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 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.
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 Glendale businesses.
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.” 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. 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 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 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. 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. 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