Appendix 5.2. "Daytime" = 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.; "Nighttime" = 10:01 p.m. to 7:59 a.m.

Table 5-1 provides the equivalent noise levels used to describe th e daytime and nighttime ambient conditions. These daytim e and nighttime equivalent noise levels represent the energy average of all hourly noise leve ls observed during these time periods expressed as a single number. Appendix 5.2 provides summary worksheets of the noise levels for each of the daytime and nighttime hours.

EXHIBIT 7
445 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
23 EXHIBIT 5-A: NOISE MEASUREMENT LOCATIONS

EXHIBIT 7
446 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
24 This page was intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT 7
447 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
25 6 SENSITIVE RECEIVER LOCATIONS
The following sensitive receiver locations, as shown in Exhibit 5-A, were identified as representative locations for analysis to assess the potential for constr uction and operational noise impacts. Sensitive receivers are generall y defined as locations where people reside or where the presence of unwanted sound could otherwise adversely affect the land use. Noise- sensitive land uses are generally considered to include schools, hospitals, single-family dwellings, mobile home parks, churches, libraries, and recreation areas.

Moderately noise-sensitive land uses typically include multi-family dwellings, hotels, motels, dormitories, outpatient clinics, cemeteries, golf courses, country clubs, athletic/tennis clubs, and equestrian clubs. Land uses that are considered relatively insensitive to noise include business, commercial, and professional developments. Land uses that are typically not affected by noise include: industrial, manufacturing, utilities, ag riculture, undeveloped land, parking lots, warehousing, liquid and solid waste facilities, salvage yards, and transit terminals.

The selection of receiver locations is based on FHWA guidelines and is consistent with additional guidance provided by Caltrans and the FTA, as previously desc ribed in Sectio n 5.2. Other sensitive land uses in the Project study area th at are located at greater distances than those identified in this noise analysis will experience lower noise levels than those presented in this report due to the additional attenuation from distance and the shielding of intervening structures. Distance is measured in a straight line from the project boundary to each receiver location. To describe the potential off-site Project noise levels, three receiver locations in the vicinity of the Project site were identified. All distances are measured from the Project site boundary to the outdoor living areas (e.g., private backyards) or at the building façade, whichever is closer to the Project site.

R1: Location R1 represents the John Ferraro Athl etic Fields south of the Project site along Zoo Drive. R1 is placed approximately 318 feet west of the Project site at the play structure nearest the Project site.

R2: Location R2 represents the existing nois e-sensitive residence located at 810 Pelanconi Avenue, approximately 1,238 feet northeast of the Project site. R2 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the Project site.

R3: Location R3 represents an outdoor seatin g area of an office structure located at 1000 Flower Street, approximately 422 northwest of the Project site. R3 is placed at the outdoor use areas nearest the Project site.

R4: Location R4 represents the John Ferraro At hletic Field soccer field located approximately 13 feet south of the Project site. R4 is placed at the goal area nearest the Project site.

R5: Location R5 represents the John Ferraro At hletic Field soccer field located approximately 101 feet southwest of the Project site. R5 is placed at the specta tor area nearest the Project site.

EXHIBIT 7
448 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
26 EXHIBIT 6-A: RECEIVER LOCATIONS

EXHIBIT 7
449 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
27 7 OPERATIONAL NOISE IMPACTS
The Project does not include any operational no ise sources. Therefore, the Project would not result in any long-term noise level increase due to Project operations.

EXHIBIT 7
450 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
28 This page was intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT 7
451 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
29 8 CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS
This section analyzes potential impacts resultin g from the short-term construction activities associated with the development of the Project. Exhibit 8-A shows the construction noise source locations in relation to the nearby sensitive receiver locations previously described in Section 5.

To prevent high levels of construction noise from impacting noise-sensitive land uses, Section 25- 68, of the City of Glendale Municipal Code limi ts construction activities to the hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

8.1 C ONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
Noise generated by the Project construction eq uipment will include a combination of trucks, power tools, concrete mixers, and portable ge nerators that, when combined, can reach high levels. The number and mix of co nstruction equipment are expected to occur in the following stages:
• North Abutment & Approaches
• Bridge Substructure (Bent Construction)
• South Abutment & Approaches
• Bridge Superstructure
• Architectural Elements/Landscaping

8.2 C ONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
To describe construction noise activities, this construction noise analysis was prepared using reference construction equipment noise levels from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published the Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), which includes a national database of construction equipment reference noise emission levels. ( ͭͳ) The RCNM equipment database provides a comprehensive list of the noise-gene rating characteristics of specific types of construction equipment. In addition, the database provides a, whichn acoustical usage factor to estimate the fraction of time each piece of construction equipment is operating at full power (i.e., its loudest condition) during a construction operation. According to the EPA, FTA, and FHWA, the overall construction noise level is governed primarily by the noisiest pieces of equipment. The quieter pieces do not affect the overall level, but they do reduce the magnitude of the fluctuations in the noise level. Therefore, a rough estimate of the noise leve l need only include the noisiest pieces of equipment expected at the site. (ͭʹ) (ͭ͵) (ͮͬ) Consistent with FHWA and FTA guidance for detailed construction noise assessment, Table ʹ-ͭ presents the combined noise levels for the loudest construction activities expected for each stage, assuming all equipment operates simultaneously.

8.3 C ONSTRUCTION NOISE ANALYSIS
Construction projects involve various stages, and ac tivities frequently shift from one location to another. For example, during site preparation and grading, noise-generating activities may concentrate in an area for a short period to re move an obstruction, while the majority of the grading involves the equipment moving back and forth in a predictable pattern throughout the EXHIBIT 7
452 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
30 site; building construction and foundation wo rk generally concentrate near the building footprint, while paving generally involves a predictable pattern of movement throughout the site.

Therefore, construction activities are best evaluated as multiple moving point sources within the construction area since the speed and powe r of the equipment vary, and the equipment constantly changes position in terms of its distan ce and direction relative to the receivers. (19) (21) Using the reference constr uction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the Proj ect construction noise level im pacts by phase at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. To account for the dynamic nature of construction activities, the CadnaA construction noise analysis evaluates the noise source activities as multiple moving point sources, or construc tion crews, within the limits of construction. Construction impacts are based on the loudest activity and the highest noise level calculated at each receiver location. As shown in Table 8-2, the highest construction noise levels are expected to range from

42.6 to 67.7 dBA L eq at the identified receiver location s. Appendix 8.1 includes the detailed CadnaA construction noise model inputs.

TABLE 8-1: CONSTRUCTION REFERENCE NOISE LEVELS
Construction
Stage
Reference
Construction Activity1
Reference Noise
Level @ 50 Feet
(dBA Leq)
Combined
Reference Noise
Level
(dBA Leq)
North Abutment &
Approaches
Auger Drill Rig 77.0

81.2 Excavator 77.0
Concrete Mixer Truck 75.0
Bridge Substructure
(Bent Construction)
Auger Drill Rig 77.0

81.8 Excavator 77.0
Concrete Mixer Truck 75.0
Crane 73.0
South Abutment &
Approaches
Auger Drill Rig 77.0

82.0 Excavator 77.0
Concrete Mixer Truck 75.0
Paver 74.0
Bridge Superstructure Crane 73.0 77.1 Concrete Mixer Truck 75.0 Architectural Elements/
Landscaping
Crane 73.0 77.1 Concrete Mixer Truck 75.0
1 Update of noise database for prediction of noise on co nstruction and open site ex pressed in hourly average L eq based on estimated usage factor.

EXHIBIT 7
453 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
31 EXHIBIT 8-A: TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE SOURCE LOCATIONS

EXHIBIT 7
454 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
32 The construction noise analysis presents a conservative approach since it uses the highest noise- level-producing activities of any stage of the Project construction and assesses those levels at the nearest sensitive receiver locations. As other stages of construction generate lower noise levels, the reported noise levels likely overstate the construction noise levels that will be experienced at each receiver location. The analysis is furt her conservative since the model does not include any intervening obstructions, such as buildings or walls, that would serve to further reduce noise levels at receiver locations.

TABLE 8-2: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE LEVEL SUMMARY
Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
North
Abutment
&
Approaches
Bridge
Substructure
(Bent
Construction)
South
Abutment
&
Approaches
Bridge
Superstructure
Architectural
Elements/
Landscaping
Highest
Levels2
R1 54.1 54.7 54.9 50.0 50.0 54.9
R2 46.7 47.3 47.5 42.6 42.6 47.5
R3 53.6 54.2 54.4 49.5 49.5 54.4
R4 66.9 67.5 67.7 62.8 62.8 67.7
R5 60.4 61.0 61.2 56.3 56.3 61.2
1 Construction noise source and receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 8-A. 2 Construction noise level calculations based on distance from the project site boundaries (construction activity area) to nearby receiver locations. CadnaA construction noise model inputs are included in Appendix 8.1.

8.4 C ITY OF GLENDALE CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE To evaluate whether the Project will generate potentially signific ant short-term noise levels at the nearest receiver locations, a construction-related daytime noise level threshold of 80 dBA Leq is used as a reasonable threshold to assess the daytime construction noise level impacts. The construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will satisfy the reasonable daytime 80 dBA L
eq significance threshold during Project construction activities, as shown in Table 8-3. Therefore, the noise impacts due to Project construction noise are considered less than significant at all receiver locations.

TABLE 8-3: CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL COMPLIANCE - CITY OF GLENDALE Receiver
Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest Construction
Noise Levels2 Threshold3 Threshold
Exceeded?4
R2 47.5 80 No
R3 54.4 80 No
1 Noise receiver locations are shown in Exhibit 9-A.
2 Highest construction noise level from the primary Project construction activity area to nearby receiver locations. 3 Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. 4 Do the estimated Project construction noise levels exceed the construction noise level threshold? EXHIBIT 7
455 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
33 8.5 C ITY OF LOS ANGELES TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL INCREASES To describe the temporary Projec t construction noise level increases to the existing ambient noise environment within the City of Los Angele s, the Project constructi on noise levels were combined with the existing ambient noise levels measurement at the off-site receiver locations R1, R4, and R5 in the City of Los Angeles. The difference between the combined Project- construction and ambient noise levels are used to describe the construction noise level increases.

The lowest recorded daytime ambient measurement in the Project site vicinity in the City of Los Angeles was measured as 65.3 dBA L eq (see Table 5-1), which would result in a daytime construction noise significance criterion of 70.3 dBA L eq, based on the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide. (22)
Temporary noise level increases that would be experienced at sensitive receiver locations when the Project construction-source noise is added to the ambient daytime noise are presented in Table 8-4. Based on the L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide, a temporary noise level increase of 5 dBA is considered a potentially significant impact between the hours of 9:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.

Monday through Friday, before 8:00 a.m. or after 6:00 p.m. on Saturday, or at any time on Sunday.

TABLE 8-4: TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVEL INCREASES (LEQ) - CITY OF LOS ANGELES Receiver
Location1
Total
Construction
Noise Level2
Measurement
Location3
Reference
Ambient
Noise
Levels4
Combined
Project and
Ambient5
Project
Increase6
Increase
Criteria7
Increase
Criteria
Exceeded?7
R1 54.9 L1 65.3 65.7 0.4 5 No
R4 67.7 L1 65.3 69.7 4.4 5 No
R5 61.2 L1 65.3 66.7 1.4 5 No
1 See Exhibit 6-A for the receiver locations.
2 Highest construction noise levels as shown in Table 8-2. 3 Reference noise level measurement locations as shown in Exhibit 5-A. 4 Highest hourly equivalent daytime ambient noise levels as shown in Table 5-1. 5 Represents the combined ambient conditions plus the Project construction activities. 6 The noise level increase expected with the addition of the proposed Project construction activities. 7 Significance increase criteria as shown in Table 4-1.

As indicated in Table 8-4, the Project will contribute a construction noise level increase of 4.4 dBA Leq at the nearest sensitive receiver location in th e City of Los Angeles. The construction noise analysis shows that the Project-related constr uction noise level increases will satisfy the L.A.

CEQA Thresholds Guide significance criteria. Therefore, the incremental Project construction noise level increase is considered less than significant at the City of Los Angeles receiver locations.

8.6 C ONSTRUCTION VIBRATION IMPACTS
Construction activity can resu lt in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the a ffected structures, and soil type. Since the Project does not include any explosive blasting or pile driving activities, it is expected that ground- borne vibration from Project cons truction activities would caus e only intermittent, localized intrusion. Ground vibration levels associated wi th various types of cons truction equipment are EXHIBIT 7
456 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
34 summarized in Table 8-6. Based on the represen tative vibration levels presented for various construction equipment types, it is possible to estimate the potential Project construction vibration levels using the following vibration assessment methods defined by Caltrans (11). To describe the vibration levels at various distan ces, Caltrans provides the following equation:

PPVequip = PPVref x (25/D)1.5
TABLE 8-6: VIBRATION SOURCE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Equipment PPV (in/sec)
at 25 feet
Small bulldozer 0.003
Loaded Trucks 0.076
Large bulldozer 0.089
Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual Table 8-7 presents the expected Project-related vibration levels at the nearby receiver locations.

At distances ranging from 336 to 1,305 feet from the Project construction activities, construction vibration levels are estimated to range from less than 0.001 to 0.002 PPV (in/sec). Based on the maximum acceptable vibration threshold of 0.25 PPV (in/sec), the typical Project construction vibration levels will satisfy thresholds at all receiver locations. Therefore, the Project-related vibration impacts are considered less than signif icant during the construction activities at the Project site. In addition, the typical construction vibration levels at the nearest sensitive receiver locations are unlikely to be sustained during the entire construction period but will occur rather only during the times that heavy construction equipment is operating adjacent to the Project site boundaries.

TABLE 8-7: PROJECT CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION LEVELS
Receiver1 Location
Distance
to
Const.

Activity
(Feet)3
Typical Construction Vibration Levels
PPV (in/sec)4 Thresholds
PPV
(in/sec)5
Thresholds
Exceeded? Small
bulldozer
Jack-
hammer
Loaded
Trucks
Highest
Vibration
Level
R1 Sports Field 101' 0.000 0.004 0.009 0.009 0.25 No
R2 Residence 1,238' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.25 No
R3 Residence 422' 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.25 No
R4 Sports Field 318' 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.25 No
R5 Sports Field 13' 0.008 0.093 0.203 0.203 0.25 No
1 Receiver locations are shown on Exhibit 9-A.
2 Distance from receiver location to Project construction boundary. 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment (Table 10-2). 4 Maximum continuous vibration levels for historic buildings representing a variety of structure types with several different construction methods, such as wood frame and unreinforced masonry. Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Manual, April 2020 Table

19. "PPV" = Peak Particle Velocity
EXHIBIT 7
457 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
35 9 REFERENCES

1. State of California. California Environmental Quality Act, Appendix G. 2018.

2. California Department of Transportation Environmental Program. Technical Noise Supplement - A Technical Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. Sacramento, CA : s.n., September 2013.

3. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. March 1974. EPA/ONAC 550/9/74-004.

4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning, Noise and Air Quality Branch. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. December 2011.

5. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Highway Traffic Noise in the United States, Problem and Response. April 2000. p. 3.

6. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Noise Abatement and Control. Noise Effects Handbook-A Desk Reference to Health and Welfare Effects of Noise. October 1979 (revised July 1981).

EPA 550/9/82/106.

7. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, FTA Report No. 0123. September 2018.

8. Office of Planning and Research. State of California General Plan Guidelines. October 2017.

9. City of Glendale. Municipal Code, Sections 8.36.080.

10. City of Los Angeles. Municipal Code, Chapter XI - Noise Regulation.

11. California Department of Transportation. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. April 2020.

12. Council on Environmental Quality. National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Regulations. 2020.

13. California Court of Appeal. Gray v. County of Madera, F053661. 167 Cal.App.4th 1099; - Cal.Rptr.3d, October 2008.

14. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues. August 1992.

15. California Department of Transportation. Technical Noise Supplement. November 2009.

16. American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Specification for Sound Level Meters ANSI S1.4- 2014/IEC 61672-1:2013.

17. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Environment and Planning. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model. January, 2006.

18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. 1971. NTID300.1.

19. U.S. D epartment of Transportation , Federal Transit Administration. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual, FTA Report No. 0123. September 2018.

20. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Special Report - Measurement, Prediction, and Mitigation. Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty - Environment - Noise. [Online] 2017. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/special_report/hcn00.cfm.

EXHIBIT 7
458 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
36 21. —. FHWA Highway Construction Noise Handbook. Final Report August 2006.

22. City of Los Angeles. L.A. CEQA Thresholds Guide. 2006.

EXHIBIT 7
459 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
37 10 CERTIFICATION
The contents of this noise analysis report represent an accurate depiction of the noise environment and impacts associated with the proposed. Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Project. The information contained in this noise analysis report is based on the best available data at the time of preparation. If yo u have any questions, plea se contact me directly at (619) 788-1971.

William Maddux, INCE
Senior Associate
URBAN CROSSROADS, INC.
(619) 788-1971
[email protected]

EDUCATION
Bachelor of Science in Urban and Regional Planning
California Polytechnic State University, Pomona • June 2000

PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
ASA – Acoustical Society of America
APA – American Planning Association
AWMA – Air and Waste Management Association
INCE – Institute of Noise Control Engineers

PROFESSIONAL CERTIFICATIONS
Approved Acoustical Consultant • County of San Diego
FHWA Traffic Noise Model of Training • November 2004
CadnaA Basic and Advanced Training Certificate • October 2008.

EXHIBIT 7
460 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx
38 This page was intentionally left blank.

EXHIBIT 7
461 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx

APPENDIX 3.1:

CITY OF GLENDALE NOISE ORDINANCE

39 EXHIBIT 7
462 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx

This page was intentionally left blank.
40 EXHIBIT 7
463 of 1278

City of Glendale, CA
Friday, May 17, 2024
Title 8. Health and Safety
Chapter 8.36. NOISE CONTROL
Article I. General Provisions
§ 8.36.010. Purpose.

It is declared to be the policy of the city to prohibit unnecessary, excessive and annoying noise from all sources. At certain levels, noises are detrimental to the health and welfare of the citizenry and in the public interest must be systematically proscribed.
(
Prior code § 11-50; Ord. 4973 § 1, 1991)
§ 8.36.020. Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them unless otherwise noted:
“A-band level” means the total sound level of all noise as measured with a sound-level meter using the A-weighting network. The unit is the dbA.
“Acoustic calibrator” means an instrument which measures the accuracy of a sound-level meter. “Ambient noise” means the composite of noise from all sources near and far in a given environment, exclusive of occasional and transient intrusion noise sources and of the particular noise source or sources to be measured. “Accelerometer” means an instrument for measuring vibration. “Amplified sound” means any sound created by the use of sound-amplifying equipment. “Commercial purpose” means the use, operation or maintenance of any sound-amplifying equipment for the purpose of advertising any business, goods or services, or for the purpose of attracting the attention to, advertising for or soliciting patronage or customers to or for any performance, show, entertainment, exhibition or event, or for the purpose of demonstrating such sound equipment.
“Construction” means any site preparation, assembly, erection, substantial repair, alteration, demolition or similar action, for or of public or private rights-of-way structures, utilities or similar property and includes the transportation or delivery of any materials, tools or equipment to or from the site of any construction project or the loading or unloading or use of such materials, tools or equipment. “Decibel (db)” means a unit of level which denotes the ratio between two quantities that are proportional to the power; the number of decibels corresponding to the ratio of two amounts of power ten times the logarithm to the base 10 of this ratio.
“Emergency machinery or vehicle” means any inanimate device used to protect, provide or restore safe conditions in the community or for the citizenry.
41 EXHIBIT 7
464 of 1278

1. 2.

3. 4.
“Emergency work” means work made necessary to restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity, work required to protect persons or property from exposure to danger, or work by private or public utilities when restoring utility services.
“Equivalent sound level (Leq)” means the A-weighted sound level corresponding to a steady state sound level containing the same total sound energy as the time varying signal over a given period of time. The equivalent sound level shall be determined using an integrating sound level meter as set forth in American National Standards for Sound Level Meters SI.4-1971.
“Fixed noise source” means a stationary device which creates sounds while fixed or motionless, including but not limited to, residential, agricultural, industrial and commercial machinery and equipment, pumps, fans, compressors, air conditioners and refrigeration equipment.
“Grading” means any excavating, filling of earth material or any combination thereof conducted at a site to prepare such site for construction or other improvements thereon. “Health care institution” means any hospital, convalescent home or other similar facility which provides health care medical treatment, room, board or other services for health, recovery or convalescence. “Impulsive sound” means any sound of short duration, usually less that one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay. Examples of sources of impulsive sound include explosions, drum beats, drop forge impacts, firecrackers, discharge of firearms and one object striking another.
“Mobile noise source” means any noise source other than a fixed noise source. “Motor vehicle” means and includes any and all self-propelled vehicles as defined in the California Vehicle Code, including all on-highway type motor vehicles, subject to registration under such code, and all off-highway type motor vehicles subject to identification under such code.
“Nighttime” means the hours from and after ten p.m. until seven a.m. of the following day. “Noise” means any sound which exceeds the appropriate actual or presumed ambient noise level or which annoys or tends to disturb humans or which causes or tends to cause an adverse psychological or physiological effect on humans.
“Noise disturbance” means any sound which:

Endangers or injures the safety or health of human beings or animals; or Annoys or disturbs reasonable persons of normal sensitivities; or Endangers or injures personal or real property; or
Violates the provision of this chapter.
“Noncommercial purpose” means the use, operation or maintenance of any sound equipment for other than “commercial purpose.” “Noncommercial purpose” means and includes, but shall not be limited to, philanthropic, political, patriotic and charitable purposes.
“Powered model vehicle” means any self-propelled, airborne, waterborne or landborne plane, vessel or vehicle, which is not designed to carry persons, including but not limited to, any model airplane, boat, car or rocket. “Public right-of-way” means any street, avenue, boulevard, highway, sidewalk or alley or similar place which is owned or controlled by a governmental entity.
“Public space” means the real property or structures thereon which are owned or controlled by a governmental entity.
“Pure tone” means any sound which can be judged as audible as a single pitch or a set of single pitches by any person. Examples of a pure tone are whines, screeches or hums. 42 EXHIBIT 7
465 of 1278

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

I.
“Single event” means any sound which is continuous for a period lasting between an impulse sound and five minutes.
“Sound-amplifying equipment” means any machine or device for the amplification of the human voice, music or any other sound.
“Sound level” means the sound measured with the A-weighing and slow responses by a sound level meter, except for impulsive or rapidly varying sound for when the fast response shall be used. “Sound level meter” means an instrument including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and frequency weighing networks for the measurements of noise and sound levels in a specified manner. “Sound truck” means any motor vehicle, or other vehicle regardless of mode of power, whether in motion or stationary, having mounted thereon or attached thereto, any sound-amplifying equipment. “Supplementary definitions of technical terms” means those definitions of technical terms not defined in this section which shall be obtained from the American Standard Acoustical Terminology which is currently in effect at the time of the taking of the noise measurement. Such document is incorporated in this section by reference. “Vibration perception threshold” means the minimal ground or structure borne vibrational motion necessary to cause a normal person to be aware of the vibration by such direct means as, but not limited to, sensation by touch or visual observation of moving objects. The perception shall be presumed to be a motion velocity of 0.01 in./sec. over the range of one to one hundred Hz.
“Voice sound” means any sound emitted from the vocal cords or speaking mechanisms of any animate object. (
Prior code § 11-51; Ord. 4973 § 2, 1991)
§ 8.36.030. Decibel measurement criteria.

Any sound level measurement made pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be measured with a sound level meter using the A-weighing.

Exterior noise measurements shall be taken where possible, at any location on the property line and, except when impractical, the microphone shall be located four to five feet above the ground and ten or more feet from the nearest reflective surface. However, in those cases where another elevation is determined appropriate, the latter shall be utilized.

Interior sound level measurements shall be made at a point at least four feet from the wall, ceiling or floor nearest the noise source within the affected dwelling unit.

Ambient noise shall be averaged over a period of at least five minutes at a location and time of day comparable to that during which the measurement is taken of the particular noise source being measured.

In order to obtain the ambient level, the intrusive noise source which is being tested to determine whether a violation exists shall be eliminated either by bringing to a cessation such noise source or moving to a similar location which does not have the offending noise source and obtaining the ambient noise of that location.

The ambient noise level shall be the numerical average of noise measurements taken at a given location during at least a five-minute period of time.

Calibration of the sound level meter, utilizing an acoustic calibrator, shall be performed immediately prior to recording any sound level data.

Measurements shall be made in decibels using the A-weighted scale with slow response, following the manufacturer’s instructions, except the fast response shall be used for impulsive sounds or rapidly varying sounds.

Except as provided in subsection J of this section, measurement of the particular noise being measured shall be done for a five-minute period of time. The sound level shall be the equivalent sound level (Leq) measured. 43 EXHIBIT 7
466 of 1278

J.

K.

L.

A.

B.

C.

A.

B.

C.

The measurement of any “single event” as defined in Section 8.36.020, shall be taken during the entire single event.

In the event the alleged offensive noise contains a pure tone, an impulsive sound or a rapidly varying sound, the standard set forth in Section 8.36.040 shall be reduced by five dbA.

Vibrations shall be measured by an accelerometer at the point of maximum perceived vibration. (Prior code § 11-52; Ord. 4973 § 3, 1991)
§ 8.36.040. Presumed noise standards.

The following exterior noise standards, unless otherwise specifically indicated, shall apply to all property within a designated zone:

Zone Decibels Time
Cemetery and residential (single family and duplex) 45 dbA Nighttime Cemetery and residential (single family and duplex) 55 dbA Daytime Residential (multifamily, hotels, motels and transient lodgings) 60 dbA Anytime Central business district and commercial 65 dbA Anytime Industrial 70 dbA Anytime
The following interior noise standards, unless otherwise specially indicated, shall apply to all residential property within a designated zone:

Zone Decibels TimeRes
Residential 45 dbA Nighttime
Residential 55 dbA All other times
In any overlay zones, the underlying zone shall determine the presumed ambient noise level. (
Prior code § 11-53; Ord. 4973 § 4, 1991)
§ 8.36.050. Minimum and maximum ambient noise levels.

Where the actual ambient is less than the presumed ambient, the actual ambient shall control and any noise in excess of the actual ambient, plus five dbA, shall be a violation.

Where the actual ambient is equal to or more than the presumed ambient, the actual ambient shall control and any noise may not exceed the actual ambient by more than five dbA; however, in no event may the actual ambient exceed the presumed noise standards by five dbA.

At the boundary line between two zones, the arithmetic average of the presumed ambient noise levels shall be used.
(
Prior code § 11-54; Ord. 4973 § 5, 1991)
§ 8.36.060. Violations.

It is unlawful for any person to operate any machinery, equipment, pump, fan, voice, air-conditioning apparatus or similar mechanical device in any manner or to allow or cause sounds, so as to create any noise or vibration which would cause the noise level as specified above to be exceeded unless a variance, exemption or some other exception allows for a greater noise.
(
Prior code § 11-55; Ord. 4973 § 6, 1991)
§ 8.36.070. Animals.
44 EXHIBIT 7
467 of 1278

A.

B.

C.

D.

E.

F.

G.

H.

It is unlawful for any person to keep, maintain or permit the keeping, upon any premises owned, occupied or controlled by such person, any animal or fowl, otherwise permitted to be kept, which by any sound, cry or behavior shall cause annoyance or discomfort to a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness in any residential neighborhood.
(
Prior code § 11-56; Ord. 4973 § 7, 1991)
§ 8.36.080. Construction on buildings, structures and projects.

It is unlawful for any person within a residential zone, or within a radius of five hundred feet therefrom, to operate equipment or perform any outside construction or repair work on buildings, structures or projects within the city between the hours of seven p.m. on one day and seven a.m. of the next day or from seven p.m. on Saturday to seven a.m. on Monday or from seven p.m. preceding a holiday, as designated in Chapter 3.08 of this code, to seven a.m. following such holiday unless beforehand a permit therefor has been duly obtained from the building official. No permit shall be required to perform emergency work as defined in this chapter. (
Prior code § 11-57; Ord. 4973 § 8, 1991)
§ 8.36.090. Exhaust pipe required.

No person having charge or control of any engine in which gas, gasoline, distillate or other similar substance is used as a motive power, shall run or operate such engine, or cause the same to be run or operated, without having the exhaust pipe thereof connected with an underground air chamber or having attached to such exhaust pipe a muffler or other device so constructed as to deaden the sound of the exhaust of such engine and effectually prevent such exhaust from making any loud noise or disturbing the peace and quiet of persons in its vicinity. This section shall apply to the engine of a motor vehicle if its exhaust equipment is not regulated by state law. (
Prior code § 11-58; Ord. 4973 § 9, 1991)
§ 8.36.100. Loading and unloading.

It is unlawful for any person to load, unload, open, close or otherwise handle boxes, crates, containers, building materials, garbage cans or similar objects during nighttime in such a manner as to cause a noise disturbance, discomfort or annoyance to a reasonably sensitive person or which interferes with the comfort, peace, quiet, repose or endangers the health of inhabitants of the area.
(
Prior code § 11-59; Ord. 4973 § 10, 1991)
§ 8.36.110. Loud or unusual noises.

It is unlawful for any person to wilfully make, continue or cause to be made or continued any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise which disturbs the comfort, peace, quiet or repose or endangers the health of inhabitants of any neighborhood or which causes discomfort or annoyance to any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. The standard which shall be considered in determining whether a violation of this section exists shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:

The volume of the noise;
The intensity of the noise;
Whether the nature of the noise is usual or unusual;
Whether the origin of the noise is natural or unnatural; The volume of the noise to residential sleeping facilities; The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates; The density of the inhabitation of the area within which the noise emanates; The time of day or night the noise occurs;
45 EXHIBIT 7
468 of 1278

I.

J.

K.

The duration of the noise;
Whether the noise is recurrent, intermittent, or constant; and Whether the noise is produced by a commercial or noncommercial activity. (
Prior code § 11-60; Ord. 4973 § 11, 1991)
§ 8.36.120. Motor-driven vehicles.

It is unlawful for any person to operate any motor-driven vehicle within the city in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area is caused discomfort or annoyance; or which interferes with the comfort, repose, peace or which endangers the health of inhabitants of the area; provided, however, that any such vehicle which is operated upon any public highway, street or right-of-way shall be excluded from regulation under this section.
(
Prior code § 11-61; Ord. 4973 § 12, 1991)
§ 8.36.130. Powered model vehicles.

It is unlawful to operate or permit the operation of powered model vehicles so as to create a noise disturbance across a residential real property boundary during nighttime in such a manner as to cause a noise disturbance, discomfort or annoyance to a reasonably sensitive person or which interferes with the comfort, peace, quiet, repose or which endangers the health of inhabitants of the area. (
Prior code § 11-62; Ord. 4973 § 13, 1991)
§ 8.36.140. Proposed development project.

If at any time the director of community development or the building official has reason to believe that a new development project, addition, modification or any other changes thereto may not conform with the permitted noise level standards, the director of community development or the building official may require as a condition of approval an acoustic analysis as part of the building permit process or other approval procedures. (
Prior code § 11-63; Ord. 4973 § 14, 1991; Ord. 5803 § 16, 2013) § 8.36.150. Public entertainment.

Operating, playing or permitting the operation or playing of any radio, television, phonograph, drum, musical instrument, sound amplifier or similar device which reproduces or produces or amplifies sound in any place of public entertainment at a sound level greater than ninety-five dbA at a place of business normally occupied by customers shall be a violation unless a conspicuous and legible sign is located outside such place or near each public entrance, stating, “WARNING: SOUND LEVEL MAY CAUSE HEARING IMPAIRMENT.” (
Prior code § 11-64; Ord. 4973 § 15, 1991)
§ 8.36.160. Radios, television sets and similar devices.

It is unlawful for any person within any residential zone of the city to use or operate any radio receiving set, musical instrument, phonograph, television set or other machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound during nighttime in such a manner as to disturb the comfort, peace, quiet or repose or endanger the health of neighboring residents or of any reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in the area. (
Prior code § 11-65; Ord. 4973 § 16, 1991)
§ 8.36.170. Schools, health care institutions and churches.

It is unlawful for any person to create any noise on any street, sidewalk or public space or public right-of-way adjacent to any school, library, health care institution or church while the same are in use, which unreasonably 46 EXHIBIT 7
469 of 1278

interferes with the workings of such institution, or which disturbs the peace, quiet, repose or health of the inhabitants, provided conspicuous signs are displayed in such street, sidewalk, public space or public right-of-way, indicating that the same is an area upon which a school, library, health care institution or church is located. (
Prior code § 11-66; Ord. 4973 § 17, 1991)
§ 8.36.180. Service or maintenance vehicles.

It is unlawful for service or maintenance vehicles of a nonemergency nature to be operated in residential areas during nighttime.
(
Prior code § 11-67; Ord. 4973 § 18, 1991)
§ 8.36.190. Street sales.

Offering for sale, selling anything, or advertising by shouting or outcry within a residential or commercial zone or central business district of the city in a manner to disturb a reasonably sensitive person or which interferes with the comfort, peace, quiet, repose or endangers the health of inhabitants of the area shall constitute a violation. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit the selling by outcry of merchandise, food and beverages at licensed sporting events, parades, fairs, circuses or other similar licensed public entertainment events. (
Prior code § 11-68; Ord. 4973 § 19, 1991)
§ 8.36.200. Vehicle repair in residential areas.

It in unlawful for any person within the city to repair, rebuild or modify or test any motor vehicle during nighttime within any residential area in such a manner that a reasonable person of normal sensitiveness residing in that area is caused discomfort or annoyance or which endangers the comfort, repose, peace or health of residents of the area.
(
Prior code § 11-69; Ord. 4973 § 20, 1991)
§ 8.36.210. Vibration.

Operating or permitting the operation of any device that creates a vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond the property boundary of the source if on private property or at one hundred fifty feet from the source if on a public space or public right-of-way shall be a violation. (
Prior code § 11-70; Ord. 4973 § 21, 1991)
§ 8.36.220. Yelling and shouting.

It is unlawful for any person to yell, shout, cause loud or raucous yelling, shouting, whistling or singing which causes discomfort or annoyance to persons of reasonable sensitivity; or which interferes with the comfort, peace, quiet or repose or which endangers the health of inhabitants of the area. (
Prior code § 11-71; Ord. 4973 § 22, 1991)
47 EXHIBIT 7
470 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx

This page was intentionally left blank.
48 EXHIBIT 7
471 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx

APPENDIX 3.2:

CITY OF LOS ANGELES NOISE ORDINANCE

49 EXHIBIT 7
472 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx

This page was intentionally left blank.
50 EXHIBIT 7
473 of 1278

ARTICLE 1

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Section
111.00 Declaration of Policy.
111.01 Definitions.
111.02 Sound Level Measurement Procedure and Criteria. 111.03 Minimum Ambient Noise Level.
111.04 Violations: Additional Remedies, Injunctions.
111.05 Enforcement, Citations.

SEC. 111.00. DECLARATION OF POLICY.

It is hereby declared to be the policy of the City to prohibit unnecessary, excessive and annoying noises from all sources subject to its police power. At certain levels noises are detrimental to the health and welfare of the citizenry and in the public interests shall be systematically proscribed.

SEC. 111.01. DEFINITIONS.

Unless the context otherwise clearly indicates, the words and phrases used in this chapter are defined as follows:

(a) “Ambient Noise” is the composite of noise from all sources near and far in a given environment, exclusive of occasional and transient intrusive noise sources and of the particular noise source or sources to be measured.

Ambient noise shall be averaged over a period of at least 15 minutes at a location and time of day comparable to that during which the measurement is taken of the particular noise source being measured. (Amended by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.)

(b) “Commercial Purpose” is the use, operation, or maintenance of any sound amplifying equipment for the purpose of advertising any business, goods, or services, or for the purpose of attracting the attention of the public to, advertising for, or soliciting patronage or customers to or for any performance, show, entertainment, exhibition, or event, or for the purpose of demonstrating such sound equipment. (Amended by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.)

(c) “Decibel” (dB) is a unit of level which denotes the ratio between two (2) quantities which are proportional to power; the number of decibels corresponding to the ratio of two (2) amounts of power is ten (10) times the logarithm to the base (10) of this ratio. (Amended by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.)

(d) “Emergency Work” is work made necessary to restore property to a safe condition following a public calamity or work required to protect persons or property from an imminent exposure to danger, or work by private or public utilities when restoring utility service. (Amended by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.)

(e) “Impulsive Sound” is sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay. By way of example “impulsive sound ” shall include, but shall not be limited to, explosions, musical base drum beats, or the discharge of firearms. (Amended by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.)

(f) “Motor Vehicle” includes, but shall not be limited to, automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, minibikes and go- carts. (Amended by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.)

(g) “Noncommercial Purpose” is the use, operation, or maintenance of any sound equipment for other than a “commercial purpose”. “Noncommercial purpose” shall mean and include, but shall not be limited to, philanthropic, 51 EXHIBIT 7
474 of 1278

political, patriotic, and charitable purposes. (Amended by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.)

(h) “Octave Band Noise Analyzer” is an instrument for measurement of sound levels in octave frequency bands which satisfies the pertinent requirements for Class II octave band analyzers of the American National Standard Specifications for Octave, Half-Octave, and Third-Octave Band Filters, S1.11-1966 or the most recent revision thereof. (Amended by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.)

(i) “Person” is a person, firm, association, co-partnership, joint venture, corporation, or any entity, private or public in nature. (Amended by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.)

(j) “Sound Amplifying Equipment” (Amended by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.) is any machine or device for the amplification of the human voice, music or any other sound, but shall not include:

1. Automobile radios, stereo players or television receivers when used and heard only by the occupants of the vehicle in which the same is installed.

2. Radio, stereo players, phonographs or television receivers used in any house or apartment within any residential zone or within 500 feet thereof.

3. Warning devices on emergency vehicles.

4. Horns or other warning devices authorized by law on any vehicle when used for traffic purposes.

(k) “Sound Level” (Noise level) in decibels (dB) is the sound measured with the “A” weighting and slow responses by a sound level meter; except for impulsive or rapidly varying sounds, the fast response shall be used. (Amended by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.)

(l) “Sound Level Meter” is an instrument including a microphone, an amplifier, an output meter, and “A” frequency weighting network for the measurement of sound levels which satisfies the pertinent requirements for Type S2A meters in American Standard Specifications for sound level meters in S1.4-1971 or the most recent revision thereof. (Amended by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.)

(m) “Sound Truck” is any motor vehicle, or any other vehicle regardless of motive power, whether in motion or stationary, which carries, is equipped with, or which has mounted thereon, or attached thereto, any sound amplifying equipment. (Amended by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.)

(n) Supplementary Definitions of Technical Terms. Definitions of technical terms not defined herein shall be obtained from American Standard Acoustical Terminology S1-1-1971 or the most recent revision thereof. (Amended by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.)

SEC. 111.02. SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENT PROCEDURE AND CRITERIA. (Title amended by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.)

(a) (Amended by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.) Any sound level measurement made pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be measured with a sound level meter using the “A” weighting and response as indicated in Section 111.01(k) of this article.

Except when impractical, the microphone shall be located four to five feet above the ground and ten feet or more from the nearest reflective surface. However, in those cases where another elevation is deemed appropriated, the latter shall be utilized.

Interior sound level measurements shall be made at a point at least four feet from the wall, ceiling, or floor nearest the noise source.

Calibration of the sound level meter, utilizing an acoustic calibrator shall be performed immediately prior to recording any sound level data. The ambient noise level and the level of a particular noise being measured shall be the numerical average 52 EXHIBIT 7
475 of 1278

of noise measurements taken at a given location during a given time period.

(b) (Amended by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.) Where the sound alleged to be offending is of a type or character set forth below, the following values shall be added to the sound level measurement of the offending noise:

1. Except for noise emanating from any electrical transformer or gas metering and pressure control equipment existing and installed prior to the effective date of the ordinance enacting this chapter, any steady tone with audible fundamental frequency or overtones have 200 Hz.....+5

2. Repeated impulsive noise.....+5

3. Noise occurring more than 5 but less than 15 minutes in any period of 60 consecutive minutes between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. of any day.....-5

4. Noise occurring five minutes or less in any period of 60 consecutive minutes, between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. of any day.....-5 (Amended by Ord. No. 161,574, Eff. 9/8/86.)

(c) For those cases where an objectionable noise is clearly audible, but where the level of ambient noise does not permit direct quantative sound level “A” measurements of the objectionable noise, sound measurements may be performed utilizing an octave band sound analyzer to determine sound level “A” limits as indicated in the Table I below. This table is used to convert the sound pressure level meter readings in dB for each band to SPL in dB(A) for each band.

TABLE I
OCTA VE BAND NOISE V ALUES CORRESPONDING TO SOUND LEVEL “A” V ALUES

Sound
Level
Octave Band Sound Pressure Level, dB re .0002 dyne/cm2
Octave Band Center Frequency in Hz
“A” 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000
35 58 50 42 35 32 29 26 23 20
40 61 54 46 40 37 34 31 28 25
45 64 58 51 45 42 39 36 33 30
50 67 61 55 50 47 44 41 38 35
55 70 64 60 55 52 49 46 43 40
60 73 68 64 60 57 54 51 48 45
65 76 72 68 65 62 59 56 53 50
70 79 76 73 70 67 64 61 58 55
75 84 81 78 75 72 69 66 63 60

(d) For those cases where a sound level measurement has been made pursuant to the provisions of this chapter and two or more provisions of this chapter apply, the provision establishing the lower or lowest noise level, respectively, shall be used. (Added by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.)

SEC. 111.03. MINIMUM AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL.
(Amended by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.)

Where the ambient noise level is less than the presumed ambient noise level designated in this section, the presumed ambient noise level in this section shall be deemed to be the minimum ambient noise level for purposes of this chapter.

TABLE II
SOUND LEVEL “A” DECIBELS
53 EXHIBIT 7
476 of 1278

(In this chart, daytime levels are to be used from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. and nighttime levels from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.)

PRESUMED AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL
(dB(A))

ZONE DAY NIGHT
A1, A2, RA, RE, RS, RD, RW1, RW2, R1, R2, R3, R4, and
R5 50 40
P, PB, CR, C1, C1.5, C2, C4, C5, and CM 60 55
M1, MR1, and MR2 60 55
M2 and M3 65 65

At the boundary line between two zones, the presumed ambient noise level of the quieter zone shall be used.

SEC. 111.04. VIOLATIONS: ADDITIONAL REMEDIES, INJUNCTIONS.

As an additional remedy, the operation or maintenance of any device, instrument, vehicle, or machinery in violation of any provision of this chapter, which operation or maintenance causes discomfort or annoyance to reasonable persons or which endangers the comfort, repose, health, or peace of residents in the area, shall be deemed and is declared to be.a public nuisance and may be subject to abatement summarily by a restraining order or injunction issued by a court order of competent jurisdiction. (Amended by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.)

SEC. 111.05. ENFORCEMENT, CITATIONS.
(Added by Ord. No. 156,363, Eff. 3/29/82.)

(a) The Department of Building and Safety shall have the power and duty to enforce the following noise control provisions of this Code: Section 12.14 A.6.(h), Section 12.19 A.4.(b)(1), Section 112.02 and Section 112.04(c). (Amended by Ord. No. 172,086, Eff. 7/30/98.)

(b) The Police Department shall have the power and duty to enforce the following noise control provisions of this Code:

Section 41.32, Section 41.40, Section 41.42, Section 41.44, Section 41.57, Section 63.51(m), Section 112.01, Section 112.04, Section 112.05, Section 112.06, Section 113.01, Section 114.01 through Section 114.05, inclusive, Section 115.02 through Section 115.03, inclusive, and Section 116.01. (Amended by Ord. No. 185,601, Eff. 7/18/18.)

(c) Any Building Mechanical Inspector assigned to noise enforcement inspection shall have the power, authority and immunity of a public officer and employee, as set forth in the Penal Code of the State of California, Section 836.5, to make arrests without a warrant whenever such employee has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a misdemeanor in his presence which is a violation of any provision set forth in Section 111.05(a) of this chapter.

The provisions of said Penal Code section regarding issuance of a written promise to appear shall be applicable to arrests authorized herein.

54 EXHIBIT 7
477 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx

APPENDIX 5.1:

STUDY AREA PHOTOS

55 EXHIBIT 7
478 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx

This page was intentionally left blank.
56 EXHIBIT 7
479 of 1278

14238 - Glendale Garden Bridge
14238_L1_A 1.North
34, 9' 20.340000"118, 16' 58.620000"
14238_L1_A 2.South
34, 9' 20.340000"118, 16' 58.570000"
14238_L1_A 3.East
34, 9' 20.320000"118, 16' 58.540000"
14238_L1_A 4.West
34, 9' 20.250000"118, 16' 58.820000"
57 EXHIBIT 7
480 of 1278

14238 - Glendale Garden Bridge
14238_L2_B 1.North
34, 9' 33.660000"118, 16' 45.190000"
14238_L2_B 2.South
34, 9' 33.650000"118, 16' 45.140000"
14238_L2_B 3.East
34, 9' 33.420000"118, 16' 44.970000"
14238_L2_B 4.West
34, 9' 33.420000"118, 16' 45.030000"
58 EXHIBIT 7
481 of 1278

14238 - Glendale Garden Bridge
14238_L3_C 1.North
34, 9' 25.100000"118, 17' 0.550000"
14238_L3_C 2.South
34, 9' 25.120000"118, 17' 0.570000"
14238_L3_C 3.East
34, 9' 25.100000"118, 17' 0.550000"
14238_L3_C 4.West
34, 9' 25.120000"118, 17' 0.570000"
59 EXHIBIT 7
482 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx

This page was intentionally left blank.
60 EXHIBIT 7
483 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx

APPENDIX 5.2:

NOISE LEVEL MEASUREMENT WORKSHEETS

61 EXHIBIT 7
484 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx

This page was intentionally left blank.
62 EXHIBIT 7
485 of 1278

Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 14238
Project: Glendale Garden River Bridge Source: Analyst: B. Lawson Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 62.6 67.3 60.2 67.1 66.9 65.9 65.0 62.9 62.0 60.8 60.6 60.3 62.6 10.0 72.6 1 60.5 64.7 57.8 64.4 64.1 63.2 62.5 60.9 60.0 58.5 58.2 57.9 60.5 10.0 70.5 2 61.3 64.1 59.3 63.9 63.6 63.0 62.6 61.8 61.1 59.9 59.6 59.4 61.3 10.0 71.3 3 61.5 65.9 59.4 65.6 65.3 63.9 63.2 61.9 61.1 60.0 59.7 59.5 61.5 10.0 71.5 4 63.6 68.8 61.5 68.6 68.2 66.8 65.5 63.6 63.0 62.1 61.8 61.6 63.6 10.0 73.6 5 66.0 71.1 64.0 70.9 70.5 69.2 68.1 66.1 65.2 64.4 64.3 64.0 66.0 10.0 76.0 6 65.9 70.3 64.3 70.1 69.8 68.7 67.7 66.0 65.3 64.6 64.5 64.3 65.9 10.0 75.9 7 69.6 75.8 64.4 75.5 75.2 74.2 73.4 70.2 68.5 65. 1 64.8 64.5 69.6 0.0 69.6 8 65.7 72.3 62.3 72.1 71.6 70.3 69.2 66.0 64.0 62. 8 62.6 62.4 65.7 0.0 65.7 9 64.7 71.5 60.3 71.3 70.9 69.6 68.6 65.2 62.6 60. 8 60.6 60.4 64.7 0.0 64.7 10 63.3 70.8 57.5 70.5 70. 1 68.8 67.7 64.2 60.4 58. 0 57.8 57.6 63.3 0.0 63.3 11 62.9 70.4 58.2 70.1 69. 7 68.3 67.1 63.2 60.1 58. 6 58.4 58.2 62.9 0.0 62.9 12 63.1 70.7 58.1 70.5 70. 0 68.4 67.3 63.5 60.4 58. 6 58.4 58.2 63.1 0.0 63.1 13 63.2 71.9 57.1 71.6 71. 2 69.4 67.8 63.2 59.8 57. 5 57.3 57.1 63.2 0.0 63.2 14 62.7 70.6 58.0 70.4 70. 0 68.4 67.0 62.7 59.9 58. 5 58.3 58.1 62.7 0.0 62.7 15 65.0 76.1 58.7 75.0 74. 2 71.8 70.4 63.3 60.8 59. 1 58.9 58.7 65.0 0.0 65.0 16 64.4 71.2 61.4 71.0 70. 6 69.0 67.8 64.2 62.7 61. 8 61.7 61.5 64.4 0.0 64.4 17 65.4 72.1 61.8 71.8 71. 4 69.9 68.8 65.7 63.7 62. 2 62.1 61.9 65.4 0.0 65.4 18 65.1 71.0 62.2 70.8 70. 4 69.1 68.2 65.6 63.8 62. 6 62.5 62.3 65.1 0.0 65.1 19 65.8 72.3 62.5 72.1 71. 7 70.5 69.5 65.8 64.2 62. 9 62.7 62.5 65.8 5.0 70.8 20 65.5 71.7 63.4 71.5 71. 0 69.1 67.6 65.4 64.6 63. 8 63.6 63.4 65.5 5.0 70.5 21 67.0 77.7 63.3 77.0 75. 9 72.1 69.5 65.8 64.6 63. 7 63.5 63.4 67.0 5.0 72.0 22 67.4 77.7 62.9 77.3 76.9 73.4 71.1 65.9 64.4 63.3 63.2 63.0 67.4 10.0 77.4 23 63.3 67.5 61.4 67.3 67.0 66.0 65.3 63.6 62.7 61.9 61.7 61.5 63.3 10.0 73.3 Timeframe Hour L
eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 62.7 70.4 57.1 70.1 69.7 68. 3 67.0 62.7 59.8 57.5 57.3 57.1 Max 69.6 77.7 64.4 77.0 75.9 74. 2 73.4 70.2 68.5 65.1 64.8 64.5

65.3 72.1 71.6 69.9 68.7 64.9 62.7 61.1 60.9 60.7
Min 60.5 64.1 57.8 63.9 63.6 63. 0 62.5 60.9 60.0 58.5 58.2 57.9 Max 67.4 77.7 64.3 77.3 76.9 73. 4 71.1 66.1 65.3 64.6 64.5 64.3

64.2 68.3 68.0 66.7 65.7 63.6 62.7 61.7 61.5 61.3
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, December 22, 2022 L1 - Located approximately 336 feet south of the site near the Tot Lot located in the John Ferraro Athletic Fields
Night
Day
Leq (dBA)24-Hour
CNELDay
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

71.2 65.3 64.2

62.6 60.5

61.3 61.5

63.6 66.0

65.9 69.6

65.7 64.7

63.3 62.9

63.1 63.2

62.7 65.0

64.4 65.4

65.1 65.8

65.5 67.0

67.4 63.3

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 Hourly Leq(dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14200\14238\04_Noise\fieldwork\Measurements\14238_L1_A 63 EXHIBIT 7
486 of 1278

Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 14238
Project: Glendale Garden River Bridge Source: Analyst: B. Lawson Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 67.7 83.1 55.7 81.9 79.9 74.2 69.1 60.8 58.9 56.2 56.0 55.8 67.7 10.0 77.7 1 56.0 61.2 53.1 60.9 60.5 59.2 58.3 56.3 55.2 53.8 53.5 53.2 56.0 10.0 66.0 2 60.8 67.3 56.7 67.0 66.7 65.7 65.1 60.3 59.1 57.3 57.0 56.7 60.8 10.0 70.8 3 56.6 61.3 54.4 60.9 60.5 59.3 58.5 57.0 56.1 54.9 54.7 54.5 56.6 10.0 66.6 4 59.7 63.5 57.7 63.2 62.9 62.0 61.5 60.1 59.2 58.2 58.0 57.8 59.7 10.0 69.7 5 62.5 66.2 60.6 66.0 65.7 64.8 64.2 62.7 62.0 61.0 60.9 60.7 62.5 10.0 72.5 6 63.1 67.7 61.2 67.4 67.1 66.1 65.4 63.2 62.5 61.6 61.4 61.2 63.1 10.0 73.1 7 63.6 70.9 60.1 70.4 69.9 68.2 67.1 63.8 62.0 60. 6 60.4 60.2 63.6 0.0 63.6 8 63.5 70.5 59.0 70.2 69.8 68.3 67.2 63.7 61.8 59. 8 59.4 59.1 63.5 0.0 63.5 9 60.4 68.4 54.4 67.9 67.2 65.5 64.3 60.9 58.5 55. 4 54.9 54.5 60.4 0.0 60.4 10 60.2 70.3 52.4 69.7 68. 7 64.8 63.3 60.5 58.1 53. 6 53.1 52.6 60.2 0.0 60.2 11 62.2 76.0 50.1 74.9 73. 5 68.5 65.0 59.3 56.6 52. 0 51.1 50.3 62.2 0.0 62.2 12 61.4 69.3 52.3 68.9 68. 4 66.4 64.9 61.9 60.3 53. 9 53.1 52.4 61.4 0.0 61.4 13 62.2 70.2 52.3 69.8 69. 2 67.6 66.1 62.7 60.7 55. 1 53.9 52.7 62.2 0.0 62.2 14 63.1 71.6 52.7 71.2 70. 1 68.3 66.6 63.8 61.6 55. 5 54.0 52.9 63.1 0.0 63.1 15 63.3 71.2 53.1 70.6 70. 0 68.4 67.2 64.2 61.5 55. 7 54.4 53.3 63.3 0.0 63.3 16 62.3 74.1 51.5 73.7 72. 6 69.1 65.9 60.7 57.9 53. 2 52.3 51.6 62.3 0.0 62.3 17 62.8 72.8 53.2 72.5 72. 0 70.5 68.7 60.7 58.1 54. 4 54.0 53.3 62.8 0.0 62.8 18 65.0 76.1 55.8 75.3 74. 2 73.2 70.0 62.4 59.7 56. 7 56.3 56.0 65.0 0.0 65.0 19 64.1 77.9 56.1 76.6 74. 9 70.1 66.1 61.4 59.2 56. 6 56.4 56.2 64.1 5.0 69.1 20 60.6 66.2 57.5 65.8 65. 3 64.2 63.4 61.2 59.6 58. 0 57.8 57.6 60.6 5.0 65.6 21 61.4 68.4 57.0 68.1 67. 5 66.2 65.2 61.8 59.5 57. 6 57.4 57.1 61.4 5.0 66.4 22 59.7 65.5 56.5 65.1 64.8 63.7 62.9 60.2 58.4 56.9 56.7 56.6 59.7 10.0 69.7 23 59.3 66.1 56.5 65.6 64.8 62.9 61.8 59.5 58.0 56.9 56.7 56.6 59.3 10.0 69.3 Timeframe Hour L
eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 60.2 66.2 50.1 65.8 65.3 64. 2 63.3 59.3 56.6 52.0 51.1 50.3 Max 65.0 77.9 60.1 76.6 74.9 73. 2 70.0 64.2 62.0 60.6 60.4 60.2

62.6 71.0 70.2 67.9 66.1 61.9 59.7 55.9 55.2 54.7
Min 56.0 61.2 53.1 60.9 60.5 59. 2 58.3 56.3 55.2 53.8 53.5 53.2 Max 67.7 83.1 61.2 81.9 79.9 74. 2 69.1 63.2 62.5 61.6 61.4 61.2

62.1 66.4 65.9 64.2 63.0 60.0 58.8 57.4 57.2 57.0
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, December 22, 2022 L2 - Located Northeast of the site near residence located at 810 Pelanconi Ave.

Night
Day
Leq (dBA)24-Hour
CNELDay
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

68.8 62.6 62.1

67.7 56.0

60.8 56.6

59.7 62.5

63.1 63.6

63.5 60.4

60.2 62.2

61.4 62.2

63.1 63.3

62.3 62.8

65.0 64.1

60.6 61.4

59.7 59.3

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 Hourly Leq(dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14200\14238\04_Noise\fieldwork\Measurements\14238_L2_B 64 EXHIBIT 7
487 of 1278

Date: Location: Meter: Piccolo II JN: 14238
Project: Glendale Garden River Bridge Source: Analyst: B. Lawson Timeframe Hour L eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% L eq Adj. Adj. L eq 0 58.9 66.1 55.9 65.8 65.3 63.4 61.8 58.8 57.4 56.4 56.2 56.0 58.9 10.0 68.9 1 56.5 63.7 53.8 63.5 63.1 61.4 59.7 55.8 54.9 54.2 54.0 53.9 56.5 10.0 66.5 2 57.8 63.2 55.3 62.9 62.6 61.3 60.2 58.0 56.9 55.7 55.5 55.4 57.8 10.0 67.8 3 57.9 63.2 55.9 62.8 62.3 61.1 60.0 57.9 57.2 56.3 56.2 56.0 57.9 10.0 67.9 4 60.2 68.0 56.9 67.6 66.9 65.0 63.7 59.8 58.6 57.4 57.2 57.0 60.2 10.0 70.2 5 62.5 70.6 57.8 70.3 69.8 68.5 67.1 62.2 59.5 58.1 58.0 57.8 62.5 10.0 72.5 6 61.8 69.8 57.8 69.6 69.1 67.3 65.6 61.4 59.4 58.2 58.1 57.9 61.8 10.0 71.8 7 63.9 71.6 57.3 71.3 70.9 69.3 68.1 64.6 61.4 57. 9 57.6 57.4 63.9 0.0 63.9 8 65.0 73.4 57.1 73.1 72.5 71.0 69.7 65.6 61.8 57. 8 57.4 57.2 65.0 0.0 65.0 9 64.3 72.3 56.1 72.1 71.6 70.3 69.0 65.0 61.4 56. 8 56.4 56.2 64.3 0.0 64.3 10 63.8 73.0 55.5 72.7 72. 3 70.6 69.1 63.6 59.3 56. 1 55.8 55.6 63.8 0.0 63.8 11 63.7 72.4 56.1 72.1 71. 5 69.6 68.2 64.2 60.0 56. 7 56.4 56.1 63.7 0.0 63.7 12 64.8 73.1 56.6 72.7 72. 1 70.4 69.3 65.6 61.8 57. 4 57.0 56.7 64.8 0.0 64.8 13 65.4 73.3 56.7 73.0 72. 6 71.0 70.0 66.4 62.4 57. 7 57.2 56.8 65.4 0.0 65.4 14 66.5 74.4 57.6 74.1 73. 5 72.0 70.9 67.5 64.1 58. 9 58.2 57.7 66.5 0.0 66.5 15 68.0 74.7 58.8 74.4 74. 0 72.8 72.0 69.4 66.4 60. 4 59.5 58.9 68.0 0.0 68.0 16 68.3 75.1 58.9 74.8 74. 3 73.0 72.3 69.7 66.5 60. 5 59.7 59.1 68.3 0.0 68.3 17 68.2 75.9 58.3 75.5 75. 0 73.4 72.5 69.3 66.1 59. 9 59.0 58.4 68.2 0.0 68.2 18 65.9 73.5 57.7 73.2 72. 7 71.5 70.6 67.1 62.8 58. 4 58.1 57.8 65.9 0.0 65.9 19 62.5 70.8 57.1 70.5 70. 0 68.3 67.0 62.3 59.5 57. 6 57.4 57.2 62.5 5.0 67.5 20 61.5 69.7 57.5 69.4 68. 9 67.1 65.5 61.1 58.9 57. 9 57.7 57.6 61.5 5.0 66.5 21 65.3 75.6 57.1 74.8 73. 8 72.0 70.3 65.3 59.6 57. 4 57.3 57.1 65.3 5.0 70.3 22 60.4 67.4 57.3 67.2 66.8 65.1 63.8 60.3 58.7 57.6 57.5 57.4 60.4 10.0 70.4 23 60.7 68.6 56.4 68.4 68.0 66.4 65.0 60.4 57.9 56.7 56.6 56.4 60.7 10.0 70.7 Timeframe Hour L
eq L max L min L1% L2% L5% L8% L25% L50% L90% L95% L99% Min 61.5 69.7 55.5 69.4 68.9 67. 1 65.5 61.1 58.9 56.1 55.8 55.6 Max 68.3 75.9 58.9 75.5 75.0 73. 4 72.5 69.7 66.5 60.5 59.7 59.1

65.6 72.9 72.4 70.8 69.6 65.8 62.1 58.1 57.6 57.3
Min 56.5 63.2 53.8 62.8 62.3 61. 1 59.7 55.8 54.9 54.2 54.0 53.9 Max 62.5 70.6 57.8 70.3 69.8 68. 5 67.1 62.2 59.5 58.2 58.1 57.9

60.0 66.4 66.0 64.4 63.0 59.4 57.8 56.7 56.6 56.4
24-Hour Noise Level Measurement Summary
Hourly L eq dBA Readings (unadjusted)
Night
Thursday, December 22, 2022 L3 - Located northwest of the site near Office Complex located at 1000 Flower St.

Night
Day
Leq (dBA)24-Hour
CNELDay
Night
Energy Average
Energy Average Average:

Average:

Daytime
(7am-10pm)
Nighttime
(10pm-7am)

68.2 65.6 60.0

58.9 56.5

57.8 57.9

60.2 62.5

61.8 63.9

65.0 64.3

63.8 63.7

64.8 65.4

66.5 68.0

68.3 68.2

65.9 62.5

61.5 65.3

60.4 60.7

35.0 40.0

45.0 50.0

55.0 60.0

65.0 70.0

75.0 80.0

85.0 0123456789 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 Hourly Leq(dBA)
Hour Beginning
Z:\Shared\UcJobs\_14100-14500\_14200\14238\04_Noise\fieldwork\Measurements\14238_L3_C 65 EXHIBIT 7
488 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx

This page was intentionally left blank.
66 EXHIBIT 7
489 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx

APPENDIX 8.1:

CADNAA CONSTRUCTION NOISE MODEL INPUTS

67 EXHIBIT 7
490 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx

This page was intentionally left blank.
68 EXHIBIT 7
491 of 1278

14238 - Gelndale Garden Bridge - Construction
CadnaA Noise Prediction Model: 14238-08_Construction.cna Date: 17.05.24
Analyst: B. Maddux
Calculation Configuration
Configuration
Parameter Value
General
Max. Error (dB) 0.00
Max. Search Radius (#(Unit,LEN)) 2000.01
Min. Dist Src to Rcvr 0.00
Partition
Raster Factor 0.50
Max. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 999.99
Min. Length of Section (#(Unit,LEN)) 1.01
Min. Length of Section (%) 0.00
Proj. Line Sources On
Proj. Area Sources On
Ref. Time
Daytime Penalty (dB) 0.00
Recr. Time Penalty (dB) 5.00
Night-time Penalty (dB) 10.00
DTM
Standard Height (m) 0.00
Model of Terrain Triangulation
Reflection
max. Order of Reflection 2
Search Radius Src 100.00
Search Radius Rcvr 100.00
Max. Distance Source - Rcvr 1000.00 1000.00
Min. Distance Rvcr - Reflector 1.00 1.00
Min. Distance Source - Reflector 0.10
Industrial (ISO 9613)
Lateral Diffraction some Obj
Obst. within Area Src do not shield On
Screening Incl. Ground Att. over Barrier
Dz with limit (20/25)
Barrier Coefficients C1,2,3 3.0 20.0 0.0
Temperature (#(Unit,TEMP)) 10
rel. Humidity (%) 70
Ground Absorption G 0.50
Wind Speed for Dir. (#(Unit,SPEED)) 3.0
Roads (TNM)
Railways (FTA/FRA)
Aircraft (???)
Strictly acc. to AzB
Receiver Noise Levels
Name M. ID Level Lr Limit. Value Land Use Height Coordinates Day Night CNEL Day Night CNEL Type Auto Noise Type X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) R1 R1 54.7 -45.3 51.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 x Total 5.00 a 5947180.68 2369656.23 5.00 R2 R2 47.3 -52.7 44.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 x Total 5.00 a 5947789.83 2371486.27 5.00 R3 R3 54.2 -45.8 51.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 x Total 5.00 a 5946082.39 2370775.97 5.00 R4 R4 67.5 -32.5 64.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 x Total 5.00 a 5946492.75 2370021.51 5.00 R5 R5 61.0 -39.0 58.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 x Total 5.00 a 5946379.81 2369917.35 5.00 Point Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Lw / Li Operating Time Height Coordinates Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night X Y Z (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) Line Source(s)
Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL' Lw / Li Operating Time Moving Pt. Src Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night Number Speed (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) Day Evening Night (mph) (ft) Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Area Source(s)
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
69 EXHIBIT 7
492 of 1278

Name M. ID Result. PWL Result. PWL'' Lw / Li Operating Time Height Day Evening Night Day Evening Night Type Value norm. Day Special Night (ft) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) dB(A) (min) (min) (min) SITEBOUNDARY SITEBOUNDARY00001 113.6 13.6 13.6 68.9 -31.1 -31.1 PWL-Pt 113.6 8 a Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
SITEBOUNDARY SITEBOUNDARY00001 8.00 a 5946877.38 2370526.65 8.00 0.00 5947001.94 2370498.01 8.00 0.00
5947079.20 2370472.83 8.00 0.00
5947065.31 2370439.85 8.00 0.00
5946929.81 2370481.23 8.00 0.00
5946894.78 2370244.68 8.00 0.00
5946941.66 2370164.38 8.00 0.00
5947019.35 2370139.64 8.00 0.00
5947083.15 2370111.00 8.00 0.00
5947116.57 2370089.73 8.00 0.00
5947036.71 2369939.56 8.00 0.00
5946868.96 2370024.99 8.00 0.00
5946796.82 2370026.82 8.00 0.00
5946413.32 2370036.36 8.00 0.00
5946364.70 2370017.27 8.00 0.00
5946277.90 2370019.00 8.00 0.00
5946270.95 2370251.64 8.00 0.00
5946409.84 2370258.59 8.00 0.00
5946403.42 2370501.48 8.00 0.00
5946705.94 2370511.90 8.00 0.00
5946758.45 2370542.28 8.00 0.00
5946800.12 2370540.11 8.00 0.00
Barrier(s)
Name Sel. M. ID Absorption Z-Ext. Cantilever Height Coordinates left right horz. vert. Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Building(s)
Name Sel. M. ID RB Residents Absorption Height Coordinates Begin x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Ground Absorption(s)
Name Sel. M. ID G Coordinates
x y
(ft) (ft)
Contour(s)
Name Sel. M. ID OnlyPts Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Vertical Area Source(s)
Name ID Height Coordinates
Begin End x y z Ground
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Rail
Name Sel. M. ID Lw' Train Class Correct. Vmax
Day Night Track
(dBA) (dBA) (dB) (km(mph)
Sound Level Spectra
Name ID Type Oktave Spectrum (dB) Source
Weight. 31.5 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 A lin
Roads
Name Sel. M. ID Lme Count Data exact Count Data Speed Limit SCS Surface Gradient Mult. Reflection Day Evening Night DTV Str.class. M p (%) Auto Truck Dist. Dstro Type Drefl Hbuild Dist. (dBA) (dBA) (dBA) Day Evening Night Day Evening Night (mph) (mph) (dB) (%) (dB) (ft) (ft) RoadsGeo
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
70 EXHIBIT 7
493 of 1278

Name Height Coordinates Dist LSlope
Begin End x y z Ground (ft) (%)
(ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft) (ft)
Urban Crossroads, Inc.
71 EXHIBIT 7
494 of 1278

Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Noise Analysis 14238-10 Noise Study.docx

This page was intentionally left blank.
72 EXHIBIT 7
495 of 1278

D
ATE: April 3, 2023
TO: Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.

FROM: Charlene So, Urban Crossroads, Inc.

JOB NO: 14238-02 TG Memo

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE TRIP GENERATION

ASSESSMENT
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Trip Generation Assessment for the Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge (Project), which is located at the bend in the Los Angeles River near the Los Angeles Zoo and Griffith Park, and will connect the Cities of Glendale and Los Angeles The following trip generation specifically addresses the trip generation associated with the construction for the approximately 350 -foot long, three -span pedestrian curvilinear bridge structure over the LA River. It should be noted that this trip generation assessment has been prepared in accordance with the City’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (dated October 30, 2020) ( City Guidelines).

PROPOSED PROJECT
The City of Glendale is the Applicant and, in partnership with the City of LA, proposes the construction of a three-span, curvilinear, landscaped bridge for use by pedestrians, bicyclists, and maintenance vehicles. T he intent of t his multi- community resource is to increase ac cess to Glendale Narrows Riverwalk, and Griffith Park; to improve connections; and to increase the safety of paths used for pedestrians and cyclists. Dedicated access across the LA River at this key location would improve public safety and accessibility t o important community resources by creating a connection between Glendale and Los Angeles across the LA River for pedestrians and cyclists.

The proposed bridge would be concrete with two supporting piers in the Los Angeles River. It would feature extensive landscaping on the approaches, as well as on the bridge itself, and is thus named the “Garden River Bridge.” A number of raised and in-ground planting beds would create dedicated zones for bicycle and pedestrian circulation, shade structures, canopied seating areas, dispersed gathering spaces, event space, and scenic views of the LA River.

EXHIBIT 8
496 of 1278

Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.

April 3, 2023

14238-02 TG Memo

CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC
Construction is anticipated to begin in the Fall of 2025 and would last approximately 2.5 years , ending in the Spring of 2028. The demolition and excavation phases of the proposed Project are expected to generate the most construction traffic and require the most eq uipment. In -river construction would occur during the dry season (April through October) when flood flows are very unlikely. The construction equipment used during different portions of the proposed Project would include work trucks, concrete trucks, cast-in-drilled-hole concrete pile drilling rigs, mobile cranes, and excavators. While variable, a n average of 15 people would be on site daily for the duration of construction activities.

Access to the proposed Project site would be provided from Zoo Drive a nd Flower Street with intermittent temporary lane closures. The temporary construction staging area would be located at the southern and northern areas of the proposed Project and within the LA River northern bank and southern bank during construction of the bridge’s piers. The existing pedestrian and bike path traffic on the Riverwalk and LA River Bike Path would be maintained but would require intermittent detours during construction activities.

PROPOSED PROJECT
The construction of the proposed Project will occur in 6 phases:
• Phase 0: M obilization – The initial phase of the Project will include Requests for Information, preparing and reviewing submittals, and procuring materials. • Phase 1: North Abutment & Approaches – Approach work, bike path work, and abutment work.
• Phase 2: Bridge Substructure – Construct bents within the LA River. • Phase 3: South Abutment & Approaches – Construct the south abutment and connections to Zoo Drive; realign Zoo Drive.
• Phase 4: B ridge Superstructure – Construct the bridge superstructure using falsework within the LA River
• Phase 5: Architectural Elements/Landscaping – Construct the architectural elements (e.g., canopies, landscaping, etc.) on the bridge and approaches.

The number of trips per day by construction activity type has been determined based on information provided by the client and are summarized on Table 1. As shown in Table 1, Phase 4 is anticipated to generate the most trips with 68 two-way trips per day. As such, Phase 4 has been analyzed for the purposes of the construction traffic assessment in order to provide a conservative assessment.

EXHIBIT 8
497 of 1278

Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.

April 3, 2023

14238-02 TG Memo
TABLE 1: CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SUMMARY

The construction workday will begin at 7:00 AM and end at 4:00 PM Monday through Friday.

Construction employees will arrive at the Project site outside of the AM peak hour. As such, the development of the proposed Project will not contribute construction worker trips during the AM peak hour. Since the workday ends at 4:00 PM, all construction workers will leave the Project site during the PM peak hour. The proposed Project construction worker trip generation is shown in Table 2.

Truck trips will also occur throughout the day between 7:00 AM and end at 4:00 PM. All 4 trucks anticipated during Phase 4 are assumed to enter the site during the AM peak hour and depart in the PM peak hour. As shown in Table 2, the development of the proposed Project is anticipat ed to generate 76 two-way construction trip-ends per day, with 4 AM peak hour trips and 34 PM peak hour trips during the most intense Phase (Phase 4).

TABLE 2: CONSTRUCTION TRIP GENERATION SUMMARY

Activity Duration Activity Type Number of Trips per Day 2-Way Daily Trips Phase O: Mobilization 10/2025 - 01/2026 Employees 0 0
Trucks 0 0
Total 0 0
Phase 1: North Abutment & Approaches 01/2026 - 05/2026 Employees 20 40 Trucks* 2 4
Total 22 44
Phase 2: Bridge Substructure 05/2026 - 09/2026 Employees 30 60 Trucks* 3 6
Total 33 66
Phase 3: South Abutment & Approaches 09/2026 - 04/2027 Employees 10 20 Trucks* 2 4
Total 12 24
Phase 4: Bridge Superstructure 04/2027 - 09/2027 Employees 30 60 Trucks* 4 8
Total 34 68
Phase 5: Architectural Elements / Landscaping 10/2027 - 03/2028 Employees 20 40 Trucks 2 4
Total 22 44
* Note: Trucks are used for shorter periods as they are not needed for the full duration of the Phase.

Vehicle Type In Ou t Total In Out Total Daily
Construction Workers (Employees) 0 0 0 0 30 30 60
Trucks 4 0 4 0 4 4 16
Total 4 0 4 0 34 34 76
* Note: Construction workers will arrive by 7:00 AM and depart by 4:00 PM. Truck trips will occur between 7:00 AM and 4:00 PM.

AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
EXHIBIT 8
498 of 1278

Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.

April 3, 2023

14238-02 TG Memo

FINDINGS
The City Guidelines utilizes 50 vehicle trips during the AM and PM peak hours as a threshold for determining potential impacts to surrounding intersections. In other words, projects generating fewer than 50 peak hour trips are typically exempt from evaluating off-site peak hour intersection operations. As shown in Table 2, the most intense construction phase (Phase 4) is anticipated to generate fewer than 50 peak hour trips. No additional traffic operations analysis has been recommended based on the findings of this assessment.

In order t o limit potential off -site impacts, employees and trucks arriving during the morning should avoid or limit the arrivals during the 7 -9 AM peak period and employees and trucks departing during the afternoon should avoid or limit the departures during the 4 -6 PM peak period.

If you have any questions or comments, I can be reached at [email protected]

EXHIBIT 8
499 of 1278

DA
TE: April 3, 2023
TO: Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.

FROM: Alex So, Urban Crossroads
JOB NO: 14238-02 VMT

GLENDALE - LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE VEHICLE MILES

TRAVELED (VMT) SCREENING EVALUATION
Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to provide the following Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Screening Evaluation for the Glendale - Los Angeles Garden River Bridge (Project), which is located at approximately LA River Mile 31 and will connect the Cities of Glendale (on the north bank) and Los Angeles (on the south bank).

PROJECT OVERVIEW
The Project consists of an approximately 350-foot long, three-span curvilinear landscaped bridge structure that spans the Los Angeles River with canopied seating areas for use by pedestrians and bicyclists (see Attachment A). The bridge is also designed to accommodate maintenance vehicles.

BACKGROUND
Changes to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt VMT as a replacement for automobile delay- based level of service (LOS) as the measure for identifying transportation impacts for land use projects. This statewide mandate went into effect July 1, 2020, consistent with Senate Bill 743 (SB 743). To comply with SB 743, the C ity of Glendale adopted their Transportation Analysis Guidelines (October 2020) (Cit y Guidelines) (1). The adopted Ci ty Guidelines have been utilized to prepare this VMT analysis.

VMT SCREENING
The City Guidelines provide information for analyzing transportation projects, including the process to aid in deciding if a detail ed VMT analysis should be conducted. The City Guidelines provide multiple examples of projects that are unlikely to result in an increase in VMT including:
• th
e addition of a new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facility on existing streets/highways or within existing public rights-of-way and; EXHIBIT 9
500 of 1278

Juan Villalobos, Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc.

April 3, 2023

14238-02 VMT.docx
• the addition of Class I bike paths, trails, multi-use paths, or other off-road facilities that serve non-motorized travel
The proposed Project consists of bridge used by bicyclists and pedestrians for the purpose improving and promoting pedestrian access. The only vehicles permitted on the bridge are maintenance vehicles, which do not contribute to VMT.

CONCLUSION
In summary, the Project is unlikely to result in an increase in VMT and therefore does not require a VMT analysis as it is a transportation project and is designed to improve and promote pedestrian and bicycle access.

If you have any questions, please contact me directly at [email protected].

EXHIBIT 9
501 of 1278

14238-02 VMT.docx

REFERENCES

1. City of Glendale. Transportation Analysis Guidelines . City of Glendale : s.n., October 2020.

EXHIBIT 9
502 of 1278

14238-02 VMT.docx

ATTACHMENT A

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN
EXHIBIT 9
503 of 1278

14238-02 VMT.docx

EXHIBIT 9
504 of 1278

5e

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Request for Conflict of interest Waiver in Legal Representation by Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP

1.Motion Authorizing the City Attorney to consent to and execute a conflict of interest waiver for Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP’s representation of Central BWB, LLC in unrelated matters.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Item
Approved for June 9, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City Council’s authorization is requested for a waiver of legal conflict of interest for Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP’s (Brownstein) representation of Central BWB, LLC (Central BWB) in unrelated matters. Brownstein represents the City in a variety of water matters.

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council authorize the City Attorney to consent to and execute a waiver of the conflict described herein.

ANALYSIS
Brownstein represents the City in a variety of water matters, including groundwater rights and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. Central BWB desires to engage Brownstein as counsel in connection with land use, real estate, and permitting issues relating to 1303-1315 North Central Avenue (Development Matters), adverse to the City. The Development Matters are not related to Brownstein’s work and representation of the City in the water matters. Stephanie Hastings is the lead counsel who represent the City in the water matters. The lead counsel in the Development Matters will be Daniel Freedman.

The City and Ms. Hastings, believe that there will not be a material risk of having less zealous representation of the City by Brownstein in water matters, or any effects on the professional judgment of Ms. Hastings and her assisting attorneys working on the City’s water matters, resulting from Brownstein’s representation of Central BWB in the 505 of 1278

25e
4 7
4 7
Development Matters. Additionally, in the event litigation develops between Central BWB and the City regarding the Development Matters, Brownstein will not represent either the City or Central BWB in litigation against the other related to the Development Matters.

This conflict waiver will also authorize Brownstein to accept engagement from both the City and Central BWB, in other matters unrelated to the Development Matters and the water matters, without further notice to either client so long as those matters do not create any new conflict of interest between the clients – the City and Central BWB, respectively.

For the reasons above, it is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Attorney to consent to and execute a waiver of conflict described herein on behalf of the City of Glendale.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the concurrence with and the execution of the conflict waiver described herein.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The action requested herein has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and as such is not a project subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 Cal. Code Regs. Section 15378

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not applicable.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. Not authorize the Conflict of Interest Waiver as requested herein.

2. Council’s consideration of any other alternatives not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Prepared by:

Dorine Martirosian, Principal Assistant City Attorney
506 of 1278

35e
4 7
4 7
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
507 of 1278

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________________________, that the City Council hereby authorizes the City Attorney to consent to and execute a Waiver of Conflict of Interest to Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP’s representation of Central BWB, LLC in unrelated matters, as described in the Report Dated June 9, 2026 by the City Attorney.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
508 of 1278

5f

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Glendale Water & Power (GWP) Annual Authority for the Purchase or Sale of Energy Commodities and Services.

1. Resolution approving renewal of annual authorization for the City Manager or GWP General Manager, or their designee, to enter into contracts for the purchase or sale of energy commodities and services, including the transfer of initiating and clearing brokers services, not to exceed five years in duration, and dispensing with competitive bidding.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Item
Approved for June 9, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To participate in the energy market, it is necessary to dispense with competitive bidding and for timely contract approvals by the City Manager and GWP General Manager.

GWP participates in this market to ensure reliable and cost-effective power is procured to serve commercial and residential customers. The price and availability of energy, related commodities, and services are in constant fluctuation until approved contracts are in place. The duration of these contracts can range from the next hour up to five years.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution dispensing with competitive bidding and renewing the annual authorization for the City Manager or GWP General Manager to execute contracts for purchase, sale, storage, scheduling, and transmission of energy commodities and services.

ANALYSIS
On June 3, 2025, the City Council approved Resolution No. 25-79 dispensing with competitive bidding and renewing the annual authorization for the City Manager and GWP General Manager, or their designee, to enter into contracts for the purchase, sale, storage, scheduling, and transmission of energy commodities and services including renewable and environmental commodities and participation in related markets and auctions, and including the use of financial instruments to stabilize prices, for terms not to exceed five years in duration.

For many years, it has been necessary to make immediate decisions to buy or 509 of 1278

25f
6 8
0 4
sell power, natural gas, environmental commodities, and related services. Power, natural gas, and environmental commodities are bought and sold through bilateral agreements—either directly, via brokerage firms under brokerage service agreements, or through online exchanges regulated by the United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Transactions involving renewable energy, carbon, and emission products are regulated by the State of California. It is not the industry practice to solicit bids using the City’s standard bidding process, since GWP often relies on sole source procurement to ensure timely and compliant execution. Transactions are verbally executed and agreed to on an hourly basis or through confirmation letters that are executed and signed within days of the verbal agreements. To meet the City’s operational and regulatory needs, the City Manager and GWP General Manager, or their designee, need to be able to promptly approve these contracts without a lengthy process that would bring each transaction to the City Council.

In addition, the City Council has added the authority to use financial instruments, such as futures and forwards contracts, swaps, and options under International Swap and Derivatives Association (“ISDA”) Master Agreements and confirmations pursuant to such ISDA Master Agreements, with the City Manager’s authorization, to assist the City in stabilizing energy prices. GWP also utilizes initiating and clearing brokerage accounts at StoneX Group, for financial transactions with Intercontinental Exchange, Inc. (ICE) and CME Group. GWP must comply with the state-mandated renewable portfolio standard and greenhouse gas reduction targets. Accordingly, energy portfolio activities have been expanded to include renewable, carbon, and emission commodities and include participation in trading markets and auctions established by the state.

Furthermore, GWP is a Scheduling Coordinator in California ISO and is authorized to transact in the Day-ahead and Real-time markets. GWP employs the services of ConocoPhillips to manage all natural gas nominations, scheduling, imbalances, and optimize pipeline capacities.

The City Council may dispense with competitive bidding where it finds that it is in the City’s best interest to do so. For the foregoing reasons, it is in the City’s best interest to dispense with competitive bidding, and renew the annual authorization for the City Manager or GWP General Manager, or their designee, to enter into GWP contracts for the purchase, sale, storage, scheduling, and transmission of energy commodities and services (natural gas or electric power), including renewable and environmental commodities and participation in related markets and auctions, and including the transfer of initiating and clearing brokers services for the use of financial instruments to stabilize prices for terms not to exceed five years in duration. This will enable the City and GWP to maintain energy cost stability, to provide additional flexibility in managing its energy portfolio, to meet state renewable and greenhouse gas reduction mandates, and to reduce risks associated with such transactions. Outlined in the proposed Fiscal Year 2026-27 budget, the funds required to provide reliable and cost-effective energy and comply with state regulations total $144,117,000.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.
510 of 1278

35f
6 8
0 4

FISCAL IMPACT
GWP’s proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2026–27 includes line-item accounts for Purchased Power, Fuel—Natural Gas, Carbon Allowances, and Renewable Energy Credits totaling $144,117,000, detailed as follows:

Proposed FY 2026-27 Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$ 25,647,000 45502-5820-GWP-4680-P0000 Electric Works Revenue Fund $ 1,000,000 45506-5820-GWP-4680-P0000 Electric Works Revenue Fund $ 2,584,000 45507-5820-GWP-4680-P0000 Electric Works Revenue Fund $114,886,000 45510-5820-GWP-4680-P0000 Electric Works Revenue Fund Department Cost Center Program
Glendale Water
& Power
Power Management
Funding for future years will be requested through the annual budget process.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Not Applicable. The action herein is not a project as defined under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and as such not subject to CEQA.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not Applicable.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Choose not to approve the annual renewal of the resolution to dispense with competitive bidding and not authorize the City Manager or GWP General Manager, to execute contracts for the purchase or sale of energy commodities and services. City Council may require competitive bidding for contracts for the purchase and sale of energy commodities and services, in which case it will put the City of Glendale at a disadvantage and prevent GWP from engaging in established commodities markets and will remove GWP’s ability to efficiently procure electric power and gas commodities and services.

Alternative 2: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff. 511 of 1278

35f
6 8
0 4
512 of 1278

45f
6 8
0 4

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Scott K. Mellon, P.E., General Manager - Glendale Water and Power Prepared by:

Ileana Cardenas, Integrated Resource Planning Administrator Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
513 of 1278

1 RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,

CALIFORNIA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR GENERAL MANAGER,

OR THEIR DESIGNEE, TO ENTER INTO CONTRACTS FOR THE PURCHASE

OR SALE OF ENERGY COMMODITIES AND SERVICES (NATURAL GAS OR

ELECTRIC ENERGY, INCLUDING RENEWABLE AND CARBON ATTRIBUTES

AND THE TRANSFER OF INITIATING AND CLEARING BROKER SERVICES)

FOR A TERM NOT TO EXCEED FIVE YEARS IN DURATION AND DISPENSING

WITH COMPETITIVE BIDDING
WHEREAS, on June 3, 2025, the City Council authorized the City Manager, or his designee, or the Glendale Water & Power (GWP) General Manager, or his designee, to arrange for the purchase, sale, storage and transmission of electric energy and fuels for electric generation, including renewable and carbon attributes, for terms not to exceed five years in duration, including the use of financial instruments to stabilize prices; and
WHEREAS, said authorization expires on June 30, 2026 and requires renewal annually; and
WHEREAS, the City and GWP have successfully implemented last year’s authorization through the Energy Risk Management Policy and Energy Trading Authority Policy to minimize fuel and power purchase costs.

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

Section 1. The Council hereby authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, or the General Manager, or his designee, to arrange by letter or contractual agreement, (i) the purchase, sale and transmission of electrical energy and capacity, ancillary services, electrical transmission and transmission capacity, and renewable and carbon attributes, on either a bundles or unbundled basis; (ii) trading in carbon markets, including the purchase and sale of Low Carbon Fuel Standard Credits; (iii) the purchase, sale, storage, scheduling and transportation of fuels for electrical generation and the transfer of initiating and clearing brokers services, between the City of Glendale and other parties for terms not to exceed five years in duration.

Such contractual agreements may include financial instruments for the purpose of stabilizing prices. This authorization shall be in effect through June 30, 2027, and the General Manager of GWP, or his designee, shall bring this authorization back to the Council for reconsideration on an annual basis.
514 of 1278

2 Section 2. The Council does hereby clarify that the term “financial instruments” in Section 1 above is intended and acknowledged to mean future contracts, options, and swaps under International Swaps and Derivatives Association (“ISDA”) Master Agreements or through a brokerage account, and related documents which will be used to hedge against price fluctuations in both the fuels for electric generation and electric energy markets.

Section 3. The Council hereby finds that said transactions must be completed in a rapidly changing energy market and that it is not practical nor in the City’s best interest, to subject these transactions to the City of Glendale’s bidding requirements, and therefore the Council hereby dispenses with competitive bidding for these transactions.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on this ________day of ___________________________, 2026.

Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Suzie Abajian PhD, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ________was adopted by a majority vote of the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the ______day of_____________________, 2026, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk
515 of 1278

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Introduction (June 9) and Proposed Adoption (June 23) of an Urgency Ordinance to Delay Effectuation of the Senate Bill (SB) 79 (“The Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act”) for Certain Sites Located in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and/or Containing a Locally Designated Historic Resource.

1. Urgency Ordinance to Delay Effectuation of Senate Bill 79 (“The Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act”) for Certain Sites Located Within the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and/or Containing a Locally Designated Historic Resource, for Introduction.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for June 9, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 3, 2026, City Council received a status report on SB 79 and proposed options for its implementation. Following staff’s detailed presentation and public testimony, City Council directed staff to seek further clarifications of the law and to prepare a “delayed effectuation ordinance” for sites that could be exempted from SB 79 implementation prior to its July 1, 2026 effective date.

This report summarizes new insights as to how SB 79 applies in Glendale and presents an urgency ordinance to temporarily exclude sites within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and/or those containing a locally designated historic resource as of January 1, 2025.

This report also includes additional information as to other sites that may qualify for delayed effectuation and additional options for the City Council to consider. 516 of 1278

2 6
8 6
7 RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council review, introduce and subsequently adopt the proposed urgency ordinance to exempt certain properties from SB 79 before it takes effect on July 1, 2026.

ANALYSIS
SB 79, the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, goes into effect on July 1, 2026 (see full text of the bill attached as Exhibit 1). SB 79 establishes new development standards and increased residential density and height limits for properties located within ½ mile of a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) stop and zoned for residential, mixed-use, or commercial uses.

Staff has been working diligently since the bill’s adoption in October 2025 to interpret the bill, gather data, and understand how the legislation affects Glendale. A detailed overview of SB 79 and its implications to the City, as well as implementation options, were presented to City Council and the public on March 3, 2026 (see staff report as Exhibit 2, with attachments and video available online for Council Item 10d:
https://glendaleca.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=40679).

As noted in the staff report and Council presentation, SB 79 establishes two tiers of TOD stops, based on the type and frequency of transit provided, each with specific development standards based on a site’s proximity to a TOD stop. The two tiers are summarized below:

Tier Transit Type
Tier 1 Heavy Rail Transit
Very High Frequency Commuter Rail (at least 72 trips per day) Tier 2 Light Rail Transit
High Frequency Commuter Rail (at least 48 trips per day) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Stations with full-time dedicated lanes or operation in a separate right-of-way dedicated for public transportation, & service every 15 minutes or less during AM & PM peak commuter periods SB 79 then applies three radiuses around each TOD stop (within 200 feet adjacent to the TOD stop, between 200 feet and ¼-mile, and between ¼ mile and ½-mile) that establish the height, density and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) permitted for an SB 79 project.

The SB 79 development standards for Tier 2 TOD stops applicable to Glendale are summarized in the table below
Tier 2 TOD Stop Development Standards
Distance from TOD stop Within 200 ft. ¼ Mile ½ Mile
Permitted Height (ft)* 85’ (8 stories) 65’ (6 stories) 55’ (5 stories) Permitted Density (DU/AC) 140 100 80
Permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 4.0 3.0 2.5
* The height in stories provided is approximate based on overall height allowed. 517 of 1278

3 6
8 6
7 In addition to the standards above, SB 79 projects can be coupled with Density Bonus regulations, allowing even greater density to be achieved. Housing projects utilizing the Density Bonus are permitted to use the density allowed under SB 79 as the “base density” for their projects. SB 79 also grants additional concessions for housing projects, depending on the level of affordable housing provided. Cities are not required to grant a waiver or concession for Density Bonus projects that propose heights above what is permitted by SB 79 unless the project proposes 100% affordable housing.

TOD Stops in Glendale
According to the draft SB79 map released by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) on June 1, 2026, Glendale has one TOD stop at the Larry Zarian Glendale Transportation Center (GTC) and seven TOD stops along the proposed North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route. All of Glendale’s TOD stops are categorized as Tier 2 stops. These stops and corresponding radiuses are identified in Exhibit 3.

Larry Zarian Glendale Transportation Center (“GTC”)
In 2023, Glendale adopted TOD zoning that allows densities up to 100 DU/AC near the GTC in Tropico, making much of this area consistent with SB 79 standards. Recent clarifications received from HCD indicate that all parcels within the GTC TOD stop ½- mile radius are subject to SB 79, except for those zoned “Transportation” (T) and “Special Recreation” (SR). This includes portions of the Brand Boulevard of Cars, the industrial and industrial mixed-use zones along San Fernando Road, and even Forest Lawn Cemetery. The map below generally shows the GTC SB 79 TOD stop ¼ mile and ½ mile radiuses (see Exhibit 3):
518 of 1278

4 6
8 6
7 North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project According to SCAG’s map, the proposed stops along the BRT route qualify as Tier 2 TOD stops. In Glendale, the BRT is proposed to have seven stops:
Three stops on West Glenoaks Boulevard between the Burbank border and Central Avenue;
One stop on Central Avenue at Lexington Drive; and
Three stops on East Broadway, between Brand Boulevard and the city limits.

The BRT route goes through multiple areas of the city, including low-density single- family neighborhoods along West Glenoaks Boulevard, a high-density urban area in downtown on Central Avenue, and smaller scale commercial uses on East Broadway.

Unfortunately, under SB 79, these varying development patterns are all subject to the same standards, and the City has a very limited ability to mitigate the impacts of SB 79.

The following map generally illustrates the proposed BRT route through Glendale with preliminary radiuses around each stop (see Exhibit 3):
519 of 1278

4 6
8 6
7 520 of 1278

5 6
8 6
7 SB 79 Limitations and Applicable Code Requirements
SB 79 imposes certain restrictions on the type of development that is permitted. SB 79:
Does not apply to projects containing hotel, motel, or similar transient lodging uses;
Does not apply to projects requiring demolition of rent- or price-controlled housing on sites containing more than two units that have been occupied within the previous seven years;
Requires projects to comply with anti-displacement standards under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 and any and all local implementation programs; Requires projects greater than 10 units to comply with affordable housing standards and allows cities to enforce inclusionary housing standards; and Imposes prevailing wage and other labor requirements on buildings over 85 feet in height.

In Glendale, SB 79 projects would remain subject to the following local and state requirements:
Development standards in the Glendale Zoning Code and any applicable Specific Plan, including the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP);
The City’s recently adopted Objective Design Standards (ODS); The City’s Design Review process, including any required public hearings; The City’s Inclusionary Housing Ordinance (GMC Chapter 30.35); State law regarding demolition of protected affordable housing units; Glendale’s anti-displacement program and inclusionary zoning requirements; and The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Note: SB 79 does not establish a CEQA exemption or create a by-right approval process for qualifying developments. However, SB 79 projects may be combined with other laws, such as AB 130 and CEQA Class 32 (infill development), which may streamline CEQA review.

Local Effort, Interagency Coordination & Remaining Implementation Uncertainties Since the March Council meeting, Glendale staff has continued to regularly meet with a tri-cities working group consisting of planning staff from the cities of Glendale, Burbank, and Pasadena, and has also met with the City of Los Angeles to understand how the neighboring jurisdictions are interpreting and implementing SB 79. Additionally, Glendale staff has been working with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to accurately identify eligible TOD stops and associated sites.

The City has also sought clarification regarding implementation of the law with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD).

Despite these collaborative efforts, there are still some uncertainties regarding implementation of SB 79. Most significantly, the precise radiuses applicable to each TOD stop will not be finalized until SCAG publishes the official SB 79 mapping for the region, which is anticipated shortly before or perhaps even after the law’s effective date of July 1, 2026. The agency released its mapping methodology on May 22, and its draft 521 of 1278

6 6
8 6
7 map on June 1, with the official map to be considered by the SCAG Regional Council on July 2, 2026.

These radiuses are central to implementation of the legislation because they will determine which parcels fall within the 200-foot, one-quarter-mile, and one-half-mile distances from qualifying TOD stops. The mapped boundaries will not only establish the applicable development standards for affected properties, but will also determine the precise development capacity and density assumptions that must be incorporated into any local TOD alternative plan pursued by a jurisdiction.

Delayed Effectuation Ordinance
At the March 3, 2026, City Council meeting, having accepted the status report on and proposed options for implementing SB 79, Council directed staff to proceed with Option 3 – Delayed Effectuation and Implementation Ordinance. The delayed effectuation ordinance option allows cities to adopt a local ordinance that excludes certain sites from SB 79 and delays full implementation of the law until one year after adoption of the 7th Cycle Housing Element. Under this approach, SB 79 implementation would be delayed until approximately 2030 unless a TOD alternative plan is adopted before then.

As part of the delayed effectuation option, individual sites may be exempted if they meet certain criteria. In Glendale, only three site-level exemptions apply:
Sites located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone; Sites with a historic resource designated on a local register prior to January 1, 2025; and
Sites where allowable density and residential FAR are at least 50 percent of SB 79 standards;
Glendale has several sites that are located within a VHFHSZ and/or that contain a historic resource as of January 1, 2025. Staff is presenting an urgency ordinance to temporarily exempt those sites; the urgency ordinance goes into effect immediately upon adoption. This would allow the City to remove these sensitive sites from SB 79 applicability prior to the July 1st effective date, while continuing to monitor the legislation over the next several years as additional bills are passed, ordinances are adopted in other California communities, and legal challenges are resolved. In addition, this option does not preclude the City from adopting a TOD alternative plan at a later date, once additional extensive research, analysis and public outreach are conducted.

Based on the current draft mapping analysis, there are approximately 465 parcels within the SB 79 GTC area, with 22 parcels that would be excluded due to non-applicable zoning (Special Recreation (SR) or Transportation (T) zones), VHFHSZ designation, or historic status, leaving 443 parcels potentially subject to SB 79. Of the remaining 443 parcels, approximately 3 are within 200 feet of a qualifying stop, 153 are within a quarter-mile, and 287 are within a half-mile radius.

There are also approximately 8,656 parcels within the SB 79 BRT area. Approximately 317 parcels would be excluded due to zoning (SR or T), VHFHSZ designation, or 522 of 1278

7 6
8 6
7 historic status, leaving 8,339 parcels potentially subject to SB 79. Of the remaining parcels, approximately 112 are within 200 feet of a qualifying stop, 3,156 are within a quarter-mile, and 5,071 are within a half-mile radius.

After accounting for the proposed exclusions, approximately 8,782 (443 + 8,339) parcels citywide would remain subject to SB 79. The proposed delayed effectuation urgency ordinance does not currently address sites where allowable density and residential FAR are already at least 50 percent of SB 79 standards; this issue is discussed in greater detail in the subsequent section below.

Proposed sites for exclusion are identified in Exhibit 4 - Map of VHFHSZ sites within TOD radiuses and Exhibit 5 - Map of historic register sites as of January 1, 2025, within TOD radiuses.

Additional Considerations for Delayed Effectuation
As mentioned above, Glendale does have several additional sites that qualify for delayed effectuation under the criterion that they meet at least 50% of the permitted SB 79 densities (50 du/ac within ¼ mile and 40 du/ac within a ½ mile of a TOD stop). These sites are most notably located in the TOD zones around the GTC, within the Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) area, and areas currently zoned R-1250. Council has the option of exempting these sites from SB 79 projects as well. However, since these sites have previously been identified as appropriate for higher density development, these exemptions should be carefully considered. An unintended consequence of exempting existing these high-density sites may be that SB 79 development interest and pressure shift to lower density parcels.

Additionally, entire TOD stop radiuses may qualify for delayed effectuation if:
At least 1/3 of sites in the TOD radius currently allow at least 50% of the density and FAR required by the bill, and
All sites within the TOD radius cumulatively allow for at least 75% of the aggregate density allowed by the bill.

Additional parcel-level analysis is needed to determine whether the TOD stops located near the GTC and along Central Avenue in the DSP qualify for the zone-level exemption.

It should be noted that the single-family and low-density multi-family neighborhoods within the three TOD stops along the Glenoaks portion of the BRT do not qualify for this zone-level exemption, nor are the individual sites currently zoned with enough density to qualify for delayed effectuation. As such, there are limited options available to prevent SB 79 projects along the Glenoaks corridor. Even under a TOD alternative plan which could reduce allowable SB 79 densities by 50% (maximum), all of the Glenoaks corridor, including the R1 areas, would have to be upzoned to 40-to-50 dwelling units per acre, equivalent to the R-1250 zone designation.
523 of 1278

8 6
8 6
7 Should Council wish to pursue a TOD stop radius exemption for delayed effectuation, staff would need direction to conduct additional analysis and return at a later date with findings and recommendations. SB 79 does not require cities to adopt an ordinance to temporarily exempt sites prior to July 1, 2026; therefore, Council may amend this ordinance or adopt a subsequent ordinance to include additional sites at a later date.

NEXT STEPS
Staff recommends adoption of a “delayed effectuation” ordinance as an urgency matter to exempt certain properties from SB 79 before SB 79 takes effect on July 1, 2026.

Any proposed ordinance must be submitted to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for review at least 14 days prior to local adoption; staff submitted the proposed urgency ordinance for review on May 27, 2026. Any ordinance enacted must be submitted to HCD within 60 days of adoption. HCD has 90 days to review the enacted ordinance and make a finding whether it is in substantial compliance with SB 79. If HCD deems the ordinance non-compliant, the local agency has 60 days to respond before taking further action. If the local agency is found to be in non- compliance, by either refusing to amend the ordinance or make findings explaining how the ordinance complies, then HCD is required to notify the Attorney General that the local government is in violation.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
This report serves as an opportunity to provide the community additional information on the status of SB 79 and options available to the City. An email blast was sent to all of the Long Range Planning outreach list members (over 850+ members, including HOA and community group representatives), regarding this SB 79 presentation.

FISCAL IMPACT
No fiscal impact is associated with this urgency ordinance delaying the effectuation of SB 79 on certain sites.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Government Code §65912.160(c)(2), which explicitly states that an ordinance adopted to implement the provisions of SB 79 shall not be considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with §21000) of the Public Resources Code.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. The City Council may choose not to adopt the delayed effectuation ordinance for certain sites and allow the legislation to take full effect on July 1, 2026;

2. The City Council may propose any other alternative not proposed by staff. 524 of 1278

9 6
8 6
7 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Jack Wong, Interim Director of Community Development
Prepared by:

Teresa Santilena, AICP, Principal Planner
Vilia Zemaitaitis, AICP, Deputy Director of Long Range Planning Gillian Van Muyden, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Full text of SB 79

2. City Council Staff Report from March 3, 2026, regarding status of and proposed options for SB 79 (the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act), without attachments (Staff Report and Attachments for Item 10d available online at:
https://glendaleca.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?meetingTemplateId=40679) and Council Motion

3. SCAG Map of SB 79 affected parcels around the Larry Zarian Glendale Transit Center and the Noho to Pasadena BRT line

4. SB 79 Exclusion Map of VHFHSZ sites within TOD radiuses

5. SB 79 Exclusion Map of historic register sites (as of January 1, 2025) within TOD radiuses
525 of 1278

ORDINANCE NO. ___________

AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA TO DELAY EFFECTUATION OF SENATE BILL 79 (THE ABUNDANT AND

AFFORDABLE HOMES NEAR TRANSIT ACT) FOR CERTAIN SITES LOCATED

WITHIN THE VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE AND/OR CONTAINING A

LOCALLY DESIGNATED HISTORIC RESOURCE
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 79 (SB 79), The Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act of 2025, codified in Government Code Chapter 4.1.5 (commencing with Gov’t. Code Section 65912.155) and operative July 1, 2026, supersedes local zoning and General Plan land use regulations by establishing statewide minimum residential density and development standards for properties located within one-half mile of qualifying transit oriented development (TOD) stops to increase the supply of affordable and market rate housing; and
WHEREAS, SB 79 establishes substantial increases in allowable residential density and building height within large portions of the City, including areas not previously planned or evaluated for such development intensity; and WHEREAS, SB 79 permits the City to adopt an ordinance in accordance with Gov’t. Code Section 65912.160 to delay effectuation of SB 79 on certain sites within TOD zones, subject to review and approval by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), prior to SB 79’s effective date of July 1, 2026; and
WHEREAS, SB 79 permits exclusion of sites located in the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ), as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Gov’t Code Section 51178, or within the state responsibility area, as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code, pursuant to Gov’t. Code Section 65912.161(b)(1)(D); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Gov’t. Code Section 65312.161(b)(1)(F), SB 79 also permits exclusion of sites that were designated on a local historic register as of January 1, 2025; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Element of the General Plan Goal 2 supports the preservation of historic resources and encourages new residential development that respects neighborhood scale, historic continuity, and community character; and WHEREAS, the Safety Element of the General Plan Policy 4-2 encourages the City to limit new residential development within VHFHSZ, where feasible, in order to reduce wildfire risk and protect public safety; and WHEREAS, the City's proposed updated General Plan Land Use Element includes goals and policies designed to encourage high-density residential and mixed- use development along major transportation corridors and adjacent to public 526 of 1278

transportation facilities where infrastructure and multimodal transportation options are more easily accessible; and
WHEREAS, urgency action is needed to afford temporary local exclusion of properties locally designated as historic resources as of January 1, 2025, and to exclude properties located within VHFHSZ, in order to avoid subjecting these properties to SB 79’s increased density and height regulations, which become effective on July 1, 2026; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that adopting this ordinance on an urgency basis will benefit the City by delaying SB 79’s application to the above- mentioned sites, and will provide more time for the City to complete research to bring forward a potential Transit-Oriented Development Alternative Plan, as permitted by Gov’t. Code Section 65912.161, that allows transfer of SB 79 density to TOD areas.

NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. The City Council of the City of Glendale finds that the above recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated by reference.

SECTION 2. The following sites are excluded from Gov’t Code Section 65912.157 until one year following adoption of the seventh revision of the housing element:
1) Sites within a VHFSZ (Gov’t Code Section 65912.161(b)(1)(D)), as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Gov’t. Code Section 51178, or within the state responsibility area, as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code; and
2) Sites containing a historic resource designated on the City’s local register as of January 1, 2025 (Gov’t. Code Section 65912.161(b)(1)(F)).

SECTION 3. By enacting this ordinance, the City Council directs the Director of Community Development, or designee, to: 1) indicate on its public facing zoning map which sites or transit oriented development zones are subject to SB 79 and which are temporarily exempt or excluded, including sites that qualify for such status pursuant to Gov’t. Code Sections 65912.160(e)(1)-(2), 65912.161(b)(1)(A)-(F), and 65912.161(b)(2), and ensure consistency with the most current transit-oriented development zones map published by Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG); and 2) transmit a final copy of this ordinance to HCD no later than 60 days following adoption.

SECTION 4. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is exempt from further review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Gov’t. Code §65912.160(c)(2), which explicitly states that an ordinance adopted to implement the provisions of SB 79 shall not be considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with §21000) of the Public Resources Code.
527 of 1278

SECTION 5. Urgency Clause. The City Council finds and declares that the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety requires that this ordinance be enacted as an urgency measure pursuant to Gov’t. Code Section 36937(b), as well as pursuant to the Glendale City Charter, Article VI, Sections 6 and 7, which provide that the City Council may, upon a four-fifths vote, adopt an urgency ordinance that will become effective immediately upon adoption, upon the declaration by the City Council that the ordinance is necessary as an emergency measure for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety. This Ordinance is necessary as an emergency measure for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare because SB 79 becomes operative on July 1, 2026 and, absent immediate action, would apply to properties containing locally designated historic resources as of January 1, 2025 and properties located within VHFHSZ, as identified by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, without a temporary local exclusion in place. If this Ordinance is not adopted immediately, these sensitive properties would be subject to SB 79’s increased height and density standards on July 1, 2026. Accordingly, this Ordinance is declared to be an urgency measure necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety, and welfare, and shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

SECTION 6. Severability. This Ordinance’s provisions are severable. If any portion of this Ordinance or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision does not affect the validity of the Ordinance’s remaining portions and the Ordinance’s application to other persons and circumstances. The City Council declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance without the invalid or unconstitutional provision.

SECTION 7. Effective Date. Pursuant to the Glendale City Charter and Government Code section 36937(b), this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by four-fifths vote of the City Council and expires one year following adoption of the seventh revision of the housing element, pursuant to Government Code Section 65912.161(b)(1).

SECTION 8. Certification. The City Clerk is directed to certify the passage and adoption of this Ordinance; cause it to be entered into the City’s book of original ordinances; make a note of the passage and adoption in the records of this meeting; and within fifteen (15) days after the passage and adoption of this Ordinance, cause it to be published or posted in accordance with California law. 528 of 1278

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the _____ day of ______, 2026. ___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. _________ was adopted by a 4/5 ths vote of the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of _________________, 2026, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________________________
City Clerk
529 of 1278

SHARE THIS:

Date Published: 10/13/2025 09:00 PM
SB-79 Housing development: transit-oriented development. (2025-2026) Senate Bill No. 79
CHAPTER 512
An act to add Chapter 4.1.5 (commencing with Section 65912.155) to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, relating to land use.
[ Approved by Governor October 10, 2025. Filed with Secretary of State October 10, 2025. ]

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
SB 79, Wiener. Housing development: transit-oriented development. (1) Existing law, the Planning and Zoning Law, requires each county and city to adopt a comprehensive, long- term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and specified land outside its boundaries, that contains certain mandatory elements, including a housing element. Existing law requires that the housing element consist of an identification and analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of goals, policies, quantified objectives, financial resources, and scheduled programs for the preservation, improvement, and development of housing, as specified. Existing law requires that the housing element include, among other things, an assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources and constraints that are relevant to the meeting of these needs, including an inventory of land suitable for residential development, as provided. Existing law, for the 4th and subsequent revisions of the housing element, requires the Department of Housing and Community Development to determine the existing and projected need for housing for each region, as specified, and requires the appropriate council of local governments, or the department for cities and counties without a council of governments, to adopt a final regional housing need plan that allocates a share of the regional housing need to each locality in the region. Existing law requires the inventory of land to be used to identify sites throughout the community that can be developed for housing within the planning period and that are sufficient to provide for the jurisdiction’s share of the regional housing need. Existing law requires each local government to revise its housing element in accordance with a specified schedule.

Existing law, the Housing Accountability Act, among other things, requires a local agency that proposes to disapprove a housing development project, as defined, or to impose a condition that the project be developed at a lower density to base its decision on written findings supported by a preponderance of the evidence that specified conditions exist if that project complies with applicable, objective general plan, zoning, and subdivision standards and criteria in effect at the time that the application was deemed complete. The act authorizes the applicant, a person who would be eligible to apply for residency in the housing development project or emergency shelter, or a housing organization to bring an action to enforce the act’s provisions, as provided, and provides for penalties if the court finds that the local agency is in violation of specified provisions of the act.

Home Bill Information California Law Publications Other Resources My Subscriptions My Favorites Bill Text - SB-79 Housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 1/13 Exhibit 1 - SB 79 Legislation
530 of 1278

This bill would require that a housing development project, as defined, within a specified distance of a transit- oriented development (TOD) stop, as defined, be an allowed use as a transit-oriented housing development on any site zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development, if the development complies with applicable requirements, as specified. Among these requirements, the bill would require a project to include at least 5 dwelling units and establish requirements concerning height limits, density, and residential floor area ratio in accordance with a development’s proximity to specified tiers of TOD stops, as provided. The bill would require that, for the purposes of the Housing Accountability Act, a proposed development consistent with the applicable standards of these provisions as well as applicable local objective general plan and zoning standards be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with prescribed requirements, as specified. The bill would provide that a local government that denies a project meeting the requirements of these provisions located in a high-resource area, as defined, would be presumed in violation of the Housing Accountability Act, as specified, and immediately liable for penalties, beginning on January 1, 2027, as provided. These provisions would not apply to a local agency until July 1, 2026, except as specified, or within unincorporated areas of counties until the 7th regional housing needs allocation cycle. The bill would specify that a development proposed pursuant to these provisions is eligible for streamlined, ministerial approval pursuant to specified law, except that the bill would exempt a project under these provisions from specified requirements, and would specify that the project is required to comply with certain affordability requirements, under that law.

This bill would require a proposed development to comply with specified demolition and antidisplacement standards; to not be located on sites where the development would require demolition of housing, or that was previously used for housing, that is subject to rent or price controls; to include housing for lower income households, as specified; be consistent with specified height, noise, safety, and fire standards; and meet specified labor standards, as provided. The bill would also authorize a transit agency’s board of directors to adopt agency TOD zoning standards for district-owned real property located in a TOD zone, which establish minimum zoning requirements for an agency TOD project, as specified.

Prior to one year following the adoption of the 7th revision of the housing element, this bill would not apply the provisions relating to a housing development project to specified sites for which a local government has adopted an ordinance indicating the site’s exclusion, as specified, including a site that is covered by a local TOD alternative plan, as defined, adopted by a local government. For the 7th and subsequent revisions of the housing element, the bill would authorize a local government to include a local TOD alternative plan in its housing element or adopt an alternative plan by ordinance, as specified. The bill would exempt a jurisdiction that has adopted a compliant local TOD alternative plan from the provisions relating to a housing development, as specified.

This bill would require the Department of Housing and Community Development to oversee compliance with the bill’s provisions and would require the department to promulgate standards on how to allow for capacity pursuant to these provisions to be counted in the inventory of land included within a county’s or city’s housing element, as specified. The bill would authorize each metropolitan planning organization to create a map of designated TOD stops and zones within its region by tier in accordance with these standards, which would have a rebuttable presumption of validity. The bill would authorize a local government to enact an ordinance to make its zoning code consistent with these provisions, as provided. The bill would require the local government to submit a draft of this ordinance to the department for review, at least 14 days prior to adoption of the ordinance. The bill would require the local government to submit a copy of this ordinance to the department within 60 days of enactment and would require the department to review the ordinance for compliance, as specified. If at any time the department finds an ordinance is out of compliance, and the local government does not take specified steps to address compliance, the bill would require the department to notify the local government in writing and authorize the department to notify the Attorney General, as provided.

This bill would define various terms for its purposes and make related findings and declarations.

This bill would include findings that changes proposed by this bill address a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair and, therefore, apply to all cities, including charter cities.

By increasing the duties of local officials, and by expanding the crime of perjury by requiring the certification of certain information related to labor standards, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) This bill would provide that its provisions are severable. (3) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

Bill Text - SB-79 Housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 2/13 Exhibit 1 - SB 79 Legislation
531 of 1278

This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for specified reasons.

Vote: majority Appropriation: no Fiscal Committee: yes Local Program: yes THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 4.1.5 (commencing with Section 65912.155) is added to Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, to read:

CHAPTER 4.1.5. Transit-Oriented Development
65912.155. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(a) California faces a housing shortage both acute and chronic, particularly in areas with access to robust public transit infrastructure.
(b) Creating ownership opportunities can be an effective long-term strategy for building wealth and can create a path to financial security.
(c) Building more homes near transit access reduces housing and transportation costs for California families, and promotes environmental sustainability, economic growth, and reduced traffic congestion. (d) Public transit systems require sustainable funding to provide reliable service, especially in areas experiencing increased density and ridership. The state does not invest in public transit service to the same degree as it does in roads, and the state funds a smaller proportion of the state’s major transit agencies’ operations costs than other states with comparable systems. Transit systems in other countries derive significant revenue from transit- oriented development at and near their stations.
65912.156. For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions apply:
(a) “Adjacent” means within 200 feet of any pedestrian access point to a transit-oriented development stop. (b) “Commuter rail” means a public rail transit service not meeting the standards for heavy rail or light rail, excluding California High-Speed Rail and Amtrak Long Distance Service. (c) “Department” means the Department of Housing and Community Development. (d) “Heavy rail transit” means a public electric railway line with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic using high-speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multicar trains on fixed rails, separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded, and high platform loading. “Heavy rail transit” does not include California High-Speed Rail. (e) “High-frequency commuter rail” means a commuter rail service operating a total of at least 48 trains per day across both directions, not including temporary service changes of less than one month or unplanned disruptions, and not meeting the standard for very high frequency commuter rail, at any point in the past three years.
(f) “High-resource area” means an area designated as highest resource or high resource on the most recently adopted version of the opportunity area maps published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the department.
(g) “Housing development project” has the same meaning as defined in Section 65589.5, but does not include a project of which any portion is designated for use as a hotel, motel, bed and breakfast inn, or other transient lodging. For the purposes of this subdivision, the term “other transient lodging” does not include either of the following:
(1) A residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code. (2) After the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, a resident’s use or marketing of a unit as short-term lodging, as defined in Section 17568.8 of the Business and Professions Code, in a manner consistent with local law.
(h) “Light rail transit” includes streetcar, trolley, and tramway service. “Light rail transit” does not include airport people movers.

Bill Text - SB-79 Housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 3/13 Exhibit 1 - SB 79 Legislation
532 of 1278

(i) “Net habitable square footage” means the finished and heated floor area fully enclosed by the inside surface of walls, windows, doors, and partitions, and having a headroom of at least six and one-half feet, including working, living, eating, cooking, sleeping, stair, hall, service, and storage areas, but excluding garages, carports, parking spaces, cellars, half-stories, and unfinished attics and basements. (j) “Low-resource area” means an area designated as low resource on the most recently adopted version of the opportunity area maps published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the department. (k) “Rail transit” has the same meaning as defined in Section 99602 of the Public Utilities Code. (l) “Residential floor area ratio” means the ratio of net habitable square footage dedicated to residential use to the area of the lot.
(m) “Transit-oriented development zone” means the area within one-half mile of a transit-oriented development stop.
(n) “Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop” means a transit-oriented development stop within an urban transit county served by heavy rail transit or very high frequency commuter rail. (o) “Tier 2 transit-oriented development stop” means a transit-oriented development stop within an urban transit county, excluding a Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop, served by light rail transit, by high-frequency commuter rail, or by bus service meeting the standards of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21060.2 of the Public Resources Code.
(p) “Transit-oriented development stop” means a major transit stop, as defined by Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources Code, and also including stops on a route for which a preferred alternative has been selected or which are identified in a regional transportation improvement program, that is served by heavy rail transit, very high frequency commuter rail, high frequency commuter rail, light rail transit, or bus service within an urban transit county meeting the standards of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 21060.2 of the Public Resources Code. When a new transit route or extension is planned that was not identified in the applicable regional transportation plan on or before January 1, 2026, those stops shall not be eligible as transit-oriented development stops unless they would be eligible as Tier 1 transit-oriented development stops. If a county becomes an urban transit county subsequent to July 1, 2026, then bus service in that county shall remain ineligible for designation of a transit-oriented development stop. (q) “Urban transit county” means a county with more than 15 passenger rail stations. (r) “Very high frequency commuter rail” means a commuter rail service with a total of at least 72 trains per day across both directions, not including temporary service changes of less than one month or unplanned disruptions, at any point in the past three years.
65912.157. (a) A housing development project shall be an allowed use as a transit-oriented housing development on any site zoned for residential, mixed, or commercial development within one-half or one-quarter mile of a transit-oriented development stop, if the development complies with the applicable of all of the following requirements:
(1) A transit-oriented housing development project allowed under this chapter shall include at least five dwelling units and meet the greater of the following:
(A) A minimum density of at least 30 dwelling units per acre. (B) The minimum density required under local zoning, if applicable. (2) The average total area of floor space for the proposed units in the transit-oriented housing development project shall not exceed 1,750 net habitable square feet. (3) For a transit-oriented housing development project within one-quarter mile of a Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop, all of the following apply:
(A) A local government shall not impose any height limit less than 75 feet. (B) A local government shall not impose any maximum density of less than 120 dwelling units per acre. (C) A local government shall not enforce any other local development standard or combination of standards that would physically preclude achieving a residential floor area ratio of up to 3.5.

Bill Text - SB-79 Housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 4/13 Exhibit 1 - SB 79 Legislation
533 of 1278

(D) A development that achieves a minimum density of 90 dwelling units per acre and that otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of Section 65915, including, but not limited to, affordability requirements, shall be eligible for additional concessions pursuant to Section 65915, as specified in subdivision (d). (4) For a transit-oriented housing development project further than one-quarter mile but within one-half mile of a Tier 1 transit-oriented development stop, and within a city with a population of at least 35,000, all of the following apply:
(A) A local government shall not impose any height limit less than 65 feet. (B) A local government shall not impose any maximum density standard of less than 100 dwelling units per acre.
(C) A local government shall not enforce any other local development standard or combination of standards that would physically preclude achieving a residential floor area ratio of up to 3. (D) A development that achieves a minimum density of 75 dwelling units per acre and that otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of Section 65915, including, but not limited to, affordability requirements, shall be eligible for additional concessions pursuant to Section 65915, as specified in subdivision (d). (5) For a transit-oriented housing development project within one-quarter mile of a Tier 2 transit-oriented development stop, all of the following apply:
(A) A local government shall not impose any height limit less than 65 feet. (B) A local government shall not impose any maximum density standard of less than 100 dwelling units per acre.
(C) A local government shall not enforce any other local development standard or combination of standards that would physically preclude achieving a residential floor area ratio of up to 3. (D) A development that achieves a minimum density of 75 dwelling units per acre and that otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of Section 65915, including, but not limited to, affordability requirements, shall be eligible for additional concessions pursuant to Section 65915, as specified in subdivision (d). (6) For a transit-oriented housing development project further than one-quarter mile but within one-half mile of a Tier 2 transit-oriented development stop, and within a city with a population of at least 35,000, all of the following apply:
(A) A local government shall not impose any height limit less than 55 feet. (B) A local government shall not impose any maximum density standard of less than 80 dwelling units per acre.
(C) A local government shall not enforce any other local development standard or combination of standards that would physically preclude achieving a residential floor area ratio of up to 2.5. (D) A development that achieves a minimum density of 60 dwelling units per acre and that otherwise meets the eligibility requirements of Section 65915, including, but not limited to, affordability requirements, shall be eligible for additional concession pursuant to Section 65915, as specified in subdivision (d). (b) For purposes of this chapter, the distance of a transit-oriented housing development project from a transit- oriented development stop shall be measured in a straight line from the nearest edge of the parcel containing the proposed project to a pedestrian access point for the transit-oriented development stop. (c) A local government may still enact and enforce standards, including an inclusionary zoning requirement that do not, alone or in concert, prevent achieving the applicable development standards of subdivision (a). A local government shall not adopt any requirement, including, but not limited to, increased fees or inclusionary zoning requirements, that applies to a project solely or partially on the basis that the project is seeking approval as a transit-oriented housing development, except as necessary for the requirements of this chapter. (d) A transit-oriented housing development project under this section shall be eligible for a density bonus, incentives or concessions, waivers or reductions of development standards, and parking ratios pursuant to Section 65915 or a local density bonus program, using the density allowed under this section as the base density. If a development proposes a height under this section in excess of the local height limit, then a local Bill Text - SB-79 Housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 5/13 Exhibit 1 - SB 79 Legislation
534 of 1278

government shall not be required to grant a waiver, incentive, or concession pursuant to Section 65915 for additional height beyond that specified in this section, except as provided in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 65915. A development shall be eligible for the following additional concessions, if it meets the applicable density threshold specified for its location:
(1) For a development providing housing for extremely low income households, three additional concessions. (2) For a development providing housing for very low income households, two additional concessions. (3) For a development providing housing for low-income households, one additional concession. (e) Notwithstanding any other law, a transit-oriented housing development project that meets any of the eligibility criteria under subdivision (a) and is immediately adjacent to a transit-oriented development stop shall be eligible for an adjacency intensifier to increase the height limit by an additional 20 feet, the maximum density standard by an additional 40 dwelling units per acre, and the residential floor area ratio by 1 prior to the application of Section 65915.
(f) A development proposed pursuant to this section shall comply with Section 66300.6, including any local requirements or processes implementing the provisions of Section 66300.6. This subdivision shall apply to any city or county.
(g) A development proposed pursuant to this section shall comply with any applicable local demolition and antidisplacement standards established through a local ordinance. (h) A development proposed pursuant to this section shall not be located on either of the following:
(1) A site containing more than two units where the development would require the demolition of housing that is subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power that has been occupied by tenants within the past seven years. (2) A site that was previously used for more than two units of housing that were demolished within seven years before the development proponent submits an application under this section and any of the units were subject to any form of rent or price control through a public entity’s valid exercise of its police power. (i) A development proposed pursuant to this section shall include housing for lower income households by complying with one of the following requirements:
(1) (A) Any of the following:
(i) At least 7 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (9) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to extremely low income households, as defined in Section 50106 of the Health and Safety Code.
(ii) At least 10 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (9) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to very low income households, as defined in Section 50105 of the Health and Safety Code.
(iii) At least 13 percent of the total units, as defined in subparagraph (A) of paragraph (9) of subdivision (o) of Section 65915, are dedicated to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code.
(B) This paragraph shall not apply to any development of 10 units or less. (C) All units dedicated to extremely low income, very low income, and low-income households pursuant to subparagraph (A) shall meet both of the following:
(i) The units shall have an affordable housing cost, as defined in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or an affordable rent, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code. (ii) The development proponent shall agree to, and the local agency shall ensure, the continued affordability of all affordable rental units included pursuant to this section for 55 years and all affordable ownership units included pursuant to this section for a period of 45 years. (2) If a local inclusionary housing requirement mandates a higher percentage of affordable units or a deeper level of affordability than that described in paragraph (1), then the local inclusionary housing requirement mandate shall apply in place of the requirements in paragraph (1).

Bill Text - SB-79 Housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 6/13 Exhibit 1 - SB 79 Legislation
535 of 1278

(j) A development proposed pursuant to this chapter shall be consistent with the height, noise, and safety standards of an adopted airport land use compatibility plan or Department of Defense Air Installation Compatible Use Zones developed pursuant to Section 21675 of the Public Utilities Code, and of otherwise applicable objective fire safety standards established pursuant to the California Building Code, the California Fire Code, the California, Wildland-Urban Interface Code, the Health and Safety Code, the Public Resources Code, or Chapter

6.8 (commencing with Section 51175) of Part 1 of Division 1 of Title 5 of this code. (k) Any transit-oriented housing development pursuant to this section shall meet the labor standards of subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D), (F), and (G) of paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 for any building over 85 feet in height, which shall be applicable to the building. (l) For purposes of subdivision (j) of Section 65589.5, a proposed housing development project that is consistent with the applicable standards from this chapter, as well as applicable local objective general plan and zoning standards that do not alone or in concert prevent achieving those standards, and as modified by any incentive, concession, or waiver under Section 65915, shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision. This subdivision shall not require a ministerial approval process or modify the requirements of Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(m) Beginning on January 1, 2027, a local government that denies a housing development project meeting the requirements of this section that is located in a high-resource area shall be presumed to be in violation of the Housing Accountability Act (Section 65589.5) and immediately liable for penalties pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (k) of Section 65589.5, unless the local government demonstrates, pursuant to the standards in subdivisions (j) and (o) of Section 65589.5, that it has a health, life, or safety reason for denying the project.
(n) This section shall not apply to a local agency until July 1, 2026, unless the local agency adopts an ordinance or local transit-oriented development alternative plan deemed compliant by the department before July 1, 2026.

It shall not apply within an unincorporated area of a county until the 7th regional housing needs allocation cycle. 65912.158. (a) For the purposes of this section, “agency transit-oriented development project” means a housing development project or mixed use residential project that meets all of the following requirements:
(1) A minimum of 50 percent of the total square footage of the project is dedicated to residential purposes. (2) A minimum of 20 percent of the total number of units shall be restricted for the affordable lower income households and shall be subject to a recorded affordability restriction for at least 55 years in the case of rental units and 45 years in the case of owner occupied units, unless a local ordinance or the terms of federal, state, or local tax credit, or other project financing requires a longer period of affordability. (3) The average total floor area of floor space for the proposed units in the housing development project shall not exceed 1,750 net habitable square feet.
(4) The parcel or parcels on which the project is located is an infill site, as defined in Section 21061.3 of the Public Resources Code.
(5) The transit-oriented development parcels on which the transit-oriented development project would be located was not acquired through eminent domain on or after July 1, 2025. (6) The parcels on which the transit-oriented development project would be located are owned by the agency and either:
(A) The parcels are adjacent to a transit-oriented development stop for which the agency operates service, or form a contiguous area adjacent to such a transit-oriented development stop. (B) At least 75 percent of the project area is located within one-half mile of a transit-oriented development stop for which the agency operates service or plans to provide service and was owned by the agency on or before January 1, 2026.
(b) (1) A transit agency’s board of directors may adopt by resolution agency transit-oriented development zoning standards for district-owned real property located in a transit-oriented development zone. These standards shall establish minimum local zoning requirements for height, density, residential floor area ratio, and allowed uses, that shall apply to an agency transit-oriented development project, that shall be consistent with Section 65912.157.

Bill Text - SB-79 Housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 7/13 Exhibit 1 - SB 79 Legislation
536 of 1278

(2) Adopted agency transit-oriented development zoning standards shall establish, for each transit station, the lowest permissible maximum standard for height, density, and residential floor area ratio, and a list of approved residential, retail, and commercial uses.
(3) The agency transit-oriented development zoning standards adopted by the board of directors shall not adopt a lowest permissible maximum standard for density or residential floor area ratio below the level permitted under Section 65912.157, and shall not prohibit residential use. (4) The agency transit-oriented development zoning standards shall not establish density standards that exceed 200 percent of the maximum density established in Section 65912.157. (c) The adoption of, and amendments to, the agency transit-oriented development zoning standards shall comply with all of the following:
(1) The transit agency shall hold a public hearing to receive public comment on the proposed agency transit- oriented development zoning standards or proposed changes to the agency transit-oriented development zoning standards. The transit agency shall conduct direct outreach to relevant local governments and to communities of concern around each station. Before or during the scoping meeting, the transit agency shall consult with each local government in which the station is located, as well as any relevant infrastructure agencies. The consultation required pursuant to this section shall include all of the following:
(A) A review of the housing needs of the jurisdiction.
(B) A review of the transit-oriented development approved and built in the past year in the jurisdiction. (C) A review of any transit-oriented development projects proposed by the transit agency in the jurisdiction for the past year.
(D) A discussion of any obstacles to development of any project proposed by the transit agency. (2) Not less than 30 days before a public hearing of the board to consider the agency transit-oriented development zoning standards, the transit agency shall provide public notice and make the draft standards available to the public.
(3) The board shall adopt or reject any proposed agency transit-oriented development zoning standards at a publicly noticed meeting of the board not less than 30 days following the original public hearing. (d) Objective standards adopted pursuant to paragraph (b) shall not preempt or otherwise displace local discretionary standards that apply to hotel, motel, bed and breakfast, or other transient lodging use, including short-term lodging, as defined in Section 17568.8 of the Business and Professions Code. For the purposes of this subdivision, the term “other transient lodging” does not include a residential hotel, as defined in Section 50519 of the Health and Safety Code.
(e) Where local zoning is inconsistent with the agency transit-oriented development zoning standards for a station, the local jurisdiction may adopt a local zoning ordinance that conforms to the transit-oriented development zoning standards.
(f) (1) A local government shall not be required to approve any height limit in excess of the standard for development adjacent to the transit-oriented development stop under Section 65912.157. (2) The transit agency shall make a finding as to whether the local zoning ordinance conforms to the agency transit-oriented development zoning standards. Local zoning shall remain in place unless the transit agency determines that it does not conform to the agency transit-oriented development zoning standards. If, according to the transit agency’s finding, the local zoning ordinance does not conform to the agency transit- oriented development zoning standards after two years of the date that the agency transit-oriented development zoning standards are adopted by the board for that station, the agency transit-oriented development zoning standards shall become the local zoning for any district-owned parcels that are eligible under this section, except for any height limit in excess of the standard for development adjacent to the transit-oriented development stop under Section 65912.157. For each station, a local jurisdiction may update zoning for transit agency-owned land to comply with agency transit-oriented development zoning standards until the time that the transit agency enters into an exclusive negotiating agreement with a developer for an agency transit-oriented development project.

Bill Text - SB-79 Housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 8/13 Exhibit 1 - SB 79 Legislation
537 of 1278

(g) (1) The transit agency’s approval of agency transit-oriented development zoning standards shall be subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code). The district shall serve as the lead agency for California Environmental Quality Act review for transit-oriented development zoning standards. (2) Any subsequent California Environmental Quality Act review of rezoning to conform with agency transit- oriented development zoning standards, and of eligible transit-oriented development projects proposed and on district-owned land, shall incorporate the environmental review document certified for the transit-oriented development zoning standards consistent with Section 21094 of the Public Resources Code. A public agency shall not prepare an environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration for rezoning pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (f) to implement agency transit-oriented development zoning standards or for a transit-oriented development project subsequent to the transit agency’s certification of an environmental review document for approval of agency transit-oriented development zoning standards unless the public agency finds, based on substantial evidence, that the rezoning or transit-oriented development project creates a significant effect on the environment that was not analyzed in the prior environmental review document, and mitigated or avoided.
(h) A local agency may adopt objective, written development standards, conditions, and policies that apply to development on district-owned property, provided that they demonstrate their consistency with the agency transit-oriented development zoning standards. In the event that the agency transit-oriented development zoning standards, objective planning standards, general plan, or design review standards are mutually inconsistent, the agency transit-oriented development zoning standards shall be the controlling standards. To the extent that the zoning standards do not resolve inconsistencies, the general plan shall be the controlling standard.
(i) Zoning in effect as a result of this section shall be considered the same as locally approved zoning for all purposes, including the Density Bonus Law and the Housing Accountability Act. (j) Any agency transit-oriented development project shall comply with the antidisplacement requirements of Section 66300.6.
(k) A local government shall not be required to approve any height limit under this section greater than the height limit specified in this chapter for development adjacent to the relevant tier of a transit-oriented development stop. A transit agency shall not set a maximum height, density, or residential floor area ratio below that which would be allowed for the site under this chapter. (l) If nonresidential development is included in an agency transit-oriented development project, at least 25 percent of the total planned units affordable to lower income households shall be made available for lease or sale and permitted for use and occupancy before or at the same time with every 25 percent of nonresidential development made available for lease or sale and permitted for use and occupancy. (m) The development applicant for an agency transit-oriented development project proposed pursuant to this section shall certify that the labor standards in paragraphs (8) and (9) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4 will be met in project construction, and those standards shall apply if the project is approved by the public agency.

Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, this subdivision shall not apply if all contractors and subcontractors performing work on the development are subject to a project labor agreement with the transit agency that was entered into before July 1, 2026, that requires the payment of prevailing wages to all construction workers employed in the execution of the development and provides for the enforcement of that obligation through an arbitration procedure. For the purposes of this subdivision, “project labor agreement,” has the same meaning as set forth in paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 2500 of the Public Contract Code. 65912.159. (a) A housing development project proposed pursuant to Section 65912.157 shall be eligible for streamlined ministerial approval pursuant to Section 65913.4 in accordance with all of the following:
(1) The proposed project shall be exempt from subparagraph (A) of paragraph (4) of, and paragraph (5) of, subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4.
(2) The proposed project shall comply with the affordability requirements in subclauses (I) to (III), inclusive, of clause (i) of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. (3) The proposed project shall comply with all other requirements of Section 65913.4, including, but not limited to, the prohibition against a site that is within a very high fire hazard severity zone, pursuant to subparagraph (D) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4.

Bill Text - SB-79 Housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 9/13 Exhibit 1 - SB 79 Legislation
538 of 1278

(b) Any housing development proposed pursuant to Section 65912.157 not seeking streamlined approval under Section 65913.4 shall be reviewed according to the jurisdiction’s development review process and Section 65589.5, except that any local zoning standard conflicting with the requirements of this chapter shall not apply. 65912.160. (a) The department shall oversee compliance with this chapter. (b) The department shall promulgate standards on how to allow for capacity pursuant to this chapter to be counted in a city or county’s inventory of land suitable for residential development pursuant to Section 65583.2, no later than July 1, 2026.
(c) (1) A local government may enact an ordinance to make its zoning code consistent with the provisions of this chapter, subject to review by the department pursuant to subdivision (d). This ordinance may include objective development standards, conditions, and policies, applying to transit-oriented housing developments, that are demonstrated by a preponderance of evidence to not physically preclude, alone or in concert, the applicable housing development standards of Section 65912.157.
(2) The ordinance described in paragraph (1) shall not be considered a project under Division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code.
(d) If a local government adopts an ordinance to come into compliance with this section, the following provisions shall apply:
(1) (A) At least 14 days prior to adoption of an ordinance pursuant to this section, the local government shall submit a draft ordinance to the department.
(B) The department may review the draft and report its written findings to the planning agency. (2) A local government shall submit a copy of any ordinance enacted pursuant to this section to the department within 60 days of enactment.
(3) (A) The department shall, within 90 days, review the enacted ordinance, make a finding as to whether the enacted ordinance is in substantial compliance with this section, and report that finding to the local government.
(B) If needed, the department may request an additional 30 days to make a finding as to whether the enacted ordinance is in substantial compliance with this section, and report that finding to the local government.
(C) If the department does not provide written findings to the local government within the review period provided for in this paragraph, the ordinance shall be deemed compliant for the purposes of assessing penalties, including those pursuant to subdivision (m) of Section 65912.157. (4) If at any time the department determines that the ordinance does not comply with this section, the department shall notify the local government in writing. The department shall provide the local government a reasonable time, not to exceed 60 days, to respond before taking further action as authorized by this section. (5) The local government shall consider any findings made by the department pursuant to paragraph (4) and shall do one of the following:
(A) Amend the ordinance to comply with this section.
(B) Enact the ordinance without changes. The local government shall include findings in its resolution adopting the ordinance that explain the reasons the local government believes that the ordinance complies with this section despite the findings of the department. (6) If the local government does not amend its ordinance in response to the department’s findings or does not adopt a resolution with findings explaining the reason the ordinance complies with this section and addressing the department’s findings, the department shall notify the local government and may notify the Attorney General that the local government is in violation of this section. (e) The ordinance may designate areas within one-half mile of a transit-oriented development stop as exempt from the provisions of this chapter if:
(1) The local government makes findings supported by substantial evidence that there exists no walking path of less than one mile from that location to the transit-oriented development stop.

Bill Text - SB-79 Housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 10/13 Exhibit 1 - SB 79 Legislation
539 of 1278

(2) A local government with at least 15 transit-oriented development stops designates the area as an industrial employment hub. An industrial employment hub shall be a contiguous area of at least 250 acres designated in the jurisdiction’s general plan on or before January 1, 2025, as an employment lands area; the parcels within it shall be primarily dedicated to industrial use as defined in paragraph (3) of subdivision (f) of Section 65912.121; and housing shall not be a permitted use on any of the sites so excluded. (f) Each metropolitan planning organization shall create a map of transit-oriented development stops and zones within its region by tier, as designated under this chapter, in accordance with the department’s guidance pursuant to subdivision (b). This map shall have a rebuttable presumption of validity for use by project applicants and local governments.
65912.161. (a) For purposes of this section, “transit-oriented development alternative plan” shall mean a plan adopted by the local agency via the adoption of the housing element, a program to implement the housing element, the adoption of a specific plan, a zoning overlay, or enactment of an ordinance; that brings the local agency into compliance with this chapter and that incorporates all of the following:
(1) A local transit-oriented development alternative plan shall maintain at least the same total net zoned capacity, in terms of both total units and residential floor area, as provided for in this chapter across all transit- oriented development zones within the jurisdiction.
(A) Net zoned capacity in units shall be measured by subtracting the current number of units on the site from the number allowed by the applicable development standards. (B) Net zoned capacity in floor area shall be measured by subtracting the current developed floor area of the site from the amount allowed by the applicable development standards. (2) The plan shall not reduce the maximum allowed density for any individual site on which the plan allows residential use by more than 50 percent below that permitted under this chapter, except for sites meeting any of the following criteria:
(A) Sites within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within the state responsibility area, as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code.
(B) Sites that are vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise, as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Ocean Protection Council, the United States Geological Survey, the University of California, or a local government’s coastal hazards vulnerability assessment. (C) Sites with a historic resource designated on a local register, so long as sites excluded from the density requirements of this paragraph on that basis do not cumulatively exceed 10 percent of the eligible area of any transit-oriented development zone.
(D) Sites within one-half mile of a Tier 2 transit-oriented development stop shall not have a density below 30 units per acre with a residential floor area ratio of 1.0, except for sites specified in subparagraphs (A) to (C), and should be considered for attached entry level owner occupied housing development opportunities. (3) The plan shall not reduce the capacity in any transit-oriented development zone in total units or residential floor area by more than 50 percent.
(4) A site’s maximum capacity counted toward the plan shall not exceed 200 percent of the maximum density established under this chapter. Any site excluded from the minimum density requirements of subparagraphs (A) to (C) of paragraph (2) shall not be counted toward the plan’s capacity. For purposes of this section, calculations regarding capacity, density, and floor area shall include capacity, density, or floor area available under voluntary local housing incentive programs.
(5) A local transit-oriented development alternative plan may consist of an existing local transit-oriented zoning ordinance, overlay zone, specific plan, or zoning incentive ordinance, provided that it meets the requirements of this subdivision.
(b) (1) Prior to one year following the adoption of the seventh revision of the housing element, Section 65912.157 shall not apply to any of the following for which the local government has adopted an ordinance in accordance with Section 65912.160 indicating the site’s exclusion:

Bill Text - SB-79 Housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 11/13 Exhibit 1 - SB 79 Legislation
540 of 1278

(A) A site that has been identified by the local jurisdiction which permits density and residential floor area ratio at no less than 50 percent of the standards specified under subdivision (a) of Section 65912.157. (B) (i) A site in a transit-oriented development zone in which at least 33 percent of sites in the relevant transit-oriented development zone have permitted density and residential floor area ratio no less than 50 percent of the standards specified under subdivision (a) of Section 65912.157 and which includes sites with densities that cumulatively allow for at least 75 percent of the aggregate density for the transit-oriented development zone specified under subdivision (a) of Section 65912.157. (ii) A site in a transit-oriented development zone around a transit-oriented development stop that is primarily comprised of a low-resource area which includes sites with densities that cumulatively allow for at least 40 percent of the aggregate density for the transit-oriented development zone specified under subdivision (a) of Section 65912.157.
(iii) A site in an area designated as low resource on the most recently adopted version of the opportunity area maps published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee and the department, and within a jurisdiction that cumulatively allows for at least 50 percent of the total capacity for units and floor area as specified under Section 65912.157 across all transit-oriented development zones. (C) A site that is covered by a local transit-oriented development alternative plan adopted by a local government.
(D) Sites within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within the state responsibility area, as defined in Section 4102 of the Public Resources Code.
(E) Sites that are vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise, as determined by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Ocean Protection Council, the United States Geological Survey, the University of California, or a local government’s coastal hazards vulnerability assessment. (F) Sites with a historic resource designated as of January 1, 2025, on a local register. (2) A local government that has adopted an ordinance pursuant to this subdivision shall indicate on its public zoning map which sites or transit-oriented development zones are and are not covered by Section 65912.157. (c) (1) For the seventh and subsequent revisions of the housing element, a local government may include a local transit-oriented development alternative plan in any of the following ways:
(A) (i) Include a local transit-oriented alternative plan in its housing element. When a local government includes a transit-oriented development alternative plan in its housing element the plan shall include an analysis of how the plan maintains at least an equal feasible developable housing capacity as the baseline established by this chapter.
(ii) If a local government adopts a housing element that the department has determined to be compliant with this section, then any action to enforce or implement a compliant housing element shall be subject to applicable provisions of housing element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3).
(iii) The initial submission of a transit-oriented development alternative plan shall be included in the local government’s first draft submittal referenced in subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (b) of Section 65585.
(iv) Sites identified in a local transit-oriented development alternative plan may be included in the inventory of land suitable for residential development, pursuant to the additional requirements of Section 65583.
(B) If a local government does not include the local transit-oriented alternative plan in its housing element, the local government may adopt an alternative plan that has been deemed compliant by the department pursuant to Section 65912.160.
(d) Section 65912.157 shall not apply within a jurisdiction that has a local transit-oriented alternative plan that has been approved by the department as satisfying the requirements of this section in effect. The department’s approval pursuant to this section shall be valid through the jurisdiction’s next amendment to the housing element of its general plan.

Bill Text - SB-79 Housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 12/13 Exhibit 1 - SB 79 Legislation
541 of 1278

(e) A local transit-oriented development alternative plan may consist of an existing local transit-oriented zoning ordinance, overlay zone, specific plan, zoning incentive ordinance or existing program, provided that it meets the requirements of this section.
65912.162. The Legislature finds and declares that the state faces a housing crisis of availability and affordability, in large part due to a severe shortage of housing, and solving the housing crisis therefore requires a multifaceted, statewide approach, including, but not limited to, encouraging an increase in the overall supply of housing, encouraging the development of housing that is affordable to households at all income levels, removing barriers to housing production, expanding homeownership opportunities, and expanding the availability of rental housing, and is a matter of statewide concern and is not a municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of the California Constitution. Therefore, this chapter applies to all cities, including charter cities.

SEC. 2. The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.

SEC. 3. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or level of service mandated by this act or because costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.

Bill Text - SB-79 Housing development: transit-oriented development. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260SB79 13/13 Exhibit 1 - SB 79 Legislation
542 of 1278

10d
26-89630

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Status of and proposed options for SB 79 (the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act), and proposed amendment to the existing De Novo Planning Group Professional Service Agreement (Contract No. 8000769) to address potential development associated with SB 79.

1. Motion to accept the status report and direct staff to proceed with one or more implementation options identified in the report;

2. Motion to amend De Novo Planning Group’s professional service agreement to assist with the detailed parcel-by-parcel analysis and update the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Draft Land Use, Mobility, and Environmental Justice Elements of the General Plan to address the potential development associated with SB 79 and extend the timeline an additional nine months.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for March 3, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SB 79 is a recently enacted state law that is intended to facilitate transit-oriented development (TOD) housing projects by establishing new standards near transit facilities. The bill is expected to have extensive implications on local land use planning and may introduce additional complexity in ongoing planning efforts.

This report summarizes SB 79 legislation and its application to Glendale and presents options for the City Council to consider for addressing the impacts of the legislation. It includes an overview of how SB 79 will interact with ongoing planning efforts. Finally, the report includes a request to amend De Novo Planning Group’s contract to direct additional resources to address the added complexities that SB 79 introduces in ongoing planning projects.

Exhibit 2 - March 3, 2026 Council Report and Motion
543 of 1278

10d 2
26-89630
6 6
6 1

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council direct staff to:
 Continue seeking clarity with the legislature, to coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and other agencies, and to monitor SB 79 amendments and technical guidance documents;
 Undertake one of the SB 79 implementation options, considering, in particular, staff’s recommendation to prepare a “delayed effectuation” ordinance for adoption to exempt certain properties from SB 79 with the objective of adopting these exemptions before SB 79’s effective date; and
 Amend the professional services agreement with De Novo to increase funding in order to complete land use analysis related to SB 79.

ANALYSIS
Governor Gavin Newsom signed SB 79, the Abundant and Affordable Homes Near Transit Act, into law on October 10, 2025. The new legislation goes into effect on July 1, 2026.

SB 79 aims to address the housing crisis by promoting increased residential development near public transportation in major urban areas. The legislation establishes new development standards for properties located within ½ mile of a Transit Oriented Development (TOD) stop, and on land zoned residential, mixed-use, or commercial. The standards allow increased height and density for housing projects of at least five units located near a TOD stop.

The bill also aims to streamline project approvals by allowing projects to be submitted in conjunction with other State laws that require streamlined ministerial approval processes. Cities are also subject to penalties under the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) if projects are denied.

Cities cannot opt out of SB 79; however, the bill includes different options for implementation.

SB 79 will require close coordination among state, regional, and local agencies. City of Glendale will need to continue working with LA Metro and the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) to identify eligible transit-oriented development sites and produce standardized SB 79 maps that will be used region-wide, as well as coordination with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). HCD is responsible for issuing technical guidance for SB 79 implementation as well as capacity-analysis standards by July 1, 2026. It is important to note that it is anticipated that the technical guidance will not be available until SB 79 is already in effect. HCD will also be responsible for reviewing any local ordinances adopted to implement the law.

It should be noted that subsequent legislation, pending technical guidance documents, and local government actions may refine, clarify or alter its provisions before SB 79 takes effect on July 1st.

Exhibit 2 - March 3, 2026 Council Report and Motion
544 of 1278

10d 3
26-89630
6 6
6 1
Overview of SB 79
With only certain exceptions, SB 79 (See full text of the bill attached as Exhibit “1”) applies to any parcel that is:
 Within an “urban transit county,” defined as a county with more than 15 passenger rail stations (which includes Los Angeles County);  Zoned for residential, commercial, or mixed-use development, including sites with more restrictive single-family and low-density multi-family zoning; and  That is within ½ mile of a TOD stop.

For a proposed housing project to qualify for SB 79 processing, it must:
 Include at least 5 residential units;
 Meet a minimum density of 30 dwelling units per acre or comply with the minimum density set by the applicable local zoning, whichever is greater;  Limit the average total floor area per unit to 1,750 square feet;  Comply with state law regarding demolition of protected affordable housing units; and
 Comply with local demolition/anti-displacement ordinances and inclusionary zoning.

Determining how much development is permitted in an SB 79 project is a two-step process. The first step is to establish which “Tier” the TOD stop is categorized under.

SB 79’s two tiers are summarized in the chart below:

Tier Transit Type
Tier 1  Heavy Rail Transit
 Very High Frequency Commuter Rail (at least 72 trips per day) Tier 2  Light Rail Transit
 High Frequency Commuter Rail (at least 48 trips per day)  Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Stations with full-time dedicated lanes or operation in a separate right-of-way dedicated for public transportation with service every 15 minutes or less during morning and afternoon peak commuter periods
Once the TOD Tier is established, proximity to the TOD stop dictates the height, density, and Floor Area Ratio (FAR) standards that apply. Three radiuses around the TOD stop are applied:
1) Within 200 feet adjacent to the TOD stop;
2) Between 200 feet and ¼-mile, and
3) Between ¼ mile and ½-mile.

The SB 79 development standards permitted for each Tier within the three radiuses are summarized in the table below.

Exhibit 2 - March 3, 2026 Council Report and Motion
545 of 1278

10d 4
26-89630
6 6
6 1
Tier 1 TOD Stop Tier 2 TOD Stop
Distance from
TOD stop
Within
200 ft.
¼ Mile ½ Mile Within
200 ft.
¼ Mile ½ Mile
Height (ft)* 95’ (9
stories)
75’ (7
stories)
65’ (6
stories)
85’ (8
stories)
65’ (6
stories)
55’ (5
stories)
Density
(DU/AC)
160 120 100 140 100 80
Floor Area
Ratio (FAR)

4.5 3.5 3.0 4.0 3.0 2.5
* The height in stories provided is approximate based on overall height allowed.

In addition to the standards above, SB 79 projects can be coupled with Density Bonus regulations, allowing greater density to be achieved. Housing projects utilizing the Density Bonus are permitted to use the density allowed under SB 79 as the “base density” for their projects. SB 79 also grants additional concessions for housing projects, depending on the level of affordable housing provided:
 Three additional concessions for projects providing extremely low income housing;
 Two additional concessions for projects providing very low income housing; and  One additional concession for projects providing low income housing.

Cities are not required to grant a waiver or concession for projects that propose heights above what is permitted under SB 79, unless the project proposes 100% affordable housing.

SB 79 Limitations
SB 79 imposes the following restrictions on the type of development that is permitted.  Cannot be applied to projects in which any portion is used as a hotel, motel, or similar uses;
 Cannot be applied to projects that require the demolition of rent-or-price controlled housing on sites with more than two units that have been occupied within the past seven years;
 Requires projects to comply with anti-displacement standards under the Housing Crisis Act of 2019 and any and all local implementation programs;  Requires projects greater than 10 units to comply with affordable housing standards and allows cities to enforce inclusionary housing standards; and  Imposes prevailing wage and other labor requirements on buildings over 85 feet in height.

Exhibit 2 - March 3, 2026 Council Report and Motion
546 of 1278

10d 5
26-89630
6 6
6 1
Environmental Review for SB 79 Projects
SB 79 itself does not provide a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)-exempt or by-right pathway for qualifying projects. However, SB 79 projects may be coupled with other laws, such as AB 130 and exemptions to CEQA under Class 32 (infill development), which may streamline CEQA review.

TOD Stops in Glendale
City of Glendale has one confirmed TOD stop at the Larry Zarian Glendale Transportation Center (GTC). At this time, it has not been determined if the proposed stops along the proposed North Hollywood to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) route will qualify as TOD stops as defined in SB 79. Staff has been seeking information to confirm the status of the BRT and, if available, staff will provide updated information at the Council meeting.

GTC – Qualifies as a Tier 2 TOD Stop
The GTC TOD stop meets the definition of a high frequency commuter rail with its Metrolink service operation of at least 48 trips per day and is therefore designated as a “Tier 2” TOD stop under SB 79. In 2023, Glendale adopted TOD zoning that allows densities up to 100 DU/AC near the GTC in Tropico, which may reduce the impact of SB 79 in this area. However, it is important to note that there are more parcels included within the SB 79 ½ mile radius than are currently zoned “TOD,” including a low-density residential neighborhood south of San Fernando Road, portions of the Brand Boulevard of Cars, and commercial zones on South Glendale Avenue, amongst others. A detailed map of the area affected by SB 79 around the Glendale Transit Center can be viewed in Exhibit “2”.

The maps below show the Tropico TOD zones (map on the left) compared to the SB 79 TOD stop ¼ mile and ½ mile radiuses (map on the right). Blue circles represent a ¼ mile radius, and the red circles represent a ½ mile radius. Note that the map radius shown is a preliminary estimate, as further legislative clarification is needed. SB 79 states that radiuses shall be measured from the “pedestrian access point” of a qualifying transit stop in a straight line. However, the term “pedestrian access point” is not currently defined in the legislation, so for illustrative purposes the radius shown on the map is measured from the perimeter of the GTC.

Exhibit 2 - March 3, 2026 Council Report and Motion
547 of 1278

10d 6
26-89630
6 6
6 1
Noho to Pasadena Bus Rapid Transit Project (BRT)
It is currently unknown as to whether SB 79 will apply to stops along the proposed Noho to Pasadena BRT route. In Glendale, the BRT is proposed to have eight stops:
 Four stops on West Glenoaks Boulevard between the City of Burbank border and Central Avenue.
 One stop on Central Avenue at Lexington Drive; and
 Three stops on East Broadway, between Brand Boulevard and the city limits.

Although it is not yet in service, the proposed stops along the proposed BRT route may qualify as Tier 2 TOD stops. To qualify, the BRT must meet the definition of “full-time dedicated bus lanes or operation in a separate right-of-way dedicated for public transportation with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.” The City recently reached out to Los Angeles Metro asking if the BRT is anticipated to meet this definition. Metro responded with a letter stating that it is not yet clear and that they, too, are seeking additional clarity regarding SB 79. LA Metro’s letter is attached as Exhibit “3”.

Resolving this ambiguity is of critical significance. Designation of the proposed BRT stops as Tier 2 TOD stops would have the greatest impact on Glendale. Preliminary estimates (not including certain sites that may be exempted) indicate that approximately 141,000 additional units of development capacity could be created around the proposed BRT stops if they are determined to be subject to the provisions of SB 79. For context, there are currently approximately 77,000 dwelling units in the entire City, and the current Land Use Element of the General Plan (adopted in 1986) regulations envision a Exhibit 2 - March 3, 2026 Council Report and Motion
548 of 1278

10d 7
26-89630
6 6
6 1
reasonable maximum capacity of approximately 125,000 units citywide. The additional capacity SB 79 may authorize along the BRT corridor would more than double the existing citywide maximum capacity based on preliminary estimates.

The following map illustrates the proposed BRT route through Glendale with preliminary radiuses around each stop.

Glendale’s Efforts for Legislative Clarification
City of Glendale officials and staff have made significant efforts to clarify, mitigate, and oppose the possible effects of SB 79 for over a year. Prior to the bill’s passage, the City:
 Held meetings with State Representative Sasha Renee Perez’s office in an effort to refine the bill’s language and include sensible exemptions prior to its passage that would apply to Glendale
 Submitted an official letter of opposition on April 23, 2025, from the City of Glendale to the bill’s sponsor, State Senator Scott Weiner  Submitted an official letter of opposition on July 2, 2025, from the City of Glendale to the bill’s sponsor, State Senator Scott Weiner  Submitted an official veto request on September 17, 2025 from the City of Glendale to Governor Gavin Newsom (All letters included in Exhibit “4”) In all these letters the City pointed out the following:
 That City of Glendale worked diligently and in good faith with HCD to gain certification of the 6th Cycle Housing Element, demonstrating that the City has the Exhibit 2 - March 3, 2026 Council Report and Motion
549 of 1278

10d 8
26-89630
6 6
6 1
capacity to meet stringent housing regulations and meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers.
 That the city has been supportive of developing denser housing near transit (as demonstrated by the TOD zoning in Tropico) and of expanding transit opportunities for residents
 That recent State mandates have undermined Housing Element law and local regulations.
 That requiring jurisdictions to allow additional residential density along a proposed BRT route that is not yet in service, and which may not trigger SB 79 is both illogical and may have serious and irreversible unintended consequences.

Despite these efforts, the bill was passed and signed into law, resulting in legislation that requires the City to allow more development around transit stops, including in lower density single family neighborhoods.

The City’s efforts to clarify the bill and advocate for amendments have continued after the bill’s passage. As stated above, the City reached out to LA Metro on November 6, 2025 seeking clarity as to whether the proposed BRT stops would be considered Tier 2 TOD stops as defined in the bill, a matter that remains unresolved. On January 8, 2026, the City submitted a letter to State Senator Maria Elena Durazo, Chair of the Senate Local Government Committee, opposing SB 677 ( Exhibit “5”), a bill that proposed to revise SB 79 and expand its applicability.

In addition to these requests for clarification, in October 2025, City of Glendale staff initiated a tri-cities working group with the Cities of Burbank and Pasadena to communicate understanding of SB 79 and share resources and coordinate efforts where possible. The tri-cities working group has met several times since the end of last year and continues to meet regularly.

Beyond local efforts, there are regional initiatives to respond to SB 79 that would directly impact Glendale. In late January, the LA Metro Board of Directors voted to formally oppose local implementation of SB 79 and suggested that LA County be exempt from the legislation or subject to it only after an extended pilot period in the Bay Area. Metro has concerns that transit projects will face increased opposition from local communities if and when SB 79 takes effect in Los Angeles County.

Additionally, on January 30, 2026, the City of Burbank sent a letter requesting LA Metro, as the CEQA lead agency for the BRT, prepare a subsequent environmental review to Metro’s 2022 Final EIR on the BRT, to determine the impact around any SB 79 BRT TOD stops in Burbank. (See letter attached as Exhibit “6”).

Burbank contends that the densities permitted under SB 79 will have significant impacts on the local jurisdiction’s infrastructure and services, and that SB 79’s impacts stemming from the BRT is significant new information requiring additional CEQA review.

The cost burden to make improvements will fall on local governments, though the BRT is a regional Metro project. If these impacts could have been quantified within the EIR, Exhibit 2 - March 3, 2026 Council Report and Motion
550 of 1278

10d 9
26-89630
6 6
6 1
the BRT may not have been approved in its current form. Metro is expected to respond to Burbank’s request within the next two weeks.

In addition to the uncertainty surrounding the BRT project, SB 79 leaves many questions unanswered, and the bill itself continues to evolve. For example, while the first attempt at an SB 79 clean-up bill, SB 677, is being held in the legislature with its fate uncertain, another bill (SB 908) has been drafted to clarify and expand SB 79. It is possible that neither of these clean-up bills will be passed prior to July 1, 2026, effective date, which has prompted some speculation that SB 79’s implementation may be delayed. Staff believes that obtaining guidance and clarity on these unanswered questions is critical before making zoning decisions and permitting development under SB 79 regulations. Staff recommend and will continue efforts to clarify SB 79 from state, regional, and local agencies.

Options for Implementation
Local jurisdictions have several options for implementing SB 79, as summarized below.

Option 1: No Local Action – State SB 79 Implementation
Cities can take no action and allow SB 79 to take effect automatically in its entirety on July 1st. Under this approach, development standards established by SB 79 would supersede local zoning regulations for eligible projects, including those near any transit stops ultimately designated as Tier 1 or Tier 2 TOD stops, without the City adopting exemptions or a local implementing ordinance. As of now, this would impact the area surrounding the GTC.

This option would avoid the need for immediate policy decisions, coordination with HCD, or potential upzoning actions by the City. However, it would also limit local control over the scale, form, and location of new development and could result in substantial increases in development capacity, particularly if the proposed BRT stops are ultimately designated as Tier 2 TOD stops. However, this option allows the City to “wait and see” how SB 79 is implemented statewide and how Metro and SCAG ultimately designate Tier 1 and Tier 2 TOD stops, including the proposed BRT stations. Most importantly, it avoids potentially premature decisions to upzone potentially affected areas.

Option 2: Local Implementing Ordinance
SB 79 authorizes, but does not require, a local government to adopt a local implementing ordinance that brings its development standards into consistency with the statute. This local ordinance may include TOD objective design standards if none are currently in place. Adoption of a local implementing ordinance requires consultation with HCD, and the ordinance must receive final approval from HCD to take effect.

Exhibit 2 - March 3, 2026 Council Report and Motion
551 of 1278

10d 10
26-89630
6 6
6 1
Because this option requires zoning and land use changes that require significant analysis and review there is neither sufficient time nor resources to complete a local implementing ordinance and complete CEQA review before SB 79 takes effect. It is certain that the ordinance would result in increased densities and heights, including upzoning in many areas. Staff does not support a local implementing ordinance at this time because: (i) there is insufficient time to draft and review it before SB 79 takes effect (ii) it would be premature to adopt any new zoning with the current ambiguity surrounding SB 79 and the proposed BRT route, and (iii) staff is already drafting citywide objective design standards (ODS).

Accordingly, a local implementing ordinance with separate development standards for TOD projects may not be needed.

Option 3: Delayed Implementation/Effectuation for Eligible Sites SB 79 allows cities to adopt a local ordinance excluding several types of sites from eligibility that delays full effectuation of SB 79 until one year following adoption of the 7th cycle Housing Element (until approximately 2030 for Glendale). This “delayed effectuation” is intended to allow jurisdictions appropriate time to analyze the legislation and technical guidance (which is yet to be released) and conduct the necessary detailed site-level analysis for a potential TOD alternative plan (Option 4 described below). Unless such a TOD alternative plan is adopted, the “delayed effectuation” would expire one year after the next Housing Element is certified and the base SB 79 requirements would then take effect.

As part of the “Delayed Implementation/Effectuation for Eligible Sites” Option, a TOD zone may be excluded from the SB 79 standards if:
 At least 1/3 of sites in the TOD zone currently allow at least 50% of the density and FAR granted by the bill, and
 All sites within the TOD zone cumulatively allow for at least 75% of the aggregate density allowed by the bill.

All the Tropico TOD-zoned parcels have a maximum by-right density of 100 du/ac, which is equal to or greater than the SB 79 density permitted in the Tier 2 TOD stop within the ¼ mile and ½ mile radiuses surrounding the GTC. However, the ½ mile radius extends beyond the TOD zoning and includes some commercial and lower density residential areas. Additional analysis is needed to determine if the GTC TOD stop qualifies for this exemption.

In addition to the TOD zone exclusion described above, individual sites may also be exempted if certain criteria are met. A site may be excluded if:
 Its allowable density and residential FAR are at least 50% of that required under SB 79;
 It is located in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ);  It is in an area vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise; Exhibit 2 - March 3, 2026 Council Report and Motion
552 of 1278

10d 11
26-89630
6 6
6 1
 It contains historic resources designated on a local register prior to January 1, 2025;
 It lacks a pedestrian access path of less than one mile to the TOD stop; or  It is designated as an industrial employment hub (defined as at least 250 contiguous acres dedicated to industrial use as of January 1, 2025).

Areas designated as “low resource” in the most recent opportunity maps published by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (TCAC) may also be exempted. This provision is not applicable to Glendale as the City has no areas that have been designated as “low resource”.

In Glendale, there may be TOD zones and several individual sites that meet one or more of the above criteria; however, additional analysis is needed to develop a comprehensive list of sites for exemption. A map of the parcels that may be excluded from SB 79 surrounding the GTC can be viewed in Exhibit “7”.

This option would allow the City to immediately exempt certain sites from SB 79, while also providing additional time to evaluate the feasibility of a TOD alternative plan and to see if there are any future clarifications and/or changes to legislation.

Staff is currently assessing which sites may potentially be excluded, although the timeline for a “delayed effectuation” ordinance adoption is compressed, given the HCD review and approval requirements prior to SB 79 effectuation.

SB 79 does not require cities to adopt an ordinance exempting such sites prior to SB 79’s implementation date of July 1, 2026, however, staff is recommending such adoption, if the timing is feasible, keeping in mind that such ordinance must be submitted to the HCD for review at least 14 days prior to local adoption. HCD may review the draft and report written findings to the planning agency. Any enacted ordinance must be submitted to HCD within 60 days of adoption. HCD has 90 days to review the enacted ordinance and make a finding whether it is in substantial compliance with SB 79. If HCD deems the ordinance non-compliant, the local agency has 60 days to respond before taking further action. If the local agency is found to be in non-compliance, by either refusing to amend the ordinance or make findings explaining how the ordinance complies, then HCD is required to notify the Attorney General that the local government is in violation.

Option 4: Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) Alternative Plan SB 79 also allows jurisdictions to adopt a “TOD alternative plan” as an alternative means of compliance. A TOD alternative plan allows cities to exercise some amount of local control over how SB 79 is implemented, but must satisfy all of the following:
 The plan must maintain at least the same total “net zoned capacity,” in terms of both total units and residential floor area allowed by SB 79, across all TOD zones within the jurisdiction.

Exhibit 2 - March 3, 2026 Council Report and Motion
553 of 1278

10d 12
26-89630
6 6
6 1
 The plan may not reduce the maximum allowed density for any individual site by more than 50 percent below what SB 79 permits, except for sites meeting any of the following criteria:
o Sites within a very high fire hazard severity zone (VHFHSZ) o Sites that are vulnerable to one foot of sea level rise o Sites with a historic resource designated on a local register, so long as such sites do not exceed 10 percent of the eligible area of any TOD zone.
 The plan may not reduce the capacity in any TOD zone in total units or residential floor area by more than 50 percent.

In short, a TOD alternative plan allows cities to shift residential densities within TOD areas, as long as the total capacity remains unchanged. However, no individual site could be zoned for less than 50% of the density permitted under SB 79.

Before a TOD alternative plan could be contemplated, an intensive site-by-site analysis of the affected areas would need to be completed. The TOD Alternative Plan would need to be adopted by Council and approved by HCD. Should City Council choose to move forward with a TOD alternative plan, the plan would need to be adopted within the year following certification of the next Housing Element of the General Plan (approximately 2030 for Glendale). Per SB 79, the TOD alternative plan could be adopted as a stand-alone planning effort (ordinance or zoning overlay) or incorporated as part of the 7th Cycle Housing Element. Such changes would also require rezoning and Land Use Element amendments for any TOD areas/properties within the TOD alternative plan.

This option would allow for an extended exemption of certain properties from SB 79 if they are located within the VHFHSZ or contain a historic resource. If a TOD alternative plan is pursued, it is likely that lower density residential neighborhoods would still need to be permanently upzoned to allow a minimum of 40 du/ac. This option allows cities some local control; however, it will require careful consideration and may present challenges if the state law on this matter changes again.

As stated above, there may be severe penalties for jurisdictions that do not implement SB 79 through one of the options listed above. The bill states that beginning on January 1, 2027, denial of an SB 79 project within a high resource area (such as Glendale) would be considered a violation of the Housing Accountability Act (HAA). Such a violation could lead to legal challenges, fines, and penalties up to an including decertification of the Housing Element and invocation of the Builder’s Remedy.

Exhibit 2 - March 3, 2026 Council Report and Motion
554 of 1278

10d 13
26-89630
6 6
6 1
Coordination with Other Planning Efforts
Objective Design Standards
Staff is currently in the process of finalizing ODS for multi-family and mixed-use residential development projects in multi-family, commercial, and mixed-use zone designations. The ODS are meant to streamline project review times and ensure basic development and design criteria are met for new development projects, in compliance with state legislation, such as AB 130. The draft ODS can be amended to include SB 79 projects to ensure fundamental standards for any project submitted under SB 79. Staff’s objective is to adopt the ODS prior to July 1, 2026, when SB 79 takes effect.

Draft Land Use, Mobility, and Environmental Justice Elements The City is currently completing the comprehensive update of the Land Use and Mobility Elements as well as a new Environmental Justice Element. The three Draft Elements are being analyzed under one Environmental Impact Report (EIR) with the assistance of the City’s consultant, De Novo Planning Group. At the time that SB 79 was passed, the first draft of the EIR was nearly completed and was on the verge of being released for public comment. Due to the additional development potential that SB 79 authorizes, the Draft EIR and technical studies related to air quality, noise and vibration, and traffic must be amended, which increases the project’s costs and extends the project’s timeline. Staff is requesting an amendment to De Novo’s professional service agreement to complete this required analysis.

The additional analysis that De Novo would complete under the contract amendment would include parcel-level analysis that will assist the City in addressing SB 79. In the short term, this data will support a delayed effectuation ordinance if the Council directs staff to proceed with this option. In the longer term, the data will help to clarify if a TOD alternative plan is feasible for Glendale.

To complete the SB 79 analysis and Draft EIR update for the three General Plan Elements, staff recommends amending De Novo’s contract to add $132,481.00 and extending their contract by an additional nine months.

NEXT STEPS
Given the possibility of state-level amendments to SB 79, including clarifications and corrections prior to its enactment, as well as the various uncertainties regarding BRT and SB 79 implementation options, staff recommends:
 Continue seeking clarity with the legislature, to coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions and other agencies, and to monitor SB 79 amendments and technical guidance documents;
Exhibit 2 - March 3, 2026 Council Report and Motion
555 of 1278

10d 14
26-89630
6 6
6 1
 Prepare a “delayed effectuation” ordinance for adoption to exempt certain properties from SB 79 before SB 79 takes effect on July 1, 2026;  Determine whether adoption of a TOD Alternative Plan is feasible as more information becomes available;
 Prepare the objective design standards ordinance for adoption before SB 79 takes effect on July 1, 2026; and
 Amend the professional services agreement with De Novo to increase funding in order to complete land use analysis related to SB 79.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
This report serves as an opportunity to provide information on the status of SB 79 and options available to the City. An email blast was sent to all of the Long Range Planning outreach list members (over 850+ members, including HOA and community group representatives) regarding this SB 79 presentation. If a TOD alternative plan is pursued, additional stakeholder outreach will be conducted as part of that project.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund associated with future implementation of and development under SB 79 is currently unknown.

At this time, the primary identified fiscal impact is a proposed contract amendment for SB 79-related work by De Novo, to be funded with a combination of Planning General Funds and Measure M funds. Because De Novo is already under contract with the City to prepare the updated Land Use and Mobility Elements, the new Environmental Justice Element, and the associated environmental review, $100,000 from the planning General Fund is appropriated for the contract amendment. The remaining $32,481.00 is funded through Measure M funds, as the Traffic Demand Model and Traffic Operations Analysis as well as the Draft Mobility Element and Draft EIR must be revised to address SB 79.

De Novo’s scope of work and associated fee are outlined in Exhibit “8.” Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$100,000 GL: 43110-1010-CDD-2500 Planning General Fund
Department Cost Center Program
Community
Development
Planning
$32,481 GL: 43110-2220-PWD-0020
PL: 52103
Measure M Local Return
Fund
Department Cost Center Program
Public Works Projects
Additional costs may be incurred if a TOD Alternative Plan is pursued, due to the substantial analysis required, including environmental review and subsequent rezoning.

Exhibit 2 - March 3, 2026 Council Report and Motion
556 of 1278

10d 15
26-89630
6 6
6 1
Indirect costs associated with pursuing a TOD Alternative Plan, adopting a local ordinance, or taking other related actions may include staff reprioritization, delays to ongoing planning efforts, and impacts to core planning services.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
No environmental review is required in conjunction with this staff report, which provides information regarding local implications of SB 79. It has no potential for resulting in a direct or indirect physical change to the environment and falls outside the definition of a “project” under the CEQA and is therefore not subject to CEQA pursuant to Section 15378 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. The additional development potential related to SB 79 cab be analyzed as part of the Draft EIR updates for the Draft Land Use, Mobility, and Environmental Justice Elements.

As noted in this report, the City of Burbank sent LA Metro a letter requesting LA Metro, as the CEQA lead agency for the BRT, prepare a subsequent environmental review to Metro’s 2022 Final EIR on the BRT, to determine the impact around any SB 79 BRT TOD stops in Burbank. Glendale may consider sending Metro a similar request.

Subsequent environmental review of a project for which an EIR has been certified is required when (i) substantial changes are proposed in the project, (ii) substantial changes occur in the circumstances in which the project is being undertaken, or (iii) new information of substantial importance to the project that was not known at the time of the EIR certification becomes known, and these substantial changes or new information will create new significant impacts or increase the severity of impacts previously identified in the EIR.

Environmental review in compliance with State and Local CEQA Guidelines will be conducted as part of any approvals of a delayed effectuation ordinance, TOD alternative plan, Objective Design Standards ordinance, or any other discretionary approval associated with this process.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
In accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance, the following are names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with 10% interest or more in the company proposed for the professional services agreement amendment in this Agenda Item Report. See Exhibit 9.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. The City Council may:
a. Select not to address SB 79 with any local action and allow the legislation to take full effect on July 1, 2026.
b. Direct staff to prepare a local ordinance, proposing new zoning and objective design standards in affected areas for adoption as soon as possible. c. Direct staff to prepare a TOD alternative plan including intensive site-by-site analysis of the affected areas for adoption prior to one year after the 7th cycle Housing Element is certified.

Exhibit 2 - March 3, 2026 Council Report and Motion
557 of 1278

10d 16
26-89630
6 6
6 1

2. The City Council may propose any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Bradley Calvert, Director of Community Development
Prepared by:

Teresa Santilena, Principal Planner
Vilia Zemaitaitis, Deputy Director of Long Range Planning Gillian van Muyden, Chief Assistant City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Full text of SB 79

2. Detailed map of SB 79 affected parcels around the Larry Zarian Glendale Transit Center.

3. Letter from LA Metro in response to City of Glendale’s inquiry into the status of the proposed BRT

4. April 23, 2025 and July 2, 2025 letters in opposition to SB 79 and official veto request from the City to Governor Gavin Newsom

5. January 8, 2026 letter in opposition to SB 677 from the City to the Chair of the Senate Local Government Committee

6. Letter from the City of Burbank to LA Metro requesting LA Metro prepare a subsequent environmental review to Metro’s 2022 Final EIR on the BRT, to determine the impact around any SB 79 BRT TOD stops in Burbank.

7. Map of parcels that may be excluded from SB 79 surrounding the GTC.

8. De Novo’s Contract Amendment Proposal for SB 79 Analysis Assistance and Associated Updates to the Draft EIR.

9. Campaign Finance Disclosure.

Exhibit 2 - March 3, 2026 Council Report and Motion
558 of 1278

Exhibit 2 - March 3, 2026 Council Report and Motion
559 of 1278

Exhibit 3 - SCAG's Draft SB79 Map
560 of 1278

Exhibit 4 - SB 79 Exclusion Map of VHFSZ Properties
561 of 1278

Exhbit 5 - SB 79 Exclusion Map of Historic Register Properties 562 of 1278

10b
25-87851

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Dispense with Competitive Bidding for Integrated Library System Services

1. Resolution to dispense with competitive bidding and authorize the Deputy Director of Finance-Purchasing to issue a service authorization to Innovative Interfaces Incorporated for integrated library system services, in a not to exceed amount of $107,230 for one year.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for June 9, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Innovative Interfaces Incorporated has been the Glendale Library vendor for integrated library system services for the last ten years. Industry standard is to change ILS platforms at minimum every 10 years. Most libraries often keep their systems for 20 years or more.

Library, Arts & Culture Department wishes to dispense with competitive bidding for Integrated Library System Services for one year to complete vendor selection and potential implementation of a new system by the end of the one-year contract extension date of June 30, 2027.
563 of 1278

10b2
25-87851
6 8
6 0

RECOMMENDATION
Approve Resolution to dispense with competitive bidding and authorize the Deputy Director of Finance-Purchasing to issue a service authorization to Innovative Interfaces Incorporated for Integrated Library System services.

ANALYSIS
On August 21, 2014, Innovative Interfaces Incorporated (III) and the cities of Glendale and Pasadena entered into a three-way, five-year contract (SIERRA Subscription Agreement) for III to provide the two cities with an Integrated Library System (ILS) via Software as a Service (SaaS). After the expiration of the five-year term, the contract allows for automatic annual renewals, each renewal for a twelve-month period.

III’s services began on June 1, 2015, and has been extended multiple times to end June 30, 2026. Currently, Glendale Library, Arts & Culture wishes to dispense with competitive bidding and continue ILS services for one year. During that year, vendor selection and potential migration to and implementation of a new system will be completed.

All modern libraries have an ILS and no modern library can function without one. The ILS manages all item holdings, customer registration, patron account activity, and online resources. It is the library’s main Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system, beyond the City’s Tyler-Munis ERP system which, like all City departments, Library, Arts & Culture also uses.

The Library recognizes that it has not conducted a RFP for a new ILS in ten years.

Industry standard is to change ILS platforms at minimum every 10 years, but most libraries keep their systems for 20 years or more. The Finance Department’s Purchasing Division recommended to dispense with competitive bidding to initiate and conduct an RFP with vendor selection expected to be completed by August 14, 2026.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
As a background system, the ILS is utilized by the over 95,000 library card holders to access their accounts, physical and online materials, and place holds.

FISCAL IMPACT
III ILS via SaaS and Link+ will cost $107,230 for one year. The full amount has been included as part of the proposed FY 2026-27 budget. No new appropriation is being requested at this time.

Proposed FY 2026-27 Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$ 107,230 44700-1010-LAC-6009-P4123 General Fund
564 of 1278

10b3
25-87851
6 8
6 0

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
CEQA does not apply to projects where the lead agency determines "with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment." CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.) § 15061(b)(3). Here, the project consists of software services and there is no possibility that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The Campaign Disclosure Statement is attached as Exhibit 1.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1) The City Council may deny the request to issue contract with III. If the request is denied, Library, Arts & Culture will be unable to manage any item holdings, register customers, provide patron’s access to their account activity, or access online resources. 2) The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Lessa Pelayo-Lozada, Director of Library, Arts & Culture Prepared by:

Michael Hahn, Principal Administrator, Library, Arts & Culture Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
565 of 1278

1 4
2 6
3 RESOLUTION NO. __________________

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, TO

DISPENSE WITH COMPETITIVE BIDDING AND AUTHORIZING THE DEPUTY

DIRECTOR OF FINANCE-PURCHASING TO ISSUE A SERVICE AUTHORIZATION

TO INNOVATIVE INTERFACES INCORPORATED FOR INTEGRATED LIBRARY

SYSTEM SERVICES
WHEREAS, the Library, Arts and Culture Department (LAC) currently utilizes Innovative Interfaces Incorporated (III) for integrated library systems services; and WHEREAS, Innovative Interfaces Incorporated has been the Glendale Library vendor for integrated library system services for the last ten years, and while industry standard is to change Integrated Library System (ILS) platforms at minimum every 10 years, most libraries often keep their systems for 20 years or more; and WHEREAS, Glendale’s Library cannot function without an ILS because the ILS manages all item holdings, customer registration, patron account activity, and online resources; and
WHEREAS, Library, Arts & Culture Department wishes to dispense with competitive bidding for Integrated Library System Services for one year to conduct a Request for Proposals (RFP) with a new recommendation to come before the City Council by the end of the one-year contract date of June 30, 2027; and
WHEREAS, it is in the City’s best interest to dispense with competitive bidding because it will provide staff time to conduct a RFP and successfully implement a new system if a new vendor and/or system are chosen; and
WHEREAS, Council can determine it is in the best interest of the City to dispense with competitive bidding.

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

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

2. The Council hereby dispenses with competitive bidding and authorizes the Deputy Director of Finance – Purchasing to issue a service authorization to Innovative Interfaces Incorporated for integrated Library Services in a not to exceed amount of $107,230 for one year.
566 of 1278

1 4
2 6
3 Adopted this ___________________ day of ___________________________, 2024. ____________________
Mayor
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 No. ______________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the ____ day of ______, 2025, and that same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
____________________
City Clerk
567 of 1278

568 of 1278

569 of 1278

10c
26-90142

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Updates to Public Agenda Process and Amendment to City Council Meeting Procedures Related to Remote Public Participation as Mandated by S.B. 707

1. Motion to Note and File

2. Resolution Amending and Restating the Rules of Order, Procedure and Decorum For the Conduct of City Council Meetings to Incorporate Remote Public Access Disruption Policy

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for June 9, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Senate Bill 707 (SB 707), effective July 1, 2026, expands public access and participation requirements for certain local legislative bodies, including the Glendale City Council. The law mandates that City Council meetings provide continuous two-way remote participation through audiovisual or telephonic platforms whenever technically feasible, allowing remote attendees the same opportunity to provide public comment as in-person participants. To comply, Glendale plans to utilize Zoom Webinar for Council meetings and adopt a Remote Public Access Disruption Policy that establishes procedures for handling internet or telephonic outages. Under the proposed policy, meetings will recess while staff attempts to restore service, with specific requirements governing whether a meeting may continue if remote access cannot be restored.

SB 707 also introduces new language access and transparency requirements. Beginning July 1, 2026, City Council agendas must be translated into any language meeting statutory thresholds based on census data; for Glendale, Armenian is currently the only language that qualifies. The City must also provide translated instructions for remote participation, maintain multilingual online meeting resources, and publicize available translation and interpretation assistance.

In addition, SB 707 requires cities to strengthen public engagement efforts, particularly among non-English-speaking and historically underrepresented communities. Glendale will continue to maintain accessible online meeting resources, electronic systems for agenda requests, and a dedicated public meetings webpage. The City’s Communications team will implement a comprehensive outreach strategy using websites, social media, 570 of 1278

10c2
26-90142
6 8
5 9
newsletters, GTV6, media partnerships, and community organizations to increase awareness of public meetings and participation opportunities. Outreach will specifically target local and regional media outlets, ethnic media, neighborhood associations, faith- based groups, cultural organizations, and organizations serving immigrant, youth, senior, and non-English-speaking populations, helping ensure broader and more inclusive civic engagement.
571 of 1278

10c2
26-90142
6 8
5 9
572 of 1278

10c3
26-90142
6 8
5 9

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council note and file this report and adopt the Amended and Restated Rules of Order, Procedure and Decorum for the Conduct of City Council Meetings to incorporate a Remote Public Access Disruption Policy as mandated by SB 707.

ANALYSIS
Senate Bill 707 amends the Ralph M. Brown Act to establish new requirements for specified local legislative bodies (“eligible legislative bodies”), which includes the governing bodies of cities with a population of 30,000 or more in counties with a population of 600,000 or more, such as the Glendale City Council. The operative provisions of SB 707 become effective on July 1, 2026, and are intended to expand public access to local agency meetings, modernize remote participation requirements, and encourage greater public engagement.

Public Remote Participation/Remote Disruption Policy
Effective July 1, 2026, SB 707 requires eligible legislative bodies to provide two-way remote public access to meetings unless adequate telephonic or internet service is not operational at the meeting location. This access may be provided through either a two- way audiovisual platform or a two-way telephonic service. Members of the public must be able to attend and participate in the meeting via two-way audio-visual platform or two-way telephonic service. Members of the public must also be provided the opportunity to offer public comment remotely with the same time allotment as individuals attending in person.

This service will be required for all meetings involving the City Council, including regular meetings, special meetings (including City Hall in Your Neighborhood meetings), and joint meetings. Two-way audiovisual or telephonic public access is not required for the City’s boards and commissions.

The City currently allows members of the public to call in remotely for City Council meetings to provide public comment. SB 707 expands this framework by requiring continuous two-way remote access during City Council meetings when technically feasible. To implement this requirement, staff intend to utilize Zoom Webinar for remote public participation at City Council meetings.

SB 707 also requires the City Council to adopt a policy addressing disruptions to telephonic or internet service that prevent members of the public from participating remotely. The policy must be adopted at a noticed public meeting in open session and may not be adopted on the consent calendar.

The proposed City Council Remote Public Access Disruption Policy, proposed as a revision to the Council’s meeting rules and procedures (Exhibit 1), establishes procedures for responding to a disruption in the City’s remote public access services during City 573 of 1278

10c4
26-90142
6 8
5 9
Council meetings. In summary, the policy provides that if a disruption prevents members of the public from participating remotely, the Mayor or City Clerk will announce the disruption, the City Council will recess the open session, and staff will make good faith efforts to restore remote access. The recess must last at least one hour or until service is restored, whichever occurs first.

If service is restored before or at the time the meeting reconvenes, the meeting may continue as normal. If service is not restored after one hour, the City Council may either adjourn the meeting or continue the meeting by roll call vote after finding that good faith efforts were made to restore service and that the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote public access.

The policy also provides for documentation of the disruption, restoration efforts, the time the meeting reconvened, and any findings adopted by the City Council.

Agenda Translation Requirements
Beginning July 1, 2026, Council agendas (but not the agenda packets) must be translated into “applicable languages” - languages, according to data from the most recent the U.S. Census’ American Community Survey (ACS), spoken by 20 percent or more of the applicable population, provided that 20 percent or more of the population that speaks that language at home speaks English less than “very well.” Under ACS data applicable to Glendale, Armenian is an applicable language under SB 707 standards. Thus, effective July 1, 2026, agendas will be translated into Armenian. No other languages satisfy the SB 707 20% threshold.

As required by SB 707, the City will also comply with the following:
The agenda web portal will include instructions in English and Armenian describing how to join the meeting by Zoom, including any requirements for registration for public comment;
The City Council’s accessible internet webpage will be translated into Armenian (in fact, the City’s agenda web portal contains a drop-down menu with multiple languages that satisfies this requirement); and
The City will make available a physical location that is freely accessible to the public in reasonable proximity to the physical location in which the agenda and translations are posted as described above and shall allow members of the public to post additional translations of the agenda in that location (the City will institute a policy requiring anyone wishing to submit and post translated agendas to submit them to the Clerk for posting).
574 of 1278

10c5
26-90142
6 8
5 9
Translation and Interpretation
SB 707 also requires cities to reasonably assist members of the public seeking to provide or receive translation or interpretation. Cities must publicize how to request assistance but are not required to provide interpretation services directly. Since the City provides Armenian and Spanish translators at regular Council meetings, it will publicize their availability on the agenda web portal as well as the ability of members of the public to arrange for their own translators. If the Council desires, the City could also identify other translation resources on its agenda portal. The City will not be legally responsible for the content or accuracy of any interpretation facilitated, assisted or provided.

Staff is also evaluating AI-enabled translation and interpretation tools that may be used to augment the City’s existing live translation services and improve language access for public meetings. Any use of these tools would be reviewed for accuracy, reliability, accessibility, and compliance with applicable legal requirements prior to implementation.

Reasonable Efforts to Encourage Public Participation
Effective July 1, 2026, SB 707 will require eligible legislative bodies to maintain accessible online resources related to public meetings and make reasonable efforts to encourage participation from underrepresented and non-English-speaking communities.

First, the City must have in place a system for electronically accepting and fulfilling requests for meeting agendas and documents through email or through an integrated agenda management platform, and; must provide information about how to make a request using this system shall be accessible through a prominent direct link posted on the primary internet website home page of the eligible legislative body (the City’s current integrated agenda platform satisfies these requirements).

Second, in compliance with SB 707, the City maintains an accessible internet webpage dedicated to public meetings that includes (or will be updated to include) all of the following information:
A general explanation of the public meeting process for the Council An explanation of the procedures for a member of the public to provide in-person or remote oral public comment during a Council meeting or to submit written public comment
A calendar of all public meeting dates of the legislative body with calendar listings that include the date, time, and location of each public meeting The agenda posted online, and
A link to the webpage on the home page of the eligible legislative body's internet website
575 of 1278

10c6
26-90142
6 8
5 9
Third, the City Council must make reasonable efforts, as determined by the Council, to invite groups that do not traditionally participate in public meetings to attend those meetings, which may include, but are not limited to, all the following:
Media organizations that provide news coverage in the jurisdiction of the eligible legislative body, including media organizations that serve non-English-speaking communities
Good government, civil rights, civic engagement, neighborhood, and community group organizations, or similar organizations that are active in Glendale, including organizations active in non-English-speaking communities The City has broad discretion in the choice of reasonable efforts it makes and there will be no civil liability against the City arising from failing to provide public meeting information to any specific group.

The City’s Communications team will implement these efforts. The City’s 2026 Communication Guide identifies opportunities to incorporate SB 707-related meeting access information across a variety of communication channels. These channels include the City website, agenda webpages, social media platforms, newsletters, GTV6, media advisories, and community outreach lists. Staff has also identified media and community-based organizations that may assist in sharing public meeting information with non-English-speaking residents and underrepresented communities.

The City’s Communication Guide provides best practices for outreach efforts. It emphasizes the importance of clear public messaging, proactive outreach, use of multiple channels, coordination with community partners, and ensuring appropriate language access for residents who may not traditionally participate in City meetings.

The guide aims to support consistent, transparent, accessible, and multilingual public information.

The intended recipients of these communications include broader segments of the community, with a focus on non-English-speaking residents and underrepresented populations. Outreach will be extended through local and regional media outlets, ethnic media, community organizations, cultural and faith-based groups, neighborhood and civic organizations, as well as organizations serving seniors, youth, and those active in Glendale’s non-English-speaking communities.
576 of 1278

10c7
26-90142
6 8
5 9
Outreach to Media Organizations
The City Manager’s Office and Communications & Community Relations Division will incorporate SB 707-related public meeting information into the City’s existing media relations process.

This will include maintaining and periodically updating media outreach lists that include:

1. Local media organizations covering Glendale;

2. Regional media organizations covering Los Angeles County;

3. Armenian-language media;

4. Spanish-language media;

5. Korean-language media;

6. Tagalog-language media; and

7. Other media organizations serving communities represented in Glendale.

Outreach to Community Organizations
The City Manager’s Office, Communications & Community Relations Division, and relevant Departments will also coordinate outreach to community-based organizations active in Glendale. These organizations may include:

1. Neighborhood associations;

2. Civic organizations;

3. Faith-based organizations;

4. Cultural organizations;

5. Senior-serving organizations;

6. Youth-serving organizations;

7. Business organizations;

8. Community service organizations; and

9. Organizations serving immigrant, non-English-speaking, and underrepresented communities/
Outreach activities may include meeting participation guides, translated informational materials, website content, social media posts, newsletters, GTV6 announcements, and direct email distribution to community partners.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
See discussion above regarding outreach to media organizations and community organizations.
577 of 1278

10c8
26-90142
6 8
5 9

FISCAL IMPACT
The City intends to utilize Zoom Webinar to provide two-way remote public access for City Council meetings. The annual cost of the Zoom Webinar licenses is approximately $15,000 and will be absorbed within existing appropriations for the IT Department. Any additional costs related to implementation are also expected to be absorbed within existing appropriations at this time.

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$15,000 GL: 43110-6040-ISD-5502-P0000- ITD Applications Fund Department Cost Center Program
Information
Technology
Application Support

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This activity involves organizational and administrative activities of the government related to requirements for city council meetings, and such internal procedural changes have no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. As such, this action is not a “project” subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 14 Cal. Code Regs § 15378.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1. The Council is required by law to adopt a Public Access Remote Disruption Policy.

The Council may provide additional direction it deems appropriate relative to the other aspects of this Report.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Prepared by:

Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Jason Bradford, Chief Information Officer
Tom Lorenz, Communications Director
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
578 of 1278

10c9
26-90142
6 8
5 9

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Redlined Changes to Council Rules of Order, Procedure and Decorum for the Conduct of City Council Meetings to Incorporate a Remote Public Access Disruption Policy as Mandated by SB 707
579 of 1278

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________________, that the Council hereby notes and files the Report to Council dated June 9, 2026 regarding Updates to Public Agenda Process and Amendment to City Council Meeting Procedures Related to Remote Public Participation as Mandated by S.B. 707.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Abstain:

Absent:
580 of 1278

1 1
4 3
9 7
RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

AMENDING AND RESTATING THE RULES OF ORDER, PROCEDURE AND

DECORUM FOR THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS TO INCORPORATE A REMOTE PUBLIC ACCESS DISRUPTION POLICY AS MANDATED BY SB 707 WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Glendale (“Charter”) authorizes the Council of the City of Glendale, California (“Council”) to establish rules for its proceedings; WHEREAS, the City has from time-to-time established rules for its proceedings in ordinances, resolutions and motions;
WHEREAS, the Council adopted Resolution No. 25-76 on June 3, 2025 adopting procedural rules for the conduct of Council meetings in a single document for facilitation of use and reference;
WHEREAS, the Council adopted Resolution No. 26-15 amending and restating its Rules of Order, Procedure and Decorum for the Conduct of City Council Meetings to move “Council Future Agenda Requests” to the afternoon portion of the Council’s regular meetings; and
WHEREAS, the Council now desires to amend and restate the Rules of Order, Procedure and Decorum to incorporate a Public Access Remote Disruption Policy as mandated SB 707’s amendments to the Ralph M. Brown Act.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA THAT the following rules shall govern the conduct of meetings of the Glendale City Council and related bodies:

1.TITLE AND APPLICABILITY. These Amended and Restated Council Rules of Order, Procedure and Decorum (“Rules”) shall govern the conduct of all Council meetings, unless prohibited, preempted or superseded by federal, state, or local law. To the extent a matter is not covered by these Rules, the procedures of the Council shall be governed by the latest revised edition of Robert's Rules of Order.

Robert's Rules of Order shall be subordinate to all applicable laws and these Rules to the extent they are inconsistent. These Rules also apply to the Housing Authority, the Council sitting as another body, such as the Successor Agency, and joint meetings of the Council and the other bodies.

2.DAY AND TIME OF REGULAR MEETINGS. As set forth in Glendale Municipal Code (“GMC”) Section 2.04.010, the Council shall hold its regular meetings on Tuesday of each and every week, provided, that should any such Tuesday fall upon a legal holiday, the Council shall meet at the same hour as set forth in this section upon the next day thereafter, which is not a legal holiday. The Council may amend the meeting calendar to add or delete a regular Council meeting. The regular business agenda for regular meetings shall commence at 6:00 p.m. while Discussion of Councilmember 581 of 1278

2 1
4 3
9 7
Future Agenda Requests and Closed Session shall commence at 1:00 p.m. (or later than 1:00 p.m. if so stated on the agenda).

3.SPECIAL MEETINGS. Special meetings of the Council may be held at any time upon the call of the Mayor or upon the call of three (3) of the members of the Council. Notice of any such meeting shall be given to all of the members of the Council by service on each Council member at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the time fixed for holding such meeting of a written notice signed either by the Presiding Officer or the members of the Council making such call and specifying the business to be considered at the special meeting. Such service shall be sufficient if delivery of a copy of the notice is made to the office or usual address of the Council member. If a Council member is out of the City, service may be made by facsimile or email transmission if receipt is acknowledged. Notice of such meeting will be deemed received by any councilmember who attends said special meeting.

4.ORDER OF BUSINESS – REGULAR MEETINGS; DESCRIPTIONS.

A. Order. Business on the regular meeting agenda shall be taken up for consideration and disposition in the following order:

1. Discussion of Councilmember Future Agenda Requests – 1:00 p.m. (or at a later time as designated on the agenda);

2. Closed Session – 1:00 p.m. (or at a later time as designated on the agenda);

3. Regular Business Agenda – 6:00 p.m.;
a. Flag Salute;
b. Invocation;
c. Report of the City Clerk Regarding Posting of the Agenda;

4. Presentations and Appointments;

5. Consent Items (Including Minutes);

6. City Council/Staff Comments;

7. Community Event Announcements;

8. First Period of Oral Communications;

9. Adoption of Ordinances;

10. Action Items;

11. Hearings;

12. Reports – Information only;

13. Written Communications;

14. Second Period of Oral Communications;

15. New Business; and

16. Adjournment
B. Adjustment of Order by Presiding Officer. The foregoing order of business may be altered in any instance at the discretion of the Presiding Officer 582 of 1278

3 1
4 3
9 7
C. Description of Specified Agenda Categories in the Order of Business.

1. Closed Session. Closed sessions of the Council are held at 1 p.m. (or such later time as designated on the agenda) on regular meeting dates. Prior to holding such closed sessions, the Council shall convene in open session for the limited purpose of receiving public comments on the closed session items. Closed sessions may also be held at other times as determined and ordered by the Council, or as otherwise called, as provided by law. Matters required to be reported out of closed session under the Brown Act will be reported out under New Business.

2. Consent Calendar. Consent calendar agenda items are routine and may be acted upon by one motion. Any member of the Council or the public requesting separate consideration may do so by making such request before a motion is proposed.

A member of the public wishing to speak on a consent calendar item must submit a speaker card or call in prior to the making of the motion.

3. Council/staff comments. This an opportunity for Councilmembers to make brief comments or announcements such as regarding community events they attended, to announce board or commission nominees or request items for future agendas. Councilmembers will also use this opportunity to make brief reports on conferences, seminars and regional meetings attended. Staff may make announcements such as for upcoming community events or programs. Comments must be brief and no discussion or action may be taken on this item.

4. Community event announcements. Members of the public will be permitted to announce upcoming events happening in the community. Members of the public speaking under “Community event announcements” may speak up to 3 minutes per speaker.

5. Hearings. The speaking length of presentations by the Applicant(s), Appellant(s), and other members of the public during public hearings shall be determined by the Presiding Officer prior to the commencement of the first presentation, taking into account requests of the parties, the length of the agenda, the number of speakers, and the complexity of the matter is the subject of the hearing. The Presiding Officer may permit Appellant(s) and Applicant(s) to have additional rebuttal time. The total time limit approved by the Presiding Officer for the Applicant and Appellant to make their presentations shall be the aggregate for all speakers or other presentations on behalf of the Applicant or Appellant at the hearing.

6. First Period of Oral Communications. Members of the public will be permitted to address the Council during the First Period of Oral Communications on matters either on the agenda or not on the agenda but within the Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. If a member of the public addresses the Council on a matter on the agenda during the First Period of Oral Communications, then the member of the public may not do so when the agendized matter is called. If a member of the public addresses Council on a matter not on the agenda during the First Period of Oral Communications, then he or she may not speak during Second Period of Oral Communications. The First Period 583 of 1278

4 1
4 3
9 7
of Oral Communications shall be limited to 30 minutes of speaking time in the aggregate.

Individual speakers addressing the Council during First Period of Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes unless that time is reduced by the Presiding Officer, taking into account the number of speakers wishing to speak during the First Period of Oral Communications.

7. Second Period of Oral Communications. Members of the public will be permitted to address the Council during the Second Period of Oral Communication, only on matters not on the agenda. Members of the public who speak on non-agenda items during the First Period of Oral Communications will not be permitted to speak during the Second Period of Oral Communications. Speaking time for Second Period of Oral Communications shall be three (3) minutes per speaker.

8. Written communications. Under the order of business heading "written communications," all persons interested, or their authorized representatives, may address the council in regard to any written protest, petition or communication which has been placed on the agenda by the city clerk and is then being considered by the council.

5.MAYOR, PRESIDING OFFICER. The Mayor, or in the Mayor’s absence, the Mayor Pro Tem, shall be the Presiding Officer and at the hour appointed for the meeting shall call the Council to order. In the absence of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, the Councilmember next in rotation as Mayor Pro Tem shall call the Council to order and shall act as the temporary Presiding Officer. Upon the arrival of the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem, the temporary Presiding Officer shall immediately relinquish the chair upon the conclusion of the business immediately before the Council.

The Presiding Officer shall preserve order at all meetings of the Council. The Presiding Officer shall decide all questions of order, subject, however, to an appeal to the Council, in which event a majority vote of the Council shall govern and conclusively determine such questions of order.

6.ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL.

A. Submission of Request to Speak. Speaker cards must be submitted, prior to the commencement of the Community Event Announcement and First and Second Periods of Oral Communication for a speaker to be able to speak during one of those periods, which requirement may be waived at the Presiding Officer’s discretion. Members of the public intending to speak on an agenda item when that item is called must submit a speaker card prior to the completion of the staff report, if any, on the item, which requirement may be waived at the Presiding Officer’s discretion. Effective July 1, 2026, members of the public participating via two-way audio visual platform, e.g. Zoom, must request to address the Council by using the hand raise feature (or press *9 if calling in telephonically) when the announcement for doing so is made by the Presiding Officer or City Clerk but not later than the time an in-person speaker would be required to submit a speaker card as set forth above.

B. Manner of Addressing Council. Each person addressing the Council 584 of 1278

5 1
4 3
9 7
shall, when his or her name is called, approach the microphone at the podium and shall limit his or her comments to the subjects and to such time as is allowed by these Rules or as designated by the Presiding Officer. All remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any member thereof, the staff, or members of the public. No person, other than the Council and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the Council, without the permission of the Presiding Officer. No question shall be asked of a Councillmember except through the Presiding Officer.

C. Points of Order Regarding Public Speakers. The Presiding Officer, any Councilmember, or the City Attorney may interrupt a speaker to raise a Point of Order if it is the contention of the Presiding Officer, Council Member or City Attorney that the speaker is addressing items that are outside the specified subjects for that item. The Presiding Officer shall rule on such Point of Order, which decision may be appealed by any Councilmember to the full Council. Upon the decision by the Presiding Officer, or by the Council upon appeal, that a speaker is addressing items that are outside the specified subjects for that period of Public Comments, the speaker shall, if time remains, be allowed to continue speaking on items within the specified subjects for that period of public comments. Any speaker who refuses to limit his or her comments to items within the specified subjects for that period of public comments may be declared out of order and be subject to the loss of the remaining time to speak and, if necessary, removal from the chambers as specified in these Rules.

D. Ceding Time. Except as set forth herein, the speaking time contained in these Rules are personal, and may not be shared with other speakers.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, one member of the public may cede his or her speaking time to one other member of the public provided both the person ceding time and the person receiving time are in the Council chambers, have submitted speaker cards and are identified by name. A member of the public may receive no more than one other person’s ceded time.

E. Maximum Speaking Limits. Maximum speaking time for members of the public for Community Event Announcements and First and Second Periods of Oral Communications are set forth in Section 4(C) of these Rules. Maximum speaking times for other agenda items, including closed session, consent items, and action items are set at the discretion of the Mayor.

F. Responses to Public Comment. In response to public comments offered during Community Event Announcements or the First or Second Periods of Oral Communications, Councilmembers, the City Manager and/or the City Attorney may question or briefly respond to the speaker but there will be no debate or decision. The City Manager may refer the matter to the appropriate department for investigation and report. Response to public comment on an agendized matter can be made during discussion of the matter.

7.RULES OF COUNCIL DEBATE AND DELIBERATION.

A. Every Councilmember desiring to speak shall address the Presiding 585 of 1278

6 1
4 3
9 7
Officer, and, upon recognition, shall confine himself or herself to the question under debate, avoiding all personal comments and indecorous language.

B. A Councilmember, once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless a Point of Order is raised. If a Point of Order is raised while a Councilmember is speaking, he or she shall cease speaking until the Point of Order is decided by the Presiding Officer (subject to appeal to the full Council). Being out of order shall include, but shall not be limited to, exceeding any speaking time limit established by the Council.

C. During Council deliberation on an agenda item (except for “Discussion of Councilmember Future Agenda Requests” – see below), each Councilmember shall be permitted to speak on the item before a Councilmember gets another opportunity to speak on the item. Each Councilmember shall have up to five (5) minutes to speak on the item in the initial round of deliberations. After the initial round of deliberation, each Councilmember shall have up to three (3) minutes to speak on the item. The Presiding Officer may waive or extend these time limits, sua sponte or upon the request of a Councilmember made before deliberation begins, giving consideration to the complexity or controversy of the item, and upon the length of the remainder of the agenda. There shall be no limitation on the number of rounds of deliberation, unless a Councilmember calls the question (moves to end debate) and that motion is passed.

Speaking time during deliberation does not include questions posed by Councilmembers.

D. For Council deliberation on whether to approve a Councilmember request to direct staff to prepare a report for a future agenda under Item 13 of the regular meeting agenda, the requesting Councilmember shall have up to two (2) minutes to present his or her reasons for the request. The other Councilmembers may ask questions for clarification and then the Council will take a vote whether to direct staff to prepare a report for a future agenda. There will be no other debate or deliberation on the item. The Presiding Officer can waive this limitation.

8.RULES OF DECORUM AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

A. The Council is a limited public forum for the purpose of facilitating public comment to the Council on agenda matters and matters within the Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, members of the public shall comply with the rules set forth below in this Section 8.

1. Speakers must cease speaking immediately when their speaking time has ended.

2. Public comment on agenda items must relate to the subject matter of that item.

3. The “Oral Communications” agenda items are limited to matters within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction.
586 of 1278

7 1
4 3
9 7

4. Members of the public attending the meeting may not speak without first being recognized by the Mayor or Presiding Officer. When called to address the Council, speakers must address the Council from the podium and speak into the microphone.

5. Members of the public shall direct comments to the body as a whole or the Presiding Officer, and not to staff, individual members of the body, or the public.

6. No person shall be permitted to interrupt members of the body, staff presentations, or members of the public who are at the microphone during a meeting.

7. Yelling, screaming or shouting from the audience is not permitted.

Threatening, abusive or loud language, chatting, booing, hissing, speaking out of turn, clapping, or cheering in a manner that disturbs, disrupts or impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting is not permitted.

8. Signs, placards, banners/flags, props or similar items larger than 8.5 x 11, illuminated, or attached to any pole, stick or other device are prohibited in the Council chambers.

9. Noisemakers of any kind are prohibited in the Council chambers.

B. Enforcement of Public Participation Protocols. These Rules will be enforced as described below.

1. The Presiding Officer will provide at least one warning to a speaker that is being disruptive. The Presiding Officer will explain the conduct that is disruptive, and what will be the consequence of failing to abide by the warning, e.g. that the speaker will be terminated from speaking or removed from Chambers.

2. After providing at least one (1) verbal warning, if an individual continues to speak in violation of an order to cease speaking (e.g. is off-topic or has exceed the allotted time) or is otherwise disrupting the proceedings, the Presiding Officer may order the individual to be removed from chambers. When providing the warning, the Presiding Officer will explain the conduct that is disruptive, and what will be the consequence of failing to abide by the warning, e.g. that the individual may be removed from the Council chambers. Before ordering the sergeant-at-arms to remove a disruptive individual pursuant to the authority of Glendale Municipal Code section 2.04.120, the Presiding Officer will give the disruptive individual the opportunity to leave chambers voluntarily.

3. Warnings are not required for use of force or true threats of force.

9.LENGTH OF MEETINGS. Regular meetings of the Council shall end no later than 11:00 p.m., unless such meetings are extended by the affirmative vote of at least three (3) Council members and Council confers with the City Manager to review the status of the remaining items to determine the best manner to proceed. 587 of 1278

8 1
4 3
9 7
Notwithstanding the 11:00 p.m. cutoff, if an item is in the midst of being heard or considered at the cutoff time of 11:00 p.m., it can be completed prior to continuing the remaining items. If at the conclusion of a Council meeting agenda items remain to be considered, such items are automatically continued until the next regular meeting unless otherwise directed by the Council. Additionally, the meeting shall not be adjourned until completion of the Second Period of Oral Communications and New Business (closed session reporting out).

10.PLACEMENT OF MATTERS ON AGENDA; TIMING
A. General Policy. At a Council meeting, an individual councilmember may request that a matter be placed on a future agenda. Said matter shall be placed on the next regular meeting agenda under Agenda Item 1: “Discussion of Councilmember Future Agenda Requests.” At said regular Council meeting, Council will decide whether to place the matter on a subsequent agenda in accordance with the procedure in Section 7(D) of these Rules. The Council may, with three (3) affirmative votes, direct staff to prepare a report on the matter for Council consideration and action. The timing of the placement of that matter on a future agenda shall be in accordance with subsection (B) of this Section 10 of these Rules. In the case of requests for support or opposition to any action or omission by any international, national, state, or local government agency, or any letter of support for any community event or organization, the Council may approve said action under Item 1 under the agenda without a further report to Council.

B. Timing. The Mayor shall have the discretion to control the timing of the placement on future agendas. The Mayor shall work with the City Manager regarding the timing of the placement of matters on future agendas taking into account the need to act on a matter within a certain timeframe and the overall workload of City staff. The Council may direct the timing of the placement of an item on a future agenda only by a majority vote of the membership of the Council (three affirmative votes).

C. City Manager Role. This Section 10 pertains to the ability of individual Councilmembers’ ability to request placement of matters on future agendas.

The City Manager is authorized to place matters on the agenda after consultation with the Mayor. Other than with respect to timing, this Section 10 does not govern matters that the Council is legally required to consider at a Council meeting or matters that the City Manager must place on the agenda to facilitate the normal affairs or governance of the City. The City Manager shall also have the authority to place a report on a Council agenda to provide basic information regarding a matter and seek Council input and direction as to whether to prepare a more detailed and/or substantive report on the matter for future Council consideration.

D. Items for Reconsideration or Rescission. To ensure finality of decisions made unless a member in the prevailing side wishes to reconsider, motions to reconsider or rescind a prior action must be made by a councilmember who voted on the prevailing side (whether it was approved or defeated). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Robert’s Rules of Order, an exception to this Rule is if the 588 of 1278

9 1
4 3
9 7
Councilmember was not a member of the Council at the time the decision was made.

Further, anything to the contrary in Robert’s Rules of Order notwithstanding, motions to reconsider need not be made at the same meeting as long as made by a councilmember on the prevailing side.

11.REMOVAL OF MATTERS FROM AGENDA AFTER POSTING. After the publication of the agenda, a matter on the agenda shall not be removed prior to the Council meeting. At the Council meeting, the item shall be read into the record and the City Manager or a Councilmember may request to remove the item from the agenda. If there is no objection from any councilmember, the matter will be removed. If there is an objection from a councilmember whether to remove the matter, the Council shall vote on whether to remove the matter. If the matter is a public hearing item, it may be removed or continued to a future date certain.

12.CITY COUNCIL REMOTE PUBLIC ACCESS DISRUPTION POLICY. This Section establishes the policy and procedures for managing disruptions to two-way remote participation tools during meetings of the Glendale City Council subject to Government Code Section 54953.4 of the Ralph M. Brown Act, as may be amended (“the Brown Act”). This policy complies with legislative amendments to the Brown Act under Senate Bill 707. Effective July 1, 2026, the following procedure shall apply:

A. Recess Upon Disruption: If a disruption prevents public participation through two-way telephonic or audiovisual platforms, the Mayor, City Clerk, or designee shall announce the disruption to the public and recess the open session. City staff shall make good faith efforts to restore the disrupted means of public access. The City’s good faith efforts may include, as appropriate: (1) troubleshooting the teleconferencing or webinar platform; (2) resetting or replacing equipment; (3) attempting alternative connection methods; (4) contacting necessary City support staff, vendors, or service providers, or (5) taking other reasonable steps to restore remote public access.

B. Closed Session During Recess: During the recess, the Council may meet in closed session to address matters lawfully permitted under the Brown Act.

C. Reconvening Open Session: The Council may not reconvene open session until at least one hour has elapsed or the disrupted means of public access has been restored, whichever occurs first.

D. Continuing Without Restored Access: If the disrupted means of public access cannot be restored after one hour of good faith efforts, the Council may reconvene in open session only after adopting, by roll call vote, the following findings: (1) good faith efforts were made to restore access in accordance with this policy, and (2) the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote access.

E. Recordkeeping: The City Clerk shall enter a brief statement into the meeting minutes, including, as applicable, the nature and time of the disruption, the good 589 of 1278

1 0
1 4
3 9
7 faith efforts made to restore remote access service, the time the meeting was reconvened, if applicable; and any finding adopted by the Council.

13.NON-EXCLUSIVE RULES AND DEVIATION THEREFROM. These Rules are not exclusive and do not limit the inherent power and general legal authority of the Presiding Officer or the Council to govern the conduct of the meetings as may be considered appropriate under particular circumstances for purposes of orderly and effective conduct of City business. Any deviation from these Rules does not limit nor affect the jurisdiction of the Council or any final decision of Council on any matter, decision, permit or entitlement.

14. This Resolution replaces and supersedes Resolution No. 26-15, which is hereby repealed.

PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ___________, 2026.
_______________________
Mayor
Attest:

City Clerk
590 of 1278

1 0
1 4
3 9
7 591 of 1278

1 1
1 4
3 9
7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale at its regular meeting held on the day of ________, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:
________________________
City Clerk
592 of 1278

1 RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

AMENDING AND RESTATING THE RULES OF ORDER, PROCEDURE AND

DECORUM FOR THE CONDUCT OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS TO INCORPORATE A REMOTE PUBLIC ACCESS DISRUPTION POLICY AS MANDATED BY SB 707

WHEREAS, the Charter of the City of Glendale (“Charter”) authorizes the Council of the City of Glendale, California (“Council”) to establish rules for its proceedings;

WHEREAS, the City has from time-to-time established rules for its proceedings in ordinances, resolutions and motions;

WHEREAS, the Council adopted Resolution No. 25-76 on June 3, 2025 adopting procedural rules for the conduct of Council meetings in a single document for facilitation of use and reference;

WHEREAS, the Council adopted Resolution No. 26-15 amending and restating its Rules of Order, Procedure and Decorum for the Conduct of City Council Meetings to move “Council Future Agenda Requests” to the afternoon portion of the Council’s regular meetings; and

WHEREAS, the Council now desires to amend and restate the Rules of Order, Procedure and Decorum to incorporate a Public Access Remote Disruption Policy as mandated SB 707’s amendments to the Ralph M. Brown Act.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA THAT the following rules shall govern the conduct of meetings of the Glendale City Council and related bodies:

1. TITLE AND APPLICABILITY. These Amended and Restated Council Rules of Order, Procedure and Decorum (“Rules”) shall govern the conduct of all Council meetings, unless prohibited, preempted or superseded by federal, state, or local law. To the extent a matter is not covered by these Rules, the procedures of the Council shall be governed by the latest revised edition of Robert's Rules of Order.

Robert's Rules of Order shall be subordinate to all applicable laws and these Rules to the extent they are inconsistent. These Rules also apply to the Housing Authority, the Council sitting as another body, such as the Successor Agency, and joint meetings of the Council and the other bodies.

2. DAY AND TIME OF REGULAR MEETINGS. As set forth in Glendale Municipal Code (“GMC”) Section 2.04.010, the Council shall hold its regular meetings on Tuesday of each and every week, provided, that should any such Tuesday fall upon a legal holiday, the Council shall meet at the same hour as set forth in this section upon the next day thereafter, which is not a legal holiday. The Council may amend the meeting calendar to add or delete a regular Council meeting. The regular business agenda for regular meetings shall commence at 6:00 p.m. while Discussion of Councilmember 593 of 1278

2 Future Agenda Requests and Closed Session shall commence at 1:00 p.m. (or later than 1:00 p.m. if so stated on the agenda).

3. SPECIAL MEETINGS. Special meetings of the Council may be held at any time upon the call of the Mayor or upon the call of three (3) of the members of the Council. Notice of any such meeting shall be given to all of the members of the Council by service on each Council member at least twenty-four (24) hours prior to the time fixed for holding such meeting of a written notice signed either by the Presiding Officer or the members of the Council making such call and specifying the business to be considered at the special meeting. Such service shall be sufficient if delivery of a copy of the notice is made to the office or usual address of the Council member. If a Council member is out of the City, service may be made by facsimile or email transmission if receipt is acknowledged. Notice of such meeting will be deemed received by any councilmember who attends said special meeting.

4. ORDER OF BUSINESS – REGULAR MEETINGS; DESCRIPTIONS.

A. Order. Business on the regular m eeting agenda shall be taken up for consideration and disposition in the following order:

1. Discussion of Councilmember Futu re Agenda Requests – 1:00 p.m. (or at a later time as designated on the agenda);

2. Closed Session – 1:00 p.m. (or at a later time as designated on the agenda);

3. Regular Business Agenda – 6:00 p.m.;
a. Flag Salute;
b. Invocation;
c. Report of the City Clerk Rega rding Posting of the Agenda;

4. Presentations and Appointments;

5. Consent Items (Including Minutes);

6. City Council/Staff Comments;

7. Community Event Announcements;

8. First Period of Oral Communications;

9. Adoption of Ordinances;

10. Action Items;

11. Hearings;

12. Reports – Information only;

13. Written Communications;

14. Second Period of Oral Communications;

15. New Business; and

16. Adjournment

B. Adjustment of Order by Presiding Officer. The foregoing order of business may be altered in any instance at the discretion of the Presiding Officer

594 of 1278

3 C. Description of Specified Agenda Categories in the Order of Business.

1. Closed Session. Closed sessions of the Council are held at 1 p.m. (or such later time as designated on the agenda) on regular meeting dates. Prior to holding such closed sessions, the Council shall convene in open session for the limited purpose of receiving public comments on the closed session items. Closed sessions may also be held at other times as determined and ordered by the Council, or as otherwise called, as provided by law. Matters required to be reported out of closed session under the Brown Act will be reported out under New Business.

2. Consent Calendar. Consent ca lendar agenda items are routine and may be acted upon by one motion. Any member of the Council or the public requesting separate consideration may do so by making such request before a motion is proposed.

A member of the public wishing to speak on a consent calendar item must submit a speaker card or call in prior to the making of the motion.

3. Council/staff comments. This an opportunity for Councilmembers to make brief comments or announcements such as regarding community events they attended, to announce board or commission nominees or request items for future agendas. Councilmembers will also use this opportunity to make brief reports on conferences, seminars and regional meetings attended. Staff may make announcements such as for upcoming community events or programs. Comments must be brief and no discussion or action may be taken on this item.

4. Community event announcements. Members of the public will be permitted to announce – in person or telephonically - upcoming events happening in the community. Members of the public speaking under “Community event announcements” may speak up to 3 minutes per speaker.

5. Hearings. The speaking length of presentations by the Applicant(s), Appellant(s), and other members of the public during public hearings shall be determined by the Presiding Officer prior to the commencement of the first presentation, taking into account requests of the parties, the length of the agenda, the number of speakers, and the complexity of the matter is the subject of the hearing. The Presiding Officer may permit Appellant(s) and Applicant(s) to have additional rebuttal time. The total time limit approved by the Presiding Officer for the Applicant and Appellant to make their presentations shall be the aggregate for all speakers or other presentations on behalf of the Applicant or Appellant at the hearing.

6. First Period of Oral Communicati ons. Members of the public will be permitted to address the Council , in person or telephonically,during the First Period of Oral Communications on matters either on the agenda or not on the agenda but within the Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. If a member of the public addresses the Council on a matter on the agenda during the First Period of Oral Communications, then the member of the public may not do so when the agendized matter is called. If a member of the public addresses Council on a matter not on the agenda during the First Period of Oral Communications, then he or she may not speak during Second Period of Oral 595 of 1278

4 Communications. The First Period of Oral Communications shall be limited to 30 minutes of speaking time in the aggregate. Individual speakers addressing the Council during First Period of Oral Communications shall be limited to a maximum of three (3) minutes unless that time is reduced by the Presiding Officer, taking into account the number of speakers wishing to speak during the First Period of Oral Communications.

7. Second Period of Oral Communicati ons. Members of the public will be permitted to address the Council , in person or telephonically, during the Second Period of Oral Communication, only on matters not on the agenda. Members of the public who speak on non-agenda items during the First Period of Oral Communications will not be permitted to speak during the Second Period of Oral Communications.

Speaking time for Second Period of Oral Communications shall be three (3) minutes per speaker.

8. Written communications. Under the order of business heading "written communications," all persons interested, or their authorized representatives, may address the council in regard to any written protest, petition or communication which has been placed on the agenda by the city clerk and is then being considered by the council.

5. MAYOR, PRESIDING OFFICER. The Mayor, or in the Mayor’s absence, the Mayor Pro Tem, shall be the Presiding Officer and at the hour appointed for the meeting shall call the Council to order. In the absence of the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem, the Councilmember next in rotation as Mayor Pro Tem shall call the Council to order and shall act as the temporary Presiding Officer. Upon the arrival of the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tem, the temporary Presiding Officer shall immediately relinquish the chair upon the conclusion of the business immediately before the Council.

The Presiding Officer shall preserve order at all meetings of the Council. The Presiding Officer shall decide all questions of order, subject, however, to an appeal to the Council, in which event a majority vote of the Council shall govern and conclusively determine such questions of order.

6. ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL.

A. Submission of Request to Speak . Speaker cards must be submitted, or telephonic participants must call in and be in the queue, prior to the commencement of the Community Event Announcement and First and Second Periods of Oral Communication for a speaker to be able to speak during one of those periods, which requirement may be waived at the Presiding Officer’s discretion. Members of the public intending to speak on an agenda item when that item is called must submit a speaker card (or call in if participating telephonically) prior to the completion of the staff report, if any, on the item, which requirement may be waived at the Presiding Officer’s discretion. Effective July 1, 2026, members of the public participa ting via two-way audio vi sual platform, e.g.

Zoom, must request to address the Council by using the hand raise feature (or call in and press *9 if calling in telephoni cally) at or before the time an in-person speaker would be required to submit a speaker card as set forth above.

596 of 1278

5 B. Manner of Addressing Council. Ea ch person addressing the Council shall, when his or her name is called, approach the microphone at the podium and shall limit his or her comments to the subjects and to such time as is allowed by these Rules or as designated by the Presiding Officer. A ll remarks shall be addressed to the Council as a body and not to any member thereof, the staff, or members of the public. No person, other than the Council and the person having the floor, shall be permitted to enter into any discussion, either directly or through a member of the Council, without the permission of the Presiding Officer. No question shall be asked of a Councillmember except through the Presiding Officer.

C. Points of Order Regarding Public Speakers. The Presiding Officer, any Councilmember, or the City Attorney may interrupt a speaker to raise a Point of Order if it is the contention of the Presiding Officer, Council Member or City Attorney that the speaker is addressing items that are outside the specified subjects for that item. The Presiding Officer shall rule on such Point of Order, which decision may be appealed by any Councilmember to the full Council. Upon t he decision by the Presiding Officer, or by the Council upon appeal, that a speaker is addressing items that are outside the specified subjects for that period of Public Comments, the speaker shall, if time remains, be allowed to continue speaking on items within the specified subjects for that period of public comments. Any speaker who refuses to limit his or her comments to items within the specified subjects for that period of public comments may be declared out of order and be subject to the loss of the remaining time to speak and, if necessary, removal from the chambers as specified in these Rules.

D. Ceding Time. Except as set forth herein, the speaking time contained in these Rules are personal, and may not be shared with other speakers.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, one member of the public may cede his or her speaking time to one other member of the public provided both the person ceding time and the person receiving time are in the Council chambers, have submitted speaker cards and are identified by name. A member of the public may receive no more than one other person’s ceded time.

E. Maximum Speaking Limits. Maximum speaking time for members of the public for Community Event Announcements and First and Second Periods of Oral Communications are set forth in Section 4(C) of these Rules. Maximum speaking times for other agenda items, including closed session, consent items, and action items are set at the discretion of the Mayor.

F. Responses to Public Comment. In response to public comments offered during Community Event Announcements or the First or Second Periods of Oral Communications, Councilmembers, the City Manager and/or the City Attorney may question or briefly respond to the speaker but there will be no debate or decision. The City Manager may refer the matter to the appropriate department for investigation and report. Response to public comment on an agendized matter can be made during discussion of the matter.

597 of 1278

6 7. RULES OF COUNCIL DEBATE AND DELIBERATION.

A. Every Councilmember desiring to speak shall address the Presiding Officer, and, upon recognition, shall confine hi mself or herself to the question under debate, avoiding all personal comments and indecorous language.

B. A Councilmember, once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless a Point of Order is raised. If a Point of Order is raised while a Councilmember is speaking, he or she shall cease speaking until the Point of Order is decided by the Presiding Officer (subject to appeal to the full Council). Being out of order shall include, but shall not be limited to, exceeding any speaking time limit established by the Council.

C. During Council deliberati on on an agenda item (except for “Discussion of Councilmember Future Agenda Requests” – see below), each Councilmember shall be permitted to speak on the item before a Councilmember gets another opportunity to speak on the item. Each Councilmember shall have up to five (5) minutes to speak on the item in the initial round of deliberations. After the initial round of deliberation, each Councilmember shall have up to three (3) minutes to speak on the item. The Presiding Officer may waive or extend these time limits, sua sponte or upon the request of a Councilmember made before deliberation begins, giving consideration to the complexity or controversy of the item, and upon the length of the remainder of the agenda. There shall be no limitation on the number of rounds of deliberation, unless a Councilmember calls the question (moves to end debate) and that motion is passed.

Speaking time during deliberation does not include questions posed by Councilmembers.

D. For Council deliberation on w hether to approve a Councilmember request to direct staff to prepare a report for a future agenda under Item 13 of the regular meeting agenda, the requesting Councilmember shall have up to two (2) minutes to present his or her reasons for the request. The other Councilmembers may ask questions for clarification and then the Council will take a vote whether to direct staff to prepare a report for a future agenda. There will be no other debate or deliberation on the item. The Presiding Officer can waive this limitation.

8. RULES OF DECORUM AND PUBLIC PARTICIPATION.

A. The Council is a limited public foru m for the purpose of facilitating public comment to the Council on agenda matters and matters within the Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. Thus, members of the public shall comply with the rules set forth below in this Section 8.

1. Speakers must cease speaki ng immediately when their speaking time has ended.

2. Public comment on agenda items mu st relate to the subject matter of that item.
598 of 1278

7 3. The “Oral Communications” age nda items are limited to matters within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction.

4. Members of the public attending the meeting may not speak without first being recognized by the Mayor or Presiding Officer. When called to address the Council, speakers must address the Council from the podium and speak into the microphone.

5. Members of the public shall dire ct comments to the body as a whole or the Presiding Officer, and not to staff, individual members of the body, or the public.

6. No person shall be permitted to interrupt members of the body, staff presentations, or members of the public who are at the microphone during a meeting.

7. Yelling, screaming or shouting from the audience is not permitted.

Threatening, abusive or loud language, chatting, booing, hissing, speaking out of turn, clapping, or cheering in a manner that disturbs, disrupts or impedes the orderly conduct of the meeting is not permitted.

8. Signs, placards, banners/flags, props or similar items larger than 8.5 x 11, illuminated, or attached to any pole, stick or other device are prohibited in the Council chambers.

9. Noisemakers of any kind are pr ohibited in the Council chambers.

B. Enforcement of Public Participat ion Protocols. These Rules will be enforced as described below.

1. The Presiding Officer will provide at least one warning to a speaker that is being disruptive. The Presiding Officer will explain the conduct that is disruptive, and what will be the consequence of failing to abide by the warning, e.g. that the speaker will be terminated from speaking or removed from Chambers.

2. After providing at least one (1) verbal warning, if an individual continues to speak in violation of an order to cease speaking (e.g. is off-topic or has exceed the allotted time) or is otherwise disrupting the proceedings, the Presiding Officer may order the individual to be removed from chambers. When providing the warning, the Presiding Officer will explain the conduct that is disruptive, and what will be the consequence of failing to abide by the warning, e.g. that the individual may be removed from the Council chambers. Before ordering the sergeant-at-arms to remove a disruptive individual pursuant to the authority of Glendale Municipal Code section 2.04.120, the Presiding Officer will give the disruptive individual the opportunity to leave chambers voluntarily.

3. Warnings are not required for use of force or true threats of force.

599 of 1278

8 9. LENGTH OF MEETINGS. Regular meetings of the Council shall end no later than 11:00 p.m., unless such meetings are extended by the affirmative vote of at least three (3) Council members and Council confers with the City Manager to review the status of the remaining items to determine the best manner to proceed.

Notwithstanding the 11:00 p.m. cutoff, if an item is in the midst of being heard or considered at the cutoff time of 11:00 p.m., it can be completed prior to continuing the remaining items. If at the conclusion of a Council meeting agenda items remain to be considered, such items are automatically continued until the next regular meeting unless otherwise directed by the Council. Additionally, the meeting shall not be adjourned until completion of the Second Period of Oral Communications and New Business (closed session reporting out).

10. PLACEMENT OF MATTERS ON AGENDA; TIMING

A. General Policy. At a Council meeting, an individual councilmember may request that a matter be placed on a future agenda. Said matter shall be placed on the next regular meeting agenda under Agenda Item 1: “Discussion of Councilmember Future Agenda Requests.” At said regular Council meeting, Council will decide whether to place the matter on a subsequent agenda in accordance with the procedure in Section 7(D) of these Rules. The Council may, with three (3) affirmative votes, direct staff to prepare a report on the matter for Council consideration and action. The timing of the placement of that matter on a future agenda shall be in accordance with subsection (B) of this Section 10 of these Rules. In the case of requests for support or opposition to any action or omission by any international, national, state, or local government agency, or any letter of support for any community event or organization, the Council may approve said action under Item 1 under the agenda without a further report to Council.

B. Timing. The Mayor shall have the discretion to control the timing of the placement on future agendas. The Ma yor shall work with the City Manager regarding the timing of the placement of matters on future agendas taking into account the need to act on a matter within a certain timeframe and the overall workload of City staff. The Council may direct the timing of the placement of an item on a future agenda only by a majority vote of the membership of the Council (three affirmative votes).

C. City Manager Role. This Secti on 10 pertains to the ability of individual Councilmembers’ ability to request placement of matters on future agendas.

The City Manager is authorized to place matters on the agenda after consultation with the Mayor. Other than with respect to timing, this Section 10 does not govern matters that the Council is legally required to consider at a Council meeting or matters that the City Manager must place on the agenda to facilitate the normal affairs or governance of the City. The City Manager shall also have the authority to place a report on a Council agenda to provide basic information regarding a matter and seek Council input and direction as to whether to prepare a more detailed and/or substantive report on the matter for future Council consideration.

600 of 1278

9 D. Items for Reconsideration or Rescission. To ensure finality of decisions made unless a member in the prevailing side wishes to reconsider, motions to reconsider or rescind a prior action must be made by a councilmember who voted on the prevailing side (whether it was approved or defeated). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Robert’s Rules of Order, an exception to this Rule is if the Councilmember was not a member of the Council at the time the decision was made.

Further, anything to the contrary in Robert’s Rules of Order notwithstanding, motions to reconsider need not be made at the same meeting as long as made by a councilmember on the prevailing side.

11. REMOVAL OF MATTERS FROM AGENDA AFTER POSTING. After the publication of the agenda, a matter on the agenda shall not be removed prior to the Council meeting. At the Council meeting, the item shall be read into the record and the City Manager or a Councilmember may request to remove the item from the agenda. If there is no objection from any councilmember, the matter will be removed. If there is an objection from a councilmember whether to remove the matter, the Council shall vote on whether to remove the matter. If the matter is a public hearing item, it may be removed or continued to a future date certain.

12. CITY COUNCIL REMOTE PUBLIC ACCESS DISRUPTION POLICY. This Section establishes the policy and procedures for managing disruptions to two-way remote participation tools during meetings of the Glendale City Council subject to Government Code Section 54953.4 of the Ralph M. Brown Act, as may be amended (“the Brown Act”). This policy complies with legislative amendments to the Brown Act under Senate Bill 707. Effective July 1, 2026, the following procedure shall apply:

A. Recess Upon Disruption : If a disruption prevents public participation through two-way telephonic or audiovisual platforms, the Mayor, City Clerk, or designee shall announce the disruption to the public and recess the open session. City staff shall make good faith efforts to restore the disrupted means of public access. The City’s good faith efforts may include, as appropriate: (1) troubleshooting the teleconferencing or webinar platform; (2) resetting or replacing equipment; (3) attempting alternative connection methods; (4) contacting necessary City support staff, vendors, or service providers, or (5) taking other reasonable steps to restore remote public access.

B. Closed Session During Recess : During the recess, the Council may meet in closed session to address matters lawfully permitted under the Brown Act.

C. Reconvening Open Session : The Council may not reconvene open session until at least one hour has elapsed or the disrupted means of public access has been restored, whichever occurs first.

D. Continuing Without Restored Access : If the disrupted means of public access cannot be restored after one hour of good faith efforts, the Council may reconvene in open session only after adopting, by roll call vote, the following findings: (1) good faith 601 of 1278

10 efforts were made to restore access in accordance with this policy, and (2) the public interest in continuing the meeting outweighs the public interest in remote access.

E. Recordkeeping : The City Clerk shall enter a brief statement into the meeting minutes, including, as applicable, the nature and time of the disruption, the good faith efforts made to restore remote access service, the time the meeting was reconvened, if applicable; and any finding adopted by the Council.

11. 132. NON-EXCLUSIVE RULES AND DEVIATION THEREFROM. These Rules are not exclusive and do not limit the inherent power and general legal authority of the Presiding Officer or the Council to govern the conduct of the meetings as may be considered appropriate under particular circumstances for purposes of orderly and effective conduct of City business. Any deviation from these Rules does not limit nor affect the jurisdiction of the Council or any final decision of Council on any matter, decision, permit or entitlement.

143. This Resolution replaces and supersedes Resolution No. 26-15, which is hereby repealed.

PASSED and ADOPTED this day of ___________, 2026.

_______________________
Mayor

Attest:

City Clerk
602 of 1278

11 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ss.

CITY OF GLENDALE )

I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of t he City of Glendale, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regul arly passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale at its regular meeting held on the day of ________, 2026, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

________________________
C i t y C l e r k
603 of 1278

11a
26-89951

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Public Hearing and Adoption of 2025 Urban Water Management Plan.

1. Resolution Adopting the Glendale 2025 Urban Water Management Plan.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Public Hearing
Approved for June 9, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Urban Water Management Planning Act, California Water Code (CWC) Sections 10608 through 10657, requires that each urban water supplier prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act’s requirements, and that the UWMP be reviewed and updated periodically and the updates be submitted to the State Department of Water Resources every five years.

RECOMMENDATION
Conduct a public hearing to solicit public comments and approve a resolution to adopt the Glendale 2025 UWMP.

ANALYSIS
The purpose of the Glendale 2025 UWMP is to comply with CWC Sections 10608 through 10657 of the Urban Water Management Planning Act, which was adopted through Assembly Bill 797 in 1983. This act requires that “every urban water supplier providing water for municipal purposes either directly or indirectly to more than 3,000 customers, or supplying more than 3,000 acre-feet of water annually, prepare and adopt, in accordance with prescribed requirements, an urban water management plan.” The act also requires that the plan be periodically reviewed for changes and that an update be submitted to the State Department of Water Resources every five years.

The City prepared its initial UWMP in 1985, and has been updating its UWMP every five years since then, as required.

The Glendale 2025 UWMP is a revision of the 2020 plan which was adopted in 2021.

It provides the City with a reliable management action plan for long-term resource 604 of 1278

11a2
26-89951
6 7
8 5
planning to ensure adequate water supplies are available to meet existing and future water supply needs. In addition, the 2025 plan incorporates water supply reliability determinations from potential prolonged drought, regulatory revisions, and/or changing climatic conditions.

The 2025 UWMP describes the service area of the supplier, identifies and quantifies the existing and planned water supply and demand; describes the reliability of water supply and vulnerability to seasonal or climatic shortage; describes the opportunities for exchanges or transfers of water and the water quality in the supplier’s service area; includes additional analysis – Water Loss Audit, and discusses the supplier’s conservation approach and each of the best management practices that are being implemented.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
On December 17, 2025, a notice that Glendale was preparing a draft UWMP was submitted to all water agencies and municipalities in the Glendale Service area (Burbank Water & Power, Pasadena Water & Power, Crescenta Valley Water District, Valley Water Company, Foothill Municipal Water District, and the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power), as well as to the State California Department of Water Resources, and County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works.

In May 2026, a public review period notice was sent to the same water agencies mentioned above. On May 21 and 28, 2026, GWP’s Water Engineering Section, as required by law, advertised for a public hearing to be held on June 9, 2026, during the regularly scheduled City Council meeting, to solicit input from Glendale residents on the 2025 UWMP.

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

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is not a project for the purposes of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) California Code of Regulations, Section 15378, and thus is not subject to CEQA review.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not applicable.

ALTERNATIVE TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Choose not to adopt the proposed 2025 UWMP as submitted, with the probable impact of not being able to obtain state funding, as well as being non-compliant with the Urban Water Management Planning Act.
605 of 1278

11a3
26-89951
6 7
8 5

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Scott K. Mellon, P.E., General Manager - Glendale Water and Power Prepared by:

Chisom Obegolu, P.E., Assistant General Manager - Water Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: City of Glendale - 2025 UWMP - Final Draft
Exhibit B: City of Glendale - 2025 UWMP - Final Draft Appendices 606 of 1278

RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE GLENDALE 2025 URBAN WATER

MANAGEMENT PLAN
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

WHEREAS, the Urban Water Management Planning Act, California Water Code Sections 10608 through 10657, requires that each urban water supplier as defined therein, prepare and adopt an Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) in accordance with the Urban Water Management Planning Act’s requirements, and that the UWMP be reviewed and updated periodically and the updates be submitted to the State Department of Water Resources every five years; and WHEREAS, the City prepared its initial UWMP in 1985, and has been updating its UWMP every five years as required; and
WHEREAS, the City’s 2025 UWMP includes changes and updates to the City’s last 2020 UWMP based on changes which have occurred within the City over the past five years; and
WHEREAS, the 2025 UWMP is consistent with the requirements established by law; and
WHEREAS, the 2025 UWMP has been available for public review and public hearing for the 2025 UWMP was held on June 9, 2026, as required by law.

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

That the Council of the City of Glendale hereby approves and adopts the 2025 Urban Water Management Plan and authorizes the City Manager, or his designee, to submit the same to the State Department of Water Resources.

Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on this ___ day of _________, 2026. ________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_____________________________________
City Clerk
607 of 1278

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Suzie Abajian PhD, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. __________ was adopted by a majority vote of the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the ______ day of ______________________, 2026, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________
City Clerk
608 of 1278

M AY 2026 F INAL D RAFT

E XH IB IT A
609 of 1278

City of Glendale

2025
Urban Water Management Plan

610 of 1278

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

i
CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW ............................... 1-1 UPDATED GUIDANCE FOR 2025 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLANS ........................ 1-4 SUBMITTAL TABLES .......................................................................................................... 1-5 INCLUSION OF SUBMITTAL TABLES .................................................................... 1-5 OPTIONAL PLANNING TOOL ............................................................................... 1-6 RECOMMENDED UWMP ORGANIZATION ....................................................................... 1-6 UWMPS IN RELATION TO OTHER EFFORTS ...................................................................... 1-7 SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................ 1-7 DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES’ REVIEW PROCESS .............................................. 1-9 UWMPS AND GRANT OR LOAN ELIGIBILITY ..................................................................... 1-9 TIPS FOR UWMP PREPARERS ......................................................................................... 1-11 CHAPTER 2 ............................................................................................................................ 2-1 URBAN WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN PREPARATION ........................................................... 2-1 BASIS FOR PREPARING A PLAN ........................................................................................ 2-2 SUPPLIERS WITH BOTH WHOLESALE AND RETAIL SALES .................................... 2-3 PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS .................................................................................... 2-4 INDIVIDUAL OR REGIONAL PLANS ................................................................................... 2-4 REGIONAL REPORTING ........................................................................................ 2-5 FISCAL OR CALENDAR YEAR AND UNITS OF MEASURE .................................................... 2-5 FISCAL OR CALENDAR YEAR ................................................................................ 2-5 UNITS OF MEASURE ............................................................................................ 2-6 COORDINATION AND OUTREACH .................................................................................... 2-6 WHOLESALE AND RETAIL COORDINATION ......................................................... 2-6 COORDINATION WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND THE COMMUNITY ..................... 2-7 NOTICE TO CITIES AND COUNTIES ...................................................................... 2-7 SUBMITTAL TABLES .......................................................................................................... 2-8 SUBMITTAL TABLE 2-1: PWSs ............................................................................. 2-8 SUBMITTAL TABLE 2-2: PLAN TYPE IDENTIFICATION .......................................... 2-9 SUBMITTAL TABLE 2-3: SUPPLIER INFORMATION ............................................ 2-10 SUBMITTAL TABLE 2-4: WATER SUPPLIER INFORMATION EXCHANGE ............ 2-11 CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................ 3-1 SERVICE AREA DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................. 3-1 GENERAL DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................... 3-2 SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY MAPS .................................................................................... 3-3 SERVICE AREA CLIMATE ................................................................................................... 3-3 SERVICE AREA POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS ........................................................ 3-5 SERVICE AREA POPULATION ............................................................................... 3-5 OTHER SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND DEMOGRAPHIC FACTORS ............................. 3-7 LAND USES WITHIN SERVICE AREA .................................................................................. 3-8 611 of 1278

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page

ii

SUBMITTAL TABLES .......................................................................................................... 3-9 SUBMITTAL TABLE 3-1: POPULATION - CURRENT AND PROJECTED ................... 3-9 CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................ 4-1 WATER USE CHARACTERIZATION .......................................................................................... 4-1 NON-POTABLE VERSUS POTABLE WATER USE ................................................................ 4-2 PAST, CURRENT, AND PROJECTED WATER USE BY SECTOR ............................................. 4-2 WATER-USE SECTORS LISTED IN WATER CODE .................................................. 4-4

OPTIONAL WATER-USE SECTORS IN ADDITION TO THOSE LISTED IN WATER CODE ...................................................................................................... 4-6 PAST WATER USE ................................................................................................ 4-6 CURRENT WATER USE ......................................................................................... 4-6 PROJECTED WATER USE ...................................................................................... 4-7 DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM WATER LOSS ............................................................................. 4-16 PREVIOUS FIVE YEARS DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM LOSSES .................................... 4-17

PROGRESS TOWARD MEETING THE WATER LOSS PERFORMANCE
STANDARD ........................................................................................................ 4-18 SUBMITTAL TABLES ........................................................................................................ 4-19 TABLE 4-1: TOTAL USES FOR POTABLE AND NON-POTABLE WATER - ACTUAL ............................................................................................................. 4-20 TABLE 4-2: TOTAL USES OF POTABLE AND NON-POTABLE WATER— PROJECTED ........................................................................................................ 4-21 TABLE 4-3: INCLUSION IN WATER-USE PROJECTIONS ...................................... 4-22 OPTIONAL TABLE 4-4: PASSIVE WATER SAVINGS PROJECTION ........................ 4-22 TABLE 4-5: WATER LOSS AUDIT REPORTING .................................................... 4-23 TABLE 4-6: PROGRESS TOWARD 2028 WATER LOSS STANDARD ..................... 4-24 CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................ 5-1 SB X7-7 BASELINES, 2020 TARGETS, AND 2025 REPORTING .................................................. 5-1 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR WHOLESALE SUPPLIERS ............................................. 5-2 REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR RETAIL SUPPLIERS ...................................................... 5-2 SUPPLIER WAS NOT AN URBAN RETAIL WATER SUPPLIER ................................. 5-3 SUPPLIER MET 2020 TARGET IN 2020 ................................................................. 5-3 SUPPLIER DID NOT MEET 2020 TARGET IN 2020—NO CHANGE TO
SERVICE AREA ..................................................................................................... 5-3 SUPPLIER DID NOT MEET 2020 TARGET—CHANGE TO SERVICE AREA SINCE 2020 .......................................................................................................... 5-4 FUNDING ELIGIBILITY .......................................................................................... 5-4

NEXUS TO STATE WATER BOARD URBAN WATER-USE OBJECTIVES (NOT REQUIRED FOR UWMPs ...................................................................................... 5-5 SUBMITTAL TABLES .......................................................................................................... 5-7 612 of 1278

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page

iii

CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................................ 6-1 NORMAL-YEAR WATER SUPPLY CHARACTERIZATION ........................................................... 6-1 WATER SUPPLY ANALYSIS OVERVIEW ............................................................................. 6-2 SPECIFIC ANALYSIS APPLICABLE TO ALL WATER SUPPLY SOURCES .................... 6-4 OPTIONAL PLANNING TOOL ............................................................................................. 6-6 SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS ................................................................................. 6-7 NARRATIVE SECTIONS FOR SUPPLIER’S UWMP WATER SUPPLY
CHARACTERIZATION ........................................................................................................ 6-8 PURCHASED OR IMPORTED WATER ................................................................... 6-8 GROUNDWATER................................................................................................ 6-10 SURFACE WATER ............................................................................................... 6-19 STORMWATER .................................................................................................. 6-19 WASTEWATER AND RECYCLED WATER............................................................. 6-19 DESALINATED WATER OPPORTUNITIES ............................................................ 6-26 WATER EXCHANGES AND TRANSFERS .............................................................. 6-26 SUPPLY FROM STORAGE ................................................................................... 6-27 OTHER ............................................................................................................... 6-28 FUTURE WATER PROJECTS ................................................................................ 6-28 ENERGY USE ................................................................................................................... 6-28 SUBMITTAL TABLES ........................................................................................................ 6-31 TABLE 6-1: GROUNDWATER VOLUME PUMPED ............................................... 6-32 TABLE 6-2: WASTEWATER COLLECTED WITHIN SERVICE AREA ........................ 6-33 TABLE 6-3: WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND OUTCOMES WITHIN UWMP SERVICE AREA ................................................................................................... 6-34 TABLE 6-4: RECYCLED WATER DIRECT BENEFICIAL USES WITHIN SERVICE AREA .................................................................................................................. 6-35 TABLE 6-5: 2020 UWMP RECYCLED WATER-USE PROJECTION
COMPARED TO 2025 ACTUAL ........................................................................... 6-36 TABLE 6-6: METHODS TO ENCOURAGE FUTURE RECYCLED WATER USE ......... 6-37 TABLE 6-7: EXPECTED FUTURE WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS OR PROGRAMS ..... 6-38 TABLE 6-8: WATER SUPPLIES—ACTU AL ............................................................ 6-38 OPTIONAL TABLE 6-8DS: SOURCE DESALINATION BY SUPPLIER ...................... 6-40 TABLE 6-9: WATER SUPPLIES—PROJEC TED ...................................................... 6-41 CHAPTER 7 ............................................................................................................................ 7-1 WATER SERVICE RELIABILITY AND DROUGHT RISK ASSESSMENT .......................................... 7-1 CONSTRAINTS ON WATER SOURCES CONSIDERATION ................................................... 7-2 SERVICE RELIABILTY - CONSTRAINTS ON WATER SOURCES ............................... 7-3 WATER SERVICE RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT ..................................................................... 7-4 WSRA YEAR-TYPE CHARACTERIZATION .............................................................. 7-7 WSRA SUPPLY AND DEMAND COMPARISON ..................................................... 7-8 WSRA DESCRIPTION OF MANAGEMENT TOOLS AND OPTIONS ....................... 7-10 613 of 1278

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page

iv

DROUGHT RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................ 7-11 DRA, DATA, METHODS, AND BASIS FOR WATER SHORTAGE CONDITIONS ...... 7-12 DRA INDIVIDUAL WATER SOURCE RELIABILITY ................................................ 7-14 DRA TOTAL WATER SUPPLY AND USE COMPARISON ....................................... 7-16 OPTIONAL PLANNING TOOL WORKBOOK ...................................................................... 7-17 SUBMITTAL TABLES ........................................................................................................ 7-17 OPTIONAL TABLE 7-1: BASIS OF WATER-YEAR DATA (WSRA) .......................... 7-17 TABLE 7-2: NORMAL-YEAR SUPPLY AND USE COMPARISON ............................ 7-19 TABLE 7-3: SINGLE-DRY-YEAR SUPPLY AND USE COMPARISON ....................... 7-20 TABLE 7-4: MULTIPLE DRY YEARS SUPPLY AND USE COMPARISON ................. 7-21 TABLE 7-5: FIVE-YEAR DROUGHT RISK ASSESSMENT ........................................ 7-22 CHAPTER 8 ............................................................................................................................ 8-1 WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN .............................................................................. 8-1 WATER SUPPLY RELIABILITY ANALYSIS ............................................................................ 8-3 ANNUAL WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ASSESSMENT PROCEDURES ............................ 8-4 DECISION-MAKING PROCESS .............................................................................. 8-5 DATA AND METHODOLOGIES ............................................................................. 8-6 SIX STANDARD WATER SHORTAGE LEVELS ...................................................................... 8-7 SHORTAGE RESPONSE ACTIONS ...................................................................................... 8-9 SUPPLY AUGMENTATION .................................................................................... 8-9 DEMAND REDUCTION ....................................................................................... 8-11 OPERATIONAL CHANGES .................................................................................. 8-23 ADDITIONAL MANDATORY RESTRICTIONS ....................................................... 8-24 EMERGENCY RESPONSE PLAN .......................................................................... 8-24 SEISMIC RISK ASSESSMENT AND MITIGATION PLAN ........................................ 8-26 SHORTAGE RESPONSE ACTION EFFECTIVENESS ............................................... 8-29 COMMUNICATION PROTOCOLS .................................................................................... 8-31 COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT ............................................................................... 8-32 LEGAL AUTHORITIES....................................................................................................... 8-33 FINANCIAL CONSEQUENCES OF WSCP .......................................................................... 8-35 MONITORING AND REPORTING ..................................................................................... 8-36 WSCP REFINEMENT PROCEDURES ................................................................................. 8-37 SPECIAL WATER FEATURE DISTINCTION ........................................................................ 8-38 PLAN ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AVAILABILITY, AND AMENDMENT PROCEDURES......... 8-39 RESOURCES AND REFERENCES....................................................................................... 8-40 SUBMITTAL TABLES ........................................................................................................ 8-40 TABLE 8-1: CROSS REFERENCE FOR STANDARD VS. SUPPLIER SHORTAGE LEVELS ............................................................................................................... 8-41 TABLE 8-2: SUPPLY AUGMENTATION AND OTHER ACTIONS ............................ 8-42 TABLE 8-3: DEMAND-REDUCTION ACTIONS ..................................................... 8-43 614 of 1278

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)
Page

v

CHAPTER 9 ............................................................................................................................ 9-1 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES ................................................................................... 9-1 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR RETAIL SUPPLIERS ........................................ 9-2 IMPLEMENTATION OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS ................................................. 9-2 IMPLEMENTATION TO ACHIEVE WATER USE TARGETS ...................................... 9-5 REQUIRED DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES ............................................... 9-5 DEMAND MANAGEMENT MEASURES FOR WHOLESALE SUPPLIERS ............................. 9-12 CHAPTER 10 ........................................................................................................................ 10-1 PLAN ADOPTION, SUBMITTAL, AND IMPLEMENTATION ..................................................... 10-1 PLAN COMPLETION TIMELINE ....................................................................................... 10-2 NOTICE OF PLAN PREPARATION .................................................................................... 10-2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ......................................................................................... 10-3 PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION ................................................................................. 10-4 PLAN SUBMITTAL ........................................................................................................... 10-5

SUBMITTING A UWMP AND WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN TO DWR .................................................................................................................. 10-5 ELECTRONIC DATA SUBMITTAL......................................................................... 10-6

SUBMITTING A UWMP, INCLUDING WSCP, TO THE CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY ............................................................................................................. 10-6 SUBMITTING A UWMP TO CITIES AND COUNTIES ............................................ 10-7 PUBLIC AVAILABILITY ..................................................................................................... 10-7 NOTIFICATION TO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION ....................................................... 10-8 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................................... 10-8 AMENDING AN ADOPTED UWMP OR WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN .......... 10-8 AMENDING A UWMP OR A WSCP .................................................................... 10-9 SUBMITTING REVISED WATER SHORTAGE CONTINGENCY PLAN ..................... 10-9

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES REVIEW OF SUBMITTED PLANS ........................................................................................................................... 10-10 SUBMITTAL TABLES ...................................................................................................... 10-10 SUBMITTAL TABLE 10-1: NOTIFICATION TO CITIES AND COUNTIES ............... 10-10 615 of 1278

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Public Water Systems ................................................................................................................... 2-8 Table 2-2 Plan Type Identification ................................................................................................................ 2-9 Table 2-3 Supplier Information ................................................................................................................... 2-10 Table 2-4 Water Supplier Information Exchange........................................................................................ 2-11 Table 3-1 Population - Current and Projected .............................................................................................. 3-9 Table 4-1 Total Uses for Potable and Non-Potable Water - Actual ............................................................ 4-20 Table 4-2 Total Uses for Potable and Non-Potable Water - Projected ....................................................... 4-21 Table 4-3 Inclusion in Water-Use Projections ............................................................................................. 4-22 Table 4-4 Passive Savings Projection .......................................................................................................... 4-22 Table 4-5 Water Loss Audit Reporting ........................................................................................................ 4-23 Table 4-6 Progress Toward 2028 Water Loss Standard .............................................................................. 4-24 Table 5-1 SB X7-7 2020 Target Progress ....................................................................................................... 5-7 Table 6-1 Groundwater Value Pumped ...................................................................................................... 6-32 Table 6-2 Wastewater Collected Within UWMP Service Area ................................................................... 6-33 Table 6-3 Wastewater Treatment and Outcomes Within UWMP Service Area ......................................... 6-34 Table 6-4 Recycled Water Direct Beneficial Uses Within Service Area ...................................................... 6-35 Table 6-5 2020 UWMP Recycled Water Use Projection Compared to 2025 Actual ................................... 6-36 Table 6-6 Methods to Encourage Future Recycled Water Use ................................................................... 6-37 Table 6-7 Expected Future Water Supply Projects or Programs ................................................................ 6-38 Table 6-8 Water Supplies— 2025 Actual ..................................................................................................... 6-40 Table 6-9 Water Supplies— Projected ......................................................................................................... 6-41 Table 7-1 Basis of Water-Year Data (Reliability Assessment) ..................................................................... 7-18 Table 7-2 Normal-Year Supply and Use Comparison .................................................................................. 7-19 Table 7-3 Single-Dry-Year Supply and Use Comparison ............................................................................. 7-20 Table 7-4 Multiple Dry Years Supply and Use Comparison ....................................................................... 7-21 Table 7-5 Five-Year Drought Risk Assessment ............................................................................................ 7-22 Table 8-1 Cross-Reference for Standard vs. Supplier Shortage Levels ....................................................... 8-41 Table 8-2 Supply Augmentation and Other Actions ................................................................................... 8-42 Table 8-3 Demand-Reduction Actions ........................................................................................................ 8-43 Table 10-1 Notification to Cities and Counties ........................................................................................... 10-11

616 of 1278

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Water Service Area
Figure 2 Water Service Area and City Boundaries

617 of 1278

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)

viii

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A DWR Standardized Tables
Appendix B Completed Plan Checklist
Appendix C Demonstration of Reduced Delta Reliance
Appendix D 60-Day Notification Letters
Appendix E Climate Change Considerations (Cal-Adapt Data) Appendix F Court Judgment on Groundwater righ ts in the San Fernando and Verdugo Basins

Appendix G City Municipal Code Section 13.36 (Water Conservation) Appendix H City Hazard Mitigation Plan
Appendix I Los Angeles County All-Hazards Mitigation Plan Appendix J Water Rate Structure
Appendix K Resolution Adop ting 2025 Plan and WSCP

618 of 1278

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)

ix

LIST OF ACRONYMS

AB

Assembly Bill
AF Acre-feet
AFY Acre-feet per year
Annual Assessment Annual Water Supply and Demand Assessment AWWA American Water Works Association
CECs Constituents of emerging concern
CIMIS California Irrigation Mana gement Information System City City of Glendale
CVWD Crescenta Valley Water District
CWC California Water Code
CWEA Cooperative Water Exchange Agreement
DACs Disadvantaged Communities
DOF Department of Finance
DPW Department of Public Works
DRA Drought Risk Assessment
DWR Department of Water Resources
ERP Emergency Response Plan
ETo Evapotranspiration
FY Fiscal Year
GCMs General Circulation Models
GIS Geographical Information Systems
GOU Glendale Operable Unit
GPCD Gallons per capita per day
GSP Groundwater Su stainability Plan
GWP Glendale Water and Power
JPL Jet Propulsion Laboratory
kWh Kilowatt Hours
M&I Municipal and Industrial
MG Million Gallons
MGD Million Gallons Per Day
mg/l Milligrams per liter
MSL Mean seal level
MWD Metropolitan Water Distri ct of Southern California NASA National Aeronautics an d Space Administration
NCP National Contingency Plan
NDMA N-nitrosodimethylamine
OSY Operating Safe Yield
Plan Urban Water Management Plan
PCE Perchloroethylene
RCP Representative Concentration Pathway
RDM Robust Decision Making
ROD Records of Decision
RRA Risk and Resilience Assessment
619 of 1278

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)

x

SB Senate Bill
SCAG Southern California Association of Governments
SCE Southern California Edison
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act of 2014
SNMP San Gabriel Valley Salt and Nutrient Management Plan SWP State Water Project
SWRCB-DDW State Water Resources Contro l Board - Division of Drinking Water TCE Trichloroethylene
TDS Total Dissolved Solids
ULARA Upper Los Angeles River Area
USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
UWMP Urban Water Management Plan
VOCs Volatile Or ganic Compounds
WNWRP Whittier Narrows Water Reclamation Plant
WQA Water Quality Authority
WRCC Western Regional Climate Center
WSAP Water Supply Allocation Plan
WSCP Water Shortage Contingency Plan
WSRA Water Supply Reliability Assessment
WUCA Water Utility Climate Alliance
WUE Water Use Efficiency

620 of 1278

TABLE OF CONTENTS
(Continued)

xi

<Page Intentionally Left Blank>
621 of 1278

2025 Urban Water Management Plan

City of Glendale