Glendale City Council
February 15, 2022

and on April 3, 2019, for a final SHPO review and concurrence.3 On May 2, 2019, Kathleen Forrest, acting on behalf of California SHPO Julianne Polanco , concurred with the findings presented in the April 2019 submittal. This included the finding that the Grayson Power Plant is eligible for the NRHP as a locally significant example of a property associated with developmental history of power generation in Glendale under NRHP Criterion A.4
In 2016, prior to the High Speed Rail Study, the City of Glendale contracted, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. to prepare a Historic Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report (attached) and DPR-523 Forms for Grayson Power Plant in support of an EIR (Grayson Repowering Project) on the Grayson Power Plant. In 2018, this report was revised to reflect comments received during the public review of the draft EIR and preparation of the final EIR. The report documents the entire property, rather than just the boiler buildings. The 2018 revised report included an introduction with the project location and description, identified APE for the redevelopment project, team qualifications, research and field methods, and an in-depth historic context which covers the history of electricity in California, steam generation in Los Angeles County, Glendale history, and the history and evolution of the power plant.

Additionally, the report included an in-depth discussion of the power plant, boiler building, boiler units, cooling towers, switchyards, as well as adjacent and new construction. The extensive written documentation was supported by photographic documentation, crucial for identification of property modifications and included tables chronologically illustrating modifications, citing building information provided by the City and through aerial photography to show change over time. The property includes an evaluation of potential eligibility for the NRHP, CRHR, and the City of Glendale Register based upon full evaluations per the applicable significance criteria.

The 2018 effort recommended the Grayson Power Plant not eligible for listing on the NRHP, CRHR, or the Glendale Register of Historic Resources. The report found the Grayson Power Plant significant under Criteria C and 3; however, it lacks sufficient integrity to convey that significance. The report states:
“The Grayson Power Plant property as first constructed in 1941 represented the designs of the 1920s, this was soon realized as the plant underwent numerous upgrades and additions through the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s to keep pace with the larger, semi- outdoor boiler types that proliferated across California in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore, Grayson Power Plant is ineligible, under NRHP Criteria A, CRHR Criterion 1 and GRHR as it is not associated with important events in national, state, or city history, or exemplifies significant contributions to the broad cultural, political, economic, social, or historic heritage of the nation, state, or city. Rather, the plant is a continuation of electrical generation themes in a city that had been using electricity for 32 years…. There is no evidence that Grayson Power Plant has any important association with any person or persons who made significant contributions to history at the local, state, or national level. The power plant is not eligible

3 Brett Rushing, Cultural Resources Program Manager for the California High-Speed Rail Authority to Kathleen Forrest, State Historic Preservation Officer California Office of Historic Preservation re: “High-Speed Rail Program, Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section (FRA_2017_0516_001), request for review and concurrence on revised Historic Architectural Survey Report; Notification of Modification to the Area of Potential Effects,” April 3, 2019. 4 Julianne Polanco, SHPO to Brett Rushing, Cultural Resource Program Manager for the California High-Speed Rail Authority, re: “Historical Architectural Survey Report (HASR) Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section High-Speed Train Project, County of Los Angeles, California,” FRA_2017_0516_001, May 2, 2019. 512 of 983
California High Speed Rail Authority
Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section Draft EIR
August 31, 2020

under NRHP Criteria B, CRHR Criterion 2 or for the GRHR… An article noted its design as earthquake resistant meaning its generators were located outside on a concrete foundation that was resistant to earthquakes with metal coverings to protect it from weather. R.R. Martell noted earthquake engineer consulted on the project stating the generator could be constructed outside the main boiler building. Through time the power plant has withstood earthquakes, as have other power plants with varied designs. This design is important in the greater advancement of power plant designs. Unfortunately, multiple additions and modifications have degraded its integrity and it can no longer convey this significance under NRHP Criteria C or CRHR Criterion 3. As noted, before, the GRHR does not assess integrity. The evolution of earthquake resistant power plant is important to the context of power plant design in California, however it is within the context of Glendale is lessened… The property does not appear likely to yield significant informational associations under NRHP Criteria D, CRHR Criterion 4 or the GRHR as the plant does not yield information important to archaeological pre-history or history of the nation, state, region, or city.
5 It continues, through
…numerous building additions and continued evolution of the property there has been a loss of integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. The property retains integrity of location, setting, and association. The power plant has not moved, the overall setting has remained industrial, and it maintains its association as a power plant. However, numerous alterations have removed its integrity of design to the original plant conceived by Elliott, materials as the building materials, while similar are different in type and massing from the original section. The plant has lost its association of workmanship as the additions have fundamentally altered the physical characteristics of the building as original constructed in 1941 and finally the plant has lost its original feeling. Aside from the numerous building additions continued addition of non-attached boiler units with modern cooling towers and ancillary buildings have removed the original feeling of the property. Therefore, the building has lost integrity coupled with lack of significance the building is not eligible for the NRHP or CRHR under any criterion.
6 These findings were preliminary and were included in, and frame the discussion in, the City’s EIR for the proposed redevelopment Grayson Repowering Project. The EIR concluded that the proposed Project would not result in potentially significant and unavoidable environmental impacts relating to historical resources.

The City has recognized some data gaps and/or inaccuracies in the GPA preparation; of importance is that the GPA study mischaracterized the period of significance, 1941-1955, as it correlates to the identified historic property. The earliest iteration of the boiler building dates to 1941; however, the building identified by GPA was constructed between 1941 and 1964, with a significant portion of the building constructed between 1959 and 1964. This is relevant because the modifications, would constitute a loss of integrity as most of the building was constructed after 1955. 5 Stantec Consulting Services (Stantec), Historic Resources Inventory and Evaluation, Grayson Power Plant, City of Glendale, California 2016, (revised 2018).
6 Stantec, Historic Resources Inventory and Evaluation, Grayson Power Plant (revised 2018). 513 of 983
California High Speed Rail Authority
Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section Draft EIR
August 31, 2020

The map in the DPR-523 Building, Structure, Object (BSO) Form identifies the “NRHP-Eligible Historic Property Boundary highlighted in white.” GPA expands stating “The boundaries of the historic property are limited to the main building. The later additions, such as the modern buildings and infrastructure as well as the replaced steam turbines, do not contribute to the property because they were most likely constructed outside the period of significance, 1941-1955, at which point the Grand Central Air Terminal was redeveloped as the Grand Central Industrial Center. This redevelopment incited major alterations throughout the subject property, bust most noticeable the northern portion of the property which was formerly part of the airfield.”
The challenge is, the identified property was constructed between 1941 and 1964, not 1955. The original boiler building which housed Unit 1 was completed in 1941, with Unit 2 added in 1948. In 1953 the building was expanded to accommodate Unit 3, with the design remaining consistent with the original building. Between 1959 and 1964 a multi-story addition on the north end of the building was added to accommodate Unit 4 in 1959 and Unit 5 in 1964. Additions to the property continued with Unit 6 in 1972 and Unit 7 in 1974, they were separate structures constructed north of the main boiler building.

Up until 1959, the Power Plant remained a single-story-structure. In 1959, the addition of Unit 4 and 5 resulted in the much larger and taller structure which remains today. Despite these alterations, GPA inaccurately states that the “main building marked by signage stating ‘City of Glendale Public Service Department Steam Electric Generating Plant,’ retains integrity of location, materials, design, workmanship, feeling, and association; however, the integrity has been diminished by ongoing development on the site and in the area since the property’s construction according to historic aerials maps.”
GPA provides that the entire building identified dates from 1941 to 1955 and that it retains the integrity of a building competed in 1955, when in actuality a significant portion of the building dates from 1959 to 1964. These modifications should have been identified as a loss of integrity as the building clearly no longer retains the design, materials, and workmanship of a building constructed between 1941 and 1955. With this, the loss of four of the seven aspects (setting, design, materials, and workmanship), they could have concluded the building was significant under Criteria A and 1, but because of a loss of integrity unable to convey this significance and thusly ineligible for the NRHP and CRHR.

Additionally, the historic context considered in the GPA study does not address the significance of this end date. By choosing 1955, it would suggest that the Power Plant’s significance is derived to its association with the Grand Central Air Terminal. However, there is no historic context to support this assertion; the airfield was developed in 1928, whereas the Power Plant was constructed 13 years later.

In addition, the report states that it retains all aspects of integrity, despite the Power Plant having undergone multiple additions since the original plan construction in 1941. Most notably, the GPA report does not include the fact that the two story-addition was added in 1959, with ongoing work occurring into 1964. Given this, the structure cannot convey its significance from 1941 through 1955 since the northernmost portion of the building is an addition constructed outside the identified period of significance, 1941-1955.

A detailed review of the 2016 DPR revealed the evaluation conducted GPA does not address several key aspects in developing a proper historic resource evaluation, as outlined in National Register 514 of 983
California High Speed Rail Authority
Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section Draft EIR
August 31, 2020

Bulletin No.15. Primarily, the historic context included in the DPR-523 Form is largely incomplete, and does not provide sufficient information to form the basis for an accurate historical significance evaluation of the property, specifically under Criterion A/1 for the property’s association with the Grand Central Air Terminal, nor does it fully support the assertion that construction of a steam plant benefited the region. It does not explain the history of electrical generation in the region or place the construction of the Grayson Power Plant within that context. Second, the GPA report does not provide a well- developed analysis of historical integrity. While the report does provide a cursory list of alternations, which appear to be based upon the included historic aerials, it does not identify or account for many of the modifications to the property, which largely occurred outside the period of significance. This does not adhere to the integrity analysis outlined in National Register Bulletin No.15.

We ask the HSR Authority, given this new information, to reconsider the previous determination. We ask that, based on the lack of integrity through multiple additions from 1959 through 1964, outside the GPA period of significance, the authority find Grayson Power Plant ineligible for listing on the CRHR and as a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. Further, we ask the Authority reconsult with SHPO regarding the property’s status on the NRHP.

S
incerely,
Eri
k Krause
Deputy Director of Community Development
515 of 983

P1. Other Identifier: ____
DPR 523A (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
PRIMARY RECORD T rinomial
N RHP Status Code 6Z
O ther Listings
R eview Code Rev iewer D ate
*P2. Location: Not for Publication  Unrestricted *a. County Los Angeles and (P2c, P2e, and P2b or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) b. USGS 7.5' Quad Burbank, CA
Date 2015 T 1N; R 13W Sec 7 S.B. B.M.
c. Address 800 Air Way City Glendale Zip 91201
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/or linear resources) Zone, 10S 382154 mE/ 3780132 mN e. O
ther Locational Data: (e.g., parcel #, directions to resource, elevation, decimal degrees, etc., as appropriate) From downtown Glendale, travel 2.3 miles west on Elk Avenue to San Fernando Road, proceed northwest of 2.8 miles on San Fernando Road to Flower Street. Travel southwest on Flower Street to Air Way, the power plant is located on Air Way at the convergence of the Los Angeles River and Fairmont Avenue. APN: 5593-003-906. *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries) G
lendale Water and Power’s Grayson Power Plant is a steam electric power plant located in Glendale, CA. The approximately 11-acre property is bounded by Union Pacific Railroad tracks and San Fernando Road to the northeast, Fairmont Avenue to the southwest, south, and southeast. The property contains numerous elements of power generating infrastructure including a boiler building with nine boilers, generators, five cooling towers, two switch yards, an d multiple auxiliary buildings amounting to a
pproximately 17 permanent buildings and structures (Photograph 1) (see Continuation Sheet). *P3b.Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP8 – Industrial Building, HP11 – Engineering Feature *P4. Resources Present:  Building  Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: (view, date, accession #)
Photograph 1: Grayson Power Plant, camera
facing southwest, August 17, 2015.
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Source:
 His toric Prehistoric B oth
1941, Glendale Water and Power
*P7. Owner and Address:

City of Glendale, Glendale Water and Power
800 Air Way
Glendale, CA 91201
*P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address)
Meagan Kersten and John Terry
Stantec, Inc.
555 Capitol Avenue, Suite 650
Sacramento, CA 95814
*P9. Date Recorded: August 17, 2015
*P10. Survey Type: (Describe) Intensive
*P11. Report Citation : (Cite survey report and other
sources, or enter "none.")
Historic Resource Inventory and Evaluation Report, Grayson Power Plant, Glendale, CA, Stantec, 2015 (Revised 2017) *Attachments: NONE Location Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object RecordArchaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List):

P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects.) 516 of 983

*Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Grayson Power Plant *NRHP Status Code 6Z

DPR 523B (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary #
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#

BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD
B1. Historic Name: Glendale Public Service Department, Steam Electric Generating Plant B2. Common Name: Grayson Power Plant
B3. Original Use: Power Plant B4. Present Use: Power Plant *B5. Architectural Style: Streamline Moderne
*B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations) Grayson Power Plant was constructed in 1941 with additions added to the main boiler building in 1952, 1963, 1972, and 1977. The site has continuously evolved as technology changed and more units were brought online (see detailed history below) *B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: ___________ *B8. Related Features: none
B9a. Architect: Daniel A. Elliott b. Builder: Glendale Public Service Department *B10. Significance: Theme n/a Area n/a
Period of Significance n/a Property Type n/a Applicable Criteria n/a (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural This intensive level survey and evaluation finds that Grayson Power Plant, while significant, lacks integrity to convey this significance for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or Glendale Register of Historic Resources (GRHR). The property has been evaluated in accordance with Section 15064.5(a)(2)- (3) of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA), using the criteria outlined in Section 5024.1 of the California Public Resources Code and does not appear to be a historical resource for the purpose of CEQA (see continuation sheet).

B11. Additional Resource Attributes:
(List attributes and codes) _________

*B12. References: See footnotes

B13. Remarks:

*B14. Evaluator:

Corri Jimenez and
Garret Root, Stantec Inc.
*Date of Evaluation: December 2015
and December 2017

This space reserved for official
comments.

517 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

P3a. Description (Continued):

Grayson Power Plant’s boiler building faces southeast, on a northwest -southeast axis and massing is predominantly rectangular divided into three levels and each elevation asymmetrical (Photograph 2 and 3).

Architecturally, the boiler building is 2 -3-stories high and is framed with structural steel set on a poure d concrete pier foundation ( Photograph 4). The lower floor extends up a floor level on a poured concrete structure with a steel-framed superstructure set on top of the concrete walls; a second steel-framed structure is set on the northwest corner, which houses Unit 3. Streamline Moderne character-defining details are evident as linear lines in the cementitious paneling, illuminating stringcourses on the building’s upper southeast corner addition, added during a 1953 expansion to building for Unit #3.

The building has a flat roof with metal coping at the top. The exterior of the building is clad with multiple building materials that include horizontal asbestos siding and horizontal metal sheathing that are bolted to the steel framing. The cementitious siding are visible on the interior of the building as well. A Streamline Moderne style-rolling directional crane, which services the boilers, turbines, and generators, is located on the northeast elevation. Each of the five turbines is covered with a Streamline Moderne enclosure (Photograph 5). Copper box lettering in the same style are located on the corner and state: “CITY OF GLENDALE/PUBLIC SERVICE DEPARTMENT/STEAM ELECTRIC GENERATING PLANT” (see Figure 20-21). The northeast elevation of the building has a dock with boilers and equipment located on the northwest elevation (Photograph 6). The northwest elevation is where all the mechanical equipment and numerous boiler stacks for Boilers 1, 2, and 3.

New equipment is evident for Boiler Unit #3 on the northwest corner.

Multiple openings punctuate the elevations of the boiler building on all elevations. The boiler building retains its original windows, which include structural glass blocks on the northeast elevation a nd metal-framed industrial awning windows on the southeast elevation (Photograph 7). Currently the building houses six boilers and is centrally located near the control room. The interior of the building is open with a catwalk or mezzanine floor of metal grating constructed on the west wall in operating the power equipment that include the boilers above and turbines, which attached to the concrete floor platforms. The corresponding boiler stacks and scrubbers are located on the exterior of building along the west wall (Photograph 8).

The Grayson Power Plant had eleven boiler units with seven intact. Units 1 and 2 are located within the boiler building and have been mothballed. Units 3, 4, and 5 are located along the southwest elevation of the boiler building. Units 6 and 7 , built between 1972-1974, have since been demolished. Units 8A, 8B, and 8C, were constructed in 1977 and Unit 9, built in 2003. Units 1 through 4 are housed in the main boiler building with additions. Structures 8A, 8B, 8C, and 9 are located within utilitarian metal structures (Photograph 9 and 10).

Located west of Grayson Power Plant’s boiler units are five cooling towers. Each cooling tower correlates to one boiler. The cooling towers consists of a sub grade water tank is enclosed by two-to-three-foot-thick concrete walls. Each cooling unit has a series of vent stacks. Cooling Towers 1 and 2 are designed with four stacks, which has splayed concrete sidewalls, while Cooling Tower 3 is constructed with six stacks, Cooling Tower 4 has eight stacks, and Cooling Tower 5 with five stacks (Photograph 12, 13, and 14). Additional features of the cooling towers include a louvered wall, which provides air circulation to cool the water from the boilers and wooden roof decks. There are two switching yards, east of the boiler building and are labeled as Kellogg and the Glendale switching yards. The yards are not historic and are not part of this inventory. Five miscellaneous utilitarian buildings are located on the property northwest of the boiler building. These buildings were not inventoried or evaluated as part of this study.
518 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

B10. Significance (Continued):

Historic Context
The Glendale Public Service Department steam electric generation plant, renamed Grayson Power Plant in 1972, was constructed in Glendale in 1941, Since construction the power plant has undergone numerous alterations and expansions. The Streamline Moderne boiler building has more than tripled in size since originally conceived by architect Daniel A. Elliott. Fuel fired steam electric units have been common power generators in California since the 1920s. The design and power output changed dramatically by the end of World War II as municipalities and utilities moved towards semi- outdoor fuel fired steam plant. This reduction in building material cost drove exponential growth in the post -war years, becoming common fixtures across California. The Grayson Power Plant represents a transition in fuel fired power plant design that is more associative with the early 1920s designs rather than the more prominent post-war designs.

Electricity in California
California’s growth in the first half of the twentieth century was due in part to the development of ambitious hydroelectric systems. Long-distance transmission lines linked the power generating mountainous regions with valley farms, coastal centers, and distant cities, allowing a pace and scale of development that was previously unimaginable. By the 1920s, this intricate system of hydroelectric facilities, coupled with a growing number of fuel -fired steam plants, fed into long distance transmission lines and a series of substations that transferred and distributed power to locations throughout the state for widespread public use (Root and Herbert 2013: 1; Department of Energy 2015). Within this burgeoning energy context, the long- distance transmission lines were of vital importance, serving as the nexus between the state’s abundant hydro supplies and the distant urban and agricultural markets. The technological advancement an d development of transmission technology enabled greater and greater supplies of readily available energy, occurring with striking rapidity during the period (Root and Herbert 2013: 1-2).

In the late nineteenth century and into the twentieth, electrical transmission covered small distances, typically limited to tens of miles. During this period, the technological debate raged between two key concepts: Direct Current (DC), championed by General Electric and Thomas Edison, and Alternating Current (AC), champ ioned by Westinghouse and electrical engineer Nikola Tesla (Department of Energy 2015; Williams 1997: 90). The critical limitation to DC was its inability to be transmitted over great distances, as the current could not be converted to higher and lower voltages and rapidly lost energy along any distances. In contrast, Tesla’s AC stepped up voltage for transmission and stepped down voltages for local distribution, creating a system that avoided the energy seepage of DC. Ultimately, Tesla’s vision of AC prevailed and soon transmission lines could carry more power over greater distances, a development that undergirded much of the state and nation’s early twentieth century growth. Rapid innovation during the first decades of the twentieth century allowed for increasingly higher voltages, with heavier insulators, multi-phase lines, and other mechanical methods adapted to carry greater supplies more efficiently, following the adoption of AC. By the early-1910s, California’s hydroelectric industry was carrying hundreds of kV of electrical power over hundreds of miles ( Figure 1) (Root and Herbert 2013: 1 -3; Hayes 2014: 237- 270).

In the 1880s, hydroelectric plants provided small -scale electrical development to only isolated companies, such as Standard Consolidated Mining Company in Bodie, CA and other localized concerns (Hubbard 2006). 519 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

However, by the early 1890s AC technological advancement allowed for a more effective means of transmitting electricity over ever-increasing distances. At the outset of this development, the San Antonio Light and Power Company constructed a 13 mile, 5,000 -volt, transmission line in 1892, with PG&E constructing the Folsom Hydroelectric Plant’s 22 mile, 11,000-volt transmission line in 1895 (Coleman 1952:
138-140). These distances soon gave way to ever larger transmission capability, with Pacific Light and Power Company’s Big Creek Hydroelectric Project running at 150 kV by 1913. Several small companies began constructing independent and local power plants a transmission systems (JRP 2004).

Figure 1. A 1925 map depicting the growth of the transmission system (Vincent 1925). 520 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

Rise of Fuel-Fired Steam Electric
British designer Sir Charles Parsons built the first steam turbine -generator in 1884. At the beginning of the twentieth century, engineers designed steam turbines to replace the aging steam engine power plants.

Aegidius Elling of Norway is credited in 1903-1904 as being the first to apply the method of injecting steam into the combustion chambers of a gas turbine engine (Termuehlen 2001: 11, 21-28; Beck and Wilson 1996:
30). The greater Los Angeles region had multiple examples of early fuel fired steam plants including the Banning Street Electrical Plant in Los Angles completed in 1883, Los Angeles Steam Plant No. 1 constructed in 1896, Pacific Light and Power Company’s steam plant in Redondo Beach was completed in 1902 and the Glenram Power Plant constructed in Pasadena in 1906 (Water and Power Associates 2017; City of Pasadena 2015). Within a relatively short time, the technology and capacity of these engines to supply power and electricity grew exponentially. These advances brought electricity to a wide range of industrial and domestic applications; however, the materials needed to withstand the high temperatures of modern turbines were not yet available. Improvements in steam turbines advanced throughout the 1920s and 1930s, leading to a generation of more efficient turbine power plants in the 1950s. During this time, utilities closed or replaced many of the older steam-electric plant generators and constructed more modern units (Myers 1984: 8).

Steam power generation was part of California’s power production throughout the twentieth century, though it declined considerably in the period leading up to World War II as large hydroelectric generating plants came online throughout the state. As early as 1920, hydroelectric power accounted for 69% of all electrical power generated. In 1930, that figure had risen to 76%, and by 1940 hydroelectric sources provided 89% of California’s electricity. After World War II this trend revers ed and construction of steam -powered electric generating units grew, accounting for most of the new construction. By 1950, hydroele ctricity accounted for only 59% of the total power generated, falling to 27% in 1960. Some new hydroelectric plants were buil t during the 1960s, chiefly associated with federal and sta te water projects, but by 1970, hydroelectric plants accounted for only 31% of all electricity generated in California. A combination of drought, discovery and tapping of natural gas, and lack of new hydroelectric sites led to its decline (Williams 1997: 374).

A persistent drought in California caused the major utilities to question the reliability of systems dependent on abundant water flows, like hydroelectricity. This drought began in 1924 and continued, on and off, for a decade. Concurrently, in the 1920s new natural gas discoveries were made and provided both Northern and Southern California with ample fuel for steam electric power generation.

The confluence of these various
factors – drought, new steam generator technologies, and new supplies of natural gas – prompted California utilities to begin constructing large steam plants. S team plants built across the state shared design characteristics including locations close to load centers to reduce transmission costs, easy and efficient access to fuel supplies, near a water supply, on inexpensive land, and on geological formations that could provide a good foundation (Steele 1950: 17-21). By 1920, the cities of Burbank, Pasadena, Los Angeles, and Glendale restructured their original charters to allow municipality owned power generation facilities and distribution lines (Williams 1997:261; Water and Power Associates 2015 ; Electrical West 1929). In 1928, LA Gas and Electric Corporation constructed the Seal Bach Power Plant and PG&E constructed Station C in Oakland. In 1929, Great Western Power Company built a large steam plant on San Francisco Bay, near the Hunters Point shipyard, fitted with two 55 MW generators. In 1930, fuel-fired steam power plant accounted for more than 521 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

half of all new plants under construction in California. The fuel -fired steam generation capacity jumped from 1924 at 407,000 kW to over 1 million kW a mere six years later. (Williams 1997: 279-280; Ci ty of Pasadena 2015; Burbank Water & Power 2015 ; Water and Power Associates 2017 ; Spencer 1961). These factors prompted many municipalities, like Glendale to construct power plants of their own.

Early Glendale History
By the turn of the twentieth century, Glendale had already experienced rapid growth resulting, in part, from the promotional efforts of Edgar D. Goode and Dr. D. W. Hunt and their Glendale Improvement Society in 1902 (City of Glendale 2012a). The growth continued with the opening of the Pacific Elect ric Railroad in 1904, connecting Glendale to Los Ange les (City of Glendale 2012a). Glendale incorporated in 1906 and by 1910 had a population of 2,742 residents (Glendale News-Press 1953c; Los Angeles Almanac 2015). Power generation in the City of Glendale began in earnest early when the citizens voted in favor of a $60,000 bond to create the Glendale Public Service Di vision that purchased the Glendale Light & Power Company generating facility in 1909. By 1910, the system was already strained as power output was a mere 107,000 kilowatts. To supplement, the city purchased additional electricity from Pacific Power & Light, now part of the Southern California Edison Company (Glendale Public Service Commission 1951).

By 1920, Glendale began annexing neighboring communities boasting the city’s population to over 13,000 residents (City of Glendale 2012b; Los Angeles Almanac 2015). From 1930 to 1952, Glendale added Whiting Woods and Verdugo Mountains to their city limits a total of 23.6 square miles; two major annexations included New York Avenue (in the La Crescenta area) and Upper Chevy Chase Canyon, and several smaller annexations, which enlarged the city to 29.2 square miles by 1952. By 1950 the population was over 95,700 residents and was considered at the time to be “the fastest growing city in America” (City of Glendale 2012b; Los Angeles Almanac 2015). However, by the late 1930s the Glendale Public Service Commission, Electric Division could not keep pace with the population increases (Glendale Public S ervice Commission 1951).

Prior to 1937, Glendale purchased their power from Southern California Edison Company. This supply was supplemented with completion Hoover Dam however, continued growth indicated another plant would be necessary to supplement demand [Glendale News-Press 1953a; Glendale Public Services Department 1974).

Glendale Steam Electric Generating Plant
Building off the success of the 1920s and early -1930s and seeing the impending probability of an outbreak of hostilities, utilities and municipalities began constructing a series of fuel- fired steam plants across California. Northern California PG&E began construction of three, fuel-fired steam -plants located adjacent to oil refineries, in 1939. Southern California municipalities, in Burbank, Glendale (study property), and San Diego each completed power plants, in 1941 (Williams 1997: 279-280). The City of Glendale began planning for construction of a new power plant in 1937. However, the city’s plans were met with immediate opposition by Los Angeles Bureau of Power and Light and the Southern California Edison Company, both which supplied the city with electricity and claimed had surplus electricity which could be sold to the city (Los Angeles Times 1938). Despite these assertions, the city, led by industrial entities pushed forward with their plan for construction of a $1.8 million-dollar plant. The City secured the services of Architect Daniel A.

Elliott to design the power plant , referred as the “Glendale Power & Light” or “Steam Electric Generating Plant” (Figure 2) (LA Conservancy 2015).
522 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

Figure 2. Original Daniel Elliott renderings show the exaggerated streamline moderne details, much of which did not make it onto the building.

Elliott designed the boiler structure in the Streamline Moderne-style, built to house two boilers (Boilers 1A and 1B). Located outside on a full length concrete pedestal were the generators, manufactured by Combustion Engineering Company Inc., New York and with Streamline Moderne detailing. Elliott was born in Las Vegas, New Mexico in 1898. He attended University of California at Berkley, earning an architecture degree in 1925. From 1925 through 1932 he served as a designer at the Los Angeles architecture firm of Gilbert Stanley Underwood before getting his architecture license and becoming an architect at the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. He remained at the water district from 1932 through 1939. During World War II he worked at Hoover and Montgomery, a firm that specialized in water-related construction projects. Following the end of the war he formed his own architecture practice, one he 523 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

maintained until his retirement in 1962. Principle examples of his work are water focused designs most notably the Colorado River Aqueduct Pumping Plants and F.E. Weymouth Memorial Water Softening and Filtration Plant completed in 1939 (Figure 3 ) and the Burbank Water & Power a dministrative building in 1949 (LA Conservancy 2015; AIA 1956: 155).

Elliott’s original design laid claim to being the world’s first earthquake -proof plant, with a 22 foot deep concrete basement, turbo-generator on an uncovered open deck with a metal covering over the generator from to protect from inclement weather, and a building shell built of light steel and stucco filler walls (Los Angeles Times 1940). At its start -up in 1941, the plant produ ced 20,000 kilowatts of power . The city had already secured funding for a second unit set to be added in 1945 (Lost Angeles Times 1941; Glendale Public Service Commission 1951). To meet increasing demands for electricity, a second unit was added in 1947, which included an additional 20,000 -kilowatt generator and single boiler increasing the plant’s combined kilowatt capacity of 40,000 kilowatts (Glendale News Press 1953e; Glendale News Press 1953f; and Glendale Public Service Commission 1951).

Figure 3. Top, the 1939 Metropolitan Water District of Southern California Water Softening Plant in La Verne and below the Burbank Water Light and Power Administration building built in 1949. 524 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

As demand increased a third unit were added in 1953, which constituted the first of several additions to the boiler building on its north end; the third unit at the plant was completed at a cost of over $3 million. The integral furnace boiler and superheater steam boiler was manufactured by the Babcock & Wilcox Company and the turbine generator by General Electric. The company of Foster & Wheeler constructed the cooling tower and provided the condenser for Unit 3. Unit 3 also utilized the most up-to date engineering replicated in fuel-fired plants across California. The turbine for Unit 3 is located outside the main building under a removable housing (Glendale News Press 1953e).

California utility companies’ steam generating capacity expanded dur ing the period of 1950 through 1970.

PG&E operated 15 steam electric plants in 1950 . Conversely, Southern California utilities built large steam plants at a much slower rate than with Northern California, constructing the Valley Steam Plant in 1953 and Scattergood Steam Plant in 1957. By the late 1970s, there were more than 20 fossil fuel steam-generatin g plants in California owned by various power companies and clustered near urban areas such as San Francisco Bay, the greater Los Angeles area, San Diego County, along with a few interior plants in San Bernardino, Riverside, and Imperial Counties. Happening concurrently, in the mid-1960s large scale intertie projects such as the 500 kV California Oregon Intertie (also known as Path 66) were completed. Additionally, utility companies began to pool their resources, creating a larger interconnected grid. Dictated by Federal power policy, utility companies came together to form bulk transmission entities. In 1967, the Western Systems Coordinating Council formed, consisting of 40 p ower systems located in western states and remained in existence until 2002 when it merged with three regional transmission associations forming the Western System Coordinating Council (WSCC). In addition to WSCC in the mid -1960s was the California Power Pool. This entity gave rise to the current California Independent Service Operator (CAISO). These large intertie projects brought the death of independent, locally sourced electricity as CAISO and its predecessors controlled operation of the various plants (Transmission Agency of Northern California 2017; Water and Power Associates 2017); Southwest Builder and Contractor 1962).

Between 1953-54, the plant generated a total of 122,649,440 kilowatts per hour, supplemented by electricity generated at Hoover Dam, supplied all the power needed for the City (Glendale Public Service Commission 1951). Five more units were constructed after 1953 including Unit 4 (1959), Unit 5 (1964), Unit 6 (1972), and Unit 7 (1974). The boiler for Unit 4 was manufactured by Riley Stoker Corporation; Unit 6 was manufactured by General Electric; and Unit 7 by the Curtiss -Wright Company. Units 1 through 3 maintain Elliott’s the style aesthetics, however the structure shape and detailing shifts with the addition of Units 4 & Unit 5, to a significantly taller, less detailed utilitarian structure that we see to the north. As the building was expanded north, lower level fenestration of the first three phas es was repeated but without the vertical glass block panels. Little significant architectural detail was included in Unit 4 & Unit 5’s building expansion. In 1972 The plant was renamed the “L.W. Grayson Steam- Electric Generating Station” after the City of Glendale General Manager and Chief Engineer, Lauren W. (L.W.) Grayson who at the time was the longest serving employee. Grayson accepted a position at the City of Glendale in 1951 (City of Glendale 1972; Glendale News-Press 1972). His most notable achievement was in bringing power to Southern California through the Pacific Northwest Intertie (Glendale News-Press 1972).

Unit 8 (Unit 8A, 8B, and 8C) was constructed in 1977 and was one of the last to be installed at the power plant and the most efficient of the group while producing fewer emissions than the earlier generators at the plant (Cook 1977). Initially, it was called a “combined cycle repowering unit” in producing more energy and fewer emissions with conventional units that provide better combustion controls and higher efficiency 525 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

(Cook 1977). The new system cost $20 million dollars and at the time, lesse ned air pollution (Ralph 1977).

Further environmental improvements to the plant resulted from the construction of a phosphate removal and treatment plant in 1978. The treatment plant was connected to the steam plant by a pipeline, which directly pumps the reclaimed water into the Grayson Power Plant’s cooling towers (Rees 1978). In addition, since 1994 the plant has utilized methane gas from the Sc holl Canyon Landfill mixed with natural gas to generate power in Units 3, 4, and 5 (Scholl Canyon Landfill 2015).

Continuous improvements in efficiency and power generation capacity have been one of the priorities at the Grayson Power Plant throughout its history including the construction of a new 50 megawatt power generator was completed in 2004, at a cost of $33.5 million dollars, replaced two of the older, outdated units.

The new structure consists of a generator, a gas turbine and compressor, and an emissions control tower to filter out pollutants throughout the system. The generator runs entirely on computers and operates during peak hours (Moskowitz 2004).

In July 2010, a fire at Cooling Tower 3 caused severe damage to the structure, although service was not effected (Wells 2010). Repairs to other portions of the plant included the replacement of the superheater tubes in Boiler No. 4 in 2001, wall tubes in Boiler No. 4 in 2011, an upgrade of the burner management and boiler control systems, also i n Unit 4 in 2011, among other updates (City of Glendale 2011). According to the City of Glendale, California Report to the City Council in April 2014, the boilers for Units 1 and 2 have been mothballed (City of Glendale 2014). In 2015, the Glendale City Council commissioned plans to upgrade Grayson Power Plant to make the plant more efficient, reliable and cost effective. According to the June article in the Glendale News-Press, seven of the eight turbines would be decommissioned and replaced by 4 more efficient turbines, which would be able to produce power more quickly (Mikailian 2015). Currently the power plant generates approximately 18% of the power needed for the City of Glendale with the remaining power coming from a combination of both local and r emote generation (owned and leased), coupled with spot market purchases from a variety of suppliers throughout the Western United States (Mikailian 2015).

Evaluation
Glendale’s Grayson Power Plant served as a regional power source since construction. While the power plant has maintained this role, it has not directly contributed to the early growth of the city, further it only supplemented electricity supplied by other utilities and by the 1937 constructed Hoover Dam. The power plant did supply the re gion with localized power, however, it is just a continuation of existing power supplies. By the time the power plant came online, in 1941, the city had been electrified for 32 years. Further, articles exaggerated the need for a localized power plant to su stain growth. Supply was high, the city , understandably preferred control of their own power supply. California, like much of the west had begun interconnection a series of previously independent transmission systems into an interconnected grid. When originally conceived, the plant would provide a localized source of power, however by the 1940s the state had already begun interconnection. Further, fuel-fired steam plants were well established across California by 1941, that utilized proven technologies. The Grayson Power Plant as first constructed in 1941 represented the designs of the 1920s, this was soon realized as the plant underwent numerous upgrades and addition s through the 1940 s, 1950s, 1980s, 1970s, and 1980s to keep pace with the larger, semi -outdoor boiler types that proliferated across California in the 1950s and 1960s. Therefore, Grayson Power Plant is ineligible, under NRHP Criteria A, CRHR Criterion 1 and GRHR as it is not associated with important events in national, 526 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

state, or city history, or exemplifies significant contributions to the broad cultural, political, economic, social, or historic heritage of the nation, state, or city . Rather, the plant is a continuation of electrical generation themes in a city that had been using electricity for 32 years.

There is no evidence that Grayson Power Plant has any important association with any person or persons who made significant contributions to history at the local, state, or national level. It was designed to supplement and create a localized power source that involved several key institutions and individuals.

Research did not reveal any notable figures specifically associated with the alignment or its related infrastructure, and research did not indicate the potential for significant associati ons in this regard. While the power plant is currently named Grayson Power Plant for L.W Grayson, a longtime Glendale employee.

The name change, occurred in 1972, was in recognition of Grayson 19 years of service to the city. Grayson was important in management of the city but had no association with development, construction, or early operation of the plant. The power plant is not eligible under NRHP Criteria B, CRHR Criterion 2 or for the GRHR.

The subject property is not eligible for NRHP Criteria C, CRHR Criterion 3 nor the GRHR. Grayson Power Plant when originally constructed as a small, two-unit boiler house with Streamline Moderene styling. Since originally constructed, the power plant main boiler building has undergone numerous additions and alterations. These additions , mimic Elliott’s design but with each addition are farther removed from the original (Figure 4 and 5).

Figure 4. Glendale Steam Electric Power Plant Property in 1944.

527 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

Figure 5. A graphic showing the numerous plant modifications since construction in 1941. The information is overlaid on a 1976 aerial with changes noted on historic aerials in 1944, 195, 1960, 1965,1971, and 1976.

Daniel Anthony Elliott, who is arguably a master architect. His noteworthy designs focus on water related infrastructure including the Colorado River Aqueduct Pumping Plants and F.E. Weymouth Memorial Water Softening and Filtration Plant completed in 1939 ( Figure 3, above) and later the Burbank Water & Power administrative building in 1949. The F.E. Weymouth Memorial Water Softening and Filtration Plant is the earliest extant example of Elliott’s work, further it is the best example of monumental water and power architecture. Built in a Spanish Revival design, this building exemplifies the style, prominent of the time and best showcases Elliott’s ability to make infrastructure into beautiful architecture. They original design of the Grayson Power Plant followed these design tenants. Elliott used prominent architectural styles on infrastructure. Elliott’s design followed established power plant and substation design principles emblematic of the 1910s and 1920s. Power company architects designed substations and powerhouses in prominent public-building architectural styles like Beaux-Arts and Classical Revival. Urban power houses and substations housed the electrical equipment within buildings in order to accommodate the congested urban surroundings and to buffer the public from the sounds and activities associated with operation. The power plants and substations were constructed to meet both aesthetic and functional mandates (Frickstad 1916). Elliott’s design of the Streamline Moderne power plant is a 1940s continuation of these design principles. Further, the 1941 building designed by Elliott has been manipulated and changed beyond his original vision through multiple building modifications. Further, the F.E. Weymouth Memorial Water Softening and Filtration Plant is far more intact example of his early designs. 528 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

An article noted its design as earthquake resistant meaning its generators were located outside on a concrete foundation that was resistant to earthquakes with metal coverings to protect it from weather. R.R. Martell, noted earthquake engineer consulted on the project stating the generator could be constructed outside the main boiler building. Through time the power plant has withstood earthquakes, as have other power plants with varied designs. This design is important in the greater advancement of power plant designs .

Unfortunately, multiple additions and modifications have degraded its integrity and it can no longer convey this significance under NRHP Criteria C or CRHR Criterion 3. As noted before, the GRHR does not assess integrity. The evolution of earthquake resistant power plant is important to the context of power plant design in California, however it’s within the context of Glendale is lessened.

The property does not appear likely to yield significant informational associations under NRHP Criteria D, CRHR Criterion 4 or the GRHR as the plant does not yield information important to archaeological pre - history or history of the nation, state, region, or city. In contrast, the extant archival record regarding the site presents a wealth of specific and informative material, including maps, photographs, aerials, and building permits that provides significant material for interpretation. Thus, the extant physical structures of the site do not convey significant informational material that would inform t he rather robust archival record regarding the Grayson Power Plant.

The Grayson Power Plant was constructed approximately 60 years after the early development of the City of Glendale and 35 years after the City incorporated electricity in 1906. Due to this passage of time it is not associated with the early heritage of the City and not eligible for listing on the GRHR.

While the GRHR does not account for integrity, both the NRHP and CRHR do. Due to numerous building additions and continued evolution of the property there has been a loss of integrity of design, materials, workmanship, and feeling. The property retains integrity of location, setting, and association. The power plant has not moved, the overall setting has remained industrial, and it maintains its association as a power plant. However, numerous alterations have removed its integrity of design to the original plant conceived by Elliott, materials as the building materials, while sim ilar are different in type and massing from the original section. The plant has lost its association of workmanship as the additions have fundamentally altered the physical characteristics of the building as original constructed in 1941 and finally the pla nt has lost its original feeling. Aside from the numerous building additions continued addition of non -attached boiler units with modern cooling towers and ancillary buildings have removed the original feeling of the property. Therefore, the building has l ost integrity coupled with lack of significance the building is not eligible for the NRHP or CRHR under any criterion.
529 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

Photographs (Continued):

Photograph 2. Grayson Boiler Building, View Looking Northwest (Photo by J. Terry).

Photograph 3. Grayson Boiler Building, View Looking Northwest (Photo by J. Terry). 530 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

Photograph 4. Grayson Boiler Building, View Looking Southwest (Photo by J. Terry).

Photograph 5. Grayson Boiler Building, View Looking Southeast (Photo by J. Terry).

531 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

Photograph 6. Boiler Stacks (Boilers 1 and 2 Center Rear of Photograph; Boiler 3 to Left), View Looking South. (Photo by J. Terry).

Photograph 7. Overview of Basement Floor Level, View Looking North (Photo by J. Terry). 532 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

Photograph 8. View of Boiler 1B, Looking West (Photo by J. Terry).

Photograph 9. Unit 8A, Looking West (Photo by J. Terry).

533 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

Photograph 10. Units 8A & 8B, View Looking Northeast (Photo by J. Terry).

Photograph 12. Cooling Tower No. 2 (No. 1 in background), View Looking Southeast (Photo by J. Terry). 534 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

Photograph 13. Cooling Tower No. 3 (No. 5 in Background), View Looking Northwest (Photo by J. Terry).

Photograph 14. Cooling Tower No. 4, View Looking Northeast (Photo by J. Terry).

535 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

B12. References, Continued.

American Institute of Architects
1956 “E Architects.” American Architects Directory.

Beck, Douglas Stephen and David Gordon Wilson
1996 Gas Turbine Regenerators Chapman & Hall
California Energy Commission
2014 “Database of California Power Plants.” File date May 1, 2014. Accessed November 19, 2015:
http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/powerplants/index.html. 2015 “List of Inactive/Retired Power Plants (1915-2004). Accessed on November 19, 2015:
http://www.energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/inactive_plants.html.

California Office of Historic Preservation
1999 “California Register and National Register: A Comparison (for purposes of determining eligibility for the California Register).” Technical Assistance Series, No. 6. Sacramento: California Department of Parks and Recreation.

City of Glendale
1972 “Resolution in designating steam plant to L.W. Grayson.” October 10, 1972. 2010 “Approval to Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the Grayson Power Plant Unit No. 3 Cooling Tower Replacement.” Report to the City Council. 28 September 2010. Accessed December 30, 2015 at: http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/government/council_packets/Reports_092810/CC_5g_092810.pdf .
2011 “Approval to Issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Grayson Power Plant Unit No. 4 Burner Management System and Boiler Control System Upgrade.” Report to the City Council, February 11, 2011. Accessed December 30, 2015 at:
http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/government/council_packets/Reports_021511/CC_5a_021511.pdf .
2012a Popular Annual Financial Report. June 20, 2012. Accessed December 25, 2015 at:
http://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showdocument?id=9653
.
2012b “Overview of Glendale History.” May 17, 2012. Accessed on December 25, 2015 at:
http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/history_overview.aspx
.
2012c “How to Get Your Property Listed on the Glendale Register of Historic Resources.” November 2012.

Accessed 25 December 2015 at: http://www.glendaleca.gov/home/showdocument?id=12454 .
2014 Glendale Register of Historic Resources. Updated February 2014. Accessed at:
http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/planning/HPGlendaleRegister.asp .
2014 “Specification No. 3541 to Provide Mechanical and Field Services for the Grayson Power Plant (GPP).” Report to the City Council. April 29, 2014. Accessed December 30, 2015 at:
http://www.ci.glendale.ca.us/government/council_packets/Reports_042914/CC_5e_042914.pdf .

City of Pasadena
536 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

2015 “Pasadena Water and Power” Accessed on November 19, 2015:
http://cityofpasadena.net/waterandpower/Our_History/.

Coleman, Charles M.
1952 PG and E of California The Centennial Story of Pacific Gas and Electric Company 1852-1952, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.

Cook, Jack
1977 “Power Plant Director Keeps a Close Watch over Glendale’s Lifeline.” Daily News. Located at the City of Glendale’s Central Library, Special Collection.

Cowan, Robert C.
1977 Ranchos of California a list of Spanish Concessions 1775-1822 and Mexican Grants 1822-1846. Los Angeles:

Published by the Historical Society of Southern California.

Department of Energy
2015 “The War of the Currents: AC vs. DC Power.” Accessed January 30, 2015, http://energy.gov/articles/war-currents-ac-vs-dc-power.

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR)
2015 EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package: Grayson Power Plant, 800 Air Way, Glendale, California. (Inquiry Number: 443851.9). October 13, 2015.

Frickstad, Ivan.
1916 “ the Development of ‘Pacific Service’ Architecture as Exemplified in Its Modern Power Houses and Substations,” Pacific Service Magazine, 8 no. 6.

Galvin Preservation Associates (GPA)
2007 City of Glendale Reconnaissance Survey and Historic Context Statement of Craftsman Style Architecture 2 006-2007, Certified Local Government Grant. Prepared for the City of Glendale. October 2007 Glendale Public Service Commission
1951 Annual Report of the Public Service Commission. Report on file at the Glendale Public Service Commission.

Glendale Public Services Department
1974 “History.” April 1974. Manuscript on File at the Glendale Public Service Department, Glendale, CA.

Glendale News-Press
1953a “Purchased Power—city Makes Own Energy Since 1941.” November 13,1953, Page 7-C. 1953b “City to Glow—7-yar Light Program Starts.” November 13,1953, Page 5-C. 1953c “More Demand for Energy Anticipated.” November 23, 1953, Page 8-C. 1953d “New Unit Keeps Pace with Science—Third Turbine Uses More Heat, Pressure.” November 13, 1953, Page 3-C.
537 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

1953e “Third Generating Unit—Plant set to Operate Next April.” November 12, 1953. 1953f “Steam Plant Third Unit Completed—20,000 kilowatt hours more energy available.” 1972 “Lauren Grayson, longtime city official, dies.” May 22, 1972.

Hayes, Brian
2014 Infrastructure A Guide to the Industrial Landscape. W.W. Norton and Company.

Hubbard, Steve
2006 “Hydropower in California,” Sacramento History Journal VI JRP Historical Consulting Services
2000 “Water Conveyance Systems in California,” California Department of Transportation Environmental Program/Cultural Studies Office.

LA Conservancy
2015 “Burbank Water & Power Company.” Accessed on December 28, 2015 at:
https://www.laconservancy.org/locations/burbank-water-and-power.

Los Angeles Times
1940 “Power Plant Built in Open: Glendale Will have First Completed Quake-Proof Setup.” June 30, 1940.

Provided to Stantec from ProQuest Historical Newspapers by Greg Grammer of the Glendale Historical Society.

Los Angeles Almanac
2015 “General Population of the City of Los Angeles County, 1910–1950.” Accessed at September 3, 2015: http://www.laalmanac.com/population/po26.htm.

Mikailian, Arin
2015 “Plans Ordered to Redo Facility.” Glendale News-Press, June 6, 2015.

Moskowitz, Gary
2004 “Glendale Gets Power Boost.” Glendale News-Press, April 13, 2004.

Myers, William A.
1984 Iron Men and Copper Wires: A Centennial History of the Southern California Edison Company Trans-Anglo Books
National Park Service
2002 “Bulletin #15, How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.” Edited by Patrick W.

Andrus and Rebecca H. Shrimpton. Washington D.C.: National Park Service, National Register Program. Accessed December 30, 2015 at:
http://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb15/index.htm .

Nationwide Environmental Title Research, LLC (NETR Online) 2015 Historic Aerials from 2015-1952. Accessed on December 30 2015 at: www.historicaerials.com. 538 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

Perez, Cristotomo
1996 Land Grants in Alta California: A Compilation of Spanish and Mexican private land claims in the State of California. Rancho Cordova: Landmark Enterprises.

Perry, E. Caswell, and Carroll W. Parcher
1981 Glendale Area History. Second Edition. Glendale: Eric Schneirsohn, Xanadu Galleries. Pp. 59-61.

Ralph, Mason
1977 “City Installing New Generators.” Burbank Ledger January 1, 1977.

Rees, Julie
1978 “Reclaimed Water Brings Power to the People.” Glendale News-Press March 31, 1978.

Root, Garret and Rand Herbert
2013 From Sawdust to Uranium: The History of Electrical Power Generation in Humboldt County and Pacific Gas and electric Company’s Humboldt Bay Power Plant 1883-2019. Pacific Gas and Electric Company.

Scholl Canyon Landfill
2015 “Scholl Canyon Landfill.” Accessed August 31, 2015:
http://schollcanyonlandfill.org/#!clients/ServicesPage-bmmaq7o0 Steele, I.C.
1950 “Steam Power Gains on Hydro in California,” Civil Engineering (January 1950). Transmission Agency of Northern California.
2017 “ California-Oregon Transmission Project,” Accessed December 17, 2017. http://www.tanc.us/cotp.html
Spencer, R.W.
1961 “Cooling Water For Steam Electric Stations in Tidewater.” Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers
Termuehlen, Heinz
2001 100 Years of Power Plant Development: Focus on Steam and Gas Turbines as Prime Movers. ASME Press.

URS Corporation (URS)
2003 City of Glendale Water & Power Grayson Unit 9 Project: Cultural Resources. Prepared for the City of Glendale. January 2003.

Vincent, Jr, W.G
1925 “The Interconnected Transmission System of California,” Journal of Electricity LIV Water and Power Associates
539 of 983

DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #
Trinomial

CONTINUATION SHEET
Property Name: Grayson Power Plant

2015 “First Electricity in Los Angeles.” Accessed November 19, 2015:
http://waterandpower.org/museum/First%20Electricity%20in%20Los%20Angeles.html. 2017 “Early Power Generation.” Accessed December 17, 2017:
http://waterandpower.org/museum/Early_Power_Generation.html Watts, John T.
1954 “City Started Power Service in ’09.” Glendale News-Press. August 16, 1954.

Wells, Jason
2010 “Fire Breaks Out at Plant.” Glendale News-Press July 16, 2010.

Williams, James C.
1997 Energy and the Making of Modern California. Akron, Ohio: University of Akron Press.

Yamada, Katherine
2008 “Power Plant Still Serves the City Well.” Glendale News-Press November 21, 2008.

540 of 983

*Map Name: Grayson Power Plant Location Map *Scale: 1:24,000 *Date of map: 2015 DPR 523J (9/2013) *Required information
State of California - The Resources Agency Primary#
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI#
LOCATION MAP Trinomial

541 of 983

P.O. Box 4173 Glendale CA 91202
www.GlendaleHistorical.org
The Glendale Historical Society (TGHS) advocates for the preservation of important Glendale landmarks, supports maintaining the historic character of Glendale’s neighborhoods, educates the public about and engages the community in celebrating and preserving Glendale’s history and architectural heritage, and operates the Doctors House Museum. TGHS is a tax-exempt, not-for-profit 501(c)(3) organization, and donations to TGHS are tax-deductible to the extent permitted by law.

November 19, 2017

Mr. Erik Krause
Interim Deputy Director of Community Development
City of Glendale Community Development Department
633 E Broadway, Room 103
Glendale CA 91206

RE: Comments on Proposed Grayson Repowering Project Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Dear Mr. Krause:

On behalf of the Board of Directors of The Glendale Historical Society (TGHS), I would like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the Proposed Grayson Repowering Project. Established in 1979, TGHS is a non-profit organization with more than 700 members dedicated to the preservation of Glendale’s history and architectural heritage through advocacy and education.

We disagree with the findings that the Grayson Steam Electric Power Plant is not a historical resource as defined in CEQA. We believe that the consultant’s assessment of historic significance is fundamentally flawed and we question whether the City’s qualified experts have critically reviewed the built environment or archaeological findings. TGHS believes that the Grayson Steam Electric Power Plant may be eligible for listing in the National Register and that it is eligible for listing in the California and Glendale Registers for its associative as well as for its design and engineering significance. We also believe the DEIR is flawed in other important ways described in detail below.

Tribal Cultural Resources
We note that the “Tribal Cultural Resources” chapter of the DEIR is incorrectly titled among other more deficiencies. The inaccurate title demonstrates a lack of basic understanding of the intent of the section and the task by preparers and reviewers. The purpose of what is normally called a Cultural Resources chapter in an EIR is to identify and evaluate the potential for a project to effect paleontological, archaeological and historical resources. Resources of concern include fossils, prehistoric and historic artifacts, burials, sites of religious or cultural significance to Native American groups and historical resources.
542 of 983

Its essential questions should be:

Is there a historical resource that may be affected by the proposed project; and Will the project result in a substantial adverse change to the extent that the resource’s historical value is materially impaired or lost?
Evaluations for historic significance are not normally “negative” as stated in the document, historical resources either exist or they do not. Negative findings are an archaic term that was used in solely archaeological investigations and do not apply to the built environment. That paragraph, along with the section title, the evaluation and analysis contained therein alerts informed readers to the fact that the entire section may have been prepared primarily by archaeologists practicing outside of their fields of expertise.

The Tribal Cultural Resources title implies that only archaeological resources and tribal concerns were considered. Under CEQA, Initial Studies and EIRs address Cultural Resources, not merely “Tribal Cultural Resources.”
Preparer Qualifications
The preparer qualifications presented in the Initial Study (1.4 Cultural Resources Project Staff Qualifications) do not demonstrate that any staff meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards. A statement in the closing paragraph claims “The Stantec Cultural Resources Program Manager and Senior Architectural Historians directing the survey meet the Professional Qualification Standards of the Department of the Interior” but provides no particulars regarding degrees attained and more importantly does not identify any staff members’ fields of expertise (emphasis added). Each provides numbers of years preparing reports but none of the brief biographies provides evidence to corroborate meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards codified in CFR Part 61.

The guidance in Archeology And Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines [as Amended and Annotated] directs “The qualifications define minimum education and experience required to perform identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment activities. In some cases, additional areas or levels of expertise may be needed, depending on the complexity of the task and the nature of the historic properties involved”. The website for the Historical Architect responsible for the report states that he specializes “in custom residential architecture, and also do[es] commercial projects” (http://www.johnterryarch.com/Introduction-1). Enumerated experience on that website includes two “renovations” but no rehabilitations or restorations are listed. No evidence of a year or more of graduate study or of professional experience including “detailed investigations of historic structures, preparation of historic structures research reports, and preparation of plans and specifications for preservation projects” as cited in the Professional Qualifications Standards is provided. We submit that this evaluation for historic significance is a complex case, and that the preparers provide no evidence of additional levels or areas of expertise and shows no demonstrated experience with successful evaluations for the National, California or Glendale Registers.

Archaeologists are not normally qualified to prepare built environment evaluations, and historians are not interchangeable with historic architects. In the FEIR revised cultural resources technical report all preparers’ professional qualifications should be clearly stated otherwise the reviewers suspect that it was prepared by staff who have generated reports for specific numbers of years rather than persons with demonstrated expertise necessary to perform the tasks required for this evaluation of historic significance and analysis of effects.
543 of 983

Laws, Ordinances, Regulations and Standards
The introductory “Laws, Ordinances, Regulations and Standards (LORS)” section is fatally flawed. The applying LORS enumerated are not demonstrated to have any specific application to the project. If federal regulations apply to the proposed project, then Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (as amended) would pertain to the project. If the project has any federal nexus, the proper environmental document would likely be an Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) rather than merely an EIR.

It is not clear that Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act does or does not apply to the proposed project. We expect that a project of this type requires federal permits, licenses or other approvals. If so, Section 106 applies and the appropriate clearance document may be an Environmental Impact Study and well as an Environmental Impact Report.

The federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) promulgated the Steam Electric Power Generating Effluent Guidelines and Standards (40 CFR Part 423) in 1974, and amended the regulations in 1977, 1978, 1980, 1982 and 2015. The regulations cover wastewater discharges from power plants operating as utilities. The steam electric regulations are incorporated into National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. If a NPDES permit or any other federal approval or license is required for the proposed project, there is a federal nexus and Section 106 applies.

Further, the EPA released a final rule to limit greenhouse gas emissions from new power plants on August 3, 2015. The final “Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants” establishes New Source Performance Standards to limit emissions of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel-fired power plants. If the “Carbon Pollution Standard for New Power Plants” applies to the proposed project or any other federal approval or license is required for the proposed project, there is a federal nexus and Section 106 applies.

Please explain how the National Environmental Policy Act would or would not apply to the proposed project. Can the proposed project be considered a major federal action that would be determined to significantly affect the quality of the human environment? The “Applicable Federal, State, Local LORS for Tribal [sic] Cultural Resources” table and section notably contains no discussion of whether or not the listed LORS apply and why, which is an obvious necessity in such documents. Merely listing the language in LORS does not inform the public or decision-makers in making their decisions regarding the proposed project.

In the “Applicable Federal, State, Local LORS for Tribal [sic] Cultural Resources” table, there are significant errors and omissions. The administering agency column is incorrect in each entry. For instance, Section 106 is not administered by the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

CFR is not and has never been an administering agency; it is codification of the general and permanent rules and regulations (or administrative law) published in the Federal Register by the executive departments and agencies of the federal government. Applicable Federal Agency Programs administer Section 106 with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. If that table, which provides no of information of value to the analysis, remains, it must be corrected in the Final EIR or a supplemental EIS/EIR. We strongly recommend that it be completed (most of it is blank) and corrected to list correct administering agencies.

Further, where each of the LORS is enumerated in the narrative sections below, applicable language was merely cut-and-pasted into the document. There is notably no description of how 544 of 983

the listed LORS apply to the proposed project, and why, or what it means to the project or analysis, which is critical to understanding what the document is and why preparers came to whatever conclusions they did. Absent this information, the “Tribal Cultural Resources” section of the document is useless, devoid of worthwhile information for decision makers and the public.

Reviewers are left wondering what laws, ordinances and regulations apply to the proposed project, why and how that fits into the analysis at hand.

Archaeology
Neither the “Existing Conditions” section nor the other parts of the larger “Tribal Cultural Resources” [sic] chapter make reference to an archaeological surveys being performed, presenting the property only above-ground when whatever does or does not exist below grade is undeniably part of the subject property’s cultural resources existing conditions. No reference was made to any archaeological surveys being performed for the proposed project, of the likelihood for encountering archaeological resources or what the expected impacts of effects would be on those resources.

Review of the Initial Study, where the technical reports are sequestered, provides an overview of archaeological surveys being performed in 2003 and 2016, providing no further details. What methods were used? How much of the subject property was surveyed? More importantly, who at the City of Glendale has the appropriate credentials (meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards in Archaeology) to critically review the reports that ostensibly resulted? Was a subcontractor engaged to review whatever reports resulted from those surveys? Provide the name and professional qualifications of the archaeologist who reviewed the confidential section of the Initial Study.

The archaeological survey reports were requested of the City by Francesca Smith, a cultural resources professional who is approved by the South Central Coastal Information Center to perform records searches and to review archaeological surveys. It was denied pending City Attorney review. Subsequently, the same request was made on behalf of a professionally qualified archaeologist, but no response has been received to date. The archaeological surveys on which the “Tribal Cultural Resources” section and Initial Study conclusions were based should be made available to qualified reviewers on request. TGHS, the public and decision makers can’t provide any comments on the adequacy of those studies without being provided those reports for review.

Methodology
The “Methodology” section of the EIR is inadequate as well. The two sentences describing Senate Bill 52 efforts is not equivalent to what should be a description of how project Cultural Resources procedures were carried out. Inserting words that do not apply into a section does not satisfy the requirements of CEQA. The methodology section is intended to explain how the evaluation and analysis were prepared that lead the preparers to arrive at the conclusions they did.

Evaluation for Historic Significance
We additionally submit that because the evaluation of the subject property’s historic significance is not included in the document or the appended technical reports, decision makers cannot review the evaluation. Because of that omission, decision-makers and the public cannot make their own conclusions based on information presented as to whether or not the Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant is historically significant. In addition, because that information is not provided, 545 of 983

decision-makers and public are not able to judge whether substantial adverse change to a historical resources would be materially impaired or entirely lost. The California Code of Regulations (CCR) directs under Technical Detail:

The information contained in an EIR shall include summarized technical data, maps, plot plans, diagrams, and similar relevant information sufficient to permit full assessment of significant environmental impacts by reviewing agencies and members of the public.

Placement of highly technical and specialized analysis and data in the body of an EIR should be avoided through inclusion of supporting information and analyses as appendices to the main body of the EIR. Appendices to the EIR may be prepared in volumes separate from the basic EIR document, but shall be readily available for public examination and shall be submitted to all clearinghouses which assist in public review (emphasis added, CCR Section 15147).

The applicable cultural resources analysis is not contained in the technical report section, or in an appendix, but was secreted in the Notice of Preparation. Once TGHS was able to locate the “Architectural Resource Evaluation of The Grayson Power Plant For City of Glendale, California” it was reviewed for adequacy by a professional qualified under the Secretary of the Interior’s Qualifications Standards in both history and architectural history and was found not to be correct in its conclusions.

Other EIR reviewers will not know where to find the evaluation for historic significance.

Because that analysis is not “readily available for public examination” it does not “assist in public review” as required. We strongly stress that the conclusion, that the Grayson Steam- Electric Power is not historically significant is was made in error and that the revised, corrected evaluation should be a technical appendix to the FEIR and that the FEIR should address alternatives to the project that would retain the historical resource and or mitigate its loss if it were proven not to be feasible, based on facts.

Like the archaeological investigation, no evidence is provided of any lead agency review of the conclusions in the report being performed by qualified staff or consultants for the City of Glendale. The conclusions the EIR that are based in incorrect finding in the Initial Study must be peer-reviewed for accuracy by professionally qualified professionals with demonstrated expertise in the applicable fields.

Reconnaissance Survey
The evaluators note in the survey type on the DPR form that the evaluation is an “Architectural Inventory and Evaluation Reconnaissance Survey.” We strongly assert that an intensive evaluation must be prepared by local qualified architectural historians with has clear understanding of the Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant’s place in local and regional history and who has demonstrated experience in applying the criteria for Glendale Register of Historic Resources to evaluations for significance. We assert that the property’s National, California Register and local significance were not properly considered and that its conclusions are incorrect.

National Register guidance prepared by the Department of the Interior provides a definition in “Guidelines for Local Surveys A Basis For Reservation Planning: “Reconnaissance may be thought of as a ‘once over lightly’ inspection of an area, most useful for characterizing its resources in general and for developing a basis for deciding how to organize and orient more detailed survey efforts.”
546 of 983

Likewise directions in “The Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Identification” state Reconnaissance survey might be most profitably employed when gathering data to refine a developed historic context—such as checking on the presence or absence of expected property types, to define specific property types or to estimate the distribution of historic properties in an area… In most cases, areas surveyed in this way will require resurvey if more complete information is needed about specific properties” (emphasis added, Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of The Interior's Standards and Guidelines, as Amended and Annotated, 48 Federal Register 44716, effective 1983).

We believe a reconnaissance survey, buried in the Initial Study was not the correct level of evaluation and should rightly be an intensive survey in a technical appendix to the EIR that would allow reviewers the opportunity to consider the logic of a full evaluation for historic significance.

Is the Grayson Steam-Electric Plant a Historical Resource? The “Tribal Cultural Resources” [sic] EIR section commences with a statement where the authors refute their own justification for finding the Grayson Steam-Electric Power not to be historically significant:

While the [Grayson Steam-Electric Power] Plant does possess potential significance under the… [California Register] and Glendale Register of Historic Resources Criterions [sic] 1, 2, 3, and 4, a lack of integrity under all aspects of integrity recognized by the… [California Register], and implemented for the City of Glendale Register… which is silent on aspects of integrity, undermines the property’s ability to convey importance/significance for either the state or local registers.

The Glendale Register has no requirement for integrity. Finding a property not eligible for the Glendale Register because of supposed alterations is not supported in the stated requirements for designation on the local register. Because the Glendale Register has no specific requirements for integrity a property’s significance should not be dismissed because of alterations, particularly when the facility being evaluated remains absolutely recognizable to its original appearance.

When properties are significant for associations with the development of the community or with important persons they need not retain the same aspects or level of integrity as a property that is significant only for its design. That concept is a fundamental principle in evaluating properties for historic significance and was markedly not recognized by the document preparers.

Furthermore, the addition of separate cooling towers, maintenance and storage buildings, oil tanks and trailers over time would be essential to its continued use as a power plant and would be well-known to qualified, experienced practitioners.

The inadequate evaluation in the Initial Study does not make clear where the described, overly emphasized alterations are, or how they would collectively reduce the property’s integrity of design. Table 4 in the Initial Study curiously lists more than 57 building permits (only post 1964), but after review, it is discovered that few, if any are actual alterations to the Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant that would affect its integrity. The document states “Some of the projects associated with these permits are visible in the aerials…” but no connection between listed building permits and actual alterations that would affect the ability of the property to 547 of 983

convey its significance, which is central to the claim of the property not being eligible has been made.

Supposed alterations such as “Constructed a new concrete block chemical pump house with concrete roof” (1964), “Constructed one metal shed” (1970) and “Constructed a foundation (only) for a temporary modular trailer” (2012) demonstrate the consultant’s lack of understanding of the crux of an evaluation for historic significance. Does the property have historic significance and if it does, is it recognizable, depending on the type of significance? None of those predominately separate actions described as alterations in the Initial Study table or annotated aerials affected the design, location, materials, workmanship, feeling or association of the power plant. Its setting may have changed since it was completed, but its setting in an industrial yard is not as essential to its significance as would the setting of other buildings such as a barn in an open field or adjacent to a barnyard. The subject property remains in a utility yard setting as it has been historically. The additional small buildings and other structures and objects that have been added to the subject property are located on the northwest and southwest, non-character-defining, secondary and rear sides of the plant as demonstrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Excerpted and annotated from Architectural Resource Evaluation of The Grayson Power Plant For City of Glendale, California, showing only a ramp and trailer on the northwest (left-hand) side of the main building and various additional facilities at the back or southwest side of the Grayson Steam-Power Plant Building. Note that very few alterations in this figure are connected to the main, Grayson Steam-Power Plant Building, which is highlighted in yellow.

548 of 983

Figure 1 makes evident the fact that there are no alterations on the façade or northeast side, none are shown on the southeast end wall (a carport was added sometime after 1950 that does not affect its integrity), various small additions on the non-character-defining southwest side and only a ramp was added on the northwest side.1 Further text will describe why other small changes do not affect its integrity. The building’s principal cladding materials remain, its original ribbon, hopper-type and glass block, multi-story windows remain, the original metal sign on stand-outs and the distinctive, staggered, horizontal corner fillets remain intact. An experienced architectural historian would have exercised appropriate professional judgment and omitted items that were not alterations that affected the actual resource under consideration. The Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant structure retains more than adequate integrity to its original design by Daniel A. Elliott, AIA, and remains recognizable.

Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant Significance
The Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant is significant for its association with the development of the community, for its direct association with Lauren W. Grayson, likely for its Streamline Moderne-Stripped Classicism design, as the work of a master architect and as the first earthquake-proof power plant. Its integrity of design remains, clearly visible from nearby streets, the large, metal and stucco-clad building is visible and is the inventive, original design remains easily distinguishable.

Association with the Development of the Community
The power plant’s connection to the development of Glendale is reasonably straightforward and is undeniable. Almost immediately after Glendale’s incorporation, locals recognized the importance and costs savings of establishing independent utilities. Once street lighting became an issue, the new city government took action to establish a “light and power” entity, holding a bond election to acquire and construct an electric works system for the city by 1909 (Winston W. Crouch and Beatrice Dinerman, Southern California Metropolis: A Study of Development of a Government for a Metropolitan Area 1964). An expanded distribution service and the establishment of the Glendale Light and Power Company were the part of the consequences of that election. Without the existence of the subject property power plant, the community would not have had the necessary utility capacity to grow as it did after the second World War. In 1938, the Los Angeles Times substantiated the assertion that the power plant made development of the community possible, reporting “City officials have maintained steadily that there are no available sources of power and that erection of the generating plant is necessary” (“City Officials Deny Charges in Glendale Power Plant Plan” 26 May 1938:14). The resulting power plant was built at an estimated cost of $1.5 million.

In the two decades spanning its construction, the population of modern Glendale increased by more than 50 percent between 1930 and 1950, from approximately 63,000 to 96,000 (U.S.

Census). Neighboring Pasadena and other comparable communities’ populations did not grow by nearly as great a percentage as Glendale’s unfettered growth during that period. The stratospheric evolution of Glendale as a population and business center was spurred partly by annexation but as much by its increased ability to independently provide inexpensive power to newly expanding and establishing businesses and the thousands of new homes and apartments that were built during that time. That tendency continued “between 1980 and 2000, Glendale grew significantly more than neighboring areas” (City of Glendale, Government Departments, Economic Development, “Great Demographics,” “Top 10 Reasons You Want Your Business in

1 An “addition to boiler room” at the southwest corner is noted in the Initial Study Figure 15 annotated aerial photographs incorrectly as being added around 1979 (Aerial 4). That small addition is clearly evident in Aerial 2, the 1964 aerial photograph.
549 of 983

Glendale” at http://www.glendaleca.gov/government/departments/glendale-economic- development-corporation-/top-10-reasons-you-want-your-business-in-glendale/analytic- information). Sustaining that trend that was made partly possible by the existence of an independent power source, the population of Glendale soared by nearly 40 percent during that 20-year period, significantly more than any other single city in Los Angeles County and more than the county itself. Without an autonomous power source providing economical electricity, the unbridled population growth and expansion of Glendale after World War II would not have been possible. The power plant shaped that development rather than merely reflecting it.

Because of that direct connection between Glendale’s growth and the Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant, it is eligible for listing in the California and Glendale Register under each Criterion 1 for its essential role making the Postwar development of the community possible.

Distinctive Stripped Classicism Design, Work of a Master and Engineering Significance Stripped Classicism was a twentieth century architectural style that reduced all, or nearly all superfluous ornamentation. It was favored primarily by government agencies for public building designs and was widely used by the Works Progress Administration during the Depression. The style embraced simplified but recognizable classicism in its overall massing, scale and proportions while eliminating traditional decorative detailing.

The significance of the design by architect Daniel Anthony Elliot, A.I.A. for the main building remains plainly visible and recognizable is not adequately explored in the reconnaissance level evaluation. The original, remaining design placed a large amount of equipment inside a metal- clad, deftly stepped shell that articulated a large volume from what could have been an ungainly multi-street block shape into human-scaled units, reducing its apparent mass and creating an elegant solution to what could well be an entirely utilitarian facility. In addition the electrical turbines, which are entirely functional apparatuses used to drive generators to transform mechanical energy into electrical energy by electromagnetic induction are cloaked in cleverly designed covers that supplement the large scale Stripped Classicism design elements of the facility into smaller units. At least three pencil-drawn renderings were made to demonstrate design alternatives that would camouflage the practical features.

It would be helpful to reviewers to understand the architect’s remarkable career. He was a designer for Gilbert Stanley Underwood, a recognized master architect, between the years 1925 and 1932, was a contributor to the Colorado Aqueduct Project (1932-‘41) and Elliott was responsible for the designs of various other water and power plants (see “Experience Record,” Daniel A. Elliott, AIA, Architect at
http://dbase1.lapl.org/webpics/calindex/documents/04/515676.pdf). Elliott designed the Burbank Water & Power Building (1949, 164 W. Magnolia Bl, Burbank) which is a noted example of Late Moderne design, as illustrated by the Los Angeles Conservancy on its website (Explore LA, Historic Places <https://www.laconservancy.org/locations/burbank-water-and-power>). His utility portfolio was described in the “Public Imagery and Its Uses” section of Los Angeles In the Thirties: 1931-1941, which considered an expert source on local architecture during that period (Gebhard and Von Bretton 1989).
550 of 983

Figure 2: Pencil rendering of Glendale “Steam Electric Generating Plant” by Daniel A. Elliott, AIA excerpted from Initial Study, Architectural Resource Evaluation of The Grayson Power Plant For City of Glendale, California, Figure 9 (page 4.5). Compare with the recent photograph in Figure 3 that shows a series of multi- story, glass block windows in the boiler building portion of the Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant building. If the crane in the foreground was at the south rather than the north end, the rendering and the power plant as it exists today would appear nearly the same, clearly expressing its distinctive Stripped Classicism design. The design treatment for the endwall in the above rendering was ultimately executed without the cartouche or the inset entrance. It is mistakenly called an “architectural drawing” rather than a rendering in the Initial Study.

The still-recognizable, Stripped Classicism design of the Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant is understated, exquisitely proportioned and was undeniably futuristic for its time. The three staggered, dimensioned green, horizontal strokes that wrap around the southeast corner skillfully punctuate the otherwise staid building composition and assert the Modernism of the design. At the north façade, left-justified bronze letters on stand-outs primly identify the facility: “City of Glendale Public Service Department Steam Electric Generating Plant.” Most power plans in the 1930s and now have no architectural design imposed reducing their aesthetic effects on the community, which is part of the significance of the Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant’s design.
551 of 983

Figure 3: Excerpted, cropped photograph from Initial Study, Architectural Resource Evaluation of The Grayson Power Plant For City of Glendale, California, Figure 18 (page 6.6). View is of the northwest, main façade, no date (estimated 2016). Note the staggered green horizontal bands at the left corner, the sign at the right side, sets of multi-story glass block windows of the boiler portion of the building, original, riveted “Cyclops” crane at left foreground and Units 3, 2 and 1 (left-to-right) in the foreground. The turbine covers for Units 1-3 have radiused roof-wall connections on the main volumes at each endwall, modulating the appearances of otherwise entirely utilitarian structures. Double fillet bands wrap around their lower cornices and corners, emphasizing the carefully expressed scale and proportion.

At the cornice of the main volume, a simple, dimensioned band interposes the roof-wall junctions. The band motif is repeated in pairs on the turbine covers for Units 1-3, the small, utilitarian structures in the foreground on the main elevation. In the design for the Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant, different volumes are manipulated using varying scale and proportion strategies. The factory-painted, metal exterior of the main tower is clad in small rectangles that together form a grid. The lower, “Boiler Building” main portion of the plant is divided by stacked horizontal scoring lines. The turbine covers for Units 1-5 are painted metal, single-story housings with curved ends and lower, filleted endwalls. The Initial Study cultural resources evaluation mistakenly identified the exterior metal panel material as asbestos, which is likely incorrect as well as needlessly alarming (Figure 20, 6.7). Nearly 15 years after its completion, the unique exterior shell on the turbine covers at Glendale Power Plant was described in Power Plant Management, “the housing is fabricated of steel and is lifted in a piece from over the turbine- generator”(Robert Henderson Emerick 1955). We assert that the Stripped Classicism design of the power plant is an outstanding example of a rare type of architecture, the architect-designed power plant. The Stripped Classicism design should be considered the work of a master architect, Daniel A.

Elliot, AIA (1998-1978). California Register Criterion 3 includes properties that “…represent… the work of an important creative individual.” The Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant is eligible for listing

552 of 983

in the California and Glendale Register under each Criterion 3 for Stripped Classicism design and as work of master architect, Daniel Anthony.

The subject property is further significant for its engineering and construction methods. The Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant was described in the Los Angeles Times as “the world’s first completely earthquake-proof … plant… Among its unique features is the location of the huge turbo-generator on an uncovered deck… the only building is a shell built of light steel and stucco filter walls that will more or less cover the unsightly appearance of boilers.”2 R.R. Martel, a Caltech professor and widely recognized international authority on seismic engineering collaborated on the design. Martel (1890-1965) was among the first engineers in the nation to concentrate on earthquake-resistant buildings and is considered the first in California.3 He was one of two founders of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute, an independent, nonprofit organization which was established “to promote research on safe and economical earthquake resistant structures” worldwide and continues to thrive, providing that service on an international scale to this day.

Its earthquake-proof structure was prescient for the late 1930s. An engineering periodical by the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute focused on seismic safety “Earthquake Spectra: The Professional Journal of the Earthquake Engineering Research Institute” ran numerous articles specifically describing earthquake-related damage to power plants in the greater Los Angeles area fifty years later, between 1987 and 1994. While the Glendale’s Power Plant is listed in data and tables with plants that sustained significant damage, no damage to Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant from those events is enumerated. Similarly, “Seismic Experience Data--Nuclear And Other Plants: Proceedings Of A Session” prepared by the American Society of Civil Engineers describes Glendale’s Power Plant remaining “on-line” during the 1971 earthquake, despite its proximity to Sylmar, which was considered the epicenter (1985). We are not saying the subject property building can withstand all earthquakes; in the past it demonstrated superior seismic strength compared to its peers in the Los Angeles area. The Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant was designed to be “earthquake-proof” before any other facilities of its type were which is overridingly consequential in California engineering. The property possesses significance as the earliest known example of an earthquake-proof power plant in California or anywhere else.

Both the California and the local register recognize construction and engineering innovation. California Register Criterion 3 states “It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction; represents the work of an important creative individual.” The Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant is eligible for listing in the California and Glendale Registers under Criteria 3 and C for its method of early earthquake proof construction. None of those avenues of its significance was addressed in the reconnaissance level survey prepared for the Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant.

Direct Association with Lauren W. Grayson
The significance of Chief Engineer and General Manger Lauren W. Grayson (1907-1972) is also not adequately evaluated. When Grayson retired in 1970, he had served the city for nearly two decades, expanded water and power capacity by 400 percent and the budget by an even higher percentage during his tenure (“Public Services Head in Glendale to Retire” Los Angeles Times. 25 January, 1970: SG- B2). The visionary civil servant was responsible for bringing together other agencies for collaboration with other such agencies in the northwest. That joint power alliance was considered monumental in the field, and brought electrical capacity diversification, as well as lower costs, to Glendale-based users. He oversaw both water and power utilities, constantly interpreting and planning for future community needs.

2 “Power Plant Built In Open: Glendale Will Have First Completely Quake-Proof Setup.” Los Angeles Times.

June 30, 1940: A10.
3 “R. R. Martel, Professor of Structural Engineering Staff” Engineering and Science, Volume 19, 1956: 22-

24. 553 of 983

Lauren Grayson was responsible for the addition of cleaner technologies, including a steam- electric generating unit (1965) and the nation’s first gas turbine peaking unit in his final year.

Grayson served as president of American Water Works and California Municipal Utilities associations and was elected American Water Works Man of the Year (1959). He was considered a national leading authority on public utilities and delivered academic papers on a wide variety of utility-based subjects throughout his career. Grayson was published on subjects ranging from visionary long-range planning to the unique needs of car wash and drive-in usage in a number of national and regional industry periodicals, including The American City, Engineering News & Record, Western City and Aqueduct News. Under his leadership, Glendale was one of the first local communities to require subterranean power lines. The Times succinctly described his career at retirement as an “outstanding achievement in the field of water and power” (Don Snyder “Glendale Official: Public Service Chief to End Long Career” Los Angeles Times. 6 July 1970:B9). It was named in his honor in 1972. Mr. Grayson lived in Glendale after 1951 was buried at Forest Lawn. The Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant is eligible for listing in the California and Glendale Registers under each Criteria 2 for its direct association with Lauren W. Grayson during his period of significant, local utility-related achievements.

The period of significance of the Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant commenced in 1941 when it was completed and ended in 1970, when Loren W. Grayson retired. Neither the California nor the Glendale Register has requirements that a property be completed more than 50 years ago. For the purposes of National Register eligibility, the period of significance would end in 1967, because it does not meet the requirements in Criterion Consideration G for properties that have achieved exceptional significance in the past 50 years.

Because the California Register Technical Assistance Bulletin 7, is currently under review for updates and revisions, there is no current state guidance for nominating California Register properties and National Register of Historic Places guidance is used in its place. In the National Park Service-prepared National Register Bulletin: “How to Prepare the National Register Criteria for Evaluation” under “Determining the Relevant Aspects of Integrity” for properties associated with important events or persons it states:

A property important for association with an event, historical pattern, or person(s) ideally might retain some features of all seven aspects of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. Integrity of design and workmanship, however, might not be as important to the significance, and would not be relevant if the property were a site. A basic integrity test for a property associated with an important event or person is whether a historical contemporary would recognize the property as it exists today.

Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant retains integrity to its location. The building remains on the original site where it was completed in 1940. The power plant building’s original Stripped Classicism design is intact, the painted metal panels that camouflage day-to-day operations of the facility, including the three staggered, green bands that wrap around the southeast corner and original signage are visible and recognizable to the general public from the public right of way.

Its setting in an essentially flat yard among other large utility apparatuses has changed over time, reflecting upgrades, increases in capacity and new technologies, but continues to be the basic, recognizable surroundings of a power plant. Its distinctive painted metal exterior materials endure, as do other visible elements from its original design including multi-story glass block banks of windows, awning-type steel sash windows, decorative fillets, metal sign letters, 554 of 983

decorative turbine covers and the essential building configuration. The condition of those materials reflect the passage of 77 years, as should be expected. The fit, finish and connections of those original materials remains impeccable, revealing its inventive, Depression-era workmanship. Because the other aspects of integrity remain intact, the feeling and associations of the Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant, while somewhat reduced by the additions of new outbuildings and facilities remains. The property maintains its original, intended use, and judging by publicly visible portions of the building, it building retains essential qualities that evoke its aesthetic and historic senses it would have had in 1941 when it was completed.

Despite the enumeration of every new building and feature ever built at the larger surrounding property, National Register guidance clearly states “A property that has lost some historic materials or details can be eligible if it retains the majority of the features that illustrate its style in terms of the massing, spatial relationships, proportion, pattern of windows and doors, texture of materials, and ornamentation.” The Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant retains its original inventive massing, its essential spatial relationship with the larger yard, the carefully designed proportions, the original, visible, main fenestration, the textures of painted metal, stucco and other materials and its distinctive, austere ornamentation (Figures 2-5) The exhaustive, improperly prepared evaluation for historic significance in the Initial Study expended an inordinate amount of research to justify the misguided point that the power plant has impaired integrity because of alterations. The architect-designed power plant is the resource in question- not the not the entire surrounding yard. The Initial Study ardently describes the addition of switching yards, additional units, cooling tanks and towers, sheds, a warehouse, storage buildings and a garage which are not connected to the Grayson Power Plant and are immaterial to the evaluation of the building. Those non-contributing features comprise the setting of the subject property and do not affect its integrity or significance. To the average reader, hurrying through the document to achieve a basic understanding, their assertion that the power plant is not historically significant would seem well justified. Professionally qualified reviewers who are experienced as performing such evaluations arrive at entirely different conclusions as described in this letter.

We assert that if Lauren W. Grayson, for whom the property was named were able to see the subject property today, he would plainly recognize the Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant.

Whether or not a person associated with the property during its period of significance is among the National Register thresholds for integrity. It remains clearly recognizable to its original appearance. The addition of buildings, cooling towers, fuel tanks and other equipment is typical of and are necessities to continuously operating a power plant, particularly in a community where its existence made population growth possible. It can be assumed that no public power plant dating from 1941 that remains in operation would be devoid of any alterations made since its completion. Keeping up with requirements, particularly those for life safety require inevitable alterations to buildings and structures. Comparison between the photographs in Figures 3 and 4 as well as others validates that the building is absolutely recognizable to its original design and claims of its loss of integrity are exaggerated and not based in facts. 555 of 983

Figure 4: Grayson Steam-Power Plant Building, view northwest of south endwall, circa 1950s. Source:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grayson_Power_Plant.jpg, not for publication.

Figure 5: Excerpt from Initial Study, Architectural Resource Evaluation Of The Grayson Power Plant For City of Glendale, California, undated photograph estimated 2016,(Figure 26 Grayson Boiler Building page 6.10, same view as Figure 4 above). Note all visible awning-type, steel sash windows, exterior materials, the building configuration and Stripped Classicist design remain recognizable. Carport at lower center is an addition (year unknown). Note the stucco scoring bands at the right-hand boiler building tower and the dimensioned continuous sill and header on the left-hand bank of ribbon windows that enunciate the endwalls, providing visual interest and relief. Other than the carport, no alterations are visible.
556 of 983

A brief review of National Register-listed power plants in the United States revealed that all remaining in use contain non-contributing buildings and structures and that nearly all of the main buildings had been altered.4 In Pasadena, the Glenarm Power Plant was determined eligible for the National Register for its associative and design significance, despite hundreds of alterations made to the building and larger power plant complex over time and numerous changes to the building since it was completed in 1928. The very visible, east facing, rear side of the Glenarm Power Plant is entirely concealed by alterations made in the past 20 years. Comparison against like types is one of many tests for significance and the Grayson Steam-Power Plant stacks up favorably against its significant peers in terms of it importance to the development of the community, its design significance, and its retention of integrity. We believe that the Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant is eligible for listing in the National Register as well as the California and local registers, but the property is not publicly accessible to make site visits and perform a complete, intensive evaluation of its significance.

While the 29-page DPR does provide a narrative paragraph on “Locational Data,” which are normally reserved for properties that have no street addresses, such as archaeology sites in the desert, the evaluation notably does not address the engineering importance of the Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant.

Previously Recorded Resources
In the Initial Study, the preparers included a list of “previously recorded” built environment resources, mistakenly applying what is normally archaeological methodology to the built environment. Not only does the section not inform the evaluation, it demonstrates their misunderstanding of the task. The absence or presence of built environment resources within a half a mile is not a predicator as it can be in archaeology, of whether or not built environment resources can be expected to be encountered. Moreover, the list provided does not enumerate whether or not the studied properties were found to be significant or not rendering it even less useful.

The only “previously recorded resources” that should be considered in this evaluation would be on the subject property (including any previous evaluations), or would be other power plants against which this property should rightly have been compared. See National Register guidance on “Comparing Similar Properties” in “VIII. How to Evaluate The Integrity of A Property” (National Park Service, “How to Apply the National Register Criteria For Evaluation”) Project Description
We note that the Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant has a 22-foot deep basement as described in the 1940 Los Angeles Times article, while the proposed project description cites only an eight-foot-depth of disturbance. As described, the additional 14-foot depth of remaining concrete, rebar and whatever other other materials would remain should be proposed removed, which would probably result in an approximately 23 to 25-foot depth of disturbance. The project description and all applicable analyses must be revised accordingly.

4 National Register-listed power plants include: Adams Power Plant Transformer House (Niagara Falls, NY); American Falls Power Plant Transformer House (American Falls, IA); Moran Municipal Generating Station (Burlington, VT); Murray City Diesel Power Plant (Murray City, UT); Pratt Street Power Plant (Baltimore, MD); Power Plant No. 1 (McPherson, KS); Seaholm Power Plant (Austin, TX) and Spaulding Power Plant and Dam (Greely City, NB). The Adams Power Plant Transformer House is no longer is use; its contributing buildings are notably no longer extant. Seaholm Power Plant contained a non-contributing structure when it was listed in the National Register. It has since been redeveloped and is no longer used as a power plant. 557 of 983

CEQA strongly encourages early consultation with interested or affected parties, which includes local historic advocacy groups. No consultation efforts were made with TGHS. We were asked for information early in the process but have not otherwise been consulted on the project.

Predicated on the facts and issues presented above, TGHS believes that the Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant must be re-evaluated for historic significance in a supplementary document and that the Cultural Resources section of the environmental document must be revised to reflect a good faith and more reasoned analysis of the property’s historic significance. We have presented “substantial evidence” for the lead agency to change its conclusion and find that the Grayson Steam-Eclectic Power Plant building is a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Greg Grammer

President
The Glendale Historical Society

558 of 983
of 12
State of California • Natural Resources Agency Gavin Newsom, Governor December 3, 2020 Reference Number: FRA_2017_0516_001 Submitted Via Electronic Mail
Brett Rushing
Cultural Resources Program Manager
California High-Speed Rail Authority
770 L Street, Suite 620
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: High-Speed Rail Program, Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section, Additional Information and Request for Review and Concurrence on Revised National Register of Historic Places Determination of Eligibility for Grayson Steam-Electric Generating Station (Grayson Power Plant) Dear Mr. Rushing:

The California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) is continuing consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section of the High-Speed Rail (HSR) Project. This consultation is undertaken in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement Among the Federal Railroad Administration, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, and the California High-Speed Rail Authority (PA 2011). In support of this consultation, the authority has provided following documentation:

Updated California Department of Parks and Recreation Site Record Form (DPR 523) for Grayson Power Plant, 2015 (revised 2017)
City of Glendale Community Development Department Comment Letter on the California High-Speed Rail Program Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, August 31, 2020
In a letter dated May 2, 2019, SHPO concurred that the Grayson Power Plant was eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) under Criteria A at the local level of significance for its association with power generation in Glendale. Subsequently, new information on the history of the Grayson Power Plant has come to light: a comprehensive 2018 evaluation undertaken for an Environmental Impact Report by Stantec Consulting Services for the City of Glendale found that the property did not retain

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION

OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION
Julianne Polanco, State Historic Preservation Officer
1725 23rd Street, Suite 100, Sacramento, CA 95816-7100 Telephone: (916) 445-7000 FAX: (916) 445-7053 [email protected] www.ohp.parks.ca.gov
Lisa Ann L. Mangat, Director
559 of 983
of 22
sufficient integrity to considered eligible for listing on the NRHP under all criteria. Having considered this information, the Authority agrees with the conclusions with the 2018 evaluation and request SHPO concurrence with the revised determination of eligibility.

Having reviewed your submittal, SHPO concurs that the Grayson Power Plant is ineligible for listing on the NRHP under all criteria for the reasons outlined in the revised DPR 523 form.

If you have any questions, please contact State Historian Tristan Tozer at (916) 445-7027 or [email protected].

Sincerely,

Julianne Polanco
State Historic Preservation Officer
560 of 983
Grayson Electric-Steam Power Plant Mitigation Measures 1 of 3 The Glendale Historical Society
4/25/2021

The environmental document prepared for the Grayson Electric-Steam Power Plant must study and analyze historical resource impacts. The Grayson Electric-Steam Power Plant is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources.

The alternatives analysis component will be especially critical in this this document. It must evaluate the No Project alternative as well as a “reasonable range” of feasible alternatives that would retain the Grayson Electric-Steam Power Plant as described in CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6(e)).

There must be an essential nexus (i.e. connection) between the mitigation measure and a legitimate governmental interest. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987). The mitigation measure must be "roughly proportional" to the impacts of the project. Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). The Glendale Historical Society (TGHS) believes that the below-listed mitigation measures would be both connected to the expected loss of the Grayson Electric-Steam Power Plant and are relational to the expected loss of that structure to the community. The addition of signage on San Fernando Road near the current location of the Grayson Electric-Steam Power Plant and the future retention and display of components of equipment from the Grayson Electric-Steam Power Plant shall be added to these mitigation measures.

Mitigation of impacts must lessen or eliminate the physical impact that the project will have on the historical resource. This is often accomplished through redesign of a project to eliminate objectionable or damaging aspects of the project. Relocation of a historical resource may constitute an adverse impact as well. However, in situations where relocation is the only feasible alternative to demolition, relocation may mitigate the impact below a level of significance provided such that the new location is compatible with the original character and use of the historical resource and the resource retains its eligibility for listing in the California Register (14 CCR § 4852(d)(1)).

Although in most cases the use of drawings, photographs, and/or displays do not mitigate the physical impact on the environment caused by demolition or destruction of a historical resource (14 CCR Section 15126.4(b)). However, CEQA requires that all feasible mitigation be undertaken even if they do not mitigate to below a level of significance. In this context, recordation would serve a legitimate archival purpose.

Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure A (CR MM A)- Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documentation
If the preferred alternative is demolition, Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documentation shall be prepared for the Boiler Building, including the boilers and all additions, the turbine deck and turbine units 1-9. That documentation will include preparation of a written narrative, large format photography and drawings that meet the latest requirements in HAER History, Photography and Drawing Guidelines (at https://www.nps.gov/hdp/standards/haerguidelines.htm). Archival and electronic full copies of that completed documentation shall be submitted to the HAER program in accordance with the most recent edition of “Preparing HABS/HAER/HALS Documentation For Transmittal,” the Glendale Public Library and posted on the City’s main website for no less than 10 years. No fewer than a total of eight, full-size archivally printed and framed, full size (or larger) copies of those HAER drawings and six enlarged large format photographs, also archival printed and framed, shall 561 of 983
Grayson Electric-Steam Power Plant Mitigation Measures 2 of 3 The Glendale Historical Society
4/25/2021

be displayed in the lobby or foyer of the of the replacement Operations and Maintenance building (or a more publicly accessible location subject to written approval to The Glendale Historical Society).

That HAER documentation, as described, shall be complete and accepted by the HAER program before any demolition or dismantling of the Boiler Building, its contents, the turbine deck or turbines 1-8 can commence.

If the City of Glendale maintained a comprehensive, up-to-date, historic resources survey of City-Owned Properties, the Grayson Steam-Electric Power Plant would previously have been identified as a historical resource and there would be no need for the years of disagreement on that important subject. Based on the absence of such a survey, a comprehensive, intensive survey is proposed as a mitigation measure to avoid these situations in the future.

As directed in the National Register Bulletin “Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning,”
The success of planning a community survey, as well as conducting it and using the results, will depend on a broad base of local interest and involvement. Vital support for the survey, and for historic preservation in general, can be generated if a carefully planned campaign is mounted to involve the public and obtain their participation. Such a campaign can also identify valuable local sources of information and special expertise. Public involvement should begin at the earliest stages of survey planning.

CR MM B- Historic Resources Survey of City-Owned Properties The City shall prepare or cause to be prepared comprehensive Historic Resources Survey of (all) City- Owned Properties (Survey) with improvements constructed before 1990, unless the property has previously been evaluated (with a written record of that evaluation) within the past five years or are expected to be evaluated in the planned East-West Survey. All survey work shall conform to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Archaeology and Historic Preservation, which include Standards for Evaluation, Identification, and Registration. The survey shall be prepared in accordance with “National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning” and the California Office of Historic Preservation’s latest guidance. The Survey shall commence within 90 days of the adoption of the environmental clearance document for the Proposed Grayson Power Plant Repowering Project. The survey shall be completed within one-calendar year, be subject to a draft and final survey review and recommendation by the City’s Historic Preservation Commission and adoption by City Council.

The resulting survey shall include, at minimum:

A Summary, enumerating the total number of surveyed resources and districts with levels of significance.

A Project Description, that clearly describes the purposes of the survey, sources of funding, its overall parameters, a description and map of the survey area and property types.

A Summary of Previous Identification Efforts that clearly describes any previous survey of identification efforts, local designations, National and California Register listings and determinations of eligibility, California Historic Landmarks and California Points of Historic 562 of 983
Grayson Electric-Steam Power Plant Mitigation Measures 3 of 3 The Glendale Historical Society
4/25/2021

Interest listings and designations and any other related historic preservation planning efforts. It shall include and describe the contents of a current, records search at the South Central Coastal Information Center at California State University Fullerton and provide the final survey and all known Glendale surveys to the Information Canter upon completion, in accordance with the Information Center’s requirement.

A Context Statement prepared in compliance with The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Preservation Planning, “Standard I. Preservation Planning Establishes Historic Contexts,” “Standard II. Preservation Planning Uses Historic Contexts To Develop Goals and Priorities for the Identification, Evaluation, Registration and Treatment of Historic Properties” and the California Office of Historic Preservation-prepared “Writing Historic Contexts” guidance. The Context Statement shall establish clear registration requirements for eligibility.

A clear Methodology section that describes field work techniques and research methods used to conduct the survey, a description of how historic districts are identified in the survey, references to previous surveys, and methodology for re-survey completed as part of this project. It will clearly describe efforts made to contact and involve members of the community and organizations with particular interests in historic properties.

Recommendations for future preservation activities, including: potential updates and/or amendments to existing National, California and Glendale Register designations, as applicable; designation recommendations for potential local historic districts, as applicable; and potential economic development, heritage tourism, and other preservation planning activities; Survey results shall enumerate the total number of surveyed resources in appropriate categories, tables listing the property types and architectural styles identified, as well as narrative defining the results, with information regarding the levels of integrity and condition of resources, describes character-defining features, past and current development trends.

Appendix 1: Two-page DPR 523 series forms for each City-owned property unless the property is vacant or a paved parking lot which shall be noted in the survey results tables by Los Angeles County Assessor’s Parcel Identification Numbers and address (where assigned). The DPRs shall be fully completed in accordance with the latest edition of the OHP-prepared “Instructions For Recording Historical Resources.” They shall include whether or not the evaluation is an update, assign California Register Status Codes and describe other listings in the header blocks and include at least one clear digital photograph and a sketch map. If a property is California Register Status Code 1-6L, it shall include a complete architectural description, construction history, related features and under significance, describe why the resource is significant within a the relevant historic context and identify character-defining features.

Appendix 2: A survey map that delineates the survey area with all previously identified properties including local landmarks and historic districts and the results of the City owner- Properties Survey.

The results of the final or adopted survey shall be provided to the Office of Historic Preservation, submitted in the specified formats to the Information Center and the result, including the DPR series 523 forms shall be posted, by property in the City’s Glendale Information Property Portal or its successors and in its entirely on the City’s website until it is updated by a subsequent survey, within no more than 90 days of its substantial completion or adoption. 563 of 983
February 9, 2022
Glendale City CouncilRE: Grayson Repowering Proposal
Dear Mayor Devine and Councilmembers Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, and Najarian, In 2018, the Glendale City Council took a strong position against an oversized 262 MW fossil fuel projectat the Grayson Power Plant. We and many other members of the community applauded that decision andwere grateful for the Council’s leadership and interest in pursuing clean energy for our city’s future.

In 2019, when GWP presented a new portfolio with 93 MW of gas generation, and with added batterystorage and local clean energy projects, City Council again showed strong leadership by approving theplan with conditions and providing clear direction that GWP should work on multiple avenues to reduceor eliminate the need for new gas-powered infrastructure.

City Council followed this path toward a clean energy future because the community—includingGEC—and common sense in the era of climate change called for a re-examination of a plan built oncarbon-emitting technology.

Today, the community is calling on City Council to show leadership again. We ask this Council not toapprove 93 MW of new gas power. We believe none is needed. The Grayson Repowering should moveforward with decommissioning the old units and installing the battery energy storage system. This path ispossible, especially if Glendale brings in new clean energy expertise to quickly lead a market-drivenprocess. The essential ingredients are leadership and vision. The decision is in your hands, and the publicis relying on you.

We Do Not Need the Proposed Project
We have previously shared our analysis and conclusions regarding the need for the Grayson Repoweringproposal with the GWP Commission and Sustainability Commission. We are attaching the letter we sentto the Sustainability Commission, along with Clean Energy Alternatives for Meeting Glendale EnergyNeeds, a document that presents many potential approaches for using clean energy. Approaches like thesecould form the basis for a diverse portfolio to meet our needs without gas equipment.

In brief:● The need for the project is overstated. It is prudent to be conservative in energy planning, but thisplan is not conservative. Instead, it creates risks of unnecessarily spending over $200 million($260 million for the Wartsila project, Alternative 7) and of exacerbating climate and air qualityimpacts that will affect public health and disrupt a sustainable, livable environment. 564 of 983
Glendale City CouncilFebruary 9, 2022Page2
● Glendale can meet its peak demand needs and reserve obligations through a combination of localclean energy programs, as discussed below and in the Clean Energy Alternatives attachment.

We understand that reliable electric service is paramount. We are confident that Glendale can find a wayto maintain reliability without 93 MW of new fossil fuel infrastructure. Since July 2019, clean energytechnology has developed to meet our needs. Another way is possible. Glendale just needs to embracethat path to the future.

To move as quickly as possible to clean energy, we must pursueallopportunities to createGlendale’s 21st-century power plan. Glendale’s totalrooftop solar installation potential is over 450MW, according to Google’s Project Sunroof. We should tap this large local solar potential, combined withstorage sited in various locations to ease space concerns and add reliability and resiliency to the local grid.Glendale would benefit fromdiversesolar and storageprograms that appeal to different audiences. Weshould prioritize city-owned solar and storage, and also encourage private investment in thesetechnologies. In addition, the city should move forward with demand management programs that workdynamically and allow demand to meet supply. These approaches shave peak load and are a cost-effectiveway to reduce needed capacity.

Not only are programs like these able to provide us clean energy, they add a level of localized resiliencyto our grid that is very valuable. They allow our residents to be part of the solution. They also can beimplemented much more quickly than the time it will take to install new ICE units.

This Project Is Not a Smart Financial Investment
We ask you to take time while the Grayson site work is being done, and look for ways to eliminate orminimize the amount of gas equipment. Every dollar we don’t spend on gas equipment can be invested ina resilient and clean energy system for our community now and for the future.

New gas equipment is an extremely large capital investment—$260 million for the 5 Wartsilaengines.The prudent approach is to carefully considerwhether that cost can be reduced. Glendale mustinvest in clean energy by state mandate regardless of any other considerations. The smart approach is tomake those investments now rather than deferring them and making a large investment in fossil fuelequipment that will later need to be retired or modified at additional cost.

Aside from the cost of the gas equipment itself, there are associated costs that will increase thepricetag. A major concern is gas fuel cost and supply. If there are problems with supply, prices will spike.When that happened in the past, GWP shut down the whole plant for seven months to avoid prohibitivelyexpensive power generation. Furthermore, utility gas supply prices are escalating sharply and show thateven in the absence of supply dislocations, we cannot be assured that gas fuel will be cost-effective infuture years.

There are also costs and uncertainty about the potential to convert the Wartsila units to burn 100%hydrogen.Successful conversion hasn’t yet been demonstrated.There are currently unknown additionalcosts for the conversion of the combustion units, and for the hydrogen fuel and related system upgradesthat would be needed, whether produced locally or transported into Glendale. 565 of 983
Glendale City CouncilFebruary 9, 2022Page3
This Project Is Not Environmentally Sound
As we look down the barrel of the climate crisis, it is critical to chart a path in Glendale that moves usaway from fossil fuels as quickly as possible. We must dramatically reduce our greenhouse gas emissionsin this decade to avoid catastrophic climate effects. This means that every bit of greenhouse gas emissionswe add in this decade matters.No decision is toosmall to matter, because the impacts are cumulativeand every ton emitted makes it worse.

Gas equipment would also continue to add harmful pollutants to the air we breathe. We shouldavoid that in any possible way. The health of Glendale’s residents deserves further consideration beforecommitting to polluting equipment. Even if pollution would be less than at present, it is better to avoid it.

We Have Time to Decide on Future Gas Equipment at Grayson Concerns have been expressed about the deadlines under SCAQMD Rule 1135, but those rules don’tcreate immediate pressure to decide about new gas equipment. There are two deadlines at issue.

The first deadline is January 1, 2023 (extended from July 1, 2022). That deadline is only to submit anapplication to change permit conditions—effectively, that only means to decommission Units 1-8. GWPhas already submitted an application package for the Wartsila engine project option, which explains thatUnits 1-8 will be retired. Also, applications can be modified after the deadline, so if changes are needed tothat application, they can be made after January 1, 2023. 1 There is no need to definitively informSCAQMD about the configuration of what will replace the old units by January 1, 2023.

The second deadline is January 1, 2024, the date when gas equipment at Grayson must comply with Rule1135’s emissions limits.As soon as Units 1-8 aretaken offline and Unit 9 is modified to comply,Glendale will be in compliance with that deadline.According to the FEIR (p. 7.33), Unit 9 may onlyrequire some tuning changes to the emissions control system, which must be done in any event.

Council should simply reject Alternative 8 and direct GWP to submit the application for Unit 9 separationbefore January 1, 2023, and then proceed with plans to decommission Units 1-8 before January 1, 2024.We can move forward now without deciding the entire future of the Grayson Power Plant. Thisgives us enough breathing room to explore scenarios that eliminate or reduce the need for new gasequipment.

Conclusion
For financial and environmental reasons, we strongly object to moving forward with the five gas enginecomponent in the Alternative 7 proposal. We suggest GWP move forward with the demolition and sitepreparation work and battery storage component, but take time to evaluate all the local potential for cleanenergy, and then re-evaluate the number of ICE units we actually need, if any. 1 According to the Final EIR (pdf page 1410), GWPalso still needs to prepare an application toaddress reducing Unit 9’s emissions to comply with Rule 1135. That application can be prepared andsubmitted in 1 to 2 months (FEIR pdf page 1411), and there is no reason that application cannot beprepared now. 566 of 983
Glendale City CouncilFebruary 9, 2022Page4
We request that Council direct GWP to:
● Reject the Alternative 8 proposal● Decommission and remove Units 1-8● Install the Tesla BESS as quickly as possible● Take time to find pathways to eliminate the purchase of gas equipment● In any case, invest in no more than two ICE units● Engage a consultant with clean energy expertise to support staff in developing plans and findingmarket-based solutions● Add more local storage, including long-duration and distributed storage● Maximize local solar to fill the additional energy storage● Pursue robust demand-side solutions to reduce peak demand The decision is in your hands. This is a tremendousopportunity to leave behind the fossil fuel–basedmodel that will no longer meet the needs of the future. Glendale should move decisively into afuture-facing clean energy model that will best serve Glendale moving forward.

Sincerely,
Monica CampagnaElise KalfayanJane PotellePaul RabinovKate Unger Members of Glendale Environmental Coalition Steering Committee Attachments:1. GEC Letter to Sustainability Commission, dated February 2, 20222. GEC’sClean Energy Alternatives for Meeting GlendaleEnergy Needs 567 of 983
February 2, 2022
Sustainability CommissionRE: Grayson Repowering Proposal Dear Chairperson Bartrosouf, Vice-Chairperson Werner, Commissioners Kartounian, Khanjian,and Pinkerton, and Ex-Officio Members Gang and Prado, We write to present our analysis and conclusions regarding the Grayson Repowering proposal.We have followed this project very closely since 2017, and have never stopped working toadvocate for clean energy solutions to replace our aging power plant. We believe that local,clean energy must be a primary piece of Glendale’s energy plan for long-term reliability andsustainability. We need local sources of energy because of transmission constraints, and weneed clean energy for all the reasons you already know: it pollutes less, it doesn’t exacerbatethe climate crisis, and many renewable energy sources have low or no marginal cost and makegood financial sense for the long term. We believe that Glendale must prioritize making theneeded transition to clean energy as soon as possible, and we are confident that Glendale is upto the challenge if decision makers expect and direct it.

Our ultimate goal is to see Glendale transition to 100% renewable energy by 2035 in the mostdirect path possible, thatminimizes any new investmentsin fossil fuels, and thatmaintainssystem reliability. Along with you, we have celebratedthe progress that GWP has made thusfar, including the research and planning happening now to assess and prepare our feeder linesfor integrating substantial new amounts of solar. Now, we want GWP to do even more: rapidlyfulfill the clean energy programs currently in planning (the virtual power plant and solar PV oncity-owned properties); maximize those programs and the recently launched demand responseand energy efficiency programs; and prioritize research, planning, and investing in new cleanenergy programs. In addition to this letter, we offer a summary of potential clean energy ideasthat could be explored to provide carbon-free and less-polluting energy capacity for Glendale(see attached Clean Energy Alternatives for Meeting Glendale Energy Needs).

Our message on Grayson is simple.When it comes togas equipment, only buy what weneed to buy, so that we can invest the rest in clean energy that will benefit us for the longterm and address, in this decade, making the carbon reductions needed to mitigate theclimate crisis.This is also the best bottom linefor ratepayers. An efficient use of energyresources, without overbuilding large capital projects, means lower costs for ratepayers.In sum,93 MW of new gas equipment is much more than we need. 1 1
Alternative 8, refurbishment of the Unit 8 turbines, would result in more than 93 MW of “new”gas-burning capacity. We focus on the Wartsila scenario, Alternative 7, but our points apply to Alternative8 as well. 568 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page2
A. Summary

1. The gas-burning component of the Grayson Repowering will not come online until late2025 at the earliest, so it will not help meet the need for energy capacity before then. Movingforward on local clean energy projects can be done more quickly and can help fill that short-termneed and continue to provide clean energy for the longer term. (See p. 3.)

2. In 2019, GWP presented its Integrated Resource Plan, proposing the current repoweringproject, which included 93 MW of gas-burning equipment (five internal combustion engines, orICE units). This was an energy portfolio designed to meet Glendale’s future peak energydemand with the resources Glendale then knew about. New transmission was not part of thatplan. (See p. 4.)

3. City Council’s approval of the Integrated Resource Plan and assent to GWP’s movingforward with planning for the energy portfolio was conditional, with Council directing GWP topursue technologies that may reduce the need for gas generation and options to potentiallyreduce or eliminate the need for the 5 ICE units. (See p. 4.)

4. After the Integrated Resource Plan was approved, GWP learned of and pursued anopportunity to obtain 72 MW of new transmission rights that will become available in 2027,providing additional capacity to meet Glendale’s needs. Despite this increase in availablecapacity and City Council’s direction, GWP did not reduce the proposal for 93 MW of new gascapacity. (See p. 4.)

5. Recently, GWP has changed its assumptions about Glendale’s peak demand forecast inthe 2027-2030 time frame. The Integrated Resource Plan, and a March 2021 report on thefeasibility of reaching 100% clean energy by 2030, used a forecast of 347 MW in 2030 todetermine the capacity needed to meet peak demand and the N-1-1 reserve standard. Morerecently, in December 2021, GWP has increased its forecasted peak demand to 398 MW in2027. This is inconsistent with past practice and with the California Energy Commission’s peakforecasting. The peak demand forecast has become a moving target. (See p. 4.)

6. Using the 347 MW peak demand forecast, in 2027 we more than meet peak demand, wealso meet the peak plus N-1, and we are only short 6.75 MW from fully meeting peak demandand the N-1-1 reserve standard. This is without any additional clean energy programs inGlendale. With additional local clean energy programs, we can more than close that gap. (Seep. 6.)

7. Using the new, higher 398 MW peak demand forecast, in 2027 we more than meet peakdemand, and we also meet the peak plus N-1. There is a gap of 57.75 MW between availablecapacity and the full peak demand plus N-1-1 standard, without any additional capacity fromnew clean energy programs. Thus, even with this higher peak demand value, Glendale does notneed 93 MW of additional gas-burning equipment. We suggest that Glendale immediatelypursue a commercial solar and storage project (or other projects) to add 25 MW of local 569 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page3
capacity. With only that amount of additional clean energy capacity, only 2 ICE units would beneeded to meet the remaining need of 32.75 MW. (See p. 9.)

8. We do not believe that any new gas-burning capacity is needed. The justification for thisproject is based on extremely conservative assumptions layered on top of one another, anapproach that risks substantial overspending for equipment that is not truly needed and that isbetter avoided. (See p. 12.)

9. If new gas-burning equipment is added at Grayson, City Council should place acondition of approval on their purchase requiring them to be retired in 2035 unless they can beconverted to 100% hydrogen by that time. (See p. 12.)

10. We are open to other potentially smaller and less expensive options using Grayson’sUnit 8 equipment to meet Glendale’s energy needs, which may enable us to transition awayfrom gas sooner, but we need more information to evaluate those options. (See p. 13.)

11. Glendale should move aggressively toward adopting more local clean energy under anyscenario. There are many potential clean technologies and methods Glendale can use tomitigate the growth of peak demand, which are spelled out in the attachment to this letter. (Seep. 13.)

12. Glendale should engage a clean energy expert consultant to oversee the process ofdeveloping a plan for additional clean energy, including issuing and reviewing requests forproposals. This should happen quickly so that new resources can be brought online in time tohelp meet our energy needs as soon as the existing Grayson units are retired. (See p. 14.) In short: the current repowering proposal contains more gas capacity than Glendale needs, andGlendale should instead invest in clean energy projects that will benefit our city in the long term.

B. Important Considerations
We begin with some important facts that are central to your consideration of this project.

First,it’s very important to highlight that the proposedinternal combustion engine (ICE) units orrefurbished units 8ABC would not come online until the end of 2025 at the soonest, and possiblynot until 2026. The plan is to start with the Tesla installation. GWP plans 50 MW of the proposedTesla battery energy storage system (BESS) to come online in March 2025, but the gas powerwould not be operational until at least late 2025. This means that all decisions regarding the gasequipment should be made with that timeline in mind:New gas would not help meet ourneeds until late 2025 or 2026.

To address our need before 2026, the likely best approach is both to work with Los Angeles toprovide support, and, crucially, to get the existingand newclean energy programs up andrunning as soon as possible.We should maximize them—especiallythe city-sited solar—and 570 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page4
consider adding longer-term distributed storage to those installations to build resiliency andcapacity. This can be donebeforethe BESS comes onlinein 2025. Getting new clean energyresources online quickly can help us during this vulnerable time period and continue to serve usfor years to come.

Second,in July 2019,City Council conditionally approvedthe 2019 IRP and an energy portfoliowith 93 MW of gas-burning equipment, 75 MW of battery storage, and 50 MW of clean energyprojects.It’s very important to keep in mind thatCity Council placed several conditions onthis approval. City Council directed GWP to pursuemore clean technologies to reduce theneed for gas, and they requestedoptions to potentiallyreduce or eliminate the need for the5 ICE units, at least 2 months prior to Council beingasked to consider approving the project.

Third,Glendale now has more transmission resourcesplanned to come online than it had whenthe current plan for the Grayson project was proposed in 2019. There is the Eland Solar &Storage resource, which comes with its own transmission by 2024. Also, GWP will get 72 MWmore in transmission rights via the Southwest AC transmission line beginning in 2027.New transmission like this was not factored into the 2019Integrated Resource Plan(IRP), whichidentified the need for energy capacity for Glendale, and from which the current proposedproject alternatives derive.

We highlight this, because despite City Council’s direction to find options to reduce the new gascapacity and despite the new transmission, the amount of gas investment in the GraysonRepowering proposal has not decreased.With new transmissionthat wasn’t included in that2019 plan, we should expect that would translate to less gas in the repowering proposal,but noadjustments have been made to the amount of gas capacity in the proposal.

Fourth,it appears that the reason GWP has not decreasedthe amount of new gas at Graysonis because it has changed its approach to looking at forecasted peak load, essentially cancelingout the increased transmission. This change in the peak load projection is crucial tounderstanding the justification for this project.

The forecasted peak demand that GWP must include in its planning is the highest demand onthe electrical system over the course of a year, which typically falls on a summer evening duringa heat event. 2 The selected value for the peak loadforecast is critical to making decisions aboutGlendale’s energy plan. If it is too low, the plan will be insufficient, butif it is too high, thenGlendale risks spending money unnecessarily on overbuilt energy capacity.

In the past, GWP and consultants have used a forecasted 2030 peak demand of approximately350 MW. In theIRP, GWP used a mean peak forecast of347 MW in 2030. The March 2021Ascend Study also used 347 MW in 2030.

A different, significantly higher value was used for the first time in a response to questions by 2 Glendale’s historical highest peak load was 346 MW on September 1, 2017 (see p. 15 of the2019 IRP), and the 2020 peak load was 336 MW on August 18, 2020 (see p. 9 of the March 2021AscendAnalytics Report: 100% Clean Energy by 2030 Feasibility Study[Ascend Study]). 571 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page5
Councilmember Brotman on December 15, 2021 (December 15 Response). 3 There,theforecasted peak load for 2027 is 398 MW, which was“interpolated from the values publishedin the IRP.” This is a rather dramaticincrease of51 MW. This is crucial to highlight, as all ofGWP’s peak-plus-contingency comparisons, and therefore the explanation of resource need,depend on this number. Detailed information follows.

The IRP presents a table showing the capacity that would need to be procured in various yearsto meetfull reserves (see below, Table 11, p. 30). Using the mean peak projection of 347 MW in2030, GWP calculated the total peak capacity need to be 495 MW—that means 495 MW tocover both the peak demand and the reserve requirement. Increased EV numbers wereaccounted for, with GWP assuming EVs would be charged optimally to not increase the peak. (IRP,p. 28.) The same 347 MW peak load number was used in the Ascend Study in 2021 (see below, Table5, p. 28). The total capacity requirement changed slightly to reflect the new transmissionopportunity in 2027, which slightly changes the N-1-1 reserve calculation.

In a departure from the past practice of using 347 MW as the forecasted peak load, a new,higher peak forecast number (398 MW) is now being used in GWP’s calculations of the neededcapacity to meet demand and reserve requirements (see below, from FEIR p. 1405).Thisnumber is 51 MW higher, three years earlier, thanthe 347 MW in 2030 that’s used in the IRPand Ascend Studies, which both included EV load growth. It appears this is a P95 peak forecastrather than a mean peak forecast. P95 refers to the 95th percentile of the range of which peakdemand is expected to fall—an extremely conservative value. (See IRP, p.27.) 3 The December 15 response appears at pages 1403-1411 of the 2022Final Environmental ImpactReport(FEIR) for the Grayson Repowering Project.The new peak load value is shown on page 1405. 572 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page6
We recognize that the IRP also showed P95 peak demand values, but those values were notused to calculate the necessary capacity to meet peak and reserve requirements. GWP’s newapproach of using this higher peak number in assessing needed capacity results in a muchhigher amount of capacity needed.

This is of concern becauseif we overestimate thepeak demand forecast, we will build morecapacity than is needed. The city would pay for more equipment than needed. This could lead tohigher costs for ratepayers.

The California Energy Commission (CEC) does comprehensive peak demand forecasting forCalifornia through its Integrated Energy Policy Report process. According to the Ascend Study,GWP has found that Glendale’s “yearly peak demand typically matches the 1-in-10 peakdemand forecast from the CEC” (see p. 25). The CEC’s 2022 baseline mid-demand 1-in-10peak demand forecast for Glendale in 2027 is 344 MW. The CEC’s forecasting shows that thenew higher number now being used by GWP is higher than necessary.

Moreover, there are many potential ways to mitigate the growth of peak demand. Unlike pastutility practice, which focuses mostly on procuring supply to meet demand, technologicalinnovations now allow demand to be modified in dynamic and powerful ways, so that demandand supply can match each other, and to avoid the need to overinvest in fossil fuel energysupply resources. We should focus efforts on adopting these measures in the years leading upto 2027, rather than assuming substantial new growth in peak demand.

C. Comparing Peak Demand and Reserve Needs with Capacity Scenarios

1.347 MW Peak Demand Forecast
We put together a spreadsheet to show how the resources add up and meet our peak demandand reserve standards. As the spreadsheet below shows, using the IRP peak forecast of 347MW, we more than meet peak demand, we also meet the peak plus N-1, and we are shortonly 6.75 MW to meet full N-1-1 reserves in 2027, when the 72 MW of added transmissionare available.This is without any additional cleanenergy resources or efforts to reducedemand. 4 4
We have not included any Scholl biogas capacity in these calculations. GWP estimates 11 MW ofcapacity from Scholl biogas in 2027. (See FEIR, p. 1405.) 573 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page7
Notes:- The clean energy resources are introduced during the time frames that GWP noted most recently inreports and meetings.- Italicized years were not given in the IRP, so we used the higher values of future years. Thus, weused the IRP’s 347 MW value from 2030 for 2027.

There are multiple ways to close the 6.75 MW gap in 2027 using clean energy. The spreadsheetbelow shows us more than getting there, with just two ideas added: a 25 MW commercial solarand storage program (such as a feed-in tariff program) and 10 MW of additional city-sited solarpaired with storage for both resiliency and capacity. In fact, GWP General Manager Mark Youngnoted during the GWP Commission meeting on January 31 that they currently expect to installat least 20 MW of solar PV and storage on city-owned properties (10 MW beyond originalprojections). This is welcome news and shows the real potential for more local solar capacity.We suggest moving beyond even this with consideration of installations in open space areaslike the Scholl Canyon landfill and as part of the Verdugo Wash project. More information aboutboth of these ideas is provided in the attachment to this letter, Clean Energy Alternatives forMeeting Glendale Energy Needs. 574 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page8
There are many other clean energy alternatives that can close the small 6.75 MW gap and canreduce the need for gas capacity even more, including innovative demand response programsthat can help us control load growth. GWP is already pursuing some ideas. The Clean EnergyAlternatives attachment discusses several others. The clean tech sector is exploding with newpossibilities, and prices for clean energy solutions continue to fall. For example, increased peakdemand from increased EV adoption can be avoided by shifting charging away from peakdemand periods through innovative approaches like those discussed in the attachment.

Moving forward quickly with projects like these will enable us to manage the growth of load as aresult of building electrification in the late 2020s.We urge you to recommend that GWP issuenew clean energy requests for proposals (best handled through a clean energyconsultant that can draft and vet the proposals, to not take staff time). 575 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page9

2.398 MW Peak Demand Forecast
Although we believe the 347 MW peak demand forecast is appropriate, we also looked at howthe numbers add up with the higher peak forecast that GWP is using now. Keeping in mind thatbuilding more capacity than we need means unnecessary costs for ratepayers, what is thebottom line on what we would need, and what is the best way to fill it? The spreadsheet below uses GWP’s new peak demand forecast number for 2027.Even withthe higher 398 MW peak demand forecast, we don’t need 93 MW of new gas.With thehigher demand number,the gap to fill is 57.75 MWof capacity, with ZERO new cleanenergy projects in the next 6 years. 576 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page10
GEC’s calculations shown here are consistent with the calculations in GWP’s response toCouncilmember Brotman (December 15 Response, FEIR pp. 1404-1407). We come toessentially the same bottom line regarding our ability to meet peak + N-1-1 requirements, whenplugging in the higher, 398 peak load number: GEC calculates 2027 capacity as 504.25 MWwith a 57.75 MW deficit; GWP calculates capacity as 512 MW with a deficit of 50 MW. 5 5
There are minor differences in how we calculatethe capacity of the clean energy programs in2027, and we do not include capacity from the Scholl biogas project. 577 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page11
The gap we show is 57.75 MW. We should fill that need with clean energy programs! Thespreadsheet below shows the result from adding some further local solar and storage projects.If we add in just one new program—a 25 MW commercial solar and long term storagefeed-in tariff program—and add 10 MW more of city-sited PV and storage—which GWPcurrently is projecting—the gap goes to only 22.75 MW. 6 The bottom line is that we do notneed 5 ICE units.
2027 using extremely conservative 398 MW peak forecast:
6 We have ideas for many other programs that include dispatchable, long-term stored energy thatcould provide this capacity instead, or provide more on top of these solar + storage programs. 578 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page12
The conclusion from this review of the numbers is clear:
● Even using GWP’s 398 MW and with no additional clean energy, there is no need for thefull 93 MW project.● At a maximum, we should do 2 ICE units, which would be 36 MW, 7 together withaggressively pursuing more new local clean energy.● This is more than enough gas to add as a flexible resource to what by 2027 should be aportfolio full of new clean energy capacity and new transmission that will be able to serveload reliability and with the full contingency requirement met and using an extremely highpeak load forecast.

D. Potential Scenarios and the Preferred Outcome for Glendale GWP is conservative in its energy planning. We understand the need to plan for scenarios inwhich GWP can’t meet energy demand. However, layering conservative assumptions on top ofconservative assumptions can lead to an overestimation of the needed capacity. This creates itsown risks:There is substantial risk of overbuildingand making unnecessary financialinvestments in equipment that is not truly needed.Particularly when gas-burning equipmentcarries many negatives—including that it must be retired or converted to burn hydrogen (atfurther expense) by 2045 or sooner, and that it pollutes the air and contributes to climatechange—we strongly prefer for Glendale to not use conservative planning as a justification for a$260 million capital project. 8 We believe Glendale should not make any new investments in natural gas thermal equipment.Our absolute preference would be to move forward with the BESS, add new demand responseprograms to keep load growth low (even with growth in EVs and building electrification), andquickly invest in more local clean energy resources to meet our needs—before 2027, in 2027,and beyond.The wisest and most sustainable outcomefor the long-term is to not makeANY investments in fossil fuel.

GEC would consider supporting a project that included up to 2 ICE units, recognizing that GWPprefers to be very conservative in its planning. This comes at a price, and we do not supportmore than 2 engines. Glendale must transition to clean energy, and our portfolio should includemore clean energy projects than the ones that are currently in the works—which have been inthe planning phase for over two years already. A portfolio with any ICE units should also includeaggressive new projects for local clean energy. 9 City Council should place a condition of approval on purchase of any ICE units that theymust be retired in 2035 if they can not be converted to run on 100% clean hydrogen by 9 Hiring a consultant with clean energy expertise to oversee the process of vetting andimplementing projects would allow these projects to move forward quickly without overtaxing staffresources. 8 GWP estimates a $260 million cost for the thermal component of Alternative 7—i.e., the 5Wartsila ICE project. The refurbished Unit 8 option is estimated at $201 million. (FEIR, p. 7.49.) 7 Each ICE engine has about 18 MW of capacity.
579 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page13
that time.Despite GWP’s statements that the units can be converted to 100% hydrogen, thereis no evidence that either the ICE or refurbished units can actually be converted.There is nodoubt that we are taking some risk in assuming that these units can ever be transitioned to runon 100% hydrogen. Also, we will be assuming significant but currently unknown costs for theconversion of the combustion units, to ensure the entire system (pipes, flanges, fittings, etc.) aresafe to operate with hydrogen, and for the hydrogen fuel (either for local production or fortransport into the city by pipeline or other means). A decision to purchase ICE units should notcount on the ability to make this conversion. But 2 units present a smaller risk than 5, atsubstantially less cost. 10 One of our goals is to minimize Glendale’s financial investments in fossil fuel equipment andavoid long-term commitments to that technology. We would be interested to know the relativecost ofrefurbishing Unit 8Acompared with installing2 ICE units. This option would offerapproximately 26 MW of firm resources for short-term use. We recognize there are somedownsides to using the Unit 8 equipment, but if this path allows a smaller investment and therefurbished Unit 8A could be retired earlier than 2035, this option may be worth considering.

The Unit 8 turbines are operational now and potentially could remain at Grayson longer than theboiler units, Units 1-5. We do not believe Alternative 8 as proposed is a good path forward, butGWP’s December 15 Response to Councilmember Brotman mentions apotential scenario formodifying the Unit 8 equipmentto comply with SouthCoast Air Quality Management DistrictRule 1135 (FEIR pp. 1409-1411).

GWP should provide more information about the potential for these two options, their cost, andthe potential for them to be completed before late, 2025 to provide more capacity resources forshorter-term needs.

E. Conclusion
Our goal is to find the best outcome for Glendale’s energy plan, balancing the need to transitionto clean energy as quickly as possible, the need for reliability, and the desire to avoidunnecessary financial investments.

Our review of the capacity resources and the capacity need—peak demand plus N-1-1—showsthat Glendale does not need 93 MW or more of new (or refurbished) gas-burning equipment.Planning conservatively but not overestimating the need, we believe Glendale could meet itsenergy needs without any new investments in fossil fuel infrastructure. At a minimum, theamount of new equipment should be decreased substantially, with a maximum of 2 ICE unitsconditioned to be retired by 2035 unless they can run on 100% hydrogen by that time. 10 We also believe that if Glendale wants to move toward hydrogen in the future, fuel cells would bea better investment for the long term than combustion equipment. GWP has considered fuel cells in thepast and rejected them, but GEC urges the city to evaluate the current state of the technology andconsider fuel cells as a part of the overall energy portfolio. See Clean Energy Alternatives attachment. 580 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page14
Under any circumstances, we should do the following to continue our progress toward a cleanenergy transition:
● Quickly pursue a 25 MW commercial solar and long term storage program.● Accelerate investments in city-sited solar and storage.● Pursue many other potential local clean energy options, including from the attachment tothis letter, Clean Energy Alternatives for Meeting Glendale Energy Needs.● Open a new round of clean energy requests for proposals.

To enable these projects to be developed as part of a cohesive clean energy plan, and to moveas quickly as we should, Glendale should engage a clean energy expert consultant. Theconsultant can develop a preliminary plan for a new clean energy portfolio, draft requests forproposals to meet specific needs and to invite new and innovative solutions, evaluate thoseproposals and present a plan for the city to move forward, and oversee implementation of theprojects so that they can move forward on an expedited timeline.

One particular advantage of this approach is that energy projects that are distributed throughoutGlendale do not need to wait for demolition of the existing Grayson Units 1-8 (or Units 1-5), andcan be started immediately. That means that when those units are decommissioned, Glendalewill already have additional local energy to meet short-term needs.

Glendale should also pass a resolution to achieve 100% clean energy by 2035. It is ourgeneration’s responsibility to do what we can now to stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere.Glendale’s energy plan is a small part of the path to a sustainable climate, but the same is trueof almost all decisions about energy: each is too small to make the difference alone, and eachcontributes to either the problem or the solution. In the end, every piece matters.

The current repowering proposal is more gas than we need. Only buy what we need tobuy, and invest in clean energy that will benefit our city in the long term. This approach isthe best bottom line for Glendale residents and ratepayers.

On behalf of GEC’s more than 1200 members, most of whom live in Glendale, we thank you foryour service to Glendale and for your consideration of the thoughts expressed here and in theattached Clean Energy Alternatives for Meeting Glendale Energy Needs.

Sincerely,
Monica CampagnaElise KalfayanJane PotellePaul RabinovKate Unger Members of Glendale Environmental Coalition Steering Committee 581 of 983
February 2, 2022
Sustainability CommissionRE: Grayson Repowering Proposal Dear Chairperson Bartrosouf, Vice-Chairperson Werner, Commissioners Kartounian, Khanjian,and Pinkerton, and Ex-Officio Members Gang and Prado, We write to present our analysis and conclusions regarding the Grayson Repowering proposal.We have followed this project very closely since 2017, and have never stopped working toadvocate for clean energy solutions to replace our aging power plant. We believe that local,clean energy must be a primary piece of Glendale’s energy plan for long-term reliability andsustainability. We need local sources of energy because of transmission constraints, and weneed clean energy for all the reasons you already know: it pollutes less, it doesn’t exacerbatethe climate crisis, and many renewable energy sources have low or no marginal cost and makegood financial sense for the long term. We believe that Glendale must prioritize making theneeded transition to clean energy as soon as possible, and we are confident that Glendale is upto the challenge if decision makers expect and direct it.

Our ultimate goal is to see Glendale transition to 100% renewable energy by 2035 in the mostdirect path possible, thatminimizes any new investmentsin fossil fuels, and thatmaintainssystem reliability. Along with you, we have celebratedthe progress that GWP has made thusfar, including the research and planning happening now to assess and prepare our feeder linesfor integrating substantial new amounts of solar. Now, we want GWP to do even more: rapidlyfulfill the clean energy programs currently in planning (the virtual power plant and solar PV oncity-owned properties); maximize those programs and the recently launched demand responseand energy efficiency programs; and prioritize research, planning, and investing in new cleanenergy programs. In addition to this letter, we offer a summary of potential clean energy ideasthat could be explored to provide carbon-free and less-polluting energy capacity for Glendale(see attached Clean Energy Alternatives for Meeting Glendale Energy Needs).

Our message on Grayson is simple.When it comes togas equipment, only buy what weneed to buy, so that we can invest the rest in clean energy that will benefit us for the longterm and address, in this decade, making the carbon reductions needed to mitigate theclimate crisis.This is also the best bottom linefor ratepayers. An efficient use of energyresources, without overbuilding large capital projects, means lower costs for ratepayers.In sum,93 MW of new gas equipment is much more than we need. 1 1
Alternative 8, refurbishment of the Unit 8 turbines, would result in more than 93 MW of “new”gas-burning capacity. We focus on the Wartsila scenario, Alternative 7, but our points apply to Alternative8 as well. 582 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page2
A. Summary

1. The gas-burning component of the Grayson Repowering will not come online until late2025 at the earliest, so it will not help meet the need for energy capacity before then. Movingforward on local clean energy projects can be done more quickly and can help fill that short-termneed and continue to provide clean energy for the longer term. (See p. 3.)

2. In 2019, GWP presented its Integrated Resource Plan, proposing the current repoweringproject, which included 93 MW of gas-burning equipment (five internal combustion engines, orICE units). This was an energy portfolio designed to meet Glendale’s future peak energydemand with the resources Glendale then knew about. New transmission was not part of thatplan. (See p. 4.)

3. City Council’s approval of the Integrated Resource Plan and assent to GWP’s movingforward with planning for the energy portfolio was conditional, with Council directing GWP topursue technologies that may reduce the need for gas generation and options to potentiallyreduce or eliminate the need for the 5 ICE units. (See p. 4.)

4. After the Integrated Resource Plan was approved, GWP learned of and pursued anopportunity to obtain 72 MW of new transmission rights that will become available in 2027,providing additional capacity to meet Glendale’s needs. Despite this increase in availablecapacity and City Council’s direction, GWP did not reduce the proposal for 93 MW of new gascapacity. (See p. 4.)

5. Recently, GWP has changed its assumptions about Glendale’s peak demand forecast inthe 2027-2030 time frame. The Integrated Resource Plan, and a March 2021 report on thefeasibility of reaching 100% clean energy by 2030, used a forecast of 347 MW in 2030 todetermine the capacity needed to meet peak demand and the N-1-1 reserve standard. Morerecently, in December 2021, GWP has increased its forecasted peak demand to 398 MW in2027. This is inconsistent with past practice and with the California Energy Commission’s peakforecasting. The peak demand forecast has become a moving target. (See p. 4.)

6. Using the 347 MW peak demand forecast, in 2027 we more than meet peak demand, wealso meet the peak plus N-1, and we are only short 6.75 MW from fully meeting peak demandand the N-1-1 reserve standard. This is without any additional clean energy programs inGlendale. With additional local clean energy programs, we can more than close that gap. (Seep. 6.)

7. Using the new, higher 398 MW peak demand forecast, in 2027 we more than meet peakdemand, and we also meet the peak plus N-1. There is a gap of 57.75 MW between availablecapacity and the full peak demand plus N-1-1 standard, without any additional capacity fromnew clean energy programs. Thus, even with this higher peak demand value, Glendale does notneed 93 MW of additional gas-burning equipment. We suggest that Glendale immediatelypursue a commercial solar and storage project (or other projects) to add 25 MW of local 583 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page3
capacity. With only that amount of additional clean energy capacity, only 2 ICE units would beneeded to meet the remaining need of 32.75 MW. (See p. 9.)

8. We do not believe that any new gas-burning capacity is needed. The justification for thisproject is based on extremely conservative assumptions layered on top of one another, anapproach that risks substantial overspending for equipment that is not truly needed and that isbetter avoided. (See p. 12.)

9. If new gas-burning equipment is added at Grayson, City Council should place acondition of approval on their purchase requiring them to be retired in 2035 unless they can beconverted to 100% hydrogen by that time. (See p. 12.)

10. We are open to other potentially smaller and less expensive options using Grayson’sUnit 8 equipment to meet Glendale’s energy needs, which may enable us to transition awayfrom gas sooner, but we need more information to evaluate those options. (See p. 13.)

11. Glendale should move aggressively toward adopting more local clean energy under anyscenario. There are many potential clean technologies and methods Glendale can use tomitigate the growth of peak demand, which are spelled out in the attachment to this letter. (Seep. 13.)

12. Glendale should engage a clean energy expert consultant to oversee the process ofdeveloping a plan for additional clean energy, including issuing and reviewing requests forproposals. This should happen quickly so that new resources can be brought online in time tohelp meet our energy needs as soon as the existing Grayson units are retired. (See p. 14.) In short: the current repowering proposal contains more gas capacity than Glendale needs, andGlendale should instead invest in clean energy projects that will benefit our city in the long term.

B. Important Considerations
We begin with some important facts that are central to your consideration of this project.

First,it’s very important to highlight that the proposedinternal combustion engine (ICE) units orrefurbished units 8ABC would not come online until the end of 2025 at the soonest, and possiblynot until 2026. The plan is to start with the Tesla installation. GWP plans 50 MW of the proposedTesla battery energy storage system (BESS) to come online in March 2025, but the gas powerwould not be operational until at least late 2025. This means that all decisions regarding the gasequipment should be made with that timeline in mind:New gas would not help meet ourneeds until late 2025 or 2026.

To address our need before 2026, the likely best approach is both to work with Los Angeles toprovide support, and, crucially, to get the existingand newclean energy programs up andrunning as soon as possible.We should maximize them—especiallythe city-sited solar—and 584 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page4
consider adding longer-term distributed storage to those installations to build resiliency andcapacity. This can be donebeforethe BESS comes onlinein 2025. Getting new clean energyresources online quickly can help us during this vulnerable time period and continue to serve usfor years to come.

Second,in July 2019,City Council conditionally approvedthe 2019 IRP and an energy portfoliowith 93 MW of gas-burning equipment, 75 MW of battery storage, and 50 MW of clean energyprojects.It’s very important to keep in mind thatCity Council placed several conditions onthis approval. City Council directed GWP to pursuemore clean technologies to reduce theneed for gas, and they requestedoptions to potentiallyreduce or eliminate the need for the5 ICE units, at least 2 months prior to Council beingasked to consider approving the project.

Third,Glendale now has more transmission resourcesplanned to come online than it had whenthe current plan for the Grayson project was proposed in 2019. There is the Eland Solar &Storage resource, which comes with its own transmission by 2024. Also, GWP will get 72 MWmore in transmission rights via the Southwest AC transmission line beginning in 2027.New transmission like this was not factored into the 2019Integrated Resource Plan(IRP), whichidentified the need for energy capacity for Glendale, and from which the current proposedproject alternatives derive.

We highlight this, because despite City Council’s direction to find options to reduce the new gascapacity and despite the new transmission, the amount of gas investment in the GraysonRepowering proposal has not decreased.With new transmissionthat wasn’t included in that2019 plan, we should expect that would translate to less gas in the repowering proposal,but noadjustments have been made to the amount of gas capacity in the proposal.

Fourth,it appears that the reason GWP has not decreasedthe amount of new gas at Graysonis because it has changed its approach to looking at forecasted peak load, essentially cancelingout the increased transmission. This change in the peak load projection is crucial tounderstanding the justification for this project.

The forecasted peak demand that GWP must include in its planning is the highest demand onthe electrical system over the course of a year, which typically falls on a summer evening duringa heat event. 2 The selected value for the peak loadforecast is critical to making decisions aboutGlendale’s energy plan. If it is too low, the plan will be insufficient, butif it is too high, thenGlendale risks spending money unnecessarily on overbuilt energy capacity.

In the past, GWP and consultants have used a forecasted 2030 peak demand of approximately350 MW. In theIRP, GWP used a mean peak forecast of347 MW in 2030. The March 2021Ascend Study also used 347 MW in 2030.

A different, significantly higher value was used for the first time in a response to questions by 2 Glendale’s historical highest peak load was 346 MW on September 1, 2017 (see p. 15 of the2019 IRP), and the 2020 peak load was 336 MW on August 18, 2020 (see p. 9 of the March 2021AscendAnalytics Report: 100% Clean Energy by 2030 Feasibility Study[Ascend Study]). 585 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page5
Councilmember Brotman on December 15, 2021 (December 15 Response). 3 There,theforecasted peak load for 2027 is 398 MW, which was“interpolated from the values publishedin the IRP.” This is a rather dramaticincrease of51 MW. This is crucial to highlight, as all ofGWP’s peak-plus-contingency comparisons, and therefore the explanation of resource need,depend on this number. Detailed information follows.

The IRP presents a table showing the capacity that would need to be procured in various yearsto meetfull reserves (see below, Table 11, p. 30). Using the mean peak projection of 347 MW in2030, GWP calculated the total peak capacity need to be 495 MW—that means 495 MW tocover both the peak demand and the reserve requirement. Increased EV numbers wereaccounted for, with GWP assuming EVs would be charged optimally to not increase the peak. (IRP,p. 28.) The same 347 MW peak load number was used in the Ascend Study in 2021 (see below, Table5, p. 28). The total capacity requirement changed slightly to reflect the new transmissionopportunity in 2027, which slightly changes the N-1-1 reserve calculation.

In a departure from the past practice of using 347 MW as the forecasted peak load, a new,higher peak forecast number (398 MW) is now being used in GWP’s calculations of the neededcapacity to meet demand and reserve requirements (see below, from FEIR p. 1405).Thisnumber is 51 MW higher, three years earlier, thanthe 347 MW in 2030 that’s used in the IRPand Ascend Studies, which both included EV load growth. It appears this is a P95 peak forecastrather than a mean peak forecast. P95 refers to the 95th percentile of the range of which peakdemand is expected to fall—an extremely conservative value. (See IRP, p.27.) 3 The December 15 response appears at pages 1403-1411 of the 2022Final Environmental ImpactReport(FEIR) for the Grayson Repowering Project.The new peak load value is shown on page 1405. 586 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page6
We recognize that the IRP also showed P95 peak demand values, but those values were notused to calculate the necessary capacity to meet peak and reserve requirements. GWP’s newapproach of using this higher peak number in assessing needed capacity results in a muchhigher amount of capacity needed.

This is of concern becauseif we overestimate thepeak demand forecast, we will build morecapacity than is needed. The city would pay for more equipment than needed. This could lead tohigher costs for ratepayers.

The California Energy Commission (CEC) does comprehensive peak demand forecasting forCalifornia through its Integrated Energy Policy Report process. According to the Ascend Study,GWP has found that Glendale’s “yearly peak demand typically matches the 1-in-10 peakdemand forecast from the CEC” (see p. 25). The CEC’s 2022 baseline mid-demand 1-in-10peak demand forecast for Glendale in 2027 is 344 MW. The CEC’s forecasting shows that thenew higher number now being used by GWP is higher than necessary.

Moreover, there are many potential ways to mitigate the growth of peak demand. Unlike pastutility practice, which focuses mostly on procuring supply to meet demand, technologicalinnovations now allow demand to be modified in dynamic and powerful ways, so that demandand supply can match each other, and to avoid the need to overinvest in fossil fuel energysupply resources. We should focus efforts on adopting these measures in the years leading upto 2027, rather than assuming substantial new growth in peak demand.

C. Comparing Peak Demand and Reserve Needs with Capacity Scenarios

1.347 MW Peak Demand Forecast
We put together a spreadsheet to show how the resources add up and meet our peak demandand reserve standards. As the spreadsheet below shows, using the IRP peak forecast of 347MW, we more than meet peak demand, we also meet the peak plus N-1, and we are shortonly 6.75 MW to meet full N-1-1 reserves in 2027, when the 72 MW of added transmissionare available.This is without any additional cleanenergy resources or efforts to reducedemand. 4 4
We have not included any Scholl biogas capacity in these calculations. GWP estimates 11 MW ofcapacity from Scholl biogas in 2027. (See FEIR, p. 1405.) 587 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page7
Notes:- The clean energy resources are introduced during the time frames that GWP noted most recently inreports and meetings.- Italicized years were not given in the IRP, so we used the higher values of future years. Thus, weused the IRP’s 347 MW value from 2030 for 2027.

There are multiple ways to close the 6.75 MW gap in 2027 using clean energy. The spreadsheetbelow shows us more than getting there, with just two ideas added: a 25 MW commercial solarand storage program (such as a feed-in tariff program) and 10 MW of additional city-sited solarpaired with storage for both resiliency and capacity. In fact, GWP General Manager Mark Youngnoted during the GWP Commission meeting on January 31 that they currently expect to installat least 20 MW of solar PV and storage on city-owned properties (10 MW beyond originalprojections). This is welcome news and shows the real potential for more local solar capacity.We suggest moving beyond even this with consideration of installations in open space areaslike the Scholl Canyon landfill and as part of the Verdugo Wash project. More information aboutboth of these ideas is provided in the attachment to this letter, Clean Energy Alternatives forMeeting Glendale Energy Needs. 588 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page8
There are many other clean energy alternatives that can close the small 6.75 MW gap and canreduce the need for gas capacity even more, including innovative demand response programsthat can help us control load growth. GWP is already pursuing some ideas. The Clean EnergyAlternatives attachment discusses several others. The clean tech sector is exploding with newpossibilities, and prices for clean energy solutions continue to fall. For example, increased peakdemand from increased EV adoption can be avoided by shifting charging away from peakdemand periods through innovative approaches like those discussed in the attachment.

Moving forward quickly with projects like these will enable us to manage the growth of load as aresult of building electrification in the late 2020s.We urge you to recommend that GWP issuenew clean energy requests for proposals (best handled through a clean energyconsultant that can draft and vet the proposals, to not take staff time). 589 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page9

2.398 MW Peak Demand Forecast
Although we believe the 347 MW peak demand forecast is appropriate, we also looked at howthe numbers add up with the higher peak forecast that GWP is using now. Keeping in mind thatbuilding more capacity than we need means unnecessary costs for ratepayers, what is thebottom line on what we would need, and what is the best way to fill it? The spreadsheet below uses GWP’s new peak demand forecast number for 2027.Even withthe higher 398 MW peak demand forecast, we don’t need 93 MW of new gas.With thehigher demand number,the gap to fill is 57.75 MWof capacity, with ZERO new cleanenergy projects in the next 6 years. 590 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page10
GEC’s calculations shown here are consistent with the calculations in GWP’s response toCouncilmember Brotman (December 15 Response, FEIR pp. 1404-1407). We come toessentially the same bottom line regarding our ability to meet peak + N-1-1 requirements, whenplugging in the higher, 398 peak load number: GEC calculates 2027 capacity as 504.25 MWwith a 57.75 MW deficit; GWP calculates capacity as 512 MW with a deficit of 50 MW. 5 5
There are minor differences in how we calculatethe capacity of the clean energy programs in2027, and we do not include capacity from the Scholl biogas project. 591 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page11
The gap we show is 57.75 MW. We should fill that need with clean energy programs! Thespreadsheet below shows the result from adding some further local solar and storage projects.If we add in just one new program—a 25 MW commercial solar and long term storagefeed-in tariff program—and add 10 MW more of city-sited PV and storage—which GWPcurrently is projecting—the gap goes to only 22.75 MW. 6 The bottom line is that we do notneed 5 ICE units.
2027 using extremely conservative 398 MW peak forecast:
6 We have ideas for many other programs that include dispatchable, long-term stored energy thatcould provide this capacity instead, or provide more on top of these solar + storage programs. 592 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page12
The conclusion from this review of the numbers is clear:
● Even using GWP’s 398 MW and with no additional clean energy, there is no need for thefull 93 MW project.● At a maximum, we should do 2 ICE units, which would be 36 MW, 7 together withaggressively pursuing more new local clean energy.● This is more than enough gas to add as a flexible resource to what by 2027 should be aportfolio full of new clean energy capacity and new transmission that will be able to serveload reliability and with the full contingency requirement met and using an extremely highpeak load forecast.

D. Potential Scenarios and the Preferred Outcome for Glendale GWP is conservative in its energy planning. We understand the need to plan for scenarios inwhich GWP can’t meet energy demand. However, layering conservative assumptions on top ofconservative assumptions can lead to an overestimation of the needed capacity. This creates itsown risks:There is substantial risk of overbuildingand making unnecessary financialinvestments in equipment that is not truly needed.Particularly when gas-burning equipmentcarries many negatives—including that it must be retired or converted to burn hydrogen (atfurther expense) by 2045 or sooner, and that it pollutes the air and contributes to climatechange—we strongly prefer for Glendale to not use conservative planning as a justification for a$260 million capital project. 8 We believe Glendale should not make any new investments in natural gas thermal equipment.Our absolute preference would be to move forward with the BESS, add new demand responseprograms to keep load growth low (even with growth in EVs and building electrification), andquickly invest in more local clean energy resources to meet our needs—before 2027, in 2027,and beyond.The wisest and most sustainable outcomefor the long-term is to not makeANY investments in fossil fuel.

GEC would consider supporting a project that included up to 2 ICE units, recognizing that GWPprefers to be very conservative in its planning. This comes at a price, and we do not supportmore than 2 engines. Glendale must transition to clean energy, and our portfolio should includemore clean energy projects than the ones that are currently in the works—which have been inthe planning phase for over two years already. A portfolio with any ICE units should also includeaggressive new projects for local clean energy. 9 City Council should place a condition of approval on purchase of any ICE units that theymust be retired in 2035 if they can not be converted to run on 100% clean hydrogen by 9 Hiring a consultant with clean energy expertise to oversee the process of vetting andimplementing projects would allow these projects to move forward quickly without overtaxing staffresources. 8 GWP estimates a $260 million cost for the thermal component of Alternative 7—i.e., the 5Wartsila ICE project. The refurbished Unit 8 option is estimated at $201 million. (FEIR, p. 7.49.) 7 Each ICE engine has about 18 MW of capacity.
593 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page13
that time.Despite GWP’s statements that the units can be converted to 100% hydrogen, thereis no evidence that either the ICE or refurbished units can actually be converted.There is nodoubt that we are taking some risk in assuming that these units can ever be transitioned to runon 100% hydrogen. Also, we will be assuming significant but currently unknown costs for theconversion of the combustion units, to ensure the entire system (pipes, flanges, fittings, etc.) aresafe to operate with hydrogen, and for the hydrogen fuel (either for local production or fortransport into the city by pipeline or other means). A decision to purchase ICE units should notcount on the ability to make this conversion. But 2 units present a smaller risk than 5, atsubstantially less cost. 10 One of our goals is to minimize Glendale’s financial investments in fossil fuel equipment andavoid long-term commitments to that technology. We would be interested to know the relativecost ofrefurbishing Unit 8Acompared with installing2 ICE units. This option would offerapproximately 26 MW of firm resources for short-term use. We recognize there are somedownsides to using the Unit 8 equipment, but if this path allows a smaller investment and therefurbished Unit 8A could be retired earlier than 2035, this option may be worth considering.

The Unit 8 turbines are operational now and potentially could remain at Grayson longer than theboiler units, Units 1-5. We do not believe Alternative 8 as proposed is a good path forward, butGWP’s December 15 Response to Councilmember Brotman mentions apotential scenario formodifying the Unit 8 equipmentto comply with SouthCoast Air Quality Management DistrictRule 1135 (FEIR pp. 1409-1411).

GWP should provide more information about the potential for these two options, their cost, andthe potential for them to be completed before late, 2025 to provide more capacity resources forshorter-term needs.

E. Conclusion
Our goal is to find the best outcome for Glendale’s energy plan, balancing the need to transitionto clean energy as quickly as possible, the need for reliability, and the desire to avoidunnecessary financial investments.

Our review of the capacity resources and the capacity need—peak demand plus N-1-1—showsthat Glendale does not need 93 MW or more of new (or refurbished) gas-burning equipment.Planning conservatively but not overestimating the need, we believe Glendale could meet itsenergy needs without any new investments in fossil fuel infrastructure. At a minimum, theamount of new equipment should be decreased substantially, with a maximum of 2 ICE unitsconditioned to be retired by 2035 unless they can run on 100% hydrogen by that time. 10 We also believe that if Glendale wants to move toward hydrogen in the future, fuel cells would bea better investment for the long term than combustion equipment. GWP has considered fuel cells in thepast and rejected them, but GEC urges the city to evaluate the current state of the technology andconsider fuel cells as a part of the overall energy portfolio. See Clean Energy Alternatives attachment. 594 of 983
Sustainability CommissionFebruary 2, 2022Page14
Under any circumstances, we should do the following to continue our progress toward a cleanenergy transition:
● Quickly pursue a 25 MW commercial solar and long term storage program.● Accelerate investments in city-sited solar and storage.● Pursue many other potential local clean energy options, including from the attachment tothis letter, Clean Energy Alternatives for Meeting Glendale Energy Needs.● Open a new round of clean energy requests for proposals.

To enable these projects to be developed as part of a cohesive clean energy plan, and to moveas quickly as we should, Glendale should engage a clean energy expert consultant. Theconsultant can develop a preliminary plan for a new clean energy portfolio, draft requests forproposals to meet specific needs and to invite new and innovative solutions, evaluate thoseproposals and present a plan for the city to move forward, and oversee implementation of theprojects so that they can move forward on an expedited timeline.

One particular advantage of this approach is that energy projects that are distributed throughoutGlendale do not need to wait for demolition of the existing Grayson Units 1-8 (or Units 1-5), andcan be started immediately. That means that when those units are decommissioned, Glendalewill already have additional local energy to meet short-term needs.

Glendale should also pass a resolution to achieve 100% clean energy by 2035. It is ourgeneration’s responsibility to do what we can now to stop putting CO2 into the atmosphere.Glendale’s energy plan is a small part of the path to a sustainable climate, but the same is trueof almost all decisions about energy: each is too small to make the difference alone, and eachcontributes to either the problem or the solution. In the end, every piece matters.

The current repowering proposal is more gas than we need. Only buy what we need tobuy, and invest in clean energy that will benefit our city in the long term. This approach isthe best bottom line for Glendale residents and ratepayers.

On behalf of GEC’s more than 1200 members, most of whom live in Glendale, we thank you foryour service to Glendale and for your consideration of the thoughts expressed here and in theattached Clean Energy Alternatives for Meeting Glendale Energy Needs.

Sincerely,
Monica CampagnaElise KalfayanJane PotellePaul RabinovKate Unger Members of Glendale Environmental Coalition Steering Committee 595 of 983
Restricted © Siemens Energy, 2021Siemens Energy is a trademark licensed by Siemens AG.

Hydrogen combustion in Siemens Energy gas turbinesFebruary 2022 596 of 983
SE GP G S DES P&MRestricted © Siemens Energy, 20212June 2021Siemens Energy is a trademark licensed by Siemens AG.

Siemens Hydrogen Gas Turbines for our sustainable futureThe mission is to burn 100% hydrogen 1 ISO, Base Load, Natural Gas; Version 5.2, June 2021 2) Compared with 100% natural gas operation Heavy-duty gas turbines50Hz50Hz or 60Hz60Hz50303030503030307540751575103030306510065DLE burner WLE burner Diffusion burner with unabated NOx emissionsHigher H2contents to be discussed on a project specific basisValues shown are indicative for new unit applications and depend on local conditions and requirements. Capability to operate on 100% natural gas is maintained (full fuel flexibility). Some operating restrictions/special hardware and package modifications may apply. H2capabilities in vol. %SGT5-9000HLSGT5-8000HSGT5-4000FSGT5-2000ESGT6-9000HLSGT6-8000HSGT6-5000FSGT6-2000ESGT-800SGT-750SGT-700SGT-A35SGT-600SGT-400SGT-300SGT-100SGT-A05450 MW329 MW187 MW310 MW215 to 260 MW117 MW27 to 37/28 to 38 MW4 to 6 MW48 to 62 MW40/34 to 41 MW33/34 MW24/25 MW10 to 14/11 to 15 MW8/8 to 9 MW5/6 MW595 MW440 MWPower Output1Gas turbine model Industrial gas turbines Aeroderivative gas turbines
CO2reduction2)[%]11%11%11%11%11%11%5 / 100%11%47%17%47%47%3 / 36%11%11 / 36%23%23% 597 of 983
SE GP G S DES P&MRestricted © Siemens Energy, 20203June 2021 Hydrogen roadmapContinuous development and experience across the fleet 2008
2012 2016 2017 2019 2020 2030Experience of H2 combustionin conventional diffusion burners and auxiliary systems since 1980’s (~90% H2)Atmospheric and high-pressure tests in 2008, 2009 and 2012Single burner feed in full engine 40/60 vol-% H2 in2012 and 2014 (SGT-700)In-house Additive Manufacturing capability –enabling new geometrics and rapid prototyping 2014Sector (five-burner) feed in full engine test 75 vol-% H2 (SGT-800) Target 100% H2 with DLEdemonstrated at customer siteSGT-700 operation at customer site 10 vol-% H2SGT-800full engine test with standard welded burners, bid ready 50 vol-% H2at 25 ppm NOxand derated loadHigh pressure single burner test with additive manu-factured burners verifying 100 vol-% H2capabilitySGT-600customer engine delivery test verifying: 60 vol-% H2at 25 ppm NOXand full load, reliable operation with 80 vol-% H2 •SGT-600full engine test, bid ready 60 vol-% H2at 25 ppm NOx•SGT-700bid ready 55% vol-% H2at 25 ppm NOx Hydrogen test at the Siemens Energy test facility, Finspong Sweden3rdgeneration dry low emissions (DLE) burner used in SGT-600, SGT-700 and SGT-800 2018
598 of 983
SE GP G S DES P&MRestricted © Siemens Energy, 20214April 2021Siemens Energy is a trademark licensed by Siemens AG.

Reference: Braskem (Brazil) for 60% H2cofiring in DLE mode•Use of hydrogen as fuel gas to reduce use of natural gas, up to 60% not exceeding 25ppm NOx•Reduced need for external grid supply•High availability and reliability, low O&M costsChallenge Benefits •Fuel cost savings, operation on high levels of hydrogen with DLE, no need for water injection•Lowest emissions using the latest DLE combustion <25ppm NOx•Predictable operation and maintenance costTechnology •2x SGT-600 turnkey CHP plant with 3rdgeneration DLE system for up to 60% H2co-firing at 25ppm NOxSolution •Advanced Additive manufactured burners •Complete plant delivery, Siemens Energy will build, own & operate the CHP , HRSG and gas compressor•O&M contract based on delivery of steam and power60% Hydrogen, baseload at 25ppm NOxCustomer: BraskemCountry: Brazil 599 of 983
SE GP G S DES P&MRestricted © Siemens Energy, 20215June 2021Siemens Energy is a trademark licensed by Siemens AG.

Our Hydrogen combustion experience is built on continuous development experience across the fleet SGT-100/-300/-400 all equipped with same DLE Combustion designSteady increase of our H2admixing capabilities based on continuous improvement of standard DLE burner designSmall power range gas turbines SGT-100 to SGT-400Atmospheric and high pressure tests in 2004, 2007 and 2010SGT-400continuous operation on COG since (>60%H2)Service inspection of SGT-200after 48k hours of 80% H2operationWith a clear roadmap to 100% H2in 2023 in a full-scale DLE engine demonstration (HYFLEXPOWERTM)High pressure test of SGT-100 DLEEngine test of SGT-200in 2010 and 2012High pressure test of SGT-300 DLELow/High pressure test of SGT-400 DLEHigh pressure test of SGT-400 DLE2014201620122004201720182019 600 of 983
SE GP G S DES P&MRestricted © Siemens Energy, 20216June 2021Siemens Energy is a trademark licensed by Siemens AG.

EU-funded HYFLEXPOWER Project (France)A CO2free power-to-power path using 100% H2in DLE combustion Source: http://www.hyflexpower.eu/
+20 MW thermal202220232021May 2020 Contract finalization and start of engineering developmentInstallation of the hydrogen production, storage and supply facility at pilot demonstration siteInstallation of the gas turbine for natural gas/hydrogen mixtures and initial demonstration of advanced pilot plant conceptPilot demonstration with up to 100 percent hydrogen for carbon-free energy production from stored excess renewable energy 601 of 983
SE RD PDRestricted © Siemens Energy, 20207July 2020
Zero Emission Hydrogen Turbine CenterThe zero emission demonstrator plant at the gas turbine test facility in Finspång, Sweden• Utilizes excess power from turbine test runs to produce hydrogenin an electrolyzer•Solar panels for continuous hydrogen production• A micro grid together with batteries for backup• Utilize the produced hydrogen as turbine fuel for upcoming turbine tests to reduce our own LNG consumption and provide inhouse testing of 3D-printed hydrogen burners Three year project with funding from EU•Operation starts in 2021• Supports Siemens Energys efforts in achieving•100% hydrogen ready gas turbines by 2030•climate neutral own operations by 2030 •green electricity 100% of own power consumption by 2023• Funded by the six partners and EU projectERA-Net Smart Energy Systems program through the Swedish Energy Agency The future energy systemon display
Solar panelsBatteriesElektrolyserHydrogenLNG & LBGGT test facility•>> zehtc.org >> siemens-energy.com/zehtc 602 of 983
SE GP G S DES P&MRestricted © Siemens Energy, 20218June 2021Siemens Energy is a trademark licensed by Siemens AG.

Siemens Energy is a trademark licensed by Siemens AG.

ContactStefan LinderDirector New Generation Sales10730 Telge RoadHouston 77095 TexasMobile: +1 281 787 [email protected] 603 of 983
SE GP G S DES P&MRestricted © Siemens Energy, 20219June 2021Siemens Energy is a trademark licensed by Siemens AG.

DisclaimerThis document may contain statements relating to the future business and financial performance and future events or developments involving Siemens Energy (together with its subsidiaries, “Siemens Energy”) that may constitute forward-looking statements. These statements may be identified by words such as “expect,” “look forward to”, “anticipate”, “intend”, “plan”, “believe”, “seek”, “estimate”, “will”, “project” or words of similar meaning. Such statements are based on the current expectations and certain assumptions, of which many are beyond Siemens Energy’s control. These are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, should decisions, assessments or requirements of regulatory authorities deviate from our expectations, or should underlying expectations not occur or assumptions prove incorrect, actual results, performance or achievements of Siemens Energy may (negatively or positively) vary materially from those described explicitly or implicitly in the relevant forward-looking statement. Siemens Energy does not intend, nor assume any obligation, to update or revise these forward-looking statements in light of developments which differ from those anticipated.The information and opinions contained in this document are provided as at the date of this presentation and are subject to change without notice. They do not purport to contain all information that may be required to evaluate Siemens Energy and have not been verified independently. The information in this document is of a preliminary and abbreviated nature and may be subject to updating, revision and amendment, and such information may change materially. This document contains forecasts, statistics, data and other information relating to markets, market sizes, market shares, market positions and other industry data on Siemens Energy’s business and markets (together the “market data”) provided by third party sources as interpreted by us. This market data is, in part, derived from published research and additional market studies prepared primarily as a research tool and reflects estimates of market conditions based on research methodologies including primary research, secondary sources and econometric modelling, which may not be representative.

Nothing contained in this document (and the appertaining verbal presentation, if any) is a warranty, guarantee or representation. All statements, data and information contained herein (and the appertaining verbal presentation, if any) are non-binding and shall not create on Siemens any commitment, obligation or liability whatsoever. Furthermore, they shall not be ground for any claim or argument, regardless whether based on this document (and the appertaining verbal presentation, if any) alone or in connection with a separate agreement or contract. 604 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:51 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Grayson proposal

Sent from my iPad
Begin forwarded message:

From: Jennifer Pinkerton <[email protected]> Date: February 14, 2022 at 1:53:05 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Grayson proposal
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello, Paula
Hope you're doing well.

I wanted to drop this note to explain my recent Sustainability Commission vote re Grayson, and my reconsideration of several points/issues.

I wanted to thank you again for being the first Councilmember to suggest 100% renewable power as a feasible goal.

I voted against supporting the EIR primarily because I feel that the projections for the amount of gas needed should have been changed (reduced) after GWP was able to sign a contract with LADWP for 72 MW. And that wedding ourselves to what is still a significant amount of gas capacity is premature.

For that and other reasons, I think we may need some gas, but not as much as GWP asserts. I'd hate to see us get locked into a path that
(I worked at LADWP for several years, mostly in their solar and green power programs, and it was interesting to watch the internal battle between engineers who wanted more baseline, gas- powered equipment, and those pushing for more renewable energy. Utility engineers are trained to think first about baseline and reliability, so the intermittent nature of renewable energy (without batteries) is more difficult terrain and creates greater uncertainty for them. But if the largest muni utility in the US can plan to achieve 100% renewables, I believe GWP can as well.

Specifically:
605 of 983
2 1. Think it would be wonderful for Glendale (you) to set an aspirational goal of 100% renewables by 2035.

2.One of our most important needs is flexibility. For that reason, it may be preferable to certify the EIR, obtain permits for gas-powered equipment, and do site preparation, but not install the new gas equipment - as I'm confident there will be new developments that can reduce or eliminate our need for gas. There are so many new technology options in development (improved fuel cells, better batteries).

3. I think GWP can do much much more regarding commercial solar (including on City facilities), energy efficiency and demand-side management. I'm not sure if GWP has set MegaWatt goals for each of these programs- but should if it has not. Every Watt we save through these types of programs reduces our overall energy need.

I recall David Freeman, former LADWP General Manager who worked on Energy issues for LBJ and Carter, saying one of his hardest tasks was convincing utilities to stop using coal and to embrace renewables.

I understand that it's easy to write these points and much more difficult to implement them. For that reason, GWP may need to hire a renewable energy manager since the field is evolving so rapidly and GWP has very little experience in this arena.

Thanks very much for your consideration.

--
Jennifer Pinkerton
[email protected]
606 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:48 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Grayson Repower Project
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Xochitl Ruiz <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 6:30:29 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]> Subject: Grayson Repower Project

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:

Thank you all for your service and for the opportunity to write to you today.

I am writing to you regarding tomorrow's vote on the Grayson project. While I appreciate that you took the time to look at a new plan, the proposed plan still does not have enough local clean energy. I hope you all will consider alternatives like maximizing solar and other clean energy solutions. Not only will this pollute less, but it will have a lower cost over the long term. Why invest in equipment that will be obsolete in a short period of time? We can start investing in the future of our city in a more clean and cost-effective way now.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Xochitl
Glendale Resident
607 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:43 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Grayson Repowering
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Nick Wenger <[email protected]>
Date: February 15, 2022 at 5:49:09 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Grayson Repowering
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor,

I am concerned about the Grayson repowering and would like to ask that you try and find a way to include fewer fossil fuels in your plan. I agree with the Glendale Environmental Coalition and I worry for the health of my family. Thank you.

Nicholas Wenger

-
608 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:41 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Grayson Repowering plan
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Julie Riggott <[email protected]>
Date: February 15, 2022 at 9:35:07 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]> Subject: Grayson Repowering plan

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear City Councilmembers and Mayor Devine,

As a Glendale resident, I am opposed to the Grayson Repowering plan. We need to invest in clean energy now.

Our household has invested in solar panels and an electric vehicle as well as other improvements that are better for the environment and people.

Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

Sincerely,

Julie Riggott

609 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:48 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: More Clean Energy Now
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Kathleen Hand <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 6:48:01 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected]
Subject: More Clean Energy Now

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,

Don’t move backwards.  Move forwards to clean energy.

No fossil fuels.

Create a legacy that will make your great, great grandchildren proud.

It’s not just Los Angeles that is watching you.  The nation is watching you and judging your choices.

Choose clean energy.

The time to
act isn’t now.  That time was fifty years ago.  But now that there is a climate crisis, it’s essential that YOU make decisions that will help ALL of us survive the coming changes.

Thank you.

Kathleen Hand
La Canada resident but sharing the air we all breathe and the water we all drink

610 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:43 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: More Clean Energy Now!
FYI

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Joann Lo <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 11:13:27 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]> Subject: More Clean Energy Now!

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am a long-time Glendale resident of 13 years and a voter, and currently I live in the La Crescenta neighborhood of Glendale with my two children who attend Glendale schools. I am emailing you to urge you to vote NO on the Grayson Repowering Plan on Tuesday and instead to ask GWP to produce a plan with no or less gas and more solar and storage. There are many cleaner energy alternatives available to our community now that will benefit Glendale and our children and their children for generations to come.

Thank you,
Joann Lo
323-244-7003
91214

611 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:55 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: MORE CLEAN ENERGY NOW
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: [email protected]
Date: February 14, 2022 at 9:27:15 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: MORE CLEAN ENERGY NOW
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hi Paula,

I am a longtime resident in Glendale clean energy is my top priority. I am vehemently opposed to any of my tax dollars going towards additional pollutants coming out of Grayson power plant.

Thanks for your consideration.

Jackie
612 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:41 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: NO Gas at Grayson!
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Nathalie Klukovich <[email protected]>
Date: February 15, 2022 at 9:33:08 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]> Subject: NO Gas at Grayson!

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

To Whom It May Concern:

I am a mother and an attorney who resides with my husband and two young children on Larga Avenue in Atwater Village, close to Glendale. I am absolutely appalled that the GWP Commission has voted to recommend certification of the Grayson Repowering FEIR. Why the Commission would entertain power options which so overtly contribute to the poor air quality, directly affecting the health and quality of life of the residents of Glendale and neighboring communities such as mine, is beyond me. Certainly there must be better, cleaner energy options which do not put so many pollutants into the air. My son has asthma and the project the Commission looks to approve will be detrimental to his health. The Grayson Repowering FEIR will push out local residents, including my family, who cannot abide the worsening air quality.

Please refer to the American Lung Association's cautions as to the health impact of poor air quality: https://www.lung.org/research/sota/health-risks . I cannot in good conscience stand by and watch while the Commission looks to fossil fuels to meet energy needs at the expense of the health of the people it should be serving. Please do not certify the Grayson Repowering FEIR, and instead look to cleaner options for the local residents. 613 of 983
2 Health Impact of Pollution | State of the
Air | American Lung Association -
American Lung Association | American
Lung Association
How Does Ozone Pollution Harm Your Health? Ozone
gas is a powerful lung irritant. When it is inhaled into the lungs, it reacts with the delicate lining of the airways, causing inflammation and other damage that can impact
multiple body systems.
www.lung.org

Nathalie M. Klukovich, Esq.

Law Office of Nathalie M. Klukovich
690 E Green St, Ste 103
Pasadena, CA 91101
(310) 467-2831

NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it is addressed. The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be privileged. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else. 614 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:41 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: NO GRAYSON POWER PLANT

FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Kourtney Smith <[email protected]>
Date: February 15, 2022 at 9:39:04 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: NO GRAYSON POWER PLANT

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Paula Devine,

I'm writing to urge you to vote against the Grayson Power Plant. In a time of climate crisis and dwindling public trust in the government, please set an example as a leader who cares about the wellbeing not just of your community, but of the planet as a whole.

Thank you.

--
Best,
Kourtney Smith
615 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:46 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Agenda Item 9c: Grayson Project and EIR must go to the Historic Preservation Commission for Review
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Scott Fraser <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 10:26:56 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]> Cc: "Adjemian, Aram" <[email protected]>
Subject: Agenda Item 9c: Grayson Project and EIR must go to the Historic Preservation Commission for Review

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Devine and Members of the Glendale City Council:

Please send this project and the Final EIR to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) for review and for a recommendation as required under the Glendale Municipal Code and CEQA.

If you decide to ignore the clear language of the Glendale Municipal Code and CEQA, and instead vote to certify the Final EIR, adopt a statement of overriding considerations, and approve a project that includes demolition of the historic Boiler Building, here is what will happen:

The City will be sued. It seems very unlikely that the case will go to a judge, because the city attorneys know the City will lose. The record of their handling of the historic status of the property and impacts casts the city in a very poor light.

A settlement will be reached. The project approvals and EIR certification will be overturned as a matter of course. The project and final EIR go to the HPC after all, and then to Council, unless the whole review process needs to start over.

If you hold the vote without following the requirements under the Glendale Municipal Code and CEQA, the City will spend tens of thousands of dollars in tax-payer 616 of 983
2 money. There will be a significant delay, much greater than if a majority of council votes Tuesday to follow the proper process involving the HPC.

The city’s attorneys are giving you incorrect advice. The fact that an “update” on Grayson took place at the January HPC meeting, at which no public hearing was held, is only one of many problems. Follow the Code, follow CEQA. You best course of action is to delay a Council vote until the EIR has received proper vetting at the HPC.

Thank you.

Scott Fraser

--
Scott E. Fraser
[email protected]

617 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:49 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: City Council Meeting on February 15, 2022: Item 8.c. Comments on Final Environmental Impact Report, Grayson Repowering Project Attachments: Smith- FEIR Comments 2 13 22-FINAL.pdf; Attachment 1.pdf; Attachment 2.pdf; Attachment 3.pdf; Attachment 4.pdf
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Smith, Francesca@DOT" <[email protected]> Date: February 14, 2022 at 2:16:31 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]> Cc: "Adjemian, Aram" <[email protected]>, [email protected], John Sims <[email protected]>, Steve Hunt <[email protected]>, [email protected] Subject: City Council Meeting on February 15, 2022: Item 8.c. Comments on Final Environmental Impact Report, Grayson Repowering Project

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hi Paula et al.

I hope you are well.  My comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Grayson Repowering Project are attached for your use with four attachments.

We have plans on Tuesday night, but I hope to watch your meeting and sincerely hope you all will bring up my questions to staff.

Please do not cote to adopt the flawed FEIR which does not comply with requirements in state environmental law or the City’s own Historic Preservation Ordinance as described in my letter.

Thank you for your service to the City.

Best wishes,
Francesca Smith
PQS Principal Architectural Historian
Caltrans District 7
100 S. Main St., MS 16A
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone 213-266-3790

618 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:46 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Concern over current Grayson proposal
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Seline Guidotti <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 9:32:54 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Concern over current Grayson proposal

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Greetings Mayor Devine,

As a long-term Glendale resident and currently raising my family in this city, I strongly support bold measures designed to combat climate change, pollution, and protect the environment.

I am very concerned that the current Grayson proposal ( "Alternative 7") is not going far enough in incorporating clean energy. I feel that our city’s resources should be proactively used to maximize clean energy now, not years down the line.

Please ask GWP to revise their current plan to incorporate more clean energy now.

Thank you for your consideration.

Seline Guidotti
Glendale resident since 2000
619 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:40 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Concerned Resident Regarding Grayson Repowering FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jennifer Newfield <[email protected]>
Date: February 15, 2022 at 10:05:05 AM PST
To: "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]> Subject: Concerned Resident Regarding Grayson Repowering

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello,

I am a long-time resident, parent and concerned citizen who is writing to implore you to reject the current plan for the fossil fuel equipment and consider clean energy alternatives proposed for the Grayson Repowering project.

We are on the brink of an environmental crisis and all need to do our part to march into the future with more green-alternative thinking in order to make sure that we are making choices that are positive for the next generation. Of course this is something that is not taken lightly since the demand on our grid is higher than ever and the cost of these plans is rising. BUT, this is the moment where we can make an impact as a community and be proud that we made the right choice with future generations in mind. FOSSIL FUELS ARE NOT THE RIGHT CHOICE, the research is clear, green energy is the ONLY answer.

We will be watching your decision closely.

Sincerely,
Jennifer Newfield
620 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:54 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Gas Power Plant
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Alex Ferrari <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 10:00:28 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Gas Power Plant
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hi Mayor Devine,

I’m a Glen Oaks Canyon resident, and I am asking you to vote no tomorrow on the gas burning power plant extension.

I have a six year old, and from everything I have read about the environmental impact of the proposed plant expansion, I believe it may seriously harm the health of many families and kids who live and go to school in the canyon.

Please vote no.

Thank you,
Alex Ferrari
255 Sleepy Hollow Terrace
310-985-1138
621 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:40 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Glendale Can Do Better

FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Cole Bazemore <[email protected]>
Date: February 15, 2022 at 10:31:25 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Glendale Can Do Better

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Good morning, Mayor Devine,

My name is Cole Bazemore and I’m a resident of the Citrus Grove neighborhood in Glendale. My fiancée and I recently moved to Glendale and have fallen in love with this community.

I’m writing today to ask that you please reject the final EIR for the Grayson Repowering Project. Now is the time to invest in local, renewable, clean energy projects, not more fossil fuel infrastructure.

Carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels is piling up in the atmosphere and a new record of 419 parts per million was set in May of 2021. Shouldn't Glendale do everything it can to prevent adding to that number?

I understand that there are a lot of strong voices on both sides of this issue. However, the choice is clear. Glendale can invest in local, renewable, clean energy projects and still offer consistent, reliable energy to city residents. This can be done!

In addition, please consider joining with our neighbors in the City of Los Angeles by committing Glendale to 100 percent clean energy by 2035. This will send a strong message that the Glendale is willing to lead the way towards securing our clean energy future.

I'm asking for bold action from the City Council. Please reject the final EIR.

Thank you,
622 of 983
2 Cole
623 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:52 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Grayson
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Linda Pillsbury <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 12:02:04 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Grayson

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hi Paula,
Hope things are good with you.

Just a quick note to urge you to vote NO on repowering Grayson.

We have an incredible opportunity now to look at the big picture and the long term picture; to put our enthusiasm and money into developing clean energy that will sustain Glendale into the future. There are clean and sustainable options, and we need to embrace them.

So please, look to the future and not to the past, and vote NO.

Linda

Linda Goodman Pillsbury, LCSW
818-522-3952
www.lgpillsbury.com
624 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:41 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Grayson Power Plant
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Nat Yonce <[email protected]>
Date: February 15, 2022 at 9:41:38 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Grayson Power Plant

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Devine,

I'm writing to urge you to vote against the Grayson Power Plant. In a time of climate crisis and dwindling public trust in the government, please set an example as a leader who cares about the wellbeing not just of your community, but of the planet as a whole. Thank you.

-Nat Yonce
625 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:45 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Grayson Proposal
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Patrick Dinan <[email protected]> Date: February 14, 2022 at 10:46:29 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Grayson Proposal

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hi Mayor Devine,

As a resident of Glendale and father of two young daughters, I urge you not to support the current proposed plan to repower Grayson.

The current plan is a huge waste of money since cleaner alternatives already make economic sense and will continue to become more compelling over time. The cost of solar and battery storage has dropped by over 80% over the past two decades and is expected to continue decreasing.

Why would we commit to a huge bloated project that relies on expensive 20th century technology when we know that solar, wind and battery storage will continue to become more efficient and less costly?

At the very least, please consider taking a phased in approach instead of committing the rate paying residents of Glendale to more pollution and a huge financial liability. This would at least give us more time to assess cleaner alternatives. The current plan is bad for our planet and our wallets.

Thanks for your consideration,
--
Patrick Dinan, CFP®, CSRIC®
President
Impact Fiduciary LLC
Mobile: 323-636-6997
Office: 323-615-1427
www.impactfiduciary.com
626 of 983
2 Schedule a Phone Call

[email protected]

This communication (and any attached documents) constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. It should be considered to be confidential. This communication is for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review, copying or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or if you otherwise received this message or any attachment in error, please notify the sender, and delete all copies of this communication (and all attached documents), immediately
627 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:47 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Please Reject the Grayson Repowering Project FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: David S <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 8:32:53 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Please Reject the Grayson Repowering Project
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor:

Please reject the Grayson Repowering Project. The cost to our city vastly outweigh any benefits.

I am a proud Glendalian. I was born in Glendale. I am raising my family in Glendale. I want my children to raise their future families in Glendale.

The Grayson project will only hinder that future. I don’t want them to be left with worse air pollution, especially when there are cleaner more cost effective ways to reduce Glendale’s energy needs.

Please reject the Grayson Repowering Project.

-David C. Smith
628 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:44 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Please vote NO gas at the Grayson Power Plant FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Analisa Swan <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 10:58:33 PM PST
To: "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]> Subject: Please vote NO gas at the Grayson Power Plant

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Good evening.

Please vote NO gas at the Grayson Power Plant.

I am urging the Glendale City Council to REJECT the proposed $200+ million plan for gas expansion at the Grayson Power Plant.

We need a more environmentally sustainable plan that relies on clean energy solutions such as solar. I would urge that the council further explore the feasibility of clean energy solutions.

California is transitioning to clean energy. It is very likely that the $200+ million project will be obsolete and in non-compliance with state environmental requirements even before the project is completed. We need a better investment and life expectancy of the investment than what is being proposed in the current plan.

I was proud to rally at Glendale City Hall on 2/6/22 with over 200 people including Glendale residents, grassroots activists, and electeds calling for a rejection of gas at the Grayson Power Plant.

Thank you for your consideration and attention to this important matter.

-Analisa Swan
ADEM AD 44
Resident of Burbank, CA
--
629 of 983
2 Analisa Swan, Esq.

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
Ford & Wallach
3619 Motor Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90034
Telephone: (213)-380-3140
Facsimile: (213)-480-0249

This e-mail message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee names above and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this e- mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email message or by telephone.

Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone.
630 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:54 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Reject the Grayson Repowering Plan
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Monica Ross <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 9:43:18 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]> Subject: Reject the Grayson Repowering Plan

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello,

As a resident of Glendale, clean energy is a priority for me. I oppose any of my tax dollars going toward the funding of the Grayson Repowering plan. We want our money going towards CLEAN energy efforts.

Please reject the Grayson Repowering Plan and ask GWP to maximize clean energy in Glendale.

Thank you,

Monica Ross & Matt Hartz
631 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:52 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Removal of funding for Grayson Powerplant FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: [email protected]
Date: February 14, 2022 at 12:39:37 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]> Subject: Removal of funding for Grayson Powerplant
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

I am a recent homeowner in Glendale clean energy is my TOP priority. I am vehemently opposed to any of my tax dollars going towards additional pollutants or any funding for the coming out of Grayson power plant. Glendale should be a leader in the souther California are you show that green energy is a priority for our communities future. Failure by the council will to block the Grayson power plant will condemn our community to exposure to toxic pollutants and cement us in the past.

Thanks for your consideration.

Matthew Hartz

Sent from my iPhone
632 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:51 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Vote NO on Fossil fuels !
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Karen H <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 1:41:17 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]> Subject: Vote NO on Fossil fuels !

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Der Glendale City Council members,

Please vote NO to repowering Grayson with gas.

Help end our harmful dependence on fossil fuels. All efforts should be directed toward creating local, distributed, clean energy and storage for maximum resiliency and sustainability!

Please reject the gas-burning proposal and ask for quicker action and more investments in clean energy!

Let's be leaders in the clean energy movement here in Glendale.

Thank you,

Karen Hare NEILSSON
818 398 9269 MOBILE
Glendale, CA
633 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:52 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: No to the Grayson re-powering plan
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Anna Mkhikian <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 12:32:34 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: No to the Grayson re-powering plan

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Paula Devine,

I am a resident of the city of Glendale, and I am writing to ask that you withhold support for the Grayson Repowering plan until the city and GWP explore more clean energy solutions. At this critical moment in the climate crisis our community and planet need all the help they can get, and I strongly believe that you and the council members have the power to make a difference. Please use it!

Sincerely,

ANNA ARTEMIS MKHIKIAN

GRAPHIC DESIGNER
905 E. Chevy Chase Dr.

Glendale, CA 91205
ARTEMISARTEMIS.COM
@AnnaArtemisM

she/her/hers

634 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:53 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Opposition to Grayson Power Plant Expansion FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Reni K <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 10:17:30 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]> Subject: Opposition to Grayson Power Plant Expansion

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Council Members,

I am a resident of Glenoaks Canyon. I oppose the expansion of the Grayson Plant and the negative impact it will have on our neighborhood and City. Please vote NO.

Thank you,
Réni Knoll
635 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:53 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Please reject the gas plan at grayson:)
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Kat Palardy <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 11:52:08 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Please reject the gas plan at grayson:)

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hi Paula!

Thank you for all you've done so far for the environment here in Glendale:) This is Kat Palardy, a Glendale resident considering whether to start a family here in Glendale. Please reject investing in 93 megawatts of gas power at the Grayson Power Plant. And please consider alternatives like commercial solar! We are going to need to be off of fossil fuels in a few years so it doesn't make sense to invest 100's of millions in them. That is short-term thinking vs. long term. The time for bold and courageous action is now. Thank you!

636 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:37 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: PLEASE reject the Grayson Repowering Plan FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Kara W Sergile <[email protected]>
Date: February 15, 2022 at 10:34:15 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]>
Subject: PLEASE reject the Grayson Repowering Plan

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear City Council Members: PLEASE, please, please reject the plan for $200+ million in fossil fuel equipment. The Grayson Repowering project would waste millions of our tax payer dollars, that should be focused on clean energy solutions. GWP's plan has too much gas. Investments in clean energy will be better for Glendale residents and ratepayers, the city, the environment, and the climate. We need MORE CLEAN ENERGY NOW!
Thank you.

Kara & Yves Sergile
1115 Moncado Drive
Glendale, CA 91207

637 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:47 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Please go solar!
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Scott Peer <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 9:03:13 PM PST
To: "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]> Subject: Please go solar!

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Greetings Council members,

It was about 4 years ago when we all agreed that we would drastically cut the gas burning at Grayson and emphasize solar and storage, including the VPP which was supposed to happen within a year.

The actions/inaction from GWP look like insubordination to me.

Please reject their schemes to burn more fossil fuels and reprimand them for defying our agreements.

Thanks,

Scott Peer
Adams Hill, Glendale
638 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:43 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Reject Grayson Repowering
FYI

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Barbara Levitan <[email protected]>
Date: February 15, 2022 at 12:01:49 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Reject Grayson Repowering

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Please reject the Grayson Repowering plan for $200+ million in fossil fuel equipment.

Barbara Levitan
3015 Country Club Dr
Glendale CA 91208

639 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:42 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Grayson Repowering Plan
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Anna Leshner <[email protected]>
Date: February 15, 2022 at 9:16:32 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Grayson Repowering Plan

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Devine,

I am a resident of the Somerset neighborhood here in Glendale with my husband and two young children. We love living here, and want the city to thrive for our children and for future generations. That is why I oppose the current Grayson Repowering Plan and ask you to please vote NO in today's council vote. We need a plan that prioritizes clean energy and protects our community. Please vote against the current plan and encourage your colleagues to do the same.

Thank you,

Anna Leshner
640 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:44 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Grayson Repowering
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: W G <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 11:00:29 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]> Subject: Grayson Repowering

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Devine and Council Members,
I would like to see more solar and other clean energy instead of a new fossil fuel project. Please consider all the great research the Glendale Environmental Coalition has done and come up with a better plan. If some gas is still needed, please retrofit the existing historic structures instead of demolishing them.

Thank you,
Wendy G.

Glendale homeowner
641 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:51 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: If you are counting emails re: GWP's FEIR

FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: sschus <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 1:26:42 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: If you are counting emails re: GWP's FEIR
Reply-To: sschus <[email protected]>

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.
)Hi, Paula -

I think you know where I stand on this issue, which is to say I hope you will vote to reject their current FEIR.

This EIR doesn't answer the question of where they plan to get the hundreds of millions of dollars needed for their recommended purchase of 5 new polluting gas-powered engines. Two is enough (to replace the ones we have).

Time to focus strictly on more new innovative developments happening in the clean energy arena for generation, storage and transmission. That's what we're going to need to meet the state's requirements for 2045 (and likely 2035). Plus, you were one of the candidates who answered affirmatively when asked if you wanted to see a plan for Glendale to use 100% clean energy even earlier. GWP still hasn't satisfied that request.

I'll be tuned in tomorrow. Hope you won't be there until midnight!

Stephanie (Schus Russin)

642 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:54 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Please vote NO on current Grayson Plan
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Melissa King <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 9:56:57 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Please vote NO on current Grayson Plan

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hi Paula,

I'm emailing to say that I do not support the current Grayson repowering plan without more renewable energy added. I understand that Glendale already gets a good amount of its energy from renewable resources. However, what Glendale, and what everyone else around us considers good now is not enough to stop the world from warming as quickly as we need. We have to do better. And Glendale is in a unique position where it has the resources and money to set a good and necessary example for everyone else. I want to live in a city that goes beyond "good relative to others" and accepts the massive responsibility we all have to undo the damage we have done to our environment. We can become the "new standard" for others to follow. And not only will we be looked upon highly by others, but us residents, for many years to come, could feel proud to live in a city that did not ignore this when many others did.

For these reasons, I sincerely hope that you will not support the current plan as it is either. Thank you for your time.

-Melissa King
(510) 512-5766
1020 San Rafael Ave, Apt 7
Glendale, CA 91202
643 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:56 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Please vote NO on Grayson Repowering Expansion FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Erin Dinan <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 9:00:31 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Please vote NO on Grayson Repowering Expansion CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Good Morning Mayor Devine,

I am writing as a concerned citizen and mother of two young children. I am urging you to NOT approve the Grayson project as presented tomorrow.

Last week, my family and I stood in front of city hall at the rally for the second time in less than 3 years. My daughters grew from toddlers to young children between the two events, and somehow the conversation is still the same and it feels like GWP has made no real progress or investment in the things that the people of Glendale made clear were important for years. We must make a move toward cleaner energy alternatives and not invest hundreds of millions of dollars in fossil fuel expansion.

If CA law requires 100% clean energy by 2045, how will we get there if this project passes? Who will still be paying the price in 20 years, paying the financial bills and still breathing the dirty air? Our children certainly will… and we can’t stand by and perpetuate this problem.

As I think about POWER, I realize that you hold so much power in your hands right now. I implore you to use it responsibly. I know that no decision is black and white, and I can imagine this one is no different. I ask you to please represent the best interests for the health and wellbeing of the people of our city.

Thank you for your consideration and representation.

Erin Dinan

“When you know better, do better” - Maya Angelou
644 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 10:46 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: please reject GWP's Grayson plan
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Donna Chung <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 10:08:09 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]> Subject: please reject GWP's Grayson plan

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello,
We live in Glendale with our child, and clean energy and the future of our city, country, and planet are always at the forefront of our minds. Please reject the Grayson Repowering plan for $200+ million in fossil fuel equipment. GWP's plan has too much gas. Investments in clean energy will be better for Glendale residents and ratepayers, the city, the environment, and the climate.

Thanks,
Donna Chung & Tim Lokiec
2027 El Arbolita Dr
--
♡.◕‿◕.♡
645 of 983
Please consider all possible alternatives to natural gas construction at Grayson Sierra Club Petition to the Glendale City Council
In the 2019 IRP, City Council voted to explore all possible alternatives to the 93 MW of New Construction.

Glendale City Council should reject the Grayson Repowering PR-DEIR. All new transmission into Glendale must be considered in energy planning.

Glendale can do better!
Council should vote NO on all new or refurbished natural gas generators unless and until Glendale Water and Power has explored all possible clean energy solutions.

GWP must prioritize local distributed solar and storage, demand response, load flexibility, and energy efficiency.

Name City Zip Code Comment
Jenessa Maldonado Glendale 91204 Glendale needs to get with the program already and but the right leaders in place for the decision. This is critical. We are California.

Morgan Goodwin Glendale 91204-2888 Let's not make this the last gas power plant built in the state of California. We don't need the gas turbines and the climate doesn't need them either. The plan is overall very strong but the gas turbines are unnecessary.

Keith Sauter Glendale 91209-7001

Ms Wendy Gish Glendale 91202-2618 You have the opportunity to do something great and you just want to go backwards. Please re -consider the clean energy alternatives.

David Eisenberg Glendale 91206 GWP
s own data in the EIR shows that there is no need for new gas generation at Grayson. It is only by inflating the Peak Demand in the comments in the EIR and by scare tactics by GWP to inflate the demand even higher that there is any need for construction.

Leonor Vazquez Glendale 91204-2738

Mrs Joanna Hovland Glendale 91207-1240 Converting to only clean energy would make a positive impact with the climate crisis and to the air quality in Glendale. This is our time to be a progressive city that demonstrates by example how to protect its residents for years to come.

Cole Bazemore Glendale 91206-3956 Hello! Thank you for all that you ve done so far on pushing GWP to increase their proposed clean energy alternative. It
s really made a difference! However more work is needed.

Ms Annette
Kargodorian
Glendale 91202-1128

Mary Mendelsohn Glendale 91208-1233 Climate change requires we all take every step possible to avert disaster. Glendale can do better and be a leader to promote clean energy.

Elise Kalfayan Glendale 91202-1213

Armond Aghanian Glendale 91201-3345

Cole Bazemore Glendale 91206-3956 For the good of our community and generations to come please do not construct new fossil gas generation in our city. Thank you!
Jim Nasella Glendale 91201-1217

Molly Joseph Glendale 91207-1447

Christine Halili Willis Glendale 91201-1461 Please do not allow the construction of this polluting power plant to take place. Look towards our future! Invest in clean energy for our community and the future of Glendale. 646 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Chris Lowery Glendale 91202-1057 Dear City of Glendale Don't be the last fool in CA. When everyone else is zigging and you are zagging it is time to question your path. Take a tip from the auto manufacturers are they investing billions into internal combustion engines or battery powered electric vehicles? Let's move forward with new technologies not backward with fossil fuels!
Elspeth Golden Glendale 91207-1809

Carolyn West Glendale 91201-2905 Let's move to stop global warming . I live close to power plant as well. Air here often high p articulates high ozone and no burn days
Mr oliver scott glendale 91203

Jean Brown Glendale 91202-1665 We need to cut as many emissions as possible for climate change for us and future generations.

Angela Alemania Glendale 91208-2965 I have lived in Glendale CA the majority of my life and do NOT want to see this beautiful city go backwards. We need to move forward with steps to save our planet. I implore you NOT to build this plant.

Mr Mark Kausler Glendale 91205-3710 Dear City Council Members Please don't open this gas burning new power plant! We don't need to burn fossil fuels to generate electricity. Let's invest in solar and wind not fuels that melt the polar ice caps and add to our state's flammability in the warm season. PLEASE don't do this !! Ms Rachel Pringle Glendale 91208-2640 I grow up in Glendale and returned here 11 years ago. I vote in every city council and local election. We CANNOT build a new fossil fuel plant when climate change is at a crisis point. This year was the HOTTEST year on record and our planet will only continue to warm causing more intense heat waves wildfires and other natural disasters if we do not switch to renewable energy. I look at GWP
s sources of energy report and we could be getting a lot more energy from solar not to mention other renewables. For our health and the future I implore you to NOT approve new gas generators at Grayson.

Katherine Babbitt Glendale 91202-1221 Global warming will soon be runaway global warming. We won't be ab le to Dave ourselves and every other living creature on our life giving planet. We need to switch to clean green energy now.

Paul Payam Maple Glendale 91205-4004 HI As citizen and who live and rise my kid in Glendale please stop this project and use green energy source. spend more money for building places which teach and entertainment kids with science and cultural habitat.

Ms Susan Rios Glendale 91203-2415 We need to move ahead to protect our environment. This should be every city's first priority. I'm counting on my city of Glendale where my daughter and granddaughter grew up to do the right thing! I keep feeling like it's the citizens vs politcians and the citizens want a safe and healthy environment! Mrs Valerie Staveley Glendale 91208-1015 Gas should be a thing of the past! The time is now to invest in our clean air clean energy future for our children our grandchildren and all future generations!
Mrs Valerie Staveley Glendale 91208-1015 Gas should be a thing of the past! The time is now to invest in our clean air clean energy future for our children our grandchildren and all future generations!
Mrs Beauchamp
Fontaine Hansen
Glendale 91205-3814

Dr Hank Schlinger Glendale 91201-1278 As a resident of Glendale I am firmly opposed to the construction of a gas-fired power plant in my city.

David Levine Glendale 91208-1148

Maria De Los Santos Glendale 91208-2023

Veronica Vargas Glendale 91205-2194 Please protect the families and people of the Is community. Something like this can cause so many different health issues. Also it will make the city less desirable.

Susan Barilich Glendale 91206-3463

Bonnie Hays Glendale 91202-2112 First of all it is ludicrous and stupid to spend this kind of money on OLD technology! NO ONE wants this and this city needs to move into the 21st Century!!!! Secondly we only live four blocks from the Grayson Station and fear an explosion or gas leak too close to home!
647 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mr Matt Gangi Glendale 91208-1134

Ms Jessica Dias Glendale 91205-3628

Brian Campbell Glendale 91206-4725 We need to move to clean energy to do our part to stop global warming.

Brenda Gant Glendale 91208-1506

Ms Joanna Hess Glendale 91208-2010

Ms Melanie Mckinnell Glendale 91208-1145 I live near the proposed site and will be forced to breathe the polluted air. Let alone polluting the air if all the communities around us.

John Lombardi Glendale 91202-1970

Samantha Hayes Glendale 91202-1255 As a Glendale parent homeowner and resident I want to feel that my tax dollars are being spent in the most efficient and ecologically intelligent way. The current plan for the Grayson Power Plant makes no sense and will drive residents away and hurt Glendale in the long term not to mention property values!! Ms Nancy Miller Glendale 91205-2218 Please be a leader in renewable safe energy!!!! Ashley Laidlaw Glendale 91208-2160 We need to invest in cleaner energy. In this day and age we can do - and MUST do - so much better than this! Mychael Danna Glendale 91207-1807 renewable sources are the future. better to go forward than to yesterday's tech Jason Gottlieb Glendale 91208-2645

Michael Diehl Glendale 91202-1470 The nation is not cutting back on greenhouse gases nearly fast enough. Glendale must do its part to pull hard on the reins of fossil-fuel consumption. Please vote to invest in alternative sources of energy generation and methods of storing it; that must be our future and the future starts TODAY! David Broussal Glendale 91208-2222 I would prefer the use of Alternative / Newer technologies as the solution to Glendale's future power requirements.

Eda Yu Glendale 91202-2615 As a resident in this neighborhood I feel very strongly that we should be moving away from gas-powered energy and am concerned about the health effects of proximity to this plant should it continue to use gas power.

Samantha Tejada Glendale 91203-1422 We need to look at new innovate options for energy going back to old resources shouldn t be accepted nor
funded.

Myles Thompson Glendale 91202-2615 To whom it may concern I m petitioning to stop news gas at Grayson because it would make a difference for me and the many others who suffer from asthma and have other resp iratory issues her in Glendale and LA County.

As someone who lives near by the plant I look forward to a future where I clearly see the Griffith Mountain from my street and is isn
t obscured by smog and gas pollution. I look forward to a future where I can ride my bike bike past a green energy power plant on the the LA river bike path a long a highway of more green energy cars and finally take a depth breath. By moving to clean energy Grayson has the ability to be leaders in their industry for the coming years as well as build a strong community with their neighbors. Please consider making the switch. Thank you
Jennifer Hook Glendale 91206-4515 Follow in the footsteps of other CA power plants and make an investment in our future using renewable sources of energy. This is shameful.

Roana Thornock Glendale 91208-1207 Glendale has an opportunity to lead with green energy. Please look at alternatives that are healthier for your citizens and the climate.

Mr Matthew Avery
Head
Glendale 91205-3411

Diana Tanda Glendale 91205-3843 Waste of money we need to move forward not backwards. Focus on renewable energy please! Anna McKinley Glendale 91205-3634

Mrs Elisabeth Feerick Glendale 91207-1341 SO not benefitting a longterm solution and improvement of current inadequate operations 648 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Ms Maria Andrade Glendale 91208-2951 GWP needs to prepare for the future NOT FUND antiquated systems that are funded by our Community fees and taxes. I
m strongly against this option !
Mr an Everett and
Diane Hinchcliffe
Glendale 91202-1304 We need to to stop using fossil energy and switch to green energy.

Ms Pat Turner Glendale 91201-2209

Mr Charles Laun Glendale 91202-1304 No more fossil fuel burning! It's time for green energy Jon Hamkins Glendale 91214-1138

Elizabeth Otterman Glendale 91207-1859 As a resident of Glendale I am opposed to the plan to build a gas plant in this area. This is an irresponsible financial decision that will negatively impact residents and the environment. I encourage the council to explore green energy sources to supply back up power
Sarah Armstrong Glendale 91214-2430 Future for our children Mindy Markowitz Glendale 91207-1829 Please help our environment.

Andrew Hall Glendale 91202-1243

Vicki Wallis Glendale 91201-1264 Why do this? It will be outdated and there are more cost effective green ways to address this problem. Please do not vote for this!
Michael Schwartz Glendale 91205-1420 It's unfathomable that we would move forward with an environmental disaster like this! Katrine Klubien Glendale 91208-1967 We need cleaner energy Armen Heroian Glendale 91208-1271 Natural Gas is the best way to go .we will have Natural gas for years to come . Any other methods are far to costly. Keep the construction going and don
t listen others
Gilbert Cendejas Glendale 91208-1001 Why?? Because I am a born and raised Glendale resident. That should be enough. Glendale is corrupt spends on ridiculous projects that bite them in the aÃ
Ã
later. Check why Yasmin Beers left as City Manager? Why did Steve Zurn retire as head of GWP?? CORRUPTION THATS WHY....

Niko Vertovec Glendale 91202

Ms Patricia Grogan Glendale 91202-1417

Mrs Lauren Martin Glendale 91205-3014

Ms Margaret
Mortimore
Glendale 91208-3510

Mr Dennis Mccoy Glendale 91214-3919 More pollution not a good idea!!! Ms Melinda Stackpoole Glendale 91208-2552

Norman Goss Glendale 91202-1763 Because of the impact of climate change NO MORE NATURAL GAS POWER PLANTS!!!!!!! Shayan Hemmati Glendale 91203-1341

Mrs Sasha Zambrano Glendale 91206-4335 We need to start using and developing new sustainable solutions for energy and stop going back to polluting forms specially when better ways are readily available. We cannot continue thinking in short term solutions when we can clearly see the results of climate change on a daily basis. Please think about the future for all of us.

Mr Justin Lucas Glendale 91208-2815 I live here
Ms Annette
Kargodorian
Glendale 91202-1128

Ms Aaron Angel Glendale 91205-1321 We must move away from non-renewable energy. Please don't make this mistake. LA already has unhealthy air quality please don't make it worse!
Ms Danielle Rayne Glendale 91201-2826 As a Glendale resident I am disappointed we are even remotely considering investing in old dirty energy forms.

Make this a sustainable clean energy plant and you will have my support. 649 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Ms Candace Hodder Glendale 91206-4450 As a resident of Glendale I support increasing energy generation from renewable sources. I don t believe the city
has sufficiently explored alternatives. I oppose repowering Grayson which would lock us into polluting technology for years to come in an area that is in close proximity to schools and daycare centers.

Dr Lisa Finlay Glendale 91207-1729

Irena Varjabedian Glendale 91203-2928

Ms Jan Leath Glendale 91205-3629

Ms Zoe Witt Glendale 91203-1341

Ms Catherine Hennessy Glendale 91204-2738 The air quality in our area is already poor! Heather Parker Glendale 91214-2516 We are struggling as it is with pollution please do not add to it. We deserve clean air.

Mr Carlos Garcia Glendale 91206-4020 This important to me because I have seen the effects of air pollution kill one of my friends and family members that suffer from asthma caused by air pollution.

Sasheh Zadoorian Glendale 91205-1451 We need clean air in Glendale and fiscally responsible energy sources that don't contribute to bad health and global warming.

Tony Testa Glendale 91206-2629 C
mon! Move us towards green energy! Do it for the children! Mrs Anne Arreola Glendale 91208-2627 As a longtime resident of Glendale I strongly encourage you to vote against this plan.. It is moving in exactly the wrong direction for our climate and our goal of clean air.

Kimmy Kertes Glendale 91202-1612 From a fiscal and environmental perspective I strongly oppose the city I grew up in and call home investing my tax dollars in obsolete and dangerous and polluting energy. PLEASE INVEST IN RENEWABLE ENERGY! sierra greninger Glendale 91208-1235 Glendale should be a leader to other cities in the LA county and make a heavier switch to renewables.

Janet Greninger Glendale 91208-1235 Clean renewable energy is what our community (and earth) need.

David Levine Glendale 91208-1148 This is backwards thinking and will only add more pollution.

Jackson Greninger Glendale 91208-1235 Although natural gas may be subsidized much more than renewable energies California must lead by example in the coming years surrounding the topic of climate change and renewable energy. There won't be a change if everyone continues to take the easy route. Let it be known that Glendale stood for the preservation of the Earth not against it.

Ms Michelle Cole Glendale 91204-2255 Our elected/appointed leadership do not do a job for anyone but themselves. This makes them grifting opportunists.

Anthon Tarbinian Glendale 91209-3795

Arpi Keshishian Glendale 91203-3011 I lived in Glendale my whole life and I want to keep Glendale clean and environmentally conscious. For the betterment of Glendale residents and the planet please do not use natural gas!! Mrs Reyko Mori Glendale 91207-1526

Dow Sean Glendale 91206-4925

Mikayla Giden Glendale 91203-1036

Lulu Aguirre Glendale 91206-2119 This matters to me because I want to reverse the effects of climate change. This effects not only the future of people of Glendale but the world.

Ella Beyer Glendale 91208-1913

Meri rose Melkumyan Glendale 91206-3839

Rory Solano Glendale 91206-1924

Joshua Kibler Glendale 91208-3023 Our city shouldn
t be taking us further into the past. Invest into renewables not fossil fuels.

Jody Short Glendale 91207-1844 The City of Glendale should be ahead of the curve not behind it when it comes to fighting climate change.

Leslie Flamenco Glendale 91203-4645

Ms Suzanne Ehrmann Glendale 91207-1004

650 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Celine Malone Glendale 91206-3108 Dear Glendale City Council Please stop the dangerous plan to build more gas power plants. We need clean affordable alternatives that protect the region's air. And our neighborhoods Bridget Green Glendale 91205-1911

Mr Paul Karp Glendale 91202-1103

Erik Kertes Glendale 91202-1612

Louise Clover Glendale 91202-1211 I have lived in Glendale and have seen many many changes over the decades. I want to be proud of our City s
efforts to use renewable energy and combat global warming. In 2022 there is absolutely no reason for these generators to even be part of the discussion. PLEASE don t do this!
Judy Murray Glendale 91206-3017 This proposed project is a step backward and in the wrong direction! There are better cleaner alternatives and this city council knows it. We MUST think about the future of our planet.

Mr Eric Swenson Glendale 91214-3300

Emma Baltazar Glendale 91202-2122 I don
t agree with this plant if our GWP rate will increase because this is another way of milking the hard working residents in Glendale All you care about are the government officials wallet how to collect more money from the residents
Helena Harvilicz Glendale 91205-3818

Shawn Poiley Glendale 91201-1428 I do not want the additional air pollution created by the plant. It will adversely affect my health.

Quincie Neale Glendale 91202-1864

Michael Sutton-Long Glendale 91205-3615 It would be so much easier to invest in a greener technology that would last longer. Let s have a climate policy
Glendale can be proud of.

Malorie Javier Glendale 91205-1081 There
s absolutely NO necessary reason to build a Gas-Fired power-plant in Glendale since renewable energy technology is not only cheaper in the long run but IS the way of our future- finite resources are just that whereas in SoCal we have almost unlimited clear sunny days 365! It s 2022 climate change has happened and is already
affecting us now think of your great-grandchildren and the type of environment they will be living in if we continue to use up ALL of our non-renewable resources? It will literally be harder for them to breathe because their air does not have enough oxygen due to our burning gas & petro not to mention the decreased in rain so

Mr Michael
Jasionowski
Glendale 91202-1146 This is our community. Where our kids will grow up and live. There is no need for this plant. Both the environment and the neighborhood say "No".

Claire N Glendale 91201-3747 I'm a Glendale resident and every day see the level of pollution rise while the amount of green space dwindles.

It is a poor business choice to invest in technology that will quickly become obsolete and I want renewable energy at the forefront of my power sources.

Mr Greg Wiatroski Glendale 91208-1006 I work at WDI and am concerned about air quality. I think we can do better that gas power.

Hana Pape Glendale 91203-1020 we are all sick of breathing terrible air. absolutely ridiculous waste of money. i refuse to have an aliso canyon leak where i live!
Teri Cusumano Glendale 91201-2609 I live in Glendale and have young children. I would like to have them grow in a healthy environment. We already struggle with pollution in this area. Let
s not make it worse!
Tracey Carlisle Glendale 91202-2175

Ben Shiffrin Glendale 91202-3523 I just moved into Glendale because I thought your schools - specifically your foreign language programs - looked outstanding. Now I find out that there's a power plant spewing fumes toward a central hub of schools.

Please shut this down.
651 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Tamara Anghie Glendale 91206-3042 My neighborhood is very leafy and clean. It is the home to numerous animals including deer coyote hawks and many other birds. Preserving our habitat with clean air and clean energy is a must for now and for future generations. Please pursue clean energy alternatives. Thank you.

Daria Marinelli Glendale 91204-2888 I believe in CA as the vanguard of climate - we do not need this power and we need our global climate. Please make a decision that reflects the views of your voters.

Michael Yank Glendale 91201-2504 As the father of three young daughters living in Glendale I ask that you please reconsider this project as I worry about its impact to their health and future.

Carol Holst Glendale 91205-4930 Although Glendale City Council asked GWP to pursue technologies and distributed renewable energy resources to reduce the need for gas generation at Grayson GWP has not issued Requests for Proposals for new local clean energy projects since 2018. I am an environmentalist and this issue matters to me greatly. Please do not approve the project as is - Glendale needs more clean energy! Pablo Selener Glendale 91208-2206 I wanted to communicate my strong opposition to adding any more non -green power generation in Glendale. I find it unacceptable to fund any power programs unless they're ecologically acceptable. We can't keep making global warming and air pollution worse! New energy should be clean and using renewable sources. We're not in the 20th century anymore. Again I'm vehemently opposed to this project.

Mr Anthony
Baumgartner
Glendale 91208-2313 We need clean energy in Glendale anything less the 100% clean energy would not be a success. 90 -100 MW gas- burning generation is the wrong solution. Sincerely Anthony Baumgartner Matthew Vis Glendale 91201-1112

Mrs Joanna Kenney Glendale 91202-1859 I have a house in Glendale and I want to be safe. Please support solar power which is much cleaner and safer.

Chase Heinrich Glendale 91202-2611

Ms Liz Barillas Glendale 91201-1637

Rebecca Sorcini Glendale 91208-2238

Annette Goldbaum Glendale 91206-3820

Ms Cecily Rhett Glendale 91208-1506

Heather Parker Glendale 91214-2516

Mr Daniel Homan Glendale 91208-1621

Mr Oliver Scott Glendale 91203-1305

Sami Klebanoff Glendale 91208-2246 Please consider all possible alternatives to natural gas construction. We need to prevent climate change and more sources of clean energy.

Vincent Oresman Glendale 91206-1632

Walter Booth Glendale 91214-4308

Ms Joanne Hedge Glendale 91201-2716

Stephanie Witte Glendale 91207-1610 I am a property owner and want my community to move towards clean energy alternatives. I do not support this proposedproject
Maricela Hurtado Glendale 91201-2739 Creating an environmentally sustainable option for our community will benefit all including the future of your own efforts.

Danielle Schultz Glendale 91201-2826

Ms Joanne Hedge Glendale 91201-2716

Ms Joanne Hedge Glendale 91201-2716

Michelle Tritten Glendale 91201 I am a Glendale resident who supports clean affordable alternatives that protect the region's air and our climate! Ms Joanne Hedge Glendale 91201-2716

652 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Nicole Carrico Jackson Glendale 91201-2724 We moved to the Riverside Rancho because we were looking for a safe and supportive environment in which to start our family. We need to protect and improve this city not subject it to wasteful destructive outdated technology that will squander our money and risk our children s health! The city needs to focus on providing
clean affordable energy solutions.

Mrs Jennifer Goss Glendale 91202-1744 At this time of Code Red for our planet I feel you have not tried hard enough to find alternatives to gas burning generators. Fracking is detestable in its overuse and pollution of our precious water resources and gas storage and infrastructure is also aging and in question. Like you I know there are needs for times of peak energy use.

But let
s creatively explore all options before going ahead on Grayson.

Ms Joanne Hedge Glendale 91201-2716 The future for Glendale residents and my family. I live within less of a mile away. The planet does not need this either. There are better ways.

Kat Popovic Glendale 91206-3320 We should be moving to new renewable energy sources in Glendale.

Mr Richard Friese Glendale 91206-1221 Time to start doing these projects correctly .... NO. NO Ms M Isabel Medina Glendale 91205-2516

Ms Stephanie Brown Glendale 91201-2826

Mr David Clark Glendale 91202-1416 As a thirty year resident of Glendale I am proud to call myself a Glendalian. I want to feel the same way in the future knowing that my city is part of the solution to global climate change by using green energy and not part of the problem by using fossil fuels for our energy needs. Future generations of Glendalians will thanks us and be proud of our city if we make the right decisions today. patricia walters Glendale 91207-2056 I want cleaner alternatives to natural gas.

Holly Williams Glendale 91208-1734

Diana Matsushima Glendale 91208-2024

Mr David Eisenberg Glendale 91206-2275 Glendale is overstating its need for power to cover a scenario that has never happened. But even if you believe GWP's figures they would only require 2 Wasilla engines not 5. The failure to adjust the plan to real life data implies there are clean energy actions that can replace all of the engines.

Mrs Susan Goldberg Glendale 91202-1301 I don
t want a neighbor hood that makes children ill.

Ms Helen Porter Glendale 91206-3018

Ms Elizabeth Vitanza Glendale 91208-2022 There are schools and neighborhoods near Grayson. Our children deserve clean air. Please be responsible with our tax dollars - don't build the last polluting gas plant in California.

Ms Joanne Hedge Glendale 91201-2716 I live a mile away from Grayson power plant. I don t see any reason why you want to invest in fossil fuels when in 2035 we will not be able to use these expensive generators you are planning on installing due to new climate change legislation in CA. This is a waste of taxpayer money and bad for our community. I am asking you to invest instead and green alternatives.

Stephanie Miller Glendale 91201-3318 Our air and water is already polluted by the traffic and number of smokers here. Please don't make it worse.

Install solar panels on top of all the buildings instead.

Patrick Dinan Glendale 91205-3636 We are simply running out of time and can't afford more carbon in our atmosphere. Please consider all clean energy alternatives. Thank you.

Erik Hovland Glendale 91207-1240 As a 25 year resident of Glendale I recognize that the climate crisis is here and Glendale has an opportunity to do something about the climate crisis and leap forward when using clean energy. Please do not approve the usage of ICE generators.

Joemy Wilson Glendale 91202-2056 I live a mile from this plant. There are many children in this area. I feel very sad for them; their health is at risk. We need clean energy!
653 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Xochitl Ruiz Glendale 91206-4220 Please reject the Grayson Power Plant Repowering. Glendale residents need and deserve invest ments into cleaner energy. Why should we pay hundreds of millions of dollars now for something that will become obsolete in a few years? This will end up costing the city and its residents more money in the long run. Please INVEST in CLEAN ENERGY NOW.

Stephanie Schus Glendale 91207-1270 This is important in our city and state as it works to be fully on clean energy on or (ideally) before 2045. There are so many new and innovative developments in the energy field it is crazy not to put our tax dollars to take advantage of them instead of wasting our money on old technology (i.e. natural gas construction) that we know is polluting.

Cynthia Gonzalez Glendale 91206-4250 Please invest in the future instead of throwing away our money on old dirty energy! Mr an David Rose Glendale 91201-1135 As an asthmatic a solar customer a citizen of Glendale and a human being I am sensitive to air quality green energy demands municipal investments and protecting the planet for future generations. I recognize that energy technology is in flux right now and I am deeply concerned that GWP is not properly considering the long-term future of natural gas vis-a-vis renewable energy sources. I am concerned about the misguided investment of a large gas plant at this particular time.

Mrs Dawn Rose Glendale 91201-1135 I live within 2 miles of this project and want to be sure that Glendale invests in wise energy sources that will not

Laura Siskoff Glendale 91206-4249 While the initiative and portfolio chosen are better than those amongst the first choices presented in 2019 it seems that GWP can push a little further and try to lean off gas altogether. Although most utility companies are afraid of weening off fossil fuels when looking at the grand scheme of things even if there potentially could be a chance of a power outage with relying heavily on renewable resources this outcome is still at a greater chance of lessening the continued heat to rise in the atmosphere which leads to the climate crisis. The United Nations called code red for humanity I think it is extremely important to consider and look at the bigger picture in realizing a potential chance of power outage to human existence altogether. I think I would have the former rather than the latter. Plus this is an extreme opportunity for Glendale to be cutting-edge and on the other side of innovation. The city needs to have more faith and trust in its research resources and in itself.

Susan Dicato Glendale 91202-1112

Jackie Gish Glendale 91206-3110 Reducing natural gas-fired engines and turbines at Grayson will reduce Glendale's impact on air quality and greenhouse gases and will allow Glendale to use the money for clean energy s olutions.

David & Sally Schnitger Glendale 91201-1219

W. G. Glendale 91209-0001 If you can't get enough renewable energy all at once repair the existing gas facilities until you can have more renewables. Do not demolish the historic structures built in 1941. That would add to the environmentally harmful decision to use more gas. You will throw away embodied energy in the existing structures add waste to landfills use more energy and materials used to build new structures - all for no reason. The greenest solution is to keep using what you have and add more renewable energy.

Allen Fogle Glendale 91203 My fiancé and I live just a few blocks away from the Grayson plant. We re hoping to start a family soon and are
worried about pollution from the plant.

Elizabeth Van Dyke GLENDALE 91203 I live less than a mile from this plant and I am afraid of the possible health consequences of air pollution from these new natural gas generators. We should not be risking my health my family s health and my neighbors

health for the bottom line. We the neighbors deserve clean energy sources and that must be the number one priority for a health community and a healthy planet.

Margie Liu Glendale 91201 Newer tech should be considered like solar 654 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Irena Stathis Glendale 91201 I am a resident of Glendale and have lived here for over a decade. My business and family are here and I am raising my children here as well. One of the things I value the most about this community is the access to natural areas like our local Verdugo Mountains and Griffith Park. Living in Los Angeles there is a cost for the year-round fine weather and that is the poor air quality and traffic. It would be such a shame to add to this issue polluting the air more than it already is for all the people that live here. And in this era with climate change no longer an impending issue but something we are currently facing on a global scale. Please consider the health and well-being of the residents of this area especially all the families and children. It is not only unfair but it is just wrong to do this to this community. Help us preserve our sweet community instead of making it dirtier and unhealthier.

Ms Linda Sturges Glendale 91202-1679 The new gas turbines at Grayson are costly would worsen our air quality and increase global warming emissions and would be a missed opportunity to invest in the health and well-being of our communities. Glendale needs to be a leader in conservation and clean environmental issues.

Arlene Vidor Glendale 91205 Please reduce gas from 93 MW down signficantly! This is the most unne cessary and expensive 'insurance policy' in the history of pollution. Stop gas at Grayson!
Alison Miller Glendale 91203 We need to begin thinking ten Twenty years from now. We need to begin using green resources that make sense for our future and our future generation.

Manel Saddique Glendale 91208 I
ve resided in Glendale for 46 years. My father has been a business owner in Glendale even longer. It s awful
that Glendale City Council has forced business owners to use incompetent and rude Athens for our trash pick up (half the time they don
breathe toxic air amongst a climate crises? All if the city council needs to be voted out because you all continue to vite against the best interests of Glendale residents and business owners. I remember 35 years ago when Glendale used to repave ALL of Colina Drive ONCE PER YEAR. Now it hasn t been repaved in over 20 years and
looks like a third-world country despite exorbitant property taxes! The Glendale City Council keeps proving again and again that they hate Glendale! For shame! You are all corrupt greedy and lazy ignoramuses. Shame on you all!
Mr Bob Thompson Montrose 91020-1751 Fossil fuels are outdated and dirty. Please let Glendale have cleaner air for those who hike and bike in our great city.

Ms Betsy Burcham Montrose 91020-1303 Glendale should not construct a natural gas power plant. It should be looking into ways to use cl ean energy.

Randy Nichols Montrose 91020-1332 We are making big strides to transition to clean energy. This is absolutely the wrong time to invest in dirty energy that will be soon obsolete and also trigger much more costly measures down the road to undue the environmental damage it does. It is much more cost effective to keep fossil fuel in the ground than to try later to remove it from the atmosphere and capture it with heroic measures -- why would we do such a self-defeating economically disastrous action? Furthermore I don't want a dirty energy source close to me as it will concentrate the harmful effects in my vicinity. Please kill this backwards non-sensical harmful project before it sentences our children to a toxic environment and the burden of costly remediation as climate change wreaks havoc on their lives.

Ms Roberta Medford Montrose 91020-1723 Fossil fuel burning must stop now if we are to prevent a climate catastrophe. Not a little not just in case not just cluding natural gas must stop now. I look to all of my City of Glendale leaders to do the right thing and vote down any more natural gas burning or infrastructure by the Glendale Water and Power.

Mr Burt Culver Montrose 91020-1303 It is financially irresponsible to finance new fossil fuel power that will become a stranded asset before it is even paid off.

Daniel McCoy Montrose 91020-1211

655 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mrs Dena Kelley Montrose 91020-1837 Please choose our community. Stop taking those checks and think of our children s future. Think of OUR
immediate future as well! What I learned from Standing Rock is that these pipelines always break/leak the oil companies make more money of insurance claims when they do and people are getting sick all around the world. Let
s stop gaslighting our children! PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING and PROTECT THE LAND AND THE PEOPLE ON IT!
Mr Ralph Nichols Montrose 91020-1367 Everything I have heard about this project makes me think it is throwing good money after bad and it is not in line with moving away from fossil fuels. Just not a good idea we should kill it before it kills us.

Susanne Nelson Montrose 91020-1703

Jessica Amit Montrose 91020-1132

Dawn Duran Glendale 91202

Michael Vensky Acton 93510-1562 We’ve gone solar here in Acton. Los Angeles has turned Griffith Park into a giant garbage dump. We do not need more pollution to fuel the climate change that your power plant will have to deal with. Don’t just go down the same old dirty road be original be green think about the future. I grew up in Burbank and have a business there. I then seventies we used to have smog alerts. Now we have extreme weather. Propane is a bridge technology not a solution we need less of it not more.

Mr Ricardo Wheeler Acton 93510-2141

Ms Taryn Braband Agoura 91301-2937

Mr Craig Reardon Agoura Hills 91301-2228 The day of fossil fuels is OVER and DONE. It’s killing us. Let’s kill it before it kills us entirely! Rich Quintana Agoura Hills 91301-1932

Barbara Biglow Agoura Hills 91301-1401 Please don’t continue to harm our environment. Change needs to star now. More pollution and gas power plants is going in the wrong direction. Make change now. Climate damage help! Mr Iqbal Karar Agoura Hills 91301-3647 Please keep our air clean.

Ms Colleen
Fitzgerald-Hjelle
Agoura Hills 91301-1619 We don’t need more pollution in The Ali’s Angeles area! Do not build this gas plant in a Glendale! Rich Quintana Agoura Hills 91301-1932

Cheryl Kacskos Agua Dulce 91390-5427 Stop pollution. Use wind and solar properly.

David Soto Agua Dulce 91390-4665

Ms Laura Dill Albany 94706-1525

Mr Alec Taratula Alhambra 91801-2272

Mee Har Tom Alhambra 91803-1607 Stop the proposed gas power plant. Please support clean energy. I have lived in the San Gabriel valley my entire life. I remember the old days when our skies were orange/black and our air difficult to breathe. I don’t live in Glendale but your decision affects our entire communities in the SG valley.

Ms Ann Nguyen Alhambra 91801-2002

Mr George Inashvili Aliso Viejo 92656-2827

Ms Nancy Zilly Aliso Viejo 92656-6265

Mr Jegou Julien Aliso Viejo 92656-2111

Ms Rachel Kohn Alta Loma 91701-4819

Miss Catherine Eng Alta Loma 91737-2112

656 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mr Larry Taylor Alta Loma 91701-2014 We absolutely positively unconditionally do not need this. Please please do anything but! Mrs Sally Beer Altadena 91001-4507

Mr Gregg Oelker Altadena 91001-4109

Ms Heather Vaughan Altadena 91001-4741 Why would you? Who gains???? Vic Bostock Altadena 91001-1819

Mrs Mina Chassler Altadena 91001-4412 Toxins like this in the air will impact our children’s lungs and lead to higher rates of asthma.

Ms Elisabeth
Quishenberry
Altadena 91001-4425

Mrs Ellen Levy Altadena 91001-2307 I live in nearby Altadena. It is of utmost importance to me and all the hundreds of thousands of people who are neighbors of the City of Glendale that the City of Glendale be a good neighbor to all of us.

Dr A. Srinivasan Altadena 91001-3768

Catherine Ridder Altadena 91001-1644

Ms Lisa Mcdaniel Altadena 91001-4346 We have more than enough pollution already this is unnecessary and jeopardizes community health and long term climate goals.

Mrs Katherine
Perkins
Altadena 91001-4931 I lived in Glendale for 10 years we attend church in the city and my daughter is in preschool in Glendale.

We love this city. Please work towards improving its future not endangering it.

Ms Traci Esslinger Altadena 91001-3831

Sean Heim Altadena 91001-3831 As an adjacent neighbor this matter concerns me greatly. Surely there are more sustainable options available.

Ms Alice Kï¿?nitz Altadena 91001-3038

Ms Lisa Preston Altadena 91001-1418

Ms Kristen Zolner Altadena 91001-3711 I have toddlers and care about our local environmental health.

Adam Garfio Altadena 91001-3529 Hi I really do hope that you are considering alternatives to the natural gas construction at Grayson. I understand the need for energy but I we cannot go backwards as a society but instead plan for a healthy and clean future. Since I live close by I am worried about pollution from this plant and want to be sure more than enough due diligence has been done by the company or organization reviving the old plant if there are no alternatives.

Mrs Barbara Ishida Altadena 91001-5164 Our planet is dying. Why would you consider adding to the cancer that is killing us all? We need to get off fossil fuels and get off them now not perpetuate them. Instead we need to invest in sustainable energy like every roof top parking garage and storage place needs solar panels. Plant native plants.

Bring down water and store carbon in the earth. There are so many positive alternatives. Please don't continue doing what is really not working.

Ms Susan Callery Altadena 91001-4927 The climate crisis is here and we are rapidly heading to a 1.5 degree C increase in global mean surface temperature. We cannot continue to expand the use of coal oil and natural gas. If you have children or grandchildren please think of their futures!
Machiko Yasuda Altadena 91001-1447

657 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Jane Potelle Altadena 91001-4566 Don't invest in more dirty energy. The LA Basin already has some of the worst air quality in the country.

And with the 5 14 and the 2 freeways next to the Grayson Power Plant Glendale will be polluting its residents for the next 20 years. Furthermore we're in a climate crisis that EVERYONE needs to find ways to REDUCE GAS. Glendale has yet to pursue commercial rooftop solar and other clean energy projects.

Employ more clean energy projects before investing in new gas!!! Mr Daniel Macgregor Altadena 91001-5801 We in LA County don’t need more fossil fuels and more dangerous wells. We need site cleanup and transitioning to green energy.

Ms Mary Holquin Anaheim 92804-2316 Why this matters to me is my desire to breath clean air; Simple as that.

Christine Ney Anaheim 92807-4946

Mrs Yolanda Trujillo Anaheim 92807-4404

Tim Maurer Anaheim 92808-1619

Mr Dennis Daigle Antioch 94531-7117

Mrs Roberta
Marquez
Arcadia 91006-4631 This is important to me because we need to move AWAY from dirty energy and TOWARD clean alternatives that protect our planet NOT pollute it!
Ms Michelle
Scatchard
Arcadia 91006-1728 We must keep our environment safe . Please do not create hazardous conditions J P Arcata 95521-8206

Susan Warren Atherton 94027-3902

Mr Noah Mabon Atwater 95301-4243

Ms Lori Wilson-
Hopkins
Auburn 95603-5913

Mr Donn Christensen Azusa 91702-6281

Mrs Silvia Rocha Azusa 91702-1883

Ms Diane Carson-
Huff
Azusa 91702-4301

Clark Rico Baldwin Park 91706-5509 We are choking off the only planet we have at a damning rate as it is. Enough is enough.

Ms Leticia Rodriguez Bell 90201-1522

Ms Jan Sownie Bellflower 90706-5857

Ms Jan Sownie Bellflower 90706-5857

Mr Jason Nolasco Bellflower 90706-4111

Ms Diana Bohn Berkeley 94707-1726

Ms Mary Mc Manus Berkeley 94709-1837

Regina Stefaniak Berkeley 94708-1902

Mr Robert Villasenor
Iii
Beverly Hills 90212-1625

658 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Ms Melyssa
Rodriguez
Beverly Hills 90212-1823 California leads the way on embracing forward thinking policies and we cannot afford to back track now. Climate change is staring us in the face here and regressing back to last century technologies is not responsible governing and will not serve us and especially not our children well. The short-term savings will not mean much when it comes back to haunt us. Please find better ways to move forward that won’t shoot us all in the foot tomorrow.

Christy Kemp Beverly Hills 90212-1625

Peter Nielsen Beverly Hills 90212

Ms Diane Devine Beverly Hills 90210-5810 We need to leave a healthy planet and breathable air for our children and their grandchildren Victor Guerin Beverly Hills 90210

Mr Harrison
Baseman
Beverly Hills 90210-3401

Mr Ken Rosen Beverly Hills 90212-2275

Mr Marc Sierra Beverly Hills 90212-3851

Jane Ross Beverly Hills 90210-2519

Ken Rosen Beverly Hills 90212-2275

Kathleen Shada Boulder
Creek
95006-8911

Mrs Arlynn & Steve
Bottomley
Brea 92821-5432

Mr Nelson Molina Buena Park 90620-2148

Ms Barbara Christian Buena Park 90621-3502

Mrs Kristin Young Buena Park 90620-2804 The environment is essential to all life. We need to protect it as much as we can. Please protect and not destroy our environment for a quick fix.

Mr Glenn Mullins Buena Park 90620-1269

Silva Gyuloglyan Burbank 91501-1542

Mrs Laura Herndon Burbank 91505-4313

Mr Joseph Braus Burbank 91501-1615

PIPER OVERBAUGH Burbank 91505-2806 The financial concerns behind repowering the Grayson gas plant: The Grayson project will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The main rationale for adding this energy capacity is to meet “reserve” requirements—in essence to insure against situations where other power sources go down like a downed transmission line. Once the new equipment is installed GWP proposes to use it only 15% of the time to cover peak demand. This is incredibly expensive insurance and a lot of money to spend for equipment that will sit idle most of the time. GWP plans to offset at least some of these costs by selling the gas plant’s energy to other cities. There are cleaner and more affordable ways to meet or reduce Glendale’s energy needs. Plus this technology may well be obsolete or legally prohibited long before the end of its useful lifetime. Instead we could invest in technology that can last for the long term.

Miss Lauren Winn Burbank 91501-2412

659 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
A D Burbank 91506-1949

Fiona Landers Burbank 91505-3014

Mr Gene Paulin Burbank 91505-3247 Glendale needs to take action to combat the climate crisis and fight pollution. I am a stakeholder in Glendale. I have lived in Glendale at one time have a lot of friends in Glendale and continue to shop in Glendale. Please consider all alternatives to nature gas like solar on all of Glendale roof tops with battery back-up and conservation.

Andrea Evart Burbank 91504-2214

marlo Flanagan Burbank 91505-3123

Mr Thomas Saito Burbank 91501-1507

Mr Ryan Davis Burbank 91502-1873

Fiona Landers Burbank 91505-3014

Ms Denise VanZago Burbank 91506-1932 This is a bad idea. Why choose gas power? I live next door in Burbank. No one needs the resultant pollution. Thank you.

Mrs Karen Spiegel Burbank 91501-1438 Fossil fuels are yesterday’s energy - it is long past time to switch to clean renewable sources. Help lead the way!
Ms Nadja Bonacina Burbank 91504-1626

Mr Simon Holden Burbank 91505-1412 Makes no sense to continue to delay the transition to renewables.

Erika Gomez
Barcenas
Burbank 91505-2646

Mr William Mead Burbank 91505-1538

Geneva Bethel Burbank 91504-1913

Jennie Blackton Burbank 91506-2137

Ms Artineh Havan Burbank 91501-2529

Simone Bethel Burbank 91504-1913

Ms Anna Lemaster Burbank 91506-1338 I’m a concerned citizen who lives in nearby in Burbank. This decision will continue to impact climate change. Please reconsider alternative methods. Thank you!! Jamie Malvin Burbank 91504-1136 It is difficult to understand why the City of Glendale is considering such old technology for its power generation. As I live next door to your city I would urge you to review newer technologies for a system that will be around years into the future. You have a duty to do your part to reduce fossil fuel emissions and keep the skies clean for all of us in Southern California. Please reconsider your poorly conceived plan!
Ms Sandra
Christopher
Burbank 91505-1856

Ms Donna Pioli Burbank 91510-1525

Mrs Jean Sinclair Burbank 91501-1664 Is Glendale ignorant of Science???? No more pollution emitting projects!! Mr Regalado Geoff Burbank 91503-4183

A D Burbank 91506-1949

David Moore Burbank 91505-2503 The time to end fossil fuels is NOW. Please prioritize clean energy. 660 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
David Newman Burbank 91506-2717 We deserve investment in clean energy alternatives not further pollution and destruction of our environment.

Analisa Swan Burbank 91504-1841

Ms Amie Serio Burbank 91506-2025

Ms Frances Alet Calabasas 91302-3408 Decisions like this should be made with climate change in mind. We should be moving forward not backwards. Transitions can be difficult but at some point the decision must be made to move to cleaner energy if we're genuine about wanting to combat climate change.

Ron Season Calabasas 91302-5157

Lisa Bloom Calabasas 91302-1990 Protecting our environment for our children and grandchildren is everything! Mr Matthew Reid Calistoga 94515-1737

Mr Richard Iverson Camarillo 93012-7429

Mr Christopher Nial Camarillo 93012-4058 I have often driven down to Glendale Galleria to enjoy your happy Healthy CITY!!! I WOULD SERIOUSLY

HATE FOR A FEW IDIOTS IN YOUR CITY COUNCIL TO REALLY FUCK THIS ALL UP RIGHT NOW OR THE NEXT 50 DAMDED YEARS!!! BEING GREEDY ONLY CAUSES EVERYONE TO LOOSE YOU COMPLETE IDIOTS!!! MONEY ISN'T THE FUCKING ANSWER HERE PEOPLE!!! GET YOUR GREEDY HEADS OUTTA YOUR ASS PLEASE!!! SIR CHRISTOPHER EDWARD NIAL
Ms L Depew Camarillo 93012-5174

Mrs Pam Griffin Camarillo 93012-8919

Mr Robert Jensen Camarillo 93012-4090 Switch from fossil fuels to renewable energy immediately.

Mr Juan Venegas Camarillo 93012-9185 I am a teacher in Port Hueneme and we had a power plant close to one of our schools. That school had the highest incidence of health problems and school absences in the district. Please think about the children in your community before you make this decision which may have long term negative impacts to their health.

Mr Mike Breidegam Canoga Park 91304-5525

Mr Christopher
Wong
Canoga Park 91303-2842

Ms Karen O'Rourke Canoga Park 91304-1005

Jennifer Miller Canoga Park 91309-0693 Do NOT put Repowering in Glendale. NO on natural gas generators.

Ms Maureen
Gallagher
Canyon
Country
91387-1706

Ms Lisa Phenix Carmichael 95608-6250

ROMONA WILLIAMS Carson 90746-1829

Felicia Tacto Carson 90745-3019

Mr Supun Edirisinghe Carson 90746-3908 We don't need to start putting more methane into the air. We need to keep fossil fuels out of the air as much as possible
Ms Shannon Keifner Chatsworth 91311-4745

Miss Stacy Sharber Chico 95928-6339

Ms Sharon Fritsch Chico 95928-7267

661 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mrs Maria Rodriguez Chino Hills 91709-1440

Ms Helen Burney Chino Hills 91709-2954

Nancy Petersen Claremont 91711-1562

Mr Rudolph Avila-
Garcia
Claremont 91711-4586

Ms Grace
Morsberger
Claremont 91711-3505

Tim Cox Claremont 91711-2325

Maiedell ROse Claremont 91711-6207 They are already talking about replacing gas stoves with electric or solar powered ones. Why do we need another polluting gas plant? That makes no sense!! Ms Marilyn Rudin Claremont 91711-3500

Mr Gus Gil Claremont 91711-2412 Air quality affects us all. Anything that degrades it is no good.

Mr David Warlick Claremont 91711-3419 WE MUST GET SERIOUS ABOUT THIS!! Mr Sandra Garcia Compton 90220-4220

Kimberly Barsenas Compton 90221-2412

Mr Elgin Trammell Compton 90221-4621

William Camacho Compton 90221-2512 Less air pollution = less birth defects: particularly lung defects.

Max Pricco Concord 94519-2428

Ms Heidi Bean Corona 92879-1946

Ivan Avila Corona 92882-8011 My family deserves clean air! Tonya Cockrell Corona 92882-3794

Ms Jan Sandgren Corvallis 97330-6008 Climate change is real. Stop procrastinating with outdated and expensive polluting gas plant expansion.

Don’t stick us with this high price tag. I thought this was already tabled once. Glendale air already stinks. Gas plant emissions are no joke and we don’t want it. City council better listen again a second time. No no no.

Ms Felicia Bander Costa Mesa 92626-8317 Climate change is affecting us ALL nowadays; it is HIGH TIME that we got SERIOUS about transitioning to clean renewable energy. Methane gas is not clean; it is an extreme greenhouse gas.

Ms Diana Koeck Costa Mesa 92626-1759

Mr Darrell Neft Costa Mesa 92626-2324

Fernando Zavala Costa Mesa 92626-1927

lauren zilly Costa Mesa 92627-3705

Mrs Marian Smith Costa Mesa 92627-7319

Ms Suzanne Bradley Costa Mesa 92626-2246 I grew up in the San Fernando Valley (North Hollywood) and currently spend about two weekends per month in Burbank. Air quality in the Valley has improved since I was a child in the 50's and early 60's and as I hike regularly in the Verdugo Hills I would very much hope to see that trend continue.

Especially in light of the climate crisis we face planet-wide I ask you to consider more aggressively climate friendly solutions for the Grayson site.

Scot Spelyng Costa Mesa 92627-1806 We don’t need it. Green light renewables red light fossil fuel infrastructure. 662 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Stephanie Walkowiak Costa Mesa 92627-4033

Mr Darrell Neft Costa Mesa 92626-2324

Ms Priscilla Rocco Costa Mesa 92626-2012 Since this will only be used 15% of the time it is folly to spend money on old technology that pollutes and exacerbates climate change. Build for the future. Stop the corporate greed!!!!!! Matt Austin Costa Mesa 92626-4850 Fuck you!
Ms Rachelle Cox Costa Mesa 92627-1537

Stephanie Walkowiak Costa Mesa 92627-4033

Dr Catherine
Benamou
Costa Mesa 92627-4630

Mr Jeremiah Johnson Costa Mesa 92626-8173 Please reconsider placing a power plant which burns gas and produces harmful byproducts directly in the middle of one of the most populated areas. Instead please seek alternatives in the surrounding areas which are not so populated or consider a plant over the ocean if it must be built. Wave energy solar energy gravitational energy all viable solutions which leave a smaller carbon footprint. Consider supporting build back better with a plan to do on-bill financing where solar panels can be installed to houses generating surplus energy to be sold by the owner back to the grid. The bill for the hardware will be paid to the power company and the city could make profit off of subsidizing the program. Win win win win situation.

Ms Carol Colclasure Costa Mesa 92627-1812

Mr Darrell Neft Costa Mesa 92626-2324

Anne G Covina 91722-2850 Stop polluting our air
Brianna Acuesta Covina 91722-2912

Mr Richard Scobey Covina 91722-2845

Mr M Robert
Wilkerson
Covina 91723-5062

Ms Stacey Johnson Covina 91722-1133

Ms Stacey Johnson Covina 91722-1133 We inhabitants of Earth need to protect Earth and all who dwell here! Glendale should prioritize solar and step into clean power. We can't continue to go backwards when it comes to environment time is of the essence!!!!
Mr Mark Hensley Culver City 90232-3448 There is no planet B so don't base your decisions on short sided thinking Stephanie Vaughn Culver City 90232-1382 With wind solar and other alternative energy resources there isn’t any need to reopen the Glendale gas power plants. New energy new job. Thank you.

Myra Ryman Culver City 90230-4222

Ms Jo Ellen Young Culver City 90230-4113

Ms Allyson Haser Culver City 90232-2317

Ms Margaret
Meinschein
Culver City 90232-3412 At a time of increasing climate disaster and pollution why would you approve of this misguided plan to build more gas power plants? Please put yourselves on the right path for the earth and fight climate change!
Abby Cregor Culver City 90230-5481

663 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mrs Eliane Wilk Culver City 90230-5949

Mr Max Aronson Culver City 90232-3001

Ms Mee Vaj Cypress 90630-5480 I want clean air.

Mr Ben Pridonoff Dana Point 92629-2336

Ms Sherrill Futrell Davis 95618-5421 PATHETIC. Glendale doesn’t need to build new gas turbines.

Mr James Dawson Davis 95618-6741

Olivia Mullen Davis 95616-3936 Glendale is a beautiful one-of-a-kind city. Please don't make it dangerous and a large climate change contriubuter.

Mrs Marilyn Eng Diamond Bar 91765-1747 No more gas plants!!! I live in the LA area. Keep our air clean!! Thank you.

Mr Peter Mcnall Diamond Bar 91765-2263 Please advance to the clean energy of the 21st Century. Think ahead not backward.

Miss Abril Calderon Downey 90241-2828

Mrs Sarah Sismondo Duarte 91010-2186

Tanya Salof Duarte 91009-4812 Enough stupidity from stupid humans !! My God ! Joe Smith El Cajon 92020-3909

Joe Smith El Cajon 92020-3909

Mr Joshua Gutier El Monte 91732-1037

Ms Sandy Funk El Segundo 90245-4814 This affects ALL of us not the just rich poor black or white but ALL of us and you need to start protecting the climate if not for yourself for your kids. Although I am beginning to see that most parents and grandparent don't seem to care about their children's future as long as there is money!!! Money will not protect climate disasters nope! Like the virus climate issues doesn't pick and choose!!!! Soooooooooo tire of this "kicking the problem down the road" for today's gain when does that stop and actual action take place because the climate sure isn't' waiting for us to do something about it now or the next generation!!!!!!
Ms Felicia Chase Encino 91436-2733

Ms Hillary Ostrow Encino 91316-1013 This proposal is a serious threat to the climate and air quality in the Los Angeles region. Gas plants not only contribute to local air pollution they cost customers hundreds of millions of dollars in the long run while fossil fuel companies profit. We need clean clean energy not fossil fuel energy.

Mr Maurice Edwards Encino 91316-2529

Andrew Russell Encino 91316-1434

Claire Newman Encino 91436-1042

Mr Larry Steen Encino 91436-1112

Mr Matthew Brewer Encino 91436-1004

Mr Steve and Carol
Jacobs
Etiwanda 91739-2377

Ms Sharon Hafner Eureka 95503-9773

Ms Diana Schmidt Fallbrook 92028-9104

Benjamin Billhardt Fontana 92337-8953

664 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mr Charles Warner Fontana 92337-0433

Mr Ralph Bocchetti Fontana 92337-9077

Mr Ralph Bocchetti Fontana 92337-9077

Mrs Judy Walden Foothill
Ranch
92610-1740 Don’t mess with Mother Nature!! If you do she will bite you in the BUTT….. pollution toxic air fires cancer plethora of health problems What would Jesus do
Ms Priyanka Bhakta Fountain
Valley
92708-5635

Mrs Cheryl Albert Freedom 95019-2708

Mr Christopher Ware Fremont 94539-6850

Mr Kent Morris Fullerton 92831-2262

Ms Winifred Hopkins Fullerton 92833-2309

Chris Berens Fullerton 92831-3008

Mr Kent Morris Fullerton 92831-2262

Mr Evan Mc Dermit Fullerton 92832-1110

Mr Kent Morris Fullerton 92831-2262

Mr Tristan Dunker Garden Grove 92845-2228

Renee Robles Garden Grove 92843-2741

Mr Long Do Garden Grove 92843-3629 The gases will pollute the air in LA area Ms Kelly Kramer Garden Grove 92840-1716

Ms Deborah Burge Garden Valley 95633-9515

Ms Deborah Burge Garden Valley 95633-9515

Laurie Williams Gardena 90249-5902

Joshua Rosales Gardena 90249-4005 We should be investing in renewable energies. As we keep seeing these dependencies on gas and oil are not only increasing climate change but the plants themselves often produce calamitous environmental disasters as well.

Ms Gail Watanabe Gardena 90248-3259 It is an outdated fuel that hurts our environment. We are switching to less harmful ways to fuel so new harmful sources should Not be done!
JC Zhao Glendora 91741-2507

Nico Brucue Glendora 91740-6123

Erin Mccune Goleta 93117-2157

Ms Lisa Hammermei Granada Hills 91344-2857 We need to move toward the future not stay in the past with proven polluting energy.

Ms Inna Gergel Granada Hills 91344-3510 We need to move toward renewable energy. You are going backwards.

Dr Leigh Clark Granada Hills 91344-6858 Natural gas is a dying and dirty industry. Look what it did over here in Porter Ranch. Glendale should lead the way with renewable energy and it certainly can do that. Thank you for thinking outside the traditional corporate box and choosing green energy.

S. Swink Granada Hills 91344-4805 We must stop further expansion and accommodation for plants like this if we expect to pass on to our children and their children a safe and clean environment. Please don't build this. 665 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mr Theodore Snyder Granada Hills 91344-1062

Ms Marcy Meadows Graton 95444-9304

Barbara Jean Avery Guerneville 95446 Climate chaos is real and playing out right now. It is imperative to invest in clean renewable energy right now. To support building a 93-megawatt fossil fuel power plant is negligent and criminal. The future of the a livable planet depends on decisions made right now. Renewable energy now.

Dr Jeffrey Wang Hacienda
Heights
91745-3708 I work at Adventist Health Glendale and I anticipate that this proposal for increased natural gas use will have detrimental health consequences for the community that I serve. I urge the city leaders to consider cleaner energy options to serve the public need instead of resorting to dirty fossil fuels. Thank you.

Ms Antoinette Nolan Harbor City 90710-3847 I live in Los Angeles where despite gains since the smog-ridden 1960s air pollution is again increasing.

We need to do all that we can to clean our skies and make a healthier environment for ourselves and our descendants.

Ms Judy Trahan Hayward 94544-6004

Rachel Asturias Hayward 94542-2443 This delays the transition to Clean Energy. The air continues to be harmful to all. Contaminated air causes asthma all breathing deceases.

Mr Raj Rajkumar Hermosa
Beach
90254

Mrs Vicki Hanson Hermosa
Beach
90254-4029

Ms Jodie Mendoza Hermosa
Beach
90254-3949

Mr William Briggs Hermosa
Beach
90254-2804

Mr William Briggs Hermosa
Beach
90254-2804

Kathy Barron Hermosa
Beach
90254-5018

Ms Norma Krishnan Highland 92346-5386

Melanie Reilly Huntington
Beach
92647-6682 California needs to lead the way in combating climate change. I urge you to consider other cleaner solutions.

Roberta Reed Huntington
Beach
92648-4411

Ms Hildy Meyers Huntington
Beach
92648-3913 Glendale's decisions on fossil fuels affect all of us. Our environment is in crisis. We are already experiencing the cataclysmic effects and costs of climate change. Do the right thing and say no to natural gas at Grayson.

Mrs Julie Moore Huntington
Beach
92649-4095

666 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Michelle Madole Huntington
Beach
92647-3064

Mrs Nichole Royston Huntington
Beach
92647-8550

Ms Theresa Jaquess Huntington
Beach
92648-4560

Alexa Mcmahan Huntington
Beach
92649-2363

Profe Robert
Winchell
Huntington
Beach
92647-4210 We must stop using fossil fuels. Climate change is a crisis NOW. Please do not reactivate a gas plant.

Mrs Kathleen
Fernandez
Huntington
Beach
92646-6739

Linda Ford Huntington
Beach
92648-1358

Ms Hildy Meyers Huntington
Beach
92648-3913 Our future is at stake. Your decision will affect not just Glendale but all of us. Do the right thing--we are in a fossil-fueled climate crisis. Do NOT worsen it by prolonging the use of fossil fuels.

Mrs Kathleen
Fernandez
Huntington
Beach
92646-6739

Mr David Bell HUNTINGTON
PARK
90255-3080

Elizabeth Figueroa Liz Huntington
Park
90255-2606 This is unacceptable! We need to protect our environment.

Ms Riley Buehler Inglewood 90302-1427

Mrs Jacqueline Welsh Inglewood 90301-2517 Because endangering the health and well-being of the people of this state is not OK and will not be tolerated especially since were trying to phase out the polluters! Enough is enough history is watching will be the ultimate judge.

Dr Linda Larsen Inglewood 90304-1023

Ms Charlotte
Williams
Inglewood 90302-7165

Mr Elliot Gordon Irvine 92604-3336 This is important.

Ms Patricia Reynolds Irvine 92620-3693 you are far behind the times now... there are soo many alternatives for clean energy Ms Amira Mansour Irvine 92612-2250

Mr Ian Anderson Irvine 92620-2053 It’s horrible that natural gas would even be considered as a viable option in 2022 it’s time to move into the future and use renewable energy Glendale.

Ms Autumn Heep Irvine 92620-3109 The last 6 years have been the hottest on record for the planet. The last thing we need is more natural gas raising the temperatures even more. 40% of Americans were impacted by climate disasters last year. It didn't have to get to this point if people had just taken action decades ago when the signs first appeared. Don't keep going down this deadly disastrous path. 667 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Saira Basravi Irvine 90802

Sheiva Solaimani Irvine 90010 Our city is already Polluted. Absolutely not.

Ms Karen Papurt Irvine 92604-3251

Ms Amy Munnelly Irvine 92604-4675

Ms Amira Mansour Irvine 92612-2250

Mr Mike Natelson Irvine 92612-1677 Please reject reauthorizing this gas plant Dr Howard Emery Irvine 92612-1700 Having grown up attended elementary and high school and worked at Glendale Adventist Hospital I know that Glendale can afford to make the needed changes to avoid prolonging our dependence on natural gas polluting the atmosphere. Please consider alternatives ! Howard Emery Ms Stacey Chartier-
Grable
Irvine 92606-1762 We need to move forward not backward. We are in a crisis in our world and we must make the appropriate changes to ensure a healthy environment and an enduring future for generations to come.

David Miller Irvine 92612-2201

Londen Powers Irvine 92614-5027

Mr Dale Lessick Irvine 92604-1926

Mr Peter Reardon Jurupa Valley 91752-1391

Mr Dennis Oliver Kelseyville 95451-9580

Ms Kay Low Kensington 94708-1141 Help our climate!!
Nancy Berman Kensington 94707-1412

Mrs Chelsea
Compton
La Canada 91011-3116 I live close to Glendale and we need cleaner energy solutions. Reviving a gas plant that will worsen the already poor air conditions is not logical. I would like my children to grow up without poorer air quality putting them at risk for asthma and other adverse effects of air pollution.

Julie Kane-Ritsch La Canada 91011-1828 Dear Glendale City Council I am opposed to the proposed gas expansion at the Grayson Power Plant because it will increase pollution in the San Gabriel valley (along with increasing negative health consequences) and impede California's ability to reach its goal of achieving clean energy by 2035.

Glendale can meet its electricity needs by being a green energy leader and investing in clean energy solutions such as distributed solar with battery storage either privately funded and built and/or through utility company leases on private buildings. While I reside in La Canada we all breathe the same air in the region and will suffer the same impacts from climate change. Please use your precious resource dollars to fund forward thinking clean energy solutions rather than expensive investments in technology that is not only outdated but destructive to us all. Sincerely Julie Kane-Ritsch Pamela Dreyfuss La Canada
Flintridge
91011-1836

Mr George Vine La Canada
Flintridge
91011-1537 This plant will still be spewing CO2 in 2050 when we are supposed to be net zero. And for all the years up to 2050 it will be polluting the Glendale area. Better alternatives are available. Use them and avoid the risk of stranded assets.

Bonnie Finn LA CANADA
FLT
91011 I worry about the future. What will the world be for my 2 grandsons one of whom isn't even born yet? Please do everything you can to make their future safe and healthy.

Ms Jeanne Lavieri La Crescenta 91214-1520

668 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Nancy Learmonth La Crescenta 91214-2522 It’s time Glendale invests in energy sources for tomorrow and not keep dumping money into natural gas.

Jane Dutfield La Crescenta 91214-3883

Mr Brian Phillips La Crescenta 91214-3373 GWP is my power provider and as a customer I believe there are cleaner and cheaper methods than a new gas power plant! I hope you reconsider this decision now is the time to think about the future and lead and this does neither.

Paula Gannon La Crescenta 91214-3419 It matters to me because I would like an earth for my gand children their children to enjoy.

Laureen McCoy La Crescenta 91214-2800 Let’s get serious about the climate crisis! Yamen Nanne La Crescenta 91214-3819 My kids need to breathe clean air Mr Gordon Ownby La Crescenta 91214-1733 The city of Glendale dawdled on my home solar power installation. Meanwhile it is considering reviving a fossil fuel plant. Does anyone else see the irony here? Mrs Hayley Nelson La Crescenta 91214-3908

Mrs Christa Chilton La Crescenta 91214-2556

Mrs Stacy Toyon La Crescenta 91214-3130 We need to be bold and steer ourselves AWAY from fossil fuel dependency. The time is now but only if we seize it!
Cassidy Prasertsit La Crescenta 91214-1745

Ms Barbara Poland La Crescenta 91214-2007

Divya Parthasarathy La Crescenta 91214-3790

Sarah Ricci La Crescenta 91214-3922

McKenna Heeg La Crescenta 91214-3035

Mr Al Kisner La Crescenta 91224-0186

Mrs Susan Goldich La Crescenta 91214-2215

Elease Stemp La Crescenta 91214-2552 As a parent I think daily about the planet that I am leaving to my child and future generations and I would not be able to forgive myself if I didn't do everything I could to ensure they had a sustainable earth to live and thrive on. Climate change is real science is truth and do not continue gas powered plants. We have the means technology and knowledge to DO BETTER.

Margaret Griffin La Crescenta 91214 As a grandmother of 3 beautiful little girls and a fourth on the way we need to do everything possible to ensure the continuation of our planet. I am alarmed at the rate of the destruction of our ecosphere causing massive weather changes including global warming. The ice flows are melting flooding is increasing excessive heat waves and droughts in so many locations. Please! PLEASE!!! EVERYTHING must be done to halt this process! VOTE NO on the continued reliance of gas generators! Daniel Goldich La Crescenta 91214-2215 Please consider those who will be inheriting the climate by considering an alternative to fossil fuel. We need an intelligent approach to power generation.
669 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Jennifer Ho La Crescenta 91214-2803 Natural gas is fossil fuel in liquid form and is NOT clean energy. As a La Crescenta-Montrose resident who lives adjacent to Glendale I want to see better health outcomes in this neighborhood. Growing up here I developed asthma despite no family history. I can literally smell the air pollution when I am outside. I strongly urge the Glendale City Council to REJECT the Grayson Repowering PR-DEIR. INSTEAD please prioritize clean renewable energy like solar which can be placed on existing buildings and structures to create pollution-free energy.

Lisa Gee La Crescenta 91224-0674

Mr Ron Crosthwaite La Crescenta 91214-1968 I realize that there is a certain element of faith required for green technology (especially the required storage) but the risk is worth it if we can improve air quality.

Jennifer Ho La Crescenta 91214-2803 My name is Jennifer and I oppose the Grayson Natural Gas Power Plant. Natural gas is a fossil fuel and is NOT clean energy. Instead of investing in natural gas I recommend a massive shift to clean renewable energy like solar on rooftops of existing buildings and infrastructure. As a resident of La Crescenta and neighbor to Glendale I would like to see better health outcomes in our neighborhood. Growing up in this area I developed asthma and respiratory illnesses despite no family history. I can literally smell the pollution in the air when I’m outside. The burning of fossil fuels like natural gas releases air pollution which affects everyone and especially the elderly young children people facing homelessness and poverty and those with pre-existing health conditions.

Miss Kathy Cook La Habra 90631-8918

Mrs Amy Franz La Habra
Heights
90631-8433

Jacoba Dolloff La Mesa 91941-7158

Mr Harlan Lebo La Mirada 90637-0614

Mr Anthony Palesano La Puente 91744-4627 Put trump family in jail and all his cronies and Ted Cruz and mitch McConnell and his wife and Marjorie Taylor Green and Rittenhouse needs to go jail money bought the judge and jury.. Anthony.. Justice Marvin Contreras La Puente 91744-1245 Now? Come on there are better alternatives than continue to expose and threaten the health of our people mostly minorities in the valley.

Susan Nordine La Verne 91750

Joey Layshock Lafayette 94549-3403 Do the right thing and think of the long-term climate consequences instead of the short-term finances Stacy Cornelius Laguna Beach 92651-3160

Dr Kevin O'Brien Laguna Beach 92651-1337

Sandy Marshall Laguna Beach 92651-2206

Ms Lily Doris Laguna Beach 92651-1816

Mr Robert Reed Laguna Beach 92651-2455

Stacy Cornelius Laguna Beach 92651-3160

Paige Strayer Laguna Beach 92651-4422

Jerry Spets Laguna Beach 92651

Mr Robert Reed Laguna Beach 92651-2455 grandchildren
Grace Tam Laguna Hills 92654-2947 My extended family and good friends live around Glendale. Your proposed project will harm them. 670 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Ms Christina
Lockwood
Laguna Hills 92653-5439 California needs to breathe please don't add to pollution and dangers of climate change by taking the EASY way out. Stand up for a cleaner California invest all resources in clean energy! Take the lead in the nation on all issues of this kind please!
Mr Per Rydstrom Laguna
Niguel
92677-5847 Stop polluting! You can do better by going green. Think of future generations.

Jeanne Lepowsky Laguna
Woods
92637-4500 I grew up feeling pollutants in my lungs when I took a deep breath. Now I have asthma. Please protect the children of Glendale from that experience and the lung damage it causes. janet petersen Laguna
Woods
92637-0215 Glendale is a beautiful city - keep it that way. Say no to Grayson construction. J. Petersen Ms Katy Boyd Laguna
Woods
92637-4815

Mrs Diana Light Laguna
Woods
92637-3570 Moving forward investments need to be made in clean renewable energy. Help to meet this challenge and provide a leading example. Do it for our children and grandchildren and for our planetary home.

Mr Robert Keenan Laguna
Woods
92637-2952

Mr Christian Edwards Laguna
Woods
92637-8711 Show why Cali sets an example in environmental responsibility go clean for all of us and the future! Mr Greg Olsen Lake Forest 92630-1940 We must act to stop this pollution. People are having respiratory issues from your decisions. Reduce air pollution and reduce asthma attacks. https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/asthma- cases-dropped-when-air-pollution-declined Today individuals in London were told to exercise outside. https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/london-air-pollution-physical-activity- b1993003.html?amp There is already a problem with people not exercising and leading to more disease. https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/resources/publications/factsheets/physical-activity.htm Just please be a good earth citizen protect the air.

Mrs Susan Campbell Lake Forest 92630-5933 STOP THIS DIASTEROUS PLAN PLEASE!!!! Mr Ralphr Roug Lake Forest 92630-9000

Ms Shelley Strohm Lake Isabella 93240-9426

Katia Rios Lake View
Terrace
91342-6528

Dominique Vitti Lake View
Terrace
91342-6833 Because I live close to Glendale and we don’t deserve to have the air more polluted than it already is! Mr Mark DeMarta Lake View
Terrace
91342-6828

Dr Jim Stewart Lakewood 90712-2151

Ms Tracy Crummitt Lakewood 90715-1353 We’re already in global warming and dirty air. We don’t need any more pollution. We’re basically not going to survive as a species if this travesty continues.

Ms Denise Brassard Leona Valley 93551-7104 I care about Glendale. It’s insane to build new plants with outdated technology. Glendale could build solar fields in the foothills which would be cleaner and safer. 671 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Ms Ester Gonzalez Je Lincoln
Heights
90031-3412 We need green alternatives to energy. We have enough greenhouse gasees and vehicle emissions.

Collette Wilson Livermore 94550-9539

Efren Servino Lomita 90717-2010

Mr James Roberts Lompoc 93436-1836 End Ecological Collapse Mrs Susan Morales Long Beach 90808-4326

Mr Ben Hauck Long Beach 90808-1634

Mr Alan Gonzalez Long Beach 90815-0616

Mrs Julie Laws Long Beach 90804-3132

Mindy Thomas Long Beach 90803-6143

Mr Ian Beavis Long Beach 90803-6332

Elliot Gonzales Long Beach 90813-4436 We should not be burning methane into the air.

Mr Jeffrey Streicher Long Beach 90808-2040

Mr Dean Campbell Long Beach 90807-4515

Kathleen Gause Long Beach 90815-1125 We do not need anymore pollution. You need to be part of the solution not add to the problem.

Mr Michael Bailey Long Beach 90802-4960

Ms Melinda Cotton Long Beach 90803-0310 the local utility has come back with a proposal to build a polluting 93-megawatt fossil fuel power plant within a mile of four childcare centers and five schools. While the rest of California advances towards clean energy the City of Glendale is threatening to move in the opposite direction. Glendale needs to set an example the City needs to focus on solar and other clean air solutions. We live in Long Beach and are affected by air quality from the entire LA Basin. Californians want clean affordable energy for our climate and communities. We need to invest in the future not the fossil fuel industry. Gas plants not only contribute to local air pollution they cost customers hundreds of millions of dollars in the long run while fossil fuel companies profit.

Ms Theresa Smithm Long Beach 90806-6712

Dr Joy Zadaca Long Beach 90807-1927

Dr Scott Crass Long Beach 90804-4635

Ms Melinda Taylor Long Beach 90814-8130

Nicolas Gonzalez Long Beach 90804-5463

Mr Mark Quiroz Long Beach 90815-1131

Merrique Richelieu Long Beach 90814-1654

Ms Audrey Higbee Long Beach 90814-1246

Julia Anders Long Beach 90802-5972

Mr Gary Charles Long Beach 90813-3275 HAVE YOU NOT HEARD CALFORNIA IS GOING SOLAR AND WIND POWER! Ms Barbara Adams Long Beach 90815-2446 Please we need clean air not the type of plant that will get phased out. Glendale has the opportunity to do this differently; we can only hope they will take a step into the future instead of a step into the past instead of business as usual.
672 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Sawyer Jenkins Long Beach 90803-1711

Mr Dave Shukla Long Beach 90803-2205

Janice Peregrina Long Beach 90805 Please use this money towards transitioning toward cleaner safer energy sources. We don't need more pollution and backwards motions in the energy sector. We need to be thinking forward and creating energy in less wasteful ways. Let's work together and keep the city of Glendale and greater LA future- minded.

Varenka Lorenzi Long Beach 90814-8112

Mrs Tracy Turner Los Alamitos 90720-5243 No need for this in this city! Ms Aixa Fielder Los Angeles 90028-5747

Dr Carol Henning Los Angeles 90004-1126 GWP has not thoroughly examined all other alternatives to repowering Grayson with more natural gas which is not only a fossil fuel but also a greenhouse gas. It can cause warming not only when we burn it for energy and it releases carbon dioxide but also when the methane itself escapes into the atmosphere. Glendale can and should do better!
Ms Aixa Fielder Los Angeles 90028-5747

Mr Edward Landler Los Angeles 90065-2647

Mr Sam Butler Los Angeles 90045-2753

Mr David King Los Angeles 90036-1718

Mr Mark Reback Los Angeles 90039-3944

Ms Lisa Norcia Los Angeles 90027-3803

Corbett Tuck Los Angeles 90027-1215

Mr Andrew Bartels Los Angeles 90027-3107

Mr Noah Mercer Los Angeles 90027-2918 I'm opposed to the Grayson repowering project on two grounds: personal and global. On the personal side I'll be breathing anything that comes out of this plant and as an asthma sufferer I know that nothing coming out of it is any good for me. On the global side it's abundantly clear that we are decades behind where we need to be in reducing greenhouse gases. Living here we are all at risk of loss displacement and death from wildfires and heat waves exacerbated by greenhouse gas emissions. Why make a bad problem worse? Let's use an emission-free alternative (or many of them) to generate the electricity we need.

Ms Patricia Carlson Los Angeles 90034-5799

Ms Charlotte Innes Los Angeles 90026-6244 I live a few miles away from this site and am very invested in our communities using solar power or other forms of non-polluting energy solutions.

Brant Rose Los Angeles 90036-0820 This is a waste of our money- tech will be obsolete before end-of-life of project. Lots of health damage to surrounding community - no upside.

Ms Toochis Morin Los Angeles 90028-7202

Mr Gary Van Der
Steur
Los Angeles 90041-3420

673 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Elizabeth Florence Los Angeles 90026-1828 The financial concerns behind repowering the Grayson gas plant: The Grayson project will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The main rationale for adding this energy capacity is to meet “reserve” requirements—in essence to insure against situations where other power sources go down like a downed transmission line. Once the new equipment is installed GWP proposes to use it only 15% of the time to cover peak demand. This is incredibly expensive insurance and a lot of money to spend for equipment that will sit idle most of the time. GWP plans to offset at least some of these costs by selling the gas plant’s energy to other cities. There are cleaner and more affordable ways to meet or reduce Glendale’s energy needs. Plus this technology may well be obsolete or legally prohibited long before the end of its useful lifetime. Instead we could invest in technology that can last for the long term.

Mr Mark Reback Los Angeles 90039-3944

Mrs Jessica Craven Los Angeles 90065-4132 This is urgent. We don't want this! Dr Susan Young Los Angeles 90049-1805

Mrs Joyce Foster Los Angeles 90024-6033

Mr Myron Meisel Los Angeles 90064-3444

denise weintraub Los Angeles 90068

Deborah Robbins Los Angeles 90025-6205 In this era of increasingly inexpensive renewable energy technology (production and storage) there is no need to add equipment that will continue to contribute to air pollution in the LA basin and climate change on a larger scale. Please reject this proposal for new gas powered generators at the Grayson Power Plant.

Ali Hart Los Angeles 90065-3650

Mark Stannard Los Angeles 90056-2022

Ms Jennifer Arnold Los Angeles 90049-4344

Ms Monica Embrey Los Angeles 90026-2036 I’m writing to express my strong opposition to new gas units at the Grayson Power Plant in Glendale for the sake of our local communities climate and economy. Thousands of people live and work directly within the Grayson project’s impact zone – schools daycares homes for the elderly and work offices.

Glendale’s air quality is already terrible – it’s time to invest in an energy grid that can turn that around. Glendale has the means to power the city with renewable energy. There is no need to double down on fossil fuel infrastructure that will harm families and our climate for decades. Cities across California are ditching fossil fuel power and Glendale can too. It’s time for Glendale to step into a clean air clean energy future. There are much cleaner safer and more affordable ways to meet the city’s energy needs than new gas units. Please reject plans to rebuild the Grayson gas power plant when we should be transitioning to clean energy alternatives instead.

Dr Mark &Amp;
Susan Glasser
Los Angeles 90066-3202

Mr Joshua Stamberg Los Angeles 90039-3049 As a Glendale resident I’m already strut with poor air quality. Please do not contribute to the worsening conditions
674 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Shenee Setterbo Los Angeles 90065-2027 I live in a neighborhood in LA that is adjacent to Glendale. Therefore I am concerned about the fact that Glendale will be voting on continuing a source of non-renewable energy. Please put the resources of the city towards planning for future generations. Please invest in clean energy! Mr Joe Mclaughlin Los Angeles 90026-2046 Gas fired power generation will soon be obsolete and will become a stranded useless asset. Rather invest the money in renewables.

Mr Adam Bernstein Los Angeles 90012-2581

Ms Natalie Epstein Los Angeles 90006-1224

Ms Meleina Mayhew Los Angeles 90039-3643 This is such a waste of money in the wrong direction. Invest in CLEAN energy please! It just makes more sense all around.

Ms Carolyn Park Los Angeles 90026-2831

Danielle Watkins Los Angeles 90034-7559

Ms Joan Greenwald Los Angeles 90049-2234

Ms Francisca Salazar Los Angeles 90063-2916 No more pollution in LOS ANGELES BASIN! Dr Emily Zeamer Los Angeles 90026-1639 The last thing we need is new gas plants as the world explodes into flame. Please support renewable energy including solar. Glendale can be a leader in reshaping LA for the future -- now is not the time to run backwards.

Samantha Honowitz Los Angeles 90045-1825

Mrs Stacy Pasetta Los Angeles 90068-1738

Katherine Schiff Los Angeles 90034-4257

Ms Jillian Moreno Los Angeles 90026-3496

Ms Jacqueline Finch Los Angeles 90046-2532 Dear Council Members we need to be going forward in order to protect everything and everyone.

Please do not I build this gas plant . Thank you
Ms Lili Flanders Los Angeles 90064-2207

Mr Finn Wittrock Los Angeles 90039-2017

Ms Lauren Ashtari Los Angeles 90008-1106

Ms Ellen Walsh Los Angeles 90039-2776 We need it be investing in renewable energy sources - not ones that we know are dangerous to humanity and the planet.

Mr Janet Maker Los Angeles 90024-3113

Mark Reback Los Angeles 90039-3944

Mrs Michele
O'Marah
Los Angeles 90065-2015 This plant is within 2 miles of my home. We are in a desperate attempt to do something to combat global warming. Now is not the time to start new gas plants that will horribly pollute the already super dirty air
Mrs Leslie Mcdowell Los Angeles 90035-4106 This matters to me because I am a citizen on this planet. We are in a climate crisis. Please do not go forward with natural gas construction.

Miss Nancy Banuelos Los Angeles 90042-5115

Mr William Baker Los Angeles 90027-3917

Victor Caruso Jr Los Angeles 90045-0653

675 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Dana Bell Los Angeles 90027-3620 Not only is a new gas planet dangerous for our planet it is also dangerous for our city and for residents like me who already have to contend with the too-polluted air of Los Angeles. Building a new gas plant at Grayson is a betrayal of the residents of Glendale and its surrounding neighborhoods a short-sighted money grab that the city councilors should be ashamed to be promoting. We need clean and affordable alternatives that protect the air we breathe and the climate we live in not another dangerous gas plant.

Mrs Tracy Beetler Los Angeles 90039-2715 My kids health is the most important thing to be. This is a huge step backwards.

Ms Therese Ellis Los Angeles 90042-3654 I live in the area and we don’t need more air and particle pollution. LA is already polluted enough as is and you all know it. Stop.

Ms Marlene Dermer Los Angeles 90057-3152 At this point in our world’s history is not about going back to old solutions but new ways of solving issues
Mr Emmanuel Agus Los Angeles 90024-5794

Ms Alissa Warshaw Los Angeles 90031-3609

Letitia Brown Los Angeles 90003-2712

Ms Diana Laufer Los Angeles 90046-1320

Miss Corinne Van Los Angeles 90024-2049

Mrs Jessica Judd Los Angeles 90042-3123

Mr Noah Youngelson Los Angeles 90066-4134

Havalah Collins Los Angeles 90016-4314

Tracy Flannigan Los Angeles 90026-2010

Mrs Candace Rocha Los Angeles 90032-1308

Steve Hanlon Los Angeles 90049-2336

Mr Neal Steiner Los Angeles 90034-1841

N Daye Los Angeles 90049-1707

Mr Krister Olsson Los Angeles 90013-1658

Danny O'Malley Los Angeles 90027-3372 Natural Gas leaks have happened near LA in recent years and they have a drastic health consequence on our communities. In addition climate change and pollution are both going to wipe out any short term business gains caused by the addition of this plant. Glendale should be investing in greener energy systems that will actually provide an economic boom. Investing in natural gas is like investing in Blockbuster. I think Glendale would rather be Netflix. It's better for business and it's better for the city to look forward.

Kristina Jensen Los Angeles 90039-3124 Our children do NOT need to be burdened with the legacy of dirty inefficient and costly natural gas energy production. We can do better and explore alternative more cost efficient and healthier energy resources for them. Their health and the planet's health are at stake. Stop this cycle of destructive energy planning and propose healthier safer more sustainable energy infrastructure for our children to maintain.

Ms Stefanie Epstein Los Angeles 90049-3011

Mrs Ana Santaolalla Los Angeles 90065-4205

Ms Joanne Zimbler Los Angeles 90004-1413

676 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mrs Yostine Pasek Los Angeles 90046-1343

Claudia Cataldo Los Angeles 90066-6641

Ms Jenna
Friedenberg
Los Angeles 90041-1319

Ms Vanessa Ruane Los Angeles 90032-1042

Lara Ingraham Los Angeles 90038-3531

Katherine Tsina Los Angeles 90027-1203

Lolita Nettles Los Angeles 90037-2111 We have hurt our environment more than enough! We have hundreds of examples on how to do theses to operate healthy or sustainable living. Be a leader in expecting better. This plant is a bad idea! Mrs Ariane Rosier Los Angeles 90019-5104

Ms Deborah
Attoinese
Los Angeles 90016-5205 NO. Time to move forward not backwards. You don’t know the dangers at this point. Stop the greed Ms Carrie Lemus Los Angeles 90027-0306 After the Aliso gas disaster please do not tempt another disaster. Please look into better cleaner power sources. Wind solar and more. Thank you.

Mr Jacob Nelson Los Angeles 90066-4119

Mrs Zarina
Bouinatcheva
Los Angeles 90048-2781 We need a clean air less pollution save the planet! I am worried for the health of my grandchildren who live in LA
Amy Francis Los Angeles 90027-2814 I live near Glendale and suffer from bad enough air quality as it is. We don’t need more gas. We need clean energy.

Andy Castillo Los Angeles 90004-4762 Man we live here!! Ms Starletta Dupois Los Angeles 90043-2638

Calvin Coloma Los Angeles 90013-1670

Carmiel Banasky Los Angeles 90065-3940

Julie Hopper Los Angeles 90043-2621 Regardless you should build a CO2 capture and air filtration system - spend money helping the community not hurting it
Ms Sawnia House Los Angeles 90037-2837 We need to invest in the future we need to invest in safe renewable energy solutions - not more fossil fuels.

Ms Maria Murillo Los Angeles 90041-2937 As an Eagle Rock Resident I find it quite concerning that I am - yet again - writing to the leadership of Glendale to ask you to consider the environment and our community before making decisions on infrastructure. The ENTIRE WORLD needs to find new sources for sustaining ourselves so the fact that Glendale wants to resort to easy polluting methods of an OLD natural gas plant to sustain its community without thinking of the greater community...ie Los Angeles and the PLANET...is appalling to me! Yet again the leadership of the City of Glendale is FAILING to do its job. FAILING to set an example to its citizens by listening to Science and choosing alternative methods. THERE ARE NO SHORT CUTS. Maybe that's why no one wears a mask in Glendale during the Pandemic? Glendale thinks it's immune to the world's problems? Take advantage of the sun shining on the hills of your city and RETHINK your plan!! 677 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Ms Kelli OLeary Los Angeles 90042-1612 Be a leader in clean energy Glendale! Do what you know is best for your neighbors and children. Don’t continue to pollute our surroundings when you know the ethical forward-thinking option is for clean energy. Our air is already polluted enough. Your neighbor in Eagle Rock Mr Jonathan Wysocki Los Angeles 90022-4409

Cori Bardo Los Angeles 90042-1625

Miss Navarad
Phonethibsavads
Los Angeles 90025-3606

Joanne Husar Los Angeles 90007-1530

Ms Stacie Surabian Los Angeles 90068-3038

Miss Tulica Singh Los Angeles 90036-3384

Monica Inouye Los Angeles 90064-4206

Summer Brown Los Angeles 90018-3114 We require clean reliable energy for the health of our citizens and planet! Stephanie Strate Los Angeles 90042-2229

Lesley Tsina Los Angeles 90027-2957

Jim Keltner Los Angeles 90027-1420

Ms Stella Sias Los Angeles 90065-1834 My family lives in 90065 just adjacent to the plant. Glendale has always been a community leader.

Please continue your good work and move to renewable energy and a positive future for our community.

Mr Michael
Matthews
Los Angeles 90039-1923

Emerson Tenney Los Angeles 90049-1934

Ms Patricia Braswell Los Angeles 90005-2154

Alison Rosenman Los Angeles 90049-6414 As a resident of Los Angeles I love enjoying Southern California's natural beauty. I am worried how the gas plant will impact recreation activities as well as daily life/air quality.

Mr Steven Lolli Los Angeles 90038-1054

Mrs Suzanne Wilton Los Angeles 90005-3760 Lean air matters to everyone for their health! Mr O Lewis Los Angeles 90009-7075

Mr Alan Chen Los Angeles 90025

Mrs Michelle
Groman
Los Angeles 90019-6501 We can’t go backwards. Don’t open this. We need to create a healthy environment for us and our children!
Ms Lynn Campbell Los Angeles 90004-4063

Mr Lawrence
Gonzalez
Los Angeles 90065-4715

Mr Jason Brock Los Angeles 90045-2612

Mr Kevin Cade Los Angeles 90005-4110 No!!! This would be a HUGE step backward. Your electorate young and old trust and depend on you to make decisions that consider long term consequences including environmental ones; not short term ones seemingly beneficial – financially – at the moment! Respectfully 678 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Miss Jennifer
Ascencio
Los Angeles 90019-4707

Ms Arlene Encell Los Angeles 90064-2715

Miss Yahaira Cardoza Los Angeles 90008-2705

Joseph Ruggieri Los Angeles 90039-1445

Thomas Matthews Los Angeles 90039-1923 I run in Elysian Park every day and I’d love to not have that in my lungs.

Dr Katherine Young Los Angeles 90046-2955

Ms Pamela
Magathan
Los Angeles 90068-2713

Ms Mindi White Los Angeles 90046-7409

Mrs Beverly Carman Los Angeles 90064-4530

Mrs Melissa Atkinson Los Angeles 90064-3208

Mrs Renee Dundas Los Angeles 90066-4125 Save our children. Please.

Mr Josh Rutkoff Los Angeles 90042-2218

Reanna Flores Los Angeles 90032-2306 Our environment is damaged enough. Stop putting MONEY before people's health ! Mr Eli Peer Los Angeles 90026-1639 We must lead the way for our children to have cleaner air in our city. Please lead in action.

Dr Bruce Spring Los Angeles 90065-5060 I want our species to survive. Thanks.

Mrs Jane Nachazel-
Ruck
Los Angeles 90026-1712

Mr David Sookne Los Angeles 90048-5106

Ms Francesca
Innocenti
Los Angeles 90006-4236 It’s important to try to minimize the pollution In our air rather than making things worse Kaitlin Hartman Los Angeles 90034-3205

Ms Kristina Fukuda-
Schmid
Los Angeles 90034-5501

Dr William Lee Los Angeles 90026-1025

Ms Birgitta Martinez Los Angeles 90041-3144 There is no need for more destruction to our environment.

Deborah Lindsey Los Angeles 90034-5992 My family deserves clean air. Our future depends on clean energy.

Ms Frances Goodrich Los Angeles 90066-6723 I lived here in the 50s and 60s when pollution was terrible! We have improved so much since then.

Please don't allow a slide backwards.

Melissa Manousos Los Angeles 90012-4383

Mr Daren Black Los Angeles 90066-3896 You should build solar powered generator plants! Solar power is clean and affordable. We don't need more gas! Gas is an antique technology!
Ms Melissa Rosen Los Angeles 90049-6450 Installing gas power plants can damage the health of people wildlife and plant-life in the area. Please reconsider.

Nicole Avril Los Angeles 90027-3251

Ms Sherry Vatter Los Angeles 90034-8105 Please protect the health of LA county residents by NOT approving this additional sources of pollution. 679 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Ms Susan Chung Los Angeles 90032-1809

Peter Avildsen Los Angeles 90004-4670

Ms Heather Sabin Los Angeles 90065-3762 I live just one block from Glendale and I'm horrified to learn that in 2022 gas facilities are still being considered for construction in the midst of our climate crisis. CA needs to be doubling down on having every resident putting solar on their roof and weaning ourselves off fossil fuels. Please consider ALL possible alternatives and do not build another gas power plant.

Deena Margolis Los Angeles 90039-3008

Katherine Varley Los Angeles 90035-2900 I want clean air. Pollution in Los Angeles gets a failing grade from the American Lung Association year after year. And I want an end to the irresponsible continuation of fossil fuel production. It is leading us to ever more devastating climate impacts. Including the extinction of species. We are a species too and we will be vulnerable. This generation of people has been chosen to be here at this turning point. It is up to us to say no to all fossil fuels and yes to renewable energy sources. It’s up to us to draw the line and let no more fossil fuel be extracted from the ground. It is up to us to literally save our earth.

Ms Carol Ng Los Angeles 90026-1502

Dr Daniele Martarelli Los Angeles 90026-3979

Laura Lacy Los Angeles 90039-3646

Ms Rhonda Casper Los Angeles 90068-3626 Air quality is important for our community’s health and well being especially for children. With other options available how can you substantiate going with natural gas? If it is an economic decision it is time to re- evaluate your priorities. Please do not add another polluting facility to our community! Sofia Rodas Los Angeles 90041-3119 Pollutants from oil and gas in the area disproportionately affect communities of color in the area.

Protect your constituents!
Ms Jane MacFarlane Los Angeles 90010-1513 Please do not invest inexpensive out dated technologies that pollute our air and water! Step into the future and Go Green!
Mr A Hern Los Angeles 90049-1634

Mr Mike Beckman Los Angeles 90032-1058 Time to stop putting corporate profits over peoples health. Please don’t approve this.

Mr Jonci Aguillard Los Angeles 90045-2476

Kathy Bilicke Los Angeles 90069-1344

Ms Jeannie Rozzi Los Angeles 90064-3779

Mr Eric Hiss Los Angeles 90027-4744 I grew up in Glendale (I went to Incarnation in the 70s played at Nibley Park and attended GCC where my mother also taught English) and although I now live in Los Feliz I still regularly go to movies dine etc in Glendale. It will always be "home" to me. That said it is HUGELY disappointing to hear that the city is considering firing-up a polluting fossil fuel plant. It's 2022 not 1972 our world is in a climate crisis (it was 80-degrees today in the mid-January) and our State and Country are building a CLEAN energy future for our children and grandchildren. This facility will not only do damage to our health and environment it makes Glendale look like a slacker city stuck in a past that no longer exists. This will be covered by the LA Times then National media and it will be bad for attracting businesses and the best and the brightest who want to live in a forward-looking city—not one stuck in a polluting past. Please reconsider and do the right thing for the Jewel City!
680 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mr Christopher
Parsons
Los Angeles 90027-1113 I live just a few miles from this plant.

Mr Bruce Campbell Los Angeles 90034-3809 I have investigated likely "wind roses" from commercial nuclear power facilities in California and noted that -- due to a special kind of inversion in the Glendale area between the major San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys (complicated by the Verdugos) such that pollutants (be they fossil fuel-related emissions or be it an invisible radioactive cloud -- air pollutants are notably stagnant in the Glendale area. This qualifies it as a very poor location to site a spewing fossil fuel facility.

Laura Celic Los Angeles 90039-2416

Mr Terry Keller Los Angeles 90004-1501

Mr William Bein Los Angeles 90064-2026

Ms Angie Flores Los Angeles 90022-3120 For the future and the future generations to have clean and affordable Alternatives Protect our climate Ms Polly O'Malley Los Angeles 90025-3916

Bryant Crouse Los Angeles 90027-2919

Ms Courtney Reid Los Angeles 90024-5517

Mr Samuel Parnes Los Angeles 90024-5221

Mr William Elsman Los Angeles 90012-4427

Dr John Murray Los Angeles 90066-1935 We should be phasing out natural gas! Mr Jeremy Benjamin Los Angeles 90078-2188

Lauren Deutsch Los Angeles 90005-3782 The environment does not respond to political borders. Glendale must consider the value of its citizens health not someone's profit. Glendale has its own water supply and any natural gas drilling will definitely threaten the integrity of the land around these resources. Time to take the lead in securing renewal resources ... solar!
stephanie schaupp Los Angeles 90042-1612 Because gas is killing us. Stop funding projects with gas.

ValentÃn Durán Los Angeles 90063-1118 My partner works near the area and the impact that it will have on the neighborhood will be negative as air pollution and other contaminants are plentiful in these plants. Wake up and invest in solar power! Ms Flora Rosaa Los Angeles 90038-1458

Ms Laura Strom Los Angeles 90034-4653

Dr Mha Atma Khalsa Los Angeles 90035-3314

Mr Richard Gundy Los Angeles 90027-4202

Miss Radhika Vekaria Los Angeles 90004-1684 No!!! A council’s job is to safe guard and they cannot claim to care and do something like this to the environment. We have just had a virus take the world by storm that attacks the lungs. Polluting the environment is an attack on all living things included those who allow this plant to go ahead.

Ms Kathryn Shapero Los Angeles 90066-6415 In a place with the geography of the LA area pollution that gets into the air tends to stay there. Better to chose energy generation that does not do this and keep the air breathable! Ms Margaret Shekell Los Angeles 90034-6041

Miss Joanne Mestaz Los Angeles 90023-1215 Please help us lead the way to better air for all people 8n Los Angeles. The world is watching us.

Cynthia Huynh Los Angeles 90025-1886

Mr Robert Pann Los Angeles 90064-3306

681 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Gaille Heidemann Los Angeles 90024-5130

Heather Mclarty Los Angeles 90042-4406 The planet's survival depends on us. What we do affects everyone. Make a more positive choice please! Andrew Bird Los Angeles 90027-1203

Mr Matthew
Barenfeld
Los Angeles 90019-2132 Even as it is absolutely true that alternative energy sources like solar are undeniably the future the imperative and overwhelming scientific consensus is that we MUST gain control over our already excessive emissions ASAP being the very real reality that we all - especially our kids - are going to have to contend with in the near future. We simply cannot afford to ignore the serious consequences we and the next generation will face should we simply rush forth with traditional business-as-usual polluting energy options that we are sure to have to contend with down the road - and at great expense only to later address what we should have done before but most certainly need to do now. Do what is RIGHT - NOW.

Julir Suh Los Angeles 90065-2517

Ryan Cassells Los Angeles 90013-1174

Jesse Mckenzie Los Angeles 90065-2517

matthew siskin Los Angeles 90065-2517

Dorothy Wilkinson Los Angeles 90027-5722 DUH! I'm a human being living in So Cal! Geothermal energy is unending and FREE after the initial construction expenses!
Molly Talcott Los Angeles 90065-3106

Hourig Sarafian Los Angeles 90027-1503

Dolores Athuil Los Angeles 90048-4510

Ms Carol Sonntag Los Angeles 90068-1949 My Dad moved the family company to the area while I was still in middle school. We could walk or ride our bikes along the river and wade in for tadpoles and frogs. The river has been partly reclaimed but it will do us no good if the air is too polluted and toxic for the biking swimming hiking and just walking that we all do. We need to think smarter and act greener in this new decade. It is already so much hotter the fires have no season and we are always in a drought. l The rainy season is so much wetter the land slides are more serious and winters are so much colder. We do not need to add to our green house gasses here. It would be a mistake to reactivate an old gas plant. Instead green the space and build more commuter bike paths charging stations and improve our transit services.

Gordon Orlick Los Angeles 90069-5318 Because of the environment.

Juliana Sorelli Los Angeles 90068-3150

Leticia Perez Los Angeles 90042-5162 Please explore more alternatives for a natural energy source. It would be the responsible choice for the city.

Diana Davidson Los Angeles 90064-5121

Mr Chris Withrow Los Angeles 90066-4788

Mr John Crahan Los Angeles 90045-3731

Ms Jennifer Lin Los Angeles 90013-1680 California has been hit hard by climate change already. Please don't add to the problem. Future generations will thank us.

Kim Verbeck Los Angeles 90068-3625

682 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Ms. Kate Torri Los Angeles 90064-4336 No more pollution! Marcus Prato Los Angeles 90065-2517

Ms Madeline Wright Los Angeles 90045-3729

Ms Genie Saffren Los Angeles 90025-6306

Mr Chris Eaton Los Angeles 90041-1566 We are in one of Americas most polluted areas and we can do better. The day of fossil fuels is clearly past now that the damage we've done is clear and clean alternatives are available and economical.

Continuing on dinosaur juice will show the people that our leaders are political dinosaurs and fossil burning power plants will never last for their expected life and more tax money will be wasted building the sustainable system you should be building now. Just keep it in the ground! Irene Kotlarz Los Angeles 90027-3225

Sara G Los Angeles 90048-4705 It would be a complete disaster to build more gas power plants. We must step forward toward carbon neutral energy not backwards!
Mr George Grace Los Angeles 90027-4720

Rebeca Villa Los Angeles 90041-1428

Victoria Skalland Los Angeles 90025-2739 2021 was the hottest year on record since we've started keeping records in no small part due to the burning of fossil fuels and natural gas. Burning natural gas creates methane which has a greater affect on global warming than CO2. Not to mention "Well drilling activities produce air pollution and may disturb people wildlife and water resources. Laying pipelines that transport natural gas from wells usually requires clearing land to bury the pipe. Natural gas production can also produce large volumes of contaminated water. This water requires proper handling storage and treatment so that it does not pollute land and other waters. Natural gas wells and pipelines often have engines to run equipment and compressors which produce air pollutants and noise." - EIA.gov Roseanne Costantino Los Angeles 90039-3213 We have other solutions to providing energy to residents. The community-wide solar can produce enough energy in battery storage to power through the night hours. Glendale does not need this built and the city of Los Angeles does not need the ensuing pollution. Do the right thing on the right side of history and do not build this plant. Please consider all the other options.

John Gold Los Angeles 90029-3601 We need to do everything we can to reverse the damage we have done to our earth. Please end this madness.

Ms Sarah Nothnagel Los Angeles 90034-4132 As a southern California resident I care deeply about the quality of my air and the future of my home.

We should do everything in our power to fight against climate change and that includes finding cleaner alternatives to natural gas generators.

Mr Mark Duncan Los Angeles 90026-6218 Children breathe this air.

Roseanne Costantino Los Angeles 90039-3213 We are on the cusp of real change—for better or worse depending on our actions now. We have ample evidence that fossil fuels are leading us to worse outcomes. I’m a neighbor to Glendale and I care about clean air and a sustainable future.

Roseanne Costantino Los Angeles 90039-3213

Samantha Follows Los Angeles 90039-2631

Mr Dan Lawler Los Angeles 90028-4773

683 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Pat Saperstein Los Angeles 90026-1716 This is not the right move as we confront a climate emergency! Joseph Hancock Los Angeles 90028-8266 I live close to Glendale. I have medical appointments there. We don’t need more pollution in Southern California. Please consider all possible alternatives to natural gas construction at Grayson.

Heather Anderson Los Angeles 90042-4326

Ms Valerie Longo Los Angeles 90021-3057

Sophie Sills Los Angeles 90041-2624

Marcus Prato Los Angeles 90065-2517

Dr Ralph Smith Los Angeles 90066-6410

Chloe Parent Los Angeles 90031-1978

Ms Jennifer Tomassi Los Angeles 90018-4026

Ms Dafne Gokcen Los Angeles 90012-5931

Mr Chris Eggleston Los Angeles 90039-3427

Valerie Campos Los Angeles 90065-2469

Michael MacDonald Los Angeles 90041-2444 Putting a gas burning power plant in a very high fire severity zone surrounded on all sides by residences is a terrible idea. Please stop this problematic polluting and dangerous project.

Mr Lucky Scoles Los Angeles 90025-7411 Climate change! Air quality. .

Emily Heller Los Angeles 90039-2120 If we don't divest from natural gas climate change effects will be catastrophic.

Antonia Salm Los Angeles 90068-3033

Dr Misha Askren Los Angeles 90019-6615

Tracy Vignati Los Angeles 90034-3025 NO!!!
Ms Lee Slocum Los Angeles 90068-2223

Matthew Williamson Los Angeles 90041-1116

Mr Chris Kennedy Los Angeles 90034-5696 I care about the environment. Also is past time that we chose cleaner energy.

Mrs Nancy Glassberg Los Angeles 90036-2612 I have asthma all air pollution affects me and others like me.

J D Fox Los Angeles 90024-3805

Ms Liz Amsden Los Angeles 90042-1006 I live in the area I work and travel and shop in the area. And I breathe in the area. Glendale does NOT need more carbon-based power plants if it is to meet This Grayson Repowering Project as well as Glendale's Bio Gas "Renewable" Generation Project are unacceptable at a time when climate change is a significant problem and the world needs to reduce its energy footprint. And how is Glendale going to meet its goals to reduce carbon emissions with both of these plants firing up? Ms Jennifer
Derwingson
Los Angeles 90027-2706

Melody Peterson Los Angeles 90041-1419

Danielle Soykin Los Angeles 90027-2919

684 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Gina Chamberlain Los Angeles 90015-2490 Please consider cleaner greener alternatives to gas power plants as this would contribute to more pollution in the city and surrounding areas. Glendale is known for being a safe family-friendly city.

However gas power plants will take away the charm and security that it is known for. I don’t think the council members want to set this kind of precedence. Thank you.

Rusteen Honardoost Los Angeles 90027-5030

Steve Hanlon Los Angeles 90049-2336

Mrs Jessica Lam Los Angeles 90046-2805

Stephen Allen Los Angeles 90036

BellA Mull Los Angeles 90024-2104

Freddy Gonzaga Jr Los Angeles 90026-5518 This matters to me because I'm a Climate Change believer I support Great Thunberg and follow her movement because Climate Change is getting worse for our planet. I love to exercise outside plus having gas and pollution will give me health problems like Heart Disease and lung problems. I want Glendale to have clean air not only for myself but for children that like to play outside and exercise. It wouldn't be fair if kids get early health problems and have to go to the doctor all the time because of health issues due to gas and the pollution they have to breathe. So please imagine you had a kid then you have to go to the doctor all the time because of health problems. So just picture in your mind for a second reflect on what you will have to go through with your child if your child starts getting health problems.

Zulma Mena Los Angeles 90026-5518 To stop climate change Mr Evan Beattie Los Angeles 90029-1148

Ms Amanda Taylor Los Angeles 90041-1347 I live in Eagle Rock on the Glendale border and any city in the Los Angeles area that is not actively working toward sustainable energy solutions is condemning all of us to the increasingly dangerous climate catastrophe. So I take this personally. And I'm outraged that Glendale is even considering natural gas construction at Grayson. The time for easy answers is OVER. Lead by example and do the right thing for Glendale and for Los Angeles. Sustainable energy NOW.

Li Gad Los Angeles 90068

Travis Keller Los Angeles 90033 Cuz food is going to stop growing around 2050 if we can drastically change the way we do things.

Freddy Gonzaga Jr Los Angeles 90026-5518 This matters to me because I believe Climate Change is real it's getting worse by the minute I don't agree with Grayson going to gas. I believe clean energy would be beneficial for the environment for Glendale it would prevent kids from getting health issues like lung problems or heart disease. And the better we start having clean energy now it's going to benefit the climate the air the environment and make all of us breathe healthy air. Please picture yourself having a kid and having to go to the hospital daily because of the health issues your kid got due to the Grayson plant and pollution.

Wesley Chuang Los Angeles 90024 What happens in Glendale affects all life on the planet. 685 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mr Jerry Tobe Los Angeles 90034-2809 Continuing on the present pollution path significantly impedes our ability to limit the very wildfires and high heat for which the plant is supposedly needed. Volvo is using a green hydrogen plant in Sweden to manufacture green steel for it's cars. Please establish a similar green hydrogen plant or license the technology to power gas turbines at the Grayson Gas Plant. Glendale may be able to produce enough green hydrogen to power fleet vehicles manufacturing etc. and make a profit. Help Glendale Water and Power transition to clean renewable energy. May you do ONLY that which is truly best for the vast majority of people living in Glendale and cause those people as little harm as humanly possible. Thank you for reading my petition and prayer.

Louis Cangemi Los Angeles 90066-6012

Heather Woodbury Los Angeles 90026 I live next to Glendale and do shopping my gym my banking there. As my community next door I want it to be part of mitigating the danger of wildfires not part of fossil fuel business as usual that increases the peril.

Eliza Kellman Los Angeles 90024 We are desperately close to no return on 1.5 degrees of warming and we must do everything possible to mitigate our emissions. As a pediatrician it is part of my ethical duty to fight for the future and health of our children and clean energy is part of that fight.

Nicole Revere Los Angeles 90068 I live in Los Feliz and spend a lot of time in Glendale.

Mrs Jane Nachazel-
Ruck
Los Angeles 90026-1712

Ms Sarajo Frieden Los Angeles 90027-1622

Ms Melody Abers Los Angeles 90039-3630

Mr Sam Butler Los Angeles 90045-2753

Ms Carol Ng Los Angeles 90026-1502

Mrs Carol Gordon Los Angeles 90027-1118

Ryan T Malone Los Angeles 90035 We are facing the single greatest disaster that we have ever encountered and we have the ability and means to do something about it. This action furthers the destruction of our planet. Why don't we use this money to create sustainable energy solutions that will help every living species on this planet - today and for generations to come? Let the city of Glendale be the example of what we can do to help protect our planet and not continue to destroy it. Do something you can be proud of and others can look too for example. At the end of the day this project will never see its 'useful life' as future protective mandates will be implemented as the climate crisis continues to wage war on our planet so why not use this money to build something great and sustainable using renewable energy? Mr Mark Reback Los Angeles 90039-3944

Mary Rose O'Leary Los Angeles 90041 This is a time to be investing in clean energy not dirty natural gas. The plant is too close to residential neighborhoods and puts community members at risk. Please do the hard work of figuring out sustainable sources of energy and put the kibosh on this ill-conceived polluting plant. 686 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Ms Liz Amsden Los Angeles 90042-1006 This commits Glendale residents to 100s of millions of dollars invested in a fossil fuel facility when California is trying to cut emissions to 40% below 1990 levels by 2030 and fuel costs will equal cost of the plant’s construction. Under a previous proposal the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power was to provide up to 75 MW of power during three years of shutdown. i.e. Glendale does not need so much additional power Solar or geothermal have virtually zero fuel costs and Google's Project Sunroof shows Glendale has the potential for up to 400 megawatts of solar. The facility will still emit dangerous amounts of carbon monoxide sulfur oxide nitrogen oxide particulate matter and other harmful chemicals into Glendale and the surrounding communities impacting homeowners schools businesses and recreational facilities. It sits in a mapped California Liquefaction Hazard Zone which means in the event of a major earthquake pipelines could rupture causing gas leaks or sudden exp Karen McCluskey Los Angeles 90029 I have been encouraged by municipalities that have moved to clean energy sources in order to help save our environment. I am disappointed that you would even consider using gas. I plead you to look to the future and choose clean energy sources not moving backwards to gas.

Guillermo Ortiz Lynwood 90262-2253

Mrs Elizabeth Rios Lynwood 90262-2321 There is a plethora of pollutants we the people are exposed to.on a daily basis that's studies have proven affect us physically and mentally for the worse. They impact our health and leave ever so many citizens damaged for life. With CoVID 19 affecting so many people's health and well being as well as health care being heavily impacted we now more than any other time before need to rely on preventative care. From natural clean practices in agriculture to clean environmentally friendly practices in business and gas practices.

Leo Kretzner Lytle Creek 92358-9785 The earth and all the people have been ecologically abused for long enough! We need to cut back back back on greenhouse gasses so we can survive!
Mr Rob Seltzer Malibu 90265-5630

Mrs Renate Dolin Malibu 90265-5347

Mr Walter Lohr Malibu 90265-4890 No more pollution for the LA basin! Please! Tiffany Murray Malibu 90265-3646 we need to put our precious planet first! Mrs Stephanie Cupp Malibu 90265-4754

Mr Rob Seltzer Malibu 90265-5630

Mrs Cheryl Torrey Malibu 90265-5210 STOP….Have we as a collective society not learned enough of the impact and devastation to life these kind of environmental impacts this has to lives.

Mr Vidy Ravenborg Malibu 90265-4022 It matters to me because natural gas creates pollution. Think about what kind of world you are leaving for your grandchildren and the drastic measures they have to take to protect and help Mother Earth.

Louis Spirito Malibu 90265-4461 We're running out of time to save the planet. For several years California has been victimized by super fires resulting from global warming.

Dr Georgia Goldfarb Malibu 90265-5359 The planet is burning up. Spend the money on weather-proofing structures adding trees and cool roofs solar panels and undergrounding electrical wires.

Mrs Linda Mclean Malibu 90265-3142

Dr Georgia Goldfarb Malibu 90265-5359

687 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mrs Rita Cote Manhattan
Bch
90266-4037 Please don’t further the Distraction and madness. Let’s get together and do something positive rather than something detrimental.

Ms Susan Johnson Manhattan
Beach
90266-5123 Aliso Canyon has become a hotbed of environmental concerns in recent years. Residents have suffered ill effects from storing gas there which is tied to this project. Fracking is another hotbed of concern as it pollutes water in the process and can cause earthquakes. We need a path to clean energy so that we can battle global warming. Glendale needs to spur use of alternative energy such as solar and wind.

Manhattan Beach has already embraced Clean Power for residents.

Mrs Karla Devine Manhattan
Beach
90266-6108

Mr Dan Esposito Manhattan
Beach
90266-4082

Michael Miller Manhattan
Beach
90266-3708 Dear Council Members Please be part of the future and not the past.

Livia Ferguson Manhattan
Beach
90266-7044

Diane Loughbom Manhattan
Beach
90266-5667 To concentrated in area so much room for environmental and human harm Mrs Marisa
Landsberg
Manhattan
Beach
90266-2301

Miss Maria Emmetti Manhattan
Beach
90266-4058

Ms Alice Neuhauser Manhattan
Beach
90266-6108

Michelle Lee Manhattan
Beach
90266-2720 I live in Manhattan Beach and the Chevron refinery in El Segundo regularly pollutes the air in the entire South Bay Area with particulate matter and foul smells. Don’t ruin the east side of LA with more of the same. Save the planet for our children so they can have a livable future! Mr Dan Esposito Manhattan
Beach
90266-4082

Robert Aronson Marina Del
Rey
90292-7724 Encouraging rooftop solar with battery storage will be far cheaper with the added advantage of being more resilient in an earthquake. Thank you for considering my opinion.

Ms Tiffany Goldwater Marina Del
Rey
90292-6226

Renee Klein Marina Del
Rey
90292-7026

Mrs Karine Noel Marina Del
Rey
90292-7255

Mrs Fiorella Russo-
Jang
Martinez 94553-4331

688 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Ms Marilyn Price Mill Valley 94941-2074

Ms Virginia Leslie Milpitas 95035-3532

Ms Virginia Leslie Milpitas 95035-3532

Ms Brenda Rodriguez Mission Hills 91345-2736

Mr Adam Cools Mission Viejo 92692-5954 With all the evidence out there that we need to change the way we produce in terms of the environment I understand the struggle in changing existing businesses to fit that new direction but bringing a polluting system back makes no sense and is counterproductive to a very clear degree Ms Meagan O'Reilly Mission Viejo 92691-6038 I care about the present and future health of my community and the world. Please make the right choice for us.
mariam afredi Mission Viejo 92691-1211

Mr Marcin
Kortylewski
Monrovia 91016-3015

Linda Ward Montebello 90640-2147

Mr Steve Vicuna Monterey
Park
91754-6011

Ms Nicole Gaudenti Moorpark 93021-3026

Ms Dita Kali Moravske
Toplice
92260

Joan Reynolds Griffin Nevada City 95959-8941 Stop the proliferation of gas and petroleum. Way past time to change our future to clean energy! Mr Ken Stein Newbury
Park
91320-4972

Amy Mattison Newbury
Park
91320-4635

Mr Alan And Caroline
Zuckerman
Newhall 91321-2160

Dr Elliot Bronwein Newhall 91321-1388 We all know that Natural Gas is one of the leading Greenhouse Gases which is fueling our Climate Crisis! The decision to build more gas power plants is unconscionable and should be reconsidered. Green energy sources are now affordable and available and should be utilized instead of fossil fuels.

Ms Cheryl Freeman Newport
Beach
92663-3106 The entire world is moving away from gas. Leave it where it is. Please do not build that plant.

Ms Julie Feiner North Hills 91343-2802 Every decision moving forward needs to be made using clean renewable energy. Our planet and our existence depends on it.

Alex Garrido North Hills 91343-3106

Ms Maria pacheco North Hills 91343-1539 I've lived in Southern California for 73 years and witnessed the growing pollution of our air and the terrible effects that pollution has had on the citizenry. I'm an RN and have taken care of increasing numbers of people with respiratory illnesses causes by environmental pollution. Because of the above reasons the building of more pollution producing plants really concerns me. We should do more to prevent pollution of our environment not continue to pollute more. 689 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mr Kirk Margo North
Hollywood
91601-4534

Laura A Napoli North
Hollywood
91601-2764 In the midst of our current climate crisis this is simply unconscionable! I refuse to breath more dirty air! Mr Jonathan Fields North
Hollywood
91601-1929

Mr Mark Daughney North
Hollywood
91601-1627 Don’t contribute to pollution climate change or fossil fuel profits.

Albert Ramirez North
Hollywood
91605-1014 I like breathing clean air
Andre Yarian North
Hollywood
91602-3911

Ms Sarah Northrip North
Hollywood
91605-5362

Mr Patrick
Censoplano
North
Hollywood
91606-3941 As a person who breathes oxygen and wishes to continue to live on this Earth near your plant I feel it's imperative that we curtail the burning fossil fuels immediately.

Rebecca Prewitt North
Hollywood
91602-1736

Michael Marciano North
Hollywood
91601-4363

Amy Redman North
Hollywood
91601-1605

Luciano Storti North
Hollywood
91602-3183

Ms Lynne Anderson North
Hollywood
91606-3812 I do not live in Glendale now but I did as a young adult. I loved it. The city had a sense of pride-clean well lit streets lots of shops restaurants and a sense of community. Please think of the future generations and invest in clean energy- to keep water clean air clean and not endanger the lives of the citizens.

Ms Wendy Rosenfeld North
Hollywood
91601-4464

Julie S. Jacobson Northridge 91325-4420

Mr David
Martirosyan
Northridge 91324-1022

Ms Tambry Lee Northridge 91324-2933 The lack of regulation regarding the storage of utilities is critical. My entire household was in the hit zone of the Aliso Canyon Gas Leak and we're still dealing with the health ramifications today. It's unacceptable. There's better alternatives.

Ann Dorsey Northridge 91325-3844 Our future depends on transitioning to renewable clean energy ASAP.

Ms Jane Crownover Novato 94949-4541

690 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mr Robert Ortiz Novato 94945-2610

Ms Tiffany Wu Oak Park 91377-4841

Kimberly Narayanan Oak Park 91377-5565

Dr Michele Hooper Oak Park 91377-4776 For the health of your constituents and the planet please do not consider burning more fossil fuels.

There are green sustainable alternatives which are safer and less expensive in the long run Gina Nicholson Oak Park 91377-4718

Ms Caephren
Mckenna
Oakland 94609-2225

Ms Judith Smith Oakland 94601-1320

Chloe Zilliac Oakland 94602-2701 California needs clean energy - not more polluting fossil fuel power plants.

Mr Vasu Murti Oakland 94611-1166 The Democratic Party platform should support: Animal Rights Defending the Affordable Care Act Ending Citizens United Ending Marijuana Prohibition Giving Greater Visibility to Pro-Life Democrats Gun Control Net Neutrality Raising the Minimum Wage to $15 an Hour Responding to the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming and a Sustainable Energy Policy. Democrats for Life of America 10521 Judicial Drive #200 Fairfax VA 22030 (703) 424-6663
Ms Margie Lewis Oakland 94619-2542

Raymond Smith Ontario 91761-0254 Please no gas power plant so close to thousands of school children.

Ms Mona Cordova Ontario 91762-1011 Let’s think about our future! Anonymous
Anonymous
Ontario 91761 Stop building more gas power plants in our cities that will ultimately pollute our air where we are raising our children for generations to come. Your going backwards! We need renewable energy solar energy now! Stop depending on fossil fuels and dangerous gas power plants.

James Cortes Orange 92867-4956 The majority of Californians believe in climate change and demand climate action! Citizens are suffering from heat waves fires and droughts already and we need to divest from gas plants immediately.

Furthermore LA county already is plagued with unhealthy levels of pollution which will raise costs of living and eventually higher death counts. Do NOT revive nor create gas plants any further in the state of California.

Lauren Libas Orange 92865-1250

Suzanne Tani Orange 92867-1764 We cannot continue down the same path and expect to save our planet and our children from devastating impacts. Now is the time to switch to renewable energy. Please do the right thing. Every decision makes you a part of the problem or the solution.

Denise Ranidae Orange 92867-6941

Kim Waterson Orange 92868-3706

Ms Kellie Miller Orange 92867-5426

Roxanne LaChapelle Orange 92867-1691 Please for the sake of our future it’s time to take climate change seriously; we must do everything we can to reverse the course we’re on including the halting of natural gas use! Jill Hargis Orange 92867-6753

Ms Ms. Courtney Orange 92866-1731 As the future of natural gas is looking less bright it seems a cruel joke to build a new processing plant in an urban setting.
691 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Katherine Gramoglia Orange 92867-2111

Tanya Thienngern Orange 92865-4021

Ms Pam Brown Orangevale 95662-4954

Ms Pam Brown Orangevale 95662-4954

Mark Hurst Orinda 94563-3922

Gael Faller Oxnard 93033-8475

Ms Susan
Pierszalowski
Pacific Grove 93950-2041

Ms Therese Debing Pacific Grove 93950-2450

Dr Eric Ericson Pacific
Palisades
90272-4329

Mr Mark Rhomberg Pacific
Palisades
90272-2232 Don't compromise the future by buying a new gas plant which will contribute to climate change! Thank you!
Dr Christine Amos Pacific
Palisades
90272-4621

Shannon Rhoades Pacific
Palisades
90272-3435

Ms Jane Crist Pacific
Palisades
90272-2425

Ms Ileana Wachtel Pacific
Palisades
90272-3409

Thomas May Pacoima 91331-1526

Mr Matt Mailander Palm Desert 92260-3584 Stop!
Mrs Cindy Grosskopf Palmdale 93552-6218

Mario Magpale Palmdale 93550-2861

Mrs Chiyoko Yancey Palmdale 93551-2504 For Pollution of the environment and Respiratory Recents Mr David Boyer Palo Alto 94304-2418

Dr Howard Cohen Palo Alto 94306-3004

Mr Garth Rogers Palo Alto 94306-3417

Mrs Audrey Jin Palos Verdes
Estates
90274-2839

Catherine Seltz Palos Verdes
Estates
90274-1544

Pat Howard Palos Verdes
Estates
90275-1314

Mrs Alicia Kern Palos Verdes
Peninsula
90274-4034

692 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Sarah Peters Paonia 81428-0746 We have many renewable options available to us in SoCal. Please prioritize people and the environment over profit and say no to this.

Miss Elizabeth Estes Pasadena 91107-1812

Ms Susan Walp Pasadena 91103-2722

Mr Kinsey McLean Pasadena 91104-3301

Amy Sheedy Pasadena 91104-1115 Please look towards renewable clean energy. Please look for healthy and sustainable solutions. Natural Gas will be obsolete and isn't renewable energy.

Dr Mary Hayden Pasadena 91105-1356 A gas plant is a very expensive dinosaur to build because of a need to have a back up plan for power outages. The council needs to think creatively about new technologies that can be flexible and offer clean energy to Glendale.

Dr Geoffrey Symcox Pasadena 91105-1731 REJECT THIS FOSSIL FUEL PLANT IN FAVOR OF SUSTAINABLE ENERGY Mr Duncan Sinclair Pasadena 91104-4551 I live downwind from Glendale in Pasadena. We all need cleaner air! Mrs Cynthia Bennett Pasadena 91105-2410 The air that we breathe should not be polluted.

Ms Linda Hewitt Pasadena 91104-2889 Gas is old and dangerous technology. And costly for Glendale when accidents occur.

Mrs Tamyke Edwards Pasadena 91107-4875

Ms Barbara Pahk Pasadena 91107-3064

Liz Erman Pasadena 91104-1722 I live in the L.A. area and enjoy being outdoors so we should do all we can to focus on clean energy.

Mrs Joanna
Mcdermed
Pasadena 91104-1704

Mr Guido Bryant Pasadena 91104-4309

Dr Natalie Cohen Pasadena 91106-3542

Ms Margaret
Starbuck
Pasadena 91106-1051 I live nearby Glendale in Pasadena and am very concerned about pollution from the natural gas power plant. I also feel it is urgent to transition away from all fossil fuel power sources and toward clean energy.

Ms Robin Newquist Pasadena 91105-3438 Please don’t add to the problem Jill Cavan Pasadena 91106-1156 Please consider all possible alternatives to natural gas construction at Grayson. Conserving what is left of nature is so important to our future.

Mr Richard Valencia Pasadena 91105-1326

Dr Robert Merrill Pasadena 91103-1141

Ms Rachel Rodriguez Pasadena 91106-1938

Seanna Shutta-
Morgan
Pasadena 91107-3522

Ms Diana Brand Pasadena 91101-3167 The air quality over the years has improved in the San Fernando Valley and around Glendale specifically.

I grew up in Burbank during bad air days and got very sick many times during childhood due to bad air aka pollution. I love taking long walks hiking and cycling and creating this kind of pollution would present a great danger to the health of my lungs and other people who enjoy outdoor recreational activities. Children will also be impacted negatively the way I was growing up during the 1960’s. Please do not allow this to happen in Glendale in a densely populated urban area. 693 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mr Steven Garcia Pasadena 91107-3035 We don’t want more pollution in our city; we want to clean up our city! Elizabeth Fife Pasadena 91106-4323 The Council should vote NO on all new or refurbished natural gas generators Please serve your constituents and prioritize local distributed solar and storage demand response load flexibility and energy efficiency.

Richard Kornfeld Pasadena 91105-1922

Hillary Carter-Liggett Pasadena 91104-3711 We value the clean air of our environment.

Laurie Kay Pasadena 91107-1217

Mr Robert Paquette Pasadena 91107-2417

Mr Grayson
Torgersen
Pasadena 91101-5658 I think you agree that we don’t need a solution that contributes to pollution hotter days and climate change. Thank You in advance for considering alternatives.

Ms Nance Dubuc Pasadena 91104-2244

Ms Jo Ann Kiva Pasadena 91107-1606

Miss Sabrina Jimenez Pasadena 91103-3763

Kema Allin Pasadena 91104-3428

Ed Fisher Pasadena 91106-3813

Beatrice Casini Pasadena 91103-3107 I have long lived in Glendale and Pasadena. My child is 11 and my friend's child the same - both had the same asthma type complications when they were little due to LA smog & pollution particulates. There is no reason to continue with polluting industries and EVERY reason to be the pioneers of reusable power - That is what we need to do and where we as a country need to invest. Make a better decision to move us forward not backward. Don't build this polluting plant. Do better.

Thalia Gonzalez Pasadena 91107-2358 As someone who lives in the area I am concerned for the harm a gas plant will bring to residents especially near such a densely populated area. It has been well documented and researched that many of these gas pollutants cause serious health issues. This is a threat to public health. Please reconsider.

Carolyn Harris Pasadena 91101-1279 We need to support use of renewable energy sources rather than continuing to use gas.

Mr Tom Brady Pasadena 91105-2707 There is no way to prevent the climate crisis without moving now away from natural gas.

Cynthia Cannady Pasadena 91105-1122 We need to transition to renewable energy. This is a step in the wrong direction.

Ms Ruth Anne
Hammond
Pasadena 91104-3641

Marc Futernick Pasadena 91106-4316 We must stop burning fossil fuels if we are to avoid serious health consequences. Am a physician and I can detail all the health consequences both from the polluted air and our changing climate. We absolutely must stop right now. It makes no sense to build new fossil fuel infrastructure. It's completely misguided. The world is changing quickly. Get on the right side of change.

Ms Nancy Hubbs-
Chang
Pasadena 91105-1017 Didn't we learn anything from the horrendous leak in Aliso Canyon? Ms Margaret
Starbuck
Pasadena 91106-1051

694 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Meredith Rose Pasadena 91104-1337 I live near Glendale; I live in the San Gabriel Valley. A natural gas plant will only exacerbate the climate changes that are harming our region. Natural gas is not clean nor is it environmentally friendly. Keep it in the ground!
Cynthia Cannady Pasadena 91105-1122 The expansion or construction of new gas power plants is a bad idea. Gas is a powerful fossil fuel that creates greenhouse gas emissions that are causing global climate catastrophe. According to the IPCC we have only 10 years left to dramatically reduce GHGs in order to achieve the 1.5 degree limit. I have grandchildren and I don't want them to have to endure a world that is too hot for comfort with not enough water more fires heavy winds and civil violence caused the migration and climate injustice.

Mr Wesley
Reutimann
Pasadena 91103-2322 More sustainable and healthy alternatives such as better demand response management and distributed energy resources (DERs) are available and improving every single year. Now is the NOT the time to invest in outdated technology that will continue to dig us deeper into the hole we already find ourselves in. Please reconsider before making a long-term investment in a dated polluting technology.

Thank you!
Frances Goff Pasadena 91107-4208 Don't leave the citizens of Glendale and us the citizens of Pasadena - vulnerable to the kind of methane poisoning we saw in the San Fernando Valley.

Elizabeth Fife Pasadena 91106

Ms Lea Martin Pearblossom 93553-0684

Susan Hathaway Pico Rivera 90660-2842

Laura Aguilera Pico Rivera 90807

Mir Faugno Playa Del Rey 90293-7303 Air is our Primal Food-- Poisoning our Air is Unconscionable. Please don't be despicable== our Future depends on what you choose to do.

Ms Alyssa Webb Playa Del Rey 90293-7608 Los Angeles should be setting an example and utilizing new clean technology! Particularly since we are vulnerable to the effects of earthquakes.

Ms Yvonne Neal Playa Del Rey 90293-8296

Mr Bob Breckenridge Pleasanton 94566-1129 Stop destroying our world. Start building a future for our children.

Ms Angela Steele Pomona 91765-1018

Dr Robert And Janet
Tranquada
Pomona 91767-2052

Amalia Walker Pomona 91767-2513 I have seen communities ravaged by and people sick from fracking and natural gas pipelines and storage. There are myriad other energy solutions. Natural gas is NOT clean when drilling and transportation are considered and its extraction and use are not healthy for people or for the environment. This would be a stain on Glendale.

Barbara Miyamoto Porter Ranch 91326-2925 Save the planet for my grandchildren PLEASE!! Ms Lynn Pedersen Porter Ranch 91326-1027

Mr Matthew Rivers Porter Ranch 91326-1740

Walter Holzinger Porter Ranch 91326-4010

Mr Matthew Rivers Porter Ranch 91326-1740

Mrs Faith Strailey Quincy 95971-3012

695 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mr Matthew Ramirez Rancho
Cucamonga
91737-7937

Dr Yvonne Olivares Rancho
Cucamonga
91730-6972 SoCal’s air quality cannot take more pollutants.

Ms Barbara Zola Rancho
Cucamonga
91737-3756 We have worked hard to clean up pollution since the 1970s. It’s detrimental to go backwards and threaten our residents’ health/lives
Mr David Griffith Rancho
Cucamonga
91737-3017

Mr David M. Madsen Rancho
Cucamonga
91730-3657

David Alvarez Rancho
Cucamonga
91730-6972 We need to think about the future. Health issues due to air quality is something that is going to affect the region down the road. Let's start by thinking green energy Melina Paris Rancho Palos
Verdes
90275-1350

Dennis Trembly Rancho Palos
Verdes
90275-3715

Mr Joe Lorenzen Rancho Palos
Verdes
90275-4553

Mr Marcia Barryte Rancho Palos
Verdes
90275-2955

Alison Bassell Rancho Santa
Margarita
92688-3131 Hello!!! It’s important because we can’t have pollution like this infiltrating our eco system Mrs Allyson Finkel Rancho Santa
Margarita
92688-1012

Jacqueline Cochrane Redondo
Beach
90278-2045 Californians want clean affordable energy for our climate and communities. We need to invest in the future not the fossil fuel industry. This proposal is a serious threat to the climate and air quality in the Los Angeles region. Gas plants not only contribute to local air pollution they cost customers hundreds of millions of dollars in the long run while fossil fuel companies profit. This isn't even necessary. You're proposing to only use the power plant 15 percent of the time to cover peak electricity demand. There are much cleaner and more affordable ways to meet the city's energy needs. Glendale has the technology and the resources to invest in clean energy. But we know that fossil fuel supporters are mounting a lot of pressure to build this gas-fired power plant and let it pollute our climate and lungs for decades to come. Please support your constituents. It's people and plant before fossil fuel profits. Don't give in to fossil fuel industry pressure.

Mr Bruce Caukin Redondo
Beach
90277-6405

Wendy Pratt Redondo
Beach
90277-3009

696 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mr Colby Allerton Redondo
Beach
90277-4354 Wait what? Climate change Aliso Canyon health impacts wtf? Really? Who would support this in 2022?? Lindsay Meagher Redondo
Beach
90277-3354

Mr David Reid Redondo
Beach
90277-6715

Ms Laurel Cameron Redondo
Beach
90277-4827

Esme Collier Redwood City 94063

Anna Craig Redwood City 94061-5606

J. Angell Rescue 95672-9411

Mrs Heidi Mandel Reseda 91335-2033

Rosario Sandel Reseda 91335-1553

B Sandow Richmond 94804-1520

Ms Elizabeth Levy Richmond 94805-1136

Ms Sandra Gamble Ridgecrest 93555-5118

Ms Amanda Cate Riverside 92506-3748

Mr Steven Korson Riverside 92505-1807

Ms Esther Arizmendi Riverside 92505-2637 We don't need more pollution we need progressive ideas please.

Sarah Mckofka Riverside 92505-2062

Michelle R Riverside 92505-3781

Jessie Parks Riverside 92506-3140

Tim McKeever Rocklin 95677-1822 New gas plants will spew GHGs for 30+ years. Just by opening them you are endorsing more oil drilling across the west condemning us to runaway climate change.

Robert Bessen Rolling Hills
Estates
90275-3486 Please stop investing in fossil fuels and move into the clean energy future starting NOW. Thank you very much
Mr Dan Morgan Rosamond 93560-6804

Dr Laurel Harris Rutherford 94573-0088 We must phase out all Fossil Fuels not build more facilities for them! The Climate and the lives of everyone on the planet depend upon this for survival!!
Rev Edh Stanley Sacramento 95823-1457

Mr Melvin Taylor Sacramento 95823-5780

Mr Randall Boltz San Diego 92111-6704

Mr Jimmie Lunsford San Diego 92176-7027

Ms Barbara Quinlan San Diego 92130-3542

Dr Carol Davis San Diego 92109-6273 Please let's put our dollar into the development and distribution of clean and renewable energy rather than further spoiling the environment.
697 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mr an Thomas and
Diane Bates
San Diego 92122-4026

Lauren Prust San Diego 92126-3412

Mrs Annie W San Diego 92101-3338

Mr an Thomas and
Diane Bates
San Diego 92122-4026 Please do what's right for our planet.

Mr Robert
Rosenblum
San Diego 92123-3623

Ms Sylvia De Baca San Dimas 91773-3151

Ms Sylvia De Baca San Dimas 91773-3151

Mrs Arlene Huskins San Dimas 91773

Mr Michael Price San Francisco 94109-2812

Mr David Doering San Francisco 94109-3607

Mr Terry & Martin
Horwitz
San Francisco 94122-1608

Ms Donna Sharee San Francisco 94112-2829

Ms Lynne Davies San Francisco 94114-2324

Ms Marci Yellin San Francisco 94110-5528

Mr Edward Kuczynski San Francisco 94114-1828

Rev Stewart Wilber San Francisco 94114-1710

Jane Swigart San Francisco 94114-3126

Mr Terry & Martin
Horwitz
San Francisco 94122-1608

Dr Mike Kutilek San Jose 95112-2368

Mr Tom Butler San Jose 95124-2472

Ms Deborah St. Julien San Jose 95136-2323

Mr Don Meehan San Jose 95124-5939

David Peterson San Jose 95112-5565

Ms Brenda
Hattisburg
San Leandro 94578-3351

Mr Michael Szeto San Marino 91108-1225

Dr Alexander Christ San Marino 91108-2548

Ms Carol Schaffer San Pablo 94806-1648

Mrs Lori Kegler San Pedro 90731-6213

Kathy Popoff San Pedro 90732-2272

Ms Hannah Bentley San Pedro 90731-6925 This is just a profoundly bad idea at this time.

Mr Tom Earnist San Pedro 90731-5826 I used to live in Glendale we must GET OFF GAS! Look at what SoCalGas is doing to us now! 698 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Ms Barbara
Hargenrater
San Pedro 90731-5329

Angela Carter San Pedro 90731-3147 Supporting and continuing what is in fact instruments of death for profit has been allowed for too long.

For too long profits have been put before lives and this sociopathy is destroying All. A greed that never will be satiated is destroying us All. Protect Life. And choose Life.

Mr David Staley San Pedro 90731-6414

Mr Patrick Lewis San Rafael 94901-4462

Mr Christopher Lish San Rafael 94903-2565

Mr Jeffrey Hemenez San Ramon 94583-5000

Ms Irene Hilgers San Ramon 94582-5359

Ralph Boug Santa Ana 92701-4007

Mr Gregory Tabat Santa Ana 92704-1166 Burn more gas will not help anyone Luz Abrego Santa Ana 92701-2752

Roxanne Hernandez Santa Ana 92707-4134

Mr Gregory Tabat Santa Ana 92704-1166

Mr Dennis Allen Santa Barbara 93101-1291

Ms Camille Gilbert Santa Barbara 93101-4045

Ms Celeste Anacker Santa Barbara 93105-3024

Supporter Unknown Santa Barbara 93111-2020

Dr Carol

HEMINGWAY
Santa Barbara 93105-2539

Mr Keith Rhinehart Santa Clara 95050-6420

Mrs Carol Lewis Santa Clarita 91351-5560

Mr an Ed and Lisa
Langness
Santa Clarita 91390-5258 Come on Glendale! You can do so much better. Please consider other cleaner alternatives to this natural gas power plant.

Diana Shaw Santa Clarita 91350-1616

Ms Judith Brealey Santa Clarita 91390-5700 The air quality should be protected at all costs to ensure health quality of life the appeal of our city and state’s beauty for tourism. It is foolish to even consider polluting our air when we are in the midst of a pandemic that affects the respiratory system. We need a long term forward thinking energy solution that addresses energy needs while creating new safe economically sound green sources that take into consideration how to heal and mitigate climate change.

Mrs Carol Lewis Santa Clarita 91351-5560

Paul Hemstreet Santa Clarita 91390-5700 Please consider how your vote may affect climate for future generations. Make a choice for greener alternatives that will help ensure a clean safe world for our children's children. Now is the time to eliminate fossil fuel-driven power plans that serve our communities.

Mr Jason Price Santa Clarita 91390-5242 As a fellow resident of Los Angeles County I breathe the same air as every citizen of Glendale and when I drive down the 5 and 210 freeways I can see the smog with which we all contend. 699 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Diane Trautman Santa Clarita 91350-4301 We are in a climate crisis. This is no time to approve projects that are damaging to the environment and unhealthy for those who live near them. I lived in Glendale for several years and the people in your community deserve better options.

Mr Russell Weisz Santa Cruz 95060-6109

Mr Michael Abler Santa Cruz 95062-3436

Mr Richard Gallo Santa Cruz 95062-3561

Ms Gail Blumberg Santa Cruz 95060-4214

Ms Nanlouise Wolfe Santa Cruz 95060-6823

Elena Lopez Santa Fe
Springs
90670-2341 We need clean air
Mr Carlos Arnold Santa Maria 93455-2329

Ms Julie Adelson Santa Monica 90405-4340 CLIMATE CRISIS IS HERE! build solar and wind farms not more fossil fuel earth destruction Ms Kathy Seal Santa Monica 90405-2029 Please don't add to the burning of fossil fuels which are causing global warming.. Thank you! Joan Rodman Santa Monica 90405-2558 Our beautiful world is rapidly changing to the people's disadvantage. Give our future generations a world to live in. Every decision counts.

Cindy Loomis Santa Monica 90403-4329

William Doran Santa Monica 90404-5285 This is totally unnecessary there are so many other ways that we can create energy we do not need gas we do not need oil try hemp
Mr Craig Galloway Santa Monica 90403-4556

Cordula Ohman Santa Monica 90405-3507 No mote pollution ❤️ Dr Will Finch Santa Monica 90405-4928

Jill Davenport Santa Monica 90405-2007 No more pollution! Jo Baxter Santa Monica 90402-1619

Tami Stover Santa Monica 90402 It’s important to me as a mother that we use sustainable green energy alternatives rather than fossil fuels for our energy needs. Our children deserve a clean energy future not the climate dystopia that creating more fossil fuel power plants will constitute.

Mrs Lendi Slover Santa Monica 90404-5055 Please end fossil fuels.

Mrs Brooke Fischer Santa Monica 90402-1122 We need solar energy not gas!!! Invest in renewable resources not fossil fuels.

Ms Alexandra
Wollum
Santa Monica 90405-4910

Mr Jerry Persky Santa Monica 90403-2217

Ms Kaya Foster Santa Monica 90402-1107

Mrs Gina Garcia Santa Monica 90405-1850 We need to move away from fossil fuels even natural gas if we have any hope of solving the climate crisis and our local communities.

Dr Selwyn Oskowitz Santa Monica 90401-3615

Ms Mary Jimenez Santa Monica 90402-1746

Ms Erica Brookhart Santa Monica 90405-4321

700 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Ms Kathryn Summers Santa Monica 90402-2007 California needs to continue and strengthen its climate leadership rather than allow this plan to proceed when there are cleaner alternatives.

Ms Georja Umano Santa Monica 90405-2486

Joe Hardin Santa Monica 90405-6051 We are running out of time to clean the air...

Dr Edward Costello Santa Monica 90402-1316 Please do not spend taxpayers' money on revamping a GAS power plant. We must turn to NON-fossil energy as soon as possible. Thank you.

Ms Victoria Jensen Santa Monica 90405-2443

M Lynch Santa Monica 90405-2455

Robert Frang Santa Monica 90403-1441

Ms Eileen Taschereau Santa Monica 90404-4767

Susie Tortell Santa Monica 90405-3430

David Rosenstein Santa Monica 90402-1128 Climate change and clean air effect all of us in the greater Los Angeles area. Please make the responsible choice environmentally health and fiscally and select a better option to Grayson Edward Dollard Santa Monica 90405-2320

Apryl Mefford-
Hemauer
Santa Monica 90405-3731

Mrs Mary Rojeski Santa Monica 90405-4130 BIG NOOOOO TO THIS!!! Dr Edward Costello Santa Monica 90402-1316

Miss Sarah Stiles Santa Rosa 95405-8326

Ms Nicole Leseigneur Santa Rosa 95404-6508

Linda Thompson Santa Rosa 95407-8073

Ms Zora Hocking Santa Rosa 95401-5715

Miss Sarah Stiles Santa Rosa 95405-8326

Mr Greg Schiller Saugus 91350-4210

Mrs Rachael
Lehmberg
Seal Beach 90740-4946 We only have one earth. We must do all we can to save life on earth.

Ms Renee Jeska Seal Beach 90740-2958

Ms Marjorie Manley Sherman
Oaks
91403-5476

Mr Mark Betti Sherman
Oaks
91423-4530

Ms Alison Osment Sherman
Oaks
91411-1512

Mr Mox Ruge Sherman
Oaks
91403-1711

Mrs Tasha Boucher Sherman
Oaks
91403-4625

701 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Ms Vanae Ehret Sherman
Oaks
91403-4626 We should absolutely reject the fossil fuel Grayson power plant. We need clean sustainable power for our communities. Gas power is the dinosaur (literally) in the room. We can do better in the future with renewable energy. Glendale should not go backwards with fossil fuel.

Ms Vanae Ehret Sherman
Oaks
91403-4626 The entire state of California should be going to clean energy. Gas construction at Grayson affects nearby communities with dirty air which is why we oppose it here in Los Angeles. There are cleaner alternatives available.

Mrs Cathy
Brandolisio
Sherman
Oaks
91423-1814

Ms Connie Luder Sierra Madre 91024-1306 Pollution in any form is slowly killing us by creating illness. You are a government that is to support your community and to do no harm to the citizenry.

Dr John Herziger Sierra Madre 91024-1835

Robert Buckner Sierra Madre 91024-1501 I want to leave my daughter a livable planet. Continuing business as usual at this time will not get us to 50% reduction in CO2 by 2030 that we know is necessary to stay below a 1.5 degree C rise in temperature. The public needs to be brought into the process of helping Glendale get thru this phase of changing over to 100% green energy. Our parents helped the US mobilize and fight WWII. The Climate Crisis is even more of an existential crisis and needs to be treated as such.

Ms Nina MacDonald Silverado 92676-9786

Ms Christine Holmes Simi Valley 93065-2199

Ms Paula Berinstein Simi Valley 93065-6780

Mrs Frances Kelly Simi Valley 93063-5782

Mr Kevin Burke Simi Valley 93065-4492

Patricia Lewis Simi Valley 93063-1611 Fossil fuels are the dirty energy of the past. Shame on you got even considering a gas plant at thuu I s time.

Mr Jim Fleming Simi Valley 93065-7352 At a time when we are moving toward solutions to the climate crisis we shouldn't be considering keeping those alternatives which are harmful to the planet! Let's move forward not backward! Ms Sharon Levine Simi Valley 93063-2827 I’m a former resident of and frequent visitor to Glendale. I’ve spent many happy days walking your neighborhoods and hiking your beautiful trails. I urge you to reject this gas generator project and to focus on switching from dirty outdated fossil fuels to clean renewable energy sources that will preserve the environment and protect people’s health and quality of life. You have the power to help mitigate - or exacerbate - the effects of climate change. Please make the right choice. Thank you.

Patricia VanBuskirk Simi Valley 93063-0452

Keith Langdon Simi Valley 93063-6503

Miss Holly Huntley Simi Valley 93063-3522

Mr Derek
Beauchemin
Simi Valley 93063-2801

Rev Donna Shaw Simi Valley 93065-2104

Brittany Johnson Simi Valley 93065-3508 We don’t need anymore pollution! Ms Carole Gillin Simi Valley 93065-5548 Climate change is a major concern. Any pollution is bad. 702 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Barbara Arens Simi Valley 93063-2486

Ms Tamara Mccready Simi Valley 93063-4330

Mr James Johnson Simi Valley 93065-0944

David Hardy Simi Valley 93065-1012

Susan Xner Simi Valley 93063-4714 It’s time to do all we can to stop climate change — we must phase out the use of fossil fuels and WE CAN ! WE JUST NEED TO DO IT !!
Mr Patrick Bonner South Gate 90280-4493

Ms Cristina Luna South
Pasadena
91030-3518 It’s irresponsible to continue to add to the problem of climate change. We need to only support renewable alternatives moving forward.

Mr Celio Da Silveira South
Pasadena
91030-4554 We already have too much pollution in LA. It is rare to have a good air quality in our city.

Jill Pach South
Pasadena
91030-3749

Cindy Aragon South
Pasadena
91030-3311

Mr Scott Jung South
Pasadena
91030-3588

Mr Walter Erhorn Spring Valley 91979-1843

Ms Carol and Ronald
Ruth
Stanford 94305-8403

Ms Josephine Flores Stanton 90680-1969

Ilene Atkins Studio City 91604-3444

Christine Hsia Studio City 91604-3036

Ms Laurie Rittenberg Studio City 91604-3013

Ms Maureen Toth Studio City 91604-3877

Ms Nora Doyle Studio City 91604-3636 Please don’t take us backwards in the fight against climate change. New Fossil fuel infrastructure should be rejected in favor of human health and survival.

Mr David Alford Studio City 91604-1156

Ms Inga Stanelun Studio City 91604-4266

ethne dennis Studio City 91604-2699 I am born and raised in Los Angeles and have always lived nearby Glendale and spent a lot of time in the area. I value it for its beauty and preserved natural landscapes in the hills and all the fresh air and trees.

Please do not pollute this area damaging it for residents for generations to come.

Anissa Borrego Studio City 91604-2989 Please take our climate our future and our people/ the health of our people into account. This is a move in the wrong direction. No more gas power plants we are already experiencing a climate crisis.

Fred Herrera Sun Valley 91352-4322 Clean energy Please! Mr Tom Jackman Sun Valley 91352-4208 Over development - pollution etc! Suzanna Wood Sun Valley 91352-1228 There is so much science behind the poor/dismal quality of our air we definitely should not be building gas works in the City of Glendale.
703 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mr Lionel Mares Sun Valley 91352-3043

Judith Guerrero Sunland 91040-2627 This proposal is a serious threat to the climate and air quality in the Los Angeles region. Gas plants not only contribute to local air pollution they cost customers hundreds of millions of dollars in the long run while fossil fuel companies profit. All the more baffling this isn't even necessary. They propose to only use the power plant 15 percent of the time to cover peak electricity demand. There are much cleaner and more affordable ways to meet the city's energy needs. Glendale has the technology and the resources to invest in clean energy. But we know that fossil fuel supporters are mounting a lot of pressure to build this gas-fired power plant and let it pollute our climate and lungs for decades to come.

Ms Kathleen Travers Sunland 91040-2017

Ms Indee Brooke Sunland 91040-2353 The risk of children being exposed to toxicity is too high.

Susan Somers Sunland 91040-2059 It’s time for California to lead the nation with environmentally safe and responsible production of energy. Glendale would be better off embracing green energy for the health of all the residents.

Thanks!
Profe Charles Wolfe Sylmar 91342-1401

Lynda Park Sylmar 91342-1947

Ms Cynthia Chavez Sylmar 91342-1407

Margarita Gonzalez Sylmar 91342-2623

Brittany Jefferson Sylmar 91342 I am a resident in a community near Glendale. A location whose air quality is impacted by decisions made in neighboring cities such as Glendale. We know the facts about how continuing to burn fossil fuels is negatively impacting the environment. Methane a greenhouse gas is more potent than carbon dioxide making it even more dangerous for the health and safety of the public. That is why I encourage you to VOTE AGAINST the proposed gas power plant! We should be proposing RENEWABLE ways to meet the community's power needs. We do not need more gas! We need more solar wind and other forms of renewable energy. We must leave coal oil and gas behind us in order to secure a more sustainable future. Thank you.

Mr Douglas Kraus Tarzana 91356-5526 While the rest of California advances towards clean energy the City of Glendale is threatening to move in the opposite direction considering an outdated and irresponsible approach focused on investment in fossil fuel combustion. Investing in new fossil-fuel infrastructure is a bad play for Glendale. There are cleaner and more efficient ways to meet the city's energy needs.

Ms Shoshana Paige Tarzana 91335-6529

Mr Houman
Foroughian
Tarzana 91356-1832

Ms Janine Reichard Tarzana 91335-7304

Mr Roger Hollander Tarzana 91356-5728

Faramarz Ghavami Tarzana 91356-1871

704 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Dr Rokhsan
Taherpour
Tarzana 91356-4442 Natural gas is not the answer. “The drilling and extraction of natural gas from wells and its transportation in pipelines results in the leakage of methane ” Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) notes. Methane is a very very powerful greenhouse gas. In the atmosphere compared to carbon it’s fairly short-lived: only about 20 percent of the methane emitted today will still be in the atmosphere after 20 years. However when it first enters the atmosphere it’s around 120 times more powerful than CO2 at trapping heat and 86 times stronger over a 20 year period.

Mrs Louise Bianco Tarzana 91356-1012

Mr David Garfinkle Tarzana 91356-1114

Mercedes Macias Tehachapi 93561-1612

Mr John Smith Temple City 91780-3222

Ms Alena Jorgensen Temple City 91780-1651

Mr Richard Sugerman Thousand
Oaks
91360-6626

Dr Lisa Dahill Thousand
Oaks
91360-3218

Mr Mark Chotiner Thousand
Oaks
91361-1326

Ms Lisa Cuizon Thousand
Oaks
91320-4763

Mr Garry Star Thousand
Oaks
91362-5350

R.G. Tuomi Thousand
Oaks
91362-1460

Bita Rezvani Thousand
Oaks
91360-3536

Ms Gerry Williams Thousand
Oaks
91360-6423

Mrs Joanne Sulkoske Thousand
Oaks
91360-1749

Mrs Victoria Behar Thousand
Oaks
91360-7038

Katie Morris Toluca Lake 91602-2418 This would contribute to the climate crisis especially in my city. There are many other alternatives.

Please consider them. It’s time to put the planet over profit.

Ms Deborah
Kashinsky
Topanga 90290-3545

705 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Ms Paula Perlman Topanga 90290-4007 The proposed gas plant at the Grayson site is threatening to the air quality not only in Glendale but throughout southern California. There have been to many times we have seen how gas plants and air pollution contaminate. With all that we are dealing with now I urge you to consider another source of energy perhaps solar to keep us cleaner and our environment more conducive for heatlhy life styles.

Thank you for taking the time to reconsider and act upon good judgement. Sincerely Paula Perlman Ofer Sapir Topanga 90290-3353

Pamela McBride Topanga 90290-3348

Jaime Nahman Topanga 90290-3508

Mrs Isabel Freeman Topanga 90290-3448

Ms Susan Hanger Topanga 90290-3551 Obviously moving away from fossil fuels is imperative even if painful. We humans need to grow up and get real. That includes Glendale….

Mr Charles
Kenworthy
Topanga 90290-4435

Char Hopey Topanga 90290-3826 If you do not know why you should NOT approve this you should not be a representative of the people of California. If you do know the reason you should NOT approve this please inform your constituents of the dangers so they are educated.

Mr Brent Yeh Torrance 90505-2660

Ms Laura Moreno Torrance 90501-2028 I live near Torrance Refinery and there have been several fires explosions and periods of “gasing off” with the flare which in turn causes more pollution. There are more financial gains to clean sources of energy.

Ms Erin Suyehara Torrance 90503-4051

Ms Dana Kinonen Torrance 90505-7809

V & B Jones Torrance 90508-9050 I thought we were done with carcinogenic climate-disrupting fuels.

Ms Nancy Hutchins Tujunga 91042-3153 I love this planet - I think about how it looks from outer space - and then with a closer look - polar bears oxygen rivers mountains trees oceans tigers monkeys horses people who create wonderful works of art or heal people or animals or do other great work - what's not to love? Susan Fukushima Tujunga 91042-1820 Please consider all possible alternatives to natural gas construction. We need clean air.

Mr Oscar Alvarez Tujunga 91042-1541

Dr Nadine Curias Tujunga 91042-2043 Stop polluting out air….

Mr Hovik Mossessi Tujunga 91042-3125 The city is polluted enough with all the exhaust fumes from all the cars and trucks we don't need more pollution. Please think about all the residents with asthma COPD emphsima give us a break and think of solar energy instead. Invest in clean energy instead.

Jo Torina Tujunga 91042-3349

Ms Shalena Oxley-
Butler
Tujunga 91042-1118

David Rubin Tujunga 91042-2883 The time for fossil fueled power generation is coming to an end. We MUST transition NOW to more renewable energy. Our climate is getting worse and this project would be a disaster for Glendale and the surrounding area.
706 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Ms Skye Van Raalte-
Herzog
Tujunga 91042-2223 Natural gas produces methane which causes global warming. We should be moving away from fossil fuels!!!!!
Alicia Zumback Tujunga 91042-2623

Mrs David and Dawn
Jenkins
Tujunga 91042-1318 A really bad idea in light of the challenges our world is having! Mrs Jennifer Olvera Tustin 92780-4751

Dr Mitra Fiuzat Tustin 92780-3432

Jon Povill Unknown 90290

Mrs Tori Reyes Upland 91784-9290

Joey Medeiros Upland 91786-7731

Mrs Jo Mandrell Upland 91784-2011

Mrs Shirley Harris Upland 91784-2006

Mr Geoffrey Shaw Upland 91786-2188

Ms Anita Wishhusen Valencia 91355-3833

Ms Anita Wisch Valencia 91355-3833

Nina Garcia Valencia 91355-1915

Mrs Elizabeth Howell Valencia 91355-1654

Mr Dave Swartz Valencia 91355-1300

Natalie Ho Valencia 91354-1176 Investing in renewable energy is a more financially and environmentally responsible decision. I don’t want my tax payer money going to something that will become obsolete in my lifetime.

Anita Wisch Valencia 91355-3833

Darynne Jessler Valley Village 91607-4115

Mr David Johnson Valley Village 91607-1211 Stop focusing on the past and on fossil fuels and start focusing on the future and on renewable energy sources and energy storage options. Be a leader now and for our future generations...

Ms Jessica Forrest-
Baldini
Valley Village 91607-2503

Ms Joy Fox Valley Village 91607-5014

Ms Ruben Gomez Van Nuys 91401-4708

Ms Julie Sanford Van Nuys 91406-5213

Ms Rheva Nickols Van Nuys 91405-2935

John Wright Van Nuys 91406-2223 I suffer from serious asthma bronchitis and AIDS. Your proposed gas fired plant is a gross reversal of all the improvement in the air quality of the greater LA Metropolitan area. There is much we still need to clean up but your scheme is very much the wrong way to go.

Elizabeth Flores Van Nuys 91405-4517 As a teacher for over 40 years I see the effect that these construction sites have on the health of the neighborhood. Please reconsider!
Miss Stephanie
Nunez
Van Nuys 91405-3142

707 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Ms Lise Hartill Van Nuys 91406-3042

Henry Etchison Van Nuys 91405-4742

Mr Leiv Blad Sr Van Nuys 91401-2255

Mrs Soraya Dosaj Van Nuys 91401-2429

Ms Sofia Arreguin Van Nuys 91405-1628

Barbara Milliken Venice 90291-3836 This project extends fossil fuel production--just the opposite of urgent needs to use sustainable energy.

It affects all of us. Thank you.

Mr John Howard Venice 90291-5020

Ms Scottie Thompson Venice 90291-3837

Ms Mindy Taylor-
Ross
Venice 90291-3518 We know climate change is a real and present danger so why expand your operations now? Do the right thing and invest in renewable resources. Thank you.

Ms Mindy Taylor-
Ross
Venice 90291-3518 We know climate change is real and a present danger to us all. Please do the right thing and invest in renewables. Thank you.

Ms Donna Malamud Venice 90291-2804 it matters to of us even if we don't live nearby Ms Jesse Croxton Venice 90291-2806

Mr Andrea Boccaletti Venice 90291-5049

Mr Bob Mutascio Venice 90291-5043 Pollution created in Glendale affects us all. NO MORE FOSSIL FUEL PLANTS! Ms Mary-Jane Wagle Venice 90291-4622 This is a critical time for us all - especially our children and grandchildren. Do t take a shortsighted decision that will make their world less livable. We need to act strongly now to improve our impact on climate change and the planet.

Mary Beth Trautwein Venice 90291-4239 The Grayson project is wrong for Glendale and wrong for CA. Methane is is a fossil fuel emitting greenhouse gases and accelerating climate change.

Mrs Amy Sullivan View Park 90043-1206 I want a future for our children and grandchildren with clean air temperatures that sustain life the ability to grow food and have a thriving ecosystem. Clean energy is a must if we are going to have a shot at having these things. The city could instead incentivize residences and businesses to do things that promote clean energy as a community like providing discounts on rooftop solar and installing EV chargers. These would also create jobs and revenue for the area and not pollute in the same manner than the gas plant will.

Judith Henderson Villa Park 92861-2712 The city of Glendale needs to look to the future not to the past. As a property owner in Glendale for 45 years I urge you to consider the impact your decision is making not on just the local population but on Los Angeles County and the environment as a whole.

Mr Richard Bold Vista 92084-2613

Martha Zavala Walnut 91789-1477 The expansion or construction of new gas power plants is a bad idea. Gas is a powerful fossil fuel that creates greenhouse gas emissions that are causing global climate catastrophe. According to the IPCC we have only 10 years left to dramatically reduce GHGs in order to achieve the 1.5 degree limit. I have grandchildren and I don't want them to have to endure a world that is too hot for comfort with not enough water more fires heavy winds and civil violence caused the migration and climate injustice. 708 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mr Donald Quick West Covina 91790-3122 I have kids. I have students. They don’t deserve to inherit a planet that is damaged by climate impacts that we could have stopped. YOU can have a big impact if you vote against this natural gas power plant.

Mr Garrett Weinstein West Hills 91307-3329 Building more gas-powered generators now would be a step backwards.

Mr Benjamin Park West
Hollywood
90046-4626

Scott Foster West
Hollywood
90069-4741 There’s enough pollution in L.A. as there is - and our climate is in bad enough shape as it is! We voters have clearly and consistently stated we want a greener L.A. with cleaner air.

Ms Abbie Bernstein West
Hollywood
90069-2821

Kimberly Hyde-
Schmitt
West
Hollywood
90046-5739

Eliza Gibson West
Hollywood
90069-6204 Instead use the money to feed electricity into the grid and large storage batteries. Have solar panels installed on top of every building in all of the strip malls and on tall partial carports built over their parking lots. Also over bus bench shelters and on top of built arbor like structures for shade on sizzling hot days. Build facilities for large storage batteries and invest in the newest eco friendly ones. Sunny Glendale is the perfect place to be a clean solar city gas is expensive unhealthy and polluting. Help the children have clean air soil and water.

Grant Smith Westlake
Village
91362-7175

Ms Jenifer Gordon Westlake
Village
91362-7179

Faith Grant Westlake
Village
91361-3528

Suzanne Lenhart Westminster 92683-7103

Ms June Yamada Westminster 92683-4018

Aida Ashouri Whittier 90603-2065 I live nearby in Los Feliz and will be personally affected. Our health and the issue of a warming climate should be at the forefront of all decisions!
Steven Aispuro Whittier 90601-3036

Dr Achilles Aiken Whittier 90601-2102

Mrs Dorothy
Hernandez
Whittier 90604-1440 We need clean energy solutions!!
Tiffany-Marie Austin Winnetka 91306-4328

Ms Lynne Kastner Winnetka 91306-2542 I as well as other Southern California residents value clean air for adults of all ages and our children and babies. Please be responsible civic leaders and protect the lives of those you serve. Do not jeopardize the health of Californians and the planet. BE RESPONSIBLE LEADERS!!! Mr Stephen Zelman Woodland
Hills
91367-5609

709 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Mrs Iris Edinger Woodland
Hills
91367-4048

Mr Ethan Jolly Woodland
Hills
91364-1823 If we have any chance to create a future for our children then we have to stop using fossil fuels. 45% of people under 25 are gravely concerned about the future of our planet. Can you image growing up thinking that there is no future? You have the power to change their future and their hope.

Dr Jan Harrell Woodland
Hills
91367-1055

Ms Virginia Turner Woodland
Hills
91367-6141

Jollee Saphier Woodland
Hills
91367

Matt Powell Woodland
Hills
91364-3837

Samantha Levin Woodland
Hills
91303-4054

Ms Stephanie Llarro Woodland
Hills
91367-6048

Mr Michael Reith Woodland
Hills
91367-7011

Mrs Melinda
Isaacson
Woodland
Hills
91367-6106 We have just received our Dec/Jan Gas Bill...a complete shocker. Over $100+ increase for that month from 2020 bill. How does this happen? What are we to do? Yet the debacle from the Gas storage in the Northwest Valley was unconscionable. Please think carefully and practically about what choices are made and how they will be implemented.

Mrs Diane Dietz Woodland
Hills
91364-2015

Mr Karl Frank Woodland
Hills
91364-1603 Every action that we can do at this time to reduce fossil fuel usage is showing leadership that can inspire others to pursue a similar path. The time for status quo and business as usual energy planning is over. We are urgently called to transition as quickly as possible to clean renewable sources of energy. I ask that you dig deep and signal your commitment to bold leadership by avoiding natural gas plant construction at all costs.

Rhonda Richard Woodland
Hills
91364-4010 The climate catastrophe has only very visibly accelerated since Grayson first became a rallying point for positive climate action. This is the absolute worst time to invest in more gas.

Eliot Kaplan Woodland
Hills
91364-4121

Mr Paul Edelman Woodland
Hills
91364-3313

710 of 983
Name City Zip Code Comment
Ms Pat Davis Woodland
Hills
91364-1805 There is clearly a climate crisis and promoting natural gas generators will only make things worse. Los Angeles County has some of the highest number of sunshine hours for a populous area in the country.

Why isn't the city council considering installing solar panels and units on roofs citywide? Rhonda Plank-
Richard
Woodland
Hills
91364-4010

Ms Renee Levine-
Blonder
Woodland
Hills
91364-3221

Mrs Iris Edinger Woodland
Hills
91367-4048

Ezra Snider Yorba Linda 92886-2403 To whom it may concern Thank you for your time. I’d like to share this article with you:
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/earthquakes-triggered-by-fracking This convinced me we need to stop gas use for prevention of future earthquakes. My father John Snider also worked for FEMA after the north ridge earthquake and he inspected thousands of homes. He is of the opinion that the drilling is causing this to happen. Please stop the gas use. Sincerely Ezra Snider Ms Judith
Baxtermaciejewski
Yorba Linda 92886-2029

Teri Joens-White Yorba Linda 92886-1854

Ms Patricia Wong Yorba Linda 92887-3300 As I travel through the later half of my living I'm appalled at the legacy of pollution I'm leaving. We've been awakened to the consequences of using fossil fuels we really must use our intelligence to mitigate as much as we can.

Pegasus Walker Yorba Linda 92886-1857

Mr Scott Greene Yorba Linda 92887-2561

Ms Pam Reeves Yountville 94599-1359

Mr Charles Heinrichs Yreka 96097-2652

Mrs Cecile Kim

Ms Shireen Krelle

711 of 983
712 of 983

713 of 983
714 of 983
715 of 983
716 of 983
717 of 983
718 of 983
719 of 983

720 of 983

721 of 983

722 of 983

723 of 983

724 of 983
725 of 983
726 of 983
727 of 983
728 of 983
729 of 983
730 of 983
731 of 983
732 of 983
733 of 983
734 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 11:29 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Grayson
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tom Stapleton <[email protected]>
Date: February 15, 2022 at 11:27:32 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Grayson
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Please reject the plan for $200+ in fossil/fuel development. Climate change is real and must be dealt with now.

Tom Stapleton
Glendale

Sent from my iPhone
735 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 11:20 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Letter from Glendale Chamber of Commerce Supporting Grayson Repowering Attached
Attachments: image001.jpg; Letter to City Council Re. Grayson Repower.pdf

FYI..Just in case..

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Judee Kendall <[email protected]>
Date: February 15, 2022 at 10:39:59 AM PST
To: "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Golanian, Roubik" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Young, Mark" <[email protected]>
Subject: Letter from Glendale Chamber of Commerce Supporting Grayson Repowering Attached

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Devine, Members of the City Council, and Roubik Golanian,

Please find attached a letter from the Glendale Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors stating our support for the repowering of Grayson.

We thank each of you for your time and effort on this important project for Glendale.

Best
regards,

JUDEE KENDALL | President‐CEO

701 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 120
Glendale, CA 91203
O. 818‐240‐7870  F. 818‐240‐2872
www.glendalechamber.com

736 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 11:31 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: No fossil fuels in Grayson Repowering
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Erik Hovland <[email protected]>
Date: February 15, 2022 at 11:30:06 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]> Subject: No fossil fuels in Grayson Repowering
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Mayor and Councilmembers,

Please do not approve the GWP proposed repowering plan as it specifies using fossil fuel using generators that pollute air, dump tons of carbon into the atmosphere and cause awful environment damage in its extraction.

Make sure that Glendale siezes this opportunity to go with an 100% green energy solution. As a Glendale resident, I do whatever I can to help combat the Climate Crisis and this decision is easily the largest that Glendale has had. So please listen to me and other residents and decide to do the right thing.

The Climate Crisis is already here, causing blackouts in Glendale.

Causing evacuations during wildfires. Help people now.

Thanks

Erik Hovland
1400 Ethel St
Glendale CA 91207

--
Erik Hovland
[email protected]
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fhovland.org%2F&amp;da 737 of 983
2 ta=04%7C01%7Cpdevine%40glendaleca.gov%7Cb6c88a190b0c4f607f8208d9f0b9785a%7Ce5 115311f6c3421bbc03a5d8c79bf546%7C0%7C0%7C637805502065475850%7CUnknown%7CT WFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6 Mn0%3D%7C2000&amp;sdata=tid3geD7K9GEpuPYWJG6NKDUM1N2NxAj0bMyLJ0pYhc %3D&amp;reserved=0
738 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 11:25 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: CLEANER ENERGY FOR GLENDALE
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Mena Valencia <[email protected]>
Date: February 15, 2022 at 11:24:18 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]>, [email protected], "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]> Subject: CLEANER ENERGY FOR GLENDALE
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

On behalf of my family & friends please consider this petition of ours for cleaner energy for the City of Glendale.

Thank you.

Sent from my iPad
739 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 11:26 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Cost of Solar vs a 93MW dirty power plant FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Burt Culver <[email protected]>
Date: February 15, 2022 at 11:21:50 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>
Subject: Cost of Solar vs a 93MW dirty power plant

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hi Councilmembers,

Paula Devine said in the meeting on the Virtual Power Plant that "Solar is not cheap, and it is not free – it is very expensive”. In fact, solar is cheaper than the proposed 93MW fossil fuel plant.

The levelized cost of power of the proposed 93MW plant if it ran at the *maximum* 15% for 20 years is $118/MWh while the cost of home solar power is only $60/MWh. We only need the 93MW plant for a few weeks of the year. The cost of the plant power goes up if we only count the number of hours it will actually be used or if we include the financing cost, any overages, increases in the price of gas, and the cost of offsetting the pollution produced. Meanwhile, the cost of home solar goes down if it is installed in bulk on many buildings across Glendale. Plus, if we built the solar and battery capacity to supply the power for that peak period we could continue to use it all year round. This would be the cheapest option for GWP customers and would provide the added benefits of distributed energy for reliability and grid resilience.

Please consider this during tonight's deliberations.

Regards,

Burt Culver
Montrose, CA
740 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 11:19 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Grayson Repowering Concerns from a Glendale Citizen FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Michael Reed <[email protected]>
Date: February 15, 2022 at 11:15:49 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]> Subject: Grayson Repowering Concerns from a Glendale Citizen Reply-To: [email protected]

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear City Council Members,

I just wanted to fire off a quick note letting you all know how important it is to me and my neighbors, colleagues, and family members that the Glendale City Council do everything in its power to limit the release of both carbon dioxide and local air pollutants. The climate crisis is real and we have to trust science. I know that we have the potential for short-term emergency power generation but I would strongly urge that this be achieved by battery storage and virtual power plants.

I say this as someone who put my money where my mouth is and installed a PV solar system within the last year on my own Glendale home. It's already well on its way to paying for itself. If I had a battery, I could be part of the solution. These solar systems work well and are not nearly as expensive as they once were. When combined with batteries, they can help fortify our local systems and clean the air. My understanding is that there is also a virtual power plant proposal. Please pursue it and, if possible, expand the battery component to those who already have solar systems without a battery like mine.

In short, please don't commit Glendale to needless natural gas capacity that we could possibly avoid and that may not even be allowed to operate for its planned lifecycle due to state or forthcoming federal limits on fossil fuel generation of electricity.

Sincerely,

Michael Alan Reed
741 of 983
2 Glendale Resident and Glendale Community College Instructor of Geography and the Environment
3295 Dunsmere Rd
Glendale, California 91206

818-445-3792
--
"Anything can make me stop and look and wonder, and sometimes learn." Kurt Vonnegut

742 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: THOMAS METZLER <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 8:16 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Re: No New Gas Generators at Grayson!
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Great! I appreciate that!
Sent from my iPhone
Tom Metzler

On Feb 7, 2022, at 7:56 AM, Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]> wrote:

I understand that that specific farmers market has relocated to a location in Burbank. I'm interested in bringing it back as well. I may bring it up as a council item this coming week.

Get Outlook for iOS

From: THOMAS METZLER <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2022 9:42:59 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: No New Gas Generators at Grayson!

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Good morning Ardy!

Thanks for your note. But, I was reminded to write you again, since every Sunday I had gotten into the habit of going to the Armenian Farmers Market next to the Central Library. I enjoyed my visits there very much, and even made some new friends there. I am hoping that it will reappear again sometime soon at a new location. I am hoping you might have some news in that regard!

Louis the tortoise says “hello”!
Sent from my iPhone
Tom Metzler

On Feb 3, 2022, at 2:34 PM, Kassakhian, Ardashes
<[email protected]> wrote:
743 of 983
2 Hi Thom!  Good to hear from you.  A few weeks ago my son and I were walking to church (we parked on Brand Blvd.) and as we passed your beautiful home I told him, "Do you know that a giant tortoise lives in that house?"  He didn't believe me but kids are skeptical about everything nowadays and who can blame them given the news and rhetoric.  We then enjoyed your mosaics and proceeded to St. Mary's.

As far as Grayson is concerned, I'm supporting the least environmentally destructive option and will continue to fight for clean air and clean energy.  You

can count on me to do the right thing by our residents and our next generation of Glendalians.

Be well and stay safe!

Ardashes "Ardy" Kassakhian, MPPA., CMC.

Member, Glendale City Council | City of Glendale |
613 E. Broadway, Suite 200 | Glendale, CA 91206 | (818) 548-4844 |

From: THOMAS METZLER <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 2, 2022 10:04 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>
Subject: No New Gas Generators at Grayson!

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Ardy,

It has been a year or so since we have spoken, so I hope that everything is going well for you and your family!

I know that there is an important vote coming up soon regarding the Grayson Power Plant. I am probably preaching to the choir, as they say, but I want to reiterate where I stand on this issue.

As you know, I have been a resident and business owner in Glendale for the last 42 years. I would like to ask you to please not vote for funding of new gas generators at the Grayson Power Plant, and to try to influence your less progressive colleagues in this direction as well! The gas option is too expensive, will create more pollution, and will quickly become obsolete. That means we must have only clean energy solutions going forward, including solar, wind, and hydro, as well as advanced battery storage solutions.

Thank’s for listening to me, Ardy, and for voting “No” to more gas generators!

Sincerely
Tom Metzler
126 W Lomita Ave.

744 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Jack Humphreville <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 10:43 PM
To: Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Najarian, Ara; Devine, Paula; Kassakhian, Ardashes Subject: Blasphemy: Glendale Power Prioritizes Reliability CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Blasphemy: Glendale Power Prioritizes Reliability

JACK HUMPHREVILLE
07 FEBRUARY 2022

LA WATCHDOG - As part of its plan to deliver relia ble and affordable energy to the 200,000 residents of Glendale as well as to its commerc ial and industrial customers, the Power Division of Glendale Water and Power is proposing to repower its gas fired Grayson Power Plant.

This would involve knocking down the aging and inefficient generation equipment and replacing it with a new gas fired 270-megawatt facility. The es timated cost of this more efficient and less polluting project is $260 million.

According to Sammy Roth of the Los Angeles Times, the Power Division “plans to install a 75- megawatt, 300-megawatt-hour battery system at Gray son Power Plant, which is pretty darn big for a city of 200,000 ………………..
745 of 983
2 https://citywatchla.com/index.php/la-watchdog/23783-blasphemy-glendale-power-prioritizes- reliability

746 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Liesl Copland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 9:05 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara; Brotman, Daniel Cc: David boodell
Subject: Clean Energy Only Please/No on Gas at Grayson
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Esteemed Representatives‐

Thank you for your consideration in reading my very concerned letter. I am writing to you to please consider stopping the development of
a gas facility at Grayson in my neighborhood. The Grayson power plant is outdated, backwards and should be replaced with a facility that welcomes the inevitable, sustainable future needs of our California community.

I am shocked this is even being considered.  Gas is polluting, gas is expensive, gas contributes to climate change and we need a more sustainable option for a clean future.  The problems of pur climate realities can not wait a minute more and literally ANY option that does not establish the need for new clean energy facilities should be an absolute non‐starter.

Please prioritize sustainable clean energy and avoid the health environmental and financial risks of building a gas facility at the Grayson power plant.

We have seen this movie it does not end well.

Thank you.

Liesl Copland

Resident of Atwater Village
3965 Glenfeliz Blvd
LA CA 90039

Sent from my iPhone
747 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Patricia Pei <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 12:50 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: STOP Grayson
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Councilmember Kassakhian,

I am a Glendale resident, and I'm writing to urge you to vote NO on the Grayson gas plant. These next few years are critical as we try to pivot away from fossil fuels and salvage what we can of our children's future. I would like to see Glendale help to lead us towards a clean energy future, instead of setting us further back, when we are already so far behind from where we need to be. Please, please reject the Grayson project!

Thank you,
Patricia Pei
748 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Roana Thornock <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 4:44 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Greyson RePowering Proposal
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear City Council member Ardy Kassakhian,
As you know, the City of Glendale has the opportunity to stop the Grayson Repowering Proposal that would commit our city to a huge investment in fossil fuels for a small percentage of our overall use.

City Council should reject the Grayson Repowering Project in its current form and tell GWP to further reduce the need for gas generation by prioritizing local distributed solar and storage, energy efficiency, and other ways to reduce energy demand. All new transmission into Glendale should be included in energy planning. Glendale needs to explore ways to avoid the financial and health risks of this project.

As a Glendale citizen who has lived in Sparr Heights for over 22 years, I I appreciate that you do not support the Grayson Repowering Project. I along with the over 250 people who showed up at Grayson Again Rally at Glendale City Hall on Sunday, February 6, are support that for the future— Glendale’s and the world’s!
Thank you,

Roana Thornock
749 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Vanae Ehret <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 10:12 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: No fossil fuel power plant
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Councilmember Kassakhian,
Thank you for your good words at the rally. We urge you to reject the Grayson gas‐burning plant.

It’s a bad investment.

Invest in clean energy instead.

Gary Smith
Vanae Ehret

750 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Katherine Kottaras <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 8, 2022 3:23 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara; Brotman, Daniel Cc: Matthew Frey
Subject: NO on repowering Grayson
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Devine and Fellow Counclmembers,
I'm a resident of Riverside Rancho who lives less than a mile away from Grayson. It's mind-boggling that GWP is even considering anything but clean, renewable energy during a time when global leaders are emphasizing that we are at a tipping point and that the time is NOW if we want to prevent a global catastrophe.

We need a rapid transition to clean energy now and every local government has a responsibility to avoid burning fossil fuels; repowering and adding gas-burning equipment makes absolutely no sense. GWP has a further responsibility to fully explore all other options, including solar and storage programs, load management, more transmission, and clean energy innovations first - they have not done this, which is lazy and unconscionable. As the third largest city in the region, Glendale has the opportunity to take a lead. GWP has not launched a commercial solar program or done enough to encourage more private residential solar and storage.

We must focus on maximizing local, distributed energy.

Please vote AGAINST the repowering.

Thank you,
Ekaterini (Kathy) Kottaras, Matthew Frey, and Madeline Frey 1541 Garden St.

Glendale, CA 91201
751 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Alexander R. Yessayantz <[email protected]> Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 10:53 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: In Support of the Grayson Repowering Project
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Councilman Kassakhian,

Preamble
I support moving forward with the Grayson Repowering Project with the gas component as recommended by staff.

I’ve watched the relevant meetings, and followed the issue for years. The commissions have deliberated, GWP voting in favor, Sustainability split (even among their two non‐voting youth members, because Chair Werner asked them). This is all despite much public outcry and agitation by various advocacy groups from in and out of Glendale who may mean well…  but who miss the forest for the trees.

This is not the whole hog gas project they successfully pared back in the past, this proposed project is the product of their successful & thoughtful past advocacy.

The City and community should not kick the can down the road any further, it’s too risky.

Conclusion
It is time to move forward on this project given energy reliability is a cornerstone of what makes Glendale a great place to be.

The push to electrification must be handled intelligently, knowing that very electricity must come from somewhere.

Do not tempt people and businesses to maintain in perpetuity their gas appliances, and even gas/diesel backup generators because our City Council decided to tell our own public utility it cannot have a centralized and professionally maintained reliable backup system of gas power that serves the entire city.

It is not yet responsible nor is it feasible for GWP to completely ditch gas and maintain its crucial function in our local society, nor is it morally commendable to destabilize and cut off at the knees our local grid when it is patently obvious that increasing electrification, population growth, and yes climate change, will only continue to demand more power and more reliability from GWP.

I look forward to your reasoned decision that makes possible Glendale’s future wherein a reliable electrical grid is the solid foundation for the myriad opportunities for electrification in the local residential and commercial sectors, in which
the health and safety benefits are compelling to ditch gas.

If it’s one party I trust to responsibly maintain and use gas infrastructure, it’s going to be GWP rather than your average residential or commercial end user!

Regards,
Alexander R. Yessayantz
752 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Diana Fishman <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, February 9, 2022 12:03 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara; Brotman, Daniel Subject: Grayson Repowering Proposal
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello,
We are residents of Glendale and parents of two children who will soon be in the Glendale Unified School District. We drive an electric car, we have cloth diapered two children and we backyard compost. This is to say the environment is of utmost importance to our family and we are ashamed that Glendale is on the precipice of making a detrimental decision that would add to climate change instead of proactively trying to reduce greenhouse gasses. We are writing to strongly encourage the City Council to reject the Grayson Repowering Project in its current form and tell GWP to further reduce the need for gas generation by prioritizing local distributed solar and storage, energy efficiency. We must exhaust all clean energy alternatives before returning to gas, to avoid catastrophic climate impacts. There are cleaner and less expensive ways to meet energy demands.

Although City Council asked GWP to pursue technologies and distributed renewable energy resources to reduce the need for gas generation at Grayson, GWP has not issued Requests for Proposals (RFPs) for new local clean energy projects since 2018. There is a lot of potential that should be explored before Glendale commits to gas- powered energy.

Please vote against the current proposal for the health and safety of the next generation.

Sincerely,
Diana Fishman and Ryan Adams

Diana Fishman • Editor
lemurvillage.com

753 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Catherine Jurca <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 7:58 AM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara; Golanian, Roubik; [email protected]; Young, Mark
Subject:

CEQA-historic resources and Grayson-
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Devine, Members of the Glendale City Council, and Staff:

I wanted to provide more details regarding my concerns about the approval process for the Grayson Power Plant project. I think it clearly violates the Glendale Municipal Code and CEQA, and the city is poised to make a significant mistake in how it handles the project approval.

I’m not trying to be a jerk. What happens with Grayson—whatever shape the project ta kes—is a big deal for the city and should not get held up because the City failed to follow the right process. Glendale may well get sued over approval of a gas power plant at Grayson, just as a suit has been filed over Scholl Canyon, and I think staff are unnecessarily opening the city up to an very easy lawsuit by bypassing a necessary review, which could delay the project for more than year.

On Tuesday, the City Attorney said, in response to my comments: we reviewed it and it complies with the Code and CEQA. I don’t think that’s adequate; nor should you. You should press them for details and ask them to justify their position in light of the evidence I raise below.

At the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meeting in January, I raised concerns about the Grayson “update.” HPC Updates occur at the very end of the meeting, and usually are a few sentences from Jay. This “update” was a long powerpoint from Stantec, with very little detail about the historic resource issues. The FEIR had been issued one or two days before. No commissioner had reviewed it; I was probably the only one who knew it had been posted. But, we learned, the point of the “update” was to solicit our comments on the EIR. That is not an update. And it’s not an EIR review. A powerpoint cannot do justice to a 400-page EIR. This really felt like a bait and switch, with the public as the losers.

I know for a fact there was a caller at the hearing and staff never asked for callers. We were at the end of a six- hour meeting, and I forgot to raise it and the other commissioners did too. I think that was an oversight, but it is already a procedural problem.

The Bottom Line: The City is treating the Grayson Boiler Building as a historic resource in the FEIR. The project must come to the HPC for the demolition clearance AND environmental review under CEQA. The language from the GMC is cited below. The City Attorney argued at the HPC meeting that Grayson would come to the HPC for a demolition permit AFTER Council had approved the project and certified the FEIR. It can’t work that way. First, because the Code gives the HPC authority for environmental review as part of demolition clearance. It is the HPC that reviews the FEIR and adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations for demolition of historic resources.

It also can’t work that way because it is impermissible to separate project review authority and environmental review authority under CEQA. In POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd. (2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 754 of 983
2 731, the court held that “CEQA is violated when the authority to approve or disapprove the project is separated from the responsibility to complete environmental review.” The City Attorney says the HPC would decide whether or not to approve the demolition clearance application, but the FEIR would already have been certified. That is the type of situation POET prohibits. Further, in Citizens for the Restoration of L Street v. City of Fresno (5th Dist. 2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 340, the Court held, citing POET, that "A decisionmaking body's responsibilities include more than just approving the project. It also must consider and adopt the environmental review document.”

I know this is a complex case because obviously the environmental impacts at Grayson are more than just to historic resources, but everything I’ve learned about CEQA the last five years tells me the City must not bypass noticed review by the HPC.

CEQA requires that any decision by a non-elected body is appealable to the elected body. So even if the HPC were to vote against demolition and refuse to certify the EIR, GWP could appeal it to Council in exactly the same way as it did with the Planning Commission decision over Scholl Canyon. I do not understand why staff are taking this risk of circumventing HPC review.

Here are the relevant passages from the Code.

15.22.025 Authority.

The director of community development shall review all demolition clearance applications to: (1) determine if the proposed demolition may have a substantial adverse impact on the environment pursuant to CEQA; (2) determine the required level of environmental review under CEQA and require preparation of any documents necessary to conduct this review; and (3) upon review of all applications and supporting documents, determine the appropriate authority for final review of the demolition clearance application and all other required discretionary applications, as follows:

A. The historic preservation commission shall be the review authority for the demolition clearance application, any required environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and all other discretionary applications related to design review pursuant to Chapter 15.20 and Section 15.22.050 of this code if the proposal under review is determined by the director of community development to involve a:

1. Designated historic resource;

2. Potential historic resource
AND

15.22.050 Historic preservation commission review of demolition clearance applications.

The historic preservation commission shall review demolition clearance applications, environmental review documents that may be required pursuant to CEQA, additional information or materials submitted by the applicant as required by the director of community development pursuant to Section 15.22.070(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3), and any information or materials submitted by members of the public prior to rendering a decision to approve or disapprove a demolition clearance application.

A. For a designated historic resource, the historic preservation commission shall not approve a demolition clearance application unless it finds:
755 of 983
3 1. The subject property is not a historic resource because it does not meet any of the criteria for listing on the Glendale Register pursuant to Section 15.20.050 of this code and that this determination is not due to demolition by neglect or unpermitted work; or

2. It has certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in reference to a significant and unavoidable environmental impact on cultural resources stemming from the proposed demolition of a historic resource.

B. For a potential historic resource, the historic preservation commission shall consider all evidence in the record and make findings as to whether or not the subject property is eligible for listing on the Glendale Register, and is therefore a historic resource because the resource meets one or more of the criteria for listing in Section 15.20.050 of this code.

1. If the historic preservation commission finds the property is a historic resource, the commission shall direct the community development department to prepare or cause to be prepared by private consultants under contract with the city, an Environmental Impact Report in accordance with CEQA. Following circulation of the draft EIR for public comment and preparation of the final EIR, the final EIR and all other required discretionary applications shall be reviewed by the historic preservation commission pursuant to Sections 15.20.080 and

15.22.050 of this code. The historic preservation commission shall not approve a demolition clearance application for a property found to be a historic resource unless it adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations, pursuant to CEQA, in reference to a significant and unavoidable environmental impact on cultural resources stemming from the proposed demolition of a historic resource.

If the City Attorney says “well, Grayson isn’t designated on the Register, and it’s not potential, because the City recognizes it as historic, so technically we don’t need to take it to the HPC,” that’s not right. Certification of the FEIR is actually what would establish Grayson as a historic resource; at this point it is only potential, which still requires mandatory review by the HPC.

Thanks and best wishes,
Cathy
756 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Adjemian, Aram
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 5:45 PM
To: Ghazarian, Renia
Subject: FW: Hope u reject new gas at Grayson ….

Categories: To Do, Last Communication

FYI

Aram Adjemian, CMC.

City Clerk ● City of Glendale ● City Clerk & Elections Services 613 E. Broadway, Rm 110 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2090 ● [email protected]

E‐mail correspondence with the City of Glendale (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: ROBERTA A MEDFORD <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 5:44 PM
To: Adjemian, Aram <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Hope u reject new gas at Grayson ….

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Forgot to copy you:)

Begin forwarded message:

From: ROBERTA A MEDFORD <[email protected]>
Date: February 15, 2022 at 5:02:11 PM PST
To: Paula Devine <[email protected]>, Vrej Agajanian <[email protected]>, Ardy Kassakhian <[email protected]>, Ara Najarian <[email protected]>, Dan Brotman <[email protected]>
Subject: Hope u reject new gas at Grayson ….
…and tell GWP to pursue more clean energy. As a retired labor union member and leader I believe that clean and renewable energy can and should be completely compatible with maintaining good union jobs, a goal which I share with IBEW. Climate change is increasingly burdening our economy and threatening business prosperity.

Thank you,
Roberta Medford
Montrose
757 of 983
2 758 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Adjemian, Aram
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 4:41 PM
To: Ghazarian, Renia
Subject: FW: Grayson Repowering Plan: please nix it and restore GEC's wise, safe, economical plan
Categories: To Do, Last Communication

FYI

Aram Adjemian, CMC.

City Clerk ● City of Glendale ● City Clerk & Elections Services 613 E. Broadway, Rm 110 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2090 ● [email protected]

E‐mail correspondence with the City of Glendale (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: Joanne Hedge <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 3:57 PM
To: Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Agajanian, Vrej <[email protected]>
Cc: Adjemian, Aram <[email protected]>
Subject: Grayson Repowering Plan: please nix it and restore GEC's wise, safe, economical plan

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Mayor Paula Devine
Councilmembers Dan Brotman, Ardy Kassakhian, Ara Najarian, Vrej Agajanian City Clerk Aram Adjemian

Re: Rancho resident’s opposition to Grayson Repowering Plan (Agenda item 8c)

As a 26-year resident who’s 79 this May, and a proud and involved Glendale citizen, I am among the so many that are troubled by the latest iteration from GW&P that again relies on gas at Grayson.

The plant is a stone’s throw from our Rancho neighborhood--a unique and historic area with schools, trails, horse properties and businesses, a diverse demographic of talented, intelligent, invested, multi-cultural parents, singles, elderly, working men and women, and so many who cherish our tree canopy and parks, access to recreation and the river, the wildlife—despite being so close to the interchange of the I-5 and S-134 in a regional “basin” that boasts some of the worst air pollution in the nation.

759 of 983
2 Health is a very important factor in considering urban utility planning and operation, as are property values, morale, the wellbeing of kids and elderly, and a spirited trust of city government.

Your vote tonight will directly impact these factors. And climate won’t wait.

We can do better. And should.

Joanne Hedge

GLENDALE RANCHO NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION
1415 Garden Street, Glendale CA 91201
Founded 1999
818-244-0110 Office
[email protected]
[email protected]

The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer.

760 of 983
3 761 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Adjemian, Aram
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 4:38 PM
To: Ghazarian, Renia
Subject: FW: Grayson
Categories: Last Communication, To Do
FYI

Aram Adjemian, CMC.

City Clerk ● City of Glendale ● City Clerk & Elections Services 613 E. Broadway, Rm 110 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2090 ● [email protected]

E‐mail correspondence with the City of Glendale (and attachments, if any) may be subject to the California Public Records Act, and as such may therefore be subject to public disclosure unless otherwise exempt under the Act.

From: Joylene Wagner <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 1:48 PM
To: [email protected]; Agajanian, Vrej <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>
Cc: Adjemian, Aram <[email protected]>
Subject: Grayson

CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Councilmembers,

I want to express my hope that you can agree to less natural gas than the current proposal. I understand the concern to have enough power to get through an emergency,
but I'm hopeful Glendale can be a leader in helping us all know that we cannot continue to live as we have with the same expectations of comfort.

I commend to your reading The Ministry for the Future, by Kim Stanley Robinson, described on the cover as "one of Barack Obama's favorite books of the year" and by Jonathan Letham as "the best science fiction nonfiction novel I've ever read." It's sobering.

I worry for our children and grandchildren, and I want Glendale to be on the right side of history.

I'm sorry I'll miss tonight's meeting, but I'll watch it later!

With appreciation for your service,

Joylene Wagner
1250 Marion Dr.

Glendale, CA 91205

762 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Debra Burchett-Lere <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2022 10:11 AM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara; Brotman, Daniel Subject: Grayson Plant Notes for Consideration
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Devine and Council Members Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian and Najarian -

Thank you for your dedication and service to our community.

As a resident of Glendale for over 30-years and living close to the power plant, it is extremely important that Glendale moves to the greener solutions for powering our city.

I understand that the commission has not recommended a greener path with the expansion of the Grayson Plant which is very disappointing. It is crucial that we take into consideration the long-range goals of our city/county/state’s need to reduce fossil fuels for the good of our planet.

There are several important issues that you will be able to decide on which I hope you will take into consideration:

 I understand the commission chair did voice a recommendation for more transparency of the $500 million price tag.

 Gas fuel supplies can become disrupted in situations like an earthquake, which should be considered.

 It is hard to give up old habits and reliance on systems that are becoming outdated, so I see what a hard decision this is for you as council members. This is an opportunity for all of us to help in the move to cleaner energy — on both indivi dual and collective levels.

 I realize that there needs to be demand responses when it gets very hot and everyone is needing their air conditioners…and we have more of these periods now with our lack of rain and cooler weather — so this is where we can all work together to find the best way to use energy in a way that keeps our world a better place to live. Encouraging the installation of solar on individual homes could be one solution.

 We are fortunate to have our own GWP system so I hope you can direct them to go back to the drawing board and present a proposal for expansion that includes more green energy in the design and 763 of 983
2 development. They have had 3-years to design a plan that includes clean energy and for reasons I may not understand It seems that we are just kicking the can down the road instead of acting now.

I truly appreciate all you do for Glendale. I know it is a complicated job being a council member, and thank you again.

Debra Burchett
1146 N Central Ave 181
Glendale 91202
[email protected]
764 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Jackie Gish <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2022 7:38 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Najarian, Ara; Agajanian, Vrej; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Brotman, Daniel Cc: Adjemian, Aram
Subject: Comment on Grayson repowering
Attachments: Gish Comments on Grayson repower final.docx CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Mayor Devine, City Councilmembers,

Please find enclosed my comments on the Grayson Repowering.

Thank you in advance for reading this.

Jackie
765 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Candace Hodder <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2022 5:28 PM
To: Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara; Devine, Paula Subject: Grayson Repowering Project
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Madam Mayor and City Council Members,

As a resident of Glendale, I would like to voice my opposition to the Grayson repowering project. I urge the city to more comprehensively explore alternative energy scenarios; I submitted my comments on the the draft EIR as I do not believe enough renewable energy scenarios were evaluated.

I pass by the plant every day when I’m driving my kids to school and they ask me about the pollution coming out of it. I would love be able to tell them the city prioritizes their health and their futures and is pursuing alternative energy sources instead.

Sincerely,
Candace Hodder

766 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Margaret Mortimore <[email protected]> Sent: Sunday, February 6, 2022 12:50 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Grayson
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mr Kassakhian,

I’ve lived in Glendale for nearly 27 years and I’m appalled at the thought that’s such a operation as gas going into Grayson…
This story should be in the LA and NY Times!
Climate change? The impact on our neighborhoods?
No way!
STOP NEW GAS AT GRAYSON!
Sincerely,

Margaret Mortimore
3615 Valihi Way
Glendale CA 91208

Sent from my iPhone
767 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devon Kelly <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 7, 2022 9:57 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Clean energy at Grayson!
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Glendale should be looking forward to the future, not dragging its heals in the heroic efforts for sustainable energy.

Please do the right thing and vote for
more CLEAN ENERGY at Grayson!!
Thank you—
Devon
768 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Michael Yank <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 4:47 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: More Clean Energy in the Grayson Repowering Plan CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Councilmember Kassakhian,

I live in the Rancho Riverside area of Glendale and am writing to ask that you please include less gas and more clean energy in the Grayson Repowering plan. As a Glendale resident with three small children, I feel like we as a city should be investing in as clean of a future for our city as possible. Thank you.

Sincerely,
-Michael Yank
769 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 7:59 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Subject: RE: Feb15, 2022: Council Meeting: Agenda Item 8A and 8C; GWP/Grayson Power Plant CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor and Council Members

I respectfully ask that you do support Green/Clean energy for Glendale and require the retirement of Units 1-8 and install the Tesla BESS. In addition, please to not install any new gas equipment ( either Alternative 7 or Alternative 8).

While the demolition of units 1-8 is being done, the council can use this time to maximize local energy resources and eliminate or reduce the ned for any new gas equipment moving forward.

Glendale has the chance to be the beacon of clean, green energy.

Thank you and I hope you do not approve the expansion of Grayson Power Plant or it's building of any new gas equipment.

Respectfully
Melanie McKinnell
1301 Shirlyjean St
Glendale, CA 91208

770 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Donielle Lemone <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2022 7:40 AM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Subject: Re: Virtual Power Plant
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Council Members and Mayor Devine,

I am a resident of the Woodbury neighborhood of Glendale. As a mother of a young child, I am concerned about the current Grayson repower proposal due the use of natural gas, which will increase pollution and global warming. It also doesn't seem like a fiscially wise choice to invest in a technology that will be obsolete and illegal by 2045 according to California law, espcially when our neighboring city of Los Angeles is aiming to be fossil fuel free by 2035. I urge you to vote no on the proposal and tell GWP to find ways to increase the amount of clean energy in the plan.

Thanks,
Donielle
771 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Victoria Kaplan <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2022 3:29 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Grayson Repowering Plan
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Councilmember Kassakhian,

I am a resident of the beautiful Rossmoyne neighborhood, where I live with my spouse and our 3 year old daughter. Before we got married, we lived in Adams Hills.

We love Glendale and we want the city to continue to thrive for generations to come. That is why I oppose the current Grayson Repowering Plan and ask you to vote no in Tuesday's council vote, and ask GWP to produce a plan with no or less gas, and with more solar and more storage.

With advances in deliverability and affordability of clean energy technology, the opportunity for clean energy job creation, the widespread community willingness to participate in the continued progress of Glendale, the inarguable harm of fossil fuels including natural gas (methane) to human health - especially the most vulnerable people -and a livable planet, the financial cost of fossil fuels, and California policy requiring 100% clean energy, there is simply no excuse for the quantity of dirty fossil fuel gas in this plan.

For the Glendale I love, please vote no on gas at Grayson and urge your colleagues to join you.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Victoria Kaplan
1155 N Howard St, Glendale, CA 91207
323-791-0770
772 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: leslie klein <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2022 1:00 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: more more gas please
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

As a family practice physician, we do not need more causes for poor health in our communities.

Do not approve the Grayson Repowering plan please.

Thank
you,
Dr.Klein
773 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Jeffrey Vollmer <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2022 9:27 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Grayson Re-Powering Plan
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mr. Khassakian,

As a resident and homeowner in Verdugo Woodlands for 18 years, I am writing to express my opposition to any vote that would certify the Final Environmental Impact Report on the proposed re-powering of Grayson Power Plant. The expense is too great, the benefits of a fossil fuel re-powering plan are too small, and the resulting pollution of the current proposal is too hazardous. Likewise, the need for local energy providers to move away from fossil fueled energy production is immediate, and current plan proposed by GWP is counter to our state's clean energy goals.

All of our city council representatives should speak to GWP with one united voice and insist unanimously that GWP finally take serious and honest measures to move our city away from fossil fueled energy production as quickly as possible.

Please do not vote to approve any plan that allows GWP to flout its responsibility to provide our residents with a clean city and clean power! Thank you very much for your attention to this issue. I will be in attendance at the Tuesday, February 15 City Council meeting to express my concern regarding this issue.

Sincerely,
Jeffrey Vollmer

Get Outlook for iOS
774 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Catherine Jurca <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2022 8:37 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Cc: Adjemian, Aram
Subject: Public Comments on Grayson--agenda item 8c--violations of CEQA review process CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Devine and Members of the Glendale:

This is a follow up to an email I sent to you and staff members on February 10, which you will find in its entirety at the bottom of this email. I work closely with a CEQA attorney, the very best for historic resources. I sent her my email to you and asked her opinion. Her reply is below, and we spoke on the phone last night. Here is what I take away from her feedback...

The historic preservation ordinance was obviously not written with demotion of a power plant in mind.

Nevertheless, the intent of the Ordinance is clear: the City cannot avoid bringing the project and the FEIR to the Historic Preservation Commission for a recommendation and to consider the adequacy of the mitigation measures proposed for the loss of the historic Boiler Building. The City Council cannot certify the FEIR, adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and approve a resolution for a project that would result in the demolition of the Boiler Building, and then only later turn to the HPC to approve the demolition clearance application for the Boiler Building. This is meaningless box checking.

As you will see from the screenshot below, GWP intended the HPC to review the EIR and make a recommendation to Council, just as the GWP Commission and the Sustainability Commission did. I do not know why this did not happen. Boxing the HPC out of the process, which is what that phony “Update” on Grayson did, violates CEQA. The decision-making body has to make its decision based on an adequate EIR.

The EIR would not stand the test for adequacy without a serious review by the Historic Preservation Commission as stipulated in the Ordinance.

Whether that satisfies the letter of the ordinance is another question. I know the HPC should not have environmental review authority to certify and EIR for a powerplant. But it is without question unlawful for the HPC not to review and make recommendations on the EIR because of the acknowledged substantial adverse impacts to a historic resource (it doesn’t get much more adverse than demolition). The City would face a legal challenge. The extensive objections I raised at the HPC meeting to the way the city attorney was handling the “update" alone is reason for them to have changed course.

I urge you to avoid unnecessary, significant delays and change course. Send the project and the EIR to the HPC before Council makes a final decision.

Thank you. Best, Cathy

775 of 983
2 Begin forwarded message:

From: Susan Brandt-Hawley <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: More fun?
Date: February 12, 2022 at 5:15:15 PM PST
To: Catherine Jurca <[email protected]>
Resent-From: <[email protected]>

Hi. Give a call whenever you want to talk about this.

Glendale as you know delegates authority for demolition approvals to the HPC. It sounds like it has pre-approved demolition to accommodate the power plant (or will) before the HPC provides input. The whole thing is weird because the project is larger than demolition and the HPC doesn’t have broad enough authority to approve a power plant.

Most cities have their codes set up so that a project that includes more than demolition would be routed to a preservation commission for public hearing, review, and a recommendation on the project and neg dec/EIR — not a project approval or certification of an EIR.

Here, I looked at the muni code and the HPC does have authority to certify an EIR.

I do think that Glendale is poised to violate CEQA by essentially bypassing any meaningful review by the HPC, by deferring it til after project approval. But I am not quite sure what exactly the right procedure is. Like for the Council to route the EIR and demo to the HPC for recommendations, but if that’s not how the code is written that’s maybe wrong.

More later!

S
776 of 983
3 Dear Mayor Devine, Members of the Glendale City Council, and Staff:

I wanted to provide more details regarding my concerns about the approval process for the Grayson Power Plant project. I think it clearly violates the Glendale Municipal Code and CEQA, and the city is poised to make a significant mistake in how it handles the project approval.

I’m not trying to be a jerk. What happens with Grayson— whatever shape the project takes—is a big deal for the city and should not get held up because the City failed to follow the right process. Glendale may well get sued over approval of a gas power plant at Grayson, just as a suit has been filed over Scholl Canyon, and I think staff are unnecessarily opening the city up to an very easy lawsuit by bypassing a necessary review, which could delay the project for more than year.

On Tuesday, the City Attorney said, in response to my comments:
we reviewed it and it complies with the Code and CEQA. I don’t think that’s adequate; nor should you. You should press them for details and ask them to justify their position in light of the evidence I raise below.

At the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) meeting in January, I raised concerns about the Grayson “update.” HPC Updates occur at the very end of the meeting, and usually are a few sentences from Jay. This “update” was a long powerpoint from Stantec, with very little detail about the historic resource issues. The FEIR had been issued one or two days before. No commissioner had reviewed it; I was probably the only one who knew it had been posted. But, we learned, the point of the “update” was to solicit our comments on the EIR. That is not an update. And it’s not an EIR review. A powerpoint cannot do justice to a 400-page EIR. This really felt like a bait and switch, with the public as the losers.

I know for a fact there was a caller at the hearing and staff never asked for callers. We were at the end of a six-hour meeting, and I forgot to raise it and the other commissioners did too. I think that was an oversight, but it is already a procedural problem.

The Bottom Line: The City is treating the Grayson Boiler Building as a historic resource in the FEIR. The project must come to the HPC for the demolition clearance AND
environmental review under CEQA. The language from the GMC is cited below. The City Attorney argued at the HPC meeting that Grayson would come to the HPC for a demolition permit AFTER Council had approved the project and certified the FEIR. It can’t 777 of 983
4 work that way. First, because the Code gives the HPC authority for environmental review as part of demolition clearance. It is the HPC that reviews the FEIR and adopts the Statement of
Overriding Considerations for demolition of historic resources.

It also can’t work that way because it is impermissible to separate project review authority and environmental review authority under CEQA. In POET, LLC v. State Air Resources Bd.
(2013) 218 Cal.App.4th 681, 731, the court held that “CEQA is violated when the authority to approve or disapprove the project is separated from the responsibility to
complete environmental review.” The City Attorney says the HPC would decide whether or not to approve the demolition clearance application, but the FEIR would already have
been certified. That is the type of situation POET prohibits.

Further, in Citizens for the Restoration of L Street v. City of Fresno (5th Dist. 2014) 229 Cal.App.4th 340, the Court held, citing POET, that "A decisionmaking body's responsibilities include more than just approving the project. It also must consider and adopt the environmental review document.”

I know this is a complex case because obviously the
environmental impacts at Grayson are more than just to historic resources, but everything I’ve learned about CEQA the last five years tells me the City must not bypass noticed review by the HPC.

CEQA requires that any decision by a non-elected body is appealable to the elected body. So even if the HPC were to vote against demolition and refuse to certify the EIR, GWP could appeal it to Council in exactly the same way as it did with the Planning Commission decision over Scholl Canyon. I do not understand why staff are taking this risk of circumventing HPC review.

Here are the relevant passages from the Code.

15.22.025 Authority.

The director of community development shall review all
demolition clearance applications to: (1) determine if the proposed demolition may have a substantial adverse impact on the environment pursuant to CEQA; (2) determine the required level of environmental review under CEQA and require preparation of any documents necessary to conduct this review; and (3) upon review of all applications and supporting documents, determine the appropriate authority for final review of the demolition clearance application and all other required discretionary applications, as follows:
778 of 983
5 A. The historic preservation commission shall be the review authority for the demolition clearance application, any required environmental review pursuant to CEQA, and all other
discretionary applications related to design review pursuant to Chapter 15.20 and Section 15.22.050 of this code if the proposal under review is determined by the director of community development to involve a:

1. Designated historic resource;

2. Potential historic resource
AND

15.22.050 Historic preservation commission review of
demolition clearance applications.

The historic preservation commission shall review
demolition clearance applications, environmental review documents that may be required pursuant to CEQA, additional information or materials submitted by the applicant as required by the director of community development pursuant to Section

15.22.070(A)(1), (A)(2), and (A)(3), and any information or materials submitted by members of the public prior to rendering a decision to approve or disapprove a demolition clearance application.

A. For a designated historic resource, the historic
preservation commission shall not approve a demolition clearance application unless it finds:

1. The subject property is not a historic resource because it does not meet any of the criteria for listing on the Glendale Register pursuant to Section 15.20.050 of this code and that this determination is not due to demolition by neglect or unpermitted work; or

2. It has certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations in reference to a significant and unavoidable environmental impact on cultural resources stemming from the proposed demolition of a historic resource.

B. For a potential historic resource, the historic preservation commission shall consider all evidence in the record and make findings as to whether or not the subject property is eligible for listing on the Glendale Register, and is therefore a historic resource because the resource meets one or more of the criteria for listing in Section 15.20.050 of this code.
779 of 983
6 1. If the historic preservation commission finds the property is a historic resource, the commission shall direct the community development department to prepare or cause to be prepared by private consultants under contract with the city, an Environmental Impact Report in accordance with CEQA.

Following circulation of the draft EIR for public comment and preparation of the final EIR, the final EIR and all other required discretionary applications shall be reviewed by the historic preservation commission pursuant to Sections 15.20.080 and

15.22.050 of this code. The historic preservation commission shall not approve a demolition clearance application for a property found to be a historic resource unless it adopts a Statement of Overriding Considerations, pursuant to CEQA, in reference to a significant and unavoidable environmental impact on cultural resources stemming from the proposed demolition of a historic resource.

If the City Attorney says “well, Grayson isn’t designated on the Register, and it’s not potential, because the City recognizes it as historic, so technically we don’t need to take it to the HPC,” that’s not right. Certification of the FEIR is actually what would establish Grayson as a historic resource; at this point it is only potential, which still requires mandatory review by the HPC.

Thanks and best wishes,
Cathy

780 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Mark Abajian <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, February 13, 2022 10:27 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Cc: Mark Abajian
Subject: Constitutent Comment: Grayson Repowering Project CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Councilman Kassakhian,

My name is Mark Abajian and my wife and I have been Glendale homeowners since 1995.

Regarding the Grayson Repowering Project… from what we have read, we believe that not much has changed since the Glendale City Council voted against this idea a few years ago.

Has GWP genuinely focused attention on finding clean-energy alternatives to the gas-powered plant at Grayson? No. We don’t think so.

Do we Glendale residents really need all the Megawatts of energy that GWP predicts? No. We think they have overestimated the need.

Clean energy is Imperative! Let Glendale be a leader, not a follower. Please vote NO to the current proposals from GWP.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,

Mark Abajian
(818) 726-0372 mobile

781 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: John Charles Meyer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:23 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: I oppose the Grayson expansion
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello Council Member Kassakhian,

I am a Glendale resident writing to voice my opposition to the proposed expansion of Grayson’s gas generated power.

My children attend
an outdoor pre‐school (Northeast LA Forest School) less than 20 football fields from Grayson. Studies have demonstrated increased risks of hospitalization for asthma, acute respiratory infection, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in zip codes containing fuel‐fired power plants. I am writing to ask that you vote against exposing my kids to even greater levels of fossil fuel emissions.

Thanks for hearing me.

Best,
John Charles Meyer
1988 El Arbolita Drive, Glendale 91208
213.590.4882

‐‐‐‐‐‐
https://gcc02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimdb.me%2FJohnCharlesMeyer&amp;data=04%7 C01%7Cakassakhian%40glendaleca.gov%7C60881a2a602d4f0858e108d9ef933949%7Ce5115311f6c3421bbc03a5d8c79b f546%7C0%7C0%7C637804237892849210%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLC JBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000&amp;sdata=Re%2FuJfhmU14D706FACjTqeJQQxHNgpMrfKFbTf6Iq3s%3D&a mp;reserved=0

782 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 11:26 AM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara; Brotman, Daniel; Golanian, Roubik; Glendale Environmental Coalition
Subject: GEC Letter for your consideration re Grayson Repowering plus twp additional attachments
Attachments:

GEC-Letter-to-Sustainability-Commissioners-re-Grayson-Repowering.pdf; GEC Letter to Sustainability Commissioners re Grayson Repowering.pdf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Devine and Councilmembers Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, and Najarian,

Please find attached a letter for your consideration regarding the upcoming Grayson Repowering item on Tuesday's agenda. We hope you have the time to consider the analysis and the work we have done to make our case for no or less investments in gas equipment, as we look to fulfill replacing the retiring units at Grayson, and filling the future energy needs of Glendale, with clean energy.

Also, please find attached our more detailed letter to the Sustainability Commission and an ideas document, "Clean Energy Alternatives for Meeting Glendale's Energy Needs", for your consideration. We look forward to a partnership moving forward, with you, our city leadership, and with city staff that supports and celebrates one another in making robust and rapid progress transitioning away from fossil fuels and moving towards a clean energy powered Glendale. We sincerely appreciate your consideration.

Best regards,
Monica Campagna & Kate Unger
Glendale Environmental Coalition
783 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 11:29 AM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara; Brotman, Daniel; Golanian, Roubik; Glendale Environmental Coalition
Subject: CORRECTED ATTACHMENTS: GEC Letter for your consideration re Grayson Repowering plus two additional attachments
Attachments: GEC Letter to Glendale City Council re Grayson Final - Google Docs.pdf; GEC-Letter-to- Sustainability-Commissioners-re-Grayson-Repowering.pdf; Clean Energy Alternatives for Meeting Glendale Energy Needs.pdf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Devine and Councilmembers Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, and Najarian,

Please find attached a letter for your consideration regarding the upcoming Grayson Repowering item on Tuesday's agenda. We hope you have the time to consider the analysis and the work we have done to make our case for no or less investments in gas equipment, as we look to fulfill replacing the retiring units at Grayson, and filling the future energy needs of Glendale, with clean energy.

Also, please find attached our more detailed letter to the Sustainability Commission and an ideas document, "Clean Energy Alternatives for Meeting Glendale's Energy Needs", for your consideration. We look forward to a partnership moving forward, with you, our city leadership, and with city staff that supports and celebrates one another in making
robust and rapid progress transitioning away from fossil fuels and moving towards a clean energy powered Glendale. We sincerely appreciate your consideration.

Best regards,
Monica Campagna & Kate Unger
Glendale Environmental Coalition
784 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Burt Culver <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 5:30 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Brotman, Daniel Subject: Let the voters vote on Grayson
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hi Council members,

In a few months a majority of the council will be up for election. The current council should wait until after the election to decide on the Grayson FEIR. Let the voters decide which candidates they want to vote on this significant issue and make it a major campaign item. Council members who have only a few months left in office should not be deciding on a power plant for which Glendale will be paying for decades.

Regards,

Burt Culver
Montrose, CA
785 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: [email protected]
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 11:37 AM
To: Golanian, Roubik; Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara; Brotman, Daniel
Subject:

RE-CORRECTED ATTACHMENTS: GEC Letter for your consideration re Grayson Repowering plus two additional attachments
Attachments:

GEC Letter to Glendale City Council re Grayson Final.pdf; GEC-Letter-to-Sustainability- Commissioners-re-Grayson-Repowering.pdf; Clean Energy Alternatives for Meeting Glendale Energy Needs-1.pdf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

With apologies, it appears that one of the attached documents was not the proper file format. This has been corrected now in the attachments.

Please excuse the duplicate emails.

Dear Mayor Devine and Councilmembers Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, and Najarian,

Please find attached a letter for your consideration regarding the upcoming Grayson Repowering item on Tuesday's agenda. We hope you have the time to consider the analysis and the work we have done to make our case for no or less
investments in gas equipment, as we look to fulfill replacing the retiring units at Grayson, and filling the future energy needs of Glendale, with clean energy.

Also, please find attached our more detailed letter to the Sustainability Commission and an ideas document, "Clean Energy Alternatives for Meeting Glendale's Energy Needs", for your consideration. We look forward to a partnership moving forward, with you, our city leadership, and with city staff that supports and celebrates one another in making robust and rapid progress transitioning away from fossil fuels and moving towards a clean energy powered Glendale. We sincerely appreciate your consideration.

Best regards,
Monica Campagna & Kate Unger
Glendale Environmental Coalition
786 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Rachel Pringle <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 5:39 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Grayson Project
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Councilmember Kassakhian,

I was very surprised to learn that Glendale Water & Power is once again pushing to expand the Grayson Power Plant. I thought the city council had already put a stop to this reckless plan, which would increase pollution and further exacerbate climate change. In a state that has been ravaged by wildfires for the last several years due to climate change, I am shocked that Glendale is seeking to go backwards — to add to the global warming that makes these wildfires worse and worse each year, burning our homes and mountains, polluting our skies, and killing animals and humans. Wildfires are just one effect of climate change; the others are too numerous to list but have been reported by credible media over and over again. How can Glendale help the United States keep to the Paris Agreement if we expand our use of dirty energy? We have the technology to switch to clean energy.

To expand dirty energy now would be irresponsible, embarrassing, and, frankly, unconscionable. The council must do the right thing for the citizens it represents and our Earth. Mr. Kassakhian, I voted for you based upon your environmental values; please do NOT let Glendale Water and Power increase its gas power.

Thank you,
Rachel Pringle
787 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Jamie Gambell <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 5:44 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Subject: Clean Energy Now
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Honored Council Members,

I've spoken to many of you in the past, so I am sure that it will come to no surprise that I'm writing to ask you all to consider moving away from Gas dependency with regards to the Grayson Repowering plan, and to heavily consider clean energy.

We've too long allowed the short term gains, mainly financial, to the few to dictate how our world around us is shaped. I've lived my entire life knowing that fossil and un-renewable energy sources are horrendous for our environment, and for too long I've watched as people have ignored the warning signs and continued to push us further down the road of a future filled with health and ecological dangers. As I sit in my home, windows open, the temperature gage in the 80s in February, I wonder what kind of future are we building for our children when we continue to ignore the science.

I really appreciated reading in today's paper that you are not rushing into a decision on the solar project, but I urge you to not dismiss renewable clean energy outright.

Let us all build a better future, a better world, starting with our own little corner in the Jewel City.

Thank you all for your time.

Best,

--
Jamie Gambell, CAS
Production Sound Mixer, IATSE Local 695
213-703-3579
http://www.jamiegambellsound.com

788 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Karen H <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 1:41 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara; Brotman, Daniel Subject: Vote NO on Fossil fuels !
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Der Glendale City Council members,

Please vote NO to repowering Grayson with gas.

Help end our harmful dependence on fossil fuels. All efforts should be directed toward creating local, distributed, clean energy and storage for maximum resiliency and sustainability!

Please reject the gas-burning proposal and ask for quicker action and more investments in clean energy!

Let's be leaders in the clean energy movement here in Glendale.

Thank you,

Karen Hare NEILSSON
818 398 9269 MOBILE
Glendale, CA
789 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Freddy Gonzaga Jr <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:00 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: My thoughts about new gas at Grayson
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello Councilmember Ardy
I hope you doing really well. I'm a resident of Echo Park, Glendale is about 20 to 30 minutes away from me.

I'm currently a college student that believes that Climate Change is real and is getting worse by the minute by gas and pollution destroying the air and environment. I believe if the Grayson plant has gas on February 15th, it's not only going to give me health problems like heart disease or lung problems, but it's going to affect the environment for the kids that like to exercise and play outside, make kids have early health issues from breathing from the gas. So please, imagine if you had a child that likes to play outside and get air, they have to breathe gas every time your child goes outside, which, if I had a kid, it sure would make me very worried about their health. In conclusion, please think about it very closely, and please make the right decision, I'm not only worried about my health, but at the end of the day, if we have clean energy, it would benefit the environment in Glendale, but it would benefit people that visit Glendale, benefit health-wise, and make me and kids feel safe to exercise or play outside, just imagine if you had to go to the doctor because of your child having breathing problems because of the gas and pollution. Thank you for hearing me, I hope you have a great week.

Sincerely,

Freddy
790 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: CB Ferrari <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 8:03 AM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Subject: Please vote NO on gas power plant expansion
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Devine, Councilman Agajanian, Councilman Brotman, Councilman Kassakhian, and Councilman Najarian,

I live in Glendale and I OPPOSE the Grayson expansion.

This fossil fuel expansion will cost hundreds of millions of dollars while adding substantial air pollution, and it will be forced to shut down by 2045 per California
state law. It is a shortsighted and an irresponsible idea.

As well, as a person who already suffers from asthma, I am aware that fuel‐fired power plants are a significant hazard to my health.  And as our whole city is trying to heal from the devastating impacts of the respiratory
infectious disease COVID‐19, adding more soot pollution (which is a by‐product of coal‐fired power production and is one of the deadliest, most dangerous air pollutants) would expose the quality of your judgment.

To better help you understand the consequences of your vote, please view this:
https://coal.sierraclub.org/the‐problem/how
‐coal‐and‐gas‐damages‐your‐health

Again, please VOTE NO on the expansion.  Our lives matter.

Kindest wishes,
Elizabeth Ferrari
255 Sleepy Hollow Terrace, 91206

791 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Ken Cran <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 9:06 AM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Subject: NO ON GRAYSON
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

I live in Glendale (139 N. Jackson St.) and I OPPOSE the Grayson expansion. Please vote NO. We must focus on GREEN ENERGY.

Thank you,
Kenneth Cran
792 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Erin Dinan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 9:13 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: No on Grayson Project from a concerned Mother
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Good Morning Councilmember Kassakhian,

I am writing as a concerned citizen and mother of two young children.   I am urging you to NOT approve the Grayson project as presented tomorrow.

Last week, my family and I stood in front of city hall at the rally for the second time in less than 3 years.  My daughters grew from toddlers to young children between the two events, and somehow the conversation is still the same and it feels like GWP has made no real progress or investment in the things that the people of Glendale made clear were important for years.  We must make a move toward cleaner energy alternatives and not invest hundreds of millions of dollars in fossil fuel expansion.

If CA law requires 100% clean energy by 2045, how will we get there if this project passes?  Who will still be paying the price in 20 years, paying the financial bills and still breathing the dirty air?  Our children certainly will…  and we can’t stand by and perpetuate this problem.

As I think about POWER, I realize that you hold so much power in your hands right now.  I implore you to use it responsibly.  I know that no decision is black and white, and I can imagine this one is no different.   I ask you to please represent the best interests for the health and wellbeing of the people of our city.

Thank you for your consideration and representation.

Erin Dinan

“When you know better, do better” ‐ Maya Angelou
793 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Kat Palardy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:57 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Re: Glendale resident here, please vote no on the 93 mw gas plan Vrej! CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Sorry the subject line got mixed up, this was for you Ardy:)

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:55 AM Kat Palardy <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Ardy,

Thank you for all you've done so far for the environment here in Glendale:) This is Kat Palardy, a Glendale resident considering whether to start a family here in Glendale. Please reject investing in 93 megawatts of gas power at the Grayson Power Plant. And please consider alternatives like commercial solar! We are going to need to be off of fossil fuels in a few years so it doesn't make sense to invest 100's of millions in them. That is short-term thinking vs. long term. The time for bold and courageous action is now. Thank you!

--

Kat Palardy
Comedian. VO. Video Editor.

Create your own email signature

--

Kat Palardy
Comedian. VO. Video Editor.

Create your own email signature

794 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Reni K <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 10:17 AM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Subject: Opposition to Grayson Power Plant Expansion
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Council Members,

I am a resident of Glenoaks Canyon. I oppose the expansion of the Grayson Plant and the negative impact it will have on our neighborhood and City. Please vote NO.

Thank you,
Réni Knoll
795 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Xochitl Ruiz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 6:30 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara; Brotman, Daniel Subject: Grayson Repower Project
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:

Thank you all for your service and for the opportunity to write to you today.

I am writing to you regarding tomorrow's vote on the Grayson project. While I appreciate that you took the time to look at a new plan, the proposed plan still does not have enough local clean energy. I hope you all will consider alternatives like maximizing solar and other clean energy solutions. Not only will this pollute less, but it will have a lower cost over the long term. Why invest in equipment that will be obsolete in a short period of time? We can start investing in the future of our city in a more clean and cost-effective way now.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Xochitl
Glendale Resident
796 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Brian Ellis <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 5:37 PM
To: Brotman, Daniel
Cc: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Najarian, Ara; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Young, Mark; Golanian, Roubik
Subject: Re: Re-power Grayson as soon as possible
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hi Dan,

In your response (thank you) to me below  you state Glendale has significantly more transmission capacity coming online in the near term future.

I’m wondering if you have any additional information on this new capacity since GWP in the Agenda packet clearly indicates that the first bit available
is limited and LADWP seems to say no to any partnership?

“Opportunities to get additional transmission capacity: In April of 2019, GWP submitted a request to LADWP for transmission capacity. LADWP provided an “Available Transmission Capacity” analysis demonstrating that the transmission capacity heading into the Los Angeles basin is significantly over‐subscribed, and will continue to be over‐
subscribed for many years in the future, by as much as 2,000 MW (negative capacity available). GWP continues to monitor available transmission capacity coming into the Los Angeles basin on the LADWP’s “OASIS” system, but the status has not changed ‐‐ zero transmission is available coming into the Los Angeles basin. As discussed in the 2022 FEIR, GWP will acquire 72 MW of additional capacity on the Southern Transmission System (STS) transmission line starting in 2027. GWP was able to acquire this transmission by picking up transmission from other entities that elected to no longer participate in the Intermountain Power Project. Additionally, through its participation in the Eland I Solar and Storage Project, GWP was able to purchase transmission to bring in its 25 MW share from the Eland project. This transmission is specific and limited to the Eland solar power, and cannot be used to import other energy sources. In November 2021, GWP asked LADWP to allow GWP to partner with LADWP, as a co‐owner, in an upgrade of the Victorville‐LA (VIC‐LA) transmission path; and (b) to advise whether LADWP would allow GWP to partner with LADWP in the development or upgrade, as a co‐owner, of a new transmission line to bring power from Rosamond area into Airway. Regarding the VIC‐ LA path, LADWP declined to consider such a partnership, noting it would not be cost‐effective and beneficial for City of Los Angeles. Regarding Rosamond transmission, LADWP stated that it does not have any existing plans over the coming ten years to develop a transmission line from Rosamond area. LADWP stated that it “remains open to the possibility of exploring co‐ownership arrangements for new transmission projects, provided there are demonstrable benefits to LADWP’s ratepayers, and the City of Los Angeles and the costs incurred by LADWP for developing such transmission projects are equitably recovered.” As of the date of this report, LADWP has identified no such projects. GWP has reached out to LADWP for further clarification of the statements in its letter, and continues to seek out additional transmission opportunities. However, as discussed in the 2022 FEIR, new transmission lines into the Los Angeles Basin are improbable, difficult to permit and site through an urban environment, and not being constructed at this time.

Because LADWP does not have excess transmission capacity that GWP can procure to import energy over LADWP’s system into Glendale, GWP can only import energy using its transmission rights under the contracts described above and its other existing transmission contracts with LADWP. Combined, GWP’s transmission rights under all its contracts with LADWP are insufficient to allow GWP to meet Glendale’s energy and reserve needs solely using imported energy from remote generators.”

797 of 983
2 I know you believe a warming environment is a threat to humanity.  This one thought seems to drive every decision you make regarding power generation in Glendale, but it’s not the only thing to consider.

The lack of affordable and reliable electricity to power air conditioning is not based on an algorithm of what might happen in 2050 and beyond. It’s a fact that will be a real threat to residents of Glendale sooner rather than later if affordable power is not available.

Being prepared to face this potential threat is more important than attempting on our own to somehow mitigate warming by reaching for unobtanium in power options.

As SCAQMD mandates GWP (and thus Glendale residents) will lose any grandfathered rights to generate thermal power at Grayson in perpetuity,  your decision tomorrow and on future Grayson votes to kill this alternative will haunt our City for ever.  Two 18Mw units
won’t cut it.

Please seriously consider your decision carefully and vote for reliable, affordable always available locally sourced electricity.

Sincerely

Brian

‐‐‐
Brian Ellis
[email protected]
Cel: 818‐521‐8015 (text or voice message only)

On Feb 7, 2022, at 7:38 PM, Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Brian,

As you know, I’m not convinced we need to add the full 93 MW of new gas. We have existing gas assets, plus the transmission (and significantly more transmission coming on line in 2024 and 2027). We have projects underway to increase the use of energy storage, energy efficiency and demand management,
but there is a lot more room on all these fronts. A bit part of our problem is a dysfunctional reserves sharing arrangement within our balancing area; this is something we are trying to fix. If we can get some more flexibility there we will not need all the gas proposed. We might not need any. There are a lot of unknowns, which is why I prefer an approach where we prepare for the five units, perhaps install two now, and evaluate our need after exhausting these other avenues. To my mind, this is the most prudent and balanced approach.

Dan

From: Brian <[email protected]>
Date: Friday, February 4, 2022 at 4:52 PM
To: Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>, Devine, Paula <[email protected]>, Agajanian, Vrej <[email protected]>, Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>, Najarian, Ara <[email protected]> Cc: Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>, Young, Mark <[email protected]> Subject: Re‐power Grayson as soon as possible
798 of 983
3 CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Devine, Councilmembers and City Staff:

As you all know I am a strong proponent of moving forward with the replacement of Grayson so Glendale can continue to benefit from reliable, affordable and locally generated electricity.

Over the last few weeks my position has been made clear on Nextdoor.com as I responded to those who
feel solar, wind and batteries can provide Glendale residents with reliable, affordable and always available power for our homes and businesses. I am guessing those of you who follow the debates on ND have seen my posts so I won't reiterate them here.

Please move
forward as the replacement of Grayson is the most pressing issue, in my opinion, facing Glendale from an infrastructure perspective. The sooner the plant comes online, the more secure our energy future will be.

The downsized thermal generation proposal (Alternative 7 I believe) is the best option at this time.

Sincerely,

Brian Ellis

‐‐
Brian Ellis
[email protected]
818‐521‐8015 (voicemail or text only)
799 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Kathy Hartz <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:13 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

I recently helped my family purchase a home in the neighborhood of Glendale and oppose the Glendale Water and Power (GWP) plan to install 93+ MW of polluting equipment, costing at least $200 million, at the Grayson Power Plant. Much more clean energy is possible in Glendale and should be the top priority investment.

This is unhealthy and dangerous to young and old alike . Please stop ! Kathy Hartz
Hartz House Design
www.hartzhousedesign.com

800 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Smith, Francesca@DOT <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 2:16 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Agajanian, Vrej; Najarian, Ara Cc: Adjemian, Aram; [email protected]; John Sims; Steve Hunt; [email protected]
Subject: City Council Meeting on February 15, 2022: Item 8.c. Comments on Final Environmental Impact Report, Grayson Repowering Project
Attachments: Smith- FEIR Comments 2 13 22-FINAL.pdf; Attachment 1.pdf; Attachment 2.pdf; Attachment 3.pdf; Attachment 4.pdf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hi Paula et al.

I hope you are well.  My comments on the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Grayson Repowering Project are attached for your use with four attachments.

We have plans on Tuesday night, but I hope to watch your meeting and sincerely hope you all will bring up my questions to staff.

Please do not cote to adopt the flawed FEIR which does not comply with requirements in state environmental law or the City’s own Historic Preservation Ordinance as described in my letter.

Thank you for your service to the City.

Best wishes,
Francesca Smith
PQS Principal Architectural Historian
Caltrans District 7
100 S. Main St., MS 16A
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone 213-266-3790

801 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Karen H <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 1:41 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara; Brotman, Daniel Subject: Vote NO on Fossil fuels !
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Der Glendale City Council members,

Please vote NO to repowering Grayson with gas.

Help end our harmful dependence on fossil fuels. All efforts should be directed toward creating local, distributed, clean energy and storage for maximum resiliency and sustainability!

Please reject the gas-burning proposal and ask for quicker action and more investments in clean energy!

Let's be leaders in the clean energy movement here in Glendale.

Thank you,

Karen Hare NEILSSON
818 398 9269 MOBILE
Glendale, CA
802 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: CATE ADAMS <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 5:42 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: STOP GAS AT GRAYSON AGAIN-Please Reject the 93MW of gas in the Alternative 7 proposal
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Please reject the 93MW of gas in the Alternative 7 proposal. Every dollar we don’t spend on fossil fuel equipment should be invested instead in diverse clean energy projects for our city.

GLENDALE RESIDENT
Cate Adams
[email protected]
803 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Kat Palardy <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:57 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Re: Glendale resident here, please vote no on the 93 mw gas plan Vrej! CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Sorry the subject line got mixed up, this was for you Ardy:)

On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 11:55 AM Kat Palardy <[email protected]> wrote:

Dear Ardy,

Thank you for all you've done so far for the environment here in Glendale:) This is Kat Palardy, a Glendale resident considering whether to start a family here in Glendale. Please reject investing in 93 megawatts of gas power at the Grayson Power Plant. And please consider alternatives like commercial solar! We are going to need to be off of fossil fuels in a few years so it doesn't make sense to invest 100's of millions in them. That is short-term thinking vs. long term. The time for bold and courageous action is now. Thank you!

--

Kat Palardy
Comedian. VO. Video Editor.

Create your own email signature

--

Kat Palardy
Comedian. VO. Video Editor.

Create your own email signature

804 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Anna Mkhikian <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:36 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: No to the Grayson re-powering plan
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Councilmember Ardy Kassakhian,

I am a resident of the city of Glendale, and I am writing to ask that you withhold support for the Grayson Repowering plan until the city and GWP explore more clean energy solutions. At this critical moment in the climate crisis our community and planet need all the help they can get, and I strongly believe that you and the other council members have the power to make a difference. Please use it!

Sincerely,

ANNA ARTEMIS MKHIKIAN

GRAPHIC DESIGNER
905 E. Chevy Chase Dr.

Glendale, CA 91205
ARTEMISARTEMIS.COM
@AnnaArtemisM

she/her/hers
805 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Monica Ross <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 9:43 AM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Subject: Reject the Grayson Repowering Plan
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello,

As a resident of Glendale, clean energy is a priority for me. I oppose any of my tax dollars going toward the funding of the Grayson Repowering plan. We want our money going towards CLEAN energy efforts.

Please reject the Grayson Repowering Plan and ask GWP to maximize clean energy in Glendale.

Thank you,

Monica Ross & Matt Hartz
806 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Travis Schuldt <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 8:51 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Against Grayson Expansion
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Ardy Kassakhian,
I live in Glendale and I oppose the Grayson Expansion.

Travis Schuldt
[email protected]
PlasticFreeRestaurants.org
A tax-exempt 501(c)(3) non-profit
EIN#85-1083459
Choose us as your Amazon Smile charity!

807 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: M Knoll <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 8:54 AM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Subject: Opposition to Grayson Plant Expansion
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello,

I am residence of Glendale residing in Glenoaks Canyon. I oppose the expansion of the plant. Please vote no. Thanks

Marshall Knoll
808 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Kate Unger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 2:31 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Grayson at City Council tomorrow
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hi Ardy,

I wanted to quickly touch base about two things regarding the Grayson agenda item.

First, Monica emailed a GEC letter to City Council along with two attachments on Feb. 10, and I want to make sure you got that. Let me know if not.

Second, I wanted to share a thought about the City Council's discretion in reaching a decision. The staff report says that City Council has the option of adopting either a resolution approving Alternative 7 or a resolution approving Alternative 8 (p 17). There are other options as well, which the staff report recognizes but doesn't spell out.

The city can approve a different variation on the project. It isn’t limited to the existing project and alternatives analyzed in the EIR.

Agencies have the authority to require changes in a project through alternatives and mitigation that are feasible. (CEQA Guidelines section 15002(a).) Decision makers have the flexibility to select a variation on a proposed project or alternative, especially if doing so reduces environmental impacts, such as if the variation narrows the project.

This means that City Council has the option of approving a Grayson Repowering Project with the Tesla BESS and the switching station but no (or less) thermal generation.

If you have any questions about our letter, this message, or anything else and would like to talk briefly, let me know.

Best regards,
Kate
809 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: David F Eisenberg <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 3:06 PM
To: Adjemian, Aram
Cc: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Najarian, Ara; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Morgan Goodwin; 'Byron Chan'; 'Angela Johnson Meszaros'; [email protected]
Subject:

Sierra Club Petition to consider all possible alternatives to natural gas construction at Grayson
Attachments: Grayson Petition.pdf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mr. Adjemian

Attached, please find a petition signed by 1,437 people concerned about the possibility of gas construction at the Grayson power plant. At the request of councilmembers, we have placed the 211 Glendale residents first in the list. The other signers consider themselves affected by Grayson. We hope councilmembers
take the time to read the comments written by
petitioners.

We ask that this petition be entered into the record for the City Council meeting held on February 15 at 6 pm and noticed during the meeting at the appropriate time.

Thank you,
David F Eisenberg, Chair
Sierra Club Verdugo
Hills Group
Proud Glendale resident since 1985
810 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Scott Peer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 9:03 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Devine, Paula; Brotman, Daniel; Agajanian, Vrej; Najarian, Ara Subject: Please go solar!
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Greetings Council members,

It was about 4 years ago when we all agreed that we would drastically cut the gas burning at Grayson and emphasize solar and storage, including the VPP which was supposed to happen within a year.

The actions/inaction from GWP look like insubordination to me.

Please reject their schemes to burn more fossil fuels and reprimand them for defying our agreements.

Thanks,

Scott Peer
Adams Hill, Glendale
811 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:40 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Subject: Removal of funding for Grayson Powerplant
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

I am a recent homeowner in Glendale clean energy is my TOP priority. I am vehemently opposed to any of my tax dollars going towards additional pollutants
or any funding for the coming out of Grayson power plant. Glendale should be a leader in the souther California are you show that green energy is a priority for our communities future. Failure by the council will to block the Grayson power plant will condemn our community to exposure to toxic pollutants and cement us in the past.

Thanks for your consideration.

Matthew Hartz

Sent from my iPhone
812 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Jessica Tardieu <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 2:25 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Subject: Don't Fund Gas
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Glendale City Council,

Please don't spend $200 million on Grayson's Repowering plan for fossil fuel equipment when that money could go into green energy initiatives. It would be us throwing good money after bad. California law requires 100% clean energy by 2045. I know that utility companies are starting to figure out how it will work, but if we put $200 million into gas, then we still have to come up with more money to meet the green requirements. We have too many days, especially over the summer, when the air quality is too poor for us to let our kids play outside. As a mom of two little ones, I feel every minute of those days. We need to treat the climate change like the emergency it is.

Thank you for your time.

- Jessica Tardieu Haines

813 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 9:28 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Clean energy is my top priority
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

I am a longtime resident in Glendale clean energy is my top priority. I am vehemently opposed to any of my tax dollars going towards additional pollutants
coming out of Grayson power plant.

Thanks for your consideration.

Jackie
814 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Melissa King <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 9:59 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Please vote NO on current Grayson Plan
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Councilmember Ardy Kassakhian,

I'm emailing to say that I do not support the current Grayson repowering plan without more renewable energy added. I understand that Glendale already gets a good amount of its energy from renewable resources. However, what Glendale, and what everyone else around us considers good now is not enough to stop the world from warming as quickly as we need. We have to do better. And Glendale is in a unique position where it has the resources and money to set a good and necessary example for everyone else. I want to live in a city that goes beyond "good relative to others" and accepts the massive responsibility we all have to undo the damage we have done to our environment. We can become the "new standard" for others to follow. And not only will we be looked upon highly by others, but us residents, for many years to come, could feel proud to live in a city that did not ignore this when many others did.

For these reasons, I sincerely hope that you will not support the current plan as it is either. Thank you for your time.

-Melissa King
(510) 512-5766
1020 San Rafael Ave, Apt 7
Glendale, CA 91202
815 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 12:40 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Subject: Removal of funding for Grayson Powerplant
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

I am a recent homeowner in Glendale clean energy is my TOP priority. I am vehemently opposed to any of my tax dollars going towards additional pollutants
or any funding for the coming out of Grayson power plant. Glendale should be a leader in the souther California are you show that green energy is a priority for our communities future. Failure by the council will to block the Grayson power plant will condemn our community to exposure to toxic pollutants and cement us in the past.

Thanks for your consideration.

Matthew Hartz

Sent from my iPhone
816 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Kate Unger <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 2:31 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Grayson at City Council tomorrow
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hi Ardy,

I wanted to quickly touch base about two things regarding the Grayson agenda item.

First, Monica emailed a GEC letter to City Council along with two attachments on Feb. 10, and I want to make sure you got that. Let me know if not.

Second, I wanted to share a thought about the City Council's discretion in reaching a decision. The staff report says that City Council has the option of adopting either a resolution approving Alternative 7 or a resolution approving Alternative 8 (p 17). There are other options as well, which the staff report recognizes but doesn't spell out.

The city can approve a different variation on the project. It isn’t limited to the existing project and alternatives analyzed in the EIR.

Agencies have the authority to require changes in a project through alternatives and mitigation that are feasible. (CEQA Guidelines section 15002(a).) Decision makers have the flexibility to select a variation on a proposed project or alternative, especially if doing so reduces environmental impacts, such as if the variation narrows the project.

This means that City Council has the option of approving a Grayson Repowering Project with the Tesla BESS and the switching station but no (or less) thermal generation.

If you have any questions about our letter, this message, or anything else and would like to talk briefly, let me know.

Best regards,
Kate
817 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Linder, Stefan <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 3:31 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Subject: Siemens Energy Commitment to Decarbonize Energy Systems Attachments: Glendale Message 14Feb2022.pdf
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear City Mayor and Council Members,

Siemens Energy understand that Glendale City Council is in process to approve Feb 15th 2022, to proceed with natural gas fossil fuel repowering of the Grayson power plant utilizing carbon emitting technology, without a firm decarbonize path for future power generation at the Grayson generation plant. We wish to make you aware that thereare other technologies available that has not been reviewed by the Grayson repowering team. Siemens Energy has developed a decarbonization path for our gas turbine generation portfolio, there the market leading technology today have a guaranteed capability to use a fuel mixture of 75% hydrogen, which result in a 47% carbon reduction versus natural gas fossil fuel, utilizing Siemens Energy innovative Dry Low Emissions technology. Furthermore, Siemens Energy are currently commissioning the Braskem plant in Brazil, that will use a fuel blend of 60% hydrogen in our 25 MW Dry Low Emissions gas turbine, guaranteeing NOx emissions directly after the gas turbine below 25 ppm prior NOx selective reduction catalyst, in addition the HyFlexPower project in France will verify 2023, the use of 100% hydrogen for power generation in a Siemens Energy 13 MW Dry Low Emissions gas turbine.

Refer also to Siemens Energy CEO Christian Bruch resent message to the global energy market, as per below link, how to fight climate change now, the time has come for a radical transformation and decarbonization push to make our energy systems more sustainable.

https://www.siemens‐energy.com/global/en/news/magazine/2022/how‐to‐fight‐climate‐change‐now.html Find also attached a short presentation, outlining Siemens Energy commitment to decarbonize the energy systems by developing hydrogen capable gas turbine generation units, including decarbonizing our test center for the gas turbines, as describe under the link below.

Zero Emission Hydrogen Turbine Center (ZEHTC) | Hydrogen | Siemens Energy Global (siemens‐energy.com) We are looking forward to engage with City of Glendale, Grayson repowering team, to enable the City to decarbonize your energy needs and ensure future investment will meet the needs of tomorrow and not end up as a stranded asset.

Sincerely,

Stefan Linder
Director, New Generation Sales
Siemens Energy, Inc.
281.787.3475

Important notice: This e-mail and any attachment thereof contain corporate proprietary information. If you have received it by mistake, please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and delete this e-mail and its attachments from your system. Thank you.

818 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: David S <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 8:35 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Please Reject the Grayson Repowering Project
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Council Member:

Please reject the Grayson Repowering Project. The cost to our city vastly outweigh any benefits.

I am a proud Glendalian. I was born
in Glendale. I am raising my family in Glendale. I want my children to raise their future families in Glendale.

The Grayson project will only hinder that future. I don’t want them to be left with worse air pollution, especially when there are cleaner more cost effective ways to reduce Glendale’s energy needs.

Please reject the Grayson Repowering Project.

‐David C. Smith
819 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Seline Guidotti <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 9:41 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Concern over current Grayson proposal
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Greetings Councilmember Kassakhian,

As a long-term Glendale resident and currently raising my family in this city, I strongly support bold measures designed to combat climate change, pollution, and protect the environment.

I am very concerned that the current Grayson proposal ( "Alternative 7") is not going far enough in incorporating clean energy. I feel that our city’s resources should be proactively used to maximize clean energy now, not years down the line.

Please ask GWP to revise their current plan to incorporate more clean energy now.

Thank you for your consideration.

Seline Guidotti
Glendale resident since 2000
820 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Scott Peer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 9:03 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Devine, Paula; Brotman, Daniel; Agajanian, Vrej; Najarian, Ara Subject: Please go solar!
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Greetings Council members,

It was about 4 years ago when we all agreed that we would drastically cut the gas burning at Grayson and emphasize solar and storage, including the VPP which was supposed to happen within a year.

The actions/inaction from GWP look like insubordination to me.

Please reject their schemes to burn more fossil fuels and reprimand them for defying our agreements.

Thanks,

Scott Peer
Adams Hill, Glendale
821 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Donna Chung <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 10:08 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Subject: please reject GWP's Grayson plan
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Hello,
We live in Glendale with our child, and clean energy and the future of our city, country, and planet are always at the forefront of our minds. Please reject the Grayson Repowering plan for $200+ million in fossil fuel equipment. GWP's plan has too much gas. Investments in clean energy will be better for Glendale residents and ratepayers, the city, the environment, and the climate.

Thanks,
Donna Chung & Tim Lokiec
2027 El Arbolita Dr
--
♡.◕‿◕.♡
822 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Scott Fraser <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 10:27 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Cc: Adjemian, Aram
Subject: Agenda Item 9c: Grayson Project and EIR must go to the Historic Preservation Commission for Review
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Devine and Members of the Glendale City Council:

Please send this project and the Final EIR to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) for review and for a recommendation as required under the Glendale Municipal Code and CEQA.

If you decide to ignore the clear language of the Glendale Municipal Code and CEQA, and instead vote to certify the Final EIR, adopt a statement of overriding considerations, and approve a project that includes demolition of the historic Boiler Building, here is what will happen:

The City will be sued. It seems very unlikely that the case will go to a judge, because the city attorneys know the City will lose. The record of their handling of the historic status of the property and impacts casts the city in a very poor light.

A settlement will be reached. The project approvals and EIR certification will be overturned as a matter of course. The project and final EIR go to the HPC after all, and then to Council, unless the whole review process needs to start over.

If you hold the vote without following the requirements under the Glendale Municipal Code and CEQA, the City will spend tens of thousands of dollars in tax-payer money. There will be a significant delay, much greater than if a majority of council votes Tuesday to follow the proper process involving the HPC.

The city’s attorneys are giving you incorrect advice. The fact that an “update” on Grayson took place at the January HPC meeting, at which no public hearing was held, is only one of many problems. Follow the Code, follow CEQA. You best course of action is to delay a Council vote until the EIR has received proper vetting at the HPC.

Thank you.

Scott Fraser

--
Scott E. Fraser
[email protected]
823 of 983
2 824 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Patrick Dinan <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 10:49 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Grayson Proposal
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mr. Kassakhian,

As a resident of Glendale and father of two young daughters, I urge you not to support the current proposed plan to repower Grayson.

The current plan is a huge waste of money since cleaner alternatives already make economic sense and will continue to become more compelling over time. The cost of solar and battery storage has dropped by over 80% over the past two decades and is expected to continue decreasing.

Why would we commit to a huge bloated project that relies on expensive 20th century technology when we know that solar, wind and battery storage will continue to become more efficient and less costly?

At the very least, please consider taking a phased in approach instead of committing the rate paying residents of Glendale to more pollution and a huge financial liability. This would at least give us more time to assess cleaner alternatives. The current plan is bad for our planet and our wallets.

Thanks for your consideration,
--
Patrick Dinan, CFP®, CSRIC®
President
Impact Fiduciary LLC
Mobile: 323-636-6997
Office: 323-615-1427
www.impactfiduciary.com

Schedule a Phone Call

[email protected]

This communication (and any attached documents) constitutes an electronic communication within the meaning of the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 USC 2510, and its disclosure is strictly limited to the recipient intended by the sender of this message. It should be considered to be confidential. This communication is for the sole use of the intended recipient and receipt by anyone other than the intended recipient does not constitute a loss of the confidential or privileged nature of the communication. Any review, copying or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or if you otherwise received this message or any attachment in error, please notify the sender, and delete all copies of this communication (and all attached documents), immediately
825 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: W G <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:00 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Subject: Grayson Repowering
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Devine and Council Members,
I would like to see more solar and other clean energy instead of a new fossil fuel project. Please consider all the great research the Glendale Environmental Coalition has done and come up with a better plan. If some gas is still needed, please retrofit the existing historic structures instead of demolishing them.

Thank you,
Wendy G.

Glendale homeowner
826 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Analisa Swan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 10:58 PM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes; Brotman, Daniel; Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Najarian, Ara Subject: Please vote NO gas at the Grayson Power Plant
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Good evening.

Please vote NO gas at the Grayson Power Plant.

I am urging the Glendale City Council to REJECT the proposed $200+ million plan for gas expansion at the Grayson Power Plant.

We need a more environmentally sustainable plan that relies on clean energy solutions such as solar. I would urge that the council further explore the feasibility of clean energy solutions. California is transitioning to clean energy. It is very likely that the $200+ million project will be obsolete and in non-compliance with state environmental requirements even before the project is completed. We need a better investment and life expectancy of the investment than what is being proposed in the current plan.

I was proud to rally at Glendale City Hall on 2/6/22 with over 200 people including Glendale residents, grassroots activists, and electeds calling for a rejection of gas at the Grayson Power Plant.

Thank you for your consideration and attention to this important matter.

-Analisa Swan
ADEM AD 44
Resident of Burbank, CA
--
Analisa Swan, Esq.

CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATION
Ford & Wallach
3619 Motor Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90034
Telephone: (213)-380-3140
Facsimile: (213)-480-0249

This e-mail message and any attachments are intended for the use of the addressee names above and may contain information that is privileged and confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you received this e-mail message in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this email message or by telephone.

Thank you.

Sent from my iPhone.
827 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Joann Lo <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 11:12 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Subject: More Clean Energy Now!
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor and Councilmembers,
I am a long-time Glendale resident of 13 years and a voter, and currently I live in the La Crescenta neighborhood of Glendale with my two children who attend Glendale schools. I am emailing you to urge you to vote NO on the Grayson Repowering Plan on Tuesday and instead to ask GWP to produce a plan with no or less gas and more solar and storage. There are many cleaner energy alternatives available to our community now that will benefit Glendale and our children and their children for generations to come.

Thank you,
Joann Lo
323-244-7003
91214

828 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Barbara Levitan <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 12:04 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Reject Grayson Repowering
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Please reject the Grayson Repowering plan for $200+ million in fossil fuel equipment.

Barbara Levitan
3015 Country Club Dr
Glendale CA 91208
829 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Corden, Mark <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 7:53 AM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Subject: Reject the Grayson repowering proposal
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear City Council members,

I am writing as a parent of two, healthcare professional, and concerned citizen of Glendale to ask you to reject the Grayson repowering proposal. This plan for $200+ million in fossil fuel equipment is contrary to the interests of the residents of Glendale. Additionally, as a pediatrician committed to a healthier future for our children, I do not support investing Glendale's money in climate‐changing energy production. Please take this opportunity to look to the future and set an example to cities in California and the nation as a whole by seeking a clean energy solution to Glendale's energy needs.

Yours kindly,

Mark H. Corden, MD, CM
Attending Physician, Division of Hospital Medicine
Co-Chair, Critical Response Systems Committee
Children's Hospital Los Angeles
Clinical Associate Professor of Pediatrics (Clinician Educator) Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California (o) 323-361-8012 | (c) 301-385-4144
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of this original message. 830 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Nathalie Klukovich <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 9:32 AM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Subject: NO Gas at Grayson!
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

To Whom It May Concern:

I am a mother and an attorney who resides with my husband and two young children on Larga Avenue in Atwater Village, close to Glendale. I am absolutely appalled that the GWP Commission has voted to recommend certification of the Grayson Repowering FEIR. Why the Commission would entertain power options which so overtly contribute to the poor air quality, directly affecting the health and quality of life of the residents of Glendale and neighboring communities such as mine, is beyond me. Certainly there must be better, cleaner energy options which do not put so many pollutants into the air. My son has asthma and the project the Commission looks to approve will be detrimental to his health. The Grayson Repowering FEIR will push out local residents, including my family, who cannot abide the worsening air quality. Please refer to the American Lung Association's cautions as to the health impact of poor air quality: https://www.lung.org/research/sota/health-risks . I cannot in good conscience stand by and watch while the Commission looks to fossil fuels to meet energy needs at the expense of the health of the people it should be serving. Please do not certify the Grayson Repowering FEIR, and instead look to cleaner options for the local residents.

Health Impact of Pollution | State of the
Air | American Lung Association -
American Lung Association | American
Lung Association
How Does Ozone Pollution Harm Your Health? Ozone
gas is a powerful lung irritant. When it is inhaled into the lungs, it reacts with the delicate lining of the airways, causing inflammation and other damage that can impact
multiple body systems.
www.lung.org

Nathalie M. Klukovich, Esq.

Law Office of Nathalie M. Klukovich
690 E Green St, Ste 103
831 of 983
2 Pasadena, CA 91101
(310) 467-2831

NOTE: This e-mail is from a law firm and is intended solely for the use of the individual(s) or entity to which it is addressed. The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and may be privileged. If you believe you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately, delete the e-mail from your computer and do not copy or disclose it to anyone else.
832 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Kourtney Smith <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 9:41 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: NO GRAYSON POWER PLANT
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Ardy Kassakhian,

I'm writing to urge you to vote against the Grayson Power Plant. In a time of climate crisis and dwindling public trust in the government, please set an example as a leader who cares about the wellbeing not just of your community, but of the planet as a whole.

Thank you.

--
Best,
Kourtney Smith
833 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Andrew Hansen <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 9:59 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Stop Gas at Grayson Again!
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Councilmember Khassakian,

As a resident of Glendale, I'm writing to implore you to reject the 93MW of gas in the Alternative 7 proposal that city council is voting on tonight. GWP did not do enough to find clean energy alternatives to gas in the 2 1/2 years since summer 2019, and has not accounted for the benefits of 72MW of increased transmission rights, coming in 2027. Glendale can and should do better. Please reject the 93MW of gas in the Alternative 7 proposal. Thank you.

Best,
Andrew Hansen
91205
834 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Lana Kim <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2022 12:39 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Cc: Dain Blodorn Kim
Subject: Please REJECT the Grayson Gas Project
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Mayor Devine and Honorable Council Members,

I am emailing today about the Grayson Gas Project, as my family and many extended family members are Glendale residents.

Please reject and oppose the expansion! Please instead support better investments in clean energy, which will not only be better for Glendale residents and the city, but also the environment and climate. We need more clean energy now, that won’t put our own health and future at risk.

Thank
you for your consideration and time,

Lana & Dain Blodorn Kim
835 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Dan Morhaim <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2022 8:37 AM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Brotman, Daniel; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Najarian, Ara Subject: Grayson project: oppose
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

All,
On behalf of my family that lives in Glendale, we ask you to take a forward looking approach about energy needs and sources and oppose the expansion of the Grayson gas project.

I expect you are familiar with the website https://gec.eco/grayson/ which explains the history and reasons for this.

Thanks for your consideration.

Dan Morhaim, M.D.

On behalf of the Morhaim family
3916 Pennsylvania Avenue, 91214
836 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Maria Isabel Medina <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, January 27, 2022 8:11 AM
To: Kassakhian, Ardashes
Subject: Please vote against Grayson gas plant
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links, open attachments, or reply if you are unsure as to the sender.

Dear Councilmember Kassakhian:

I am writing to urge you to vote against the Grayson gas plant. Voting in favor of the gas plant is a failure of stewardship of our resources and good leadership. A commitment to gas at this point is unsustainable short‐ term and long term. Please lead in a way that is consistent with the 21stcentury and the challenges we as a community face.

Vote against the Grayson gas plant.

Thank you,

Maria Isabel Medina
1138 Park Avenue
Glendale, CA. 91205
837 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Hank Schlinger <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2022 9:37 AM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Najarian, Ara; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Brotman, Daniel Subject: Fwd: Boiling Point: California's last gas plant? Dear Mayor Devine and Council Members,

We are strongly opposed to modifying Grayson to install 93 MW of Natural Gas Generators. Glendale is making headlines (see below). We hope that you DO NOT approve the Grayson Repowering proposal so that Glendale will be in the news for the right reasons.

We urge you to reject the Grayson Repowering proposal and look for cleaner, more sustainable ways to generate the power we will need.