Agenda packet, closed session — Glendale City Council, July 14, 2026 (part 1 of 2)

A G E N D A

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
JULY 14, 2026 - 6:00 PM
CLOSED SESSION - 4:00 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 •
TV Broadcast via Glendale TV, viewable on Spectrum Cable, channel 6, and AT&T U-verse, channel 99.
•
Live Broadcast – Streamed on the City webpage,
glendaleca.gov/live
, on
YouTube.com/myglendale
, and on the Cablecast app under "Glendale TV".
•
Online Attendance – via Zoom at
https://glendaleca.zoomgov.com/j/1659278910
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.

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 7/13/2026 4:08:41 PM
07 14 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.

Public Comment participation in Council meetings may occur as follows :
•
In-person – City Council Chambers
•
Online attendance – Connect to the meeting online using the meeting link below and use the Raise Hand feature to speak when the Mayor or City Clerk states it is time to speak on the particular public comment period or agenda item.

Meeting link:
https://glendaleca.zoomgov.com/j/1659278910
| Meeting ID: 165 927 8910
•
T elephone – Call the number listed below and dial *9 to request to speak | *6 to unmute / mute Meeting call-in telephone number: (818) 745-0355
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 Requesting Online or T elephonic Participation for Public Comment :

Speaker cards must be submitted, by the following deadlines:
•
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)
Online participants must raise their hands and telephone users must dial *9 after the Mayor or City Clerk state it is time to indicate their desire to speak on an item but before the deadlines stated

2 TYPED 7/13/2026 4:08:41 PM
07 14 26
CC

above.

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.

3 TYPED 7/13/2026 4:08:41 PM
07 14 26
CC

JULY 14, 2026 - 6:00 PM
CLOSED SESSION - 4:00 PM
REVISED – ADDED ITEM: 2d and 4c

ROLL CALL

1. DISCUSSION OF COUNCILMEMBER FUTURE AGENDA REQUESTS

2. CLOSED SESSION
1 p.m. (to commence at 4:00 p.m.)
a.

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
b.

Public Employment – Attorneys

Conference with Real Property Negotiators: City-designated negotiators: Roubik Golanian, John Takhtalian, Michael J. Garcia, Gillian van Muyden, and Jack Liang.

Property Location: 151 E. Colorado St. Negotiating Parties: Armenian American Museum and Cultural Center of California. Instructions to the negotiator(s) will concern the price and terms of lease of City property
d.

Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation: Claim of Dillin, Claim No. 26- 0280

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 July 14, 2026 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on July 8, 2026, on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

4. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a.

Proclamation Designating July 2026 as Parks Make Life Better Month b.

Boards & Commissions -Board Panels 2026 – Appointment Status Arts & Culture Commission
•
(Asatryan[A]/Brotman[B]): Vacant
•
(Brotman[A]/Gharpetian[B]): Vacant (Arlene Vidor termed out) •
(Bartrosouf[A]/Asatryan[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Inessa Kasumyan Audit Committee
•
(Asatryan[A]/Gharpetian[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Hakop Jack Mavyan •
(Brotman[A]/Kassakhian[B]): Vacant (Alex Parajon termed out) •
(Bartrosouf[A]/Brotman[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Zareh David Davidian Building & Fire Board of Appeals

4 TYPED 7/13/2026 4:08:41 PM
07 14 26
CC

•
(Asatryan[A]/Kassakhian[B]): Vacant
•
(Brotman[A]/Bartrosouf[B]): Reappointment Eligible - Robert Badmagharian •
(Bartrosouf[A]/Gharpetian[B]): Vacant
Commission on the Status of Women
•
(Asatryan[A]/Bartrosouf[B]): Vacant (Diane Lambillotte termed out) •
(Brotman[A]/Asatryan[B]): Vacant
•
(Bartrosouf[A]/Kassakhian[B]): Vacant (Seda Khojayan termed out) CDBG – Community Development Block Grant Advisory Committee •
(Asatryan[A]/Brotman[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Marina Manoukian •
(Brotman[A]/Gharpetian[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Lea Awni •
(Bartrosouf[A]/Asatryan[B]): Vacant (Ronnie Gharibian termed out) Design Review Board

(Must include one licensed architect)
•
(Asatryan[A]/Gharpetian[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Joseph Kaskanian •
(Brotman[A]/Kassakhian[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Danielle Lockareff •
(Kassakhian[A]/Asatryan[B]): Vacant
•
(Bartrosouf[A]/Brotman[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Christopher Welch Glendale Water & Power Commission
•
(Asatryan[A]/Kassakhian[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Zanku Armenian •
(Brotman[A]/Bartrosouf[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Alex Fay •
(Bartrosouf[A]/Gharpetian[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Hrand Avanessian Historic Preservation Commission
•
(Asatryan[A]/Bartrosouf[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Kevork Bartanian •
(Brotman[A]/Asatryan[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Jeffrey Head •
(Bartrosouf[A]/Kassakhian[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Lisa Cusack Parks, Recreation & Community Services Commission
•
(Asatryan[A]/Brotman[B]): Vacant
•
(Brotman[A]/Gharpetian[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Annet Arakelian •
(Bartrosouf[A]/Asatryan[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Lilit Rosotomyan Planning Commission
•
(Asatryan[A]/Gharpetian[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Edik Minassian •
(Brotman[A]/Kassakhian[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Edith Fuentes •
(Bartrosouf[A]/Brotman[B]): Vacant (Stefen Chraghchian termed out) Sustainability Commission
•
(Asatryan[A]/Kassakhian[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Rondi Werner •
(Brotman[A]/Bartrosouf[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Jennifer Pinkerton •
(Bartrosouf[A]/Gharpetian[B]): Vacant

5 TYPED 7/13/2026 4:08:41 PM
07 14 26
CC

Transportation & Parking Commission
•
(Asatryan[A]/Bartrosouf[B]): Vacant
•
(Brotman[A]/Asatryan[B]): Vacant
•
(Bartrosouf[A]/Kassakhian[B]): Reappointment Eligible – Shana Bonstin Civil Service Commission
•
(Gharpetian): Vacant (as of July 8, 2026)
c.

Nomination and Appointment of an Individual to Fill A Vacancy on the Burbank- Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority

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.

Police Department, re: Authorization to Accept Grant Funds in the amount of $54,450 from Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Program, for digital forensics software licensing for the Verdugo Regional Crime Laboratory

1. Motion authorizing acceptance of the 2025 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant and authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to execute the necessary agreements, certification, and other documents required to accept the Grant

2. Resolution of Appropriation to appropriate $54,450 in 2025 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant funds
b.

Public Works, re: Adopt the Specification for the Glendale Fire Stations Roll-up Door Replacement Project, Specification No. 4053

1. Resolution adopting Specification No. 4053 for the Glendale Fire Stations Roll-up Door Replacement Project and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids c.

Police Department, re:

State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP), Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program, Request for Authorization to Accept Grant Funds to be used to reduce and mitigate the impacts of impaired driving in local communities

1. Motion to accept grant funds in the amount of $476,323 and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute an agreement with the State of California – Department of California Highway Patrol for the award of funds under the California Highway Patrol (CHP), Cannabis T ax Fund Law Enforcement Grant Program d.

Community Services and Parks, re:

Approval to submit Climate Bond Grant Funds
Application Under the Urban Greening Grant Program for Cerritos Park Renovation Project

1. Resolution approving the submission of a grant application to the California Natural Resources Agency for Climate Bond Grant Funds under the Urban Greening Grant Program, in the amount of $2.2 million, for the Cerritos Park Renovation Project (“Project”); and authorizing the City Manager, or a designee, to conduct all negotiations, sign and submit all documents, including, but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments, and payment requests, which may be necessary to complete of the Project

6 TYPED 7/13/2026 4:08:41 PM
07 14 26
CC

Community Services and Parks, re:

Placement of a Commemorative Plaque at
Catalina Verdugo Adobe in Honor of Historical Figure Don José María Verdugo

1. Motion authorizing the placement of a commemorative bronze plaque at Catalina Verdugo Adobe, in honor of historical figure Don José María Verdugo f.

Police Department, re:

The County of Los Angeles Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund, Request for Authorization to Accept Grant Funds to be used for the purpose of prosecution and/or investigation of real estate fraud

1. Motion to accept grant funds in the amount of $10,000 from the Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund Program and to authorize the City Manager, or a designee, to execute the necessary agreements, certifications, and other documents required to accept the grant funds

2. Resolution of Appropriation

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 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.

Public Works, re:

Potential Regulations for Personal Delivery Devices (PDDs) Operating Within the Public Right-of-Way (MOVED FROM JUNE 23, 2026)

1. Introduction of Urgency Ordinance enacting a moratorium on the deployment and operation of PDDs on public rights-of-way;

2. Motion providing direction regarding establishment of regulations for operation of PDDs on public right-of-way
b.

Public Works, re: Beeline Comprehensive Operational Analysis and Integration Study Final Report and Recommendations (MOVED FROM 6/30/2026)

1. Motion to note and file the Beeline Comprehensive Operational Analysis and Integration Study Final Report, and directing staff to prepare necessary actions and approvals for Council authorization to implement Transit service changes

11. HEARINGS

12. REPORTS - INFORMATION

7 TYPED 7/13/2026 4:08:41 PM
07 14 26
CC

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

8 TYPED 7/13/2026 4:08:41 PM
07 14 26
CC

5a
26-90269

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Authorization to Accept Grant Funds in the amount of $54,450 from Governor’s Office of Emergency Services Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Program, for digital forensics software licensing for the Verdugo Regional Crime Laboratory.

2. Resolution of Appropriation to appropriate $54,450 in 2025 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant funds.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for July 14, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Glendale Police Department requests acceptance of $54,450 in grant funds from the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) for the grant period of July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027, to be used for software licensing in the Verdugo Regional Crime Laboratory (VRCL).

RECOMMENDATION
Accept the 2025 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant funds in the amount of $54,450, authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary agreements, certification, and other documents required to implement the Grant, and adopt a resolution to appropriate the funds for software licensing.

ANALYSIS
Over the last twenty years law enforcement investigative techniques have evolved due to advances in technology. These advances have placed increased demands on a computer forensics laboratory to conduct examinations of evidence obtained from mobile devices and cloud data. As changes are rapidly occurring, it is incumbent upon laboratories to stay abreast of developments within the field of digital evidence examination to best serve law enforcement and the public with examination of submitted evidence. 9 of 236

5a2
26-90269
6 9
2 0
The VRCL uses software to efficiently acquire and preserve digital evidence submitted by investigators for analysis. Since 2021, the VRCL has utilized grant funds to purchase licenses for Magnet Forensics’ GrayKey Premier subscription, which allows for analysis of both Android and iOS phones. FY25 Paul Coverdell grant funds will be used to purchase an additional one-year GrayKey Premier software subscription package, which includes two GrayKey devices, unlimited successful unlocks, software upgrades, and maintenance.

In April 2023, City Council authorized execution of subsequent software licensing agreements for the life of the software, subject to budget availability.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Grant funds will be used to improve the quality of forensic testing services provided to customer agencies and the public.

FISCAL IMPACT
The FY2025 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Program grant in the amount of $54,450 was not included as part of the FY2026-27 approved budget. The grant does not require matching funds. Therefore, staff is requesting an appropriation of $54,450 from grant revenue. The appropriation request is outlined below:

Requesting Appropriation
Amount From (Account
String)
To (Account String) Funding Source
$54,450 GL: 31240-2610-
GPD-0020-P0000-
T0000-F0000
PL: GPD01610AG
Police Fund
$54,450 GL:44700-2610-
GPD-0020-P0000-
T0000-F0000
PL: GPD01610AG
Police Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is considered a ministerial activity and therefore, not subjected to CEQA/NEPA review. There is no possibility that the acceptance of this award may have a significant effect on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3)).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
The names and business addresses of the members of the board of directors, the chairperson, CEO, COO, CFO, Subcontractors and any person or entity with more than 10% interest in the company proposed for contract in this Agenda Item Report are attached in Exhibit A, in accordance with the City Campaign Finance Ordinance No. 5744. 10 of 236

5a3
26-90269
6 9
2 0

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Deny the Police Department’s request. Expenses for software would have to be absorbed by the Police Department’s budget.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Robert William, Interim Police Chief
Prepared by:

Catherine Nguyen, Lab Director
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Campaign Disclosures for Magnet Forensics, LLC. 11 of 236

MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby:

1. Accepts grant funds in the amount of $54,450 from the 2025 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant; and

2. Authorizes the City Manager, or a designee, to execute the necessary agreements, certifications, and other documents required to accept the grant funds.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
12 of 236

RESOLUTION
NO.

RESOLUTION
OF
THE

COUNCIL
OF
THE
CITY
OF

GLENDALE
MAKING
AN

APPROPRIATION
BE
IT

RESOLVED
BY
THE

COUNCIL
OF
THE
CITY
OF
GLENDALE:

SECTION
1:

That
the
sum
of
$54,450
is
hereby
appropriated
and/or
transferred
from
the
following
accounts
to
the
following
accounts:

ACCOUNTS

DESCRIPTION
FROM
TO
31240-2610-GPD-0020-P0000-
Federal
Grants,
Police
Fund,
Police,
$54,450
GPDO161OAG
Projects,
FY2025
Coverdell
Forensic
Grant
44700-2610-GPD-0020-P0000-
Computer
Software.

Police
Fund,
Police,
$54,450
GPDO161OAG
Projects,
FY2025
Coverdell
Forensic
Grant
To
appropriate
funding
for
the
FY2025
Coverdell
Forensic
Grant
project.

SECTION
2:

The
Director
of
Finance
is
authorized
to
make
such
other
revisions,
individual
appropriation
line-items,
changes
in
summaries,
fund
totals,
grand
totals,
and
other
portions
of
the
budget
document
as
necessary
to
reflect
and
implement
the
changes
specified
in
this
resolution.

SECTION
3:

The
City
Clerk
shall
certify
to
the
adoption
of
this
Resolution.

Adopted
this
day
of
________________,
2026.

Mayor
ATTEST:

CITY
OF

GLENDALE
DATE
6/24/26
(1P

APPROVED
AS
TO

FINANCIAL
City
Clerk

PROVISION
FOR
$
54,450
Dfredor
of
Finance
STATE
OF

CALIFORNIA)
COUNTY
OF
LOS

ANGELES)
SS
CITY
OF

GLENDALE)
I,Suzie
Abajian,
City
Clerk
of
the
City
of
Glendale,
do
hereby
certify
that
the
foregoing
Resolution
No.
was
adopted
by
the
Council
of
the
City
of
Glendale,
California,
at
aregular
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 236

City of Glendale

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

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

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

A contractor must provide the information listed below when: A subcontractor must provide the information listed below when:
•The City Contract has a total anticipated or actual value of $50,000 or more; or • The subcontract through a City Contract has a total anticipated or actual value of $25,000 or more; or
• A combination or series of City Contracts have a value of $50,000 or more. • A combination or series of subcontract s, for the same or different projects, have an aggregate value of $25,000 or
more. Information that must be disclosed: ● Name of the person, entity, or organization (i.e., the Contractor or Subcontractor) ● Name of the Chief Executive Officer/Pre
siden t
● Chief Operating Officer
● Chief Financial Officer
● Chairper
son
● All members of the Board of Directors
● All persons who own more than 10% of the perso
n, entity, or organi zation
● Name of any campaign committee owned or controll ed by the person, entity, or organization Please complete the following disclosure form:

Contractor(s)*:

Name Address
Full Name Title Business Address City State Zip
Chairperson
Chief Executive Officer / President
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Financial Officer
Board of Directors
More than 10% interest owner
*“Contractor” is the person, entity, or organization that is the party, or prospective party, to the contract with the City, EDD, or HA or any member of that person’s, entity’s, or organization’s Board of Direct ors, its Chairperson, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Operat ing Officer, any person with an ownership interest of more than ten percent (10%) in that person, entit y, or organization, and any campaign committee that is o wned or controlled by that person, entity, or organization. Above please disclose these persons’ name and business address. awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.
contract
Magnet Forensics, LLC
931 Monroe Drive NE STE A102-340 Atlanta, Georgia 30308-1793 Adam Belsher
931 Monroe Drive NE STE A102-340
Atlanta
GA
30308
Angelo Roberto
931 Monroe Drive NE STE A102-340
Atlanta
GA
30308
Peter Vreeswyk
931 Monroe Drive NE STE A102-340
Atlanta
GA
30308
Docusign Envelope ID: A4052979-6FDF-84FD-8086-34CDF54D10E0 14 of 236

Rev. 6/7/12 J:\FILES\DOCFILES\ORD\CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION\DISCLOSURE FORM – CONTRACTOR – 6-7-12.doc Subcontractor(s)**:

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

Campaign Committee owned or controlled by:

Title Business Address City State Zip

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

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

Executed on: , 20 , at: , California.

Signature: Print Full Name:

Address:

Phone Number: E-mail Address:

Not applicable
Not applicable
2 931 Monroe Drive NE STE A102-340 Atlanta, Georgia 30308-1793 1-844-638-7884
[email protected]
Docusign Envelope ID: A4052979-6FDF-84FD-8086-34CDF54D10E0 18-Jun-2026
Peter Vreeswyk
15 of 236

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Adopt the Specification for the Glendale Fire Stations Roll-up Door Replacement Project, Specification No. 4053.

1. Resolution adopting Specification No. 4053 for the Glendale Fire Stations Roll-up Door Replacement Project and directing the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for July 14, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project specifications have been completed for the replacement of 52 roll-up doors at the city’s nine fire stations. The existing doors have reached the end of their useful life and require replacement to improve operational reliability, functionality, and safety for Fire Department personnel and emergency response operations.

The purpose of this item is to request that the City Council adopt the project specifications and authorize the City Clerk to advertise for bids. Following the competitive bidding process, staff will return to City Council with a recommendation for contract award.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the resolution to adopt specification No. 4053 for the Glendale Fire Stations Roll- up Door Replacement Project and direct the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The project consists of replacing 52 roll-up doors at the city’s nine fire stations with modern direct-drive door systems. The proposed improvements will enhance the functionality, reliability, and operational efficiency of fire station facilities.

The existing roll-up doors have exceeded their useful service life and are experiencing increased maintenance needs, costs, and reliability issues. Replacing the existing systems with direct-drive door systems will provide improved durability, reduced maintenance requirements, quieter operation, and increased dependability for emergency response activities.

To minimize disruptions to Fire Department operations, installation of the new doors will be completed in phases. This approach will ensure that fire stations remain fully operational throughout construction while maintaining a safe environment for personnel 16 of 236

25b
6 9
4 1
and contractors. The project also includes the replacement of associated door hardware and control components to ensure compatibility with the new systems and seamless integration with existing infrastructure.

To promote a competitive bidding process and maximize contractor participation, staff will advertise the project in accordance with the city’s purchasing requirements, including publication on the city’s website and in Glendale Independent.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Staff will coordinate with the selected contractor and Glendale Fire Department personnel to ensure the work is performed in a manner that minimizes disruptions to station operations, emergency response, and impacts to the public.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with adopting specifications for this project. Staff will determine if additional appropriations will be requested from the General Fund or if funds can be shifted from another project at the time of contract award, if the bid amounts come in above the current budgeted amount of $1,570,000 for construction.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This project is Categorically Exempt under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 1, Section 15301.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not Applicable.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Do not approve the resolution adopting the specifications for this project thereby compromising the dependability of vital roll-up doors at fire stations. Doing so would result in continued operational, reliability, and functionality challenges throughout fire stations.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Arthur Asaturyan, Senior Project Manager
Sean Toro, Assistant Project Manager
Submitted by:

Daniel Hernandez, Director of Public Works
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None
17 of 236

RESOLUTION NO. __________

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

ADOPTING THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATION FOR THE

GLENDALE FIRE STATION ROLL-UP DOOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SPECIFICATION NO. 4053, AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1.The Specification on file in the City Clerk’s office for the Glendale Fire Station Roll-up Door Replacement Project including the various documents incorporated therein, are hereby approved, adopted, designated and shall hereafter be known as Specifications No. 4053.

SECTION 2.The City Clerk is hereby directed to advertise for bids for the work, equipment and materials described in this Specification adopted by this Resolution.

Adopted this _____ day of ____________, 2026.
____________________________
Mayor, City of Glendale
ATTEST:
__________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Suzie Abajian, PhD., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. _____________ was Adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of _________________, 2026, the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
___________________________
City Clerk
18 of 236

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP), Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program, Request for Authorization to Accept Grant Funds to be used to reduce and mitigate the impacts of impaired driving in local communities.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for July 14, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In February 2026, an application seeking grant funds was submitted to the State of California – Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP), Cannabis Tax Fund Law Enforcement Grant Program. The CHP Program provides law enforcement agencies with funding to help reduce and mitigate the impacts of impaired driving in local communities.

Staff is seeking Council’s approval to accept $476,323 in grant funds from the State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP), Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program for the grant period July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027. 19 of 236

25c
6 9
4 4

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached motion accepting grant funds in the amount of $476,323 from the State of California – Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP)Cannabis Tax Fund Law Enforcement Grant Program.

ANALYSIS
With the passage of Proposition 64 in 2016, The Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use Marijuana Act (AUMU), California voters mandated the state to set aside funding for the CHP to provide grants to local governments and qualified non-profit organizations for the education, prevention, and enforcement of impaired driving laws pursuant to Section 34019 (f)(3)(B) of the Revenue and Taxation Code (RTC).

In February 2026, an application seeking grant funds was submitted to the State of California – Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP), Cannabis Tax Fund Law Enforcement Grant Program. The CHP Program provides law enforcement agencies with funding to help reduce and mitigate the impacts of impaired driving in local communities. The intent of the program is to educate the public regarding the dangers of impaired driving, enforce impaired driving laws on the roadway, and improve an agency’s effectiveness through training and development of new strategies.

The Glendale Police Department has been approved to use CHP’s Cannabis Tax Fund Law Enforcement Grant Program funds to continue to enhance its capabilities in identifying impaired drivers while operating motor vehicles. The grant funds will be used to help meet the Department’s goal of training 100% of patrol and traffic personnel in Standardized Field Sobriety Testing (SFST) and Advanced Roadside Impaired Driving Enforcement (ARIDE) programs, as well as continue to train internal and external personnel within the County of Los Angeles for Drug Recognition Expert (DRE), SFST, and ARIDE Recertification classes.

The City of Glendale has a strong partnership with the CHP DRE Unit and will continue to host annual DRE schools and SFST / DRE instructor schools. The Department will also be able to host quarterly certification sites to train officers on how to identify drivers who may be impaired by alcohol and/or drugs while operating motor vehicles upon a roadway. Using best practice strategies, the Police Department strives to reduce the number of persons killed and/or injured by drivers under the influence of alcohol and drugs, and these grant funds will assist with these efforts.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Participation in this program provides the Glendale Police Department the ability to educate the public regarding the dangers of impaired driving, enforce impaired driving laws on the roadway, and improve its effectiveness through training and development of new strategies.
20 of 236

35c
6 9
4 4

FISCAL IMPACT
The FY2026-27 Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program award in the amount of $476,323 was included as part of the FY2026-27 approved budget. No new appropriation is being requested at this time. The City Council approved funding is outlined below:

Existing Appropriation
Amount Account String Funding Source
$476,323 GL: Various-2610-GPD-0020-P0000
PL: GPD01623AG
Police Fund
Department Cost Center Program
Police Projects

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This item is considered a ministerial activity and therefore, not subjected to CEQA/NEPA review. There is no possibility that the acceptance of this award may have a significant effect on the environment. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3))

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Deny the Police Department’s request. If the request is denied, the Police Department will not be able to utilize the grant funding for training, education, and enforcement of laws relating to impaired drivers and will have to utilize the general fund for those activities.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Robert William, Police Chief
Prepared by:

Bryan Duncan, Police Sergeant
Sheryl Davis-Moore, Commander
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
None.
21 of 236

MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby:

1. Accepts grant funds in the amount of $476,323 from the State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol (CHP) Cannabis Tax Fund Grant Program; and

2. Authorizes the City Manager, or a designee, to execute an agreement with the State of California, Department of California Highway Patrol for the award of funds.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
22 of 236

5d
26-90394

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Approval to submit Climate Bond Grant Funds Application Under the Urban Greening Grant Program for Cerritos Park Renovation Project

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for July 14, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Urban Greening Grant Program, funded by Proposition 4 and administered through California Natural Resources Agency, provides grant funding for projects that address climate change impacts and improve community resiliency. The Urban Greening Grant Program currently has roughly $46 million in available funds, with a maximum grant request of $5 million per local agency. While this grant does not require matching funds, the City has identified $300,000 in Measure A funds for the Project, bringing the total project cost to $2.5 million.

The proposed Project will transform the existing park into a multi-benefit park with upgraded amenities that will provide both passive and active recreational opportunities for people of all ages and abilities. The grant application will focus on climate resilient park improvements including: new, water-efficient splash pad with updated recirculating water system; new age 2–5 and 5–12 nature-based playground structures with integrated shade cover; cooler, ADA-compliant PIP surfacing for the playground; ADA-compliant restroom renovations and an added outdoor shower (per public health requirements for splash pads); native and drought-tolerant landscaping (including pollinator garden) and trees; enhanced seating; upgraded lighting and improved stormwater capture using nature based solutions (e.g., rain gardens and/or bioswales). 23 of 236

5d2
26-90394
6 9
6 0

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt a resolution authorizing staff to submit a grant application through California Natural Resources Agency for Climate Bond Grant Funds under the Urban Greening Program, in the amount of $2.2 million for the Project; and authorizing the City Manager to conduct all negotiations, sign and submit all documents, including, but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments, and payment requests, which may be necessary for the completion of the Project.

ANALYSIS
The Urban Greening Grant Program, funded by Proposition 4 (the 2024 Climate Bond) and administered through California Natural Resources Agency (“CNRA”), provides grant funding for projects that address climate change impacts and improve community resiliency. The Urban Greening Grant Program currently has roughly $46 million in available funds, with a maximum grant request of $5 million per local agency.

Eligible Urban Greening Project Features include:
Creation or expansion of green parks, particularly in park-poor communities Urban tree canopy expansion to provide strategic shade and reduce the urban heat island effect
Nature-based cooling elements such as shade trees, climate-ready vegetation, and expanded green spaces
Green stormwater infrastructure including rain gardens, bioswales, and permeable surfaces
Community gardens that offer shade, water access, and local habitat benefits Green streets and alleyways that use vegetation and permeable materials to manage heat and stormwater
Habitat restoration using native and climate-resilient plant species Schoolyard greening projects that increase shade and outdoor cooling opportunities
Eligible Major Support Amenities include:
Restroom buildings that support public access in newly greened spaces Parking lots designed or retrofitted with permeable paving and shade-providing vegetation
Lighting and landscaping that incorporate climate-ready vegetation, low-water plantings, and long-term climate-resilient design
Cerritos Park, located in south Glendale, is a 1.4-acre neighborhood park situated at 3690 San Fernando Road, directly adjacent to Cerritos Elementary School, a Title I school. The park officially opened in October 2007 to help address a longstanding deficiency of parkland in south Glendale on a site previously occupied by a used car lot and service station. All original park amenities, installed nearly 20 years ago, remain in place today.
24 of 236

5d3
26-90394
6 9
6 0
Based on recent park renovation project costs, such as the Mayors Bicentennial Park Playground Replacement and Fremont Park Renovation projects, and accounting for inflation and escalation, staff estimates total project cost for the Project to be $2.5 million breakdown as follows:

Project Phase Estimated Cost
Design (Concept – Construction Admin) $ 300,000.00 Permits + Misc. expenses $ 50,000.00
Construction $ 2,000,000.00
Construction Management and Inspections $ 150,000.00 TOTAL $ 2,500,000.00
The Urban Greening Grant award selections are expected to be announced in December 2026. Following the award announcement, the Grant Performance Period will begin, with all funded projects required to be completed no later than March 1, 2030.

The proposed Project will transform the existing park into a multi-benefit park with new and upgraded amenities that will provide both passive and active recreational opportunities for people of all ages and abilities. This renovation Project is needed due to aging park infrastructure, outdated playground and splash pad features, worn PIP surfacing, and restrooms that no longer meet updated ADA accessibility standards.

These conditions limit safe recreational use and disproportionately affect vulnerable populations who rely on accessible public parks in their neighborhood.

Considering the Urban Greening Grant Program’s emphasis on nature-based solutions, extreme-heat mitigation, and the expansion of green, climate-resilient spaces, and the community’s preference of amenities, staff recommends that the application prioritize the following outdoor green and recreational improvements:
Water-efficient splash pad with updated recirculating water system; Age 2–5 and 5–12 nature-based playground structures with integrated shade cover;
ADA-compliant PIP surfacing for the playground;
ADA-compliant restroom renovations and an added outdoor shower (per public health requirements for splash pads);
Native and drought-tolerant landscaping (including pollinator garden) and trees; Enhanced seating; and
Upgraded lighting and improved stormwater capture using nature-based solutions (e.g., rain gardens and/or bioswales).

Overall, these enhancements will significantly reduce the urban heat island effect by increasing the tree canopy, adding built shade elements over play areas, and bringing shade trees to passive areas, adding climate-responsive planting and nature-based solutions, and improving water play features, ensuring safer and more comfortable conditions during extreme heat. The proposed improvements will enhance community well-being by revitalizing an important neighborhood gathering space, increasing 25 of 236

5d4
26-90394
6 9
6 0
opportunities for social interaction, and providing newly renovated public amenities that encourage residents of all ages to enjoy the park more frequently and comfortably.

Staff is drafting an RFP for the design of the Project that will align with the scope outlined in the grant application. The Concept Design Phase is estimated to take 9-12 months, during which time both the community and City Council will be engaged in discussing options for development of the park.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Project serves a critically underserved neighborhood with only 0.13 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, far below the County median. Cerritos Park is adjacent to Cerritos Elementary, a Title I school where most students qualify for the Free and Reduced Lunch Program. The park is in Census Tract 3025.05, identified as a Disadvantaged Community with a Household Median Income at 73.6% of the state average and a Heat Vulnerability Score of 58.53, placing it in a high-priority zone for extreme heat risk. Children, seniors, low-income households, individuals with disabilities, and families in these high-priority zones who lack access to private cooling resources are disproportionately impacted by heat and limited access to outdoor recreational amenities.

The Project directly responds to these community needs by incorporating nature-based cooling strategies, increasing shade, modernizing the splash pad with a water-efficient self-cycling system, improving ADA-compliant pathways and restrooms, and providing safer, cooler play surfaces. These improvements will revitalize an important neighborhood gathering space, enhance community well-being, and create a more comfortable and accessible environment for residents of all ages.

In addition, the Project reflects community priorities as identified through the City’s ongoing Open Space and Recreation Element update, funded by LA County Measure A. Statistically valid survey results show strong community preferences for passive green spaces (30%), water-based amenities such as splash pads and pools (33%), and playgrounds (19%), aligning closely with the proposed improvements. As the City moves into the design phase, additional outreach will be conducted to further refine how residents envision the park, ensuring the Project continues to reflect community priorities.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact at this time. Should the grant be awarded, staff will return to the City Council to request appropriation of the grant funds, along with the Measure A grant funds.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The action being considered is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to: (1) CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, in that it consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public structures, facilities, mechanical equipment, or topographical features, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use; (2) CEQA Guideline Section 15303, in that it consists of the construction and location of 26 of 236

5d5
26-90394
6 9
6 0
limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures, or installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and/or (3) CEQA Guidelines Section 15304, in that it consists of minor public alternations in the condition of land or vegetation that do not involve removal of healthy, mature, scenic trees.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION

1.Do not approve filing a grant application to the California Natural Resources Agency for the Climate Bond Grant Funds for the Project, which would not allow staff to undertake the necessary renovations to the park.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

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

Tereza Aleksanian, Deputy Director of Community Services & Parks Cindy Camberos, Assistant Project Manager
Julianna De La Cruz, Senior Administrative Analyst
Joseph Gonzalez, Park Planner
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
27 of 236

Resolution No. __________

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

CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR CLIMATE BOND GRANT

FUNDS FOR URBAN GREENING PROGRAM FOR THE CERRITOS PARK

RENOVATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the Legislature and Governor of the State of California have provided Climate Bond funds for the project shown above; and WHEREAS, the California Natural Resources Agency has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of this grant program, establishing necessary procedures; and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Natural Resources Agency require a resolution certifying the approval of application(s) by the Applicant’s governing board before submission of said application(s) to the State; and WHEREAS, the applicant, if selected, will enter into an agreement with the State of California to carry out the above project:

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

1. The Council hereby:
a. Approves the filing of an application for the Cerritos Park Renovation Project; and
b. Certifies that the applicant understands the assurances and certification in the application; and
c. Certifies that the applicant or title holder will have sufficient funds to develop, operate and maintain the project consistent with the land tenure requirements; or will secure the resources to do so; and d. Certifies that it will comply with the prevailing wage provisions of the California Labor Code, if applicable; and
e. Certifies the project will comply with any applicable laws and regulation including, but not limited to, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), legal requirements for building codes, health and safety codes, disabled access laws, environmental laws and, that prior to commencement of construction, all applicable licenses and permits will have been obtained; and
f. Certifies that the applicant will work towards the Governor’s State Planning Priorities intended to promote equity, strengthen the economy, protect the environment, and promote public health and safety as included in Government Code Section 65041.1; and
28 of 236

g. Appoints the City Manager, or designee, as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents including, but not limited to applications, agreements, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project(s).

Approved and adopted this ______ day of ______________________, 2026. ______________________
Mayor

ATTEST:
______________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Suzie Abajian, Ph.D., City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution 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
29 of 236

5e
26-90395

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Placement of a Commemorative Plaque at Catalina Verdugo Adobe in Honor of Historical Figure Don José María Verdugo

1. Motion authorizing the placement of a commemorative bronze plaque at Catalina Verdugo Adobe, in honor of historical figure Don José María Verdugo.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for July 14, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Don José Verdugo Chapter of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution (NSDAR) requests approval to install a commemorative bronze plaque near the existing plaque at Catalina Verdugo Adobe (Adobe) to honor historical figure Don José María Verdugo. The plaque is intended to complement the historic character of the site and provide additional context regarding Don José María Verdugo’s role in the early history of the region. The proposed plaque specifications include the dimensions (16 x 12 inches), materials (Cast bronze) and draft plaque text and design, provided in Exhibit 1.

The City has a history of successful collaboration with NSDAR on preservation and interpretive projects at the Adobe, including the 2023 planting of a new Oak of Peace and the 2025 installation of the historic timeline waysign. As part of the request, NSDAR provided additional information, including the proposed installation location provided in Exhibit 2, the installation method (removal and refinishing of the existing wood plank and reinstallation of both plaques), and the total plaque cost of $1,850 plus sales tax and $75 shipping. All costs for the commemorative plaque will be fully funded by NSDAR, which will also secure approval from the National Society’s Historic Preservation Committee prior to manufacturing.

Staff finds that the installation of the commemorative plaque is consistent with the historic and cultural character of the park and would not adversely affect existing features. The plaque will enhance public understanding of the region’s early history and contribute to ongoing efforts to interpret and preserve the site’s historical significance. 30 of 236

5e2
26-90395
6 9
6 1

RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that City Council pass a motion authorizing the placement of a commemorative bronze plaque at Catalina Verdugo Adobe in honor of historical figure Don José María Verdugo.

ANALYSIS
The Don José Verdugo Chapter of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution (NSDAR) has submitted a request to place a commemorative bronze plaque at Catalina Verdugo Adobe in honor of the historical figure Don José María Verdugo.

The proposed plaque recognizes Don José María Verdugo’s foundational role in the early history of the region and complements the existing historical Adobe at the park.

The proposed plaque specifications include:
Dimensions:

The proposed plaque measures 16 inches in width and 12 inches in height.
Material and finish:

The proposed plaque will be cast bronze with a bronze finish. Draft plaque text and design:

The proposed plaque text and design (see Exhibit 1) states the following:

REVOLUTIONARY WAR PATRIOT
DON JOSÉ MARÍA VERDUGO

VOLUNTARILY DONATED (DONATIVO) TO SUPPORT
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY WAR.

HE WAS A SPANISH SOLDIER AT THE BAJA CALIFORNIA PRESIDIO OF LORETO AND A CORPORAL OF THE MISSION SAN GABRIEL GUARDS.

IN 1784, KING CARLOS III OF SPAIN GRANTED
JOSÉ MARÍA VERDUGO 36,402 ACRES FOR HIS MILITARY SERVICES.

IT BECAME RANCHO SAN RAFAEL.

CATALINA VERDUGO ADOBE REPRESENTS THE
LAST REMNANT OF THIS ONCE VAST RANCHO.

MARKER PLACED BY
DON JOSÉ VERDUGO CHAPTER

NATIONAL SOCIETY DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
DATE
Catalina Verdugo Adobe park is a 1.3-acre park located at the base of the Verdugo Hills in a residential neighborhood. The park contains one of the oldest remaining structures in Glendale – the Catalina Verdugo Adobe (Adobe) – as well as the remnants of the historic “Oak of Peace.” Park amenities include a picnic area available to reserve for family picnics or gatherings
The Adobe itself is designated as California Historical Landmark No. 637 and is also recognized by California Parlor No. 247. Constructed around 1828, the building 31 of 236

5e3
26-90395
6 9
6 1
originally consisted of a main room and south wing, with the north wing added near the turn of the century. Named after Don José María Verdugo’s daughter, the structure was built by his grandson, Teodoro Verdugo. Following multiple ownership changes, the property was acquired by F. P. Newport, who sought to preserve its historical value, and later by Dr. Ernest Bashor. The City of Glendale purchased the site in 1989, and it now includes a rustic covered porch, brick patio, and wooden picnic tables for public use.

The City has an established history of collaboration with NSDAR on preservation and interpretive projects at the site. In 2023, the City partnered with the Don José Verdugo Chapter to plant a new Oak of Peace, commemorating the historic significance of the original tree located near the Adobe. In 2025, NSDAR, with support from the City and the Days of the Verdugos Heritage Association (the current docents of the Adobe), completed Phase II of its historic preservation project at the park, including the installation of a historic timeline waysign. Additional specifications for the commemorative plaque and installation are provided below:
Installation location:

The proposed location for the plaque (see Exhibit 2) is adjacent to the existing historical DAR marker on the Adobe’s front exterior wall. Photos of the existing marker and the proposed two-marker installation are also shown in Exhibit 2.
Installation method (recommended by vendor):

The recommended installation consists of removing the existing wood plank and plaque from the 1950s, sanding and sealing the wood plank, reinstalling both plaques using wood screws or through-bolts, and reinstalling the wood plank. As part of this process, the City will work with NSDAR by assisting with the removal and installation of the materials, and NSDAR will oversee refinishing the wood plank and providing any needed care for the existing plaque.
Total plaque cost:

Produced by Decco Awards, Inc. of Monrovia, the total plaque will cost $1,850 plus applicable sales tax, with an additional $75 for shipping.

Confirmation has been provided that all costs associated with the commemorative bronze plaque will be fully covered by the Don José Verdugo Chapter, National Society Daughters of the American Revolution (NSDAR). Before the plaque is manufactured, NSDAR will also obtain approval from the Historic Preservation Committee of the National Society, DAR.

Given the park’s deep historical significance and its direct connection to the Verdugo family, the placement of a commemorative plaque honoring Don José María Verdugo is consistent with the site’s cultural and educational purpose. The plaque would also offer visitors additional context about the region’s early history and highlight the cultural importance of José María Verdugo, the Verdugo family, and Rancho San Rafael. This 32 of 236

5e4
26-90395
6 9
6 1
location was selected because Don José María Verdugo’s burial site at the San Gabriel Mission is unmarked, and the Catalina Verdugo Adobe already interprets his role in Glendale and California history.

José María Verdugo is among the earliest Californio Spanish American Revolutionary War Patriots officially recognized by the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution. This recognition allows many descendants to acknowledge their family’s contributions to American independence and, if they choose, apply to join DAR.

Staff has reviewed the request and finds that the proposed plaque aligns with the historic and cultural character of the site and would not adversely affect existing features of the park.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Stakeholders included in this plaque request include the Don José Verdugo Chapter of the National Society Daughters of the American Revolution (NSDAR), who are sponsoring the commemorative plaque; the Days of the Verdugos Heritage Association, who are the current docents of the Adobe; and descendants or community members connected to Don José María Verdugo’s historical legacy. Local residents and park visitors, who use and enjoy Catalina Verdugo Adobe and learn from its rich historical and cultural significance, also form an important part of the broader community connected to the park. Collectively, these groups highlight a shared interest in honoring and maintaining the site’s historical significance for the community.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact with this request, as the costs associated with the commemorative bronze plaque and it’s installation will be fully funded by the Don José Verdugo Chapter, National Society Daughters of the American Revolution (NSDAR).

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
The action being considered is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 in that consists of the operation, repair, maintenance, or minor alteration of existing public structures or facilities involving negligible or no expansion of former use. Moreover, because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, it is exempt from CEQA. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).)

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Do not approve the placement of a commemorative bronze plaque at Catalina Verdugo Adobe, in honor of historical figure Don José María Verdugo, which limits the opportunity to provide further historical context about the region’s early history and the recognition of Don José María Verdugo’s cultural significance.
33 of 236

5e5
26-90395
6 9
6 1
Alternative 2: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

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

Tereza Aleksanian, Assistant Director of Community Services & Parks Julianna De La Cruz, Senior Administrative Analyst
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Draft of Proposed Plaque Text and Design
Exhibit 2: Photo of Proposed Installation Site
34 of 236

1 1
7 3
4 6
MOTION
Moved by Council Member __________________________________________, seconded by Council Member ________________________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby authorizes the placement of a commemorative bronze plaque at Catalina Verdugo Adobe in honor of historical figure Don José María Verdugo as descried in the report of the director of Community Services and Parks dated July 14, 2026.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
35 of 236

VOLUNTARILY DONATED (DONATIVO) TO SUPPORT
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTIONARY WAR.

HE WAS A SPANISH SOLDIER AT THE BAJA CALIFORNIA PRESIDIO OF LORETO AND A CORPORAL OF THE MISSION SAN GABRIEL GUARDS.

IN 1784, KING CARLOS III OF SPAIN GRANTED
JOSE MARIA VERDUGO 36,402 ACRES FOR HIS MILITARY SERVICES.

IT BECAME RANCHO SAN RAFAEL.

DON JOSE MARIA VERDUGO

REVOLUTIONARY WAR PATRIOT

MARKER PLACED BY

DON JOSE VERDUGO CHAPTER

NATIONAL SOCIETY DAUGHTERS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
DATE

CATALINA VERDUGO ADOBE REPRESENTS THE
LAST REMNANT OF THIS ONCE VAST RANCHO.
12 x 16
DRAFT
Exhibit #1
36 of 236

Exhibit #2
37 of 236

38 of 236

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: The County of Los Angeles Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund, Request for Authorization to Accept Grant Funds to be used for the purpose of prosecution and/or investigation of real estate fraud.

2. Resolution of Appropriation

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Item
Approved for July 14, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
To accept $10,000 in grant funds from The County of Los Angeles Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund for the grant period of July 1, 2026, through June 30, 2027.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council adopt a motion to authorize the City Manager to accept grant funds from the Los Angeles County Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Grant Program in the amount of $10,000 and approve a resolution of appropriation.

ANALYSIS
The Los Angeles County Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund was established to assist the District Attorney’s Office and local law enforcement by providing the necessary funding to investigate and prosecute these complex cases that take between six to eighteen months to complete.

In 1995, the Legislature enacted Chapter 942, Statutes of 1995 (SB 537, Hughes), which created the Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund Program. Initially, the program allowed counties to establish a fee of up to $2 for the filing of certain real estate documents with the county. These revenues were dedicated to support local law enforcement activities to fight real estate fraud. Currently, counties are allowed to charge 39 of 236

25f
6 9
1 8
a fee of up to $10 for these purposes when these documents are filed. Counties that opt into the program are required to deposit any fee revenues into a Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund for use by local police, sheriffs, and district attorneys to deter, investigate, and prosecute real estate fraud crimes. Local law enforcement agencies receive 40 percent and district attorneys receive 60 percent of program allocations from the fund.

The Glendale Police Department has had the privilege of participating in this program since 2009. The department’s participation in this program allows for the investigation of real estate fraud cases within our jurisdiction. Funding will be used for costs associated with compensation related to the investigations and training to stay abreast of current practices. The funding allows our agency to partner with professionals in the field of real estate to create “best practices” which deter fraud and ultimately protect consumers. It also allows investigators to educate the public through town hall forums where valuable information can be shared with members of our community. The Glendale Police Department’s Financial Crimes Unit currently consists of three detectives and a supervisor. Real Estate fraud cases are investigated by all detectives in the Financial Crimes Unit. This allows for all the detectives to gain valuable experience in the investigation of these complex cases.

Although the Glendale Police Department has been committed to investigating and prosecuting real estate fraud since 2004, we have only received the assistance of grant funding through the Los Angeles County Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund since 2009.

The grant has provided the Glendale Police Department with $1,340,982 between FY 2009-2010 and FY 2026-2027.
FY 2009-2010 Award - $ 33,000
FY 2010-2011 Award - $150,000
FY 2011-2012 Award - $189,934
FY 2012-2013 Award - $200,000
FY 2013-2014 Award - $189,000
FY 2014-2015 Award - $120,000
FY 2015-2016 Award - $ 50,000
FY 2016-2017 Award - $ 75,000
FY 2017-2018 Award - $ 50,000
FY 2018-2019 Award - $ 50,000
FY 2019-2020 Award - $ 40,000
FY 2020-2021 Award - $ 39,000
FY 2021-2022 Award - $ 45,000
FY 2022-2023 Award - $ 31,000
FY 2023-2024 Award - $ 16,000
FY 2024-2025 Award - $ 48,048
FY 2025-2026 Award - $ 5,000
FY 2026-2027 Award - $ 10,000
40 of 236

35f
6 9
1 8

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Participation in this program provides the Glendale Police Department with valuable resources necessary to forge partnerships with the community, professionals, and other law enforcement agencies to combat the crime of real estate fraud.

FISCAL IMPACT
The FY2026-2027 Real Estate grant award in the amount of $10,000 was not included as a part of the FY 2026-2027 budget. Therefore, staff is requesting for an appropriation of $10,000 from Local grant revenue. The appropriation request is outlined below:

Requesting Appropriation:

Amount From (Account String) To (Accounting String) Funding Source $10,000 GL: 34301-2610-GPD-
GPD-0020-P0000-
PL: GPD01607AG
Police Fund
$5,000 GL: 41100-2610-GPD-
0020-P0000-
PL: GPD01607AG
Police Fund
$5,000 GL: 44650-2610-GPD-
0020-P0000
PL: GPD01607AG
Police Fund

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Deny the Police Department’s request, however they will not be able to utilize the grant funding for the investigations of real estate fraud cases within our jurisdiction and will have to utilize the general fund to investigate the fraud cases.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Robert William, Interim Police Chief
Prepared by:

Ernesto Gaxiola, Police Lieutenant
Sheryl Davis-Moore, Commander
41 of 236

45f
6 9
1 8
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
None.
42 of 236

MOTION
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby:

1. Accepts grant funds in the amount of $10,000 from the Real Estate Fraud Prosecution Trust Fund Program; and

2. Authorizes the City Manager, or a designee, to execute the necessary agreements, certifications, and other documents required to accept the grant funds.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
43 of 236

RESOLUTIONNO.

RESOLUTIONOFTHECOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE

MAKINGANAPPROPRIATION
BEITRESOLVEDBYTHECOUNCILOFTHECITYOFGLENDALE:

SECTION1:Thatthesumof$10,000isherebyappropriatedand/ortransferredfromthefollowing accountstothefollowingaccounts:

ACCOUNTSDESCRIPTIONFROMTO
34301-2610-GPD-0020-P0000-LocalGrants,PoliceFund,Police,Projects,$10,000 GPDO1607AG2026-27RealEstateFraudGrant
41100-2610-GPD-0020-P0000-Salaries,PoliceFund,Police,Projects,$5,000 GPDO16O7AG2026-27RealEstateFraudGrant
44650-2610-GPD-0020-P0000-Training,PoliceFund,Police,Projects,$5,000 GPDO16O7AG2026-27RealEstateFraudGrant
Toappropriatefundingforthe2026-27RealEstateFraudGrantproject.

SECTION2:TheDirectorofFinanceisauthorizedtomakesuchotherrevisions,individualappropriation line-items,changesinsummaries,fundtotals,grandtotals,andotherportionsofthebudgetdocumentas necessarytoreflectandimplementthechangesspecifiedinthisresolution.

SECTION3:TheCityClerkshallcertifytotheadoptionofthisResolution.

Adoptedthisdayof
________________
2026.

Mayor
ATTEST:

CITYOFGLENDALE
DATE6/18/26
___________________________

APPROVEDASTOFINANCIAL
CityClerkPROVISIONFOR$10,000
-7—,
DirectorofFinance STATEOFCALIFORNIA)

COUNTYOFLOSANGELES)SS

CITYOFGLENDALE)
I,SuzieAbajian,CityClerkoftheCityofGlendale,doherebycertifythattheforegoingResolution No.wasadoptedbytheCounciloftheCityofGlendale,California,ataregularmeetingheldon the__________dayof
________________,
2026,andthatthesamewasadoptedbythefollowingvote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

CityClerk
44 of 236

10a
26-90223

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Potential Regulations for Personal Delivery Devices (PDDs) Operating Within the Public Right-of-Way

1. Introduction of Urgency Ordinance enacting a moratorium on the deployment and operation of PDDs on public rights-of-way;

2. Motion providing direction regarding establishment of regulations for operation of PDDs on public right-of-way.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for July 14, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On March 31, 2026, the City Council received a report regarding PDDs, commonly referred to as delivery robots. At that meeting, Council deferred action and directed staff to continue monitoring regional developments, conduct additional outreach, and return with updated information as well as a potential moratorium pending establishment of pilot or permanent regulations.

Since that time, staff has conducted additional research, met with PDD operators, coordinated with City departments, reviewed regulations adopted by neighboring jurisdictions, and initiated outreach to the business community. Staff found that neighboring jurisdictions generally regulate PDDs through permits, operating agreements, or pilot programs rather than prohibiting them outright. However, significant differences exist regarding allowable automation levels, fleet sizes, operating areas, insurance requirements, and oversight mechanisms.

The purpose of this report is to provide City Council with updated information regarding PDD operations, present a potential moratorium on operation of PDDs, and to obtain direction regarding preparing regulations governing PDD operations within Glendale.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council consider the information presented in this report and provide direction to staff. The Council may introduce an urgency ordinance enacting a moratorium 45 of 236

10a2
26-90223
6 9
7 2
on the deployment and operation of PDDs on public rights-of-way and/or direct staff to develop regulations governing the operation of PDDs on public rights-of-way.

ANALYSIS
Background
PDDs are electrically powered devices designed to transport goods using sidewalks and pedestrian facilities. These devices are most used for food, grocery, and retail deliveries and have become increasingly common throughout Southern California.

On March 31, 2026, the City Council received a report regarding PDDs. At that meeting, Council directed staff to continue monitoring regional developments, coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions, conduct additional outreach, and return with updated information to inform a potential regulatory framework.

Research Conducted Since March 2026
Following Council direction, staff conducted additional research regarding PDD operations and regulations. Staff met with PDD operators to better understand available technologies, operational models, safety features, insurance requirements, and municipal oversight mechanisms. Staff also reviewed recently adopted regulations and pilot programs implemented by neighboring jurisdictions and coordinated with internal departments regarding operational, accessibility, liability, and enforcement considerations.

In addition, the Economic Development Division conducted targeted outreach to businesses located in areas where PDDs have been observed operating. Outreach included direct contact with restaurant owners and managers, as well as coordination with the Glendale Chamber of Commerce, Montrose Chamber of Commerce, and Montrose Shopping Park Association. A total of 38 businesses responded to the outreach effort, including 35 restaurants and three retail establishments.

Among restaurant respondents, 13 reported they were currently utilizing PDDs for deliveries, while 22 reported they were not currently using the technology. Of the businesses not utilizing PDDs, most indicated that the devices had not yet been deployed by their delivery platforms in their service areas rather than expressing opposition to the technology itself. Only two respondents reported actively choosing not to participate due to corporate policy or because their product was not suitable for delivery with robots.

Businesses currently utilizing PDDs generally report positive experiences, rating their usefulness an average of 7.5 out of 10. Respondents using the autonomous delivery robots cited benefits such as reliable delivery performance and faster or more efficient deliveries (as compared with non-robotic delivery options), and positive customer reactions, with several noting that customers find the delivery robots appealing or “cool.” 46 of 236

10a3
26-90223
6 9
7 2
Across users, all respondents reported no material impact on restaurant operations, including staffing, workflow, or order volume, with the single exception being a complaint by one respondent about increased platform notifications sent from Uber Eats to the restaurant when a robot delivery unit was being sent. Similarly, all users reported minimal to no impact (positive or negative) on customers beyond general curiosity regarding the technology.

Three respondents to the survey were retail shops in Montrose. While they cannot use autonomous delivery robots as they do not deliver food, they did share concerns about the robots introducing congestion on sidewalks, potential for vandalism against the robots, and a detraction from the neighborhood’s charm. The three (3) retail shops also noted that they have not seen any impact (negative or positive) on their operations, nor on their customers because of the presence of the robots. It must be noted that PDD companies have not been observed by staff to be operating in the neighborhood of Montrose.

In addition to the survey responses, staff received feedback from the Glendale Chamber of Commerce regarding the use of PDDs within Downtown Glendale. The Chamber noted that portions of Downtown contain several multi-story office buildings served by shared parking facilities and have limited restaurant options within walking distance, making food delivery a popular service for employees in the area. The Chamber indicated that PDDs have been viewed positively in these locations because they provide a convenient delivery option while reducing the need for delivery drivers to temporarily stop in red zones, search for parking, or navigate large office buildings to complete deliveries.

The Chamber further noted that the devices may be particularly well-suited for certain commercial areas where delivery demand is high and pedestrian activity is more predictable. At the same time, the Chamber acknowledged that operational considerations, including pedestrian safety and sidewalk conditions, should be evaluated in more congested areas if the city elects to permit PDD operations in the future.

Overall, feedback suggests that autonomous delivery robots are currently perceived by restaurants as a positive supplemental delivery option with limited operational impact at this stage, though there is cautious optimism about their potential as deployment expands.

Regional Regulatory Review
Staff reviewed regulations and pilot programs implemented by several Southern California jurisdictions, including Los Angeles, Santa Monica, West Hollywood, Pasadena, and Culver City.

While regulatory approaches vary, staff found that neighboring jurisdictions generally permit PDD operations subject to operational controls and oversight. Staff did not identify any California jurisdictions that currently prohibit PDD operations outright. 47 of 236

10a4
26-90223
6 9
7 2
Several common regulatory components were identified among the jurisdictions reviewed, including:
• Insurance and indemnification requirements;
• Business licenses, permits, or operating agreements;
• Fleet size limitations;
• Speed restrictions;
• Geofencing requirements;
• Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance standards; • Device identification requirements;
• Customer service and complaint response standards;
• Data sharing and reporting requirements; and
• Enforcement mechanisms, including permit suspension or revocation.

Los Angeles
The City of Los Angeles currently regulates PDDs through a pilot program administered by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT). Operators are required to obtain permits and comply with detailed operational requirements addressing insurance, fleet size, ADA compliance, geofencing, reporting requirements, and performance standards.

The Los Angeles program permits both semi-autonomous and autonomous devices.

Operators are generally limited to 75 devices within designated service areas and are subject to annual permit fees based on fleet size. Additional requirements address device specifications, pedestrian accessibility, data sharing, insurance coverage, indemnification, and permit suspension or revocation for non-compliance.

Santa Monica
The City of Santa Monica regulates PDDs through a permit and business license framework supplemented by administrative regulations. Santa Monica's regulations address operational requirements such as insurance and indemnification, ADA compliance, speed restrictions, incident reporting, customer service standards, permitted operating areas, and parking restrictions.

Unlike Los Angeles, Santa Monica limits operations to devices operating at Level 3 automation or below, requiring continuous human oversight. The city does not currently impose fleet limitations but requires operators to establish standard operating procedures and prohibits the delivery of certain materials, including hazardous materials, weapons, and tobacco products.

West Hollywood
West Hollywood initially implemented a pilot program before transitioning to a permanent operating agreement model. Rather than utilizing permits, the city has begun regulating operators through annual operating agreements that establish operating conditions and performance standards.

The framework limits operations to designated hours, caps the number of active devices 48 of 236

10a5
26-90223
6 9
7 2
operating within the city, requires geofencing technology, establishes response time requirements for malfunctions and complaints, requires compliance with ADA accessibility standards, and imposes insurance and indemnification requirements. West Hollywood also charges fees based on fleet size and restricts deliveries to food and retail purchases.

Pasadena
The City of Pasadena continues to evaluate a PDD program and is developing a framework that incorporates elements of both the Santa Monica and West Hollywood models. Pasadena has discussed limiting the number of devices permitted per operator, requiring operating agreements with the city, and implementing permit requirements similar to Santa Monica's program.

Draft concepts reviewed by Pasadena include fleet limitations, operating standards, insurance requirements, and restrictions on advertising displayed on the devices.

Levels of Automation and Technology Considerations
In addition to operational requirements, staff found that jurisdictions vary in the types of PDD technologies they permit. Some programs allow autonomous devices, while others limit operations to devices that remain under continuous human oversight.

Automation levels generally range from Level 0 (No Automation) to Level 5 (Full Automation). Lower-level systems rely heavily on human oversight, while higher-level systems are capable of independently performing operating functions with limited or no human intervention.

Under the City of Santa Monica's PDD regulations, operations are limited to Level 3 automation or below. Level 3 devices can perform certain operating functions and detect environmental conditions, but human oversight remains required. Levels 4 and 5 represent increasingly autonomous operation capable of independently performing operating tasks under specific or all operating conditions.

Staff learned that PDD operators currently utilize different technologies and operational models. Some systems rely on continuous human monitoring and remote intervention, while others are designed to operate with a higher degree of autonomy. As the technology continues to evolve, the City Council may wish to consider whether future regulations should distinguish between semi-autonomous and autonomous devices.

Potential Benefits and Implementation Considerations
Staff's research identified several potential benefits associated with PDD operations, including increased delivery options for residents, support for local businesses, reduced reliance on vehicle-based deliveries for short trips, and opportunities to encourage innovation and emerging technologies.

During discussions with PDD operators, representatives indicated that the devices are primarily utilized for shorter-distance deliveries and smaller orders that may be less 49 of 236

10a6
26-90223
6 9
7 2
attractive to traditional delivery drivers due to lower compensation associated with those trips. As a result, PDDs may provide an additional delivery option for local businesses and customers seeking short-distance deliveries.

Operators also indicated that PDDs may help reduce delivery-related vehicle activity in high-demand commercial areas. According to the operators, deliveries performed by PDDs may reduce the need for delivery drivers to temporarily stop or park in loading zones, red curbs, or other congested areas while picking up and delivering orders.

In addition, operators stated that PDDs can be dispatched immediately once an order is prepared, reducing the time between food preparation and pickup. Operators further indicated that delivery distances are often limited to approximately 30 minutes or less to help maintain food quality and customer satisfaction.

If the City Council elects to pursue regulations governing PDD operations, staff recommends that the Council provide policy direction regarding several operational and regulatory considerations. Staff's review found that neighboring jurisdictions have adopted different approaches depending on local priorities and community needs.

Potential considerations include:
Geographic Limitations – Whether PDD operations should be permitted citywide or limited to specific areas, such as Downtown Glendale, commercial corridors, or other designated zones.
Fleet Limitations – Whether to establish a maximum number of devices that may operate within the city or within specific geographic areas. Operating Distance – Whether to limit the distance a device may travel from a participating business or distribution point.
Hours of Operation – Whether to establish operating hours or prohibit operations during certain times of day.
Level of Automation – Whether to permit all levels of automation or limit operations to devices operating under continuous human oversight, similar to Santa Monica's regulations.
Permitting Structure – Whether operators should be regulated through a permit program, operating agreement, business license requirements, or a combination thereof.
ADA and Accessibility Requirements – Requirements to ensure devices do not obstruct sidewalks, curb ramps, transit stops, or other pedestrian facilities. Data Reporting Requirements – Whether operators should provide operational data, incident reports, complaint records, or other information to the city. Customer Service Standards – Requirements related to complaint response times, emergency contacts, and device identification.

No single regulatory model has emerged as a regional standard. Should Council wish to pursue regulations, staff is seeking direction regarding which operational elements should be incorporated into a Glendale-specific regulatory framework. 50 of 236

10a7
26-90223
6 9
7 2
Additionally, at the direction of Council, the City Attorney has prepared an uncodified urgency ordinance establishing a moratorium on the deployment and operation of PDDs within the right of way. If the Council desires to adopt the ordinance, it should introduce the ordinance (to be adopted at a subsequent meeting) with a sunset provision that would allow it to expire within a defined period of time. The ordinance would act as a moratorium on the deployment and operation of PDDs while the City further studies and prepares draft regulations based on the direction given by Council. Alternatively, Council could direct staff to prepare draft regulations but not enact a moratorium ordinance.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Staff coordinated with the City Attorney's Office, Community Development Department, Economic Development Division, Public Works Department, Police Department, and other City departments regarding PDD operations and regulatory considerations.

In addition, staff met with PDD operators and conducted outreach to the business community regarding potential deployment within Glendale.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. However, there are indirect costs such as staffing that are associated with enforcing a moratorium and eventual regulation. Additionally, if regulations to enforce PDD’s are approved in Glendale, new feed may be implemented in order to offset staffing costs related to processing permits, inspection and enforcement services.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
An ordinance prohibiting the deployment or operation of PDDs is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301, in that it consists of the operation of existing public facilities, namely, existing highways and streets, sidewalks, and similar facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use.

Moreover, it can be said with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment; thus, it is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061, subdivision (b)(3). Additionally, direction to staff on parameters of a regulatory program does not constitute a “project approval” under CEQA.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Alternative 1: Do not introduce and adopt an ordinance enacting a moratorium on the deployment and operation of PDDs on public rights-of-way. 51 of 236

10a8
26-90223
6 9
7 2

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Daniel Hernandez, Director of Public Works
Prepared by:

Petra Beglarian, Public Works Manager
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
N/A
52 of 236

1 6
9 1
8 ORDINANCE NO. _______

AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE,

CALIFORNIA, ENACTING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE

DEPLOYMENT AND OPERATION OF PERSONAL DELIVERY DEVICES ON

PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY IN THE CITY OF GLENDALE
WHEREAS, the City of Glendale has a substantial governmental interest in protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of persons using the City's streets, sidewalks, crosswalks, curb ramps, pedestrian paths of travel, parkways, and other portions of the public right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the public right-of-way is a limited public resource that must safely accommodate pedestrians, persons using wheelchairs and other mobility devices, persons with visual, hearing, cognitive, and other disabilities, older adults, children, bicyclists, transit riders, motorists, emergency responders, public works and utility operations, commercial loading, refuse collection, deliveries, outdoor dining, street furniture, trees, landscaping, and other public and private uses authorized by law; and WHEREAS, personal delivery devices, commonly described as food delivery robots or sidewalk delivery robots, are motorized devices used or intended to be used to transport food, packages, merchandise, or other items for commercial delivery, and may be operated remotely, semi-autonomously, autonomously, or by a combination of remote-control and automated functions; and
WHEREAS, personal delivery devices are an emerging technology whose operation in the public right-of-way may provide convenience to consumers and businesses, but also raises unresolved local issues regarding pedestrian safety, accessibility, traffic control compliance, right-of-way obstruction, device size and speed, stopping and dwelling, interaction with driveways and alleys, crosswalk operations, emergency response, insurance, indemnity, data reporting, enforcement, and operator responsibility; and
WHEREAS, the City has observed, received reports of, or has reason to anticipate the deployment of personal delivery devices on sidewalks and other portions of the public right-of-way within Glendale without a comprehensive local regulatory program governing permits/licenses, operating conditions, fleet size, approved routes or zones, hours of operation, device specifications, incident reporting, data reporting, customer service, indemnification, insurance, removal, impoundment, or penalties; and WHEREAS, without local operating standards and an enforceable regulatory program, the deployment of personal delivery devices may create conflicts with pedestrians and other lawful users of the public right-of-way, particularly in commercial districts, transit-adjacent areas, high-pedestrian corridors, narrow sidewalks, construction zones, special event areas, and locations with existing sidewalk congestion; and
53 of 236

1 6
9 1
8 WHEREAS, maintaining a clear and accessible pedestrian path of travel is essential to ensuring that sidewalks and crossings remain usable by persons with disabilities, including persons using wheelchairs, walkers, canes, service animals, or other mobility aids, and by persons with visual or hearing impairments who may have difficulty detecting, anticipating, or avoiding a motorized device operating on a sidewalk or at a crosswalk; and
WHEREAS, personal delivery devices may stop, dwell, queue, stage, park, or become disabled in locations that obstruct sidewalks, curb ramps, building entrances, transit stops, crosswalks, driveways, fire access areas, loading zones, outdoor dining areas, or other locations where obstruction may create safety, accessibility, or operational impacts; and
WHEREAS, the City requires time to evaluate whether, and under what conditions, personal delivery devices may safely and appropriately operate in Glendale's public right-of-way, including whether a pilot program, permit program, geographic limitations, fleet caps, speed limits, operating-hour restrictions, insurance requirements, indemnification requirements, data reporting requirements, device identification requirements, local-contact requirements, enforcement mechanisms, removal procedures, or complete prohibition should be adopted; and WHEREAS, a temporary moratorium will preserve the status quo and prohibit deployment and operation of personal delivery devices while the City studies existing and potential impacts, consults with affected departments and stakeholders, evaluates practices adopted by other jurisdictions, assesses staffing and enforcement needs, and prepares appropriate local regulations for City Council consideration; and WHEREAS, allowing unregulated deployment of personal delivery devices while the City studies these issues could result in operational patterns, business reliance, public expectations, or right-of-way impacts that may make later regulation more difficult and could undermine the City's ability to protect pedestrian safety, accessibility, and the orderly management of the public right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the prohibition imposed by this Ordinance is limited in scope and duration, applies only to the deployment or operation of personal delivery devices in the public right-of-way, does not prohibit traditional human delivery services, and does not regulate the content of speech or favor or disfavor any particular business based on viewpoint, message, or commodity delivered; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds this Ordinance is a reasonable and necessary interim measure to protect the public health, safety, and welfare while the City develops a comprehensive regulatory approach tailored to Glendale's local conditions; and WHEREAS, the Council further finds that the moratorium is necessary to protect pedestrian safety, accessibility for persons with disabilities, the orderly use and management of the public right-of-way, and the City's ability to adopt and enforce 54 of 236

1 6
9 1
8 regulations before personal delivery devices become more widely deployed within the City; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to direct City staff to study and return with recommendations regarding appropriate long-term regulation of personal delivery devices; and
WHEREAS, the Council finds that the adoption of this Ordinance is consistent with the City's police powers and its authority to regulate the use of City streets, sidewalks, and other public places in order to protect public health, safety, welfare, accessibility, and the orderly use of the public right-of-way; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the absence of this temporary moratorium creates a present risk that personal delivery devices may operate on sidewalks, curb ramps, crosswalks, parkways, transit stops, and other portions of the public right-of-way in a manner that obstructs pedestrian travel, interferes with disability access, creates conflicts with pedestrians and vehicles, or impairs the orderly and safe use of the public right-of-way; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that immediate effectiveness is necessary because the City currently lacks a comprehensive local permit program or operating standards specifically designed to address personal delivery devices in the right-of-way, including standards for device identification, local operator contacts, emergency removal, response to disabled or abandoned devices, required reporting of collisions or near misses, and procedures to ensure that sidewalks, curb ramps, and accessible paths of travel remain unobstructed; and
WHEREAS, for the reasons stated in this Ordinance, the Council finds and declares that this Ordinance is necessary as an urgency measure for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety, and that the facts constituting the urgency are the existing absence of comprehensive local regulation for personal delivery devices, the potential for immediate or expanded deployment in the public right- of-way, the risks to pedestrian safety and disability access, and the need to preserve the status quo while the City studies and adopts appropriate regulations; and

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

SECTION 1. Incorporation. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein, as is the information contained in the Reports to Council dated March 31, 2026 and July 14, 2026.

SECTION 2. Definitions. As used herein, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings ascribed to them, unless otherwise noted:
55 of 236

1 6
9 1
8 “Personal delivery device” (“PDD”) means any motorized device, excluding any conveyance regulated under the California Vehicle Code, that is manufactured for transporting goods, products, or other items on a public right-of-way and equipped with automated and/or manual operation technology, including software and hardware, and which may be a device that operates with the remote support and supervision of a human, or a device that operates without the remote support and supervision of a human.
“Public right-of-way” means any public highway, street, alley, sidewalk, parkway, paseo, and all extensions or additions thereto which is either owned, operated, or controlled by the city, or is subject to an easement or dedication to the city.

SECTION 3. Prohibition. No person shall deploy or operate, or cause to be deployed or operated, a personal delivery device on any public right-of-way in the city.

SECTION 4. Penalties and Remedies. It shall be a misdemeanor to do any act prohibited by this Ordinance, and such violations shall be punishable in accordance with Glendale Municipal Code Section 1.20.010. Violations of this Ordinance may also be subject to administrative code enforcement remedies pursuant to the administrative code enforcement remedies and procedures under Chapter 1.24 of the Glendale Municipal Code, or may be deemed a public nuisance and may be enforced by an action for injunction or civil penalties as provided in the Glendale Municipal Code, or may be addressed by any other remedy authorized by law.

SECTION 5. Study. The Council hereby directs City staff to further study and prepare draft regulations for personal delivery devices, including but not limited to a permitting structure, operating standards, fleet limitations, operating distances, geographic restrictions, hours of operation, levels of automation, insurance and indemnity, ADA and accessibility requirements, device identification, data reporting, incident reporting, penalties, impoundment, administrative remedies, and coordination among City departments including Public Works, Police, Fire, Community Development, Economic Development, and the City Attorney's Office, as directed by Council; and SECTION 6. Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act. The City Council finds and determines that this Ordinance is categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15301, in that it consists of the operation of existing public facilities, namely, existing highways and streets, sidewalks, and similar facilities, involving negligible or no expansion of existing or former use. Moreover, the City Council finds and determines with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment; thus, it is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15061, subdivision (b)(3).

SECTION 7. Urgency. By the Council's making the findings and determinations of fact which the Council declares to constitute an urgency for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety, or welfare, the Council hereby declares that this Ordinance is an urgency measure pursuant to City of Glendale Charter Article VI, Section 7, which 56 of 236

1 6
9 1
8 becomes effective immediately upon adoption by an affirmative vote of at least four-fifths (4/5ths) of the members of the City Council.

SECTION 8. Severability. This Ordinance is adopted under the authority of the Charter of the City of Glendale. If any section, subsection, clause or phrase is declared invalid or otherwise void by a court of competent jurisdiction, it shall not affect any remaining provisions hereof. In this regard, the Council finds and declares that it would have adopted this measure notwithstanding any partial invalidity hereof.

SECTION 9. Effectiveness. This Ordinance shall go into effect immediately upon its adoption and shall be of no further force and effect ___________ thereafter, unless extended by further action of the Council.

Passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale on the _____ day of _______________, 2026.
____________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________
City Clerk
57 of 236

1 6
9 1
8 STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.

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

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
______________________________
City Clerk
58 of 236

1 7
6 3
0 M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member _________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that with respect to the Report to Council dated July 14, 2026 (“Report”) regarding personal delivery devices (PDDs) on public rights-of way, the Council directs staff to prepare draft regulations pertaining to PDDs including but not limited to permitting structure, operating standards, fleet limitations, operating distances, geographic restrictions, hours of operation, levels of automation, insurance and indemnity, ADA and accessibility requirements, device identification, data reporting, incident reporting, penalties, impoundment, and administrative remedies, as follows:

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
59 of 236

From: TJ Passarella
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Brotman, Daniel; Golanian, Roubik; Gharpetian, Vartan; Takhtalian, John; Asatryan, Elen; Garcia, Michael J.

Subject: Are Food Delivery Robots Right For Glendale
Date: Thursday, June 18, 2026 7:15:20 AM
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Council & Staff,
Sidewalks are for people......period, full stop, end of story!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn8YDGRGiPQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gj6JDkx3A6k
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/gshCVVhHZwo
See You next Tuesday night,
Tony Passarella
60 of 236

From: TJ Passarella
To: Golanian, Roubik; Asatryan, Elen; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Brotman, Daniel; Gharpetian, Vartan; Takhtalian, John; Garcia, Michael J.

Subject: ABC News Chicago
Date: Monday, June 22, 2026 6:45:08 AM
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Council & Staff,
Please watch this news report from ABC Chicago. Food delivery robots crash. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5OFbWE3K9-k
Can't wait to see you on Tuesday. You gave me to swings at this. Millions for ADA cut out ramps on same night as food delivery robots vote. The contradiction of the century.

BRILLIANT!
Thank you!!!
Tony Passarella
61 of 236

From: TJ Passarella
To: Brotman, Daniel; Asatryan, Elen; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Golanian, Roubik; Gharpetian, Vartan; Takhtalian, John; Garcia, Michael J.

Subject: A I Fail
Date: Friday, June 19, 2026 7:15:33 AM
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Council & Staff,
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/vgL1SX4_e5Q
Se you on tuesday,
Tony Passarella
62 of 236

63 of 236

64 of 236

65 of 236

66 of 236

67 of 236

10b
26-90309

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Beeline Comprehensive Operational Analysis and Integration Study Final Report and Recommendations

1.Motion to note and file the Beeline Comprehensive Operational Analysis and Integration Study Final Report, and directing staff to prepare necessary actions and approvals for Council authorization to implement Transit service changes.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for July 14, 2026 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Comprehensive Operational Analysis and Integration Study, known as the Beeline Buzz Plan (Plan), incorporated public input to evaluate Beeline services and recommend enhancements by assessing route alignments, running times, and service spans; fine-tuning service levels; and integrating Beeline services with other transit systems to ensure optimal allocation of City resources.

RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council approve the motion to note and file the Plan final report and direct staff to prepare necessary actions and approvals for Council authorization to implement Transit service changes.

ANALYSIS
The last Beeline Comprehensive Operational Analysis was completed in 2019. City Council approved recommendations including increased frequency on two routes, the addition of a new route that connected Glendale Community College to Glendale Transportation Center, and evening pilot service recommendations. These changes were implemented on November 15, 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic and decline in ridership during that time period, the City did not move forward with the evening pilot service recommendations.
68 of 236

10b2
26-90309
6 9
4 6
On July 30, 2024, the City awarded a contract to Dan Boyle & Associates (DBA) for a Beeline Comprehensive Operational Analysis and Integration Study to develop and update transit delivery strategies in response to existing and future conditions. The pandemic, new technologies, changing demographics, and evolving travel preferences have continued to disrupt how people travel. The comprehensive operational analysis was designed to capture precise data such as rider and non-rider surveys, operational data, outreach comments, and analyze the entire network of fixed-route transit services, regardless of provider, within the Glendale Beeline service area, with the goal of ensuring service integration among all transit operators.

The Plan was launched in Fall 2024 and began to collect data to analyze Beeline’s performance. The Plan undertook a detailed data collection and analysis process along with extensive public outreach to provide the city with a comprehensive view of current fixed-route services and fact-based recommendations for service enhancements that promote internal and regional connectivity. The on-board survey and outreach efforts provide current input from current riders to serve as a foundation for strategies to improve service quality, customer experience, and passenger satisfaction.

Study Findings
Operationally, the Beeline recovered well from the pandemic with ridership generally back to 2018 levels, with the noted exception of Express Routes (Routes 11 and 12).

Route 8, introduced in 2020, is the third-highest ridership line and reflects the success of the previous service change. A key measure of productivity or effectiveness is passengers per revenue hour. For a local service like the Glendale Beeline, the target is 10 passengers per revenue service hour. Based on the analysis prepared by the consultant, all routes except for Routes 11 and 12 operate above 10 boardings per hour.

Working with Beeline personnel, the project team identified service options and developed recommendations for enhanced service, based on:
Ridership patterns revealed by the ridecheck;
Passenger preferences noted on the on-board survey;
Rider and non-rider needs and preferences gathered through the public outreach process;
Discussions with Beeline staff, including a daylong meeting with bus operators as they reported for and signed out of their shifts; and
Discussions with neighboring cities, transit agencies, and personnel at major ridership generators.

Concepts underlying the recommendations include a focus on the City of Glendale, the Beeline as a wise steward of resources, extended service hours, coordination with our regional partners, coordination with our municipal and business partners, and anticipation of future transit projects. Recommendations include short-term improvements (within the next year) and longer-term improvements (in 2 to 5 years). 69 of 236

10b3
26-90309
6 9
4 6
Recommended Service Changes
The project team identified near- and medium-term recommendations based on ridership patterns, passenger preferences noted in the onboard survey, preferences from public meetings and outreach events, Beeline staff, and discussions with neighboring transit agencies.

Near-Term Recommendations (Year One):
Add additional bus on Route 8 on weekday afternoons to improve on-time performance;
Adjust Route 11 to serve Glendale Civic Center;
Add midday service on Route 12;
Add additional afternoon trip on Route 34 at bell time; Friday and Saturday evening pilot would extend service span to 10:15 pm on Routes 1 through 8. If selected for implementation, staff will evaluate performance at the six and twelve month marks;
Add Sunday pilot service on Routes 8 and 31;
Explore funding opportunities for reduced K-12 student fares pilot program; and Implement Automatic Passenger Counters to ensure accurate counts of boardings and alighting.

Medium-Term Recommendations (Years Two to Five):
Expand evening pilot service to Mondays through Thursdays.

Cost Estimates for Plan Implementation
The Beeline is primarily funded through the Transit Utility Fund and various regional, state, and federal grants. The near-term recommendations total $1.5 million net operating costs (after assumed growth in fares). Total medium-term recommendations total $1.2 million net operating costs. In total, full implementation would require an additional $2.7 million net annual operating costs. Other capital and planning efforts could be funded through grants or existing efforts.

Near-Term Recommendations Estimated Costs
Recommendation Estimated
Fare Revenue
Operating
Cost Net Annual Cost
Route 8 – Additional PM bus $ 4,747 $ 186,847 $ 182,100 Route 34 – Shift PM trip from
Route 33 $ 0 $0 $ 0
Route 11 – Serve Civic
Center $ 273 $ 18,734 $ 18,461
Route 12 – Add midday
service $ 6,156 $ 353,481 $ 347,325
Routes 1-8 – Friday evening
pilot $ 8,561 $ 313,161 $ 304,600
70 of 236

10b4
26-90309
6 9
4 6
Route 1-8 (incl. 31) –
Saturday evening pilot $11,306 $ 427,468 $ 416,162
Routes 3 & 8 – Sunday pilot $ 9,403 $ 237,962 $ 228,559 Reduced Student Fares pilot
(Half-price) ($ 9,685) $ 0 $ 9,685
Automated Passenger
Counters Capital Cost Only
Near-Term Pilot Total $30,761 $1,537,653 $1,506,892
Medium-Term Recommendations Estimated Costs
Recommendation Net Annual Cost
Routes 1-8 – Weekday
Evening Pilot M-Th $33,422 $1,222,534 $1,189,112
Medium-Term Pilot Total $33,422 $1,222,534 $1,189,112
Next Steps
Pending City Council approval, staff will implement the no cost recommendations and will return with an implementation package which will include potential operations contract modification, updates to Beeline media, and evaluation matrix to assess pilot effectiveness.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The Plan used a range of public engagement strategies to gather feedback on its recommendations, including two key surveys and outreach events.

The Onboard Survey, conducted in English, Spanish, Korean, and Armenian in late 2024 and early 2025, collected feedback from 1,316 riders. Results showed most trips began and ended in Glendale, with riders primarily accessing the Beeline by walking or transferring. Riders’ top improvement requests were for more weekend and later evening service, and overall satisfaction was high, especially regarding cleanliness, safety, and operator courtesy.

The Community Survey, available in English, Spanish, Korean, and Armenian from July to October 2025, gathered 278 responses from both riders and non-riders at various locations and events. Riders prioritized later weekday and weekend service, while non- riders most frequently asked for better connectivity, faster routes, and more frequent service.

Additional outreach included four virtual focus groups in June 2025 with local partners, where participants highlighted the need for increased frequency, coverage, awareness, and coordination. Outreach in July 2025 also included conducting intercept surveys with riders along two of the busiest routes, the least productive route, and at bus stops of two major transfer points in the Beeline network. In early 2026, targeted meetings at senior housing and with Glendale Community College students revealed requests for expanded healthcare access, improved reliability, and more information for seniors, along with continued praise for cleanliness and driver conduct. 71 of 236

10b5
26-90309
6 9
4 6
The project team also hosted several public meetings, both virtual and in-person, where feedback centered on expanding coverage, improving reliability, and connecting to new destinations. The public comment period remained open through June 12, 2026, to collect further input.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Beeline Comprehensive Operational Analysis will cost $2,760,187 annually if fully implemented. This cost would be partially offset by an estimated $64,183 increase in fare revenue, resulting in a net annual cost of $2,696,004. The annual cost includes $1,537,653 for near-term updates and $1,222,534 for medium-term updates. Funding for these recommendations was not included in the FY 2026-27 proposed budget.

Should Council wish to proceed with the recommendations, funding for the service changes and capital costs is available from multiple transit local return program fund balances as well as discretionary grants. Staff will return to Council to request the appropriation.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
CEQA does not apply to projects where the lead agency determines "with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment." 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3); Here, the action is to note a file a report and direct staff to return to the Council for approval implementing actions.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not applicable.

ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION
1: Direct staff to implement changes to the Transit system not recommended by the Beeline Comprehensive Operational Analysis. Staff will evaluate feasibility of proposed changes and report back on budgetary and contractual impacts. This option would delay implementation of the COA and potentially impact ridership growth

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Daniel Hernandez, Director of Public Works
Prepared by:

Steven Mateer, Deputy Director of Public Works
Approved by:

Roubik R. Golanian, P.E., City Manager
72 of 236

10b6
26-90309
6 9
4 6

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Final Glendale Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 Comprehensive Operational Analysis Report
73 of 236

1 7
5 1
6 M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby notes and files the Beeline Comprehensive Operational Analysis and Integration Study Final Report, and directs staff to prepare necessary actions and approvals for Council authorization to implement Transit service changes.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
74 of 236

Draft Final Report
June 12, 2026
75 of 236

Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page i
Glendale Beeline
The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026
Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... ES-1 Ridership and Productivity ...................................................................................... ES-3 On-board Survey Findings...................................................................................... ES-6 Regional Transit Service in and Near Glendale ....................................................... ES-7 Public Outreach ..................................................................................................... ES-7 Outreach – Community Partners............................................................................. ES-8 Outreach – Seniors in Senior Housing and GCC Students ....................................... ES-9 Recommendations ................................................................................................ . ES-9

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION AND PREVIOUS STUDIES ................................................ 1-1

1.0 Introduction and Study Purpose..................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Organization of the Transit Route Analysis Report ......................................... 1-2

1.2 Review of Previous Studies ........................................................................... 1-3

1.3 Summary...................................................................................................... 1-9

Chapter 2 ROUTE PROFILES ...................................................................................... 2-1

2.0 Introduction .................................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Overall Findings............................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Route Profiles ............................................................................................... 2-8 Route 1 Glendale Transportation Center (GTC) to Stocker Square ................. 2-9 Route 3 Glendale Galleria to Jet Propulsion Laboratory (weekdays) and Route 31 Glendale Galleria to La Crescenta (Saturday) ............................... 2-11 Route 33 La Cañada Flintridge (LCF) Shuttle: Montrose to JPL .................... 2-13 Route 34 LCF Shuttle: Montrose to La Cañada High School ......................... 2-15 Route 4 Glendale Transportation Center (GTC) to Glendale Galleria ........... 2-17 Route 5 Pacific Community Center & Park to Hoover High School ................ 2-19 Route 6 Pacific Community Center & Park to Glendale High School ............. 2-21 Route 7 Riverside Rancho to Glendale Community College .......................... 2-23 R oute 8 Glendale Transportation Center to Glendale Community College ..... 2-25 Route 11 Metrolink Express: GTC to Downtown Glendale ............................ 2-27 Route 12 Metrolink Express: GTC to Downtown Burbank Station .................. 2-29

Chapter 3 ON-BOARD SURVEY ................................................................................... 3-1

3.0 I ntroduction .................................................................................................. 3-1

3.1 Summary of On-Board Survey Findings ......................................................... 3-1

3.2 Ridership Information and Travel Patterns ..................................................... 3-2

3.3 Rider Preferences ....................................................................................... 3-13

3.4 Current and Preferred Means of Obtaining Information about the Beeline ..... 3-15

3.5 Customer Demographics and Ratings of Service Elements .......................... 3-20

3.6 Trends over Time: Comparison to 2018, 2013, and 2008 On-board Surveys . 3-27

76 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 Table of Contents
Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page ii
Chapter 4 REGIONAL BUS SERVICE IN AND NEAR GLENDALE ................................ . 4-1

4.0 Introduction .................................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Metro Routes in Glendale .............................................................................. 4-1

4.2 LADOT Commuter Express and DASH Routes .............................................. 4-9

4.3 Burbank Bus ............................................................................................... 4-10

4.4 Pasadena Transit........................................................................................ 4-11

4.5 Market Analysis for Transit Service in Glendale............................................ 4-11

4.5.1 Residential Density ..................................................................................... 4- 12

4.5.2 Employment Density ................................................................................... 4-13

4.5.3 Activity Density ........................................................................................... 4- 15

4.6 General Travel Patterns: Origin-Destination Travel Maps (Replica Analysis) . 4-16

4.6.1 All Trip Purposes, All Modes ....................................................................... 4-16

4.6.2 Work and School Trips, All Modes ............................................................... 4-18 4 .7 Summary.................................................................................................... 4-21

Chapter 5 PUBLIC OUTREACH

5.0 Overview ...................................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Stakeholder Engagement .............................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Initial Public Meeting ..................................................................................... 5-6

5.3 Community Survey Results ........................................................................... 5-7

5.4 Interviews with Community Partners ............................................................ 5-15

5.5 Outreach to Seniors in Senior Housing Communities and to GCC Students .. 5-18

5.6 Final Public Meetings .................................................................................. 5-21

Chapter 6 SERVICE CONCEPTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................... 6-1

6.0 Introduction .................................................................................................. 6-1

6.1 Short-term Recommendations (within One Year) ........................................... 6-3

6.2 Longer-Term Options (One to Five Years) ..................................................... 6-8

6.3 R
idership, Revenue, and Cost Impacts ........................................................ 6- 10

6.4 Impacts on Access via Transit for Glendale Residents.................................. 6- 11

Appendix A Ridership Detail ................................................................ .Under separate cover Appendix B Meeting Details with Seniors in Senior Housing Communities and GCC Students............................................................................................ B-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES.1 Beeline November 2024 Ridership by Route and Day of Week ..................... ES-3 Table ES.2 Beeline Percentage Changes in Ridership by Route and Day of Week, 2018 to 2024 ......................................................................................... ES-4 Table ES.3 Beeline 2024 Boardings per Revenue Hour by Route and Day of Week ........ ES-5 Table ES.4 Annual Impacts of Recommendations ........................................................ ES-11 Table 2.1 Beeline 2024 Daily Ridership by Route and Day of Week ............................... 2-2 Table 2.2 Beeline Percentage Changes in Ridership by Route and Day of Week, 2018 to 2024 ................................................................................................ 2-4 Table 2.3 Beeline 2024 Boardings per Revenue Hour by Route and Day of Week .......... 2-5 77 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 Table of Contents
Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page iii
Table 2.4 Beeline Percentage Changes in Boardings per Revenue Hour by Route and Day of Week, 2018 to 2024 ..................................................................... 2-6 Table 2.5 Beeline Schedule Adherence ........................................................................ 2-7 Table 2.6 Beeline Changes in Schedule Adherence by Route and Day of Week, 2018 to 2024 (in Percentage Points) ................................................................ . 2-8 Table 3.1 Survey Results: Intersections/Locations with the Greatest Number of Boardings ............................................................................................... 3-6 Table 3.2 Survey Results: Intersections/Locations with the Greatest Number of Alightings ................................................................................................ 3-6 Table 3.3 Reported and Adjusted Frequency of Ridership ............................................. 3-9 Table 3.4 Mobile Devices Carried by Beeline Customers by Income ............................ 3-16 Table 3.5 Mobile Devices Carried by Beeline Customers by Age ................................ . 3-16 Table 3.6 Detailed Ratings of Beeline Service Elements .............................................. 3- 24 Table 3.7 Importance of Service Elements .................................................................. 3- 25 Table 3.8 Language, 2008-2024 ................................................................................. 3-27 Table 3.9 Trip Purpose, All Days, 2008-2024 .............................................................. 3- 27 Table 3.10 Means of Access, 2008-2024 ...................................................................... 3-27 Table 3.11 Means of Egress, 2008-2024....................................................................... 3-28 Table 3.12 Reported Frequency of Ridership, 2008-2024 .............................................. 3- 28 Table 3.13 Ridership History, 2008-2024 ...................................................................... 3-28 Table 3.14 Fare Payment, 2008-2024 ........................................................................... 3- 29 Table 3.15 Preferred Fare Payment Method, 2013-2024 ............................................... 3-29 Table 3.16 Primary Information Source, 2008-2024 ....................................................... 3-29 Table 3.17 Preferred Information Source, 2013-2024 .................................................... 3-30 Table 3.18 Mobile Devices Carried by Beeline Customers, 2013-2024 ........................... 3- 30 Table 3.19 Age, 2008-2024 .......................................................................................... 3-30 Table 3.20 Gender, 2008-2024 ..................................................................................... 3-31 Table 3.21 E thnicity, 2008-2024 ................................................................................... 3-31 Table 3.22 Household Vehicle Ownership, 2008-2024................................................... 3-31 Table 3.23 Household Income among Local Beeline Riders, 2013-2024 ........................ 3- 32 Table 3.24 2008-2024 Ratings of Service Elements ...................................................... 3-32 Table 4.1 Boardings and Alightings on Metro Routes within the City of Glendale ............ 4-1 Table 4.2 Boardings and Alightings on Metro Line 90 within the City of Glendale ............ 4-2 Table 4.3 Boardings and Alightings on Metro Line 92 within the City of Glendale ............ 4-3 Table 4.4 Boardings and Alightings on Metro Line 93 within the City of Glendale ............ 4-4 Table 4.5 Boardings and Alightings on Metro Line 94 within the City of Glendale ............ 4-5 Table 4.6 Boardings and Alightings on Metro Line 180 within the City of Glendale .......... 4-6 Table 4.7 Boardings and Alightings on Metro Line 217 within the City of Glendale .......... 4-7 Table 4.8 Boardings and Alightings on Metro Line 501 within the City of Glendale .......... 4-8 Table 4.9 Boardings and Alightings on Metro Line 685 within the City of Glendale ........ 4-10 Table 4.10 Boardings and Alightings on Other Metro Lines within the City of Glendale ... 4-11 Table 5.1 Focus Group Participants .............................................................................. 5-3 Table 5.2 Community Survey: Beeline Usage within the Past Year ................................ 5-7 Table 5.3 Community Survey: How Respondents Heard about the Beeline Buzz Plan .... 5-7 Table 5.4 Community Survey: Frequency of Beeline Use .............................................. 5-8 Table 5.5 Community Survey: Trip Purpose .................................................................. 5-8 Table 5.6 Community Survey: Connections with Other Transit Operators ....................... 5-9 78 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 Table of Contents
Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page iv
Table 5.7 Community Survey: Mode of Access to the Beeline ........................................ 5-9 Table 5.8 Community Survey: Fare Payment Method .................................................. 5-10 Table 5.9 Community Survey: Source of Route or Schedule Information ...................... 5-10 Table 5.10 Community Survey: Preferences for Service Hour Improvements ................. 5-11 Table 5.11 Community Survey: Reasons for Not Riding the Beeline............................... 5-12 Table 5.12 Community Survey: Improvements to Encourage Non-riders to Ride ............ 5-13 Table 5.13 Community Survey: How Non-riders Travel.................................................. 5-13 Table 5.14 Community Survey: Respondent Demographics .......................................... 5-14 Table 5.15 Senior Community Meetings ....................................................................... 5-18 Table 5.16 Glendale Community College Student Meetings........................................... 5- 20 Table 5.17 Details of Public Meetings ........................................................................... 5- 22 Table 6.1 The Beeline Buzz Plan Recommendations: Daily Impacts ............................ 6-10 Table 6.2 The Beeline Buzz Plan Recommendations: Annual Impacts ......................... 6-11

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ES.1 Glendale Beeline and Other Transit Routes in and through Glendale ............ ES-1 Figure 1.1 Glendale Beeline and Other Transit Routes in and through Glendale .............. 1-1 Figure 2.1 Beeline Boardings by Stop on Weekdays....................................................... 2-4 Figure 3.1 Survey Responses by Language ................................................................... 3-3 Figure 3.2 Survey Responses by Beeline Route ............................................................. 3-4 Figure 3.3 Trip Purpose ................................................................................................ . 3-5 Figure 3.4 Means of Access to the Bus .......................................................................... 3-7 Figure 3.5 Means of Egress from the Bus ...................................................................... 3-8 Figure 3.6 Reported History of Ridership........................................................................ 3-9 Figure 3.7 Ridership History on the Beeline .................................................................. 3-10 Figure 3.8 Fare Category of Beeline Riders .................................................................. 3-11 Figure 3.9 Fare Payment Methods on the Beeline ........................................................ 3-12 Figure 3.10 Rider Preferences ....................................................................................... 3-13 Figure 3.11 Factors That Prevent Increasing Use of Beeline ........................................... 3- 14 Figure 3.12 Mobile Devices Carried by Beeline Customers ............................................. 3-15 Figure 3.13 N
extBus Use .............................................................................................. 3- 17 Figure 3.14 Primary Source of Bus Schedule Information ............................................... 3-17 Figure 3.15 Preferred Source of Bus Schedule Information in the Future ......................... 3-18 Figure 3.16 Metro TAP Card Ownership ........................................................................ 3- 18 Figure 3.17 Future Fare Payment Preferences ............................................................... 3-19 Figure 3.18 Age of Beeline Customers ........................................................................... 3-20 Figure 3.19 Gender of Beeline Customers ..................................................................... 3-21 Figure 3.20 Ethnicity of Beeline Customers .................................................................... 3-21 Figure 3.21 Household Vehicle Ownership among Beeline Customers ............................ 3-22 Figure 3.22 Household Income among Beeline Customers ............................................. 3-22 Figure 3.23 Average Ratings of Beeline Service Elements .............................................. 3- 23 Figure 3.24 Importance vs. Performance for Beeline Service Elements ........................... 3- 26 Figure 4.1 DASH Highland Park/Eagle Rock .................................................................. 4-9 Figure 4.2 Burbank Bus Network ................................................................................. 4-10 Figure 4.3 Pasadena Transit Network .......................................................................... 4-11 Figure 4.4 Residential Density ..................................................................................... 4-12 79 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 Table of Contents
Dan Boyle & Associates, Inc. Page v
Figure 4.5 Job Density ................................................................................................ 4-13 Figure 4.6 Activity Density ........................................................................................... 4- 15 Figure 4.7 Origin-Destination Travel Flows – All Purposes, All Modes ........................... 4- 17 Figure 4.8 Work and School Trips, All Modes ............................................................... 4-18 Figure 4.9 Origin-Destination Travel Flows to Glendale Community College Zone ......... 4-20 Figure 5.1 Pop-up Event – Heritage Park at Glendale ................................................... 5-20 Figure 5.2 E- Survey Outreach Process .......................................................................... 5-3 Figure 5.3 Where Survey Respondents Live ................................................................ 5-12 Figure 5.4 Why Respondents Travel ............................................................................ 5-13 Figure 5.5 Where Respondents Work .......................................................................... 5-14 Figure 5.6 Where Respondents Commute.................................................................... 5-15 Figure 5.7 Time of Day for Departure and Return ......................................................... 5-16 Figure 5.8 Mode of Travel .......................................................................................... `5-17 Figure 5.9 Service Improvement Considerations for Solo Drivers and Non-Transit Users 5-20 Figure 5.10 Service Enhancement Considerations for Solo Drivers and Non-Transit Users ................................................................................. 5-20 Figure 5-11 Reasons to Ride the Bus............................................................................. 5-21 Figure 5-12 Beeline or LCF Shuttle Usage ..................................................................... 5- 21 Figure 5-13 Service Improvement Considerations for Beeline or LCF Shuttle Users ......... 5-22 Figure 5-14 Service Enhancement Considerations for Beeline or LCF Shuttle Users........ 5-22 Figure 5-15 Bus and Train Usage for LA Metro and Metrolink Riders............................... 5-23 Figure 5-16 Service Improvement Considerations for LA Metro and Metrolink Users ........ 5-23 Figure 5-17 Service Enhancement Considerations for LA Metro and Metrolink Users....... 5-24 Figure 6.1 Route 8 ........................................................................................................ 6-4 Figure 6.2 Route 11 Extension ...................................................................................... 6-5 Figure 6.3 Route 12 Midday Service .............................................................................. 6-6 Figure 6.4 Route 34 Trip Added to Route 33 .................................................................. 6-7 Figure 6.5 R oute 8 and Route 31 Sunday Service .......................................................... 6-8 Figure 6.6 How Far Can a Bus Rider Travel from Central Avenue and Broadway in 45 Minutes – Friday 8pm ............................................................................ 6-12 Figure 6.7 How Far Can a Bus Rider Travel from Central Avenue and Broadway in 45 Minutes – Sun. 11 am............................................................................ 6-13 Figure 6.8 How Far Can a Bus Rider Travel from Glendale Community College in 45 Minutes – Sun. 11 am............................................................................ 6-14 Figure 6-9 Proximity to Transit Service in Glendale: Proposed Friday Evening Service . 6-15 Figure 6-10 Proximity to Transit Service in Glendale: Proposed Sunday Service ............. 6-16

80 of 236

Dan Boyle & Associates Page ES-1

Glendale Beeline
The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026
Executive Summary

The Glendale Beeline operates seven local and two express routes in the City of Glendale and the surrounding area. Glendale is a transit-rich city, served by Beeline, Metro, and LADOT bus routes and Metrolink. as well as connecting to BurbankBus and Pasadena Transit routes as shown in Figure ES.1.

Figure ES.1
Glendale Beeline and Other Transit Routes in and through Glendale

81 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 Executive Summary
Dan Boyle & Associates Page ES-2

The purposes of this study include:

• Understanding the post-pandemic transit environment at the local, regional, and national levels
• Improving multimodal connections for residents, employees, and visitors in Glendale and surrounding areas while ensuring that the proposed transit network can serve as a sound foundation for future growth and change.
• Integrating Beeline, LCF Shuttle s, BurbankBus, Metro bus (including NoHo BRT), Metrolink and Amtrak transit services at a functional level so that riders can easily move between systems.
• Ensuring equitable access to transit, particularly in transit -oriented low -income neighborhoods.
• Supporting a resilient, zero-net community by designing a transit network that maximizes ease of use.
• Designing a transit network with a community focus that emphasizes efficiency, ease of use, safety, and convenience.

The pandemic significantly impacted public transportation throughout the country. The November 2024 ridecheck results show that the Beeline is back to 100 percent of 2019 ridership levels on its local routes, and ridership has continued to increase in 2025.

Metro’s NextGen study was not yet finalized in 2019, and its recommendations had a mixed impact on the City of Glendale and the Beeline. NextGen reduced bus service in East Glendale, an area that Metro has historically served, by discontinuing two routes and proposed Metro Micro, an Uber/Lyft type microtransit service, to replace the discontinued bus routes. Metro Micro was established within eight zones in the County, one of which included a significant portion of the City of Glendale, and was offered as a fare-free service for the first several years of operation.

While proposed as a replacement for discontinued bus routes, the major boarding and alighting stops within the Glendale Metro Micro zone are GCC and The Galleria/Americana at Brand. Both locations are already well-served by several Metro and Beeline routes.

The Beeline implemented several recommendations from the 2019 Transit Route Analysis , including the operation of Beeline service on Central Avenue and Metro service on Brand Boulevard, resulting in doubling the frequency of service from every 20 minutes to every 10 minutes at minimal cost, introducing a new Route 8 along Glendale Avenue (beginning at GTC and ending at GCC), improving the frequency of Route 4 and extending it to GTC, and cutting back Route 11 to serve Brand Boulevard only during peak hours. This study is more focused on assessing the impact of the pandemic on ridership and fine-tuning the bus network.

The Beeline Buzz Plan undertakes a detailed data collection and analysis process along with extensive public outreach to provide the City of Glendale with a comprehensive view of current fixed-route services and fact -based recommendations for service enhancements that promote internal and regional connectivity. The on-board survey and outreach efforts provide current input from today’s riders to serve as a foundation for strategies to improve service quality, the customer experience, and passenger satisfaction.

This executive summary describes ridership and performance of Beeline routes based on the 100 82 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 Executive Summary
Dan Boyle & Associates Page ES-3

percent ridecheck conducted in November 2024, presents results of the on-board survey of Beeline riders, examines opportunities for enhanced agency coordination of local and regional services within the City of Glendale and nearby areas, describes extensive outreach efforts to Glendale residents, employees, and businesses and summarizes the results of these efforts, identifies service options for the Beeline, and presents the recommended service plan.

Ridership and Productivity

Table ES.1 presents ridership by route for weekdays, Saturday, and Sunday. Route 4 Glendale Transportation Center (GTC) – Glendale Galleria has the highest weekday ridership (1,037 boardings per weekday) and ranks second in Saturday and Sunday ridership. Route 1 GTC – Stocker Square is second in weekday ridership, with 931 boardings and leads in Saturday and Sunday ridership. Route 8 GTC – Glendale Community College (GCC) is the newest Beeline route (introduced in 1999) and is third in weekday ridership. Other all-day routes have ridership in the range of 480 to 750 boardings per day. Routes 11 (Metrolink Express GTC to Downtown Glendale) and 12 (Metrolink Express GTC to Downtown Burbank Station) are express routes serving the Metrolink station at the GTC and operate in the morning and afternoon peak periods only, with schedules timed to meet Metrolink trains. On an annualized basis, Beeline ridership is

1.57 million, with 1.51 million on local routes and 56,000 on the express routes. 1 Table ES.1
Beeline November 2024 Ridership by
Route and Day of Week

Route Weekday Saturday Sunday
Riders Rank Riders Rank Riders Rank
1 931 2 584 1 496 1
3 only (31 Saturday) 731 4 201 3 -- --
33 115 9 -- -- -- --
34 83 10 -- -- -- --
4 1,278 1 439 2 350 2
5 525 6 105 7 -- --
6 485 7 158 5 -- --
7 700 5 121 6 -- --
8 737 3 186 4 -- --
11 81 11 -- -- -- --
12 137 8 -- -- -- --
Total 5,803 -- 1,794 -- 846 --
Local Routes 5,585 -- 1,794 -- 846 --
Express Routes 218 -- -- -- -- --
Source: Ridecheck Data, November 2024

1 Route totals were annualized by multiplying weekday ridership by 255 weekdays per year, Saturday ridership by 52 Saturdays per year, and Sunday ridership by 52 Sundays per year. Beeline service does not operate on six holidays. No seasonal adjustment was made. 83 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 Executive Summary
Dan Boyle & Associates Page ES-4

It should be noted that Routes 3, 31, 33, and 34 are interrelated: Route 3 is the long route on weekdays only between the Glendale Galleria and Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Route 31 operates only on Saturday between the Galleria and La Crescenta.

Routes 33 and 34 are the La Cañada Flintridge shuttles, operated by the Beeline for the City of La Cañada Flintridge and branded differently. Route 33 connects La Crescenta with the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Route 34 operates only around school bell times in the afternoon between La Cañada High School and La Crescenta.

Table ES.2 shows the change in Beeline ridership since the 2018 ridecheck. Fares are unchanged during this period. The comparison is challenging for two reasons: COVID significantly affected transit ridership at all transit systems, and there were several changes t o the Beeline transit network in 2019, including:

• Combining Routes 1 and 2 on Central Avenue and Brand Boulevard into a single route along Central Avenue;
• Discontinuing Route 32 (a short -line version of Route 3, providing additional weekday service between the Glendale Galleria and Glendale Community College); • Establishing a new Route 8 along Glendale Avenue.

Table ES.2
Beeline Percentage Changes in Ridership by
Route and Day of Week, 2018 to 2024
Route Weekday Saturday Sunday
1 +72% +152% +148%
2 -100% -100% -100%
3 (31 Saturday) -27% -12% --
32 -100% -- --
33 -46% -- --
34 -19% -- --
4 +23% +1% +22%
5 -20% -19% --
6 -3% -45% --
7 -11% -32% --
8 Began service in 2019
11 -57% -- --
12 -55% -- --
Total -4% +1% +19%
Local Routes 0% +1% +19%
Express Routes -56% -- --
Routes 1 and 2 -16% +13% +17%
Source: Ridecheck Data, 2024 and 2018

The good news in Table ES.2 is that local ridership (excluding the Metrolink Express routes) has returned to its 2018 level. Transit services built around the work commute (such as Metrolink and 84 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 Executive Summary
Dan Boyle & Associates Page ES-5

Routes 11 and 12) have been hit hardest in terms of ridership because many commuters still have the option of working at home for at least one day of the week.

Overall ridership has decreased by four percent on weekdays, increased by one percent on Saturday, and increased by 19 percent on Sunday. Ridership losses on Routes 3 and 7 may have resulted from the introduction of Route 8, since all these routes serve GCC (Route 8 is not shown on Table ES.2 or any of the percentage change tables because it began operation in 2019). The 2019 service changes increased the frequency on Route 4 to every 10 minutes on weekdays.

Table ES.3 shows service effectiveness in terms of passenger boardings per revenue hour, a common measure of productivity in the transit industry. Route 34 Montrose – La Cañada High School Shuttle (with only three trips at school bell times), Route 5 Pacific Community Center and Park – Hoover High School, and the new Route 8 GTC-GCC are the most productive routes on weekdays, while Route 4 GTC – Glendale Galleria is the most productive route on weekends.

The Metrolink Express routes have the lowest productivity. On an annualized basis, i.e., including all weekday, Saturday, and Sunday service, overall productivity is 20.9 passenger boardings per revenue hour.

As a general rule of thumb in assessing service effectiveness by means of passenger boardings per revenue hour on weekdays, 40 indicates a strong route, 20 is acceptable for a community route, and anything below 10 is suggests a need to examine the route more closely and restructure, change span of service or cancel service. The lowest productivity is seen on Route 11 Metrolink Express-GTC to Downtown Glendale on weekdays, with 6.8 boardings per revenue hour.

Table ES.3
Beeline 2024 Boardings per Revenue Hour by
Route and Day of Week

Route Weekday Saturday Sunday
B/RH Rank B/RH Rank B/RH Rank
1 14.6 8 13.3 2 11.3 2
3 (31 Saturday) 15.3 7 8.6 6 -- --
33 9.6 9 -- -- -- --
34 39.5 1 -- -- -- --
4 17.7 6 19.1 1 15.3 1
5 22.3 2 12.9 3 -- --
6 20.3 4 9.9 5 -- --
7 18.7 5 7.8 7 -- --
8 20.4 3 11.6 4
11 6.8 11 -- -- -- --
12 8.1 10 -- -- -- --
Total 16.7 -- 12.3 -- 12.7 --
Local Routes 17.5 -- 12.3 -- 12.7 --
Express Routes 7.5 -- -- -- -- --
*Routes 1 and 2 14.6 -- 13.3 -- 11.3 --
Source: Ridecheck Data, November 2024
85 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 Executive Summary
Dan Boyle & Associates Page ES-6

Percentage changes in Beeline boardings per revenue hour are similar to changes in ridership, with the exception of Route 4. Service levels doubled while ridership rose by only 28 percent since the 2018 ridecheck, resulting in decreased riders per revenue hours. The combined Routes 1 and 2 had similar changes in ridership and productivity.

The detailed ridecheck was the first major task undertaken in this study (November 2024). The Beeline counts overall ridership every month, and these counts reveal an increase in ridership of approximately 30 percent between November 2024 and November 2025, resulting in an average weekday ridership of 7,500 and weekday productivity of 21.7 riders per revenue hour.

On-board Survey Findings

Beeline riders are using transit primarily for school and work trips: 37 percent of all trips are work- related and 23 percent are school-related.

The City of Glendale naturally accounts for the overwhelming number of origins and destinations on Beeline buses. Approximately 72 percent of all trips with identifiable origins and destinations begin and end in Glendale. Trip origins in La Cañada Flintridge, La Crescenta Montrose, and Los Angeles also contribute to Beeline ridership. Metrolink and Amtrak riders from San Bernardino, Riverside, and Orange County travel through Union Station to work in Glendale. Metrolink also brings employees from as far away as Lancaster, Palmdale, and Oxnard to the Beeline on their work commute. Glendale Community College, the Glendale Galleria, the Americana at Brand, the Glendale Transportation Center, and various stops in downtown Glendale are major destinations for Beeline passengers.

Most riders get to or from the bus by walking (59 percent) and 32 percent of all riders transfer from another bus or a train. Forty percent of respondents are long- time Beeline riders, but 22 percent began using the system in the past six months.

The survey asked customers to select their first two choices from a list of various service improvements. The most common requests were additional weekend service (46 percent) and later evening service (44 percent).

Respondents reported factors that prevent greater use of the Beeline. Almost half of respondents Indicated that there were no factors, while 20 percent said that Beeline routes do not travel where they need to go and 15 percent reported that the Beeline does not travel when they need it.

Over 80 percent of all respondents carry smartphones, and a large majority in every age and income category measured have smartphones with them. Among respondents 62 years of age and older, 70 percent reported carrying a smart phone, compared to 57 percent in 2018 and 29 percent in 2013. Half of Beeline customers have used NextBus. NextBus use is least common among respondents 62 and older and among respondents 17 and under.

86 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 Executive Summary
Dan Boyle & Associates Page ES-7

NextBus/Google Maps was reported as the most common source currently for schedule information. In the future, customers prefer Google Transit as their source of information, followed by printed schedules and NextBus. Almost half (47%) of respondents pay for their fare with a Metro TAP card (38 percent continue to pay with cash), and 49 percent indicate that the TAP card is their preferred future mode of payment. 59 percent of respondents own a Metro TAP card, up from only 28 percent in 2019.

In terms of demographics, Beeline riders are most likely to be female . Almost 40 percent of Beeline riders report household incomes of under $20,000, but one-third of riders have household incomes above $40,000 and 59 percent live in a household with at least one vehicle. Riders are of all ages, with 37 percent under 25 and 18 percent age 62 and older. The most common ethnicity is Latino, but Latino riders do not constitute a majority of all riders.

Beeline riders are very pleased with the service. On a scale of one (poor) to four (great), respondents rate Beeline service at an average of 3. 52, a very high rating and close to 3.57 in 2018. The highest rated items are clean, safe buses and operator courtesy. The lowest ratings among all service elements are for availability of schedules (3.24), but even this score is respectable

Notable differences from previous surveys (2018, 2013, and 2008) include reliance on apps for schedule information, increased transfer activity with Metro routes, an increased share of newer passengers, decreased use of cash to pay fares, and changes in various demographic characteristics of riders.

Regional Transit Services in and near Glendale

Metro is the major provider of regional transit services connecting Glendale with other cities within Los Angeles County. Boardings on the one express and six local Metro bus routes in Glendale average almost 14,000 on weekdays, over 8,000 on Saturday, and almost 7,000 on Sunday. The most important Metro lines in terms of ridership within Glendale are Route 180 on Broadway, Central Avenue, and Los Feliz Boulevard. Route 92 on Brand Boulevard and Glenoaks Boulevard, Route 94 on San Fernando Road, Brand Boulevard, and Broadway, and Route 90 on Glendale Avenue, Cañada Boulevard, Montrose Avenue, and Foothill Boulevard. As noted earlier, Metro Micro also serves a large portion of Glendale.

The Los Angeles Department of Transportation (LADOT) operates two commuter express routes to/from downtown Los Angeles, Pasadena, and Burbank. LADOT also operates the Highland Park/Eagle Rock DASH that ends one block away from Glendale and connects to the Metro A rail line in Highland Park.

Burbank and Pasadena also operate local bus networks within their cities. There are limited connections in peak hours only between Pasadena and Beeline Route 3 at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory and between BurbankBus and Beeline Route 12 at the Burbank Rail station.

87 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 Executive Summary
Dan Boyle & Associates Page ES-8

Metrolink and Amtrak are also regional transit partners, and the Beeline is exploring ways to be notified in advance of Metrolink service changes so that it can adjust the Route 11 and Route 12 schedules.

Public Outreach

The outreach team developed a community survey to understand the priorities and preferences of both riders and nonriders. The survey, available in English, Spanish, Korean, and Armenian, was posted on-line from July 2025 to October 2025, gathering a total of 278 responses. A print and digital copy was made available at in-person events.

Sixty-one percent of outreach survey respondents rode a Beeline bus within the past year.

Shopping was the most common trip purpose, although respondents could choose more than one option based on their total trips. The most requested improvements by riders were later weekday service, later Saturday service, and additional Sunday service. Non-riders listed access to a car as the primary reason for not riding. The most requested improvements by non- riders included connections to places I want to go, more direct routes, and more frequent service.

In June 2025, the outreach team conducted four virtual focus group meetings with local and regional government partners, City staff and City Service Center staff, business associations, and transit partners. Focus group feedback highlighted improvements in frequency, coverage, public awareness, and regional coordination that could enhance Beeline service.

The outreach team conducted a series of bus rider intercepts and bus ride- alongs in Summer 2025. Staff engaged with riders and distributed fact sheets at the Glendale Transportation Center and the intersection of Glendale Avenue & Broadway. Outreach staff also boarded buses along two high ridership (Routes 1 and 4) and one low ridership (Route 6) routes.

The outreach team also conducted in-person community event pop-ups to broaden engagement and reach residents who may not participate through traditional meeting formats. The team staffed pop-ups at several high-visibility community events including:
• Glendale’s National Night Out (August 5, 2025)
• La Cañada Flintridge’s Music in the Park Concert Series (August 31, 2025) • City of Glendale Open House & Touch-a-Truck (October 18, 2025)

The outreach team hosted a Virtual Public Meeting to share project information and promote the community survey on Wednesday, August 20th from 6PM-7PM. The public comment discussion gathered 26 unique questions and comments from attendees that expressed a strong need for late-night, weekend, and holiday service. Attendees also desired improved access to various destinations such as Grand Park, Deukmejian Wilderness Park, Burbank Airport, and Glendale Galleria. Riders suggested better amenities such as real-time information, e-paper displays, and stop request buttons, alongside larger buses, new vehicles, and dedicated bus lanes. Overall, the feedback emphasizes expanded coverage, improved reliability, and enhanced rider experience.

88 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 Executive Summary
Dan Boyle & Associates Page ES-9

Two public meetings were held to present the project recommendations for the Glendale Beeline Buzz Plan. An in-person meeting was held in person at the Municipal Services Building (633 E Broadway, Room 106) on Wednesday, May 27th, from 6PM-8PM. A virtual meeting was held via Zoom on Thursday, May 28th, from 6PM -7PM. The project team provided an overview of the project, including information on the project goals, engagement and analysis to date, and short and long-term recommendations for improvements to the Beeline Bus network.

Outreach – Community Partners

The project team and Beeline staff met with several community partners, including:
• City of Burbank/Burbank Bus
• City of La Cañada Flintridge
• Glendale Community College
• Disney Imagineering
• Glendale Unified School District
• Beeline bus operators

These meetings helped us understand key issues and needs for transit from various perspectives, and this understanding supports many of the recommendations.

Outreach – Seniors in Senior Housing and GCC Students

The project team presented preliminary results to the Glendale City Council at its February 3 meeting. The Council directed the team to conduct additional outreach with senior citizens living in senior housing communities and with GCC students . City staff members fluent in English, Armenian, and Spanish took the lead in discussions with senior citizens at five locations and with GCC students at two locations. A total of 82 senior citizens and 37 GCC students offered comments.

Seniors are generally happy with Beeline service and appreciate the bus operators (with some exceptions). Greater frequency, free fares, and service to Glendale Adventist Hospital were mentioned by more than one senior. Non-riders want to learn more about the Beeline – routes, schedules, and how to ride – in advance of the day when they no longer drive. One respondent summarized the general feeling toward the Beeline: “The bus gives us the freedom to do things independently.”

GCC students expressed concerns about schedule reliability, especially on Route 8, and the need for later service on weekdays. Students appreciated the Beeline operators and noted that Beeline buses were clean and less crowded than Metro buses. The students are very interested in technical improvements related to bus tracking and interfacing with other apps.

89 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 Executive Summary
Dan Boyle & Associates Page ES-10

Recommendations

Working with Beeline personnel, the project team identified service options and developed recommendations for enhanced service, based on:

• R idership patterns revealed by the ridecheck
• P assenger preferences noted on the on-board survey
• R ider and non-rider needs and preferences gathered through the public outreach process • D iscussions with Beeline staff, including a daylong meeting with bus operators as they reported for and signed out of their shifts
• D iscussions with neighboring cities, transit agencies, and personnel at major ridership generators.

Recommendations include short -term improvements (within the next year) and longer -term improvements (in 2 to 5 years).

Short-Term Recommendations (within One Year)

• Add a Bus on Route 8 -Glendale Avenue on Weekday Afternoons to Improve On - time Performance. The additional bus will also improve the headway to 15 or 20 minutes between 12:40 and 4:40 pm.

• GTC – Glendale Civic Center Connection
This proposal would extend Route 11 from its current end at Monterey & Brand to the Glendale Civic Center.

• Add Midday Service on Route 12
The recommendation is to provide midday service on Route 12 to serve San Fernando Road and Flower Street in response to requests from local businesses in the area, and to connect with Metro and BurbankBus routes at the Burbank station. Peak-period service will still be timed to meet trains, but midday service does not need to meet trains.

• Add Another PM trip on Route 34-La Cañada High School at Bell Time The recommendation is to convert a Route 33 trip to a Route 34 trip - this can be done at no cost and with no impact to Route 33 riders.

• Weekend Evening Service Pilot Project
This recommendation proposes a pilot project to provide evening service on Friday and Saturday nights until 10:15 pm on Routes 1 through 8. Expectations regarding ridership and productivity would be set before implementation and the success of the pilot project could be measured in six to twelve months against expected performance.

90 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 Executive Summary
Dan Boyle & Associates Page ES-11

• Sunday Service Pilot Project
Only Routes 1 and 4 operate on Sunday, and ridership on these routes is approximately 80 to 85 percent of Saturday ridership. This pilot project would add Sunday service on Routes 31 and 8, the next-busiest Saturday routes. As proposed with the evening service, expectations regarding ridership and productivity would be set before implementation and the success of the pilot project could be measured in six to twelve months against expected performance.

• Reduced Student Fares. The recommendation is for the Beeline to explore funding opportunities for a pilot study of reduced fares for K through 12 students in Glendale.

• Counting Passengers on Beeline Buses . The recommendation is to purchase Automatic Passenger Counters to ensure accurate counts of both boarding and alighting passengers on all trips.

Medium-Term Recommendations (Two to Five Years)

• Weekday Evening Service Pilot Project. If the short-term pilot project to provide evening service on Friday and Saturday nights is successful, the Beeline may wish to implement a weekday evening pilot (Monday through Thursday) on Routes 1 through 8. GCC has night classes on Monday through Thursday nights at the Verdugo campus and the Garfield campus that are not served by the current schedule. As with the weekday evening pilot, expectations regarding ridership and productivity would be set before implementation and the success of the pilot project could be measured in six to twelve months against expected performance.

• Connecting GCC Campuses (recommended for further study). GCC has requested a bus route connecting its Verdugo and Garfield campuses. The project team explored route reconfigurations that could achieve a direct connection, but all possibilities would either be too costly or inconvenience current passengers. No recommendation for connecting the campuses is made in this study. The current connection via a transfer between Routes 4 and 8 is less appealing than a direct connection, but both routes operate frequently.

Ridership and cost impacts of the near -term and mid-term recommendations are presented in Table ES.4. Detailed impacts of each proposal are included in Chapter 6.

91 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 Executive Summary
Dan Boyle & Associates Page ES-12

Table ES.4
Annual Impacts of Recommendations

Annual Impacts on
Route Recommendation Ridership Revenue Operating Net Op. Revenue Cost Cost Hours
NEAR--TERM RECOMMENDATIONS (within 1 year)
Annual Total Weekday 58,586 $10,052 $872,223 $862,172 7,519 Annual Total Saturday 18,148 $11,306 $427,468 $416,162 3,685 Annual Total Sunday 15,093 $9,403 $237,962 $228,559 2,051 Annual Total 91,827 $30,761 $1,537,653 $1,506,893 13,256 MID-TERM RECOMMENDATIONS (2-5 years)
Annual Total 53,648 $33,422 $1,222,534 $1,189,111 10,539

92 of 236

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 1-1

Glendale Beeline
The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026
Chapter 1: Introduction

The Glendale Beeline operates seven local and two express routes in the City of Glendale and the surrounding area. Figure 1.1 is a map of the weekday Beeline bus network and other transit services in and near Glendale.

Figure 1.1
Glendale Beeline and Other Transit Routes in and through Glendale

Through detailed data collection and analysis and extensive public outreach, this report provides the City of Glendale with a comprehensive view of current fixed- route services in and near 93 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 1. Introduction
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 1-2

Glendale and recommendations for service enhancements that promote internal and regional connectivity. In addition, the on-board survey and the outreach efforts provide current input from today’s riders to serve as a foundation for strategies to improve service quality, the customer experience, and passenger satisfaction. Specific purposes of this study include:

• Understanding the post-pandemic transit environment at the local, regional, and national levels

• Improving multimodal connections for residents, employees, and visitors in Glendale and surrounding areas while ensuring that the proposed transit network can serve as a sound foundation for future growth and change.

• Integrating Beeline, La Cañada Flintridge ( LCF) Shuttles, BurbankBus, Metro bus (including the future NoHo – Pasadena BRT), Metrolink and Amtrak transit services at a functional level so that riders can easily move between systems.

• Ensuring equitable access to transit, particularly in transit -oriented low -income neighborhoods.

• Supporting a resilient, zero-net community by designing a transit network that maximizes ease of use.

• Designing a transit network with a community focus that emphasizes efficiency, ease of use, safety, and convenience.

The pandemic significantly impacted public transportation throughout the country. Essential workers who needed to be at their worksites continued to use transit but most workers and students at all levels worked and studied from home. Post-pandemic transit ridership increased across the country as well as in Glendale. The American Public Transportation Association estimates that transit ridership nationwide is at 85 percent of pre-pandemic levels. The November 2024 ridecheck results show that the Beeline is at 100 percent of 2019 ridership levels on its local routes, and ridership has continued to increase in 2025.

This Beeline Buzz Plan undertakes a detailed data collection and analysis process along with extensive public outreach to provide the City of Glendale with a comprehensive view of current fixed-route services and fact -based recommendations for service enhancements that promote internal and regional connectivity. The on-board survey and outreach efforts provide current input from today’s riders to serve as a foundation for strategies to improve service quality, the customer experience, and passenger satisfaction.

Chapter 2 describes ridership and performance of Beeline routes based on the 100 percent ridecheck conducted in November 2024 . Chapter 3 presents detailed results of the on-board survey of Beeline riders. Chapter 4 identifies local and regional services within the City of Glendale and nearby areas and examines opportunities for enhanced agency. Chapter 5 describes the outreach efforts to Glendale residents, employees, and businesses and summarizes the results of these efforts . Chapter 6 identifies service options for the Beeline , and presen ts the recommended service plan.
94 of 236

Glendale Beeline
The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026
Chapter 2: Route Profiles

2.0 Introduction

Chapter 2 presents the ridership and productivity analysis of the November 2024 Beeline ridecheck, with additional ridechecks for missed or incomplete assignments completed in January 2025. This evaluation includes an analysis of ridership by route, direction, time of day, and route segment. Route effectiveness or productivity, measured by boardings per revenue hour, is also considered by direction, route segment, and time of day. Route efficiency is analyzed in terms of subsidy per boarding and farebox recovery ratio (the ratio of operating revenue to operating cost) at the route level. Schedule adherence is also analyzed, along with actual versus scheduled running times by route, direction, time of day, and segment.

Section 2.1 summarizes findings related to ridership, productivity, levels of service, and cost efficiency at the route level. Section 2.2 contains route profiles. These profiles report frequency, span of service, operating and performance data, financial data, and detailed route segment ridership and productivity for each route, including:

• Route description, including major corridors, stops, and destinations; • Schedule, including days of operation, service spans, and frequency; • Operating and productivity data, (ridership and passengers per revenue hour); • Ridership trends since 2018;
• Overcrowded segments (35 or more riders) and maximum loads; • S ubsidy per passenger and schedule adherence ranking among all Beeline routes; • Assessment of route performance and trends.

Appendix A Ridecheck Results (under separate cover) provides all the data collected during the ridecheck in voluminous detail, including ons and offs by stop for each trip and times at each timepoint for each trip. As with any data collection effort, the data can be used in answering all types of questions that will arise regarding Beeline service.

2.1 Overall Findings

Table 2.1 presents ridership by route for weekdays, Saturday, and Sunday. Route 4 Glendale Transportation Center (GTC ) – Glendale Galleria has the highest weekday ridership (1,037 boardings per weekday) and ranks second in Saturday and Sunday ridership. Route 1 GTC – Stocker Square is second in weekday ridership, with 931 boardings and leads in Saturday and Sunday ridership. Route 8 GTC – Glendale Community College (GCC) is the newest Beeline route (introduced in 1999) and is third in weekday ridership. Other all-day routes have ridership in the range of 480 to 750 boardings per day. Routes 11 (Metrolink Express GTC to Downtown Glendale) and 12 (Metrolink Express GTC to Downtown Burbank Station) are express routes serving the Metrolink station at the GTC and operate in the morning and afternoon peak periods only, with schedules timed to meet Metrolink trains. On an annualized basis, Beeline ridership is

1.57 million, with 1.51 million on local routes and 56,000 on the express routes. 1 1 Route totals were annualized by multiplying weekday ridership by 255 weekdays per year, Saturday ridership by 52 Saturdays per year, and Sunday ridership by 52 Sundays per year. Beeline service does not operate on six holidays. No seasonal adjustment was made. 95 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-2
Table 2.1
Beeline 2024 Daily Ridership by
Route and Day of Week
Route Weekday Saturday Sunday
Riders Rank Riders Rank Riders Rank
1 931 2 584 1 496 1
3 only (31 Saturday) 731 4 201 3 -- --
33 115 9 -- -- -- --
34 83 10 -- -- -- --
4 1,278 1 439 2 350 2
5 525 6 105 7 -- --
6 485 7 158 5 -- --
7 700 5 121 6 -- --
8 737 3 186 4 -- --
11 81 11 -- -- -- --
12 137 8 -- -- -- --
Total 5,803 -- 1,794 -- 846 --
Local Routes 5,585 -- 1,794 -- 846 --
Express Routes 218 -- -- -- -- --
Source: Ridecheck Data, November 2024

Figure 2.1 shows Beeline boardings by stop on weekdays. The busiest stops are in downtown Glendale or at specific activity locations ( such as Glendale Community College, Glendale Transportation Center, Hoover High School, La Cañada High School, Burbank Metrolink Station).

96 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-3
Figure 2.1
Beeline Boardings by Stop on Weekdays

Table 2.2 shows the change in Beeline ridership since the 2019 Transit Route Analysis. Fares are unchanged during this period. The comparison is challenging for two reasons: COVID significantly affected transit ridership at all transit systems, and there were several changes to the Beeline transit network, including:

97 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-4
The good news in Table 2.2 is that local ridership (excluding the Metrolink Express routes) has returned to its 2018 level. Transit services built around the work commute (such as Metrolink) have been hit hardest in terms of ridership because many commuters still have the option of working at home.

Overall ridership has decreased by four percent on weekdays, increased by one percent on Saturday, and increased by 19 percent on Sunday. Ridership losses on Routes 3 and 7 may have resulted from the introduction of Route 8, since all these routes serve GCC (Route 8 is not shown on Table 2.2 or any of the percentage change tables because it began operation in November 2020, along with other recommendations from the Transit Route Analysis). The 2020 service changes increased service levels on Route 4.

Weekday ridership decreased on the La Cañada Shuttles Route 33 La Crescenta - JPL (-46 percent) and Route 34 La Crescenta - La Cañada High School (-19 percent).

Table 2.2
Beeline Percentage Changes in Ridership by
Route and Day of Week, 2018 to 2024
Route Weekday Saturday Sunday
1 +72% +152% +148%
2 -100% -100% -100%
3 (31 Saturday) -27% -12% --
32 -100% -- --
33 -46% -- --
34 -19% -- --
4 +23% +1% +22%
5 -20% -19% --
6 -3% -45% --
7 -11% -32% --
11 -57% -- --
12 -55% -- --
Total -4% +1% +19%
Local Routes 0% +1% +19%
Express Routes -56% -- --
Routes 1 and 2 -16% +13% +17%
Source: Ridecheck Data, 2024 and 2018

98 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-5
Table 2.3 shows service effectiveness in terms of passenger boardings per revenue hour, a common measure of productivity in the transit industry. Route 34 Montrose – La Cañada High School Shuttle, Route 5 Pacific Community Center and Park – Hoover High School, and the new Route 8 GTC-GCC are the most productive routes on weekdays, while Route 4 GTC – Glendale Galleria is the most productive route on weekends . Productivity is highest on weekdays and lowest on Saturday. The Metrolink Express routes have the lowest productivity. On an annualized basis, i.e., including all weekday, Saturday, and Sunday service, overall productivity is 20.9 passenger boardings per revenue hour.

As a general rule of thumb in assessing service effectiveness by means of passenger boardings per revenue hour on weekdays, 40 indicates a good route, 20 is acceptable for a community route, and anything below 10 is suggests a need to examine the route more closely and restructure, change span of service or cancel service. The lowest productivity is seen on Route 11 Metrolink Express-GTC to Downtown Glendale on weekdays, with 6.8 boardings per revenue hour.

Table 2.3
Beeline 2024 Boardings per Revenue Hour by
Route and Day of Week
Route Weekday Saturday Sunday
B/RH Rank B/RH Rank B/RH Rank
1 14.6 8 13.3 2 11.3 2
3 (31 Saturday) 15.3 7 8.6 6 -- --
33 9.6 9 -- -- -- --
34 39.5 1 -- -- -- --
4 17.7 6 19.1 1 15.3 1
5 22.3 2 12.9 3 -- --
6 20.3 4 9.9 5 -- --
7 18.7 5 7.8 7 -- --
8 20.4 3 11.6 4
11 6.8 11 -- -- -- --
12 8.1 10 -- -- -- --
Total 16.7 -- 12.3 -- 12.7 --
Local Routes 17.5 -- 12.3 -- 12.7 --
Express Routes 7.5 -- -- -- -- --
Routes 1 and 2 14.6 -- 13.3 -- 11.3 --
Source: Ridecheck Data, November 2024

99 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-6
Table 2.4 shows the change in Beeline boardings per revenue hour since the 2018 ridecheck.

Percentage changes are generally similar to changes in ridership, since there have been only minor changes in revenue hours on most routes . The major exceptions are Route 4, where weekday revenue hours of service doubled between 2018 and 2024, and the combined Route 1 and 2 where weekend revenue hours increased by 25 percent . The decline in boardings per revenue hour is related to the pandemic, since expected ridership increases were interrupted. If ridership continues to recover, boardings per revenue hour can be expected to increase.

Table 2.4
Beeline Percentage Changes in Boardings per Revenue
Hour by Route and Day of Week, 2018 to 2024
Route Weekday Saturday Sunday
1 -21% +1% -2%
2 -100% -100% -100%
3 (31 Saturday) -28% -12% --
32 -100% -- --
33 -46% -- --
34 +8% -- --
4 -38% -32% -17%
5 -20% -20% --
6 -3% -47% --
7 -11% -35% --
11 -57% -- --
12 -53% -- --
Total -22% -22% -11%
Local Routes -20% -22% -11%
Express Routes -55% -- --
Routes 1 and 2 -20% -9% -8%
Source: Ridecheck Data, 2024 and 2018

100 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-7
Table 2.5 shows overall schedule adherence for each route, as measured at each timepoint on each trip. Schedule adherence is defined as no more than one minute early (to allow for minor variations among watches) and no more than five minutes late at a given timepoint along the route. This detailed measure at each timepoint, a more accurate reflection of how riders view on- time performance, produces results in the 60 to 70 percent range for most transit agencies.

Schedule adherence ranges from a low of 65.6 percent weekdays on Route 1 to a high of 91.9 percent weekdays on Route 6. More crowded and longer routes usually have more difficulty keeping to schedule, explaining the low schedule adherence for Routes 3 and 7. Weekday schedule adherence is 81.9 percent on all routes.

Table 2.5
Beeline Schedule Adherence
Route Weekday Saturday Sunday
1 86.1% 92.2% 84.5%
3 (31 Saturday) 67.4% 74.3% --
33 85.6% -- --
34 95.0% -- --
4 82.6% 73.2% 89.5%
5 80.9% 76.9% --
6 84.8% 65.2% --
7 82.5% 88.4% --
8 59.8% 74.3%
11 87.0% -- --
12 82.7% -- --
Total 79.6% 79.4% 87.9%
Local Routes 79.1% 79.4% 87.9%
Express Routes 84.4% -- --
Source: Ridecheck Data, November 2024

Schedule adherence is best on Sundays, when only two routes are operating. Overall schedule adherence is 80 percent on weekdays, 79 percent on Saturday and 88 percent on Sunday. Route 11 is best on weekdays, while the longer routes (especially Routes 3 and 8) are lowest. Route 1 is best on Saturday with 92 percent on-time. Route 4 is best on Sunday with 90 percent.

101 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-8
Table 2.6 shows the change in Beeline schedule adherence since the 201 8. To avoid confusion, changes are expressed in percentage point differential; for example, an increase from 90 to 95 percent is shown as +5.0. Schedule adherence decreased by 2.2 percentage points on weekdays, 4.4 percentage points on Saturday, and 7.9 percentage points on Sunday. A common cause of decreased schedule adherence is an increase in traffic, which has occurred post-COVID.

The biggest improvement in on-time performance is on Route 1 weekdays; Route 1 changed from operating on Brand Boulevard in one direction to operating on Central Avenue in both directions.

Routes 7 and 11 also improved in terms of schedule adherence.

Table 2.6
Beeline Changes in Schedule Adherence by Route and
Day of Week, 2018 to 2024 (in Percentage Points)
Route Weekday Saturday Sunday
1 +20.5% +3.7% -11.2%
3 (31 Saturday) -12.2% -11.5% --
33 +3.4%
34 +8.6%
4 -2.4% -7.4% -7.0%
5 -10.8% -17.5% --
6 -7.1% -15.9% --
7 +13.2% +11.6% --
11 +12.9% -- --
12 -2.9% -- --
Total -2.2% -4.4% -7.9%
Local Routes -2.8% -4.4% -7.9%
Express Routes +3.1% -- --
Routes 1 and 2 +8.8% +5.8% -10.7%
Source: Ridecheck Data, 2024 and 2018

2.2 Route Profiles

Route profiles on the following pages summarize a great deal of data for the individual routes.

Each route profile includes a description of the route, headway and span of service, passenger boardings, route productivity, ridership, trends since 2018, overcrowded segments (35 or more passengers on board), major stops (at least 50 boardings or alightings), maximum load points, rankings of subsidy per passenger and schedule adherence, and a brief assessment of each route’s performance and trends.

Each route profile includes a route map, a graph of boardings, alightings, and passenger loads along the route on an average weekday, and performance charts highlighting individual route performance compared to other routes

The route profiles provide information regarding passengers per revenue hour, a key performance variable used in evaluating transit routes.

102 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-9
Route 1 Glendale Transportation Center (GTC) to Stocker Square

Route 1 GTC to Stocker via Central Avenue serves
the Central Avenue corridor in downtown Glendale.

Route 1’s purpose s are to serve the residential,
office, and retail corridors in and near downtown
and to connect downtown with Metrolink rail service
at GTC throughout the day and on weekends. In
2018, southbound service was rerouted from Brand
Boulevard to Central Avenue, which now is served
by Route 1 in both directions.

Major destinations : The Glendale Galleria,
Americana at Brand, other stores and offices in
downtown, Dignity Health- Glendale Memorial
Hospital, and GTC.

Headway generally 10 minutes weekdays and
weekends
Service span 5:50 am to 7:45 pm weekdays
9:00 am to 6:24 pm weekends
Ridership 931 weekdays (2
nd of 11 routes)
584 Saturday (1st of 7 routes)
496 Sunday (1st of 2 routes)
Trend +72% weekday since 2018 (-16% compared to Routes 1 and 2 in 2018) + 152% Saturday (+13% compared to 1 and 2)
+ 148% Sunday (+17% compared to 1 and 2)
Major stops Central & Broadway, GTC, Central & Americana, Central & Stocker , Central & Milford, Stocker & Brand, Central & Arden

Productivity 14.6 boardings per revenue hour weekdays (8 th of 11 routes)

13.3 Saturday (2nd of 7 routes)

11.3 Sunday (2nd of 2 routes)
Overcrowded segments none
Maximum load 12 on four northbound and two southbound trips Schedule adherence 86.1% weekdays (3rd of 11 routes)

92.2% Saturday (1st of 7 routes)

84.5% Sunday (2nd of 2 routes)
Running time analysis Adequate on all days

Route 1 positives Provides circulation through downtown Glendale and connections to GTC Weekend ridership has increased since 2018
Schedule adherence has increased notably – one reason is no longer operating on Brand Boulevard
Route 1 negatives Productivity is below the system average Does not connect with residential neighborhoods

103 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-10

0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Route 1 Northbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
Route 1 Southbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 Weekday Ridership

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Productivity
$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Subsidy per
Boarding

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System Average
On Time
Performance
104 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-11
Route 3 Glendale Galleria to Jet Propulsion Laboratory (weekdays) Route 31 Glendale Galleria to La Crescenta (Saturday)

Route 3 operates between Brand Boulevard &
Broadway in downtown Glendale and the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in La Cañada
Flintridge. Route 3 has multiple functions. A
primary purpose is to connect downtown with
Glendale Community College (GCC). Connections
to Montrose, far north Glendale, La Cañada
Flintridge and JPL are also important. On Saturday,
this route operates between downtown Glendale
and La Crescenta as Route 31.

Route 3 is the longest Beeline route. Routes 33 and
34 (La Cañada Flintridge shuttles that complement
Route 3 service along Foothill Boulevard on
weekdays) are analyzed separately.

Major destinations : GCC, downto wn Glendale,
Civic Center, Montrose/La Crescenta, Foothill
Boulevard corridor, JPL.

Headway every 30 to 45 minutes, with more frequent service during the AM peak on weekdays; 25 minutes on Saturday
Service span 5:11 am to 9:10 pm weekdays
9:10 am to 6:00 pm Saturday
Ridership 731 weekdays (4
th of 11 routes)
201 Saturday (3rd of 7 routes)
Trend - 27% weekday since 2018 (some riders switched to the new Route 8) - 12% Saturday
Major stops Glendale & Broadway, Verdugo & Glendale College, Harvard & Louise

Productivity 15.3 boardings per revenue hour weekdays (7 th of 11 routes)

8.6 Saturday (6th of 7 routes)
Overcrowded segments NB 8:30 am: Foothill & opp, Briggs – Foothill & Cornishon Maximum load 41 on 8:30 am NB trip at Foothill & opp, Briggs Schedule adherence 67.4% weekdays (10th of 11 routes)

74.3% Saturday (3rd of 7 routes)
Running time analysis Needs more running time northbound on weekdays for most of the day.

Route 3 positives Only route connecting downtown Glendale, GCC, La Crescenta/Montrose and La Cañada Flintridge
Connects major Beeline destinations: downtown Glendale and GCC Route 3 negatives Ridership continues to decline, although the introduction of Route 8 in 2018 is partly responsible
Schedule adherence issues (generally an issue on longer routes)

105 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-12

0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
200
WB Harvard & FS Louise
NB Brand & FS Harvard
EB Broadway & FS Brand
EB Broadway & FS Louise
EB Broadway & FS Jackson
NB Glendale & FS Broadway
NB Glendale & FS Wilson
NB Glendale & NS California
NB Glendale & FS Lexington
NB Glendale & NS Doran
NB Glendale & FS Monterey
NB Glendale & FS Glenoaks
NB Glendale & NS Verdugo
NB Verdugo & NS Calle…
NB Verdugo/FS Civic Aud.…
NB Verdugo & NS Verdugo…
NB Verdugo & NS Kirkby
NB Verdugo & NS Crestmont
NB Verdugo & FS Bara
NB Verdugo & NS Fern
NB Verdugo & opp. Glorietta
NB Verdugo & FS Oakwood
NB Verdugo & NS Bagdad
NB Verdugo & NS Glencoe
NB Verdugo & FS El Cino
NB Verdugo & NS Sunview
WB Honolulu & opp. Market
WB Honolulu & NS…
WB Honolulu & FS Rosemont
WB Honolulu & NS La…
NB La Crescenta & NS…
NB La Crescenta & NS…
NB La Crescenta & FS Altura
NB La Crescenta & NS…
NB La Crescenta & FS Mary
EB Foothill & FS Raymond
EB Foothill & FS Rosemont
EB Foothill & opp. Briggs
EB Foothill & FS Oceanview
EB Foothill & FS La…
EB Foothill & NS Palm
EB Foothill & FS Hillard
EB Foothill & NS Alta…
EB Foothill & opp. Lasheart
EB Foothill & FS Cornishon
EB Foothill & NS Chevy…
EB Foothill & NS Beulah
EB Foothill & FS…
EB Foothill & FS Oakwood
EB Foothill & FS Gould
EB Foothill & FS Crown
NB Oak Grove & FS Foothill
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Route 3 Only Northbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
SB Oak Grove & NS Foothill
WB Foothill & NS Crown
WB Foothill & NS Vineta
WB Foothill & FS Gould
WB Foothill & NS Rinetti
WB Foothill & FS Oakwood
WB Foothill & FS…
WB Foothill & FS Angeles…
WB Foothill & NS Hill
WB Foothill & NS Cornishon
WB Foothill & FS La Canada
WB Foothill & NS Indiana
WB Foothill & FS Alta Canyada
WB Foothill & NS Hillard
WB Foothill & FS Palm
WB Foothill & NS La Canada…
WB Foothill & FS Oceanview
WB Foothill & FS Briggs
WB Foothill & FS Rosemont
WB Foothill & NS Raymond
SB La Crescenta & FS Mary
SB La Crescenta & NS Prospect
SB La Crescenta & FS Altura
SB La Crescenta & NS Montrose
SB La Crescenta & NS Piedmont
EB Honolulu & FS La Crescenta
EB Honolulu & FS Rosemont
EB Honolulu & NS Las Palmas
EB Honolulu & NS Oceanview
SB Verdugo & FS Honolulu
SB Verdugo & NS Sunview
SB Verdugo & NS Oceanview
SB Verdugo & NS Glencoe
SB Verdugo & FS Oakwood
SB Verdugo & NS Glorietta
SB Verdugo & FS Fern
SB Verdugo & FS Opechee
SB Verdugo & opp. Crestmont
SB Verdugo & FS Kirkby
SB Verdugo FS Glendale…
SB Verdugo & FS Mountain
SB Glendale & FS Verdugo
SB Glendale & NS Glenoaks
SB Glendale & FS Monterey
SB Glendale & FS Doran
SB Glendale & FS Lexington
SB Glendale & FS California
SB Glendale & NS Wilson
SB Glendale & NS Broadway
SB Broadway & FS Jackson
WB Harvard & FS Louise
Route 3 Only Southbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 Weekday Ridership

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Productivity
$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Subsidy per
Boarding

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System Average
On Time
Performance
106 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-13
Route 33 La Cañada Flintridge (LCF) Shuttle: Montrose to JPL

Route 33 is the LCF shuttle that operates between
Montrose Avenue & Waltonia Drive and the Jet
Propulsion Laboratory. The purposes of this route
are to provide service to La Cañada Flintridge
residents along Foothill Boulevard and to provide
service to JPL.

Major destinations: Montrose/La Crescenta, JPL, La
Cañada High School and other schools along the
route.

Headway 40-50 minutes weekdays
Service span 8:27 am to 6:20 pm weekdays
Ridership 115 weekdays (9
th of 11 routes)
Trend -4 6% since 2018, the steepest
decline on any Beeline local route
Major stops Oak Grove & Foothill at La Cañada
High School dismissal time (36 total
boardings in both directions combined – students arriving early get on the EB Route 33 and ride through JPL).

Productivity 9.6 boardings per revenue hour weekdays (9 th of 11 routes), lowest among local
routes
Overcrowded segments None
Maximum load 36 on 3:24 pm WB trip at Oak Grove & Foothill Schedule adherence 85.6% (4th of 11 routes) weekdays
Running time analysis Adequate in both directions

Route 33 positives Provides additional service along Foothill Boulevard corridor Route 33 negatives Low ridership and productivity other than at school bell times Sharp decline in ridership since 2018
107 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-14

0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 WB Montrose &
FS Waltonia
(layover)
WB Montrose &
NS Oceanview
EB Foothill & FS
Oceanview
EB Foothill & FS
La Canada Plaza
EB Foothill & NS
Palm
EB Foothill & FS
Hillard
EB Foothill & NS
Alta Canyada
EB Foothill &
opp. Lasheart
EB Foothill & FS
Cornishon
EB Foothill & NS
Chevy Chase
EB Foothill & NS
Beulah
EB Foothill & FS
Commonwealth
EB Foothill & FS
Oakwood
EB Foothill & FS
Gould
EB Foothill & FS
Crown
NB Oak Grove &
FS Foothill
Jet Propulsion
Laboratory
Route 33 Eastbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
Jet Propulsion
Laboratory
WB Oak Grove & NS
Foothill
WB Foothill & NS Crown
WB Foothill & NS Vineta
WB Foothill & FS Gould
WB Foothill & NS Rinetti
WB Foothill & FS
Oakwood
WB Foothill & FS
Commonwealth
WB Foothill & FS
Angeles Crest Hwy
WB Foothill & NS Hill
WB Foothill & NS
Cornishon
WB Foothill & FS La
Canada
WB Foothill & NS
Indiana
WB Foothill & FS Alta
Canyada
WB Foothill & NS Hillard
WB Foothill & FS Palm
WB Foothill & NS La
Canada Plaza
WB Ocean View NS
Montrose
WB Ocean View NS
Honolulu
NB Verdugo & NS
Honolulu
WB Montrose & FS
Waltonia (layover)
Route 33 Westbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 Weekday Ridership

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Productivity
$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Subsidy per
Boarding

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System Average
On Time
Performance
108 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-15
Route 34 La Cañada Flintridge (LCF) Shuttle: Montrose to La Cañada High School

Route 34 operates three afternoon trips per da y
between Montrose Avenue & Waltonia Drive and
La Cañada High School. The purpose of this route
is to serve students at the high school at afternoon
bell times.

Major destinations : La Cañada High School,
Montrose/La Crescenta, Foothill Boulevard
corridor.

Headway Approximately 60 minutes
Service span 2:03 pm to 5:00 pm weekdays
Ridership 83 weekdays (10
th of 11 routes)
Trend - 19% since 2018
Major stops La Cañada High School

Productivity 28.1 boardings per revenue hour
weekdays (1
st of 12 routes)
Overcrowded segments W B 3:22 pm: La Cañada High School – Foothill & Angeles Crest Hwy
Maximum load 60 on 3:22 pm SB trip at La Cañada High School Schedule adherence 95.0%, 1st of 12 routes weekday
Running time analysis Adequate in both directions

Route 34 positives P roductive route with one of the highest loads on a single trip of any route Limited service in line with its purpose to take La Cañada High School students home in the afternoon
Excellent schedule adherence
Route 34 negatives Ridership has decreased since 2018
Morning trips were operated in the past, but had very low ridership, suggesting that most parents drop their children at school in the morning

109 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-16

0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 WB Montrose & FS
Waltonia (layover)
WB Montrose & NS
Oceanview
EB Foothill & FS
Oceanview
EB Foothill & FS La
Canada Plaza
EB Foothill & NS Palm
EB Foothill & FS Hillard
EB Foothill & NS Alta
Canyada
EB Foothill & opp.

Lasheart
EB Foothill & FS Cornishon
EB Foothill & NS Chevy
Chase
EB Foothill & NS Beulah
EB Foothill & FS
Commonwealth
EB Foothill & FS Oakwood
EB Foothill & FS Gould
EB Foothill & FS Crown
La Canada High
Route 34 Eastbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 La Canada High
WB Foothill & NS Vineta
WB Foothill & FS Gould
WB Foothill & NS Rinetti
WB Foothill & FS
Oakwood
WB Foothill & FS
Commonwealth
WB Foothill & FS
Angeles Crest Hwy
WB Foothill & NS Hill
WB Foothill & NS
Cornishon
WB Foothill & FS La
Canada
WB Foothill & NS
Indiana
WB Foothill & FS Alta
Canyada
WB Foothill & NS Hillard
WB Foothill & FS Palm
WB Foothill & NS La
Canada Plaza
WB Ocean View NS
Montrose
WB Ocean View NS
Honolulu
NB Verdugo & NS
Honolulu
WB Montrose & FS
Waltonia (layover)
Route 34 Westbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 Weekday Ridership

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Productivity
$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Subsidy per
Boarding

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System Average
On Time
Performance
110 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-17
Route 4 Glendale Transportation Center (GTC) to Glendale Galleria

Route 4 operates seven days a week between the
GTC and the Glendale Galleria via Chevy Chase
Drive, Broadway, Harvard Street, and Central
Avenue. The route serves transit -oriented
neighborhoods east of downtown, connecting them
with the Galleria and GTC.

Major destinations: Glendale Galleria, Americana at
Brand, GCC Garfield campus, Glendale Civic
Center, the Central Library, Roosevelt Middle
School, Dignity Health-Glendale Memorial Hospital,
and GTC

Headway Generally 10 minutes weekday
20 minutes weekends
Service span 5:56 am to 6:48 pm weekdays
9:00 am to 5:19 pm weekends
Ridership 1, 278 weekdays (1
st of 11 routes)
439 Saturday (2nd of 7 routes)
350 Sunday (2nd of 2 routes)
Trend +23% since 2018 weekdays
+ 1% Saturday
+ 22% Sunday
Major stops Chevy Chase & Garfield; Broadway & Glendale; Chevy Chase & Carlton; Chevy Chase & Boynton; Brand & Harvard; Chevy Chase & Adams;

Productivity 17.7 boardings per revenue hour weekdays (6 th of 11 routes)

19.1 Saturday (1st of 7 routes)

15.3 Sunday (1st of 2 routes)
Overcrowded segments N B 7:49 am: Chevy Chase & Garfield to Chevy Chase & Maple Maximum load 37 on 7:49 am NB trip at Chevy Chase & Garfield

Schedule adherence rank 82.6% weekdays (7
th of 11 routes)

73.2% Saturday (6th of 7 routes)

89.5% Sunday (1st of 2 routes)
Running time analysis Adequate in both directions

Route 4 positives Highest weekday ridership of any Beeline route Connects neighborhoods with a strong transit orientation to downtown Route 4 negatives Ridership has increased since 2018, but productivity has declined due to significant increases in service, especially on weekdays.

111 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-18

0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
Glendale
Transportation Center
NB Central FS Laurel
NB Central FS Los
Feliz
NB Central FS
Magnolia
EB Chevy Chase FS
Central
EB Chevy Chase/FS
Brand
EB Chevy Chase/NS
Glendale
EB Chevy Chase/NS
Boynton
EB Chevy
Chase/"mid-block"…
EB Chevy Chase/NS
Adams
NB Chevy Chase/FS
Garfield
NB Chevy Chase/FS
Maple
NB Chevy Chase/NS
Colorado
NB Chevy Chase/NS
Carlton
WB Broadway/FS
Adams
WB Broadway/FS
Cedar
SB Glendale/FS
Broadway
WB Harvard/FS Isabel
WB Harvard/FS
Louise
NB Brand/FS Harvard
WB Broadway/FS
Brand
SB Central/FS
Broadway
SB Central/FS
Americana
EB Colorado/FS
Central
Route 4 Northbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
EB Colorado/FS
Central
NB Brand/FS Colorado
EB Harvard/NS Louise
EB Harvard/opp.

Isabel
EB Broadway/FS
Glendale
EB Broadway/FS
Cedar
EB Broadway/FS
Adams
SB Chevy Chase/NS
Carlton
SB Chevy Chase/FS
Colorado
SB Chevy Chevy/FS
Maple
SB Chevy Chase/NS
Garfield
WB Chevy Chase/FS
Adams
WB Chevy
Chase/"mid-block"…
WB Chevy Chase/NS
Boynton
WB Chevy Chase/FS
Glendale
WB Chevy Chase/NS
Brand
WB Chevy Chase NS
Central
SB Central FS
Magnolia
SB Central NS Los
Feliz
SB Central FS Laurel
Glendale
Transportation Center
Route 4 Southbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 Weekday Ridership

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Productivity
$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Subsidy per
Boarding

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System Average
On Time
Performance
112 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-19
Route 5 Pacific Community Center & Park to Hoover High School

Route 5 operates primarily along Pacific Avenue
between Chevy Chase Drive and Glenwood Road,
where it turns west to serve Hoover High School.

Its primary function is to bring students to and from
Hoover High School and Toll Middle School. This
route is the major north-south route on the west side
of Glendale. In 2018, the route was extended south
to Chevy Chase Drive.

Major destinations : Hoover High School, Toll
Middle School, Glendale Galleria, Americana at
Brand, Pacific Community Center and Park, retail
along Pacific north of SR 134

Headway 17-18 minutes weekdays, with more
frequent service at bell times
34 minutes Saturday
Service span 6:27 am to 6:38 pm weekdays
9:00 am to 5:09 pm Saturday
Ridership 525 weekdays (6
th of 11 routes)
1 05 Saturday (7th of 7 routes)
Trend - 20% since 2018 weekdays
- 19% Saturday
Major stops Glenwood & Concord (Hoover High School); Pacific & Dryden

Productivity 22.3 boardings per revenue hour weekdays (2 nd of 12 routes)

12.9 Saturday (3rd of 7 routes)

Overcrowded segments NB 7:58 am: Pacific & California to Glenwood & Concord SB 3:39 pm: Pacific & Dryden to Colorado & Pacific

Maximum load 53 on 3:39 pm SB trip at Pacific & California Schedule adherence rank 80.9% weekdays, 9
th of 11 routes

76.9% Saturday, 5th of 7 routes
Running time analysis Generally adequate in both directions

Route 5 positives Productive route
Strong school-related weekday ridership with one of the highest loads on a single trip of any Beeline route
Direct routing
Route 5 negatives Saturday ridership ranks last among Beeline routes Ridership is relatively low outside of school-related trips

113 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-20

0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
200
NB Pacific & FS
Riverdale
NB Pacific & NS Vine
NB Pacific & FS
Colorado
NB Pacific & NS
Harvard
NB Pacific & NS Wilson
NB Pacific & NS
California
NB Pacific & NS
Lexington
NB Pacific & FS Doran
NB Pacific & FS Arden
NB Pacific & NS Palm
Route 5 Northbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
WB Glenwood & NS
Concord
EB Stocker & NS Pacific
SB Pacific & NS Dryden
SB Pacific & FS Arden
SB Pacific & FS Doran
SB Pacific & NS Lexington
SB Pacific & NS California
SB Pacific & NS Wilson
SB Pacific & NS Ivy
SB Pacific & NS Harvard
EB Colorado & FS Pacific
EB Colorado & NS
Columbus
SB Central & FS Colorado
SB Central & NS Lomita
SB Central & FS Windsor
SB Central & NS Chevy
Chase
WB Chevy Chase & NS
San Fernando
NB Pacific & FS San
Fernando
NB Pacific & FS Riverdale
Route 5 Southbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 Weekday Ridership

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Productivity
$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Subsidy per
Boarding

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System Average
On Time
Performance
114 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-21
Route 6 Pacific Community Center & Park to Glendale High School

Route 6 operates primarily along Colorado Street
between San Fernando Road and the eastern city
limit of Glendale. Its primary function is to provide
east-west crosstown service in Glendale,
connecting several neighborhoods with downtown.

Glendale High School is an important trip
generator, but school ridership is not the dominant
factor on this route.

Ridership is greater in the eastbound direction. The
stop at Pacific & Riverdale has the highest number
of boardings and alightings.

Major destinations: Pacific Community Center and
Park, Glendale Galleria, Americana at Brand, Adult
Recreation Center, and Glendale High School.

Headway 1 6 to 32 minutes weekday
20 to 30 minutes Saturday
Service span 6:14 am to 6:30 pm weekdays
9:00 am to 5:16 pm Saturday
Ridership 485 weekdays (7
th of 11 routes)
158 Saturday (5th of 7 routes)
Trend -3 % since 2018 weekdays
-45 % Saturday
Major stops Pacific & Riverdale

Productivity 20.3 boardings per revenue hour weekdays (4 th of 11 routes)

9.9 Saturday (5th of 7 routes)
Overcrowded segments None
Maximum load 30 on 3:46 pm WB trip at Colorado & Chevy Chase Schedule adherence 84.8% weekdays (5th of 11 routes)

65.2% Saturday (7th of 7 routes)
Running time analysis Adequate overall, but could use more running time eastbound in the morning and afternoon on weekdays and all day on Saturday

Route 6 positives Weekday ridership has held steady compared to 2018 Direct route

Route 6 negatives Ridership has decreased on Saturday since 2018 Schedule adherence is poor on Saturday

115 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-22

0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
SB Pacific & NS
Riverdale
NB San Fernando & FS
Riverdale
NB San Fernando & NS
Elk
EB Colorado & FS
Pacific
EB Colorado & NS
Columbus
EB Colorado & FS
Central
EB Colorado & FS Brand
EB Colorado & NS
Louise
EB Colorado & NS
Glendale
EB Colorado & NS
Everett
EB Colorado & NS
Adams
EB Colorado & FS
Chevy Chase
EB Colorado & NS
Fischer
NB Verdugo & FS
Colorado
NB Verdugo & NS
Broadway
EB Broadway & NS
Sinclair
Route 6 Eastbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
EB Broadway & NS
Sinclair
EB Broadway & NS Carr
WB Colorado & NS Carr
Park
WB Colorado & FS
Campus
WB Colorado & NS
Verdugo
WB Colorado & NS
Fischer
WB Colorado & NS Chevy
Chase
WB Colorado & NS
Adams
WB Colorado & FS
Everett
WB Colorado & NS
Glendale
WB Colorado & NS Louise
WB Colorado & NS Brand
WB Colorado & NS
Columbus
SB Pacific & FS Colorado
SB Pacific & NS Riverdale
Route 6 Westbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 Weekday Ridership

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Productivity
$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Subsidy per
Boarding

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System Average
On Time
Performance
116 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-23
Route 7 Riverside Rancho to Glendale Community College

Route 7 is the northernmost east -west route in
Glendale, operating primarily along Glenoaks
Boulevard with a deviation to Glenwood Road to
serve the schools , then continuing north via
Glendale Avenue and Verdugo Road to GCC. The
primary function of Route 7 is to connect the
western part of Glendale with Hoover High School,
Toll Middle School, and GCC.

The effects of student ridership can be seen in
much lower Saturday ridership.

Major destinations: Glendale Community College,
Hoover High School, and Toll Middle School.

Headway 30 to 40 minutes weekday , with
more frequent service at bell times
40 to 45 minutes Saturday
Service span 6:18 am to 6:54 pm weekdays
9:00 am to 5:29 pm Saturday
Ridership 700 weekdays (5
th of 11 routes)
1 21 Saturday (6th of 7 routes)
Trend - 11% since 2018 weekdays
-32 % Saturday
Major stops GCC; Glenwood & Concord (Hoover HS)

Productivity 18.7 boardings per revenue hour weekdays (5 th of 12 routes)

7.8 Saturday (7th of 7 routes)
Overcrowded segments WB 3:18 pm: Glenwood & Concord to Glenoaks & Justin Maximum load 40 on 3:18 pm WB trip at Glenwood & Concord Schedule adherence 82.5% weekdays (8th of 11 routes)

88.4% Saturday (2nd of 7 routes)
Running time analysis Could use more running time throughout the day on weekdays

Route 7 positives Good weekday ridership and productivity Route 7 negatives Schedule adherence issues on weekdays (one of the longer routes) Low Saturday ridership and productivity
Circuitous routing to Riverside Rancho

117 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-24

0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
160
180
200
WB Victory/NS Western
NB Western/NS Lake
WB San Fernando/FS
Western
WB San Fernando/FS
Thompson
WB San Fernando/NS
Allen
WB San Fernando/NS
Alameda
NB Alameda/NS
Glenoaks
EB Glenoaks/FS Allen
EB Glenoaks/NS
Thompson
EB Glenoaks/FS
Western
EB Glenoaks/FS Justin
EB Glenoaks/FS Sonora
EB Glenoaks/FS
Grandview
EB Glenoaks/FS
Graynold
EB Glenoaks/FS
Highland
EB Glenoaks/FS
Concord
EB Glenoaks/NS
Kenilworth
NB Pacific/NS Palm
WB Glenwood/NS
Concord (Hoover High)
EB Stocker/FS Pacific
EB Stocker/FS
Columbus
EB Stocker/NS Central
EB Stocker/NS Brand
SB Brand/FS Dryden
EB Glenoaks/FS Brand
EB Glenoaks/FS
Jackson
NB Glendale/FS
Monterey
NB Glendale/FS
Glenoaks
NB Glendale/NS
Verdugo
NB Verdugo/NS Calle
Vaquero
NB Verdugo/ FS Civic
Auditorium (GCC)
NB Canada/NS Towne
Route 7 Eastbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 50
100
150
200
250
NB Cañada/NS Towne
SB Verdugo/FS Towne
(Glendale College)
SB Verdugo/FS
Mountain
SB Glendale/FS
Verdugo
SB Glendale/NS
Glenoaks
WB Monterey/FS
Glendale
WB Glenoaks/NS
Jackson
NB Brand/FS Fairview
WB Stocker/FS Brand
WB Stocker/FS Central
WB Stocker/FS
Columbus
WB Stocker/NS Pacific
WB Glenwood /NS
Concord (Hoover High)
SB Pacific/NS Dryden
WB Glenoaks/FS
Pacific
WB Glenoaks/FS
Kenilworth
WB Glenoaks/FS
Concord
WB Glenoaks/FS
Highland
WB Glenoaks/FS
Graynold
WB Glenoaks/FS
Grandview
WB Glenoaks/FS
Rosedale
WB Glenoaks/NS
Sonora
WB Glenoaks/NS Justin
WB Glenoaks/FS
Western
WB Glenoaks/NS
Thompson
WB Glenoaks/ FS Allen
SB Alameda/FS
Glenoaks
SB San Fernando/FS
Alameda
SB San Fernando/FS
Allen
SB San Fernando/NS
Thompson
SB San Fernando/NS
Western
EB Flower/NS Sonora
SB Sonora/NS Lake
NB Victory/NS Western
Route 7 Westbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 Weekday Ridership

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Productivity
$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Subsidy per
Boarding

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System Average
On Time
Performance
118 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-25
Route 8 Glendale Transportation Center to Glendale Community College

Route 8 is the newest route in the Beeline
network, beginning service primarily along
Glendale Avenue and Verdugo Road in 2018.

The primary purpose of Route 8 is to provide
north-south service in the eastern portion of the
City.

Major destinations: Glendale Community College,
Glendale Civic Center, Roosevelt Middle School.

Headway 15 to 20 minutes weekday
30 minutes Saturday
Service span 6:05 am to 6:45 pm weekdays
9:15 am to 5:46 pm Saturday
Ridership 7 37 weekdays (3
rd of 11 routes)
1 86 Saturday (4th of 7 routes)
Trend New route in 2018
Major stops GCC; Glendale & Broadway

Productivity 20.4 boardings per revenue hour weekdays (3 rd of 12 routes)

11.6 Saturday (4th of 7 routes)
Overcrowded segments None
Maximum load 24 on 8:29 am NB trip at Glendale & Broadway Schedule adherence 59.8% weekdays (11th of 11 routes)

74.3% Saturday (4th of 7 routes)
Running time analysis Schedules need to be revisited. More time needed on NB trips.

Route 8 positives A successful new route, with strong weekday ridership and productivity Route 8 negatives Schedule adherence issues on weekdays, possibly due to greater ridership than anticipated

119 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-26

0 50
100
150
200
250
300
Glendale Transportation
Center
SB San Fernando/FS Cerritos
SB San Fernando FS/Brand
NB Glendale/FS San
Fernando
NB Glendale/FS Cerritos
NB Glendale/NS Los Feliz
NB Glendale/NS Palmer
NB Glendale/FS Chevy
Chase
NB Glendale/NS Windsor
NB Glendale/FS Maple
NB Glendale/NS Lomita
NB Glendale/NS Colorado
NB Glendale/NS Harvard
NB Glendale/FS Broadway
NB Glendale/FS Wilson
NB Glendale/NS California
NB Glendale/FS Lexington
NB Glendale/NS Doran
NB Glendale/FS Monterey
NB Glendale/FS Glenoaks
NB Glendale/NS Verdugo
NB Verdugo/NS Calle
Vaquero
NB Verdugo/FS Civic
Auditorium
NB Canada/NS Towne
Route 8 Northbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 50
100
150
200
250
300
NB Cañada/NS Towne
SB Verdugo/FS Towne
(Glendale College)
SB Verdugo/FS Mountain
SB Glendale/FS Verdugo
SB Glendale/NS Glenoaks
SB Glendale/FS Monterey
SB Glendale/FS Doran
SB Glendale/FS Lexington
SB Glendale/FS California
SB Glendale/NS Wilson
SB Glendale/FS Broadway
SB GlendaleNS Harvard
SB GlendaleNS Colorado
SB Glendale/NS Lomita
SB GlendaleNS Maple
SB Glendale/NS Windsor
SB Glendale/NS Chevy Chase
SB Glendale/NS Palmer
SB Glendale/FS Los Feliz
SB Glendale/FS Cerritos
NB San Fernando NS Brand
NB San Fernando FS Cerritos
Glendale Transportation Center
Route 8 Southbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 Weekday Ridership

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Productivity
$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Subsidy per
Boarding

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System Average
On Time
Performance
120 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-27
Route 11 Metrolink Express: GTC to Downtown Glendale

Route 11 is a Metrolink Express route designed for
workers in downtown Glendale who commute via
Metrolink. The route is scheduled to meet Metrolink
trains at GTC, and will wait for a late train in the
morning. The route operates on weekdays during
peak commuting hours only.

The primary function of Route 11 is to provide a
reliable connection between GTC and downtown
Glendale for Metrolink/Amtrak commuters.

Major destinations : businesses in downtown
Glendale and GTC

Headway 8 morning trips and 8 afternoon trips
scheduled around train arrivals and
departures; headways range from
12 to 33 minutes
Service span 6:05 to 9:45 weekday am
2:20 to 6:31 weekday pm
Ridership 81 weekdays (11
th of 11 routes)
Trend - 57% since 2018 weekdays
Major stops GTC is the busiest stop, with 29 boardings and 13 alightings

Productivity 6 .8 boardings per revenue hour weekdays (11 th of 11 routes)
Overcrowded segments None
Maximum load 6 on 6:55 am NB trip at GTC and on 3:53 pm NB trip at Brand & Broadway
Schedule adherence 87.0% weekday, 2nd of 11 routes
Running time analysis Adequate overall

Route 11 positives Provides last-mile connection tailored for employees in downtown Glendale who commute via Metrolink/Amtrak
Schedule adherence is good
Route 11 negatives Ranks last in ridership and productivity among weekday Beeline routes Sharp decrease in ridership since 2018 (journey-to-work ridership has been most affected by the pandemic, and Metrolink’s primary market has been work-related riders)

121 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-28

0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 Glendale
Transportation
Center
NB Central &
FS Laurel
NB Brand &
FS Chevy
Chase
NB Brand &
FS Colorado
NB Brand &
FS Broadway
NB Brand &
FS California
NB Brand &
FS Lexington
NB Brand &
FS Milford
EB Monterey
& FS Brand
Route 11 A.M. Northbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
WB Monterey
& NS Brand
SB Brand &
FS Glenoaks
SB Brand &
FS Monterey
SB Brand &
FS Doran
SB Brand &
FS Milford
SB Brand &
FS Lexington
SB Brand &
FS California
SB Brand &
FS Broadway
SB Brand &
FS Colorado
SB Brand &
FS Chevy
Chase
SB Central &
FS Laurel
Glendale
Transportation
Center
Route 11 P.M. Southbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 Weekday Ridership

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Productivity
$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Subsidy per
Boarding

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System Average
On Time
Performance
122 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-29
Route 12 Metrolink Express: GTC to Downtown Burbank Station

Route 12 is a Metrolink Express route designed for
workers along the San Fernando- Flower corridor
who commute via Metrolink. The route is scheduled
to meet Metrolink trains at both GTC and Burbank
RITC and will wait for a late train in the morning. The route operates on weekdays during peak
commuting hours only.

The primary function of Route 12 is to provide a
reliable connection for Metrolink commuters
between GTC or Burbank RITC and employment
sites along the San Fernando- Flower corridor.

Timing this route to meet trains at both stations is a
challenge.

Major destinations: businesses along the Flower-
San Fernando corridor; GTC; downtown Burbank
station.

Headway 8 morning trips from GTC and 9 from Burbank; 7 afternoon trips to GTC and 6 to Burbank. All trips are scheduled around train arrivals and departures. Headways range from 15 to 43 minutes in the morning and from 11 to 72 minutes in the afternoon.

Service span 5:58 to 9:44 weekday am
3:00 to 6:50 weekday pm
Ridership 137 weekdays (8
th of 11 routes)
Trend - 55% since 2018 weekdays
Major stops Downtown Burbank station

Productivity 8.1 boardings per revenue hour weekdays (10 th of 11 routes)
Overcrowded segments None
Maximum load 19 on 4:08 pm NB trip at Flower & Western Schedule adherence 82.7% weekdays, 6th of 11 routes weekday Running time analysis Needs more running time southbound

Route 12 positives Provides last-mile connection tailored for employees along San Fernando- Flower corridor who commute via Metrolink
Ridership heaviest to/from Burbank RITC
Route 12 negatives Low ridership and productivity, in line with expectations for a peak -only express route
Sharp decrease in ridership since 2018 (journey-to-work ridership has been most affected by the pandemic, and Metrolink’s primary market has been work-related riders)
Challenges in scheduling buses to meet trains at two stations Metrolink fare zone structure results in higher fare to ride to Glendale from the north, which may affect which station riders use

123 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 2. Route Profiles

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 2-30

0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 45
50 Glendale
Transportation
Center
NB San
Fernando &
FS Los Feliz
NB San
Fernando &
NS Chevy…
NB San
Fernando &
FS Paciific
NB San
Fernando &
NS Elk
NB San
Fernando &
NS Broadway
NB San
Fernando &
NS Milford
NB San
Fernando &
FS Fairmont
NB San
Fernando &
NS Highland
NB San
Fernando &
NS Pelanconi
WB
Grandview &
FS Air Way
WB
Grandview &
NS Flower
NB Flower &
NS Circle
Seven
NB Flower &
mid Davis
NB Flower &
NS Sonora
NB Flower &
FS Western
NB Flower &
FS Allen
NB Flower &
FS Alameda
NB Flower &
FS Verdugo
Downtown
Burbank
Station
Route 12 Northbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 Downtown
Burbank
Station
SB Flower &
NS Verdugo
SB Flower &
FS Alameda
SB Flower &
NS Allen
SB Flower &
NS Western
SB Flower &
NS Sonora
SB Flower &
NS Davis
SB Flower &
FS Circle
Seven
EB Grandview
& FS Flower
EB Grandview
& NS Air Way
SB San
Fernando &
NS Flower
SB San
Fernando &
NS Highland
SB San
Fernando &
FS Doran
SB San
Fernando &
NS California
SB San
Fernando &
NS Broadway
SB San
Frernando &
NS Colorado
SB San
Fernando &
NS Pacific
SB San
Fernando &
NS Chevy…
SB San
Fernando &
FS Los Feliz
Glendale
Transportation
Center
Route 12 Southbound - Avg. Wkday
Ons Offs On Board
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 Weekday Ridership

0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Productivity
$0.00 $5.00 $10.00 $15.00 $20.00
12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System
Average
Subsidy per
Boarding

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% 12 11
8 7
6 5
4 34
33 3 only
1 System Average
On Time
Performance
124 of 236

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-1

Glendale Beeline
The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026
Chapter 3: On-board Survey

3.0 I ntroduction

Working with City Transit staff, the project team designed and conducted an on-board survey to obtain input from Beeline riders on a variety of topics. The team conducted the survey in conjunction with the ridecheck during the period from November 9 through November 14, 2024, with additional surveys collected for missed or incomplete trips on Saturday January 18 and Sunday January 19, 2025.

Surveys were printed in English, Spanish, and Armenian. Many questions from previous on- board surveys were included to allow analysis of trends over time. The survey added several new questions to solicit feedback on current issues. Respondents filled out 1,316 surveys. The survey forms may be found in Appendix B.

This chapter is organized as follows:

• Section 1 summarizes findings from the on-board survey • Section 2 presents ridership information and travel patterns • Section 3 examines preferences among various service alternatives • Section 4 discusses c urrent and preferred means of obtaining information about the Beeline
• Section 5 analyzes rider demographics and ratings of service elements • Section 6 compares responses in this survey to those received in previous on-board surveys.

3.1 Summary of On-board Survey Findings

Beeline riders are using transit primarily for school and work trips: 37 percent of all trips are work- related and 23 percent are school-related.

Most riders get to or from the bus by walking and 32 percent of all riders transfer from another bus or a train. Forty percent of respondents are long-time Beeline riders, but 22 percent began using the system in the past six months.

125 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-2

The survey asked customers to select their first two choices from a list of various service improvements. Respondents expressed a preference for additional weekend service (46 percent) and later evening service (44 percent).

The survey asked about any factors that prevent greater use of the Beeline. Almost half of respondents Indicated that there were no factors, while 20 percent said that Beeline routes do not travel where they need to go and 15 percent reported that the Beeline does not travel when they need it.

NextBus/Google Maps was reported as the most common source for schedule information.

Customers prefer Google Transit as their future source of information, followed by printed schedules and NextBus. Almost half (47%) of respondents pay for their fare with a Metro TAP card, while 38 percent continue to pay with cash, and almost half indicated that the TAP card is their preferred future mode of payment. 59 percent of respondents own a Metro TAP card, up from only 28 percent in 2019.

In terms of demographics, Beeline riders are most likely to be female. Many Beeline riders report low incomes, but one-third of riders have household incomes above $40,000 and 59 percent live in a household with at least one vehicle. Riders are of all ages, with 37 percent under 25 and 18 percent age 62 and older. The most common ethnicity is Latino, but Latino riders do not constitute a majority of all riders.

Most responses to this survey are not appreciably different from responses in 2018 , 2013, and 2008. Notable differences include reliance on apps for schedule information, increased transfer activity with Metro routes, a n increased share of newer passengers, decreased use of cash to pay fares, and changes in various demographic characteristics of riders.

3.2 Ridership Information and Travel Patterns

Figure 3.1 summarizes survey responses by language. Over 75 percent of all respondents answered the survey in English. Of the non-English surveys, most were completed in Spanish.

Armenian-language responses accounted for three percent of all surveys received. The 126 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-3

percentage of Spanish responses rose from 11 to 15 percent and the percentage of Armenian responses increased from 3 to 9 percent.

The express routes connecting to Metrolink showed a slightly different pattern, with more English (85%) and fewer Armenian (1%) responses. In 2018, all surveys on Routes 11 and 12 were completed in English.

Figure 3.1
Survey Responses by Language

English
76%
Spanish
15%
Armenian
9%
127 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-4

Figure 3.2 shows the number of survey responses and the percentage of riders responding by Beeline bus route. T he La Cañada Flintridge shuttles (Routes 33 and 34) are combined. The survey sample included each weekday, Saturday, and Sunday trip on each route. Number of responses range from 17 on Routes 33 and 34 to 329 on Route 1.

Figure 3.2
Survey Responses by Beeline Route

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Routes 33/34
Route 31 (Sat)
Route 12
Route 11
Route 8
Route 7
Route 6
Route 5
Route 4
Route 3
Route 1
128 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-5

Figure 3.3 shows trip purpose. Work is the most common trip purpose, and 60 percent of all trips are for work or school. On weekdays, work and school combine for 73 percent of all trips. Work and shopping are the most common trip purposes on Saturday and Sunday. Overall, trip purposes are very similar to pre-pandemic patterns.

Figure 3.3
Trip Purpose

Work
37%
School
23%
Shopping
16%
Other
9%
Visit/Personal
8%
Medical
7%
129 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-6

Table 3.1 lists intersections/locations with the greatest number of boardings, as reported by survey respondents. All bus stops at a particular intersection are included in the total for that intersection. Note that these numbers represent survey responses, not actual boardings. The Glendale Transportation Center and Glendale Community College have the greatest number of boardings. In general, boarding locations are more widely distributed than alighting locations.

Table 3.1
Survey Results: Intersections/Locations with the Greatest Number of Boardings Location Number of
Boardings
Glendale Transportation Center 59
Glendale Community College 35
Central & Chevy Chase 19
Broadway & Central (Galleria) 18
Central & Los Feliz 16
Broadway & Glendale 15
Chevy Chase & Glendale 15
Brand & Broadway 14
Chevy Chase & Garfield 14
Americana & Central (Americana) 13
Source: 2024 On-board Survey

Table 3.2 lists intersections/locations with the greatest number of alightings, also as reported by survey respondents. All bus stops at a particular intersection are included in the total for that intersection. Differences between the two lists reflect the fact that passengers were somewhat more likely to fill out the survey on their first trip of the day. This explains why important destinations such as the Glendale Galleria and the Americana at Brand have more alightings than boardings while the Glendale Transportation Center has more boardings than alightings.

Table 3.2
Survey Results: Intersections/Locations with the Greatest Number of Alightings Location Number of
Alightings
Glendale Community College 56
Broadway & Central (Galleria) 55
Americana & Central (Americana) 33
Broadway & Glendale 33
Glendale Transportation Center 29
Brand & Broadway 27
Central & Colorado 23
Arden & Central 17
Chevy Chase & Garfield 16
Harvard & Louise 14
Source: 2024 On-board Survey

130 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-7

Figure 3.4 indicates means of access to the bus. Most riders walk to the bus. Three-quarters of those who walk to the bus stop walk one or two blocks, and 85 percent reported walking three blocks or fewer.

Most transferring passengers (80 percent) c ome from another bus , with about half of all bus transfers coming from a Metro bus and one-quarter from a Beeline bus. This reverses the 2018 pattern, which saw more transfers from a Beeline bus than from a Metro bus; the addition of Route 8 to the Beeline network may be partly responsible for this shift by providing a direct connection to GCC from the entire Glendale Avenue corridor. Metro Line 180 along Broadway and Central Avenue accounted for 15 percent of all bus transfers, followed by Metro Line 92 along Brand and Glenoaks Boulevards at 10 percent. The remaining 20 percent of transferring passengers came from rail.

Figure 3.4
Means of Access to the Bus

Walked
58%
Transferred
from another
bus or train
32%
Other
10%
131 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-8

Figure 3.5 presents means of egress from the Beeline bus. Mode of egress is very similar to mode of access. Eighty percent of passengers who walk to their final destination walk only one or two blocks.

Over half (58 percent) of passengers transferring to another bus are transferring to a Metro bus.

Thirteen percent of respondents transferring to another bus transferred to Metro Line 180 along Broadway and Central Avenue and 12 percent transferred to Metro Line 90 along Glendale Avenue, Cañada Boulevard, Verdugo Road, and Montrose Avenue.

Figure 3.5
Means of Egress from the Bus

Walk
60%
Transfer to
anotoher bus
or train
25%
Other
15%
132 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-9

Figure 3.6 presents the reported frequency of ridership in a week. 62 percent of respondents are regular riders who use the Beeline at least four days per week, a slight decrease from 67 percent in 2018.

Figure 3.6
Reported Frequency of Ridership

On-board surveys tend to under-report infrequent ridership, since passengers who ride only one or two days per week or less have a lesser chance to be surveyed. Reported frequency of ridership can be adjusted by considering the likelihood of each group of riders actually receiving a survey. Table 3.3 shows reported and adjusted frequency of ridership on the Beeline.

Table 3.3
Reported and Adjusted Frequency of Ridership
Frequency of Ridership Percent
Reported
Percent
Adjusted
4 or more days per week 62% 27%
2 to 3 days per week 25% 24%
Once a week 6% 15%
Less than once a week 7% 33%
Source: 2024 On-board Survey

4+ days per
week
62%
2-3 days per
week
25%
Once a week
6%
Less than once a week
7%
133 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-10

Figure 3.7 presents the history of riding the Beeline. 40 percent of all riders have been riding for more than two years. Almost one in four riders are new to the Beeline system, riding for less than six months. This breakdown is different from the pre-pandemic totals, when 58 percent of riders had been riding for more than two years and only 15 percent for less than six months.

Figure 3.7
Ridership History on the Beeline

More than 2
years
40%
1 to 2 years
26%
6 months to 1
year
12%
Less than 6
months
22%
134 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-11

Figure 3.8 shows the fare category of Beeline riders. Half are in the “general” category, one-third are students and one in six riders is in the senior/disabled/Medicare category. This breakdown is virtually identical to the 2018 breakdown. There are differences in method of fare payment by fare category: 55 percent of students pay with a TAP card, compared to 45 percent of general riders and 34 percent of senior/disabled/Medicare riders.

Figure 3.8
Fare Category of Beeline Riders

General
50%
Student
33%
Senior/Disabled/
Medicare
17%
135 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-12

Figure 3.9 reports how riders pay their fare. The most common means of fare payment is the TAP card (47 percent), followed by cash (38 percent). In all previous Beeline surveys, cash was used by more than half of all Beeline riders – 55 percent in 2018. “Other” fare options include Beeline transfer, Beeline 10-ride pass, Metro transfer, Amtrak ticket/pass, and EZ Transit Pass.

It is worth noting differences between this and previous graphics. The use of Beeline and Metro transfers is low compared to the results in Figure 3.4 (means of access), but the transfer totals in Figure 3.9 do not include transfers using a pass.

Figure 3.9
Fare Payment Methods on the Beeline

TAP-Stored
Value
47%
Cash
38%
Metro GoPass
6%
Metrolink
Ticket/Pass
5%
Other
4%
136 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-13

3.3 Rider Preferences

This section of the on- board survey asks passengers to choose their top two choices among several potential service improvements, including:

• Additional weekend service
• Earlier morning service
• Faster travel time (fewer stops but a longer walk)
• Later evening service
• More frequent service on current routes
• More stops (slower travel but a shorter walk)
• New or extended routes to new destinations

A final question in this section asks about factors that discourage transit use.

Respondents expressed a strong preference for additional weekend service and later evening service, as shown in Figure 3.10. A few respondents selected more than two options, and many chose only one option. Among those who answered this question, there are 1.78 responses per respondent. 15 percent of all respondents named “additional weekend service” and “later evening service” as their top two choices.

Figure 3.10
Rider Preferences

93 167
191
258
334
516
550
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
More stops (slower travel but a shorter walk)
New or extended routes to new destinations
Faster travel time (fewer stops but a longer
walk)
Earlier morning service
More frequent service on current routes
Later evening service
Additional weekend service
137 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-14

We asked those respondents with a preference for routes to new destinations where they would like to go. Replies were scattered over many possible destinations; no new destination was noted by more than four respondents. The only destinations mentioned more than once include Brand Library and Arts Center, The Galleria (presumably a request for additional service), Glendale Adventist Hospital, and Verdugo.

The final question in this section asked riders what factors (if any) prevented them from increasing their use of the Glendale Beeline. As shown in Figure 3.11, the single largest response ( 49 percent, up from 37 percent in 2018) was “Nothing.” “Does Not Travel Where I Need to Go” and “Does Not Travel When I Need it” were also common responses at 20 percent and 15 percent, respectively. Only a few respondents who answered “Other” provided specific reasons for not riding more often. The most common “Other” responses included “later service” and “more service.”

Figure 3.11
Factors That Prevent Increasing Use of the Beeline

Nothing
49%
Does not
travel where I
need to go
20%
Does not
travel when I
need it
15%
Not enough
bus stops
6%
Information is in English only
2%
Other
8%
138 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-15

3.4 Current and Preferred Means of Obtaining Information about the Beeline

The intent of this section of the survey is to understand:

• Mobile device ownership and usage;
• How Beeline customers currently obtain information and plan their trips; • Preferred means of obtaining information and paying the fare.

The first question in this section asked customers: “What devices (if any) do you have with you?” Figure 3.12 shows the extent to which mobile devices are carried and used by Beeline customers. 81 percent of respondents carried a smart phone , and 81 % percent had some type of mobile device.

Figure 3.12
Mobile Devices Carried by Beeline Customers

When we think about new technologies with respect to Beeline customers, we need to consider income and age. It is always a possibility that low-income and older riders do not have or choose not to have access to new technologies. Tables 3.4 and 3.5 explore this possibility by examining the percentage of riders with mobile devices within income and age categories.

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
No device/no answer
Tablet
Other Phone
Smart Phone
139 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-16

Table 3.4 shows that smart phone ownership increases with income. Even so, 83 percent of all respondents with incomes under $20,000 reported carrying a smart phone and 95 percent carry some sort of mobile device.

Table 3.4
Mobile Devices Carried by Beeline Customers by Income
Device Percent All
Percent
Income Under
$20,000
Percent
Income
$20,000-
$40,000
Percent
Income
$40,000-
$60,000
Percent
Income Over
$60,000
Smart phone 89% 83% 87% 87% 90%
Other phone 11% 12% 7% 5% 5%
Tablet 5% 5% 5% 5% 5%
None 10% 4% 6% 7% 6%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 because some respondents reported more than one device Source: 2024 On-board Survey

Table 3.5 shows that smart phone ownership generally decreases with age, especially at age 62 or older. Among respondents 62 years of age and older, only 71 percent reported carrying a smart phone. However, this is much higher than the 57 percent of riders age 62 or older who reported carrying a smart phone in 2018. Overall, 87 percent of older riders and over 90 percent of riders under 62 carry some sort of mobile device.

Table 3.5
Mobile Devices Carried by Beeline Customers by Age
Device Percent All
Percent 17
Years and
Under
Percent 18 to
24 Years
Percent 25 to
61 Years
Percent 62
Years and
Older
Smart phone 81% 82% 91% 85% 71%
Other phone 10% 11% 4% 10% 13%
Tablet 5% 6% 5% 4% 9%
None 9% 9% 5% 5% 13%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Note: Percentages do not add to 100 because some respondents reported more than one device Source: 2024 On-board Survey

NextBus provides real -time passenger information through the internet (mobile and computer access), via text, or by telephone. Beeline customers can find the arrival time of the next bus at a given location in real time, not based on static schedules. Fi gure 3.13 shows that the use of NextBus has declined from 50 percent in 2018 to only 28 percent in 2024.

140 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-17

Figure 3.13
NextBus Use

The decline in NextBus usage can be explained by the growth in popularity of other apps. NextBus and Google Maps , linked together as a survey choice, are the most common means to f ind schedule information (Figure 3.14) , followed by printed schedules. The Transit App was mentioned by 4 percent of respondents in the “other” category, along with other apps. There has been a clear shift toward computer or app-based sources of information.

Figure 3.14
Primary Source of Bus Schedule Information

Use Next Bus
28%
Do Not Use
Next Bus
72%
Other
Bus operators
Telephone/call center
GlendaleBeeline.com
Printed schedules
NextBus/Google Maps
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
141 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-18

Figure 3.15 presents the preferred source of bus schedule information in the future. Google Transit is mentioned by over 40 percent of respondents. While printed schedules will still be important, many riders prefer to use an app to find schedule information.

Figure 3.15
Preferred Source of Bus Schedule Information in the Future

The final questions in this section of the survey are fare-related. Almost 60 percent of respondents own a Metro TAP card (the regional fare card), as seen in Figure 3.16. The percentage of Beeline passengers with a TAP card has doubled since 2018, from 28 to 59 percent.

Figure 3.16
Metro TAP Card Ownership

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Other
Go 511
Calling the call center
NextBus
Printed schedules
Google Transit
Have a TAP
card
59%
Do not have
a TAP card
41%
142 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-19

Figure 3.17 shows the fare payment preferences among Beeline riders in the future. Almost half of all respondents prefer to pay with a TAP card. In 2018, about half of the respondents preferred cash.

Figure 3.17
Future Fare Payment Preferences

5%
13%
33%
49%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%
Credit/Debit Card
Pay by Phone
Cash
Tap Card
143 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-20

3.5. Customer Demographics and Ratings of Service Elements

The final section of the survey asked customers to provide information about themselves and ratings of various elements of Beeline service.

Figure 3.18 shows the age distribution of Beeline customers. Almost half the respondents are in their prime working years, with 37 percent under 25 and 18 percent 62 or older. While the percentage of riders under 25 has remained constant since 2018, there are more riders age 18- 24 and fewer 17 or under than in 2018.

Figure 3.18
Age of Beeline Customers

17 or under
13%
18-24
24%
25-61
45%
62 or older
18%
144 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-21

Figure 3.19 shows that more women than men are Beeline customers. This is typical of transit ridership throughout the country.

Figure 3.19
Gender of Beeline Customers

Figure 3.20 presents ethnicity. Latino/Hispanic customers account for the single largest group of Beeline riders but are not a majority. There are more Armenian riders and fewer white/non- Armenian riders compared to the 2018 findings.

Figure 3.20
Ethnicity of Beeline Customers

Female
56%
Male
41%
Non-binary
3%
4%
5%
13%
13%
18%
46%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Other
Black/African-American
White/non-Armenian
Asian
Armenian
Latino/Hispanic
145 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-22

Figure 3.21 shows levels of vehicle ownership. The number of riders in zero and one-vehicle households has increased significantly since 2018, with a corresponding decrease in riders from multiple-vehicle households. This is partially due to the decline in ridership on the Metrolink Express routes.

Figure 3.21
Household Vehicle Ownership among Beeline Customers

Figure 3.22 presents household income. The 2024 survey used different income categories. A large segment of Beeline customers are poor, but riders come from all income levels.

Figure 3.22
Household Income among Beeline Customers

Zero
41%
One
36%
Two
17%
Three or more
6%
Under
$20,000
39%
$20,000-$40,000
26%
$40,000-
$60,000
17%
Over $60,000
18%
146 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-23

Half of all riders on Routes 11 and 12 (the Metrolink Express routes) report household income over $60,000, but these riders represent only a very small portion of Beeline riders. The income profile for local Beeline riders is virtually identical to the overall profile.

Finally, the survey asked riders to rate Beeline’s performance, on a scale of 1 to 4 with 1 being “poor” and 4 being “ great,” for seven different service characteristics as well as to provide an overall rating of Beeline service. Figure 3.23 shows the results.

Figure 3.23
Average Ratings of Beeline Service Elements

The highest rated item is the cleanliness and safety of the buses at 3.53. The lowest rated element is availability of schedules (3.24), but even this lowest score is respectable. The average score for overall Beeline service is 3.52, indicating a very high level of passenger satisfaction with Beeline. In 2019, the average score for overall Beeline service was slightly higher at 3.57.

3.52 3.24

3.25 3.25

3.31 3.42

3.44 3.53

1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
Overall rating of the Beeline
Schedules are readily available
Frequency of service overall
No need to transfer
Cleanliness of bus stops
Information is easy to understand
Operator courtesy
Bus is clean and safe
147 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-24

Table 3.6 presents rider perceptions of service and includes the weighted average score (used in Figure 3.23) of all ratings for each service element as well as the distribution of actual ratings.

Table 3.6
Detailed Ratings of Beeline Service Elements
Service Element Average
Score
Number of Respondents Rating by Score
Total
Respondents 1
Poor
2 Fair
3 Good
4 Great
Bus is clean and
safe 3.53 24 85 265 714 1,088
Operator courtesy 3.44 34 105 294 645 1,078
Information is easy
to understand 3.42 22 94 369 582 1,067
Cleanliness of bus
stops 3.31 46 150 314 573 1,083
No need to transfer 3.25 43 160 319 507 1,029
Frequency of
service overall 3.25 32 165 375 498 1,070
Schedules are
readily available 3.24 38 159 382 490 1,069
Overall Rating 3.52 15 57 359 650 1,081

In designing service improvements, Beeline staff needs to know not only the customer ratings on individual service attributes but also the importance of each attribute in terms of overall satisfaction. Figure 3.23 and Table 3.6 focused on customer ratings; here, we consider the ratings together with the relative importance of each service attribute.

We measure the importance of each service attribute by examining the relationship of each attribute to overall satisfaction. The relationship is measured using correlation analysis to estimate the importance of each service attribute; a higher correlation indicates that a given service attribute is more important in determining overall satisfaction. An index score of 100 is assigned to the median correlation coefficient. Service attributes with a score above 100 are more correlated with overall satisfaction (as measured by the overall Beeline rating), while service attributes with a score below 100 are less correlated.

148 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-25

Table 3.7 shows the Pearson correlation coefficient and the importance score for each service attribute. Cleanliness, safety, and operator courtesy rank highly in terms of importance, while no need to transfer and availability of schedules are relatively less important.

Table 3.7
Importance of Service Elements
Service Attribute
Pearson
Correlation
Coefficient
Importance
Index
Bus is clean and safe 0.883 103.49
Cleanliness of bus stops 0.881 103.25
Operator courtesy 0.878 102.88
Frequency of service overall 0.854 100.00
Information is easy to understand 0.852 99.82
Schedules are readily available 0.821 96.20
No need to transfer 0.782 91.66

Performance and importance can be related through scatter diagrams, with derived importance on the x-axis and performance ratings on the y-axis. The scatter diagram (Figure 3.24) is divided into quadrants, with an importance score of 100 and a performance rating of 3.40 (almost midway between a “good” rating of 3.0 and a “great” rating of 4.0) serving as the dividing lines. The 3.40 dividing line for performance is high; a more typical dividing line would be 3.00. Given the high ratings for Beeline service, however, a higher dividing line is needed to make this quadrant exercise meaningful.

Items in the upper right -hand quadrant represent important attributes with high performance ratings. These are things that Beeline does well that are important to riders. Beeline should take whatever actions are required to ensure continued high performance ratings on these attributes. “Bus is clean and safe” and “operator courtesy” are service elements that fall within this quadrant.

Items in the upper left-hand quadrant receive high marks in terms of performance but are relatively unimportant to riders. Often, attributes in this quadrant receive lower importance ratings from passengers precisely because the agency does a good job in these areas. Riders, like everyone else, tend to take areas in which their needs are met for granted. This suggests that Beeline needs to continue to monitor service delivery in these areas to ensure high performance, but that these elements of service are not top priorities for improvements. The only attribute within this quadrant is “information is easy to understand.”

Items in the lower left-hand quadrant are relatively unimportant to riders and relatively low-scoring in terms of performance. While performance levels are relatively low for these attributes, these are not strong candidates for improvement due to their low levels of importance to r iders. The elements in this quadrant are “no need to transfer,” “schedules readily available,” and “frequency of service overall.”

149 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-26

Figure 3.24
Importance vs. Performance for Beeline Service Elements

“Frequency of service overall” is on the border between the lower left -hand and right -hand quadrants. This is unexpected because frequent service is one of the key factors in attracting ridership. Respondents riding the most frequent routes (Routes 1 and 4, with a bus every 10 minutes) rated overall frequency higher than riders on other routes. Factors such as overcrowding and on-time issues for trips at school bell times, along with a tendency of riders always wanting more frequent service may have contributed to this unexpected result.

Items in the lower right -hand quadrant are key priorities for Beeline. Riders consider these attributes important, but current performance ratings are less than desired. Only one element is in this quadrant, “cleanliness at bus stops.” While acknowledging that transit agencies do not have full control over the bus stop environment, this finding suggests that ongoing attention would be warranted.

Survey respondents were invited to comment on any aspect of Beeline service at the bottom of the survey. Only one comment was received, related to later weekend service.

Schedules readily available
Easy to understand
No need to transfer
Frequency overall
Bus is clean and
safe
Operator courtesy
Clean bus stops

3.20 3.40

3.60 80.00 90.00 100.00 110.00 120.00
Performance
Importance

LOW IMPORTANCE

HIGH PERFORMANCE

HIGH IMPORTANCE

HIGH PERFORMANCE

LOW IMPORTANCE

LOW PERFORMANCE

HIGH IMPORTANCE

LOW PERFORMANCE
150 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-27

3.6 Trends over Time: Comparison to 2018, 2013, and 2008 On-board Surveys

This section examines trends since 2008 by comparing responses for similar questions.

Survey responses by language showed increases in the number of surveys filled out in Spanish and Armenian. Results were most similar to the 2008 survey.

Table 3.8
Language, 2008-2024
Language 2024 2018 2013 2008
English 76% 86% 82% 79%
Spanish 15% 11% 13% 14%
Armenian 9% 3% 5% 7%
Sources: 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2024 On-board Surveys
,
Table 3.9 shows only minor changes in trip purpose since 2018. Work and school have always been the primary trip purposes.

Table 3.9
Trip Purpose, All Days, 2008-2024
Trip Purpose 2024 2018 2013 2008
Work 37% 38% 36% 38%
School 23% 25% 33% 26%
Shopping 16% 14% 11% 13%
Visit/Personal 8% 8% 6% 6%
Medical 7% 4% 4% 5%
Other 9% 11% 9% 11%
Sources: 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2024 On-board Surveys

Tables 3.10 and 3.11 indicate that passengers were less likely to walk to or from the bus in 2024 than in previous years and more likely to transfer at one or both ends of their trips..

Table 3.10
Means of Access, 2008-2024
Means of Access 2024 2018 2013 2008
Walk 58% 65% 62% 71%
Transfer from Bus/Train 32% -- -- --
Transfer from Bus Only -- 18% 20% 15%
Other 10% 17% 18% 14%
Sources: 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2024 On-board Surveys
2024 survey combined bus and train transfers – previously, train transfers were included in the “Other” category

151 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-28

Table 3.11
Means of Egress, 2008-2024
Means of Egress 2024 2018 2013 2008
Walk 60% 65% 65% 80%
Transfer to Bus/Train 25%
Transfer to Bus Only 18% 19% 15%
Other 15% 17% 16% 5%
Sources: 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2024 On-board Surveys
2024 survey combined bus and train transfers – previously, train transfers were included in the “Other” category

The percentage of frequent riders (passengers who report riding the Beeline four or more days per week) has declined from 67 to 62 percent, with a corresponding increase in those who ride two to three days per week (Table 3.12). In the post-COVID period, long-time riders (more than 2 years) no longer account for the majority of riders, as shown in Table 3.13. All other categories increased, including new riders (less than six months), who account for 22 percent of all riders.

Table 3.12
Reported Frequency of Ridership, 2008-2024
Frequency 2024 2018 2013 2008
4+ days per week 62% 67% 69% 70%
2 to 3 days per week 25% 20% 20% 20%
Once per week 6% 7% 5% 5%
Less than once per
week 7% 6% 6% 5%
Sources: 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2024 On-board Surveys

Table 3.13
Ridership History, 2008-2024
How Long Riding 2024 2018 2013 2008
More than 2 years 40% 58% 57% 52%
1 to 2 years 26% 18% 18% 19%
6 months to 1 year 13% 9% 9% 12%
Less than 6 months 22% 15% 16% 16%
Sources: 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2024 On-board Surveys

152 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-29

Table 3.14 documents the shift away from cash to other methods of fare payment on the Beeline..

Cash accounts for less than half of all fares, while Metro TAP Card use has soared. Table 3.15 shows customer preferences for fare payment and suggests the trends in 2024 will continue.

Table 3.14
Fare Payment, 2008-2024
Payment Mode 2024 2018 2013 2008
Metro TAP card 47% 13% NA NA
Cash 38% 55% 61% 67%
Metro GoPass 6% NA NA NA
Metrolink ticket/pass 5% 17% 13% 9%
Other 4% 15% 26% 24%
Sources: 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2024 On-board Surveys

Table 3.15
Preferred Fare Payment Method, 2013-2024
Payment Mode 2024 2018 2013
Metro TAP card 49% 20% 19%
Cash 33% 49% 45%
Smartphone 13% 6% 6%
Credit/debit card 5% 6% 5%
Beeline pass -- 18% 25%
Sources: 2013, 2018 and 2024 On-board Surveys
Question not included in 2008 Survey

NextBus and Google Maps are the primary information source for Beeline riders (Table 3.16).

Google Transit is the preferred source for Beeline information (Table 3.17). The “Other” category includes other apps that provide transit information.

Table 3.16
Primary Information Source, 2008-2024
Source 2024 2018 2013 2008
NextBus/Google Maps 46% -- -- --
NextBus only -- 37% 28% NA
Printed schedules 19% 31% 42% 62%
GlendaleBeeline.com 10% 15% 16% 19%
Telephone 6% 7% 6% 4%
Bus Operators 6% 1% 2% 8%
Other 13% 9% 6% 7%
Sources: 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2024 On-board Surveys

153 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-30

Table 3.17
Preferred Information Source, 2013-2024
Source 2024 2018 2013
Google Transit 41% 23% 0%
Printed schedules 24% 31% 57%
NextBus 21% 41% 43%
Calling the Call Center 3% -- --
Go 511 1% 1% --
Other 10% 5% --
Sources: 2013, 2018 and 2024 On-board Surveys
Question not included in 2008 Survey

The percentage of Beeline riders carrying a smartphone has increased slightly to 81%. A majority of riders in every demographic category has a smartphone.

Table 3.18
Mobile Devices Carried by Beeline Customers, 2013-2024
Device 2024 2018 2013
Smartphone 81% 78% 59%
Other phone 10% 11% 27%
Tablet 5% 5% 6%
None/No answer 9% 11% 13%
Sources: 2013, 2018 and 2024 On-board Surveys
Question not asked in 2008 Survey

Surveys over the years have used different definitions for older age categories. The most notable change in the age of Beeline riders in 2024 was the decrease in riders under age 17 and a corresponding increase in the 18- 24 age group ( Table 3.19). The majority of Beeline riders continue to be female (Table 3.20).

Table 3.19
Age, 2008-2024
Age 2024 2018 2013 2008
Under 17 13% 20% 19% 16%
18 to 24 24% 16% 20% 20%
25 to 44 45% 46% 27% 29%
45 to 61/64 22% 27%
62+/65+ 18% 18% 12% 8%
Note: 2018 and 2024 used 25-61 and 62+; 2013 used 45-61 and 62+; 2008 used 45-64 and 65+
Sources: 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2024 On-board Surveys
154 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-31

Table 3.20
Gender, 2008-2024
Gender 2024 2018 2013 2008
Female 56% 61% 61% 60%
Male 41% 39% 39% 40%
Non-binary 3% -- -- --
Sources: 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2024 On-board Surveys

Table 3.21 indicates that the percentage of Latino/Hispanic and Armenian riders increased while the percentage of Asian and White/Non-Armenian riders declined from 2018 to 2024.

Table 3.21
Ethnicity, 2008-2024
Ethnicity 2024 2018 2013 2008
Latino/Hispanic 46% 41% 40% 39%
Armenian 18% 12% 16% 17%
Asian 13% 17% 17% 17%
White/non-Armenian 13% 20% 18% 20%
Black/African American 5% 4% 3% 4%
Other 4% 7% 6% 4%
Sources: 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2024 On-board Surveys

The number of Beeline customers living in zero-vehicle households has jumped from 27% on the last survey to 41% in 2024, with a rise in one-vehicle households as well (Table 3.22).

Table 3.22
Household Vehicle Ownership, 2008-2024
# Vehicles 2024 2018 2013 2008
Zero 41% 27% 30% 34%
One 36% 29% 33% 31%
Two 17% 31% 27% 24%
Three or more 6% 13% 10% 11%
Sources: 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2024 On-board Surveys
155 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 3. On-board Survey
Dan Boyle & Associates Page 3-32

The 2024 survey used different income categories. The number of Beeline riders in households with incomes under $20,000 decreased from 62 percent in 2018 to 39 percent in 2024 (Table

3.23). The 2008 survey did not include an income question.

Table 3.23
Household Income among Local Beeline Riders, 2013-2024
Income 2024 2018 2013
Less than $10,000 39% 37% 40%
$10,000-$20,000 25% 24%
$20,000-$40,000 26%
38% 36% $40,000-$60,000 17%
Over $60,000 18%
Sources: 2013, 2018 and 2024 On-board Surveys
Income question not asked on 2008 Survey

Table 3.24 shows how customer ratings of overall Beeline service and of individual service elements have increased since 2008. On a 1 to 4 scale where 1 is poor and 4 is great, the rating of overall Beeline service decreased slightly from 3.57 in 2018 to 3.52 in 2024, and three service elements also showed a slight decrease (0.05 or less). Three other service elements, including cleanliness at bus stops, no need to transfer, and schedules are readily available, decreased by more than 0.10, which may be explained by greater transfer activity between the Beeline and Metro bus routes, by the increased use of apps to find next-bus arrivals, and by the fact that transit agencies do not have full control over the bus stop environment.

Table 3.24
2008-2024 Ratings of Service Elements
Service Element 2024 2018 2013 2008
Bus is clean and safe 3.53 3.55 3.38 3.16
Cleanliness at bus stops 3.31 3.38 3.25/3.29
Operator courtesy 3.44 3.49 3.29 3.25
Information is easy to understand 3.42 3.43 3.33 3.22
No need to transfer 3.25 3.41 3.29 3.13
Frequency of service overall 3.25 -- -- --
Schedules are readily available 3.24 3.36 3.22 3.08
Overall rating 3.52 3.57 3.36 3.32
Ratings on a 1-4 scale with 1=poor and 4=great
Safety and cleanliness on the bus rated together in 2018 Safety at bus stops and on the bus rated separately in 2009 Frequency of service overall added in 2024
Sources: 2008, 2013, 2018 and 2024 On-board Surveys

The highest rated service elements are bus cleanliness and safety (3.53) , operator courtesy (3.44), and information is easy to understand (3.42).

156 of 236

Dan Boyle & Associates Page 4-1

Glendale Beeline
The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026
Chapter 4: Regional Context for Beeline Service

4.0 I ntroduction

Beeline service is not the only transit service in Glendale. Metro operates several local and one express route in the city. Two of LADOT’s Commuter Express Routes serve Glendale. Metrolink trains stop at the Glendale Transportation Center, providing direct connections to Los Angeles Union Station, San Fernando Valley, Antelope Valley, and Ventura County. Amtrak ’s Pacific Surfliner provides intercity service between San Diego and San Luis Obispo.

Section 4.1 summarizes Metro passenger activity in Glendale at stops with at least 75 boardings or alightings in one direction. Section 4.2 discusses LADOT Commuter Express routes that serve Glendale. Section 4.3 shows the local transit network in Burbank. Section 4.4 shows the local transit network in Pasadena. Section 4.5 analyzes the market for transit service within the Beeline service area. Section 4.6 examines how far a rider can travel via transit from selected points in the Glendale area and also general travel patterns gleaned from cell phone data.

4.1 Metro Routes in Glendale

Metro routes provide bus service connecting Glendale with other cities within Los Angeles County.

Table 4.1 presents boardings and alightings within the City of Glendale for all Metro routes.

Boardings on Metro routes within the City limits average almost 14,000 on weekdays, over 8,000 on Saturday, and almost 7,000 on Sunday.

Table 4.1
Boardings and Alightings on Metro Routes within the City of Glendale Line Weekday Saturday Sunday
Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings 90 1,597 1,564 1,041 1,049 962 946
92 1,888 1,808 1,252 1,220 1,068 1,056
93/603 1,040 1,036 755 810 647 680
94 1,841 1,896 1,408 1,392 1,223 1,225
180 2,281 2,377 1,698 1,730 1,604 1,601
217 1,377 1,412 1,067 1,121 954 1,032
501 434 422 212 227 191 201
TOTAL 13,725 8,355 8,401 6,809 6,691
Source: Metro, June 2025 ridership

Individual Metro routes serving Glendale are described below in terms of route destinations, primary streets of operation within Glendale, and major stops in Glendale (at least 80 boardings or alightings).

157 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-2

Line 90 L os Angeles Civic Center - Sunland - North Hollywood Metro Line 90 operate s primarily on
Glendale Avenue, Cañada Boulevard,
Montrose Avenue, and Foothill
Boulevard in and near Glendale.

Table 4.2 summarizes ridership and
activity at major Metro 90/91 stops in
Glendale on weekdays, Saturday, and
Sunday.

Riders boarding in Glendale are more
likely to ride south. The stop at GCC is
the busiest stop in both directions on
Lines 90/91 within the City of Glendale.

Weekend ridership is notably lower
than weekday ridership at GCC.

Weekend ridership is high at Gl endale
& Broadway in both directions.

Table 4.2
Boardings and Alightings on Metro Line 90 within the City of Glendale Line Weekday Saturday Sunday
Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings 90 1,597 1,564 1,041 1,049 962 946
Major Stops within the City of Glendale
Glendale/Broadway 241 228 169 160 161 146
Glendale/California 120 133 87 90 80 100
Verdugo/Honolulu 100 70 80 66 75 53
Glendale/Chevy Chase 81 72 37 27 36 31
Glendale/Colorado 76 76 36 47 31 37
Source: Metro Ridership from LA Metro, June 2025
Note: Ridership at Canada/Glendale College stop is higher when GCC is in session

158 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-3

Line 92 Downtown Los Angeles– Sylmar Station
Metro Line 92 operates primarily on Brand
Boulevard and Glenoaks Boulevard in
Glendale.

Table 4.3 summarizes ridership and activity
at major stops in Glendale on weekdays,
Saturday, and Sunday.

The stop at Brand & Broadway is the busiest
stop on Line 92 within the City of Glendale.

Weekend boardings and alightings along
Brand Boulevard are almost as high as
weekday, suggesting that non-work travel is
an important element of ridership on Brand
Boulevard.

Line 92 is the primary link between
downtown Glendale and downtown Burbank.

Table 4.3
Boardings and Alightings on Metro Line 92 within the City of Glendale Line Weekday Saturday Sunday
Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings 92 1,888 1,808 1,252 1,220 1,068 1,056
Major Stops within the City of Glendale
Brand/Broadway 328 295 232 211 211 180
Glenoaks/Pacific 132 135 87 84 65 70
Brand/Colorado 129 108 97 71 71 80
Glenoaks/Western 101 105 71 74 62 59
Brand/California 88 84 73 65 65 70
Brand/Harvard 83 66 54 53 49 45

159 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-4

Line 93 (603) Glendale Galleria to Grand/LATCC Station
Metro Line 93 operates primarily on San
Fernando Road, Pacific Avenue, Colorado
Street, Columbus Avenue and Central
Avenue. Metro renumbered this route from
603 to 93.

Table 4.4 summarizes ridership and activity
at major stops in Glendale on weekdays,
Saturday, and Sunday.

The stop at Columbus & Hawthorne
(Glendale Galleria) is the busiest stop in the
City of Glendale, followed by Central &
Americana and San Fernando & Los Feliz.

Table 4.4
Boardings and Alightings on Metro Line 93 within the City of Glendale Line Weekday Saturday Sunday
Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings 93 (formerly 603) 1,040 1,036 755 810 647 680
Major Stops within the City of Glendale
Columbus & Hawthorne 189 423 105 398 125 356
Central & Americana 164 2 155 13 142 2
San Fernando & Los Feliz 158 139 86 92 88 112
Central & Broadway 85 4 69 14 79 0
Pacific & Colorado 81 79 81 102 47 46
San Fernando & Chevy
Chase 75 88 43 53 46 50

160 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-5

Line 94 Downtown Los Angeles – North Hollywood
Metro Line 94 operates on San Fernando
Road, Brand Boulevard, and Broadway in
Glendale.

Table 4. 5 summarizes ridership and
activity at major stops in Glendale on
weekdays, Saturday, and Sunday.

The stops at Broadway & Brand are by far
the busiest stops on this route. Metro Line
94 was restructured in the NextGen plan
via Brand and Broadway to serve the heart
of Glendale.

Table 4.5
Boardings and Alightings on Metro Line 94 within the City of Glendale Line Weekday Saturday Sunday
Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings 94 1,841 1,896 1,408 1,392 1,223 1,225
Major Stops within the City of Glendale
Brand/Broadway SB/
Broadway/Brand NB 426 418 388 323 320 279
Brand/Colorado 155 183 133 153 123 150
Broadway/Central 136 142 121 127 96 115
San Fernando/Sonora 133 134 105 112 102 96
San Fernando/Western 115 116 95 105 78 73
Broadway/San Fernando 99 99 56 60 49 62
Brand/Chevy Chase 92 89 67 47 62 47
Broadway/Pacific 88 92 70 67 53 51
San Fernando/Brand 83 90 52 49 53 49
Brand/Los Feliz 77 84 61 62 58 57

161 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-6

Line 180 Hollywood – Glendale – Pasadena
Metro Line 180 operates on Los Feliz
Boulevard, Central Avenue, and Broadway
in Glendale.

Table 4. 6 summarizes ridership and
activity at major stops in Glendale on
weekdays, Saturday, and Sunday.

The stops at Broadway & Brand, Central &
Americana, and Broadway & Glendale are
the busiest stops on Line 180 within the
City of Glendale.

Table 4.6
Boardings and Alightings on Metro Line 180 within the City of Glendale Line Weekday Saturday Sunday
Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings 180 2,281 2,377 1,698 1,730 1,604 1,601
Major Stops within the City of Glendale
Broadway/Brand 436 422 310 337 320 292
Central/Americana 268 190 253 172 240 165
Broadway/Glendale 253 270 187 176 141 166
Broadway/Central EB
Central/Broadway WB 197 173 148 121 142 121
Broadway/Verdugo 103 156 70 93 75 90
Central/Los Feliz 103 117 74 90 88 82
Central/Colorado 92 139 83 123 70 111
Central/Windsor 92 85 46 50 35 39
Broadway/Louise 61 92 52 65 54 65
Broadway/Chevy Chase 70 82 60 61 47 64
Broadway/Adams 75 80 61 55 56 48
Central/Chevy Chase 72 80 51 59 49 46
162 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-7

Line 217 Eagle Rock Plaza to La Cienega Station
Metro Line 217 operates on Los Feliz
Boulevard, Brand Boulevard, Broadway,
Verdugo Road, and Colorado Street in
Glendale.

Table 4.7 summarizes ridership and activity
at major stops in Glendale on weekdays ,
Saturday, and Sunday.

The stop s at Los Feliz & San Fernando ,
Brand & Broadway, and Colorado & Eagle
Dale are the busiest stops in both directions
on Line 217 in the City of Glendale.

Table 4.7
Boardings and Alightings on Metro Line 217 within the City of Glendale Line Weekday Saturday Sunday
Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings 217 1,377 1,412 1,067 1,121 954 1,032
Major Stops within the City of Glendale
Los Feliz/San Fernando 194 174 148 132 128 117
Brand/Broadway 172 116 133 84 138 71
Colorado/Eagle Dale 129 174 94 138 93 134
Broadway/Glendale 123 113 80 81 64 73
Broadway/Brand 107 128 99 114 87 94
Broadway/Verdugo 86 82 36 56 41 65
Brand/Colorado 82 118 94 130 78 99
Brand/Harvard 17 89 13 79 20 75

163 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-8

Line 501 North Hollywood to Pasadena Express
Metro Line 501 is an express route between
North Hollywood and Pasadena on SR 134.

In Glendale, it exits SR 134 and travels on
San Fernando Road, Broadway, and Brand
Boulevard with four stops in each direction.

Table 4.8 summarizes ridership and activity
at major stops in Glendale on weekdays,
Saturday, and Sunday.

The stops at Brand & Broadway (EB) and
Broadway & Brand (WB) are the busiest
stops within the City of Glendale.

Table 4.8
Boardings and Alightings on Metro Line 501 within the City of Glendale Line Weekday Saturday Sunday
Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings Boardings Alightings 501 434 422 212 227 191 201
Major Stops within the City of Glendale
Brand/Broadway EB
Broadway/Brand WB 212 206 104 122 101 110

164 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-9

4.2 LADOT Commuter Express and DASH Routes

Two Commuter Express routes operated by the Los Angeles Department of Transportation serve Glendale. Commuter Express 409 has seven morning trips to downtown Los Angeles from Sylmar or Sunland (with one additional trip starting at Harvey Drive) and seven afternoon trips to Sylmar or Sunland. Stops in Glendale include Lowell Avenue & Honolulu Avenue in North Glendale, Verdugo Boulevard & Valihi Way in Montrose, and the Glendale park-and-ride lot at Harvey Drive. Commuter Express 549 has five morning and five afternoon trips in each direction.

This route travels through Glendale via SR 134, with stops at Brand Boulevard and the Glendale park-and-ride lot at Harvey Drive.

LADOT also operates one DASH route, DASH Highland Park/Eagle Rock, that comes to the edge of the City of Glendale (Figure 4.1). At the Eagle Rock end of the route, the DASH bus turns around via Br oadway – Eagle Dale – Colorado, with a stop at Eagle Dale far side (south) of Broadway. The Beeline Route 6 uses the same turnaround path (to/from the west instead of the east) but does not have a stop along Eagle Dale.

Figure 4.1
DASH Highland Park/Eagle Rock

165 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-10

4.3 Burbank Bus

The neighboring City of Burbank provides local transit service, as shown in Figure 4.2. The Orange Route is a loop route serving the North Hollywood station (connecting to Metro’s B and G lines) and the Hollywood Burbank airport. The Pink Route operates between the Universal/Studio City G line station and the Downtown Burbank Metrolink station, providing a connection with the Beeline Route 12 during peak hours. A current study is considering extending the Orange Route to connect with the Red route at the Downtown Burbank Metrolink station and adding a third route to the network that would also connect at the station.

Figure 4.2
Burbank Bus Network

166 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-11

4.4 Pasadena Transit

Figure 4.3 shows the Pasadena Transit network. Pasadena Route 52 So. Raymond-Linda Vista- JPL connects with the Beeline Route 3 and the La Cañada Flintridge Shuttle (Route 33) at JPL with two morning and two afternoon trips . Pasadena Route 5 3 Caltech-JPL connects with the Beeline Route 3 and the La Cañada Flintridge Shuttle (Route 33) at JPL with trips every 30 minutes between 6 and 9 am and 3 and 7 pm.

Figure 4.3
Pasadena Bus Network

4.5 Market Analysis for Transit Services in Glendale

The following maps measure and illustrate density of people and jobs in Beeline’s service area and areas of influence. Residential and jobs density are some of the most important variables explaining demand for transit service. A map showing the concentrat ion of residents and jobs, provides a combined view of the density of activities in the service area.

167 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-12

4.5.1 Residential Density
This map of residential density (Figure 4.4) shows the number of persons per square mile within the Beeline service area, including the City of Glendale and surrounding communities in La Crescenta-Montrose, La Cañada-Flintridge, Eagle Rock, Atwater Village, and Burbank.

Figure 4.4
Residential Density

The map shows that the central part of Glendale has many areas of high residential density (more than 20,000 people per square mile), and that these are clustered into distinctive districts; for instance, the areas south of Highway 134, east of Glendale Avenue, and north of Highway 134 along Stocker Street. Glenoaks Boulevard in downtown Burbank and the western edge of the city is one notable corridor of high residential density that is outside of downtown Glendale. 168 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-13

4.5.2 Employment Density

This map of employment density (Figure 4.5) shows the number of jobs per square mile within the Beeline service area, including the City of Glendale and surrounding communities in La Crescenta-Montrose, la Cañada-Flintridge, Eagle Rock, Atwater Village, and Burbank.

Figure 4.5
Job Density

The map shows that downtown Glendale, especially the area within Pacific Avenue, Glenoaks Boulevard, Glendale Avenue and Colorado Street, has a high density of jobs (more than 20,000 per square mile), and it is an important employment center for the Arroyo Verdugo subregion. 169 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-14

Other notable locations include the Glendale Memorial Hospital in the south end of the city, by the Glendale Transportation Center, and Adventist Health just off the intersection of Highway 134 and Highway 2.

Outside the city boundaries, downtown Burbank and the Media District on Alameda Avenue, west of Victory Boulevard, is another cluster of high employment density. These two areas are connected to Glendale via Flower Street and San Fernando Road which also concentrate a medium level of employment density associated to the movie industry (Disney) and retail.

North of the city, there is a small concentration of jobs in Montrose and at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory. However, job numbers for JPL are not reported in the U.S. Census data for La Cañada-Flintridge (as noted on Figure 4.5).

170 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-15

4.5.3 Activity Density

This map shows not only residential density but also employment density, since the mix of activities contributes to the ridership potential of transit. Transit lines serving purely residential neighborhoods tend to be predominantly used in one direction and generally provide less service than lines on major corridors – like Central Avenue, Brand Boulevard, Broadway, Glendale Avenue, and portions of Glenoaks Boulevard, where residential, commercial and other uses are mixed, and people are traveling in both directions throughout the day.

Figure 4.6
Activity Density

171 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-16

Many of the dense residential and employment areas noted on the previous maps stand out here, but this map also shows areas where different types of demand are more likely to sustain an all- day travel market. One example of an all-day travel market is along Chevy Chase Drive, which accounts for the high ridership on Route 4.

Note that some busy places like malls and hospitals are underrepresented on these maps because only the employees are counted, and not the visitors. In addition, data from schools and universities count only employment, not students, even though students commute every day. That type of activity is shown in the origin-destination travel maps in the next section.

4.6 General Travel Patterns: Origin-Destination Travel Maps (Replica Analysis)

The maps in this section show origin-destination travel flows between distinct zones of the City of Glendale and surrounding areas that comprise the Beeline service area. The purpose of the maps is to illustrate the demand for travel at a fine grain, showing the level of activity, trip attraction and generation that exists between neighborhoods within Glendale’s city limits and between these neighborhoods and surrounding jurisdictions.

The zones used in the analysis are aggregations of U.S. Census block -groups that capture different sections of the service area, and that were aggregated based on land use characteristics, whether residential, commercial, industrial, etc. The zones vary in size based on density and distance from downtown Glendale, with smaller areas closer in and larger areas in the periphery (for example, along Foothill Drive in La Cañada-Flintridge).

Travel demand volumes were extracted from Replica data. Replica is an activity -based travel demand model that models travel at a very fine level of detail, using a series of predictive sub models that synthetize travel behaviors from thousands of users, based on millions of GPS records from cellphones and vehicles, and other baseline data sources, such as population demographics and employment data from the U.S. Census.

In all maps, circles represent trips that are completely contained within each zone, that is trips that start and end within the zone boundaries. Lines represent trips that travel in both directions between any pair of zones. The size of circles and the thickness of lines represent the number or volume of trips for an average day (typically a Thursday). The volume of trips is also represented by color darkness, to help reading.

4.6.1 All Trip Purposes, All Modes

This map shows trips on all modes of travel and for all trip purposes. The map shows a high level of trip making within zones in and around downtown Glendale, and in Burbank. The largest circles and the thickest lines are found in these two urban centers. Generally, the highest volume of trips occurs between contiguous zones, showing that many trips are less than 3 miles long (about 1/3 of all trips).

Trips that are longer than 3 miles are more dispersed and go to multiple areas; however, the map shows a number of longer, thinner, and lighter color lines going between Burbank and Glendale.

Collectively, these show the demand for travel that exists between the two urban centers. 172 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-17

Figure 4.7
Origin-Destination Travel Flows – All Purposes, All Modes

Other noteworthy concentrations of trips are found at Glendale Community College and major high schools (such as Herbert Hoover and Glendale), and at major employer sites such as Disney Imagineering in Glendale’s Grand Central neighborhood.

Large circles and lines are found between zones in La Crescenta-Montrose, mostly related to travel from residential neighborhoods in the foothills to shopping, educational, and healthcare opportunities in Montrose and along Foothill Boulevard.

173 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-18

Approximately one-third (1/3) of daily trips that occur in the area are between 5- 15 miles long.

These are represented by the longest and thinnest lines in the map. These trips are highly dispersed and going in all directions. To make the map readable, we filtered out trip lines that are below 1,000 daily trips, which means that many longer trips are not shown, and that those that are shown represent important volumes of regional demand. (e.g., trips between the Media District in Burbank and different parts of Glendale, Atwater Village, and Montrose.

4.6.2 Work and School Trips, All Modes

Figure 4.8 shows trips on all travel modes that are made for work or school purposes.

Figure 4.8
Work and School Trips, All Modes

174 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-19

Figure 4.8 presents the commute patterns that occur on a typical weekday in the Beeline service area. Many of these trips are also short trips to go to school that stay within the analysis zones, or that travel between contiguous zones to both school and job centers; for instance, in downtown Glendale around the Galleria and the Americana, in the office district north of Highway 134, in La Crescenta and Montrose, and also in downtown Burbank and the Burbank Media District i, and also in the Grand Central neighborhood within Glendale.

A large concentration of work and school related trips also move between Burbank and Glendale along the Highway 134 corridor and parallel arterial streets such as San Fernando Road and Glenoaks Boulevard. This section of the city and the region have a high density of activities that show a high level of travel between analysis zones and demand for transit service.

Larger destinations such as the Media District in Burbank, downtown Glendale, and Glendale Community College, attract trips from many different zones that travel longer distances and show a more dispersed pattern. A good example of this is the Verdugo campus of Glendale Community College, that attracts many trips from many locations in the service area.

Figure 4.9 shows origin-destination travel flows, for all modes of travel and for all trip purposes, going to the analysis zone that contains Glendale Community College. Most trips in this zone are generated and attracted by the college, and include trips that residents are making for education and for jobs at the GCC campus. This map is also showing all trips between zones that are larger than 100 daily trips to provide a comprehensive picture of trips going to and from the GCC zone.

GCC is one of the largest destinations in the service area, and one that pulls trips from all zones included in the analysis. This highlights the importance of GCC as a destination for the Beeline service, and the importance of facilitating connections with the regional transit network to allow for seamless travel on transit from all areas. For instance, there are a few zones showing a significant number of trips going to/from GCC that currently require transfers and a much longer travel time on transit, such as the Media District zone in Burbank, and Atwater Village and Eagle Rock in the City of Los Angeles. Metro Route 685 formerly connected Glassell Park and Eagle Rock with GCC, but NextGen discontinued this route.

175 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-20

Figure 4.9
Origin-Destination Travel Flows to Glendale Community College Zone

176 of 236

The Beeline Buzz Plan 2026 4. Regional Context for Beeline Service Dan Boyle & Associates, Page 4-21

4.7 Summary

Residents and employees in the City of Glendale have abundant choices for transit travel:

• Metro operates seven regional bus routes that connect Glendale with downtown Los Angeles and other cities in the region. Boardings on Metro routes within the City limits average almost 14,000 on weekdays, over 8,000 on Saturday, and almost 7,000 on Sunday.
• LADOT operates two commuter express routes in Glendale and one DASH route that ends just outside the city limits.
• Burbank Bus currently operates two routes within the City of Burbank. Beeline Route 12, a peak-only Metrolink Express route, connects with the Pink Route route today at the Downtown Burbank Metrolink station. A current study in Burbank is proposing a third local route, with all three routes serving this station. • Two peak-only Pasadena Transit bus routes connect with the Beeline Route 3 and the La Cañada Flintridge Shuttle (Route 33) at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. • Metrolink provides commuter rail service on its Antelope Valley and Ventura County lines.

Rail passengers can connect with Beeline Routes 1, 4, 8, 11, and 12 at the Glendale Transportation Center and with Beeline Route 12 at the Downtown Burbank station.

Amtrak trains also serve both stations.

The market analysis for transit services in Glendale identifies areas of high residential density and high employment density. Transit demand and ridership are higher in areas with dense concentrations of residents and/or workers. The central part of Glendale has many areas of high residential density, while portions of Glenoaks Boulevard in downtown Burbank and the western edge also have high residential density. Employment density is very high in downtown Glendale, an important employment center in the Arroyo Verdugo subregion. Other notable locations include medical facilities and the area near the Glendale Transportation Center. Outside the city boundaries, downtown Burbank and the Burbank Media District show high employment density.

Considering residential and employment density together highlights many of the dense areas noted previously and also shows areas where different types of demand are more likely to sustain an all-day travel market. One example is along Chevy Chase Drive, which accounts for the high ridership on the Beeline Route 4.

Analysis of origins and destinations for general travel and work/school travel using data from Replica shows the most intense travel patterns within zones in and around downtown Glendale, and in Burbank. The highest trip volumes are seen between contiguous zones. Longer trips are more dispersed and go to multiple areas, but generally reflect demand for travel between the two urban centers. The Replica data can also provide a comprehensive picture of travel to a specific destination such as the zone that includes Glendale Community College.

Taken together, the findings in this chapter identify multiple transit operators in the City of Glendale and surrounding areas that play a role in meeting the general travel demands as well as work/school travel needs within the region.

177 of 236

Glendale Beeline Buzz Plan
Chapter 5
Public Outreach
178 of 236

Glendale Beeline Public Engagement Plan
June 2026

Page 5 ends

Glendale City CouncilJuly 14, 2026

Glendale City Council
July 14, 2026