Agenda packet, first session — Glendale City Council, June 9, 2026 (part 1 of 8)

A G E N D A

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
JUNE 9, 2026 - 6:00 PM

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND ACCESSIBILITY

PLEASE SILENCE CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION Viewing of City Council Meetings
:
•
In-person – City Council Chambers, 613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor, Glendale, CA 91206 •
Live Broadcast via Glendale TV, viewable on Spectrum Cable, channel 6, and AT&T U-verse, channel 99. Meetings are also streamed on the City webpage, glendaleca.gov/live
, on
YouTube.com/myglendale
, and on the Cablecast app under "Glendale TV". Meetings are also archived on the City Website for viewing anytime at
glendaleca.gov/agendas
.

City Council meeting agenda packets, any agenda related documents, and additional documents are available at City Hall and online for public viewing on the City’s website:
https://www.glendaleca.gov/government/public-meeting-portal ADA Accessibility and Translation Services
:

compliance

with

the

Americans

with

Disabilities

Act

(ADA)

1990,

auxiliary

hearing

aids,

sign
language

translation,

and

Braille

transcripts

are

available

upon

request.

Assisted

listening

devices
are

available

same-day

upon

request.

The

City

Clerk’

office

should

notified

72 hours

(three
business

days)

soon

practicable

for

requests

regarding

sign

language

translation

and
Braille

transcription

services;

please

direct

all

accessibility

requests

(818)

548-2090.

For
translations,

please

specify

the

language

for

which

you

require

translation.

The

exclusive

use

of
City

provided

interpreters

not

required

and

persons

are

welcome

use

their

own

interpreter

or
speak in their native language.

Public participation in Council meetings may occur as follows :
•
In-person – City Council Chambers
•
T elephonic participation: Call (818) 937-8100
If you have any questions about matters on the agenda, or requests for assistance including agenda email notification, please contact the City Clerk’s Office via email at [email protected], or by phone at (818) 548-2090.

1 TYPED 6/9/2026 3:08:31 PM
06 09 26
CC

PUBLIC COMMENT GUIDELINES
The City Council welcomes public input at City Council meetings. Public input at Council meetings is regulated by the City Council’s Rules of Order, Procedure and Decorum for the Conduct of City Council Meetings as set forth in Resolution No. 25-76, which will be summarized below.

Written Comments and Documents
:

Public comments received in writing will NOT be read aloud at the meeting but will be part of the meeting record. Written public comments can be emailed to [email protected], and will be uploaded to the City website as an attachment to the agenda item. When submitting a public comment, please make sure to include the following
:

1. Name (optional); and

2. Agenda item to which you are submitting public comment

3. Submit no later than 12:00 p.m. on the day of the City Council meeting. Correspondence received after this time may not be distributed until the following business day.

All documents related to open session items on this agenda that are received less than 72 hours prior to this meeting, and are public records, will be available for review in the Office of the City Clerk, 613 E. Broadway, Room 110, Glendale, CA 91206.

Public Comments During Council Meeting
:

Public Comments during Community Event Announcements, First and Second Periods of Oral Communications and agenda items will be governed as provided in the descriptions for those items on the agenda below. Pursuant to State law, the City Council may not discuss or take action on any item not appearing on the meeting agenda, except that members of the City Council or staff may ask a question for clarification or briefly respond to statements made or questions posed by persons exercising public testimony rights (Government Code Section 54954.2). Staff may be asked to follow up on such items.

Submitting Speaker Cards or Calling In for Public Comment :

Speaker cards must be submitted and telephonic participants must call in and be in the call-in queue as follows:
•
Community Event Announcements or First or Second Period of Oral Communications: PRIOR TO the commencement of the specific comment period
•
Consent Calendar Items: BEFORE a motion is made on the consent calendar •
Other agenda items, including Action items: PRIOR to the completion of the verbal staff report (unless waived by the Mayor)
Any audio-visual files displayed by speakers must be emailed to the Clerk’s office by 12:00 pm on the day before a Council meeting.

2 TYPED 6/9/2026 3:08:31 PM
06 09 26
CC

JUNE 9, 2026 - 6:00 PM

ROLL CALL

1. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS – 3:00 PM a.

Mayor Kassakhian’s Request for a Discussion on a Compensation Management Policy that Considers the City’s Financial Status
b.

Mayor Kassakhian’s Request to Agendize a Report to Consider Retaining a Financial Consultant to Review the City’s Fiscal Condition c.

Mayor Kassakhian’s Request to Consider Sponsoring a 4th of July 5K Run to celebrate the Nation’s 250th Anniversary

2. CLOSED SESSION
– 1:00 PM (T o Commence at 3:00 PM)
a.

Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation: Shandi v. City of Glendale, et al., L.A.S.C. Case No. 25STCV35077
b.

Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation: Tadevosyan v. City of Glendale, L.A.S.C. No. 24GDCV00263
c.

Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation: Claim of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company a/s/o Cybill Lui, Claim No. 26-0108 d.

Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation: Initiation of Litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9: 1 potential case
e.

Public Employee Appointment – Chief of Police

3. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA
– 6:00 PM
Roll Call
a.

Flag Salute
b.

Invocation
c.

Report of the City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the June 9, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on June 4, 2026, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

4. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a.

Proclamation for Philippines Independence Day (June 12, 2026)

5. CONSENT ITEMS
(Including Minutes)
The following are routine and may be acted upon by one motion. Any Member of Council or the audience requesting separate consideration may do so by making such request before motion is proposed.
a.

City Clerk, re: Solicitation of a Legal Advertising Contract for the City of Glendale

1. Resolution Adopting Specification No. 4054 and Directing the City Clerk to Advertise for Bids
b.

Glendale Water and Power, re: Award of Contract to Transfluid Services, Inc. to Furnish Materials, Equipment, and Labor for Testing Transformer, Load Tap

3 TYPED 6/9/2026 3:08:31 PM
06 09 26
CC

Changer, Regulator, and Circuit Breaker Oil

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into and execute a three-year contract with Transfluid Services, Inc., to furnish materials, equipment, and labor for T esting Transformer, Load T ap Changer, Regulator, and Circuit Breaker Oil for GWP (Specification No. 4013), in the amount of $124,040 plus a ten percent (10%) contingency of $12,404 per year, for three years for a total contract amount of $372,120 and contingency amount of $37,212, with the City’s option to renew the contract for two one-year terms at a three percent (3%) escalation for both years, equaling $127,762 and with a ten percent (10%) contingency equaling $12,776 per renewal year, for a total two-year renewal amount of $255,524 and contingency amount of $25,552
c.

Glendale Water and Power, re: Contract Award to General Pump Company, Inc. for On-Call Pump and Motor Repair Services (Specification No. 4031)

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter and execute a contract with General Pump Company, Inc. of San Dimas, California, for On-Call Pump and Motor Repair Services, Specification No. 4031, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $400,000
d.

Public Works, re: Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Glendale–Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Project

1. Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Glendale–Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Project and authorizing city staff to file the Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse and the Los Angeles County Recorder e.

City Attorney, re:

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
f.

Glendale Water and Power, re: 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

6. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
(Including reports from conferences and regional
meetings)

7. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS
(3-minutes per speaker)
Members of the public will be permitted to announce upcoming events taking place in the community.

8. FIRST PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
(Maximum 3 minutes per speaker, 30-minute
aggregate speaking time limit)
Members of the public may address the Council on agenda items or non-agenda items within the City Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. If a speaker addresses the Council on an agenda item during the First Period of Oral Communications, they may not speak again when the

4 TYPED 6/9/2026 3:08:31 PM
06 09 26
CC

agenda item is called. A speaker who addresses the Council on non-agenda items during the First Period of Oral Communications may not speak during the Second Period of Oral Communications.

9. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

10. ACTION ITEMS
a.

Community Development, re:

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. Intro. of 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. b.

Libraries, Arts, and Culture, re: 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
c.

City Attorney, re:

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

11. HEARINGS
a.

Glendale Water and Power, re: Public Hearing and Adoption of 2025 Urban Water Management Plan

1. Resolution Adopting the Glendale 2025 Urban Water Management Plan b.

Glendale Water and Power, re: Public Hearing and Adoption of 2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan (WSCP)

1. Resolution Adopting the Glendale 2025 Water Shortage Contingency Plan

12. REPORTS - INFORMATION

13. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

14. SECOND PERIOD OF ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is limited to items NOT a part of this agenda. Each speaker is allowed 5 minutes.

Council may question or 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.

15. NEW BUSINESS

16. ADJOURNMENT

5 TYPED 6/9/2026 3:08:31 PM
06 09 26
CC

1 | Page

June, 9 2026
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
City of Glendale
Glendale City Hall, 613 East Broadway
Glendale, California 91206
Re: Written Public Comment by Herbert Molano— Establishing an Employment Agreement and Performance Standards for the Office of Chief of Police Dear Mayor and Members of the Council:

I submit these written comments for the public record. They concern the structure of the employment relationship between the City and its Chief of Police, not the conduct or character of any individual who holds, or may hold, that office. I draw no adverse inference regarding the current Interim Chief, and nothing in this comment should be read as one. My concern is institutional and prospective: that the office be governed by a written agreement and by performance standards that insulate it from the political incentives that can distort how public‑safety data is presented to this Council and to the public.

The principle
A police chief operates at the intersection of professional law enforcement and municipal politics, and that position carries an inherent tension. A department has a structural incentive to grow, in headcount, budget, and overtime, and the data used to justify that growth is generated and characterized by the same department that would benefit from it. When the presentation of crime statistics and staffing figures is left to the requesting department, the Council is asked to appropriate public funds on the basis of analysis it has not independently validated. The remedy is not suspicion of any individual. The remedy is structure.

Why this matters now: the documented record
The need for such structure is not hypothetical. It is illustrated by the justification advanced in late 2024 for the multi‑year expansion of the sworn force commonly referred to as “Project 300.” Three of the central factual premises offered in support of that proposal cannot be reconciled with the City’s own records or with United States Census data:
— Population. The proposal asserted that the City’s population had grown. Per the U.S.

Census, Glendale’s population was approximately 194,973 in 2000 and 196,543 at the 2020 Census, a change of under one percent across twenty years. The population peaked near 200,741 in 2018 and has since fallen to an estimated 187,050 (2023). Under no reasonable measurement window does the record support a material population increase; the most recent multi‑year trend is a decline of roughly five percent from peak. — Sworn staffing. The proposal asserted that the sworn force had been reduced. The City’s own records show 231 sworn Glendale Police Department officers in FY2000 and 234 in FY2024, a net change within approximately one percent. Sworn staffing has been essentially flat for twenty‑five years; it has not been materially reduced.

PUBLIC COMMENT 2E
6 of 1278

2 | Page

— Crime. The proposal presented a post‑pandemic increase in reported crime as evidence of a rising structural trend. That increase tracked a national pattern and occurred against Glendale’s longer‑term decline. Presenting a transient, regionally common spike as a local structural trend is a recognized analytical error, the base‑rate fallacy, and is not a sound basis for a permanent, multi‑million‑dollar expansion of the force.

I note these discrepancies not to assign bad faith to anyone, but to document a concrete, on‑the‑record instance in which a major budgetary proposal rested on premises the City’s own data does not support. A standard requiring independent validation would have surfaced these problems before the proposal reached the Council.

The compensation is public; the standard does not exist The City’s CY2024 compensation records show that the highest total compensation within the Police Department was $652,918 fully loaded, comprising base salary, special pays, overtime, and the City’s employer contributions to pension and health benefits. Because much of this compensation is pensionable, it also drives a corresponding lifetime CalPERS safety‑pension obligation that compounds the unfunded liability documented in the City’s own records.

I want to be precise about where the problem lies. The Chief’s compensation is not hidden. It is established by the City’s adopted salary resolution, reported to CalPERS, and like every public employment contract in California, would be a public record subject to disclosure if one existed (Gov. Code § 7928.400). The difficulty is more fundamental: it does not exist. A Public Records Act request for the prior Chief’s employment agreement returned the City’s confirmation that there is no such agreement. The consequence is that an office compensated at this level operates with no written instrument establishing measurable performance expectations, deliverables, or accountability. The salary is transparent; the standard that salary is meant to secure is absent.

The office of Chief of Police is filled by executive appointment rather than through the competitive civil‑service process, and it is therefore not subject to the merit‑system protections that the Civil Service Commission administers for classified employees. For precisely that reason, a written employment agreement is the appropriate accountability instrument for this office: it is the only place such standards can reside.

Requests
I respectfully ask the Council to take the following actions in connection with any permanent appointment to the office of Chief of Police:

1. Adopt a written employment agreement for the office, and state its performance and compensation terms within the instrument itself. The City’s response to a Public Records Act request confirms that none currently exists. Because any such agreement is, by operation of law, a public record (Gov. Code § 7928.400), adopting one both satisfies the City’s transparency commitments and creates the accountability instrument the office now lacks. The measurable terms must appear in the agreement itself rather than by reference to evaluations held elsewhere: California courts have held that a contract’s mere reference to performance goals reviewed within a separate evaluation does not 7 of 1278

3 | Page

make those goals public (Versaci v. Superior Court). If the standard is to be transparent, it must be in the document.

2. Tie any incentive or bonus compensation to outcomes attributable to the Chief’s own leadership, and not to national or regional trends. Crime levels rise and fall for reasons largely outside any single department’s control. Performance compensation should reward the measurable difference between Glendale’s outcomes and the trend in comparable jurisdictions over the same period and not the absolute level of an outcome that may be driven by factors the Chief did not cause. This standard protects the public from paying for results it did not receive, and it equally protects the Chief from being charged with trends he did not create.

3. Require that all staffing and budget requests, and all crime‑statistics presentations to the Council, be supported by independently validated analysis longitudinal and normalized for population and other relevant factors, sourced to official records, and reviewed by a qualified analytic function independent of the requesting department before they are presented to this body.

4. As a matter of policy, extend the practice of written employment agreements with publicly stated performance terms to the City’s executive and department‑head positions generally. Compensation set at the top of the organization establishes reference points that influence the classification and compensation structure beneath it.

Documenting the basis for executive compensation therefore serves accountability and the merit principle well beyond any single office.

Conclusion
These measures impose no judgment on the present Interim Chief, who has my respect and the benefit of every presumption. They are directed at the structure of the office so that whoever holds it is evaluated on evidence rather than narrative, compensated on results rather than circumstance, and protected, as the public is protected, from the politicization of public‑safety data. I ask that this comment be entered into the record of the proceedings.

Respectfully submitted,

Herbert Molano
Transparent Cities/Transparent Glendale
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates Program (2000; 2020 Census; 2023 estimate); City of Glendale ACFR and CPRA-produced records (sworn staffing FY2000–FY2024; CY2024 Police Department compensation); City of Glendale CPRA response confirming the absence of an employment agreement for the Chief of Police; California Government Code § 7928.400; Versaci v. Superior Court (2005) 127 Cal.App.4th 805. Figures and records cited are public and available for verification. 8 of 1278

6 8
8 9

AGENDA ITEM

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
Report: Solicitation of a Legal Advertising Contract for the City of Glendale

1. Resolution Adopting Specification No. 4054 and Directing the City Clerk to Advertise for Bids

COUNCIL ACTION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In accordance with the City’s Charter, legal advertising for the City of Glendale shall be performed through publication in one or more newspapers of general circulation within the City’s jurisdiction. Accordingly, the City Council is required to annually approve the specifications related to the solicitation of a legal advertising contract and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved forJune 9, 2026 calendar
9 of 1278

2 RECOMMENDATION
That City Council adopt Specification No. 4054 and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

ANALYSIS
In accordance with Article VI, Section 11 of the Glendale City Charter, the Council shall annually call for bids for all official advertising of the city, pursuant to specifications which shall first be approved by the Council. The purpose of this report is to seek both approval of the Specifications as well as approval to solicit bids.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable

FISCAL IMPACT
The City Clerk’s advertising account is directly influenced by the number of hearings being advertised for City Council, various other boards and commissions, and the publication of ordinance summaries on an annual basis. The proposed legal advertising contract is anticipated to not exceed $60,000, which is requested as part of the proposed budget for FY 2026-27, per the table below. Staff will return to Council to award the contract.

Proposed FY 2026-27 Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$60,000 44200-1010-CCD-0010-P0000 General Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Not applicable.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
None. There is a legal requirement for legal advertising. Failure to adequately advertise would result in a violation of public noticing laws.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
10 of 1278

2 11 of 1278

3 Prepared by:

Jinette Simon, Secretary to the City Clerk
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS

1. Legal Advertising Bid
12 of 1278

RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING CITY CLERK SPECIFICATIONS NO. 4054 FOR

LEGAL ADVERTISING SERVICES PURSUANT TO GLENDALE CHARTER ARTICLE VI, SECTION 11 AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE;
SECTION 1. The specifications, on file in the Office of the City Clerk, for Legal Advertising services including the various documents incorporated therein, are hereby approved, adopted, designated, and shall hereafter be known as Specification No. 4054 SECTION 2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to advertise for bids for the services and materials described in Specifications No.4018 adopted by this Resolution.

Adopted this day of 2026.

Mayor of the City of Glendale
ATTEST:

City Clerk of the City of Glendale

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was duly adopted by 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
13 of 1278

1. SPECIFICATIONS NO. 4054
FOR

LEGAL ADVERTISING
IN THE

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA
14 of 1278

2 NOTICE CALLING FOR BIDS
Sealed bids will be received at the office of the City Clerk of the City of Glendale until 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, July 1,2026 for:

THE LEGAL ADVERTISING WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA

OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, FOR THE CITY OF GLENDALE
Bids will be opened publicly at or about 2:00 P.M. of said day in the City Clerk’s Office of the City Hall, in the City of Glendale, California.

The work shall be done in accordance with Specification No. 4054 on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Glendale, where they may be examined copies obtained.

Bids shall be made in duplicate on the proposal form obtainable at the Office of the City Clerk.

Bidders are hereby notified that in accordance with the provisions of the Labor Code of the State of California, the Council of the City of Glendale has ascertained and determined by Resolution No. , as amended, the general prevailing rate of per diem wages and the general prevailing rate for legal holiday and overtime work for each craft or type of worker needed in the execution of contracts with the City of Glendale. Said Resolution is on file in the office of the City Clerk and is incorporated herein and made a part hereof the same as though fully set forth herein.

The City of Glendale reserves the right to reject any and all bids and to waive any informalities or technical defects as the best interests of the City may require.

Suzie Abajian, City Clerk
City of Glendale
15 of 1278

2 16 of 1278

3 INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION FOR BIDDERS
A. INTENT OF SPECIFICATIONS
It is the intent of these specifications to provide for complete legal advertising for the entire period covered by the contract and within the geographical area of the City of Glendale, with the express exception that legal advertising relating to charter amendments is hereby excluded.

The total bid shall be itemized in accordance with the Proposal Schedule. Each item of the Proposal Schedule must be filled in and completed, or the bid will be considered incomplete and subject, at the City’s option, to rejection. On the Proposed Schedule, Item 1 (price per lineal inch for the first insertion), and Item 1a (price per lineal inch for each subsequent insertion) only will be used to evaluate the bid for the purpose of awarding the contract. Items 2, 2a, 3 and 3a shall be binding upon the bidder, but shall not be used in determining the lowest responsible bidder.

Any contract entered into with the City under Specification No. 4054 shall include all the services provided therein and be let to the lowest responsible bidder.

Billing shall be made monthly to the Director of Finance based on the submission of invoices.

B. FORM OF PROPOSAL AND SIGNATURE
The proposal must be made on the form provided for that purpose, enclosed in a sealed envelope bearing the title of the work and specifications number, and addressed to the City Clerk, 613 E. Broadway, Room 110, Glendale, California, 91206-4393. If the bid is made by an individual, it must be signed by the full name of the bidder, whose address must be given; if it is made by a firm, it must be signed with the firm name by a member of the firm, and the name and full address of each member must be given; and if it is made by a corporation, it must be signed by the proper office in the corporate name, and the corporate seal must be attached to such signature. No other proposals will be considered.

C. PROPOSALS
Blank spaces in the proposal must be properly filled in and the phraseology of the proposal form must not be changed. Any unauthorized conditions, limitations, or provisos attached to a proposal may render it informal and cause its rejection. Alterations by erasure or interlineation must be explained or noted in the proposal over the signature of the bidder. Bidders are invited to be present at the opening of proposals. A corporation submitting a proposal may be required, before the contract is finally awarded, to furnish a certificate as to its corporate existence, satisfactory evidence as to the officer or officers authorized to execute the contract on behalf of the corporation. All proposals shall be made in duplicate on the proposal form obtainable at the office of the City Clerk of the City of Glendale.

D. EXAMINATION OF SPECIFICATION
The bidder must make a careful examination of all the Specification, and must fully inform himself/herself to the character of work required. The City will, in no case, be responsible for any unanticipated cost that may be suffered the contractor as a result of the contractor’s failure to fully inform himself/herself in regard to all conditions pertaining to the work. 17 of 1278

3 18 of 1278

4 E. QUALIFICATIONS OF BIDDER
The bidder must satisfy the City of his/her ability to furnish the materials and to perform the work contemplated.
19 of 1278

4 20 of 1278

5 PROPOSAL FOR:

LEGAL ADVERTISING

WITHIN THE GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF THE

CITY OF GLENDALE
UNDER
SPECIFICATION NO. 4054
Date_______________________________
To the Honorable Mayor and City Council
Glendale, California
Ladies and Gentlemen:

In compliance with the advertisement calling therefore, the undersigned hereby proposed and agrees to:

Do the Legal Advertising within the Geographic Area of the City of Glendale, in accordance with Specification No. 4054 of the City of Glendale and the Proposal Schedule which follows, to enter into and execute a contract at the prices set forth in said Proposal Schedule.

The bid price shall include all sales, use or other taxes applicable to the items bid upon. 21 of 1278

5 22 of 1278

6 PROPOSAL SCHEDULE
(Bidder shall fill in the price bid in the appropriate column.) Item No.

1. Price per lineal inch for 1st insertion.
__________
1a. Price per lineal inch for each subsequent insertion. __________

2. Price per page for additional copies in quantities of 100. __________
2a. Price per page or additional copies for second and subsequent hundreds. __________

3. Price per page for additional copies printed on Hammermill ledger bond or equivalent twenty-four pound stock, in quantities of 50 __________
3a. Price per page for second and subsequent fifties.
__________
23 of 1278

6 24 of 1278

7 If awarded the contract, the undersigned hereby agrees to sign said contract within fourteen (14) days after the award of said contract.

The undersigned has examined and judged at his/her own responsibility the type of legal advertising proposed and is familiar with the specifications.

The undersigned has checked carefully all of the above figures and understands that said City will not be responsible for any error or omission on the part of the undersigned in preparing this bid, nor will said City release the undersigned on account of said error or omission. (Bidder shall sign in appropriate blanks)
INDIVIDUAL Name of Company_______________________________________________ Signature of Individual____________________________________________ Address_______________________________________________________ ________________________________________Phone________________ City State Zip Code
PARTNERS Name of Partnership_____________________________________________ Signature of Member Signing_______________________________________ Address_______________________________________________________ ________________________________________Phone________________ City State Zip Code

CORPORATION Name of
Corporation_____________________________________________ Signature of Officer______________________________________________ Title_____________________________________________(Corporate Seal) Address_______________________________________________________ ________________________________________Phone________________ City State Zip Code
25 of 1278

7 26 of 1278

8 DETAILED SPECIFICATION

1. DEFINITIONS
The word “advertising” as used in these specifications, shall mean and include all legal advertising in the City of Glendale, except for publication of Charter amendments, which may be required by law to be published in a legal newspaper or in a newspaper of general circulation.

The word “contractor” as used in these specifications, shall mean the successful bidder.

2. REQUIREMENT OF CIRCULATION
All advertising shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation which is published and circulated in the geographical area of the City of Glendale, and in all other respects shall comply with the requirements of law applicable to legal newspapers and newspapers of general circulation.

3. PROOFING MATERIAL
Proofs of all matter to be published under these Specifications shall be first carefully read with the copy and corrected, and two (2) revised proof sheets of the corrected matter shall be delivered to the City Clerk or other officer, board, commission or department of said City ordering such advertising, with the original copy thereof, in time to permit the reading of such proof before such advertising is published, and upon return of one of said proof sheets to the contractor all corrections noted thereon shall be made before such advertising is published, without additional charge. No charge shall be made or allowed for republication of a matter occasioned by any error on the part of the contractor notwithstanding the proof thereof may have been read by any officer or employee of the City, or for the republication of any subsequent matter or publication in connection with the same proceeding which may have been occasioned by any such error on the part of the contractor under the conditions aforesaid.

4. DATES OF PUBLICATION
All advertising shall be published on the dates and at the times directed by said City or the officer, board, commission or department thereof ordering such advertising. Affidavits, showing the publication of advertising shall be made in duplicate and delivered by the contractor without charge to the officer, board, commission or department ordering the same not later than two (2) days after the completion of such advertising.
27 of 1278

8 28 of 1278

9 5. PLACING AND HEADING ADVERTISING
All advertising shall be grouped under the heading “Public Notices,” which heading shall be placed above all columns in which such advertising is displayed and no other matter shall be allowed to intervene or appear between the parts of such legal advertising or between the heading above referred to and the printed matter following the same.

6. SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL TO BE FURNISHED
The contractor shall furnish to the officers, board, commission or department of the City ordering advertising hereunder twenty-five (25) printed copies of each advertisement, the same to be printed on newsprint paper six inches by nine inches (6” x 9”) in size and delivered to the said officer, board, commission or department ordering the advertising not later than noon of the day immediately succeeding the first publications of such advertising, unless such officer, board, commission or department shall specify a lesser number of such copies. Each separate advertisement shall be separately printed without being combined with any other advertisement or printed matter.

7. SIZE OF TYPE FOR PRINTING
All advertising shall be printed in type not larger than six (6) points, set at least eleven (11) lines to the lineal inch of the column, and the columns shall not be less than one and one-half (1-1/2) inches wide.

8. PRICE STATEMENT
Bidders shall, in their respective bids, give the name of the newspaper in which it is proposed to publish advertising and state the price per lineal inch of column not less than one and one-half (1-1/2) inches in width for which such advertising will be published. Each bidder shall also state a price for the first insertion thereof and the price for each subsequent insertion of the same advertisement. The price so stated shall include the furnishing of twenty-five (25) printed copies of all advertising as above mentioned.

9. NEWSPAPERS AND ARCHIVE ACCESS TO BE PROVIDED
a. The contractor shall deliver, without extra charge therefore, not less than thirty (3) nor more than forty (40) copies of each issue of said paper, with inserts, published during the period covered by the contract, as needed as determined by the City Clerk. b. The contractor shall provide, without extra charge, unlimited access to archives of past publications (archived publications) whether internet, web-based or otherwise. If internet or web-based, contractor shall provide a password or passcode, if needed, to the City Clerk, City Attorney and City Manager to permit access to the archived publications during the period covered by the contract.
29 of 1278

9 30 of 1278

10 10. ADDITIONAL COPIES OF ADVERTISING TO BE FURNISHED Each bidder shall also submit a bid for furnishing additional copies of all such advertising in quantities of not less than one hundred (100) copies as desired by the City. Said bid is binding upon the bidder, but shall not be evaluated for the purpose of awarding the contract. Said copies are to be in addition to the twenty-five (25) printed copies above mentioned and shall be printed on newsprint paper six inches by nine inches (6” x 9”) in size. Bids for such copies shall state the price per page per hundred (100) copies. Also, each bidder shall submit a bid for furnishing additional copies of all such advertising in quantities of fifty (50) copies printed on Hammermill Ledger Bond, or equivalent, twenty-four (24) pound stock. No bid will be considered which does not state the price for furnishing such copies. The City is not obliged to have said copies printed, but reserves the right to do so by giving notice to the contractor at any time before the contractor has completed the advertising, or before the type for the same has been distributed or destroyed.

11. EXECUTION OF CONTRACT
The contract shall be executed by the successful bidder within fourteen (14) days from the date of the awarding thereof, and when so executed shall cover the period of July 1, 2026, to midnight, June 30, 2027. The City, at its own option, reserves the right to extend the contract on a month-to-month basis thereafter, in accordance with the terms to be agreed upon between the parties.

A breach of any one of the conditions or terms of this specification or of the contract when so executed shall be sufficient cause for the Council of the City of Glendale to terminate such contract and readvertise for bids.
31 of 1278

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Award of Contract to Transfluid Services, Inc. to Furnish Materials, Equipment, and Labor for Testing Transformer, Load Tap Changer, Regulator, and Circuit Breaker Oil

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into and execute a three-year contract with Transfluid Services, Inc., to furnish materials, equipment, and labor for Testing Transformer, Load Tap Changer, Regulator, and Circuit Breaker Oil for GWP (Specification No. 4013), in the amount of $124,040 plus a ten percent (10%) contingency of $12,404 per year, for three years for a total contract amount of $372,120 and contingency amount of $37,212, with the City’s option to renew the contract for two one-year terms at a three percent (3%) escalation for both years, equaling $127,762 and with a ten percent (10%) contingency equaling $12,776 per renewal year, for a total two-year renewal amount of $255,524 and contingency amount of $25,552.

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to the expertise and sophisticated equipment needed, as well as the critical nature of regularly monitoring the oil of transformers, load tap changers, regulators, and circuit breakers, it is necessary to have a contractor on board to perform oil testing.

To sustain our aging equipment, it is important to have a capable contractor that can assess the current state of our equipment and assist in determining plans of action to remedy any issues that may be present in order to maintain power system reliability.

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to execute a three-year contract with Transfluid Services, to furnish materials, equipment, and labor for testing transformer, load tap changer, regulator, and circuit breaker oil in the amount of $124,040, plus a ten percent contingency in the amount of $12,404 each year for the three-year term, and allow a renewal option for a fourth and fifth year with a three percent escalation for both years, equaling $127,762 and ten percent contingency equaling $12,776 per renewal year.

ANALYSIS
GWP’s commitment to providing reliable and trusted service to its customers includes annual testing of transformer, load tap changer, regulator, and circuit breaker oil as part of its ongoing maintenance of electric substation assets. 32 of 1278

25b
6 8
2 4
GWP must continually monitor the condition of its oil-immersed electrical equipment to meet this commitment. Oil testing is a standard industry practice to effectively accomplish this task. Oil testing includes taking necessary oil samples from transformers, load tap changers, regulators, and oil circuit breakers, and analyzing these samples for Dissolved Gasses; Total Combustible Gasses; Moisture Content; Interfacial Tension; Acidity; Color; Specific Gravity; Dielectric Breakdown Voltage; Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCB), and other characteristics. A high degree of specific expertise is needed to perform this type of work. Specification No. 4013 solicited qualified contractors to perform these tasks as part of GWP’s overall annual maintenance program.

On January 13, 2026, City Council approved Resolution 26-06 to adopt Specification No. 4013 and directed the City Clerk to advertise for bids for a three-year contract with the possibility of renewing for a fourth and fifth year. After two weeks of the bid being posted in the Glendale Independent newspaper and the City of Glendale website, a mandatory pre-bid conference was held virtually with three prospective bidders attending. On March 31, 2026 the bidding period was closed.

Only one bid was submitted for this specification by Transfluid Services, Inc., for an amount of $124,040 per year. Staff evaluated the bid based on price, mandatory qualifications, and competency of the bidder, and found it to be responsive and close to the estimated cost of $120,000.

The cost of the service contract with Transfluid Services for testing transformer, load tap changer, regulator, and circuit breaker oil, Specification No. 4013, is $124,040 annually, plus a ten percent (10%) contingency in the amount of $12,404 per year, for a total annual amount of $136,444. The total contract amount for the initial three-year term is $372,120, plus a total contingency amount of $37,212, for a combined total of $409,332.

If the contract is renewed for the fourth and fifth years, the contractor shall be entitled to a not-to-exceed increase of three percent of the base bid amount for each renewal year.

Accordingly, the annual not-to-exceed amount for Years 4 and 5 will be $127,762, plus a ten percent contingency of $12,776, for a total annual amount of $140,538 for each renewal year. Therefore, the total not-to-exceed amount for the two-year renewal term will be $255,524, plus a contingency amount of $25,552, for a combined total of $281,076. The contract cost breakdown is shown in the table below.

Contract Term Renewal Term (3% Escalation)
Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
Base Bid
Amount
$124,040 $124,040 $124,040 $127,762 $127,762
Contingency
(10%)
$12,404 $12,404 $12,404 $12,776 $12,776
Total Yearly
Bid Amount
$136,444 $136,444 $136,444 $140,538 $140,538
Term
Subtotal
$409,332 $281,076
Final Amount
with Renewal
$690,408
33 of 1278

35b
6 8
2 4

STAKEHOLDERS / OUTREACH
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
The total cost of the contract in FY 2026-27 is $124,040, which is included in the proposed FY 2026–27 budget, as outlined below. Appropriations for the remaining fiscal years will be requested through the annual budget process. No new appropriation is being requested at this time.

Proposed FY 2026-27 Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$124,040 GL: 43110-5820-GWP-4650-P0000-
T0000-F1580
Electric Works Revenue
Fund
Department Cost Center Program
Glendale Water
and Power
Electric Station Maintenance

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This project is categorically exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15301(b), for the operation, repair, and maintenance of existing facilities.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
In accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744, the following are the names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors, and any person or entity with more than ten percent (10%) interest in the company proposed for contract in this agenda item report:

Officers of Transfluid Services, Inc.

Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Scott
MacEachern
Chief Executive
Officer/President
20405 State Highway
249, Suite 150
Houston TX 77070
Nancy Walsh Chief Financial
Officer
20405 State Highway
249, Suite 150
Houston TX 77070

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Choose not to authorize the recommended action herein, which will increase the City’s exposure to potential power outages due to unknown conditions of aging equipment, which could likely result in equipment failures within the GWP electric grid. 34 of 1278

45b
6 8
2 4

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

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

Hovsep Barkhordarian, P.E., Electrical Engineering Manager Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
None.
35 of 1278

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale, finds that Transfluid Services Inc. is the sole responsive bidder to furnish labor, equipment and materials for Glendale Water & Power’s (GWP) Testing Transformer, Load Tap Changer, Regulator, and Circuit Breaker Oil, Specification No. 4013, and that the bid of Transfluid Srvices Inc. is hereby accepted and approved as recommended by the General Manager of Glendale Water & Power in the Report dated June 9, 2026. The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to execute a three-year contract with Transfulid Services Inc. for a not-to-exceed amount of $124,040 plus a 10% continency of $12,404 per year, for a total not-to-exceed amount of $372,120 and contingency amount of $37,212, with the City’s option to extend said contract for two 1-year terms at a 3% escalation for both years for an annual not-to-exceed amount of $127,762 plus a 10% contingency of $12,776 per renewal year, for a total two-year renewal not-to-exceed amount of $255,524 and contingency amount of $25,552. The contract and any amendments thereto shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
36 of 1278

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Contract Award to General Pump Company, Inc. for On-Call Pump and Motor Repair Services (Specification No. 4031).

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Glendale Water & Power (GWP) is requesting City Council authorization to execute a contract with General Pump Company, Inc., for On-Call Pump and Motor Repair Services in the amount of $400,000. On May 6, 2026, GWP received two (2) bids in response to Specification No. 4031. Following a review of the bid documents, GWP determined that General Pump Company, Inc. is the lowest responsive bidder in compliance with the requirements of the specifications.

RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager, or his designee, to execute a contract with General Pump Company, Inc., for On-Call Pump and Motor Repair Services (Specification No. 4031) for a total not-to-exceed amount of $400,000.

Choosing not to award the contract as recommended herein would require, at a minimum, staff to prepare separate requests for proposals for each task, likely delaying the completion of the work, increasing project costs, and decreasing overall system reliability.

ANALYSIS
GWP operates and maintains critical water system infrastructure throughout the City, including reservoirs, pump stations, and associated mechanical equipment. The City’s water system serves over 200,000 residents and includes 25 reservoirs/tanks and 26 pump stations that support the storage, transmission, and distribution of potable and recycled water. Pumps and motors are essential components of these facilities and are 37 of 1278

25c
6 8
5 0
required to operate continuously to support the reliable delivery and distribution of water to the community.

Due to the specialized nature of pump and motor repairs, certain maintenance and repair work cannot be performed by City staff and must be completed by a qualified contractor with the appropriate equipment and expertise. In addition, equipment failures may occur unexpectedly and require prompt repair to minimize operational disruptions and maintain system reliability. Without an established on-call contract, the City staff may experience delays in obtaining necessary repair services, which could result in extended equipment outages, reduced system reliability, and potential impacts to water operations.

On April 21, 2026, the City Council adopted Specification No. 4031 for the On-Call Pump and Motor Repair Services and directed the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

To ensure competitive bids, the contract was advertised in the local newspaper, Bidnet direct, and the City’s website. Advertising the contract through multiple platforms helped maximize vendor outreach, promote fair competition, and ensure the City received responsive and responsible bids in accordance with the City’s requirements.

On May 6, 2026, the bid deadline, the City received two bids as shown below. Since the proposed contract is an on-call contract with a not-to-exceed amount, the evaluation of the bids was based on a fee schedule.

Rank Bidder Location Basis of Award
1 Power Bros. Machine Montebello, CA Non-Responsive
2 General Pump Company, Inc. San Dimas, CA Responsive
Upon review of the bid documents, GWP staff determined that the bid submitted by Power Bros. Machine was non-responsive due to their failure to provide a required signature and contractor seal in the bid proposal document. As a result, the bid could not be considered for award. The bid submitted by General Pump Company, Inc. was determined to be responsive and in compliance with the bidding requirements.

Additionally, staff verified through the State of California Contractors State License Board that General Pump Company, Inc., of San Dimas, California, holds a contractor’s license that is current, active, and in good standing.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
The cost of the recommended contract with General Pump Company, Inc. for on-call pump and motor repair services over a two-year period is $400,000, of which $200,000 is allocated for the first year. Services will be provided on an “as needed” basis. Bid evaluation was based, in part, on the submitted fee schedules. Funding for this contract 38 of 1278

35c
6 8
5 0
is included in the proposed Fiscal Year 2026–2027 budget. No new appropriation is requested at this time.

The proposed FY 2026-27 funding is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$400,000 GL: 52100-5930-GWP-0020-P0000-
PL: GWP00342AA
Water Depreciation Fund
Department Cost Center Program
Glendale Water
and Power
Projects

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review as a Class 1: Existing Facilities pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15031.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not applicable.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative: Choose not to award the contract as recommended herein, thus requiring staff to prepare separate requests for proposals for each task, likely delaying the completion of the work, potentially increasing project costs, and decreasing overall system reliability.

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
None.
39 of 1278

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ________________________________, seconded by Council Member __________________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale, finds that General Pump Company, Inc. of San Dimas, California is the lowest responsive bidder to furnish on-call pump and motor repair services for Glendale Water & Power (GWP) pursuant to Specification No. 4031, and that the bid of General Pump Company, Inc. of San Dimas, California is hereby accepted and approved as recommended by the General Manager of Glendale Water & Power in the Report dated June 9, 2026, and that all other bids be, and are, hereby rejected. The City Manager, or his designee, is authorized to execute a contract with General Pump Company, Inc. of San Dimas, California for a total not to exceed amount of $400,000. The contract and any amendments thereto shall be subject to approval by the City Attorney.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
40 of 1278

5d
26-90081

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Adoption of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program for the Glendale–Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Project 1) Resolution adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Glendale–Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Project and authorizing city staff to file the Notice of Determination with the State Clearinghouse and the Los Angeles County Recorder.

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

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Glendale–Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Project (Project) is Phase 3 of the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk and consists of a new pedestrian and bicycle bridge spanning the Los Angeles River between the Cities of Glendale and Los Angeles. As lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City of Glendale prepared an initial study, which concluded that all potentially significant environmental impacts can be reduced to a level of less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) have therefore been prepared for City Council consideration.

The intent of this item is for the City Council to adopt the MND and approve the associated resolution, authorizing city staff to file the Notice of Determination and the MND and MMRP with the State Clearinghouse and the Los Angeles County Recorder.

Adoption of the MND is a prerequisite to advancing the Project through final design and construction.

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution adopting the MND and MMRP for the Glendale–Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Project and authorize city staff to file the Notice of Determination and the MND with the State Clearinghouse and the Los Angeles County Clerk. 41 of 1278

5d2
26-90081
6 8
2 9

ANALYSIS
Project Background
The Glendale Narrows Riverwalk site is located on the north bank of the Los Angeles River opposite Griffith Park and is being delivered in three phases. Phase 1, completed in December 2012, included a half mile of recreational trail for bicyclists and pedestrians, an equestrian facility, interpretive signage, and extensive native landscaping. Phase 2, completed in October 2018, added a small park, the remainder of the recreational trail, and a bridge crossing over a drainage culvert.

Phase 3, originally called the Glendale Narrows Bridge and now known as the Glendale–Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Project, involves construction of a curvilinear concrete or concrete-and-steel bridge spanning the Los Angeles River between the cities of Glendale and Los Angeles. The bridge will include concrete substructure planking, two piers in the river, safety railings, trash cans, pet waste stations, interpretive signs, landscaping, pedestrian safety lighting, and access gates.

Once complete, the Project will provide approximately one mile of continuous recreational trail and connect the Riverwalk to Griffith Park.

On December 14, 2021, the City Council authorized a Professional Services Agreement with Biggs Cardosa Associates, Inc. (BCA) to provide professional engineering, environmental document, and construction management services for the Project. BCA’s scope includes preparation of the environmental document, schematic and final design, permitting, bidding assistance, and construction support.

Environmental Review Process
As lead agency under CEQA, the City of Glendale prepared an initial study to evaluate the potential environmental effects of constructing and operating the proposed bridge.

The City of Los Angeles is the Responsible Agency under CEQA. Various City of Los Angeles departments reviewed and provided comments on the Initial Study, MND and MMRP. The City of Los Angeles is responsible for providing the requisite right of way, and associated permitting for Glendale to construct the Project connecting the Glendale portion of the bridge over the Los Angeles River into Griffith Park The initial study analyzed each topic in the CEQA environmental checklist, including biological resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, noise, air quality, transportation, hydrology, and hazards.

The initial study concluded that, with implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the MMRP, the Project would not result in any significant environmental impacts. On this basis, a MND is the appropriate CEQA document for the Project. The MND and MMRP have been circulated for public review in accordance with CEQA requirements, and all comments received have been considered as part of the city’s independent review and analysis.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The MMRP includes mitigation measures addressing biological resources, construction noise and lighting, cultural resources, and tribal cultural resources. Each measure 42 of 1278

5d3
26-90081
6 8
2 9
identifies a monitoring action, timing, and responsible party. The measures are summarized below; the full text and monitoring requirements are set forth in the attached resolution.
BMP-1 Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey — surveys conducted by a qualified biologist prior to ground disturbance during the avian nesting season (February 1 to September 15), with appropriate buffers around active nests. BMP-2 Pre-Construction Clearance Survey — a qualified biologist will survey the Project site for the California legless lizard within two hours before ground disturbance and relocate any individuals encountered.
BMP-3 Bat Roost and Emergence Survey — daytime and dusk surveys for bat roosts within 100 feet of the work area, with seasonal restrictions during the bat maternity season (May 1 to August 15) where warranted.
BMP-4 Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) — training for construction crews on identification of and procedures for sensitive biological resources.
BMP-5 Construction Noise — mobile noise barriers and equipment muffler requirements to reduce construction noise levels for sensitive receptors and roosting/nesting wildlife.
BMP-6 Operational Lighting — low-level lighting at entry points, with non- essential lighting eliminated to protect wildlife circadian rhythms. BMP-7 Access Routes and Work Area — delineated work areas and access routes to minimize impacts to jurisdictional features and sensitive resources. BMP-8 Perimeter Construction Fencing — minimum 6-foot perimeter fencing around construction areas for safety and to screen views of staging. BMP-9 Tier 4 Construction Equipment — all 75-horsepower or greater diesel equipment to be powered by CARB-certified Tier 4 Interim engines where available.
CR-1 Archaeological WEAP and Assessment — archaeological awareness training for construction personnel and a defined assessment protocol if archaeological resources are discovered.
TCR-1 Native American Monitor — retention of a Native American Monitor from the NAHC contact list prior to and throughout ground-disturbing activities, with daily monitoring logs.
TCR-2 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resources — 60-foot work stoppage buffer and assessment by tribal monitor and qualified archaeologist if non-funerary tribal cultural resources are discovered.
TCR-3 Treatment of Native American Human Remains and Burial Goods — 100- foot buffer, County Coroner notification, and NAHC consultation procedures consistent with Public Resources Code Sections 5097.98 and 7050.5, with preservation in place as the preferred treatment.

Next Steps
Upon adoption of the resolution, city staff will file the Notice of Determination with the MND and MMRP with the State Clearinghouse and the Los Angeles County Clerk. 43 of 1278

5d4
26-90081
6 8
2 9
Adoption of the MND and MMRP completes the CEQA clearance milestone identified in the Project’s implementation schedule and allows the design team to advance final plans, specifications, and estimates and to prepare the Project for bid and construction.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Extensive stakeholder outreach has been conducted throughout the planning, master planning, environmental review, and design phases of the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk and Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge Project. Outreach has included community meetings, project workshops, and stakeholder coordination with the U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, National Park Service, Caltrans District 7, Los Angeles County Public Works, the City of Los Angeles, Friends of the LA River, and other interested agencies and community organizations.

Additionally, on April 7, 2025, and October 6, 2025, the Project was presented to the Los Angeles River Cooperation Committee (LARCC). Following these presentations, LARCC recommended that the Project proceed with finalizing environmental clearance, permitting, and final design efforts.

As required as part of the CEQA process, the city initiated tribal consultation pursuant to Assembly Bill 52 and Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1. Tribal notification letters were distributed providing information regarding the proposed Project, including its location, area of potential effects, cultural resources records search, pedestrian survey, and the Native American Heritage Commission Sacred Lands File search results. The letters also provided the required opportunity for tribes to request consultation with the city regarding potential tribal cultural resources. The Project team consulted with the Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians - Kizh Nation, Gabrieleño Tongva Indians of California, and Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and incorporated mitigation measures into the Project consistent with recommendations received during consultation.

Between January 19, 2026, and February 17, 2026, the initial study and proposed MND were circulated for public comments pursuant to CEQA requirements. A community meeting was also held at the City of Glendale Council Chambers on February 25, 2026, to discuss the CEQA document and Project elements. All comments received during the public review and comment period and community meeting were considered as part of the city’s independent review and are reflected in the final MND, responses to comments, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program presented for adoption.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the adoption of the MND and MMRP.

Preparation of the initial study, MND, and MMRP is included in the scope of the Professional Services Agreement with BCA, previously authorized by Council on December 14, 2021.

Funding for implementation of the MMRP during construction will be included as part of the construction phase budget for the Project, which is funded through Proposition 68 44 of 1278

5d5
26-90081
6 8
2 9
grant funds, the 2015 Metro Call for Projects grant, and Assembly Bill 170 funds previously committed to the Project. No new appropriation is required by this action.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
In accordance with CEQA, the City of Glendale, as lead agency, prepared an initial study evaluating the potential environmental effects of the Project. The initial study determined that all potentially significant impacts can be reduced to a level of less than significant with the mitigation measures set forth in the MMRP incorporated into the Project. On this basis, an MND and MMRP have been prepared and is the subject of this action.

Following adoption, the Notice of Determination, MND and MMRP will be filed with the State Clearinghouse and the Los Angeles County Clerk, completing the CEQA clearance milestone for the Project. The Project will also undergo separate environmental clearance under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) as part of federal-aid funding requirements; that clearance is being processed concurrently and upon submittal of final design plans to the United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE) and is not affected by this action.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not applicable.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Daniel Hernandez, Director of Public Works
Prepared by:

Sarkis Oganesyan, P.E., Assistant Director of Public Works/City Engineer Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit 2: Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration Responses to Comments Exhibit 3: Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Exhibit 4: Appendix A – Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas & Energy Assessment Exhibit 5: Appendix B – Biological Resources Assessment Exhibit 6: Appendix C – Cultural Resources Assessment
Exhibit 7: Appendix D – Noise Analysis
Exhibit 8: Appendix E – Trip Generation Assessment
45 of 1278

5d6
26-90081
6 8
2 9
Exhibit 9: Appendix F – Vehicle Miles Traveled Screening Evaluation 46 of 1278

1 Glendale – Los Angeles Garden River Bridge MND - MMRP Resolution 1 7
1 3
3 RESOLUTION NO. __________

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE ADOPTING A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM PREPARED PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT FOR THE “GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE” PROJECT LOCATED AT THE LOS ANGELES

RIVER CHANNEL (LA RIVER) AT FLOWER STREET, CITY OF GLENDALE, AND ZOO

DRIVE IN THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, LOS ANGELES COUNTY
WHEREAS, the City of Glendale, as lead agency, has caused to be prepared an initial study to identify potential environmental impacts of a project involving the construction of a new three-span, curvilinear, landscaped bridge across the LA River between the Cities of Los Angeles and Glendale for use by pedestrians and bicyclists located at the Los Angeles River Channel at Flower Street, City of Glendale, and Zoo Drive, in the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles County (the “Project”); and
WHEREAS, the initial study revealed that there were no significant project impacts that could not be mitigated to a level of less than significant with mitigation measures incorporated and therefore a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) was prepared; and
WHEREAS, the MND and MMRP were made available for a 30-day public review and comment period from January 19, 2026 to February 17, 2026, inclusive, and two written comments were received; and
WHEREAS, on June 9, 2026, at a noticed City Council meeting, the City Council exercising its independent judgment, has read, reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study and all reports, appendices, and mitigation measures in connection with the MND for the Project, has considered public testimony, all the public comments received during the public comment period on the MND and MMRP, and reviewed responses to comments on the MND and MMRP, and based thereon the City Council finds and determines that the proposed MND and MMRP will reduce all impacts to a less than significant level and that the MND and MMRP were prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act; and WHEREAS, the Glendale Public Works Department has been identified as the custodian of record for the MND and MMRP.

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

SECTION 1. The recitals as set forth above are true and correct.

SECTION 2. On the basis of the whole of the record including the Initial Study, the comments and responses thereto on the MND and MMRP and testimony received during hearings on the Project, there is no substantial evidence that the Project will have a significant effect on the environment that cannot be mitigated through the measures proposed for the Project.
47 of 1278

2 Glendale – Los Angeles Garden River Bridge MND - MMRP Resolution 1 7
1 3
3 SECTION 3. The MND and MMRP prepared for the bridge Project to be located over the Los Angeles River at Flower Street in Glendale and at Zoo Drive in the City of Los Angeles, is hereby adopted and approved as being prepared in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) with the following mitigation measures imposed in the MMRP to reduce identified impacts to less than significant levels:

MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
BMP -1 Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Construction activities including the removal of western sycamore trees along Zoo Drive should be conducted outside avian nesting season pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The general avian nesting season for passerines is from February 1st to September 15th but can vary based on migratory patterns, species, weather patterns, etc. If the nesting season cannot be avoided, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey, including suitable habitat within a 500-foot radius, within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including tree removal activities. If active nests are identified, the biologist will establish suitable buffers around the nests, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests
.

Monitoring
Action:

Submittal of pre-construction nesting bird survey report to the City by a Qualified Biologist.

Timing: Prior to the issuance of grading permits for construction that would start any time between February 1st and September 15th.

Responsibility: Director of Community Development
Construction Manager/ Qualified Biologist
BMP -2 Pre-Construction Clearance Survey. Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the Project site within two hours before the start of work to determine presence of the California legless lizard. If individuals are detected during the survey or encountered during construction, the individual shall be allowed to move out of harm’s way on its own, or if necessary, may be relocated by a qualified biologist to suitable upstream habitat within the LA River.

Monitoring
Action:

Submittal of pre-construction clearance survey report for California legless lizard to the City by a Qualified Biologist.

Timing: Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities. 48 of 1278

3 Glendale – Los Angeles Garden River Bridge MND - MMRP Resolution 1 7
1 3
3 Responsibility: Director of Community Development
Construction Manager/ Qualified Biologist
BMP -3 Bat Roost and Emergence Survey. Prior to the start of construction activities including the removal of western sycamore trees along Zoo Drive, a pre-construction survey for bat roosts shall be conducted by performing a daytime pedestrian survey to inspect potential habitat within 100 feet of the Project’s work area limits for indications of bat use (e.g., occupancy, guano staining, smells, or sounds) followed by a dusk emergence survey. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist. If it is determined habitat within the survey area is being used, or is likely to be used as a bat roost, and may be affected by construction activities, then specific measures will be developed and implemented to minimize potential impacts to the roost. Such measures may include minimizing construction activities near the roost during the bat maternity season (May 1st through August 15th) or other measures developed by the qualified biologist in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

Monitoring
Action:

Submittal of Bat Roost and Emergence Survey report to the City by a qualified biologist.

Timing: Prior to the issuance of any construction activities.

Responsibility: Director of Community Development
Construction Manager/ Qualified Biologist
BMP -4 Workers Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to Project implementation, a Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) shall be prepared and presented to construction crews regarding the potential for nesting birds and other special-status species to occur on site during construction activities. The WEAP training shall concentrate on the proper identification of sensitive resources while in the field, suggested strategies in avoiding impacts to sensitive resources, and proper reporting methods for field crews if sensitive resources are observed during construction activities.

Monitoring
Action:

Provide the sign in / attendance sheet to the City
demonstrating the WEAP was conducted by a Qualified
Biologist and that all construction workers attended.
.

Timing: Prior to the start of construction activities and throughout construction on an as needed basis as new construction
workers come to the site
Responsibility: Director of Community Development
Construction Manager/ Qualified Biologist
49 of 1278

4 Glendale – Los Angeles Garden River Bridge MND - MMRP Resolution 1 7
1 3
3 BMP -5 Construction Noise. Construction noise best management practices (BMPs) shall be implemented to protect sensitive receptors (park users) and sound sensitive special-status species roosting and/or nesting in the LA River channel and adjacent habitat during construction (including excavation, pier construction, etc.). Such BMPs shall include requiring construction activities to be conducted in accordance with the applicable local noise regulations and standards and implementation of noise reduction techniques during construction activities, such as locating stationary construction noise sources as far from adjacent noise-sensitive receptors as possible.

A temporary mobile noise barriers shall be installed along the Project boundary where construction activity is currently active that is made of sound blanket, plywood or other solid material capable of reducing on-site construction noise levels by at least 9 dBA when measured from the outside of the barrier. In addition, all applicable equipment shall be fitted with proper/improved mufflers which will provide a reduction in construction noise levels by 6 dBA. (Can be combined BMP-7 as applicable).

Monitoring
Action:

Install temporary mobile noise barrier along Project boundary where construction is currently active.

Pre-construction & construction compliance monitoring memo prepared by qualified biologist to submit to the City.

Timing: Prior to start of construction activities and maintained during construction.

Responsibility: Director of Community Development
Construction Manager/ Qualified Biologist
BMP -6 Operational Lighting. Night lighting can disrupt the circadian rhythms of many wildlife species; therefore, if night lighting is required at Project entry points, low-level lighting shall be utilized and all non-essential lighting shall be eliminated. Additionally, the Project shall avoid or limit the use of artificial lighting during the hours of dawn and dusk as these windows of time are when many wildlife species are most active.

Monitoring
Action:

Use only low-level lighting if necessary at entry points. Pre- construction & construction compliance monitoring memo
prepared by qualified biologist to submit to the City.

Timing: Prior to start of construction activities and maintained during construction.

Responsibility: Director of Community Development
Construction Manager/ Qualified Biologist
BMP -7 Access Routes and Work Area. The Project shall establish and delineate work areas and access routes, within areas and routes within jurisdictional features, to minimize impacts to sensitive resources to the greatest extent feasible. 50 of 1278

5 Glendale – Los Angeles Garden River Bridge MND - MMRP Resolution 1 7
1 3
3 Monitoring
Action:

Delineate work areas and access routes within jurisdictional features. Pre-construction compliance monitoring memo
prepared by qualified biologist to submit to the City.

Timing: Prior to start of construction activities and maintained during construction.

Responsibility: Director of Community Development
Construction Manager/ Qualified Biologist
BMP -8Perimeter construction fencing shall be installed at a minimum height of 6 feet around construction areas to provide security to pedestrians and screen views of staging and construction areas.

Monitoring
Action:

Install 6-foot perimeter construction fencing. Pre-construction compliance monitoring memo prepared by qualified biologist to submit to the City.

Timing: Prior to start of construction activities and maintained during construction.

Responsibility: Director of Community Development
Construction Manager/ Qualified Biologist
BMP -9All 75 horsepower or greater diesel-powered equipment shall be powered by CARB- certified Tier 4 Interim engines, except where the contractor establishes that Tier 4 Interim equipment is not available.

Monitoring
Action:

Construction manager to submit construction equipment log to City confirming use of or attempted procurement of Tier 4 Interim equipment.

Timing: Prior to start of construction activities and maintained during construction.

Responsibility: Director of Community Development
Construction Manager/ Qualified Biologist
CR – 1 Archaeological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Archaeologist or archaeological monitor shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of archaeological resources and the procedures for notifying archaeological staff should archaeological resources be discovered by construction staff. In the event of an archaeological resource discovery by construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a Qualified Archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the find before restarting work in the area. If it is determined 51 of 1278

6 Glendale – Los Angeles Garden River Bridge MND - MMRP Resolution 1 7
1 3
3 that the archaeological resource(s) is(are) scientifically significant, the archaeological monitor shall complete the Archaeological Assessment.

The Qualified Archaeologist shall determine if the resources are unique archaeological resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.1(g).

Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, the handling, treatment, preservation, and recordation of unique archaeological resources should occur as follows:
• The find should be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state unless the project would damage the resource.
• When preserving in place or leaving in an undisturbed state is not possible, excavation and recovery of the find for scientific study should occur unless testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the resource, and this determination is documented by a Qualified Archaeologist.

7 Glendale – Los Angeles Garden River Bridge MND - MMRP Resolution 1 7
1 3
3 Monitoring
Action:

Archaeological Worker Environmental Awareness
Program (WEAP).

Provide the sign in / attendance sheet to the City
demonstrating the WEAP was conducted by a Qualified
Archaeologist and that all construction workers attended.

Archaeological Assessment.

Qualified Archaeologist’s assessment report submitted to City.

Timing: Archaeological Worker Environmental Awareness
Program (WEAP).

Prior to the start of construction activities and throughout construction on an as needed basis as new construction
workers come to the site.

Archaeological Assessment.

A report that describes the resources(s) and its disposition, as well as the assessment methodology, shall be prepared by the Qualified Archaeologist within 60 days of assessing the find and in accordance with current professional
standards.

Responsibility: Director of Community Development
Construction Manager/ Qualified Archaeologist
TCT -1 Retain a Native American Monitor listed on the Native American Heritage Commission contact list Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities.

A. The lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) contact list, selected by the Lead Agency in consultation with the consulting tribes. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, clearing, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, stripping topsoil, boring, grading, excavating, digging, drilling, tunneling, blasting, quarrying, leveling, driving posts, and trenching or similar activity, and archaeological work.

B. A copy of the executed monitoring agreement shall be retained by the lead agency prior to commencement of any ground-disturbing activity, or the issuance of any permit necessary to commence a ground-disturbing activity.

8 Glendale – Los Angeles Garden River Bridge MND - MMRP Resolution 1 7
1 3
3 “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the lead agency and maintained as part of the project record upon written request to the consulting tribes, subject to applicable confidentiality requirements under CEQA and the California Public Resources Code.

D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following: (1) written confirmation to the consulting tribes from a designated point of contact for the lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground- disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination by the Lead Agency, informed by consultation with the consulting tribes, and written notification to the consulting tribes that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact TCRs.

Monitoring
Action:

City to retain a copy of executed Native American monitoring agreement. Native American monitoring logs
Timing: Prior to start of construction activities.

Maintain throughout construction duration
Responsibility: Director of Community Development
Construction Manager/ Native American Monitor
TCR -2 Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (Non- Funerary/Non-Ceremonial). Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery (within a 60-foot buffer) shall cease and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the tribal monitor and/or a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards (retained by lead agency). Work on the portions of the project site outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. The TCR shall be retained by the archaeologist until the end of the project whereby the lead agency shall, in good faith, consult with the consulting tribes that requested consultation for the project on the disposition and treatment (which may include reinternment to an area where there will be no future ground disturbances) of any TCR(s) encountered during all ground disturbing activities.

Monitoring
Action:

Submittal of Monitoring Report to City
Timing: Throughout construction duration
Responsibility: Director of Community Development
Construction Manager/ Native American Monitor and
Qualified Archaeologist
TCR-3Prior to the issuance of demolition, grading or building permits for the project, the applicant shall submit written verification that a qualified archaeological monitor has been retained to monitor ground disturbance necessary to prepare the ground surface.

A. Native American human remains are defined in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of 54 of 1278

9 Glendale – Los Angeles Garden River Bridge MND - MMRP Resolution 1 7
1 3
3 decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in PRC Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

B. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

C. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then PRC Section 5097.9 as well as California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. If human remains or funerary objects are encountered, work within the immediate vicinity (within 100- foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted without delay. No photographs may be taken. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Coroner will contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If the relevant agencies conclude that avoidance of the site is not feasible, an alternative plan must be developed that outlines specific steps and a timeline for resuming construction activities. Monitoring, data recovery, determining the significance of the finds, and implementing avoidance measures (if necessary) must be carried out promptly, at the expense of the lead agency.

D. Preservation in place (avoidance with 100 foot boundary/buffer) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.

E. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

Monitoring Action: Monitoring, data recovery, determining the significance of the finds, and implementing avoidance measures (if
necessary) must be carried out promptly, by the City.

Timing: Throughout construction duration.

Responsibility: Director of Community Development
County Coroner/ Native American Monitor and Qualified
Archaeologist
SECTION 4. The proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared was published and duly noticed as required by law.

Adopted this __________ day of _______________, 2026.
___________________________________
Mayor
55 of 1278

10 Glendale – Los Angeles Garden River Bridge MND - MMRP Resolution 1 7
1 3
3 ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Dr. Suzie Abajian, 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 _______________, 2026, and that same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
_______________________
City Clerk
56 of 1278

INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST
Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge
P
age | 1

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE

1. P
roject Title: Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of Glendale, Community Development Department
Planning Division
633 East Broadway, Room 103
Glendale, CA 91206

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Dennis Joe, Principal Planner Tel: (818) 937-8157
Fax: (818) 240-0392

4. Project Location: Los Angeles River Channel (LA River) at Flower Street, City of Glendale, Los Angeles County

5. General Plan Designation: The LA River is designated Open Space at the proposed location

6. Zoning: Industrial (City of Glendale); Open Space/Public Facility (City of Los Angeles)

7. Description of the Project: The City of Glendale ( Glendale) as the applicant and lead agency, and the City of Los Angeles ( Los Angeles or LA ) as a responsible agency , propose the construction of a three- span, curvilinear, landscaped bridge across the LA River between th e Cities of Los Angeles and Glendale for use by pedestrians and bicyclists. It would featur e extensive landscaping on the approaches, as well as on the bridge itself, and is thus named th e “
Garden River Bridge.” A number of raised and in- ground planting beds would create dedicat ed z
ones for bicycle and pedestrian circulation, shade structures, canopied seating areas, dispersed gat
hering spaces, and scenic views of the LA River. The intent of this multi-community resource i
s to increase access 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 to important community resources by creating a connection between Glendale and Los Angeles across the LA River for pedestrians and cyclists.

8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:

The LA River runs west-to-east at the location of the proposed Project.

North (City of Glendale): Industrial
South (City of Los Angeles): Open Space

9. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval or participation agreement): U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; State Historic Preservation Office; California Department of Fish and Wildlife; Regional Water Quality Control Board; Los Angeles County Flood Control District; City of LA; Southern California Edison EXHIBIT 1
57 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 2

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE

10. Environmental Factors Potentially Affected:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology / Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards / Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population / Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation Tribal Cultural Resources
Utilities / Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance

LEAD AGENCY DETERMINATION:

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and ( 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Sonya Hooker, RVA
April 30, 2026
Prepared by:

Reviewed by: Date:

Signature of Director of Community Development or his or her designee authorizing the release of environmental document for public review and comment.

Director of Community Development: Date:

EXHIBIT 1
58 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 3

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
Revised Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
This Initial Study /Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been revised to reflect the final tribal cultural resources mitigation measures from completed AB 52 consultation, corrections to typographical errors, revision to clarify information presented and correct errant inconsistencies, and to reflect an updated cultural resources report that was revised in response to comments received. Refinements made to this Initial Study Checklist do not change the environmental analysis and conclusions presented and do not warrant recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 (Recirculation of Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption) . Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, (c) recirculation is not required under the following circumstances: (1) Mitigation measures are replaced with equal or more effective measures pursuant to Section 15074.1; (2) New project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project’s effects identified in the proposed negative declaration which are not new avoidable significant effects; (3) Measures or conditions of project approval are added after circulation of the negative declaration which are not required by CEQA, which do not create new significant environmental effects and are not necessary to mitigate an avoidable significant effect; (4) New information is added to the negative declaration which merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications to the negative declaration. Changes to the text of the Initial Study Checklist are shown in either strikethrough where text has been deleted, or underline where new text has been inserted. Revisions related to mitigation measures have also been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). The revisions made to this IS/MND merely clarifies, amplifies, or makes insignificant modifications and thus, recirculation is not required.

B
ackground Information
The proposed Glendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge (proposed Project) is a component of both the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk Master Plan (Riverwalk) and the LA River Master Plan. More specifically, it represents the next phase, Phase III, for the City of Glendale’s Riverwalk, the goal of which is to improve recreational access to both the Cities of Glendale and Los Angeles. The larger Riverwalk site is located on the north bank of the LA River opposite of Griffith Park. The Riverwalk extends from the north at the intersection of Garden Street and Paula Avenue and southeast to the confluence of the LA River and the Verdugo Wash, adjacent to the 134 Freeway (the entire length of the City of Glendale’s LA River frontage). Initially opened to the public in 2012, there is currently one (1) mile of recreational trail for bicyclists and pedestrians, two parks, rest areas, interpretive signage, public art installations, and an equestrian facility. The Riverwalk’s unique community resource increases access to the LA River and Griffith Park, improves connections, and increases the safety of paths used for bicycling and walking. The Riverwalk also provides a gateway to the City of Glendale’s Grand Central Creative Campus, River Glen Opportunity Area, and the San Fernando Creative Corridor. Opposite of the Riverwalk and on the other side of the LA River is the City of LA’s 4,210-acre Griffith Park which offers access to the Los Angeles Zoo, natural terrain, landscaped parkland and picnic areas, numerous family attractions, an assortment of educational and cultural institutions, and miles of hiking and horseback riding trails.  The proposed Project’s bridge would connect the Riverwalk to Griffith Park, thus significantly improving access and non - vehicular connections between the Cities of Glendale and Los Angeles.

Project Location
The proposed Project would span the LA River at approximately LA River Mile 31, latitude 34.1563 and longitude -118.2823; see Figure 1. The proposed Project would extend from the City of Glendale on the north side of the LA River and the City of LA on the south side. Specifically, the proposed Project portion within the City of LA and its surrounding area is within the Hollywood Community Plan area. The bridge and associated connections to the existing bicycle/pedestrian trails along the LA River would be constructed within Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 5593-001-900, 5593-002-917, 5593-002-916, 5593-002-270, 5627-020-907, and 5627-020-908. Located just north of where Interstate Highway 5 intersects with State Highway 134, see Figure 2 , the proposed bridge would serve as a point of connection across the LA River from the corner of Flower Street and Fairmont Avenue EXHIBIT 1
59 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 4

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
on the north side of the LA River in the City of Glendale, to North Zoo Drive in Griffith Park on the south side of the LA River in the City of LA; see Figure 3 for each City’s boundaries within the proposed Project area.

Project Description
The City of Glendale as lead agency in cooperation with the City of LA , as responsible agency , proposes the construction of a three -span, curvilinear, landscaped bridge for use by pedestrians and bicyclists; see Figure 4 for a visual of the proposed landscaping arrangement for the bridge, including locations of planting beds and tree canopies. Tree species proposed to be part of the bridge’s landscape palette include western sycamore, valley oak, coast live oak, and tipu tree. Additional species included in the proposed planting mixes for the bridge include toyon, California sagebrush, California buckwheat, and star jasmine. The intent of this multi-community resource is to increase access 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 to important community resources by creating a connection between the Cities of Glendale and LA across the LA River for pedestrians and cyclists.

The proposed bridge would be concrete with two supporting piers in the LA 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 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 LA River. The proposed bridge would operate on the same schedule as the LA River Bi ke Path, which is generally open from 6am to 9pm. Any gating for the bridge would be located at the proposed access ramp and stairs off of Zoo Drive.

The LA River is a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) flood risk management facility, in which USACE holds primary authority over any proposed changes. In addition to USACE, several other stakeholder entities are within the proposed Project footprint. The City of LA owns, operates, and maintains the south side of the LA River, located within the southern portion of the proposed Project area; also within this area, Southern California Edison (SCE) holds a fifteen-foot easement along Zoo Drive and overhead facilities on Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) poles. On the north bank of the LA River, parcels within the northern portion of the proposed Project limits are owned by the City , the City of LA, 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 for utility purposes (e.g., poles, sewers and related structures), and for the existing Riverwalk pedestrian/bike trail.

Table 1 below shows overall temporary and permanent impacts from the proposed Project.

Table 1 Comparison of Temporary and Permanent Impacts
Area of Impact Temporary Impacts Permanent Impacts
Total Project Work Area: 7.3 acres 5.92.94 acres 1.4 acres

The proposed Project would include overall temporary impacts of approximately 5.9 2.94 acres and approximately 1.4 acres of permanent impacts. Temporary impacts would include water diversion activities, excavation activities, and areas of access and staging. Permanent impacts would include the bridge and piers, Riverwalk bike path reconstruction adjacent to the bridge, a new connection from the bridge to Zoo Drive, and the re- alignment of Zoo Drive ; see Figure s 5 and 6 . The re- alignment 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 bridge. Trees between Zoo Drive and the LA 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 EXHIBIT 1
60 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 5

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
Ferraro Athletic Fields to the south via a new raised crosswalk across Zoo Drive. These activities associated with the re-alignment of Zoo Drive would not result in the loss of parking as parking along this segment of Zoo Drive is not currently permitted, nor would realignment activities create parking along Zoo Drive.

Construction
Construction is anticipated to begin in the Fall of 2025 early-2028 and would last approximately 2.5 years, ending by or in mid-2030 the Spring of 2028. The proposed Project would occur in six (6) phases, and shown and summarized below.
• P hase 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 – Approach work, bike path work, and abutment work. • Phase 2: Bridge Substructure – Construct bents within the LA River. • Phase 3: South Abutment and Approaches – Construct the south abutment and connections to Zoo Drive; realign Zoo Drive.
• Phae 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 constructed 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 abutments would not be supported by the channel walls. 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 LA River channel.

Activities associated with the realignment of Zoo Drive would include the removal of trees along the LA River Bike Path along Zoo Drive, within the southern portion of the proposed Project’s footprint in the City of LA. The tree removal would be required to accommodate grading and Zoo Drive realignment, and it is anticipated approximately 18 western sycamore trees would be removed, some of which fall under the jurisdiction of the City of LA’s Recreation and Parks Department (LARAP) and others under City of LA’s Bureau of Street Services (LABSS). Section 46.01 of the City of LA Municipal Code (LAMC) includes western sycamore trees as a protected tree species; therefore, the proposed tree removals within LABSS jurisdiction would require a Tree Removal Permit from the LABSS Urban Forestry Division. Removal of protected trees requires replacement at a 4:1 ratio with the same species of each species removed. For proposed tree removals within LARAP jurisdiction, an arborist report will be required and replacement ratios are determined based on tree trunk diameter.

Replacement trees are anticipated within the area between Zoo Drive and the LA River Bike Path, and on the south side of Zoo Drive. A qualified arborist will perform post-construction monitoring activities and recommend maintenance (if needed) during the establishment period.

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, per USACE requirements. 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. The construction contractor would be required to lay down timber mats to protect the LA River bottom to prevent potential impacts to the LA River bottom during construction. While variable, an average of 15 people would be on site daily for the duration of construction activities. Construction access to the proposed Project site would be provided from Zoo Drive on the City of LA side of the proposed Project and from Flower Street on the Glendale side of the Project, with intermittent EXHIBIT 1
61 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 6

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
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 construction staging area would be located in the City of LA and 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 within the LA River 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 the final design phase prior to the start of construction. Noise levels from construction activities would conform to the City’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 LA River Bike Path would require temporary intermittent detours during construction activities. The City of Glendale would be responsible for construction of the proposed Project. The cities of Glendale and LA are currently negotiating an agreement to address shared ownership, operation, and maintenance of the proposed Project.

Construction, Operation, and Maintenance Best Management Practices

The following best management practices (BMPs) shall be incorporated as part of the proposed Project to ensure potential impacts remain at less than significant levels. These BMPs will be made Conditions of Approval (COA) for the proposed Project.

BMP-1: Pre- Construction Nesting Bird Survey . Construction activities including the removal of western sycamore trees along Zoo Drive should be conducted outside avian nesting season pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The general avian nesting season for passerines is from February 1st to September 15th but can vary based on migratory patterns, species, weather patterns, etc. If the nesting season cannot be avoided, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey, including suitable habitat within a 500-foot radius, within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including tree removal activities. If active nests are identified, the biologist will establish suitable buffers around the nests, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.

BMP-2: Pre-Construction Clearance Survey. Prior to the start of any ground-disturbing activities. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction survey of the Project site within two hours before the start of work to determine presence of the California legless lizard. If individuals are d etected during the survey or encountered during construction, the individual shall be allowed to move out of harm’s way on its own, or if necessary, may be relocated by a qualified biologist to suitable upstream habitat within the LA River.

BMP-23: Bat Roost and Emergence Survey. Prior to the start of construction activities including the removal of western sycamore trees along Zoo Drive, a pre -construction survey for bat roosts shall be conducted by performing a daytime pedestrian survey to inspect potential habitat within 100 feet of the Project’s work area limits for indications of bat use (e.g., occupancy, guano staining, smells, or sounds) followed by a dusk emergence survey. The survey s shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist. If it is determined habitat within the survey area is being used, or is likely to be used as a bat roost, and may be affected by construction activities, then specific measures will be developed and implemented to minimize potential impacts to the roost. Such measures may include minimizing construction activities near the roost during the bat maternity season (May 1st through August 15th) or other measures developed by the qualified biologist in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

EXHIBIT 1
62 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 7

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
BMP-34: Workers Environmental Awareness Program . Prior to Project implementation, a Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) shall be prepared and presented to construction crews regarding the potential for nesting birds and other special-status species to occur on site during construction activities. The WEAP training shall concentrate on the proper identification of sensitive resources while in the field, suggested strategies in avoiding impacts to sensitive resources, and proper reporting methods for field crews if sensitive resources are observed during construction activities.

BMP- 45 : Construction Noise. Construction noise best management practices (BMPs) shall be implemented to protect sensitive receptors (park users) and sound sensitive special-status species roosting and/or nesting in the LA River channel and adjacent habitat during construction (including excavation, pier construction, etc.). Such BMPs shall include requiring construction activities to be conducted in accordance with the applicable local noise regulations and standards and implementation of noise reduction techniques during construction activities, such as locating stationary construction noise sources as far from adjacent noise - sensitive receptors as possible. A t emporary mobile noise barriers shall be installed along the Project boundary where construction activity is currently active that is made of sound blanket, plywood or other solid material capable of reducing on-site construction noise levels by at least 9 dBA when measured from the outside of the barrier. In addition, all applicable equipment shall be fitted with proper/improved mufflers which will provide a reduction in construction noise lev els by 6 dBA. (Can be combined BMP-7 as applicable).

BMP-
56 : Operational Lighting. Night lighting can disrupt the circadian rhythms of many wildlife species; therefore, if night lighting is required at Project entry points, low-level lighting shall be utilized and all non- essential lighting shall be eliminated. Additionally, the Project shall avoid or limit the use of artificial lighting during the hours of dawn and dusk as these windows of time are when many wildlife species are most active.

BMP- 67 : Access Routes and Work Area . The Project shall establish and delineate work areas and access routes, within areas and routes within jurisdictional features, to minimize impacts to sensitive resources to the greatest extent feasible.

BMP-
78 : Perimeter construction fencing shall be installed at a minimum height of 6 feet around construction areas to provide security to pedestrians and screen views of staging and construction areas.

BMP- 89 : All 75 horsepower or greater diesel-powered equipment shall be powered by CARB -certified Tier 4 Interim engines, except where the contractor establishes that Tier 4 Interim equipment is not available.

Project Actions and Approvals
N
umerous approvals and/or permits would be required to implement the proposed Project. The environmental documentation for the Project would be used to facilitate compliance with federal and state laws and the granting of permits by various state and local agencies having jurisdiction over one or more aspects of the proposed Project. These approvals and permits may include, but may not be limited to, the following as listed in Table 2 – Required Permits and Approvals.

EXHIBIT 1
63 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 8

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
Table 2 Required Permits and Approvals
Agency Anticipated Permits, Approvals, Related Issues
Federal
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers • Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Nationwide Permit • Section 408 Permission
State
California Department of Fish and
Wildlife • Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement State Water Resources Control Board/Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control
Board
• CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit South Coast Air Quality Management
District • Any applicable permits
Los Angeles County Flood Control District • Construction Permit Local
City of Glendale
City of Los Angeles Department of
Recreation and Parks / Board of
Commissioners
• Grant of Rights for Recreation and Parks Land
Encroachment
• Recreation and Parks Forestry Division Tree Removal
Permit
• Recommendations regarding adoption of IS/MND and
related Findings and approval of proposed Project
City of Los Angeles Bureau of Engineering • “B” Permit
• Structural Engineering Review
City of Los Angeles Department of
Transportation
• Construction Permit
• Traffic Control Plan Review for temporary traffic or
transportation-related issues
City of Los Angeles Department of Water
and Power
• Any applicable permits, coordination, and approval related to the LA Department of Water and Power infrastructure
City of Los Angeles Department of
Building and Safety • Haul route permits and any other applicable permits Los Angeles City Council • Consider adoption of IS/MND and related Findings • Consider approval of proposed Project

EXHIBIT 1
64 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 9

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
A. AESTHETICS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X

2. Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings within a state scenic highway?
X

3. In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other
regulations governing scenic quality?
X

4. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the
area?
X
1) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. No scenic vistas, as identified in the City of Glendale’s Open Space and Conservation Element (January, 1993), exist within, or within view of the proposed Project site. The City of LA’s John Ferraro Athletic Fields Park (park) is located south of the proposed Project. No scenic vistas or corridors have been identified by the City of L A in the Hollywood Community Plan within the proposed Project limits and its immediate vicinity . The primary visual resource within the proposed Project viewshed is the LA River .

During construction, perimeter construction fencing will be installed with a minimum height of 6 feet to provide security and screen views of staging and construction areas (BMP-7). Due to the short height of this fencing and it being temporary, no impacts to scenic vistas would result. The proposed Project would increase pedestrian and bicycle recreational access to the LA River with beneficial viewsheds from the proposed br idge. Therefore, no impacts to scenic vistas would result from proposed Project implementation.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. No state scenic highway is located adjacent to or within view of the proposed Project site. The closest officially designated state scenic highway is located approximately 8.7 miles northeast of the proposed Project site and consists of Route 2 from Route 210 in La Cañ ada Flintridge to Route 138 via Wrightwood. No impacts to scenic resources within a State scenic highway would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) In nonurbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage EXHIBIT 1
65 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 10

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located within the jurisdiction of the Cities of Glendale and LA, within an urban area. The proposed location of the Garden River Bridge is aesthetically dominated by the concrete- lined LA River Channel ; urban industrial development at the top of the north bank; perennial, fluctuating water flows ; debris and graffiti within the LA River Channel and adjoining the river; and views of intermittent vegetation within the river channel. Adjacent green spaces are composed primarily of sports fields in Griffith Park at the southern bank area on the opposite side of Zoo Drive. Chain link fencing runs along much of the length of both banks, and no vegetation is present in the proposed Project’s footprint in the LA River channel. Vegetation present within the proposed Project’s footprint consists of western sycamore trees along the LA River Bike Path and North Zoo Drive. Approximately 18 of these western sycamore trees are proposed for removal to accommodate grading and the realignment of Zoo Drive, some of which fall under the jurisdiction of the LARAP and others under LABSS . However, the LAMC requires replacement of each protected tree species removed within LABSS jurisdiction at a 4:1 ratio, which would increase the number of na tive protected tree species within the Project area compared to existing conditions. For proposed tree removals within LARAP jurisdiction, an arborist report will be required and replacement ratios are determined based on tree trunk diameter. Replacement trees are anticipated within the area between Zoo Drive and the LA River Bike Path, and on the south side of Zoo Drive. A qualified arborist will perform post -construction mon itoring activities and recommend maintenance (if needed) during the establishment period.

The proposed Project is intended to substantially improve the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings. Directed access to vantage points along the western edge of the proposed bridge would provide unobstructed views from that side. From the bridge, views would include the LA River, Griffith Park, and the distant Verdugo Mountains. Construction activities would temporarily diminish the visual quality or character of the immediate area and partially obstruct views in the proposed Project area.

During construction, perimeter construction fencing will be installed with a minimum height of 6 feet to provide security and screen views of staging and construction areas (BMP -7). Following construction, however, the proposed bridge, bridge approaches, and trail connections would be extensively landscaped, thus increasing the overall aesthetic character of the area.

The proposed Project would not conflict with the Cities of Glendale and LA’s applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality , including the Hollywood Community Plan, in which the proposed Project is located. Specifically, the proposed Project would not conflict with Chap ter 4 – Public Realm and Open Space of the Hollywood Community Plan, which defines goals and policies for the community’s public realm and open space, including public gathering places such as plazas and parklets, alleys, urban green spaces, and other transitional spaces and community entry points. As a result, impacts to visual character and quality of the site are anticipated to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
66 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 11

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
4) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than Significant Impact. In addition to existing ambient lighting generally emanating from surrounding urban development, currently, lighting in the immediate area is provided along Riverwalk to the north of the proposed Project site, the LA River bike path to the south, and the surrounding surface streets, park, and sports fields. The LA River itself is not lighted and is lighted only where lighting incidentally broadcasts over it, and continual fluctuations in nighttime lighting occur due to motor vehicle headlights. Lighting would be incorporated as part of the proposed Project to provide for pedestrian safety , but would b e designed to minimize light spillover. Additionally, proposed Project lighting would be required to comply with existing LAMC and City of Glendale Municipal Code lighting requirements, including LAMC Section

93.0107 – Distracting, Confusing, or Nuisance Lighting Viewed from Public Streets, Highways, or other Public Thoroughfares Used by Vehicular Traffic standards.

Nighttime lighting for the proposed Project would increase slightly as a result of the proposed P roject, but would be similar to the existing recreational and industrial uses within the vicinity. Under existing conditions, light levels within the proposed Project area have been determined to be relatively low and believed to be inadequate based on current design recommendations provided by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North American (IESNA) Recommended Practice for comfortable and safe circulation in an exterior environment. Therefore, nighttime lighting for the proposed Project would include fixtures with adequate lumen output to reach required light levels needed for pedestrian and bike pathways and lighting along the bridge would introduce low level light sources to avoid glare to pedestrians and surrounding neighbors. The proposed recommended lighting levels would be incorporated in coordination with the City of Glendale’s requirements for establishing the foundation lighting design. Further, as discussed under the MMRP section of the Project Description above, if night lighting is required at entry points, low level lighting would be implemented and all non- essential lighting would be eliminated. The new lighting would therefore not create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Less than significant impacts associated with new sources of light or glare would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
67 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 12

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
B. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use
in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In
determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California D epartment of Forestry and Fire
Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and
the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols
adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would
the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or
Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as
shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
X

2. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
X

3. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code
section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public
Resources Code section 4526)?
X

4. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

5. Involve other changes in the existing environment
which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
X
1) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No Impact. There is no prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance within or adjacent to the proposed Project site, and no agricultural activities take place on the proposed Project site.

No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact. No portion of the proposed Project site is proposed to include agricultural zoning designations or uses, nor do any such uses exist within the Cities of Glendale or LA under their current General Plan and zoning. There are no Williamson Act contracts in effect for the proposed Project site or surrounding vicinity.

No conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or Williamson Act contract s would result. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
68 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 13

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
3) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)) or timberland (as defined in Public Resources Code section 4526)? No Impact. There is no existing zoning of forest land or timberland in the Cities of Glendale or LA. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. There is no forest land within the Cities of Glendale or LA. No forest land would be converted to non-forest use under the proposed Project. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. There is no farmland or forest land in the vicinity of or on the proposed Project site. No farmland would be converted to non-agricultural use and no forest land would be converted to non-forest use under the proposed Project. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
69 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 14

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
C. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? X

2. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions
which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
X

3. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? X

4. Result in other emissions (such as those leading to
odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of
people?
X

1). Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact.

Air Quality Management Plan
An Air Quality Assessment was completed for the proposed Project by Urban Crossroads and is included in Appendix A. Results from the proposed Project-specific air quality modeling shows that the proposed Project would not exceed thresholds for construction, area, or operational impacts. The proposed Project site is located within the cities of Glendale and LA, which are part of the South Coast Air Basin (Basin) and are under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCAQMD is the agency responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) for the Basin. Since 1979, a number of AQMPs have been prepared. The most recent comprehensive AQMP fully approved by the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) is the 2022 Air Quality Management Plan, which includes a variety of strategies and control measures.

The AQMP was prepared to accommodate growth, to reduce the high levels of pollutants within the areas under the jurisdiction of SCAQMD, to return clean air to the region, and to minimize the impact on the economy. Projects that are considered to be consistent with the AQMP would not interfere with attainment because this growth is included in the projections utilized in the formulation of the AQMP. Therefore, projects, uses, and activities that are consistent with the applicable assumption used in the development of the AQMP would not jeopardize attainment of the air quality levels identified in the AQMP . The proposed Project involves construction of a new pedestrian/bicyclist bridge over the LA River that connects the bridge to Zoo Drive in the City of LA with realignment of Zoo Drive to provide adequate room for connections to the new bridge. The proposed Project would enhance the existing pedestrian and bicycle environment in the Cities of Glendale and LA, with the larger objective of making walking and bicycling a safer, more attractive and convenient mode of transportation within these Cities. Typical operational related emissions include the following primary sources: area source emissions, energy source emissions, and mobile source emissions. Since the proposed Project is a pedestrian and b icycle bridge with sporadic vehicle use for maintenance, there are no quantifiable operational emissions associated with the operation of the proposed EXHIBIT 1
70 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 15

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
Project and no further analysis is required for operational impacts. Additionally, an increase in walking and cycling as an alternative to use of the automobile could reduce overall vehicular emissions in the Cities and improve regional air quality.

Construction of the proposed Project w ould result in temporary minor air quality impacts from ground disturbance and equipment operations that would occur to construct the bridge . P er the Air Quality Assessment prepared for the proposed Project (Appendix A), emissions resulting from the proposed Project construction will not exceed thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant.

The City of LA’s CEQA Thresholds Guide (2006) describes significance thresholds to be used in air quality analyses and outlines methodologies for determining significance. It refers to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Analysis Handbook (1993) for appropriate thresholds. Although SCAQMD has not published an updated Handbook, various supplements have been published that provide updated methodologies for analyzing air quality impacts as well as thresholds of significance. These current SCAQMD methodologies and significance thresholds were utilized in the proposed Project’s air quality analysis. Additionally, implementation of the City of Glendale’s standard construction-period emissions and dust control measures, which are consistent with the SCAQMD Rules, would ensure that these minor impacts would be further reduced.

Implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with AQMP attainment forecasts and with applicable air quality plans. No impact would occur.

City of Los Angeles General Plan Air Quality Element (adopted November 1992).

The Air Quality Element of the City of LA’s General Plan sets forth goals, objectives, and policies to guide the City of LA in the implementation of its air quality improvement goals and strategies. Among the goals, objectives, and policies applicable to the proposed Project are those regarding consistency with the regional AQMP and improving walking and bicycling related facilities in order to reduce vehicle trips and/or vehicle miles traveled as a number of the remaining goals, objectives, and policies fall under municipal purview for implementation. As discussed in the above section, implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with AQMP attainment forecasts and neither construction or operational emissions would exceed thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant. Additionally, the proposed Project consists of the construction of a pedestrian and cyclist-accessible bridge that would provide walkable and bikeable connectivity between the City of LA and the City of Glendale and would connect with the existing LA River Bike Path. Therefore, the proposed Project would facilitate increased pedestrian walkability and increased bikeable connectivity within the proposed Project area, thereby aiding in reducing overall vehicle trips and/or vehicle miles traveled and associated emissions within the Project area. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with Project-applicable goals, objectives, and policies from the City of LA’s Air Quality Element; no impact would occur.

City of Glendale General Plan Air Quality Element (February 1994).

The Air Quality Element of the City of Glendale’s General Plan was created to recognize and consider the relationships between land use and air quality in the City of Glendale’s planning efforts, to identify ways in which Glendale can reduce its emissions of air pollutants through various policies and programs, and to comply with the region’s AQMP. As with the City of LA’s Air Quality Element, the City of Glendale’s Air Quality Element discusses consistency with the regional AQMP as well as achieving emissions reductions through lessening vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. As discussed, implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with AQMP attainment forecasts and neither construction or operational emissions EXHIBIT 1
71 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 16

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
would exceed thresholds established by the SCAQMD for emissions of any criteria pollutant. Additionally, the proposed Project consists of the construction of a pedestrian and cyclist- accessible bridge that would provide walkable and bikeable connectivity b etween the City of Glendale and the City of LA and would connect with the existing LA River Bike Path. Therefore, the proposed Project would facilitate increased pedestrian walkability and increased bikeable connectivity within the proposed Project area, thereby aiding in reducing overall vehicle trips and/or vehicle miles traveled and associated emissions within the Project area. Thus, implementation of the proposed Project would be consistent with Project -applicable goals, objectives, and policies from the City of Glendale’s Air Quality Element; no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than Significant Impact. Please refer to Response C-1 above. Less than significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact: As mentioned above, a n Air Quality Assessment was completed for the proposed Project by Urban Crossroads and is included in Appendix A. The Project-specific analysis uses the methodology included in the SCAQMD Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology (LST Methodology) for construction impacts. Since the proposed Project is a pedestrian and bicycle bridge with sporadic vehicle use for maintenance, there are no quantifiable operational emissions associated with the proposed Project and no further operational analysis is required. The SCAQMD has established that impacts to air quality are significant if there is a potential to contribute or cause localized exceedances of the federal and/or state ambient air quality standards (NAAQS/CAAQS). Collectively, these are referred to as Localized Significance Thresholds (LSTs). The SCAQMD established LSTs in response to the SCAQMD Governing Board’s Environmental Justice Initiative I -42. LSTs represent the maximum emissions from a p roject that will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the most stringent applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard at the sensitive receptor. The SCAQMD states that lead agencies can use the LSTs as another indicator of significance in its air quality impact analyses.

The SCAQMD recommends that the nearest sensitive receptor be considered when determining a project’s potential to cause an individual or cumulatively significant impact. The nearest land use where an individual could remain for 24 hours to the proposed Project site has been used to determine localized construction impacts for emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 (since PM10 and PM2.5 thresholds are based on a 24 -hour averaging time). The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of PM10 and PM2.5 is an existing residence at 810 Pelanconi Avenue, in the City of Glendale, approximately 1,305 feet (398 meters) northeast of the proposed Project site. As such, for evaluation of localized PM10 and PM2.5, a 398 -meter distance will be used.

Additionally, c onsistent with LST Methodology, the nearest industrial/commercial use to the proposed Project site is used to determine construction air impacts for emissions of NOX and CO as the averaging periods for these pollutants are shorter (8 hours or less) and it is reasonable to assume that an individual EXHIBIT 1
72 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 17

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
could be present at these sites for periods of one to 8 hours. The nearest receptor used for evaluation of localized impacts of NOX and CO is an existing DreamWorks Animation LLC, in the City of Glendale, located approximately 422 feet (129 meters) northwest of the proposed Project site. Additionally, receptors at two locations in the City of LA that represent potential impacts to patrons of the LA Zoo have been considered in this analysis. One receptor is located approximately 1,454 feet (443 meters) south of the proposed Project site and the other receptor is located approximately 2,215 feet (675 meters) south of the proposed Project site. Given that both of these locations are located further away from the proposed Project’s construction activities than the 810 Pelanconi Avenue and DreamWorks Animation LLC locations, any potential impacts at the LA Zoo l ocations would be less than the impacts that may occur at the 810 Pelanconi Avenue and DreamWorks Animation LLC locations.

For analytical purposes, emissions associated with peak site preparation and grading activities are considered for purposes of LSTs since these phases represent the maximum localized emissions that would occur. Any other construction phases of development that overlap would result in lesser emissions and consequently lesser impacts than what is analyzed in the Air Quality Analysis. The Air Quality Analysis model outputs show emissions resulting from the construction will not exceed the numerical thresholds of significance established by the SCAQMD for any criteria pollutant. Additionally, the City of Glendale, as the construction lead on the Project would be required to adhere to SCAQMD Rule 403 - Fugitive Dust, which would further reduce the impact related to construction-related impacts. Thus, a less than significant impact would occur for localized construction-source emissions related to the proposed Project.

Regarding operational emissions, the proposed Project would not contribute a substantial amount of emissions capable of exceeding SCAQMD thresholds. The proposed bridge would facilitate increased pedestrian and bicycle access and transportation between the Cities of Glendale and Los Angeles, which would work towards reducing the overall number of vehicular trips within the Project area, thereby reducing overall emissions . Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur for localized operation-source emissions related to the proposed Project.

The proposed P roject would not expose sensitive receptors to a substantial pollutant concentration or create emissions that exceed known thresholds. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. Potential operational airborne odors result from cooking activities associated with residential and restaurant uses.

The proposed Project does not consist of any of the above-described odor causing activities or uses.

Furthermore, the purpose of the proposed Project is to increase the use of city streets by modes other than vehicles that combust fuels associated with creating exhaust odors. Construction activities and sporadic maintenance activities associated with the proposed P roject may generate detectable odors from equipment exhaust. However, any detectable odors or equipment exhaust would be associated with initial construction and intermittent maintenance and would be considered transitory and/or short -term. The EXHIBIT 1
73 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 18

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
proposed Project would not result in any impacts related to odors or other emissions that adversely affect a substantial number of people. Therefore, less than significant odor impacts would occur from the proposed Project.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
74 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 19

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
X

2. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
X

3. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh,
vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
X

4. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
X

5. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
X

6. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
X
1) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant Impact. A Biological Resources Assessment was completed for the proposed Project by Ruth Villalobos & Associates, Inc . (RVA) and is included in Appendix B. The proposed Project would be constructed within a concrete-lined portion of the LA River Channel, located within the Burbank, California U.S. Geological Service (USGS) quadrangle. Based on query results of the Burbank quadrangle via the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), the western ridged mussel ( Gonidea angulate), a special-status species, had been previously identified within the proposed Project area, within the LA River. However, the presence of this species within the LA River within the Burbank quadrangle is considered “Extirpated.” Per the CNDDB, this presence status is “only used when the element [species] has been searched for but not seen for many years or when the habitat is destroyed at this site.”
None of the special -status species identified in the query were observed during the biological assessment of the site. Due to the urbanization and minimal habitat within the proposed Project area, the proposed Project area would not provide high-quality suitable habitat for the special-status species identified within the Burbank quadrangle. However, there are trees and shrubs within and around the proposed Project area, including western sycamore trees along North Zoo Drive , which are cons idered protected trees under the EXHIBIT 1
75 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 20

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
LAMC, that would provide suitable nesting habitat to local and migratory nesting birds. However, BMP-1:

Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey would be implemented to ensure potential impacts to nesting birds are avoided or minimized.

While none of the special-status species identified in the CNDDB query were observed during the biological assessment, four special-status bat species were identified in the CNDDB query to have moderate potential to utilize the proposed Project area to some extent. These species are: pallid bat ( Antrozous pallidus), western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus), hoary bat (Lasiurus cinereus), and the western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthius). All four of these species are designated as species of special concern. The proposed Project area provides potentially suitable foraging and/or roosting habitat for bat species as some bat species are known to forage and roost along the LA River Channel where concrete-lined portions of the channel (e.g., bridges, channel outlets, etc.) provide habitat via cracks and crevices and where open water provides foraging habitat. B ats typically emerge to begin foraging at dusk and during nighttime hours ; proposed Project construction activities would occur during day light working hours and would not affect bats’ ability to forage in the open water areas surrounding the proposed Project site within the LA River Channel. Further, proposed Project operations post-construction are not anticipated to significantly impact potential bat roosting or foraging within the Project site area. Day-roosting bats occupying other bridge structures along the LA River Channel are subject to noise and vibration disturbances from activities such as above bridge/street level vehicular traffic and/or railways that pass under/through the bridge structures.

The proposed Project consists of a pedestrian and cyclist bridge that would not include passing railway traffic beneath the bridge; thus, any noise and/or vibration disturbances during proposed Project operations would be much less than the levels experienced at bridge structures that do include regular vehicular and/or train disturbances. Additionally, the presence of pedestrians and/or cyclists utilizing the proposed Project bridge for passage during dusk and evening hours is not anticipated to affect open water bat foraging during these same hours. Nonetheless, the proposed Project would be required to implement BMP -2: Bat Roost and Emergence Survey, BMP-3: Workers Environmental Awareness Program, BMP-4: Construction Noise, and BMP-5: Operational Lighting to ensure any potential impacts to bats and other sensitive species would be minimized or avoided. Therefore, impacts associated with proposed Project implementation would be considered less than significant with respect to foraging and roosting bats.

The proposed Project would not substantially adversely effect , either directly or through habitat modifications, species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Additionally, the implementation of BMP-1 to lessen or avoid impacts to nesting birds; less than significant impacts would occur.

Best Management Practices:

BMP-1: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Construction activities including the removal of the western sycamore trees along Zoo Drive should be conducted outside avian nesting season pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as much as is feasible. The general avian nesting season for passerines is from February 1st to September 15th but can vary based on migratory patterns, species, weather patterns, etc. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey, including suitable habitat within a 500 -foot radius, within three days prior to any disturbance of the site , including EXHIBIT 1
76 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 21

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
tree removal activities. If active nests are identified, the biologist will establish suitable buffers around the nests, and the buffer areas will be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.

BMP-2: Bat Roost and Emergence Survey. Prior to the start of construction activities including the removal of western sycamore trees along Zoo Drive, a pre -construction survey for bat roosts shall be conducted by performing a daytime pedestrian survey to inspect potential habitat within 100 feet of the Project’s work area limits for indications of bat use (e.g., occupancy, guano staining, smells, or sounds), followed by a dusk emergence survey. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist. If it is determined habitat within the survey area is being used, or is likely to be used as a bat roost, and may be affected by construction activities, then specific measures will be developed and implemented to minimize potential impacts to the roost. Such measures may include minimizing construction activities near the roost during the bat maternity season (May 1
st through August 15th) or other measures developed by the qualified biologist in coordination with CDFW.

BMP-3: Workers Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to Project implementation, a Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) shall be prepared and presented to construction crews regarding the potential for nesting birds , roosting bats, and other special -status species to occur on site during construction activities. The WEAP training shall concentrate on the proper identification of sensitive resources while in the field, suggested strategies in avoiding impacts to sensitive resources, and proper reporting methods for field crews if sensitive resources are observed during construction activities.

BMP-4: Construction Noise. Construction noise BMPs shall be implemented to protect sensitive receptors (park users) and sound sensitive special-status species roosting and/or nesting in the LA River channel and adjacent habitat during construction (including excavation, pier construction, etc.). Such BMPs shall include requiring construction activities to be conducted in accordance with the applicable local noise regulations and standards and implementation of noise reduction techniques during construction activities, such as locating stationary construction noise sources as far away from adjacent noise -sensitive receptors as possible. A temporary mobile noise barriers shall be installed along the Project boundary where construction activity is currently active that is made of sound blanket, plywood or other solid material capable of reducing on-site construction noise levels by at least 9 dBA when measured from the outside of the barrier. In addition, all applicable equipment shall be fitted with proper/improved mufflers which will provide a reduction in construction noise levels by 6 dBA. (Can be combined BMP-7 as applicable).

BMP-5: Operational Lighting. Night lighting can disrupt the circadian rhythms of many wildlife species; therefore, if night lighting is required at Project entry points, low-level lighting shall be utilized and all non- essential lighting shall be eliminated. Additionally, the Project shall avoid or limit the use of artificial lighting during the hours of dawn and dusk as these windows of time are when many wildlife species are most active. 2) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located in an area that has been heavily urbanized for many years, with the proposed Project located within a concrete-lined portion of the LA River Channel. To the south of the proposed Project area is Griffith Park, which is designated by City of LA and County planning EXHIBIT 1
77 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 22

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
authorities as a City of LA and County Significant Ecological Area (SEA). This designation identifies SEAs as having irreplaceable biological resources. Proposed Project activities would avoid the Griffith Park area and would be concentrated further north of the Park, north of the John Ferraro Athletic Fields and on and across North Zoo Drive.

On-site land uses are considered disturbed and naturally occurring habitats have been eliminated due to channelization and development of the LA River Channel. As the proposed Project site is within a concreted portion of the Channel, no riparian habitat or sensitive natural community, nor any sensitive natural communities identified by CDFW are supported or present within or in the immediate vicinity of proposed Project activities. The closest area of potentially sensitive habitat is located more than 1,000 feet upstream of the proposed Project site, within a soft-bottomed portion of the Channel that supports vegetative growth including California bulrush ( Schoenoplectus californicus) and some willow trees ( Salix sp.). This area is located far outside of the proposed Project area and would not be impacted by proposed Project activities.

The proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No BMPs or mitigation measures are required. 3) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located within the LA River, which is a blue -line perennial stream that is designated as a Traditionally Navigable Water (TNW) for its entire length . The concrete-lined portion of the LA River Channel in which the proposed Project is located includes non - wetland waters of the U.S. , waters of the State, and unvegetated streambed subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the USACE, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and CDFW (it should be noted that USACE and RWQCB jurisdiction often overlaps). Implementation of BMP-6: Access Routes and Work Area would lessen potential impacts to the greatest extent feasible.

Based on the findings of the Jurisdictional Delineation conducted for the proposed Project (RVA, January 2023b), implementation of the proposed Project would result in both temporary and permanent impacts to non-wetland jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and waters of the State.

Both temporary and permanent impacts would be minimal, with USACE and RWQCB temporary impacts totaling 0.14 1 acre and permanent impacts totaling 0.013 acre (as shown in Appendix B Figure 9 – USACE & RWQCB Jurisdictional Impacts Map). Temporary impacts to CDFW jurisdiction would total 0.14 1.03 acre and permanent impacts would total 0.0 34 acre (as shown in Appendix B Figure 10 – CDFW Jurisdictional Impacts Map). As both temporary and permanent impacts would be minimal and no jurisdictional wetlands are present within the proposed Project area, the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act . Additionally, the proposed Project would obtain a regulatory Section 404 Nationwide Permit, RWQCB Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and CDFW Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement approvals prior to development of the proposed Project site. Potential impacts would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT 1
78 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 23

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant Impact. A wildlife corridor is a strip of habitat that connects two otherwise separated larger habitat areas. The combination of the LA River Channel and the adjacent highways and development has effectively created a blockage to the wildlife movement that would have historically occurred between the Santa Monica Mountains to the west and Verdugo Mountains and San Gabriel Mountains to the east.

Bats and birds are less restricted by development, though human occupation may discourage passage.

Ground dwelling animals that occur in the vicinity of the L A River may migrate into the proposed Project area via the available, though limited, pathways. These pathways can be composed of narrow riparian strips, but more often are provided by culverts, paved pathways along the LA River, and concrete tunnels beneath highways. Despite the man-made nature of these pathways, wildlife are known to utilize them. Although the riverbed is highly developed, it likely provides at least some connectivity for species moving or migrating through the region, particularly for aerial species such as bats and birds. Outside of the river channel, various areas such as trees and vegetation in local parks, greenbelts, and landscaping contain habitats that support species movement, migration, stopover, overwintering, and breeding.

The LA River may serve as a wildlife corridor that allows animals to migrate between larger native habitat patch areas. However, as discussed, the portion of the LA River within the proposed Project area is concrete- lined and surrounded by mostly urban, developed uses . Construction of the proposed Project would be temporary, occur within a relatively small section of the LA River Channel, and due its nature as a proposed bridge, would not impede aerial species migration . Additionally, the proposed Project site is not located within any essential fish habitat and due to the developed nature of the Channel, is not anticipated to support the movement of native resident or migratory fish. As the developed nature of the Channel is not anticipated to support the movement of native resident or migratory fish, the proposed Project is not anticipated to preclude the movement of native or migratory fish post -Project implementation. The proposed Project site is similarly not located within a native wildlife nursey site and would not impede the use of such sites. Consequently, potential impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
Less than Significant Impact. The Glendale Municipal Code, Chapter 12.44 specifically protects six different native or “indigenous” species of trees that include the coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), mesa oak (Quercus engelmannii), scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), California (western) sycamore (Platanus racemosa), and California bay (Umbellularia californica). Additionally, Section 46.01 of the City of LA Municipal Code (LAMC) identifies the following species as protected trees: oaks, including valley oak, coast live oak, or any other tree of the oak genus indigenous to California, excluding scrub oak; southern California black walnut (Juglans californica); western sycamore; and California bay.

EXHIBIT 1
79 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 24

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
There are some western sycamore trees that occur within the southern portion of the proposed Project’s work area limits, along the LA River bike path, and a few early stage coast live oak trees located in planters just outside of the northern work area limits, along the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk path. Proposed Project activities would avoid the planters containing the coast live oaks along the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk path; however, the proposed Project will require the removal of approximately eighteen (18) western Sycamore trees along the Los Angeles River bike path, within the southern portion of the proposed Project’s footprint in the City of LA . D isturbance or removal of any protected trees on the Project site will require a Tree Removal Permit from the City of LA Department of Recreation and Parks (LARAP) and approval from its Board of Commissioners. Replacement of any removed trees would follow procedures in the Urban Forestry Manual. Per City of LA Ordinance No. 186873, Section R.4(a), in the event it is determined by the City of LA’s Advisory Agency, in consultation with the City of LA’s Chief Forester, that a protected tree or shrub may be removed or relocated, the protected tree or shrub shall be replaced within the property by at least four (4) specimens of a protected variety (at a 4:1 ratio). Some of the trees are located within the jurisdiction of the City of LA Bureau of Street Services (LABSS) and will require approval by the Board of Public Works.

Mitigation Measures: No Mitigation measures are required. 6) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? No Impact. Neither the City of Glendale nor the City of LA have adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved habitat conservation plan to include the proposed Project site. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any such plans. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
80 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 25

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined in
CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
X

2. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource pursuant
to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
X

3. Disturb any human remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
X
1) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact. A Cultural Resources Assessment was completed by BCR Consulting for the proposed Project and is included in Appendix C. During the Cultural Resources Assessment, an intensive- level cultural resources field survey of the proposed Project site was conducted on November 15, 2022 .

Archaeologists identified the historic-period Glendale Narrows segment of the LA River within the proposed Project work area limitsof potential effect (APE) but did not identify any previously unrecorded cultural resources. No other cultural resources (including prehistoric or historic archaeological or historic architectural resources) were identified during the field survey. The Project site has been subject to severe disturbances related to reconfiguration of Flower Street, construction of the channel, construction of the bike path and walkway, modern refuse dumping, and by repeated flooding.

The p roposed Project’s Cultural Resources Assessment identifies the historic -period Glendale Narrows segment of the LA River, which is roughly coterminous with Reach 3 (approximately 7.4 miles in length) of the LA River constructed between 1938 and 1939. The LA River has been determined eligible for National Register listing and as such is eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources and a historical resource under CEQA . However, the results of the Cultural Resources Assessment conclude that the proposed Project would only impact a very small portion (approximately 0.6 percent) of the Glendale Narrows/Reach 3 section of the LA River, which, due to the small percentage subject to direct impacts, would not result in a significant adverse effect to a historical resource under CEQA. Additionally, the bridge abutments would be constructed to be higher than the existing elevation of the channel walls and would not touch the levee walls. While the integrity of the setting would be minimally impacted by the installation of the bridge, the setting of the Glendale Narrows/Reach 3 segment has already been impacted by subsequent development of the surrounding neighborhoods and by the Interstate 5 and State Route 134 freeway bridges over the LA River, which are visible from the proposed Project site and were constructed after the period of significance. Thus, the proposed Project would not introduce elements (e.g., bridges over the LA River) to the setting not already present, nor would proposed Project alter the ability of the Glendale Narrows/Reach 3 to contribute to a larger district. Based on these findings, the proposed Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines §15064.5. Less than significant impacts would occur.

EXHIBIT 1
81 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 26

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064.5?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Prehistoric and historic archaeological sites are not known to exist within the p roposed Project area. No archaeological resources were identified during the Cultural Resources Assessment. Disturbances associated with the construction of the Glendale Narrows segment, recent development of bike and walking paths, recent reconfiguration of Flower Street adjacent to the north end of the proposed Project site, and modern development of athletic fields adjacent to the south side of the proposed Project site have disrupted soil beyond depths at which buried cultural resources are likely. As a result, the potential to encounter in -situ remains associated with significant archaeological resources during proposed Project-related excavation is low.

The City of Glendale’s Open Space and Conservation Element indicate s that no significant archaeological sites have been identified in this area of the City of Glendale. Additionally, the City of LA’ s General Plan indicates that no significant archaeological sites have been discovered in this area. Nonetheless, construction activities associated with p roposed P roject implementation would have the potential to unearth undocumented resources. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1, less than significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure CR-1:

Archaeological Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP). Prior to the start of construction, the Qualified Archaeologist or archaeological monitor shall conduct training for construction personnel regarding the appearance of archaeological resources and the procedures for notifying archaeological staff should ar chaeological resources be discovered by construction staff. In the event of an archaeological resource discovery by construction personnel, all work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall cease and a Qualified Archaeologist shall be contacted to evaluate the find before restarting work in the area. If it is determined that the archaeological resource(s) is(are) scientifically significant, the archaeological monitor shall complete the Archaeological Assessment.

APRIL 2026

Page | 27

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.1(g). Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, the handling, treatment, preservation, and recordation of unique archaeological resources should occur as follows:
• The find should be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state unless the project would damage the resource.
• When preserving in place or leaving in an undisturbed state is not possible, excavation and recovery of the find for scientific study should occur unless testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the resource, and this determination is documented by a Qualified Archaeologist.

Ground disturbance activities in the area where resource(s) were found may recommence once the identified resources are properly assessed and processed by a Qualified Archaeologist. A report that describes the resources(s) and its disposition, as well as the assessment methodology, shall be prepared by the Qualified Archaeologist within 60 days of assessing the find and in accordance with current professional standards. If appropriate, the report should also contain the Qualified Archaeologist’s recommendations for the preservation, conservation, and curation of the resource at a suitable r epository, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, which shall be implemented. The Qualified Archaeologist shall submit the report to the City of Glendale and the SCCIC at the California State University, Fullerton. The report shall include all state and local requirements and shall be formatted an d completed in accordance with the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) document submittals standards. 3) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site and surrounding area are characterized by features typical of industrial and developed open space land uses. No known burial sites exist within the vicinity of the proposed Project site or surrounding area. However, impacts would be potentially significant if human remains were to be encountered during excavation and grading activities. State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner has 24 hours to notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then contact the most likely descendant of the deceased Native American, who will then serve as a consultant on how to proceed with the remains (i .e., avoid removal or rebury). The proposed Project is not anticipated to disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. Less than significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
83 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 28

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
F. ENERGY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary
consumption of energy resources, during project
construction or operation?
X

2. Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency? X
1) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? Less than Significant Impact . An Energy Assessment was completed for the proposed Project by Urban Crossroads and is included in Appendix A. Construction equipment use of fuel would not be atypical for the type of construction proposed because there are no aspects of the proposed Project’s construction process that are unusual or energy-intensive, and Project construction equipment would conform to the applicable CARB emissions standards, acting to promote equipment fuel efficiencies. The construction of the proposed Project would require the use of construction equipment such as work trucks, concrete trucks, cast -in- drilled-hole concrete pile drilling rigs, mobile cranes, and excavators and will generate construction-related vehicle trips that would combust fuel, primarily diesel and gasoline. The use of this fuel energy is necessary to complete the proposed Project and would not be consumed for unnecessary or wasteful purposes.

Furthermore, the energy used to construct the proposed Project is for the purpose of providing a means of non-vehicular travel between open space and walkways areas in the Cities of Glendale and LA , and will expand the availability of a safe, efficient pedestrian and cyclist network between these cities that reduces the need for motorized vehicles.

Certain new facilities such as lights on the bridge, etc. would consume electricity and a small, incremental increase in Cities of Glendale and LA fuel use may result from maintenance activities of these facilities; however, the proposed Project is anticipated to reduce vehicle trips and, therefore, fuel use in the cities over the long-term, which may result in an incremental net beneficial effect on energy consumption. The proposed Project may utilize lighting that is solar powered as well. Regardless of the potential net benefit effect on energy consumption, the proposed Project would not constitute a significant impact for demand on fuel, electricity, or natural gas energy resources and would not result in the wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of these resources. Proposed Project construction and operation energy consumption would not be considered inefficient, wasteful, or otherwise unnecessary and therefore impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? No Impact. The proposed Project involves construction and development of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge over the LA River connecting the Cities of Glendale and LA . These activities would not conflict with or obstruct any state or local policies for renewable energy or energy efficiency since the Project encourages walking as an alternative mode of transportation, thereby reducing the dependence on private automobiles.

EXHIBIT 1
84 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 29

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
Specifically, the City of Glendale ’s Greener Glendale Plan includes among its objectives to facilitate the provision of alternative transportation infrastructure, which includes strategies such as providing safe bicycle travel ways. The objectives additionally include promoting and encouraging the use of alternative forms of transportation, which includes strategies such as encouraging citizens to use alternative forms of transportation, such as walking, bicycling, and public transit. The proposed Project would not conflict with these applicable objectives of the Green Glendale Plan; rather, the proposed Project would complement existing pedestrian and cyclist infrastructure that would enhance walkability in the Cities of Glendale and LA, thereby reducing dependence on vehicle travel and associated energy consumption . The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.

No impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

G. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial
adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo
Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special
Publication 42.

X
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? X
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction? X
iv) Landslides? X

2. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of
topsoil?
X

3. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on-or off-site
landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction
or collapse?
X

4. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18- 1-B of Uniform Building Code (1994), creating
substantial risks to life or property?
X

5. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the
use of septic tanks or alternative waste water
disposal systems where sewers are not available for
the disposal of waste water?
X

6. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature?
X
EXHIBIT 1
85 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 30

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
1) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less than Significant Impact. According to the City of Glendale’s Safety Element (August 2003) and the City of LA’s interactive zoning map , the proposed Project site is not located within an Alquist -Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. Based on the available geologic data, active or potentially active faults with the potential for surface fault rupture are not known to be located directly beneath or projecting toward the proposed Project site. Thus, the potential for surface ground rupture at the proposed Project site is considered low and implementation of the proposed Project is not anticipated to increase or exacerbate fault rupture hazards. Nonetheless, the proposed Project would be constructed and designed with earthquake structural design components consistent with the California Building Code. Therefore, impacts from the rupture of a seismic fault are considered to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less than Significant Impact. Earthquake-induced strong ground shaking causes most of the earthquake damage. Damage to structures is usually caused by strong horizontal ground acceleration. The degree of shaking depends on several factors, including earthquake size; location; depth of the focus; orientation and movement of the seismic waves (source effects); the type of sediments or rocks that the seismic waves travel through (path effects) ; and the interaction between the structures and the sediments or rocks at a specific site (site effects). Strong ground shaking can also trigger the destructive secondary effects of liquefaction and slope failure (landslides).

According to the City of Glendale’s Safety Element (August 2003), the main faults include the Sierra Madre, the Verdugo and the Raymond faults. According to the California Department of Conservation, the closest active faults in the City of LA is the Hollywood Fault. Per Plate P-1 of the City of Glendale’s Safety Element, the subject property is not located within a Fault Hazard Management Zone. The closest active fault to the subject site is the Hollywood Fault, which is approximately 0.6 mile to the south. The City of LA Safety Element (November 2021) does not mention the Hollywood Fault but does mention that the San Andreas Fault poses a hazard to the area. A worst-case scenario earthquake (maximum magnitude) for the City of Glendale would involve rupture of the Verdugo fault, given that this fault lies directly below extensively developed portions of Glendale. Both the Sierra Madre and Raymond faults can also cause earthquakes that have the potential to severely impact Glendale . Several other faults farther away have the potential to generate earthquakes that would be felt in the Cities of Glendale and LA; however, because these faults are located at a further proximity and are expected to be less severe.

For example, the San Andreas fault has the highest probability of causing an earthquake in southern California in the near future, but this fault is sufficiently far from the Cities of Glendale and LA such that ground shaking as a result of this earthquake is not expected to be any stronger than shaking as a result of earthquakes on more nearby faults. Given that the City of Glendale and most of this part of the City of LA is almost completely built out, the reduction of earthquake losses depends primarily on the EXHIBIT 1
86 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 31

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
prudent retrofitting of existing structures. The Garden River Bridge would be built to current building standards including the latest required earthquake compliant standards.

The proposed Project could be subject to strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake originating along one of the faults listed as active or potentially active in the Southern California area.

This hazard exists throughout Southern California and could pose a risk to public safety and property by exposing people, property, or infrastructure to potentially adverse effects, including strong seismic ground shaking.

The proposed Project site has been previously hardscaped and includes the concrete-lined river channel and the LA River trails on both sides of the river. Furthermore, proposed Project improvements would be constructed to City of Glendale, City of LA and County standards, which include compliance with standard geotechnical engineering standards. The proposed Project would not increase risks to human health or safety related to strong seismic ground shaking compared to existing conditions. Therefore, there would be less than significant impacts from the proposed Project.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact . Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which loose, saturated, relatively cohesionless soil deposits lose shear strength during strong ground motions. Primary factors controlling liquefaction include intensity and duration of ground motion, gradation characteristics of the subsurface soils, in-situ stress conditions, and the depth to groundwater. Liquefaction is typified by a loss of shear strength in the liquefied layers due to rapid increases in pore water pressure generated by earthquake accelerations. Liquefaction typically occurs in areas where the soils below the water table are composed of poorly consolidated, fine to medium -grained, primarily sandy soil. In addition to the requisite soil conditions, the ground acceleration and duration of the earthquake must also be of a sufficient level to induce liquefaction.

The proposed Project site is located within an area prone to liquefaction as indicated in the City of Glendale’s Safety Element (August 2003). The proposed Project site is located in a liquefaction zone as indicated in the City of LA’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. However, the proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridge construction across the channelized LA River and connections to existing trails and streets and would not impact existing conditions relating to seismic -related ground failure including liquefaction.

The sites where the proposed bridge abutments on each side of the LA River would be constructed have previously experienced grading and construction . O nly shallow excavation is anticipated for the proposed bridge abutments; much of the proposed bridge construction would consist of surface -level, at-grade paving improvements with a maximum grading depth of approximately five (5) feet. The two proposed bridge piers would be located in the LA River with two (2) 24-inch cast-in-drilled-hole piles that would be approximately 50 feet deep and their associated footings/pile caps would be approximately eight (8) feet below the existing bottom of the LA River. T he proposed Project would adhere to all engineering and building codes, ensuring there would be no increased risk of liquefaction due to implementation of the proposed Project. In addition, the proposed Project would not include any structures for human habitation , but w ould be use d by humans and should a highly unlikely EXHIBIT 1
87 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 32

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
structural failure occur could lead to injury and/or fatalities. However, the proposed Project improvements would be constructed to City of Glendale, City of LA and County standards, which include compliance with standard geotechnical engineering standards , including the most up -to-date seismic standards. The proposed Project would not significantly increase risks to human health or safety related to liquefaction compared to existing conditions. Th us, less than significant impacts associated with seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction are anticipated to occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. iv) Landslides?
Less than Significant Impact . The proposed Project site is not located within a landslide hazard zone area, as indicated by the City of Glendale General Plan Safety Element (August 2003) as well as the City of LA’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. Furthermore, landslide areas are primarily in the City of Glendale’s hillside areas that are not located in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. Landslide zones for the City of LA are also concentrated in the hillside areas. The proposed Project site is not close enough to a designated landslide zone to be a danger. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not be impacted by landslides or create conditions affecting landslides. Therefore, less than significant impacts associated with landslides would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact . The proposed Project would be designed, constructed, and operated with adequate stormwater run-off control measures to minimize erosion. Construction activity associated with the proposed P roject development may result in wind and water driven erosion of soils due to grading activities if soil is stockpiled or exposed during construction. Further , as part of the proposed Project, the applicant would be required to adhere to conditions under the City of Glendale Municipal Code Section

13.42.060 to prepare and administer a plan that effectively provides for a minimum stormwater quality protection throughout construction of the proposed Project. This same applies for the City of LA Municipal Code Ordinance number 183833. The plan would incorporate best management practices (BMPs) to ensure that potential water quality impacts from water- driven erosion during construction would be reduced to less than significant. In addition, the applicant would be required to adhere to South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 403—Fugitive Dust, which would further reduce the impact related to soil erosion to less than significant . Therefore, potential impacts associated with soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant. Rule 403- Fugitive Dust applies to both the Cities of Glendale and LA.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in an on-site or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
Less than Significant Impact. Please see response G(1)(iii) above for impacts from liquefaction. Subsidence is the process of lowering the elevation of an area of the earth’s surface that can be caused by tectonic forces deep within the earth or by consolidation and densification of sediments sometimes due to EXHIBIT 1
88 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 33

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
withdrawal of fluids such as groundwater. According to the City of Glendale’s Safety Element (August 2003) and City of LA Local Hazard Mitigation Plan the proposed Project site is not located in an area of significant subsidence activity and would not include fluid withdrawal or removal. Therefore, impacts related to unstable soils are anticipated to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18 -1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994) , creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less than Significant Impact. Fine-grained soils, such as silts and clays, may contain variable amounts of expansive clay minerals. These minerals can undergo significant volumetric changes as a result of changes in moisture content. The upward pressures induced by the swelling of expa nsive soils can have significant harmful effects upon structures and other surface improvements. Per the City of Glendale’s Safety Element (2003), most of the Glendale area is underlain by alluvial units that are composed primarily of granular soils (silty sand, sand, and gravel). S uch units are typically in the low to moderately low range for expansion potential. However, every sedimentary unit in the area contains lenses or layers of fine -grained soils (clays and silty clays) that are typically in the moderate to highly expansive range. Such sediments are most likely to be found in the more distal parts of the alluvial fans, in the southern part of the City of Glendale .

According to the City of LA’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the soil is classified as “stiff soil” when it comes to earthquake disturbances. Expansive clay can also be found within fault and fracture zones in the highly sheared crystalline bedrock of the San Gabriel and Verdugo Mountains and in the San Rafael Hills. Per the City of Glendale’s Plate P-1 of the Safety Element, the proposed Project site is not located on or within of a Fault Hazard Management Zone. Overall, the soils underlying the proposed Project site and surrounding area are considered to have a low expansion potential. Regardless, the proposed Project bridge design would include deep foundations to support the bridge structure where expansive soils, if present, would not have a significant impact on the proposed P roject. Furthermore, the proposed Project is not designed for human occupancy on a permanent or semipermanent basis, pedestrians and cyclists and the small number of personnel required for bridge maintenance would be on- site on a temporary basis only. Finally, construction of the proposed project would be subject to applicable ordinances of the 20 22 California Building Code (CCR Title 24) and recommendations contained in the geotechnical engineering rep ort, including the aforementioned deep foundation bridge design. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? No Impact. The proposed Project would connect to and use the existing waste water conveyance system.

The proposed Project would not require treatment of waste water and would have no impacts associated with soils incapable of supporting septic tanks alternative waste water disposal systems. Septic tanks will not be used in the proposed Project. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
89 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 34

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
6) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geological feature? Less than Significant Impact. Plant and animal fossils are typically found within sedimentary rock deposits.

Geologic units within the City of Glendale consist of poorly or crudely stratified sand, silt, and gravel in the lowlands, with dense crystalline rock forming most of the hillsides (Glendale Open Space and Conservation Element, January 1993). The geological units within the City of L A consist of Tujunga Fine Sandy Loam (Section 4.6 Geology and Soils, Hollywood Community Plan, 2019) . These areas are not known to contain paleontological resources and the proposed Project site is not within an area that contains sedimentary rock. Disturbances associated with the construction of the Glendale Narrows segment, recent development of bike and walking paths, recent reconfiguration of Flower Street adjacent to the north end of the proposed Project site and modern development of Zoo Drive to the south side of the proposed Project site have disrupted soil beyond depths at which buried cultural resources are likely. Also, no buried discoveries have occurred in the vicinity of the proposed Project site. As a result, the potential to encounter in-situ remains associated with significant paleontological and/or a unique geological feature during proposed Project - related excavation is low. Impacts related to paleontological resources or unique geological features would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
90 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 35

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
H. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
X

2. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases?
X
1) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. In 2006, the State passed the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, commonly referred to as AB 32, which set the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goal for the State of California into law. GHG as defined under AB 32 includes: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. AB 32 requires the CARB, the State agency charged with regulating statewide air quality, adopt rules and regulations that would achieve greenhouse gas emissions equivalent t o statewide levels in 1990 by 2020 by reducing greenhouse gas emissions from significant sources via regulation, market mechanisms, and other actions.

A GHG Assessment was completed for the proposed Project by Urban Crossroads and is included in Appendix A. Since the proposed Project is a pedestrian and bicycle bridge with sporadic vehicle use for maintenance, there are no quantifiable operational emissions associated with the proposed Project. There is a growing recognition of the role that walking can make in reducing GHG emissions by substituting motorized travel, particularly on short trips. Replacing short car trips with walking or cycling can be achieved by providing high quality infrastructure for walking and cycling that may influence day-to-day travel decisions. Since the proposed Project will result in public improvements to encourage pedestrian and cyclist travel as a mode of transportation between the Cities of Glendale and LA, a reduction in the amount of greenhouse gas emissions is expected to occur.

A numerical threshold for determining the significance of GHG emissions in the SCAB has not been established by the SCAQMD for projects where it is not the lead agency. The City of LA’s air quality is governed by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). As an interim threshold based on guidance provided in the CAPCOA CEQA and Climate Change handbook, the Cities of Glendale and LA have opted to use a non -zero threshold approach based on Approach 2 of the handbook. Threshold 2.5 (Unit - Based Thresholds Based on Market Capture) establishes a numerical threshold based on capture of approximately 90% of emissions from future development. The latest threshold developed by SCAQMD using this method is 3,000 MTCO2e/yr for all projects.

The proposed Project would result in approximately 46.97 MTCO2e/yr for construction ; the proposed Project would not exceed the SCAQMD’s numeric threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e/yr. Thus, the proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact with respect to GHG emissions.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
91 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 36

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
2) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
No Impact. For the reasons discussed in Response H-1 above, the proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of GHG . The proposed Project would not conflict with any of the City of Glendale’s plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposed of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, including the City of Glendale’s Greener Glendale Plan. The proposed Project would not conflict with any of the City of LA’s plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purposed of reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, including the City of LA’s GreenLA and/or Sustainable City pLAn.

Additionally, the proposed Project would not conflict with the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The SCAG RTP/SCS is a regional growth management strategy that targets per capita GHG reduction from passenger vehicles and light trucks in the Southern California region pursuant to State Bill (SB) 375 . Additionally, the 2024-2050 RTP/SCS outlines a series of actions and strategies for integrating the transportation network with an overall land use pattern that responds to projected growth, housing needs, changing demographics, and transportation demands. The successful implementation of the 2024 -2050 RTP/SCS would result in a variety of transportation and housing choices while reducing automobile use. As discussed, the proposed Project would consist of a three -span curvilinear, landscaped bridge for use by pedestrians and bicyclists.

The intent of the proposed Project is to increase access to Glendale Narrows Riverwalk and Griffith Park , improve connections, and increase the safety of paths used by pedestrians and cyclists. T he proposed Project would provide increased pedestrian and cyclist access and connectivity between the Cities of Glendale and Los Angeles, thereby reducing the need for individual automobile use, which in turn reduces overall GHG emissions. Therefore, the proposed Project would be consistent and not conflict with applicable goals and strategies of the 2024/2050 RTP/SCS.

The proposed Project incorporates sustainability concepts by planning for infrastructure improvements that promote walking and cycling as an alternative form of transportation. No impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
92 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 37

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
I. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials?
X

2. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the environment?
X

3. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste
within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed
school?
X

4. Be located on a site which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
X

5. For a project located within 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project site?
X

6. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan?
X

7. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or
where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
X
1) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less than Significant Impact. Although small quantities of commercially available hazardous materials could be used during the proposed P roject construction activities (e.g., oil, gasoline, paint) and for landscape maintenance within proposed Project areas, these materials would not be used in sufficient quantities to pose a threat to human or environmental health. Therefore, development of the proposed Project would create a less than significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not result in emissions of hazardous materials or the regular handling of hazardous waste other than from the de minimis use of commercially -available pesticides, fuels, and paint, that would be used temporarily during construction of certain projects and during landscape maintenance activities. However, the use of these materials would not pose a significant hazard to the public or the environment.

EXHIBIT 1
93 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 38

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the proposed Project site.

No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The proposed Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As a result, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5) For a project located within 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 result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project site?
No Impact. The proposed Project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 6) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than Significant Impact . Implementation of the proposed Project would enhance pedestrian access and circulation between the Cities of Glendale and LA , and would improve the ability of pedestrians/bicyclists to access alternative modes of travel in the event of an emergency or evacuation. The proposed Project would not impair the implementation of or substantially interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan because no improvements on the Cities of Glendale and LA or County of Los Angeles ’s evacuation routes are proposed. Furthermore, the proposed Project would not result in substantial increase to vehicle congestion such that emergency access or evacuation would be hindered. In order to address any temporary lane closures or detours during construction, a traffic control plan would be developed to ensure that emergency access in the vicinity is maintained at all times.

The proposed Project would not interfere or impede with any emergency response or evacuation plan.

Therefore, the p roposed P roject will have a less than significant impact to an emergency response or evacuation plan.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
94 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 39

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
7) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is not identified as a high fire risk site on the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ) on the Local Responsible Area (LRA) map, as recommended by CAL Fire. However, the proposed Project site within the City of LA is designated by t he City of LA as within a VHFHSZ. This is likely due to being in close proximity to the Griffith Park hills that have dense vegetation further south of the proposed Project area . The proposed Project is located in a developed area with no wildland areas in the immediate vicinity. Furthermore, the proposed Project site would be landscaped with fire-resistant landscape, drought-tolerant and climate appropriate trees, shrubs, and ground cover that will meet or exceed the Cities of Glendale and LA’s requirements. The proposed Project site would be landscaped according to requirements set by the City of LA Municipal Code 57.322 which is outlined by the City of LA Fire Department. Overall, t he proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands . Impacts from wildland fires due to proposed Project implementation would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
95 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 40

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
J. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements or otherwise substantially
degrade surface or ground water quality?
X

2. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such
that the project may impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin?
X

3. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the
course of stream or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:

X
i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or
off-site? X
ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of
surface runoff in a manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site?
X
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
X
iv) I mpede or redirect flood flows?
X

4. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
X

5. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water
quality control plan or sustainable groundwater
management plan?
X
1) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Less than Significant Impact. Construction projects that disturb one or more acres of soil or are part of a larger common plan of development that disturbs one or more acres of soil must obtain coverage under the statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ( NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity. To obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit, a proposed Project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) must be prepared. The SWPPP outlines BMP s to reduce stormwater and non -stormwater pollutant discharges including erosion control, minimize contact between construction materials and precipitation, and implement strategies to prevent equipment leakage or spills which will be approved by both the City of Glendale and LA.

The proposed Project would be required to comply with all NPDES requirements including SWPPP preparation and pre-construction, during construction, and post-construction BMPs. With compliance with all applicable local, state, and federal laws regulating surface water quality, including implementation of the proposed P roject-specific SWPPP , impacts associated with water quality standards or waste discharge requirements are anticipated to be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
96 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 41

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
2) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Less than Significant Impact. As the proposed Project is a pedestrian/bicyclist bridge, it would not require the use or extraction of groundwater.

Furthermore, there are pre -existing LA River trails and streets on both sides of the river at the proposed Project location; natural infiltration capacity is not present, as the site has been previously developed and surfaces are impervious. Therefore, implementation of the proposed Project would not impede groundwater recharge because it does not currently provide for groundwater recharge of stormwater at the site. There would be less than significant impacts related to groundwater recharge either directly, indirectly or cumulatively.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i) Result in a substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would be concrete bridge with two supporting piers in the LA River, and approximately 0.0 3 acre of permanent impacts to the LA River concrete bottom would occur to accommodate the addition of the two piers. The proposed Project would not alter the course of the LA River.

Both sides of the LA River at the proposed Project site are currently hardscaped. Exposed soils could be subject to erosion during construction and grading activities for the proposed Project. Temporary impacts within the LA River ROW would occur by acti vities related to construction, access, temporary ingress/egress, water diversion, etc. However, a P roject-specific SWPPP is required for NPDES compliance, which would minimize impacts due to erosion or siltation. BMPs would be incorporated into the site design to fully address all expected pollutant sources and storm water runoff volumes.

Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
Less than Significant Impact . Temporary impacts within the LA River ROW would occur by activities related to construction, access, temporary ingress/egress, water diversion, etc. However, a proposed Project-specific SWPPP is required for NPDES compliance, which would minimize impacts due to erosion or siltation. BMPs would be incorporated into the site design to fully address all expected pollutant sources and storm water runoff volumes. In addition, pipes would be hung from the underside of the bridge and tie into existing drainage pipes on both sides of the LA River channel in order to address drainage from the bridge deck. As a result, the rate or amount of surface runoff would not be increased by the proposed Project and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
97 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 42

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Less than Significant Impact . Temporary impacts within the LA River ROW would occur by activities related to construction, access, temporary ingress/egress, water diversion, etc. However, a P roject- specific SWPPP is required for NPDES compliance, which would minimize impacts due to erosion or siltation. BMPs would be incorporated into the site design to fully address all expected pollutant sources and storm water runoff volumes. Therefore, the proposed Project would not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems, nor would it provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
Less than Significant Impact . The proposed Project is a concrete bridge with two supporting piers in the LA River, and approximately 0.03 acre of permanent impacts to the LA River concrete bottom would occur to accommodate the addition of the two piers. The proposed Project would not impede or redirect flood flows and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? No Impact. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood hazard maps, the proposed Project site outside the LA River is not located within a 100-year flood zone. As illustrated in the FEMA FIRM Map (Map no. 06037C1345F), the proposed Project site is located in Zone X, an area of minimal flood hazard.

Tsunamis are large ocean waves generated by sudden water displacement caused by a submarine earthquake, landslide, or volcanic eruption. A review of the County of Los Angeles Flood and Inundation Hazards Map indicates that the site is not within the mapped tsunami inundation boundaries.

Seiches are typically caused when strong winds and rapid changes in atmospheric pressure push water from one end of a body of water to the other, causing the water then continues to oscillate back and forth for hours or even days. The proposed Project site is not located downslope of any large body of water that would produce a seiche.

There would be no significant impacts related to the risk of pollutants in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, as the proposed Project is not located in any such zones.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
No Impact . As the proposed Project is a pedestrian /bicyclist bridge, it would not require the use or extraction of groundwater. The proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan, and there would be no impact.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
98 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 43

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
K. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Physically divide an established community? X

2. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)
adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect?
X

3. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X
1) Physically divide an established community?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is a concrete bridge (Garden River Bridge) that would span the LA River at approximately LA River Mile 31; this bicycle/pedestrian bridge would extend from the City of Glendale on the north side of the LA River to the City of LA on the south side. The proposed bridge would serve as a point of connection across the LA River from the corner of Flower Street and Fairmont Avenue on the north side of the LA River (City of Glendale), to North Zoo Drive in Griffith Park on the south side of the LA River (City of LA).

The area where the Garden River Bridge would be located is already divided by the LA River. The proposed Project would span the LA River providing a new access point between the Cities of Glendale and LA , thus enhancing various connections between the cities, and along the LA River . As a recreation and transportation route, the LA River Trail serves multiple purposes. However, it has yet to live up to its full potential because it is fragmented. The proposed Project would connect to, extend, and complete the City of Glendale’s larger Riverwalk Project. South of the proposed Project location, the bridge would join a segment of the City of LA’s LA River Trail, thus uniting pedestrian/bicycle river trails along both sides of the LA River and creating connections in a larger regional setting.

The proposed Project would not physically divide an established community and would result in l ess than significant impacts.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to , the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? No Impact. Within this reach, the LA River itself is designated as O pen Space in the various surrounding community plans (LA River Master Plan). The City of LA’s boundary crosses the LA River at t he proposed Project site to include parcels on the north and south bank of the river. The land use designation and zoning are both Open Space at the location of the proposed Project (City of LA’s General Plan, governed by Chapter 1 of the City of LA’s Municipal Code). South of the proposed Project location, the City of LA’s Griffith Park is zoned for Open Space and intended to provide recreational opportunities to the surrounding communities.

EXHIBIT 1
99 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 44

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
The Hollywood Community Plan is the largest community plan of those that encompass the LA River channel.

This plan contains Open Space and Public Facilities land use designations within the upper LA River and was updated in June 2012. The City of LA Open Space designation allows for park and recreational uses, and includes Griffith Park and lands adjacent to and within the LA River channel. The Public Facilities designation reflects the public ownership, access and operation of infrastructure and primarily includes existing freeway ROW areas but also includes lands adjoining the channel that are subject to riparian and channel restoration and improvement measures. The proposed Project would be consistent with these land use designations.

In addition, they would be consistent with policies in the City of LA’s Hollywood Community Plan for public improvements, including Public Improvements Policy 2 supporting the creation of a LA River Greenbelt to be integrated with existing and proposed parks, trails, and scenic routes (City of LA General Plan). Overall, the proposed Project adds to the goal of the City of LA’s LA River Improvement Overlay district (LA RIO). The LA RIO aims to connect the surrounding communities to the river and improve the surrounding landscape.

Alongside the northern bank of the LA River is the City of Glendale Riverwalk, a planned public -use pedestrian and bicycle trail. The proposed Project represents the final implementation phase of the Glendale Riverwalk Project, and the proposed bridge would join the existing Riverwalk trail. The regulation of land use zoning in the City of Glendale is governed by the Zoning Ordinance, Title 30 of Glendale Municipal Code. The City of Glendale’s entire area surrounding the proposed Project location is zoned for Industrial development, which features light manufacturing, assembly, and wholesale/warehousing facilities and activities. The nearest residential area is located approximately 1,500 ft northeast of the proposed Project site.

The proposed Project would not change the surrounding area’s land uses and would be consistent with the Cities of Glendale and LA’s zoning. North of the proposed Project site, the Garden River Bridge would connect with, and extend, Riverwalk’s bike trail. South of the proposed Project area is Griffith Park, with a City of LA Open Space designation. As it is a major recreational attraction in the area, the development of the proposed pedestrian/bicycle bridge and trail connections would be consistent with Griffith Park’s intended land use, thus enhancing recreational access to the surrounding communities. In addition, the proposed Project would be consistent with the LA River Ecosystem Restoration Integrated Feasibility Report (2015). Furthermore, the proposed Project would represent the culmination of the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk Master Plan (2011), as well as being a key component in the City of LA’s larger LA River Master Plan and LA RIO . The proposed Project w ould not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. As a result, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? No Impact. The City of Glendale’s Open Space and Conservation Element (January 1993) does not identify the proposed Project site and immediate area as being located in an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan area. The City of LA’s Conservation Element (September 2001) does not identify the proposed Project site in any conservation plan . As such, implementation of the proposed Project would not conflict with the provisions of any adopted conservation plan. No impact would occur.

EXHIBIT 1
100 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 45

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
101 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 46

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
L. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the
residents of the state?
X

2. Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
X
1) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No Impact. The City of Glendale’s Open Space and Conservation Element (January 1993) does not identify the proposed Project site as within an area containing valuable mineral resources. There are no areas in the City of Glendale that are designated as mineral resource extraction areas by the State of California. The City of LA’s Hollywood Community Plan identifies the portion of the proposed Project within the City of LA with a Mineral Resources Zone (MRZ)-2 classification, which indicates that these areas are underlain by mineral deposits where geologic data indicates that significant measured or indicated resources are present . The MRZ-2 classified areas within the proposed Project area are zoned Open Space or Public Facilities and have either an Open Space or Public Facilities land use designation, which includes uses such as undeveloped open space, recreational areas, and public roadways. Regardless of the MRZ- 2 classification, the existing zoning and land use designations within the City of LA do not allow for the extraction of mineral resources, and resource recovery does not occur within the proposed Project area. Additionally, no further mineral extraction operations occur within the proposed Project area for the Cities of Glendale or LA. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No Impact . As indicated in Response L -1 above, there are no mineral resources extraction within the proposed Project site. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
102 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 47

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
M. NOISE
Would the project result in:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. 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?
X

2. Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? X

3. For a project located within the vicinity of a private 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?
X
1) 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?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project is located over the existing LA River , primarily a flood control facility, and is also within the City of Glendale’s industrial land use area, and in the City of LA’s Open Space and Public Facilities area. A Noise Study was completed for the proposed Project by Urban Crossroads and is included in Appendix D . The proposed Project is a pedestrian bridge and is not expected to include any specific type of operational noise sources beyond people conversing as they cross the bridge. Therefore, the focus of the noise analysis is on the potential construction related n oise impacts. Pursuant to Section

8.36.040 of the Glendale Municipal Code (GMC), the maximum allowable noise level for industrial zoned areas is 70 dBA during day and night time hours, seven days a week. 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 5 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 5 dbA, and in no event may the actual ambient exceed the presumed ambient by more than 5 dbA.

GMC Section 8.36.080 prohibits construction activities from occurring during prohibited hours that have been established in the GMC. Prohibited hours refers to any time after the hour of 7:00 PM of any day; any time before the hour of 7:00 AM of any day; any time on Sunday; and any time on holidays. In accordance with the Noise Ordinance, construction would be prohibited from 7:00 PM to 7:00 AM every night and from 7:00 PM on Saturday to 7:00 AM on Monday.

The City of Glendale General Plan Noise Element establishes noise criteria for the various land uses throughout the City. Noise exposure for industrial uses is “normally acceptable” when the Community Noise Equivalent Level ( CNEL) at exterior industrial locations is equal to or below 75 dBA, “conditionally acceptable” when the CNEL is between 70 to 80 dBA, and “normally unacceptable” when the CNEL exceeds 85 dBA.

To analyze noise impacts originating from the construction of Glendale -Los Angeles Garden River Bridge within the City of LA, noise from construction activities is typically evaluated against standards established under the City of LA’s Municipal Code and thresholds. 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 EXHIBIT 1
103 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 48

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
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:
• 75dB(A) for construction, industrial, and agricultural machinery including crawler-tractors, dozers, rotary drills and augers, loaders, power shovels, cranes, derricks, motor graders, paving machines, off-highway trucks, ditchers, trenchers, compactors, sc rapers, wagons, pavement breakers, compressors and pneumatic or other powered equipment.

For the purpose of the Noise Study, the City of LA Municipal Code 75 dBA Leq threshold is used to determine potential proposed Project-related construction noise level impacts at nearby sensitive receiver locations.

Pursuant to Section 41.40 of the City of LA Municipal Code, construction is allowed Monday to Friday through the hours of 7:00 AM and 9:00 PM; Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM and prohibited on Sunday and national holidays.

The Project is a bridge across the LA River for pedestrians and bicyclists is a transportation related improvement that will connect segments of the urban trail system within Glendale and LA. A numerical construction threshold is being used based on Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual for analysis of daytime construction impacts. The FTA provides guidelines that can be considered reasonable criteria for construction noise assessment. The FTA considers a daytime exterior construction noise level of 80 dBA equivalent sound level (Leq) as a reasonable threshold for noise sensitive residential land use.

Using the reference construction equipment noise levels and the CadnaA noise prediction model, calculations of the proposed Project construction noise level impacts at the nearby sensitive receiver locations were completed. Temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels associated with the proposed Project are related to noise generated during demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, and paving. Construction is completed in steps, each of which h as its own mix of equipment and consequently its own noise characteristics. These various sequential phases would change the character of the noise generated on the site and therefore the noise levels surrounding the site as construction progresses. Despite the variety in the type and size of construction equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and patterns of operation allow construction-related noise ranges to be categorized by work phase. To assess a reasonable worst -case construction scenario and account for the dynamic nature of construction activities, the proposed Project construction noise analysis models the equipment combination with the highest reference level as a moving point source within the construction area ( proposed Project site boundary).

Three sensitive receiver locations were utilized to analyze construction impacts and include:
• Location R1 represents the John Ferraro Athletic Fields , in the City of LA , south of the proposed Project site along Zoo Drive. R1 is placed approximately 3 18 feet east of the proposed Project site at the play structure nearest the proposed Project site. • Location R2 represents the existing noise sensitive residence located at 810 Pelanconi Avenue, in the City of Glendale, approximately 1,238 feet northeast of the proposed Project site. R2 is placed in the private outdoor living areas (backyard) facing the proposed Project site. • Location R3 represents an outdoor seating area of an office structure located at 1000 Flower Street, in the City of Glendale, approximately 422 feet northwest of the proposed Project site. R3 is placed at the outdoor use areas nearest the proposed Project site.

The highest construction noise levels at these locations are expected to range from 48.0 to 65.5 dBA Leq .

Therefore, the temporary construction noise is below 70 dBA, which complies with Glendale's noise thresholds. As for the City of LA, their noise ordinance allows up to 75 dBA for construction, which would still fall below that acceptable maximum allowed by the LAMC.

EXHIBIT 1
104 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 49

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
Additionally, the construction noise analysis shows that the nearest receiver locations will satisfy the FTA’s reasonable daytime 80 dBA Leq significance threshold during proposed Project construction activities as shown on Table 2.

Table 2: Construction Noise Level Impacts

Receiver Location1
Construction Noise Levels (dBA Leq)
Highest
Construction
Noise Levels2
FTA
Threshold3
GMC §8.36.040
Presumed
Threshold
LAMC
Threshold
FTA Threshold Exceeded?4
Glendale or LA Threshold
Exceeded?
R1 54.9 80 55 75 No
R2 47.5 80 60 75 No
R3 54.4 80 60 75 No
1 R1: Location R1 represents the John Ferraro Athletic 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 noise 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 seating area of an office structure located at 1000 Flower Street, approximately 422 feet northwest of the Project site.

R3 is placed at the outdoor use areas nearest the Project site. 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?

Compliance with the Cities of Glendale and LA’s respective Noise Ordinances would ensure that construction noise does not disturb the residential and sensitive office uses during hours when ambient noise levels are likely to be lower (i.e., at night). Although construction noise would be higher than the ambient noise in the proposed Project vicinity, construction noise would cease to occur once the proposed Project construction is completed. The proposed Project would not increase vehicle trips or introduce other generators of high noise levels to the site. Overall, the noise impacts due to proposed Project operation and construction noise would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

2) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Less than Significant Impact. The noise study investigated where groundborne vibrations from the Project will fall within the thresholds of the City of Glendale and Los Angeles. It was found that neither city identifies specific vibration level limits in their general plans nor municipal codes . Therefore , the Caltrans Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual was used to assess the temporary impacts that vibrations produced from the Project could have on surrounding buildings. Since the existing buildings in the vicinity of the proposed Project can best be described as a combination of older residential structures, commercial buildings, or historic buildings representing a variety of structure types with several different construction methods, such as wood frame and unreinforced masonry with a maximum acceptable continuous vibration threshold of 0.25 PPV (in/sec). Construction activity can result in varying degrees of ground vibration, depending on the equipment and methods used, distance to the affected structures and soil type. Since the proposed Project does not include any explosive blasting or pile driving activities, it is expected that ground -borne vibration from proposed Project construction activities would cause only EXHIBIT 1
105 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 50

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
intermittent, localized intrusion. Such vibrations will emanate from small bulldozer, loaded trucks, and large bulldozer activities.

Table 3 presents the expected vibration levels at the nearby receiver locations due to the proposed Project.

At distances ranging from 318 to 1,238 feet from the proposed Project construction activities, construction vibration levels are estimated to range from less than 0.001 to 0.002 PPV (in/sec).

Table 3: Project Construction Vibration Levels

Receiver1

Structure
Type

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 NA 318' 0.000 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.25 No
R2 Residence 1,238' 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.25 No
R3 Office 422' 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 0.25 No
1 Noise Study Receiver locations.
2 Distance from receiver location to Project construction boundary. 3 Based on the Vibration Source Levels of Construction Equipment. 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

Based on maximum acceptable vibration threshold of 0.25 PPV (in/sec), the typical proposed Project construction vibration levels will satisfy thresholds at all receiver locations. Therefore, the proposed Project- related vibration impacts are considered less than significant during the construction activities at the proposed 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 proposed Project site boundaries.

Project construction would comply with the City of Glendale’s noise standards for construction and demolition activities (Section 8.36 of the City’s Municipal Code, which regulates the hours of construction activities). Construction activities would be prohibited 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. The proposed Project would also comply with the City of LA’s noise standard for construction and demolition activities ( Section 41.40 of LAMC , which regulates the hours of construction activities) .

Construction can proceed Monday to Friday through the hours of 7:00 AM and 9:00 PM; Saturdays from 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM.

The proposed Project would not expose people to or generate excessive ground -borne vibration or noise and the temporary increase in noise levels during the construction period would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
106 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 51

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
3) For a project located within 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 site to excessive noise levels?
No Impact. The proposed Project site is neither located within an airport land use plan nor is it located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
107 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 52

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
N. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through
extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
X

2. Displace substantial numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
X
1) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would result in improvements to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and access would not add housing or businesses, or extend any roads, and thus, would not directly or indirectly induce population growth. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 1) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed Project would not displace any people. Implementation of the proposed Project would not remove any existing housing, and therefore , no construction of replacement housing would be necessary. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
108 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 53

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
O. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision of new
or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain
acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:

a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
d) Parks? X
e) Other public facilities? X
1) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is partially located within the City of LA to the south and the City of Glendale to the north.

The City of Glendale Fire Department (GFD) would have the closest geographical locations to provide fire and paramedic services to the site. Additionally, GFD has mutual aid agreements with the adjacent cities of Burbank, Pasadena, and LA, and with the County of Los Angeles (Technical Background Report to the 2003 Safety Element – Fire Hazards, City of Glendale). The mutual aid agreements obligate the nearest fire company to respond to a fire regardless of the jurisdiction, while additional mutual aid agreements obligate fire department resources to respond outside of their district upon request for assistance.

There are six (6) fire departments/fire stations within a 5-mile radius of the proposed Project site:
• Glendale Fire Station 27, located approximately 1.5 miles north of the site • Glendale Fire Station 21, located approximately 2.1 miles southeast of the site • Glendale Fire Station 26, located approximately 2.2 miles northeast of the site • Burbank Fire Department Station 15, located approximately 2.8 miles northwest of the site • Glendale Fire Station 22, located approximately 3.0 miles southeast of the site • Burbank Fire Department Headquarters, located approximately 4.0 miles northwest of the site Additionally, the proposed Project would comply with all applicable regulations of both the City of LA Fire Code and City of Glendale Fire Code. Therefore, as the proposed Project would comply with applicable fire codes and as several existing fire stations are located within close distance to the site, the proposed Project would not significantly increase calls for service or necessitate expansion or construction of a new facility for fire protection. Impacts would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT 1
109 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 54

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. b) Police protection?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is located partially within the City of LA to the south and the City of Glendale to the north. The Glendale Police Department (GPD) and Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) would provide police protection services to the proposed Project site. Additionally, park rangers provide service to Griffith Park, located just south of the proposed Project site.

There are four (4) police stations located within a 5-mile radius of the proposed Project site:
• Glendale Police Substation, located approximately 2.1 miles southeast of the site • Glendale Police Department, located approximately 2.6 miles east of the site • Los Angeles Police Department Mounted Unit, located approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the site • Los Angeles Police Department Northeast Police Station, located approximately 3.6 miles southeast of the site
The proposed Project would consist of a concrete bridge for pedestrians and cyclists within a portion of the LA River with adjacent similar uses along the LA River Bike Path. Therefore, with the proposed Project’s similar uses and with several police stations located within close distance to the site, the proposed Project is not expected to significantly increase calls for service or necessitate expansion or construction of a new facility for police protection. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. c) Schools?
No Impact. The proposed Project consists of a concrete bridge for pedestrians and cyclists within a portion of the LA River channel for recreational uses. It is anticipated the proposed Project would be used primarily by local residents who may already frequent the area for the LA River Bike Path and the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk. Accordingly, the proposed Project would not induce substantial unplanned population growth in the surrounding area either directly or indirectly and thus, the proposed Project would not generate increased demand for schools, nor would the proposed Project generate the need for new or physically altered school facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. No impact regarding schools would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. d) Parks?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not involve the development or displacement of a park. As previously discussed, the proposed Project is a component of both the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk and the LA River Master Plan. More specifically, it represents the next phase (Phase III) for the City of Glendale’s Riverwalk project, the goal of which is to improve recreational access to both the Cities of Glendale and LA. Opposite of the Riverwalk and on the other side of the LA River is the City of LA ’s 4,210- acre Griffith Park, which offers access to the Los Angeles Zoo, natural terrain, landscaped parkland and picnic areas, numerous family attractions, an assortment of educational and cultural institutions, and miles of hiking and horseback riding trails. The proposed Project’s bridge would connect the Riverwalk to the existing EXHIBIT 1
110 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 55

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
Griffith Park area and would not generate population growth or the need for new or physically altered park facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. I mpacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. e) Other public facilities?
No Impact. As previously discussed, the proposed Project would not induce population growth in the surrounding area either directly or indirectly. Therefore, the proposed Project would not increase the use of other public facilities, including libraries, such that new or altered facilities would be required , the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
111 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 56

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
P. RECREATION
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Would the project increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational
facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
X

2. Does the project include recreational facilities or
require the construction or expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an adverse physical effect
on the environment?
X
1) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? Less than Significant Impact . The LA County Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) works with numerous city parks and recreation departments and provides park and recreation opportunities in unincorporated communities. DPR completed a Comprehensive Park Needs Assessment in 2016, use d in prioritizing investments in new parks and park improvements, that catalogs park amenities as well as walkability to parks. The assessment demonstrated a lack of walkable access to local parks along the LA River corridor, as well as a lack of large parks over 20 acres are lacking in the western San Fernando Valley, which is where the proposed Project site is located. The assessment also concluded that open space near the LA River is difficult to access due to obstructions such as freeways, elevation changes, infrastructural easements, or lack of connectivity across the river corridor for pedestrians and bicyclists, all of which are applicable to the current conditions north of the proposed Project site (LARMP).

In order to address these deficits, the City of Glendale developed the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk Project, of which the Garden River Bridge would be the final piece. Currently, there is one mile of recreational trail for bicyclists and pedestrians, two parks, rest areas, interpretive signage, public art installations, and an equestrian facility on the north side of the LA River . The Riverwalk also provides a gateway to the Grand Central Creative Campus, River Glen Opportunity Area, and the San Fernando Creative Corridor in Glendale.

When completed, the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk Project would provide a total of approximately 2.6 miles of “trails for bicyclists and pedestrians that will include parks, rest areas, river overlooks, an equestrian facility, interpretive signage, a public art project, and a bridge connecting Glendale Narrows Riverwalk to Griffith Park.” This unique community resource would increase access from Glendale to the LA River and Griffith Park, improve connections, and increase the safety of paths used for bicycling and walking.

The proposed Project is not expected to generate a substantial increase in demand for existing park or recreational facilities in Glendale, as it would not result in a substantial increase in park use, as noted in O- 1d. Development of the proposed Project would increase walkability to existing recreational facilities and parks within the City of Glendale and the City of LA, which could incrementally increase use of these facilities.

However, the increase in use of these facilities as a result of implementation of the proposed Project would be small and would not result in physical deterioration because the proposed Project does not increase population or employment centers and would not have any growth inducing impacts. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in significant deterioration of parks or recreational facilities in either the EXHIBIT 1
112 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 57

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
Cities of Glendale or in LA. This proposed Project would contribute to the goals of the City of LA’s LA RIO district. The purpose of the district is to have the surrounding communities interact with the green belt that runs along the LA River. The proposed Project will provide access to pedestrians on foot and bicycle, to cross the river. Less than significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed above in Response P-1, the proposed Project is not anticipated to create a significant demand on parks facilities in either the Cities of Glendale or LA that would require the construction or expansion at existing public recreational facilities. The proposed Project does not induce population growth or create employment centers and not have any growth inducing impacts . In addition, the proposed Project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
113 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 58

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
Q. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Conflict with program, plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit,
roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
X

2. Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines
Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? X

3. Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm
equipment)?
X

5. Result in inadequate emergency access? X
1) Conflict with program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project does not conflict with any program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities for the Cities of Glendale and LA and would support pedestrian and bicycle circulation. A Tr ip Generation Memorandum was prepared by Urban Crossroads and is included as Appendix E, which evaluated and analyzed the proposed Project’s trip generation in accordance with the Glendale’s Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines. The proposed Project trip generation analysis includes impacts to traffic in the City of LA. Since the proposed Project would support local pedestrian and bicycle circulation, the Trip Generation Memorandum addresses the trip generation associated with the construction of the proposed Project only.

Overall, the memorandum’s conclusion was that the number of trips generated will be less than 50 trips during both the AM and PM peak periods.

In the context of applicable programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system , the proposed Project would not conflict with implementation of such plans. Specifically, the City of Glendale has both a Bicycle Transportation Plan and Pedestrian Plan, each with the respective goals of providing enhanced and improved bicycle infrastructure and pedestrian infrastructure. Additionally, the City of LA’s Mobility Plan 2035 includes objectives such as decreasing vehicle miles traveled per capita, reducing transportation-related energy use, increasing household access to high -quality bicycling facilities, and increasing the combined mode split of persons who travel by walking, bicycling, or transit. As discussed, vehicular trip generation associated with the proposed Project would be relatively minimal at less than 50 trips during both AM and PM peak periods, which would contribute towards attaining goals related to reducing vehicle miles traveled. Further, implementation of the proposed Project would not prohibit applicable goals and objectives related to providing increased, enhanced bicyclist and pedestrian infrastructure; rather, the proposed Project’s intent is to aid in providing such infrastructure via a pedestrian and cyclist accessible bridge that would connect two cities and connect to similar existing infrastructure, such as the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk. As such, the proposed Project would not conflict with or prevent the attainment of applicable programs, plans, ordinances, or policies addressing the circulation system. Less than significant impacts would occur.

EXHIBIT 1
114 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 59

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? Less than Significant Impact . Section 15064.3 of the State CEQA Guidelines were adopted in December 2018, which require all lead agencies to adopt Vehicle Miles Traveled (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 City adopted their Transportation Analysis Guidelines (October 202 0). Urban Crossroads prepared a VMT Screening Evaluation and is included as Appendix F that utilized the adopted City of Glendale Guidelines to analyze potential impacts. Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) is the overseeing agency that has adopted the City of LA Transportation Assessment Guidelines (TAG). The LA TAG follows the standards set forth by CEQA. The LA TAG provides screening criteria to aid in determining if a project would conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision(b)(1):
• Would the land use project generate a net increase of 250 or more daily vehicle trips? Further, the City of Glendale guidelines provide information for analyzing transportation projects, including the process to aid in deciding if a detailed VMT analysis should be conducted. The City of Glendale’s guidelines provides multiple examples of projects that are unlikely to result in an increase in VMT including:
• the addition of a new or enhanced bike or pedestrian facility on existing streets/highways or within existing public rights-of-way and;
• 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 to be used by bicyclists and pedestrians for the purpose improving and promoting pedestrian and bicyclist access across the LA River between the Cities of Glendale and LA. As previously discussed, the Trip Generation Memorandum prepared for the proposed Project concluded the number of proposed Project trips generated will be less than 50 trips during both the AM and PM peak periods. Thus, the proposed Project generate a net increase of 250 or more daily vehicle trips as included in the LA TAG screening criteria above. Additionally, the proposed Project is unlikely to result in an increase in VMT because the only vehicles permitted on the bridge would be maintenance vehicles, which do not contribute to VM T, or trigger any requirement to prepare a VMT analysis. The Project will promote and support alternative means of transportation designed to increase interjurisdictional pedestrian and bicycle access to the LA River amenities including the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk, Griffith Park and the nearby LA Zoo. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less than Significant Impact . The proposed Project would reduce hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists because the bridge will allow pedestrians and bicyclists to avoid interaction with vehicular traffic. As shown in Figures 3 and 5, physical modifications and the re-alignment of Zoo Drive would not introduce or increase hazardous design features such as sharp curves or dangerous intersections . Rather, proposed Project EXHIBIT 1
115 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 60

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
physical modifications would provide more visibility to vehicles of pedestrians and bicyclists in this area and enhance safety via the new raised crosswalk across Zoo Drive, installation of a new curb, and installation of a sidewalk that would help facilitate access from the proposed bridge to the John Ferrero Athletic Fields to the south . No increase in hazards due to a design feature is anticipated from implementation of the proposed Project. Less than significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less than Significant impact. The proposed Project will not result in inadequate emergency access because the pedestrian/bicycle bridge will give alternative multi-community access between Glendale and LA which improve connections, reduces vehicular transportation that otherwise would be used to access Glendale Narrows Riverwalk and Griffith Park amenities. The Project increase s the safety of paths used for pedestrians and cyclists. The construction of the proposed Project, including the re-alignment of Zoo Drive, could result in temporary closures or narrowing of traffic lanes and/or detours at Zoo Drive and/or Flower Street/Fairmont Avenue; however, none of these are designated evacuation routes and access for emergency vehicles would not be significantly impeded. Additionally, while the curb-to-curb width along Zoo Drive would be reduced for a short portion of the roadway to accommodate the stair and ramp landings, the curb -to-curb width would still accommodate the minimum width required for emergency access.

Nonetheless, a Transportation Management Plan will be prepared for the proposed Project, which would address any temporary closures or narrowing of traffic lanes. Overall, i mplementation of the proposed Project would not result in inadequate emergency access and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
116 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 61

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
R. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
Impact With
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Would the project cause a substantial adverse
change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in Public Resources Code
Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope of the
landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe, and
this is:

i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California
Register of Historical Resources, or in a
local register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code Section
5020.1(k), or

X
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency,
in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section
5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall
consider the significance of the resource to
a California Native American tribe.

1) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and this is:
i) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k), or Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Prehistoric and historic archaeological sites are not known to exist within the proposed Project area. No archaeological resources were identified during the Cultural Resources Assessment (Appendix C). Disturbances associated with the construction of the Glendale Narrows segment, recent development of bike and walking paths, recent reconfiguration of Flower Street adjacent to the north end of the proposed Project site, and modern development of athletic fields adjacent to the south side of the proposed Project site have disrupted soil beyond depths at which buried cultural resources are likely. As a result, the potential to encounter in -situ remains associated with significant archaeological or tribal cultural resources during proposed Project -related excavation is low.

APRIL 2026

Page | 62

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
construction activities associated with p roposed Project implementation would have the potential to unearth undocumented resources.

Sacred Lands File search results with the NAHC w ere negative. The City of Glendale, as the lead CEQA agency, initiated AB 52 consultation in October 2025 with:
• Cahuilla Band of Indians
• Fernandeño Tataviam Band of Mission Indians
• Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation
• Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California Tribal Council • Gabrielino/Tongva Nation
• Gabrielino-Tongva Tribe
• Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
• Soboba Band of Luiseño Indians
The following mitigation measures (TCR-1, TCR-2, and TCR-3) were developed through consultation with multiple California Native American tribes, the “Consulting Tribes,” including, but not limited to, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California, and Fernandeño Tatavium Band of Mission Indians, that requested consultation for the project and are intended to address potential impacts to tribal cultural resources in compliance with CEQA. With implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3, less than significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measure TCR-1: Retain a Native American Monitor listed on the Native American Heritage Commission contact list from the Kizh Nation Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities A. The lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) contact list, selected by the Lead Agency in consultation with the Consulting Tribes a qualified Kizh Nation representative to monitor all ground- disturbing activities. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground -disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on -site and any off -site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, clearing, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, stripping topsoil, boring, grading, excavatin g, digging, drilling, tunneling, blasting, quarrying, leveling, driving posts, and trenching or similar activity, and archaeological work.

C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground- disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground -disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Consulting Tribes. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the EXHIBIT 1
118 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 63

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
lead agency and maintained as part of the project record upon written request to the Consulting Tribes, subject to applicable confidentiality requirements under CEQA and the California Public Resources Code.

D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following: (1) written confirmation to the Kizh Nation and other Consulting Tribes who have requested separate site monitoring, from a designated point of contact for the lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground-disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination by the Lead Agency, informed by consultation with the Kizh Nation and other Consulting Tribes, as applicable, and written notification to the Kizh Nation and other Consulting Tribes as applicable, that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact TCRs.

Mitigation Measure TCR -2: Unanticipated Discovery of Tribal Cultural Resource Objects (Non - Funerary/Non-Ceremonial)
A. Upon discovery of any TCRs, all construction activities in the immediate vicinity of the discovery (within a 60 -foot buffer) shall cease and shall not resume until the discovered TCR has been fully assessed by the tribal monitor and/or a qualified archaeologist meeting Secretary of Interior standards (retained by lead agency). Work on the portions of the project site outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. The TCR shall be retained by the archaeologist until the end of the project whereby the lead agency shall, in good faith, consult with the Kizh Nation and other Consulting Tribes, as applicable, on the disposition and treatment (which may include reinternment to an area where there will be no future ground disturbances) of any TCR(s) encountered during all ground disturbing activities.

Mitigation Measure TCR-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects
A. Native American human remains are defined in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in PRC Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

B. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

No photographs may be taken. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Coroner will contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If the relevant agencies conclude that avoidance of the site is not feasible, an alternative plan must be developed that outlines specific steps and a timeline for resuming construction activities. Monitoring, data recovery, determining the significance of the finds, and implementing avoidance measures (if necessary) must be carried out promptly, at the expense of the lead agency.

D. Preservation in place (avoidance with 100 -foot boundary/buffer) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.

E. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

EXHIBIT 1
119 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 64

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
ii) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated . As outlined above, mitigation measures (TCR-1, TCR -2, and TCR -3) were developed through consultation with multiple California Native American tribes, the “Consulting Tribes,” including, but not limited to, Gabrieleño Band of Mission Indians – Kizh Nation, Gabrielino Tongva Indians of California, and Fernandeño Tatavium Band of Mission Indians, that requested consultation for the project and are intended to address potential impacts to tribal cultural resources in compliance with CEQA. With implementation of Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3, less than significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures:

Mitigation Measures TCR-1 through TCR-3 above.

EXHIBIT 1
120 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 65

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
S. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or
stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities, the construction or
relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X

2. Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development
during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
X

3. Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it
has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected
demand in addition to the provider’s existing
commitments?
X

4. Generate solid waste in excess of state or local
standards, or in excess of the capacity of local
infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of
solid waste reduction goals?
X

5. Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
X
1) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than Significant Impact. Under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the RWQCB issues NPDES permits to regulate waste discharged to waters of the U.S. , which includes reservoirs, lakes, and their tributary waters. Waste discharges include discharges of stormwater and construction related discharges.

A construction project resulting in the disturbance of more than one acre , as does the proposed Project, requires a NPDES Permit; construction projects are also required to prepare a SWPPP. The proposed Project would comply with the RWCQB -established waste discharge prohibitions and water quality objectives, which would be incorporated into the proposed Project as a project design feature.

For all utility needs, the proposed Project would tie into the existing utility lines , but it would only require minimal resources. The north ern bridge abutment would utilize the City of Glendale’s utilities and the southern bridge abutment would utilize the City of LA’s utilities. Both the City and the City of LA maintain and improve traditional storm drain systems which intercept storm runoff from local streets and convey the flows to the LA River in order to minimize flooding. Runoff from the proposed bridge deck would be conveyed to existing storm drain locations. The slight increase in runoff from the proposed Project would not result any substantial changes to the existing drainage pattern of the site or the area, nor would it affect the capacity of the existing storm drain system. Furthermore, the proposed Project includes the installation of deck drainpipes hung from the underside of the bridge that would connect with the existing drainage system. Also, there would be two water lines (potable and recycled water) hung from the underside of the new bridge structure. Water would flow in each line and would connect to existing water lines on both sides EXHIBIT 1
121 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 66

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
of the proposed bridge structure. An electrical conduit embedded in the proposed bridge would supply the power for the bridge lighting.

The proposed Project would not require new utility service facilities and would tie into the existing utility infrastructure. All proposed utilit ies, including water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, telecommunications, and electrical, would connect with the existing utility infrastructure from the City of Glendale’s utilities at the northern bridge abutment and City of LA’s utilities at the southern bridge abutment. The proposed Project would not require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities. Therefore, impacts associated with the proposed Project would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project includes landscaping that would require small amounts of water for irrigation. An irrigation system would provide water to bridge landscaping. The majority of the vegetation would be irrigated from the City of Glendale side of the proposed Project via a Glendale Water and Power connection. Additionally, the vegetated slope adjacent to the proposed ADA ramp is anticipated to be irrigated by LADWP water lines , which will be defined as part of the proposed Project’s final design phase as part of a potential utility agreement with LADWP. Once established, these plants would require little if any supplemental watering since such improvements would require the planting of native species and other water-efficient landscaping. Less than significant impacts to water supply would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than Significant Impact. Within the City of Glendale, the existing wastewater collection system consists of approximately 360 miles of underground wastewater pumplines, ranging from 8 inches to 42 inches in diameter. Utilizing the natural topography, wastewater in Glendale is conveyed in a south/southwest direction to the Los Angeles North Outfall Server, located along the LA River. The final product is used in recycled water programs or discharged to the LA River. The proposed Project would comply with requirements of the City of LA Bureau of Sanitation. The proposed Project would generate a very small amount of wastewater and would not result in an increase in demand for wastewater treatment. Less than significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
122 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 67

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
4) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the Plan would not generate solid waste, beyond whatever small quantities of construction waste could not be recycled and reused. Existing landfills would have sufficient capacity to accommodate this potential minor increase in construction waste. Less than significant impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 5) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. The proposed Project will comply with all federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. All construction debris will be disposed of according to applicable federal, state, and local statutes, including GMC Chapter 8.58. and LAMC SEC. 66.00. No impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
123 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 68

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
T. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility area or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Substantially impair an adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? X

2. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project
occupants to, pollutant concentrations from wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
X

3. Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel, breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
X

4. Expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes?
X
1) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? No Impact. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) maps areas of significant fire hazards based on fuels, terrain, weather, and other relevant factors, pursuant to Public Resources Code §§ 4201-4204 and Government Code §§ 51175-51189. These areas are referred to as Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) and are identified for areas where the state has financial responsibility for wildland fire protection (i.e., state responsibility areas, or SRAs), and areas where local governments have fin ancial responsibility for wildland fire protection (i.e., local responsibility areas, or LRAs).

The proposed Project site is not located within a LRA and is not located within a SRA or a very high FHSZ. As a result, no impact would occur related to wildfire hazards, including impairing an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 2) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Less than Significant Impact. On the north side of the LA River, the proposed Project site is in an urban area and not within a FHSZ, SRA, or LRA. However , most of Griffith Park south of the LA River, including the southern portion of the proposed Project site, is within a VHFHSZ. A paved portion of the top of the LA River channel, the LA River Bike Path, and North Zoo Drive provide a mostly paved, sparsely vegetated are, and therefore low in fire fuel, landscape between the southern terminus of the proposed pedestrian bridge and the portion of the VHFHSZ in closest proximity to the bridge.

A fire will generally spread uphill due to the preheating of fuel and the up -slope draft unless the general wind is strong enough to overcome these two forces . The heated air rises along the slope, increasing the draft that further increases the rate of spread. T he proposed Project site is lower in elevation than the nearest portion of the VHFHSZ located to the south of the site.

Regarding California wind patterns, the basic flow in the free air above the state is from the west or northwest during most of the year (Western Regional Climate Center), meaning that the prevailing winds in EXHIBIT 1
124 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 69

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
the area of the proposed Project blow from west to east or southeast and carry generally moister air than the other dominate wind pattern known as the “Santa Ana” wind event . During a “Santa Ana” wind event the prevailing wind pattern is reversed. Thus, wind patterns during a Santa Ana wind event would tend to blow wildfire embers, smoke, etc., south and west away from the proposed Project site instead of toward the site as the site is located north of the nearest VHFHSZ.

Additionally, North Zoo Drive, the LA River Bike Path, and a concreted portion of the LA River channel offer a buffer of mostly paved, sparsely vegetated land scape between the VHFHSZ to the south of the site the southern terminus of the proposed pedestrian bridge.

Due to these factors, the proposed Project would not, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks or the uncontrolled spread of wildfire. The proposed Project site is located to the north of and at a slightly lower elevation than the nearest VH FHSZ, which are locationally the opposite direction of how a fire will tend to spread and the direction of high-fire danger wind patterns which are typically associated with a hot, dry Santa Ana wind event blowing southeast from the inland deserts .

Additionally, the buffer of mostly paved, sparsely vegetated landscape between the VH FHSZ and the southern terminus of the proposed pedestrian bridge reduce the risk for a wildfire spreading to the site and north of the site as there is generally less wildfire fuel on roadways and paved surfaces. Therefore, the proposed Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose proposed Project occupants to pollutant concentrations from wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 3) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel, breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Less than Significant Impact. The proposed Project site is not located within a very high FHSZ, though such a zone exists to the south of the site within the Griffith Park area. After the LA River crosses under the Golden State (5) Freeway from the San Fernando Valley, it makes a sharp bend to the south-southeast as it curves around Griffith Park, where Verdugo Wash empties into the LA River. The Verdugo Wash drains much of La Cañada Flintridge and Glendale areas as it flows from the San Gabriel Mountains south through a water gap in the Verdugo Mountains, and crosses under the Ventura Freeway. Here, the L A River begins to flow over a natural riverbed but enters another concrete section as it parallels the Golden State Freeway for the next few miles and runs by the eastern side of Griffith Park and the Harding-Wilson Golf Course. The LA River runs predominately west-to-east at the location of the proposed Project. Industrial uses are located to the north of the site, within the City of Glendale, and open space to the south of the site, within the City of LA.

There are existing utilities adjacent to the proposed Project site serving the industrial uses to the north and open space uses to the south, such as powerlines that extend across the LA River channel and powerlines along the bike path and North Zoo Drive at the southern portion of the proposed Project . T he proposed Project would not require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment. Impacts would be less than significant.

EXHIBIT 1
125 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 70

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required. 4) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? Less than Significant Impact. As indicated in Response T-1 above, there is a VHFHSZ located to the south of the proposed Project site, within the Griffith Park area. As previously discussed, the proposed Project site is located to the north of and at a slightly higher elevation than the VH FHSZ to the south. A paved portion of the top of the LA River channel, the LA River Bike Path, and North Zoo Drive provide a mostly paved, sparsely vegetated area and are therefore low in fire fuel landscape between the southern terminus of the proposed pedestrian bridge and the portion of the VHFHSZ in closest proximity to the bridge. The proposed Project is located within non-hillside areas of the City of Glendale and the City of LA and would not pose significant risks as a result of slope instabilit y. The proposed Project would not result in downslope or downstream flooding or landsides as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes that would expose people or structures to significant risks. Impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures: No mitigation measures are required.

EXHIBIT 1
126 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 71

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
U. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Would the project:

Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
Impact with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact

1. Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X

2. Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
X

3. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
X
1) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed in the biological and historical analysis above, the proposed Project would not have significant impacts in these areas. With implementation of BMPs-1 through -8 and Mitigation Measure s CR-1 and TCR-1 through TCR -3, development of the proposed Project would not: 1) degrade the quality of the environment; 2) substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; 3) cause a fish or wildlife species population to drop below self-sustaining levels; 4) threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; 5) reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal; or 6) eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history because improvements under the plan would only occur within the LA River public ROW to the existing public street network where none of these habitats or populations are located. Impacts in these areas would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

Mitigation Measures:

BMP-1: Pre-Construction Nesting Bird Survey. Construction activities should be conducted outside avian nesting season pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as much as is feasible. The general avian nesting season for passerines is from February 1 st to September 15 th but can vary based on migratory patterns, species, weather patterns, etc. If avoidance of the nesting season is not feasible, then a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey, including suitable habitat within a 500 -foot radius, within three day s prior to any disturbance of the site. If active nests are identified, the biologist will establish suitable buffers around the nests, and the buffer areas will be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests. Construction activities including the removal of western EXHIBIT 1
127 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 72

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
sycamore trees along Zoo Drive should be conducted outside avian nesting season pursuant to the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The general avian nesting season for passerines is from February 1 st to September 15th but can vary based on migratory patterns, species, weather patterns, etc. If the nesting season cannot be avoided, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting bird survey, including suitable habitat within a 500-foot radius, within three days prior to any disturbance of the site, including tree removal activities. If active nests are identified, the biologist will establish suitable buffers around the nests, and the buffer areas shall be avoided until the nests are no longer occupied and the juvenile birds can survive independently from the nests.

BMP-2: Bat Roost and Emergence Survey. Prior to the start of construction activities including the removal of western sycamore trees along Zoo Drive, a pre -construction survey for bat roosts shall be conducted by performing a daytime pedestrian survey to inspect potential habitat within 100 feet of the Project’s work area limits for indications of bat use (e.g., occupancy, guano staining, smells, or sounds) followed by a dusk emergence survey. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist. If it is determined habitat within the survey area is being used, or is likely to be used as a bat roost, and may be affected by construction activities, then specific measures will be developed and implemented to minimize potential impacts to the roost. Such measures may include minimizing construction activities near the roost during the bat maternity season (May 1
st through August 15th) or other measures developed by the qualified biologist in coordination with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

BMP-3: Workers Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to Project implementation, a Workers Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) shall be prepared and presented to construction crews regarding the potential for nesting birds and other special-status species to occur on site during construction activities. The WEAP training shall concentrate on the proper identification of sensitive resources while in the field, suggested strategies in avoiding impacts to sensitive resources, and proper reporting methods for field crews if sensitive resources are observed during construction activities.

BMP-4: Construction Noise. Construction noise best management practices (BMPs) shall be implemented to protect sensitive receptors (park users) and sound sensitive special-status species roosting and/or nesting in the LA River channel and adjacent habitat during construction (includ ing excavation, pier construction, etc.). Such BMPs shall include requiring construction activities to be conducted in accordance with the applicable local noise regulations and standards and implementation of noise reduction tec hniques during construction activities, such as locating stationary construction noise sources as far from adjacent noise - sensitive receptors as possible. A t emporary mobile noise barriers shall be installed along the Project boundary where construction activity is currently active that is made of sound blanket, plywood or other solid material capable of reducing on-site construction noise levels by at least 9 dBA when measured from the outside of the barrier. In addition, all applicable equipment shall be fitted with proper/improved mufflers which will provide a reduction in construction noise levels by 6 dBA. (Can be combined BMP-7 as applicable).

EXHIBIT 1
128 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 73

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
BMP-6: Access Routes and Work Area. The Project shall establish and delineate work areas and access routes, within areas and routes within jurisdictional features, to minimize impacts to sensitive resources to the greatest extent feasible.

BMP-7: Perimeter construction fencing shall be installed at a minimum height of 6 feet around construction areas to provide security to pedestrians and screen views of staging and construction areas.

BMP-8: All 75 horsepower or greater diesel-powered equipment shall be powered by CARB-certified Tier 4 Interim engines, except where the contractor establishes that Tier 4 Interim equipment is not available.

Mitigation Measure CR-1:

Archaeological Assessment. If a possible archaeological resource is uncovered during earthwork or construction, all work shall cease within a minimum distance of 50 feet from the find until a Qualified Archaeologist has been retained to evaluate the find in accordance with National Register and California Register criteria. The Qualified Archaeologist may adjust this avoidance area, ensuring appropriate temporary protection measures of the find are taken while also considering ongoing construction needs in the surrounding area. Temporary staking and delineation of the avoidance area shall be installed around the find in order to avoid any disturbance from construction equipment. Ground disturbance activities may continue unimpeded on other portions of the site outside the specified radius. Any potential archaeological resource or associated materials that are uncovered shall not be moved or collected by anyone other than an Archaeological Monitor or Qualified Archaeologist unless the materials have been determined to be non- unique archaeological resources, as defined in Public Resources Code Section 21083.1(h), by the Qualified Archaeologist. The Qualified Archaeologist shall determine if the resources are unique archaeological resources as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2108 3.1(g). Consistent with Public Resources Code Section 21083.2, the handling, treatment, preservation, and recordation of unique archaeological resources should occur as follows:
• The find should be preserved in place or left in an undisturbed state unless the project would damage the resource.
• When preserving in place or leaving in an undisturbed state is not possible, excavation and recovery of the find for scientific study should occur unless testing or studies already completed have adequately recovered the scientifically consequential information from and about the resource, and this determination is documented by a Qualified Archaeologist.

APRIL 2026

Page | 74

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
describes the resources(s) and its disposition, as well as the assessment methodology, shall be prepared by the Qualified Archaeologist within 60 days of assessing the find and in accordance with current professional standards. If appropriate, the report should also contain the Qualified Archaeologist’s recommendations for the preservation, conservation, and curation of the resource at a suitable repository, such as the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County, which shall be implemented. The Qualified Archaeologist shall submit the report to the City of Glendale and the SCCIC at the California State University, Fullerton. The report shall include all state and local requirements and shall be formatted and completed in accordance with the California Historic Resources Inventory System (CHRIS) document submittals standards.

Mitigation Measure TCR -1
: Retain a Native American Monitor listed on the Native American Heritage Commission contact list from the Kizh Nation Prior to Commencement of Ground-Disturbing Activities A. The lead agency shall retain a Native American Monitor from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) contact list, selected by the Lead Agency in consultation with the Consulting Tribes qualified Kizh Nation representative to monitor all ground-disturbing activities. The monitor shall be retained prior to the commencement of any “ground-disturbing activity” for the subject project at all project locations (i.e., both on-site and any off-site locations that are included in the project description/definition and/or required in connection with the project, such as public improvement work). “Ground-disturbing activity” shall include, but is not limited to, clearing, demolition, pavement removal, potholing, auguring, grubbing, tree removal, stripping topsoil, boring, grading, excavating, digging, drilling, tunneling, blasting, quarrying, leveling, driving posts, and trenching or similar activity, and archaeological work.

C. The monitor will complete daily monitoring logs that will provide descriptions of the relevant ground - disturbing activities, the type of construction activities performed, locations of ground-disturbing activities, soil types, cultural-related materials, and any other facts, conditions, materials, or discoveries of significance to the Consulting Tribes. Monitor logs will identify and describe any discovered TCRs, including but not limited to, Native American cultural and historical artifacts, remains, places of significance, etc., (collectively, tribal cultural resources, or “TCR”), as well as any discovered Native American (ancestral) human remains and burial goods. Copies of monitor logs will be provided to the lead agency and maintained as part of the project record upon written request to the Consulting Tribes, subject to applicable confidentiality requirements under CEQA and the California Public Resources Code.

D. On-site tribal monitoring shall conclude upon the latter of the following: (1) written confirmation to the Kizh Nation and other Consulting Tribes who have requested separate site monitoring, from a designated point of contact for the lead agency that all ground-disturbing activities and phases that may involve ground- disturbing activities on the project site or in connection with the project are complete; or (2) a determination by the Lead Agency, informed by consultation with the Kizh Nation and other Consulting Tribes, as applicable, and written notification to the Kizh Nation and other Consulting Tribes as applicable, that no future, planned construction activity and/or development/construction phase at the project site possesses the potential to impact TCRs.

APRIL 2026

Page | 75

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
agency). Work on the portions of the project site outside of the buffered area may continue during this assessment period. The TCR shall be retained by the archaeologist until the end of the project whereby the lead agency shall, in good faith, consult wit h the Kizh Nation and other Consulting Tribes as applicable, on the disposition and treatment (which may include reinternment to an area where there will be no future ground disturbances) of any TCR(s) encountered during all ground disturbing activities.

Mitigation Measure TCR -3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains and Associated Funerary or Ceremonial Objects
A. Native American human remains are defined in California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5097.98 (d)(1) as an inhumation or cremation, and in any state of decomposition or skeletal completeness. Funerary objects, called associated grave goods in PRC Section 5097.98, are also to be treated according to this statute.

B. Human remains and grave/burial goods shall be treated alike per California Public Resources Code section 5097.98(d)(1) and (2).

C. If Native American human remains and/or grave goods are discovered or recognized on the project site, then PRC Section 5097.9 as well as California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 shall be followed. If human remains or funerary objects are encount ered, work within the immediate vicinity (within 100 -foot buffer of the find) shall cease and the County Coroner shall be contacted without delay. No photographs may be taken. If the County Coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the Coron er will contact the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), in accordance with subdivision (c) of Section 7050.5 of the California Health and Safety Code. If the relevant agencies conclude that avoidance of the site is not feasible, an alternative plan must be developed that outlines specific steps and a timeline for resuming construction activities. Monitoring, data recovery, determining the significance of the finds, and implementing avoidance measures (if necessary) must be carried out pro mptly, at the expense of the lead agency.

D. Preservation in place (avoidance with 100 -foot boundary/buffer) is the preferred manner of treatment for discovered human remains and/or burial goods.

E. Any discovery of human remains/burial goods shall be kept confidential to prevent further disturbance.

2) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than Significant Impact . The proposed Project’s impacts would be individually limited and not cumulatively considerable because pedestrian and cyclist improvements under the proposed Project would only occur within LA River ROW and public ROW to the existing public street and trail network. In addition, most of the proposed Project’s less than significant impacts would result from construction-period activities and would be temporary. Biological impacts that could occur as a result of implementation of the proposed Project (i.e. construction) would be reduced to less -than-significant levels through implementation of the EXHIBIT 1
131 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 76

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE
mitigation measure included in the Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Program (MMRP) prepared for this project. Impacts would be less than significant.
3) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Less than Significant Impact . The proposed Project would not result in any environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or indirect adverse effects to human beings because improvements under the proposed Project would only occur within LA River ROW and public ROW to the existing public street network. Less than significant impacts in these areas would occur.

Earlier Analyses
None.

Project References Used to Prepare Initial Study Checklist The following references were utilized in the preparation of this Initial Study Checklist, and are available for review in the Planning Division Office, 633 E. Broadway, Rm. 103, Glendale, CA 91206-4386 or at the websites identified below.

1. The City of Glendale’s General Plan, “Open Space and Conservation Element,” as amended.

2. The City of Glendale’s General Plan, “Noise Element,” as amended.

3. California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, Los Angeles County Important Farmland 2010 (September 2011).

4. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Guidance Document for Addressing Air Quality Issues in General Plans and Local Planning (May 2005).

5. City of Glendale, General Plan, “Safety Element” (2003).

6. California Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation State of California General Plan Guidelines (2017).

7. City of Glendale Municipal Code, as amended.

8. City of Glendale, Greener Glendale Plan for Community Activities (March 27, 2012).

9. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Congestion Management Program (2010).

10. City of Glendale, Bicycle Transportation Plan (September 2012).

11. South Glendale Historic Resources Survey DPR Form for 1642 South Central Avenue.

12. City of Glendale South Glendale Historic Context Statement prepared by Historic Resources Group (HRG, September 30, 2014).

13. City of Glendale South Glendale Historic Resources Survey prepared by Historic Resources Group (HRG, January 4, 2018).

14. The California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE). https://www.fire.ca.gov/.

EXHIBIT 1
132 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 77

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE

15. Public Resources Code – California Legislative Information. “Fire Hazard Severity Zones.” https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&division=4.&title=&pa rt=2.&chapter=1.&article=9.

16. California Government Code – California Legislative Information. “Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.”
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&sectionNum=511 75 17. Los Angeles County General Plan 2035. https://planning.lacounty.gov/generalplan/generalplan

18. City of Los Angeles Emergency Operations Plan – “Evacuation Functional Annex.” https://emergency.lacity.org/sites/g/files/wph1791/files/2022- 09/Evacuation%20Annex%20%282020%29.pdf. (October 2020).

19. City of Los Angeles General Plan – “Draft Safety Element.” https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/31b07c9a-7eea-4694-9899- f00265b2dc0d/Safety_Element.pdf. (updated 2021).

20. City of Glendale – “Technical Background Report to the 2003 Safety Element – Fire Hazards.” https://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/4555/635242148331600000.

21. Western Regional Climate Center. https://wrcc.dri.edu.

22. City of Glendale, Glendale Narrows Riverwalk Master Plan (2011).

23. Los Angeles County and Los Angeles County Public Works, LA River Master Plan (June 2022).

24. US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Integrated Feasibility Report (September 2015).

25. City of Los Angeles, Hollywood Community Plan, Interactive map, https://dcpgis.lacity.org/portal/apps/View/index.html?appid=b3a44213891a45ff90d64cee9f510075

26. City of Los Angeles, Zoning Search, Interactive Map, http://zimas.lacity.org/

27. County of Los Angeles, Significant Ecological Area, Map, https://data.lacounty.gov/datasets/lacounty::significant-ecological-area- sea/explore?location=34.057090%2C-118.303350%2C8.71

28. City of Los Angeles, General Plan Overview, Conservation Element, https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/28af7e21-ffdd-4f26-84e6- dfa967b2a1ee/Conservation_Element.pdf

29. City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Citywide General Plan Framework EIR, https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/ca5ec6a0-957a-4630-a247- d56ec738622f/GPF_FEIR_DEIR2.15.pdf

30. California Department of Conservation, Fault Activity Map of California, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/

31. City of Los Angeles, General Plan Overview, Safety Element, https://planning.lacity.org/odocument/bf51ae04-1c7b-4931-9a29-d46209998b89/Safety_Element.pdf

32. City of Los Angeles Emergency Management Department, Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, https://emergency.lacity.gov/sites/g/files/wph1791/files/2021- 10/2018_LA_HMP_Final_with_maps_2018-02-09.pdf
EXHIBIT 1
133 of 1278

APRIL 2026

Page | 78

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE

33. Los Angeles Fire Department, brush clearance requirements, https://www.lafd.org/fire- prevention/brush/brush-clearance-requirements

34. California Department of Conservation, DOC Maps: Mines and Mineral Resources, https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/mineralresources/

35. Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Transportation Assessment Guidelines, https://ladot.lacity.org/sites/default/files/documents/2020-transportation-assessment- guidelines_final_2020.07.27.pdf

36. City of Los Angeles, Hollywood Community Plan Update DEIR and FEIR, https://planning.lacity.org/eir/Hollywood_CPU/Deir/Hollywood%20Community%20Plan%20Update%2 0Index.html ; https://planning.lacity.org/plans-policies/community-plan-update/hollywood- community-plan-update
EXHIBIT 1
134 of 1278

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand), NGCC, (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT
Regional Vicinity Map
Figure 1
¯
^
Project Location
Not to scale
EXHIBIT 1
135 of 1278

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT
Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2
¯
Not to scale
^
Project Location
Legend
Project Work Area Limits
EXHIBIT 1
136 of 1278

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT
Glendale-Los Angeles City Boundaries
Figure 3
Microsoft, Vantor
LA River
N. Zoo Drive
Fairmount Ave.

Legend
Project Work Area Limits
City of Glendale
City of Los Angeles
0 510 1,020
Feet
³
EXHIBIT 1
137 of 1278

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT
Site Plan Render
Figure 4
Source: OLIN canopy design, August 2023
Date: G:\Projects\2022-0023Glendale Garden River Bridge\Project Maps_Revised Aug 2023\2022-0023ProjectImpactsMap.mxd

LOS ANGELES RIVER

NORTH ZOO DRIVE

FAIRMONT AVENUE
¯
EXHIBIT 1
138 of 1278

GLENDALE GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT
Figure 5
Temporary and Permanent Impacts
Flower St
Fairm ont Ave
Zoo Dr
Zoo Dr
Esri Community Maps Contributors, County of Los Angeles, California State Parks, © OpenStreetMap, Microsoft, Esri, TomTom, Garmin, SafeGraph, GeoTechnologies, Inc, METI/NASA, USGS, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, NPS, US Census Bureau, USDA, USFWS, Microsoft, Vantor Legend
Temporary Impacts
Permanent Impacts
0 120 240
Feet
¯
EXHIBIT 1
139 of 1278

----
Legend
Proposed improvements
■ Project Area Limits (PAL)
Not to scale
-
N
A I
FLOWER St
--·
·· - -

PROPOSED

PEDESTRIAN /

CYCLIST BRIDGE
vi
Site Plan
Figure 6

GLENDALE-LOS ANGELES GARDEN RIVER BRIDGE PROJECT
EXHIBIT 1
140 of 1278

1 INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION -

RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
G
lendale-Los Angeles Garden River Bridge
The D
raft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines), Article 6 Negative Declaration Process, Sections 15070 to 15075. The public review period of the Draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration was from January 19 to February 17, 2026. The following comment letters were provided to the City of Glendale during the public review period:

Agency/ Entity/ Individual Date Received by City of Glendale California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) February 5, 2026 Francesca Smith February 16, 2026
The
following provides a summary of the comments contained in each of the letters received by the City of Glendale and responses to each of those.

C
altrans
C
altrans Comment
The Caltrans comment letter is included in Attachment A. The commenting agency indicates that the proposed project involves the construction of a bridge intended for the use by bicyclists and pedestrians, aimed at improving and promoting pedestrian access. As such, the project is not expected to result in an increase in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or trigger the requirement for a VMT analysis. The project will support and enhance alternative means of transportation, designed to increase interjurisdictional pedestrian and bicycle access to LA River amenities, including the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk, Griffith Park, and nearby LA Zoo. Consequently, the impacts are anticipated to be less than significant.

A
ny transportation of heavy construction equipment and/or materials that require the use of oversized transport vehicles on State highways will need a Caltrans transportation permit. Any large-size truck trips should be limited to off -peak commute periods for the construction phase and operation phase. Construction truck loads should be covered with a tarpaulin cover . Storm water run-off is a sensitive issue for Los Angeles County. Please be mindful that projects should be designed to discharge clean run-off water.

C
ity of Glendale Response
The City of Glendale concurs that, as the proposed project would support and enhance alternative means of transportation designed to increase interjurisdictional pedestrian and bicycle access to the LA River amenities, it would not increase VMT or trigger VMT analysis.

D
uring construction, if oversized transport vehicles are needed on State highways, a Caltrans transportation permit would be applied for. Construction truck loads would be covered with a tarpaulin cover. The proposed project would be required to obtain coverage under the statewide National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program which requires preparation of a project-specific Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that outlines Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce stormwater and non-stormwater pollutant discharges.

EXHIBIT 2
141 of 1278

2 Francesca Smith

Francesca Smith Comment 1
Francesca Smith’s comment letter is included in Attachment B.

The comments contained in the letter from page 1 (starting 3 rd paragraph) through page 16 are
related to the Cultural Resources Assessment, Appendix C of the Initial Study Checklist/ Mitigated Negative Declaration. Responses to these comments are provided in Attachment C, prepared by BCR Consulting that prepared the Cultural Resources Assessment. The comments related to the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) in the latter part of the letter are summarized and responded to here.

The commenter indicates on page 17 she has unanswered questions related to the IS/MND project description and asks what kind of trees and other plantings exist in the baseline conditions; whether the proposed trees and planning materials will be compatible with the existing landscape, including in Griffith Park; asked how many of each tree are proposed to be planted; whether the planted trees will need irrigation; and who will be responsible for irrigation.

City of Glendale Response 1
The baseline conditions related to existing vegetation at the project site are described in Section E. Biological Resources of the Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), page 22, which states,“As the proposed Project site is within a concreted portion of the Channel, no riparian habitat or sensitive natural community, nor any sensitive natural communities identified by CDFW are supported or present within or in the immediate vicinity of proposed Project activities.” There are existing sycamore trees located in between Zoo Drive and the LA River, within the project footprint that require removal for project implementation, as outlined in the Project Description of the IS/MND, page 5, tree removal of approximately 18 western sycamore trees would be required to accommodate grading and Zoo Drive realignment. Only conceptual landscape plans have been developed to date; therefore, detailed construction landscape design has not been completed in order to be able to answer the commentors' questions. It is anticipated that permanent irrigation will be included, which would be the responsibility of the City of Glendale, with a financial contribution from the City of Los Angeles. The project description in the IS/MND contains a detailed and thorough description that meets and exceeds the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15071 (Contents of a Negative Declaration).

This comment does not provide new information or evidence related to the analysis completed in the IS/MND and does not reflect on the adequacy or content of the IS/MND. This comment is noted for the record, and no changes to the IS/MND are required.

Francesca Smith Comment 2
The commenter indicates on page 18 of the comment letter that the IS/MND indicates the bridge would be constructed of concrete whereas the “technical report states the bridge would be steel and concrete (page 1)”. The commenter also asks what the walking surface or deck material would be, whether there will be any jump protection; what will be the design, materials and finishes of such jump protection; what will be the design of the bridge pier base configuration; where proposed gates will be located; and what are the specifics on design, height, width, materials and finishes.

EXHIBIT 2
142 of 1278

3 The second part of the commenters' comment on page 18 , relates to the temporary and permanent impacts identified in the IS/MND , and whether the technical report (presumed to be the Cultural Resources Assessment) assesses the same impact areas.

City of Glendale Response 2

The proposed bridge type is a concrete box girder, which is a steel reinforced concrete structure (the steel is internal to the concrete). The final finishes and materials to be incorporated in the bridge design are not finalized. However, the final bridge design is expected to incorporate cast- in-place concrete for the bridge substructure and superstructure, textured and anti -slip concrete walking surfaces on the bridge, asphalt for the LA River Bike Path and Glendale Narrows Riverwalk, concrete with anti-graffiti coating or formliner for retaining walls, steel railings, and steel or aluminum canopy structures . Accordingly, the project description in the IS/MND contains a sufficiently detailed description based on what will be the reasonably foreseeable types of finishes and materials to be used in the final design. This description meets the requirements of the CEQA Guidelines Section 15071 (Contents of a Negative Declaration).

The total Project Work Area is approximately 7.3 acres and encompasses the area where construction activities will occur both within the LA River channel and outside and adjacent to the channel. This area is shown as Project Work Area Limits in the IS/MN D Figure 2 – Site Vicinity Map, Figure 3 – Glendale-Los Angeles City Boundaries, Figure 5 – Temporary and Permanent Impacts, and Figure 6 – Site Plan. Figure 3 – Glendale – Los Angeles City Boundaries has been revised to clarify and reflect the current Project Work Area Limits, consistent with the other figures, and the analysis throughout the IS/MND. Table 1 Comparison of Temporary and Permanent Impacts has also been revised to clarify and reflect the current Project Work Area Limits, consistent with the other figures, and the analysis throughout the IS/MND. The acreage of permanent impacts remains the same, at approximately 1.4 acres, while the temporary impact area, for access and staging was expanded by approximately 3 acres. The analysis throughout the IS/MND includes the 7.3- acre Project Work Area. These revisions clarify and correct the inconsistency of acreage shown in Figure 3 and in Table 1 with the remaining figures and analyses in the IS/MND. These clarifications are minor and do not trigger recirculation of the IS/MND, since these clarifications are not a substantial project revision; recirculation is not required where project revisions are added in response to written or verbal comments on the project’s effects which are not new avoidable significant effects. (CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5(c)) (Recirculation of Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption). The Cultural Resources Assessment, page 1, indicates “The area of ground disturbance on the channel floor has been calculated at approximately 8,500 square feet. Staging and access will all take place within the project site boundaries depicted in Figure 1.” The Cultural Resources Assessment evaluated the project’s potential impacts within the larger project site boundaries which extend outside of the Los Angeles River, as well as a focused look at the Los Angeles River channel, as that is the only historic resource in the project area that would be directly impacted by the project. As outlined on pages 10- 11 of the Cultural Resources Assessment, the Los Angeles River, of which the Glendale Narrows Segment and roughly coterminous Reach 3 (approximately 7.4 miles in length) constitute a portion, has been determined by the US Army Corps of Engineers as “presumed” historic district and is therefore also eligible for listing in the California Register and was considered a historic resource for the purposes of the analysis of potential impacts from the project. The 1.4 acre of permanent impacts identified in the IS/MND Table 1 and in Figure 5 – Temporary and Permanent Impacts (shown below) includes both impacts within the LA River channel from the bridge and bridge piers, as well as impacts outside the LA River channel, for bike path reconstruction, realignment of Zoo Drive and connection between Zoo Drive and the bridge (plaza, stairs, and ADA ramp). The proposed project will only have 0.03 acre (or 1,307 square feet) of permanent impacts for the EXHIBIT 2
143 of 1278

4 bridge piers within the channel/on the channel floor, which is considered Waters of the US subject to US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Los Angeles District, jurisdiction. See page 22 of the IS/MND, and as shown in Appendix B Biological Resources Assessment, Figure 9 - USACE & RWQCB Jurisdictional Impacts Map.

This comment does not provide new information or evidence related to the analysis completed in the IS/MND and does not reflect on the adequacy or content of the IS/MND. This IS/MND has been revised to reflect (i) the final tribal cultural resources mitigation measures from the completed AB 52 consultation; (ii) corrections to typographical errors, (iii) revision to clarify information presented and correct internal inconsistencies, and (iv) to reflect an updated cultural resources report that was revised in response to comments received. Refinements made to this Initial Study Checklist do not change the environmental analysis and conclusions presented and do not warrant recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 (Recirculation of Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption).

Francesca Smith Comment 3
On page 19 of the comment letter, the commenter asks what the length and width of Zoo Drive that is proposed to be realigned; what is the maximum dept of disturbance;, how would such realignment impact Griffith Park; how many and what species of trees between Zoo Drive and the LA River bike path would be removed ; where would the tree replacements be planted; would those replacement trees be irrigated and for how long. The commenter indicates that if a raised crosswalk is proposed across Zoo Drive, it should be depicted on plans, and the length and width of the proposed raised crosswalk should be shown.

City of Glendale Response 3
The realignment of Zoo Drive is shown on Figure 6 – Site Plan of the IS/MND and its length is approximately 700-feet with varying width , and a maximum depth of approximately 3 feet. The location of the raised crosswalk is shown on Figure 4 – Site Plan Render and on Figure 6 – Site Plan of the IS/MND and is anticipated to be approximately 32-feet wide and 24 -feet long. As outlined in the Project Description (page 5), tree removal would be required to accommodate grading and Zoo Drive realignment, and it is anticipated that approximately 18 western sycamore trees would be removed. S ome of these trees are under the jurisdiction of the City of LA’s Recreation and Parks Department (LARAP) and others under City of LA’s Bureau of Street Services (LABSS). Section 46.01 of the City of LA Municipal Code (LAMC) includes western sycamore trees as a protected tree species; therefore, the proposed tree removals within LABSS jurisdiction would require a Tree Removal Permit from the LABSS Urban Forestry Division.

Removal of protected trees requires replacement at a 4:1 ratio with the same species of trees as each species removed. The location of the replacement trees will be subject to the conditions of the future Tree Removal Permit.

Francesca Smith Comment 4
The commenter indicates on page 20 that the IS/MND identified an anticipated construction start date of Fall 2025 and that it is now winter 2026 and the environmental review has not been completed. The commenter indicates that the project’s website indicates construction will start in 2030.

EXHIBIT 2
144 of 1278

5 City of Glendale Response 4
The commenter is correct, that the current anticipated construction start has been updated in the project description of the IS/MND.

This comment does not provide new information or evidence related to the analysis completed in the IS/MND and does not reflect on the adequacy or content of the IS/MND. This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been revised to reflect (i) final tribal cultural resources mitigation measures from completed AB 52 consultation, (ii) corrections to typographical errors, (iii) revision to clarify information presented and correct inconsistencies, and (iv) to reflect an updated cultural resources report that was revised in response to comments received. Refinements made to this Initial Study Checklist do not change the environmental analysis and conclusions presented and do not warrant recirculation pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5 (Recirculation of Negative Declaration Prior to Adoption).

Francesca Smith Comment 5
The commenter indicates on page 20 that the approach work, bike path work, and abutment work should be fully described, including the length, width, maximum depth, backfill, location of drains and location of any exported soil or other material. The commenter also indicates on page 20 that the design of piers should be fully described, including lengths, widths, depths, appearance, color and finish of concrete, and the location of any exported soil or other materials. The commenter asks if the plans will be reviewed for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation by a qualified Historic Architect or Architectural Historian.

City of Glendale Response 5
Only conceptual plans have been developed to date. The detailed information that the commenter is asking questions about to completely describe the improvements are not made public until the release of the Notice Inviting Bids for the construction contract with the complete set of contract drawings, specifications, etc. The final finishes and materials to be incorporated in the bridge design are not finalized. However, the final bridge design is expected to incorporate cast-in-place concrete for the bridge substructure and superstructure, textured and anti -slip concrete walking surfaces on the bridge, asphalt for the LA River Bike Path and Glendale Narrows Riverwalk, concrete with anti -graffiti coating or formliner for retaining walls, steel railings, and steel or aluminum canopy structures.

As outlined in Attachment C - BCR Consulting Response to Comments Letter (page 1), the author of the Cultural Resources Assessment exceeds the Secretary of the Interior Professional Qualification Standards for Archaeology, Architectural History, and History and has successfully assessed and evaluated dozens of similar resources for projects subject to CEQA and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). Appendix A of the Cultural Resources Assessment has been added to the report to include resumes of everyone that worked on the report, emphasizing qualifications. The findings of the Cultural Resources Assessment (page 11- 12), the LA River, determined the LA River to be eligible for National Register listing and as such is a historical resource pursuant to CEQA. Based on the small percentage of the LA River segment that will be subject to direct impacts, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change to the LA River as an historical resource and, the plans will be reviewed for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation by a qualified Historic Architect or Architectural Historian.

EXHIBIT 2
145 of 1278

6 This comment does not provide new information or evidence related to the analysis completed in the IS/MND and does not reflect on the adequacy or content of the IS/MND. This comment is noted for the record, and no changes to the IS/MND are required.

Francesca Smith Comment 6
On page 21- 22, the commenter asks that the project description describe the duration of the construction activities with hours as well as proposed temporary and permanent materials with heights above the bridge deck and channel, and that the proposed drainage for the bridge be described in more detail, materials, lengths, finishes, etc. The commenter also asks what other types of trees and plantings existing in the baseline condition and recommends the analysis use the ICF Jones & Stokes-prepared “Landscape Elements of Griffith Park” prepared in 2008.

City of Glendale Response 6
The IS/MND project description (page 6) indicates the project construction activities would conform to the City of Glendale’s Municipal Code, 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. If and to the extent construction permits issued by the City of Los Angeles specify different times for construction activities on the City of Los Angeles portion of the Project, those construction activities would conform with those permitting requirements. Therefore, construction activities would be limited to 7:00 am to 7:00 pm Monday to Friday in Glendale and would conform with Los Angeles’ construction activity limits in the City of LA. Additionally, the IS/MND project description (page 5) indicates that construction is anticipated to last approximately 2.5 years. Only conceptual plans have been developed to date, and complete details about temporary and permanent heights, drainage, materials, etc. will be finalized during the subsequent permitting and final design phase of the Project.

As outlined in Response 1 above, there are existing sycamore trees located in between Zoo Drive and the LA River, within the Project footprint that require removal for Project implementation, as outlined in the Project Description of the IS/MND ( page 5) tree removal of approximately 18 western sycamore trees would be required to accommodate grading and Zoo Drive realignment.

The e LA Department of City Planning Recommendation Report 1 for Historic-Cultural Monument
Application for the Griffith Park project outlines the Character -Defining Features/Contributing Elements. One of the Character -Defining Features/Contributing Elements (#8) is a Sycamore Grove – “this grove of sycamore trees is on the western side of North Zoo Dr. and appears to be original to the park.” (emphasis added). In addition, the LA City Council Determination Letter for Historic-Cultural Monument Application for the Griffith Park 2 includes a Griffith Park Historic Resources Map which shows Historically Sensitive Resources and Areas, #8 Sycamore Grove, located south of the proposed Project site, south of the 5 and 134 freeways. The 18 western sycamore trees that would be required to be removed to accommodate grading and Zoo Drive realignment are located on the north side of North Zoo Drive, therefore, based on the LA Department of City Planning Recommendation Report and the LA City Council Determination Letter referenced above, the proposed Project would not affect Character-Defining Features/Contributing Elements of Griffith Park , including #8 Sycamore Grove and assessing compatibility with existing landscape at Griffith Park is not warranted. The Landscape Elements of Griffith Park (ICF Jones & Stokes, 2008 available at City of Los Angeles , Department of City Planning) describes component features of the Griffith Park landscape, which include entry programs, roads, the wilderness itself, picnic areas, and trails. The proposed Garden River Bridge is not located in or near either of the entries to the park or in the wilderness area of the park and

1 https://planning.lacity.gov/StaffRpt/CHC/10-30-08/CHC-2008-2724.pdf 2 https://plncts.lacity.org/pdiscaseinfo/Search/casenumber/CHC-2008-2724-HCM EXHIBIT 2
146 of 1278

7 would not impact them. The proposed Project would not affect picnic areas or trails within the park. Character defining features of roads include the following:
• Alignments that correspond to natural features in the landscape • Gentle curves
• Roads take advantage of viewsheds and vistas
• Roads "girdle”" the wilderness area
• Certain roads have original Macadam-type surface
• Low, rounded curbs made of asphalt
• Roads no wider than three lanes
Tree specimens in medians and roadside not commonly seen in the wilderness area. The section of North Zoo Drive that would be affected by the proposed Project is not in or around the wilderness area that corresponds with the natural features of the landscape or take advantage of the viewsheds and vistas and does not have the original paving. The proposed Project would not increase the number of lanes. As outlined above the sycamore trees that will be removed along the north side of North Zoo Drive are not part of the #8 Sycamore Grove identified in the LA Department of City Planning Recommendation Report for Historic-Cultural Monument Application for the Griffith Park. As outlined in the IS/MND project description, sycamore trees removed that fall under the jurisdiction of the City of LA’s Bureau of Street Service (LABSS) require a tree removal permit and replacement at a 4:1 ratio with the same species of those removed. Therefore, the proposed Project would not adversely impact the character defining features described in the Landscape Elements of Griffith Park report (ICF Jones & Stokes, 2008).

Francesca Smith Comment 7
The commenter asks, on page 22-23, to describe the proposed work more fully, including demolition and grading, construction equipment, sizes and locations of timber mats, location of parking for personnel, temporary staging area, access ramps and additional staging areas.

City of Glendale Response 7
As outlined in City of Glendale Response 2, the total Project Work Area is approximately 7.3 acres and encompasses the area where construction activities will occur both within the LA River channel and outside and adjacent to the channel. This area is shown as Project Work Area Limits in the IS/MND Figure 2 – Site Vicinity Map, Figure 3 – Glendale-Los Angeles City Boundaries, Figure 5 – Temporary and Permanent Impacts, and Figure 6 – Site Plan. Figure 3 – Glendale – Los Angeles City Boundaries has been revised to reflect the current Project Work Area Limits, consistent with the other figures, and the analysis throughout the IS/MND.

Demolition activities are anticipated to occur along the LA River Bike Path, Zoo Drive, the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk, and portions of the LA River to facilitate construction of the proposed bridge and approaches. The LA River Bike Path will be graded (raised) approximately 6 feet to meet the bridge deck elevations. On the Glendale side, at the Glendale Narrows Riverwalk, minimal grading (less than 1 foot) is anticipated since the proposed bridge deck will be roughly at the elevation of the bike path. Two piers supporting the bridge are located within the LA River, and will require localized excavations – approximately 130-feet long by 8-feet wide and EXHIBIT 2
147 of 1278

8 6-feet deep – to construct the foundations. This portion of the LA River has a concrete invert slab and timber mats are therefore not anticipated. Construction equipment will include concrete trucks, cast-in-drilled-hole concrete pile drilling rigs, mobile cranes, and excavators. The staging area is anticipated to be located along Zoo Drive, between Zoo Drive and the Ferraro Athletic Fields. Construction personnel would park in the staging area or along Zoo Drive. Construction equipment is anticipated to access the LA River via the sloped area between the LA River Bike Path and the invert slab of the LA River.

Francesca Smith Comment 8
The commenter indicates on page 23 that the analysis and the conclusion in the technical report (Cultural Resources Assessment) lack sufficient detail to prove that no impacts would occur. The commenter indicates on page 24 that weak identification of historical resources is a problem with the technical report, and that preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) may be necessary.

City of Glendale Response 8
The Cultural Resources Assessment does not conclude that “no impacts would occur,” as purported by the commenter. Rather, as outlined in Response 5 above, the findings of the Cultural Resources Assessment (page 11 -12), the LA River has been determined eligible for National Register listing and as such is a historical resource pursuant to CEQA. Based on the small percentage of the segment that will be subject to direct impacts, the proposed project would not result in a substantial adverse change to a historical resource, and plans will be reviewed for conformance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation by a qualified Historic Architect or Architectural Historian.

Therefore, the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to a historical resource, and an EIR is not required pursuant to CEQA.

EXHIBIT 2
148 of 1278

Attachment A
Caltrans Comment Letter dated February 5, 2026
EXHIBIT 2
149 of 1278

“Provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment” DISTRICT 7
100 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 100 | LOS ANGELES, CA 90012 PHONE (213) 897-0362 | FAX (213) 897-0360 TTY 711
www.dot.ca.gov

February 5, 2026

Dennis Joe, Principal Planner
Community Development Department
Development Services Division
City of Glendale
633 East Broadway, Room 103
Glendale, CA 91206

RE: Glendale - Los Angeles Garden River Bridge
Project
SCH # 2026010518
Vic. LA-134/PM R6.065, LA-5/PM 27.76
GTS # LA-2026-05003-MND

Dear Dennis Joe:

Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the above-referenced project. The Project proposes the construction of a three- span, curvilinear, landscaped bridge across the LA River between the Cities of Los Angeles and Glendale for use by pedestrians and bicyclists .

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, and scenic views of the LA River. The intent of this multi- community resource is to increase access 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 to important community resources by creating a connection between Glendale and Los Angeles across the LA River for pedestrians and cyclists.

The mission of Caltrans is to provide a safe and reliable transportation network that serves all people and respects the environment. Senate Bill 743 (2013) has codified into CEQA law and mandated that CEQA review of transportation impacts of proposed development be modified by using Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) as the primary metric in identifying transportation impacts for all future development projects. You may reference the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) for more information:

https://opr.ca.gov/ceqa/#guidelines-updates
EXHIBIT 2
150 of 1278

Dennis Joe, Principal Planner
February 5, 2026

Page 2 ends

Glendale City CouncilJune 9, 2026

Glendale City Council
June 9, 2026