Agenda packet, first session — Glendale City Council, February 15, 2022 (part 1 of 3)

A G E N D A

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL
(STAFF ACCESS ONLY) COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor
Glendale, CA 91206
Meetings are broadcast live on Glendale TV, viewable on Spectrum Cable, channel 6, and AT&T U- verse, channel 99. Meetings are also streamed live in high definition (HD) on the city's webpage, glendaleca.gov/live , on YouTube.com/myglendale , and on Apple TV, Roku, and Amazon Fire devices using a free app called Screenweave and choosing “Glendale TV” from the menu. Meetings are also archived on the City Website for viewing anytime at glendaleca.gov/agendas . Call (818) 548-4013 for program schedules. DVDs of the proceedings are available for purchase in the City Clerk's Office.

If you have any question about matters on the agenda, or requests for assistance, please contact the City Clerk at (818) 548-2090 during regular business hours.

PLEASE TURN OFF CELLULAR PHONES WHILE INSIDE THE MEETING LOCATION In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, auxiliary hearing aids, sign language translation, and Braille transcripts are available upon request. Assisted listening devices are available same-day upon request. At least 48 hours (or two business days) notice is required for requests regarding sign language translation and Braille transcription services. All documents related to open session items on this agenda that are received less than 72 hours prior to this meeting, and are public records, will be available for review in the Office of the City Clerk, 613 E. Broadway, RM 110, Glendale, CA 91206.

Translation services are provided for meetings through the use of bilingual staff for speakers who wish to utilize the service as available. Speakers should state their request by contacting the City Clerk’s office at (818) 548-2090, at least 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Please specify the language for which you require translation. The exclusive use of City provided interpreters is not required and persons are welcome to use their own interpreter or speak in their native language.

FEBRUARY 15, 2022 AT 6:00 PM
To help slow the transmission of COVID-19, and protect the health and safety of the community, City Council, as well as Board & Commission meetings, will continue to be closed to the public for in-person attendance.

The public is encouraged to watch and participate from the safety of their homes to practice social distancing. Meetings are broadcast live on Glendale TV, viewable on Spectrum Cable, channel 6, and AT&T U-verse, channel 99. Meetings are also streamed live in high definition (HD) on the city's webpage, glendaleca.gov/live , on YouTube.com/myglendale , and on Apple TV, Roku, and Amazon Fire devices using a free app called Screenweave and choosing “Glendale TV” from the menu.

For public comments and questions during the meeting, call (818) 937-8100. Public comments on a specific agenda item will be taken when that agenda item is discussed. 1 TYPED 2/16/2022 12:09:46 PM
02 15 22
CC

ROLL CALL

1. CLOSED SESSION – 1:00 PM (To Commence at 3:00 PM )

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:00 PM
Roll Call
a. Flag Salute: Mayor Devine
b. Invocation: Aram Adjemian, City Clerk
c. Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the February 15, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on February 9, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, February 22, 2022

4. CONSENT ITEMS (Including Minutes)
The following are Routine and May be Acted Upon by One Motion. Any Member of Council or the Audience Requesting Separate Consideration May do so by Making Such Request Before Motion is Proposed.
a. City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Regular City Council meeting of February 1, 2022 b. Community Services and Parks, re: Approval of Specification for the Landscape Maintenance Contract

1. Resolution adopting Specification No. 3909 for contracting the landscape maintenance of general government facilities, and authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids c. Community Services and Parks, re: Proposed Recreational Trails Program Grant Application for Three New Trails at Brand Park

1. Resolution approving the submission of a Recreational Trails Program Grant application to the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation for the Brand Trail System Expansion Project to build three new trails at Brand Park, and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents, including, but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the project

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

8. ACTION ITEMS
a. Public Works, re: California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Notification of Intent to Comply (NOIC) with SB 1383 Regulations

1. Resolution authorizing submission of a Notification of Intent to Comply with organic waste reduction requirements of SB 1383, in accordance with SB 619 b. Finance, re: Financial Status Update - December 31, 2021

1. Motion to note and file the Financial Status Report for the period ending

2. December 31, 2021

3. Motion accepting $254,000 in California Department of Aging (CDA) American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act funding from the County of Los Angeles Workforce Development, Aging and Community Services (WDACS) for FY 2021-22 additional defined and contract Elderly Nutrition Program (ENP) Congregate Meal and Home-Delivered Meal Services; 2 TYPED 2/16/2022 12:09:46 PM
02 15 22
CC
and authorizing the City Manager or a designee, to execute Amendment Seven to the WDACS Contract for the ENP 202106 Subaward Period July 2020–June 2022 (dated July 1, 2020) to accept and implement the WDACS funding

4. Resolution of Appropriation
c. Glendale Water and Power, re: Environmental Impact Report for Grayson Repowering Project

1. Resolution certifying the 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Grayson Repowering Project and making findings

2. Resolution approving the selection of Alternative 7 (Tesla/ Wartsila Repowering) and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and making findings in support thereof, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan

3. Resolution approving the selection of Alternative 8 (Tesla/ Unit 8A/8BC Refurbishment) and adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations and makings findings in support thereof, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan

4. [Optional] Motion providing direction to staff [to be specified by Council]

9. HEARINGS

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

12. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Discussion is Limited to Items NOT a Part of this Agenda. Council May Question or Respond to The Speaker But There Will be no Debate or Decision. The City Manager May Refer the Matter to the Appropriate Department for Investigation and Report.

13. NEW BUSINESS

14. ADJOURNMENT
3 TYPED 2/16/2022 12:09:46 PM
02 15 22
CC
02 01 22
CC

M I N U T E S

GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL
(STAFF ACCESS ONLY) COUNCIL CHAMBERS
613 E. Broadway, 2nd Floor Glendale, CA 91206
FEBRUARY 1, 2022 AT 6:00 PM
ROLL CALL –All Present

1. CLOSED SESSION – 3:07 p.m.
a. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Orfelia Nahabedian v.

City of Glendale, L.A.S.C Case No. 20STCV12690
b. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Claim of Artur Manasaryan, Claim No. 2022-22
c. Conference with Legal Counsel – Pending Litigation: Claim of Hakop Koumoushyan, Claim No. 2022-21
City Attorney Mike Garcia indicated that action is not anticipated. Council recessed to Closed Session at 3:08 p.m.

2. REGULAR BUSINESS AGENDA – 6:03 PM
Roll Call – All Present
a. Flag Salute: Aram Adjemian, City Clerk
b. Invocation: Aram Adjemian, City Clerk
c. Report of City Clerk, re: Posting of Agenda. The Agenda for the February 1, 2022 Regular Meeting of the Glendale City Council was Posted on January 25, 2022 on the Bulletin Board Outside City Hall.

3. PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS
a. Agenda Preview for the Meetings of Tuesday, February 8, 2022 Deputy City Manager John Takhtalian provided the preview.

4. CONSENT ITEMS (Including Minutes)
The following are Routine and May be Acted Upon by One Motion. Any Member of Council or the Audience Requesting Separate Consideration May do so by Making Such Request Before Motion is Proposed.
a. City Clerk, re: Minutes of the Regular City Council meeting of January 18, 2022 and the Special City Council meeting of January 18, 2022 Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
b. Police Department, re: BJA 2021 DNA Capacity Enhancement and Backlog Reduction Grant

1. Motion authorizing acceptance of the BJA 2021 DNA Enhancement and Backlog Reduction Grant and authorizing the City Manager to execute the necessary agreements, certification, and other documents required to accept the Grant
4A
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
4 of 983
02 01 22
CC
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows

2. Resolution 22-15 of Appropriation in the amount of $350,448 in BJA 2021 DNA Capacity Enhancement and Backlog Reduction Grant funds
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
c. Glendale Water and Power, re: Fiber Optic Network Expansion Project

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into and execute a contract with HHS Construction LLC in the amount of $5,598,013 plus a 15% contingency in the amount of $839,702 for a total not-to-exceed amount of $6,437,715 for Construction Services for the Fiber Optic Network Expansion (Specification No. 3873)
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows
d. Glendale Water and Power, re: Award of a Design-Build Contract for the Pipeline Management Program FY2021-22 Phase I Project

1. Motion authorizing the City Manager, or his designee, to enter into and execute a design-build contract with J. De Sigio Construction, Inc. of Baldwin Park, CA, for the Pipeline Management Program FY 2021-22, Phase I Project (RFP No. 3894) in the amount of $5,750,000 plus a ten percent (10%) contingency of $575,000
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows

2. Resolution 22-16 of Appropriation in the amount of $3,825,000 for the Pipeline Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
5 of 983
02 01 22
CC
Management Program FY 2021-22 Phase I Project
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows

5. CITY COUNCIL/STAFF COMMENTS
Council Member Najarian asked staff on a proclamation for February as Black History Month. He announced that Metrolink will be free for riders on February 4 to celebrate Transit Equity Day on the birthday of civil rights pioneer, Rosa Parks.

Police Chief Carl Povilaitis will come back with a report on flock cameras. Camera registration program is now available on the website.

Council Members wished a Happy Lunar New Year to the public who celebrate the event.

Council Member Kassakhian asked staff to work closely with the Emergency Rental Assistance Program that the county is offering. Brotman seconded.

Mayor Devine asked staff to provide a report on having all electric appliances in all future build, not just ADUs. Kassakhian seconded. City Manager Roubik Golanian indicated that our Sustainability Officer will provide a report to Council in the next three months.

6. COMMUNITY EVENT ANNOUNCEMENTS (3-Minutes)
Mike Mohill
Fernanda Hidalgo
Robert Andrew Libby
Henry Hachikian
Karen Kwak

7. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES

8. ACTION ITEMS
a. City Clerk, re: Calling for and giving notice of the General Municipal Election to be held on Tuesday, June 7, 2022
Staff Comment:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Presenting:

Aram Adjemian, City Manager

1. A Resolution 22-17 Calling and Giving Notice of the Holding of a General Municipal Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
6 of 983
02 01 22
CC
Election to be Held on Tuesday, June 7, 2022, in the City of Glendale, for the Election of Certain Officers as Required by the Provisions of the Laws of the State of California Relating to Charter Cities
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows

2. A Resolution 22-18 Requesting the Board of Supervisors of the County of Los Angeles to Direct the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk to Render Full Consolidated Election Services, with the Exception of Candidate Filing, to Said City Relating to the Conduct of a General Municipal Election to be Held on June 7, 2022 Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows

3. A Resolution 22-19 Setting Forth Regulations Relating to Candidate Statements for the June 7, 2022 General Municipal Election
Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Kassakhian
Vote as Follows
Item 8a4 will come back in next week’s agenda.

4. A Resolution of Appropriation in the amount of $188,203 for the June 7, 2022 Election

9. HEARINGS
a. Community Development, re: Adoption of 2021-2029 Glendale Housing Element (Continuation from the January 25, 2022 City Council Meeting) Staff Comments:

Roubik Golanian, City Manager
Erik Krause, Deputy Director of Community Development
Phil Lanzafame, Director of Community Development
Presenting:

Amanda Tropiano, Consultant
Public Comments:

Joshua Christensen
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Kassakhian, Najarian, Devine
None
None
None
7 of 983
02 01 22
CC
Chuck Powell
Devine asked staff to provide a report on labor standards and community wealth policy.

Kassakhian seconded.

1. Resolution 22-20 Adopting the City of Glendale 2021-2029 Housing Element Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Najarian
Vote as Follows

10. REPORTS - INFORMATION

11. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS

Edwin

13. NEW BUSINESS

14. ADJOURNMENT – 7:23 p.m.

Moved: Agajanian Seconded: Brotman
Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

Agajanian, Brotman, Najarian, Devine
None
None
Kassakhian
Mayor of the City of Glendale
City Clerk of the City of Glendale
8 of 983
4b

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Approval of Specification for the Landscape Maintenance Contract

1. Resolution adopting Specification No. 3909 for contracting the landscape maintenance of general government facilities, and authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for February 15, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff requests Council approval on a Resolution to adopt the Specification for contracting the landscape maintenance of general government facilities. Upon adoption, staff will work with the City Clerk to advertise for bids, evaluate the bids received, and return to Council to award a five-year contract (3-years initial term, and two 1-year renewal terms).

The new Specification calls for the use of battery operated equipment to enhance the City’s goal of achieving a sustainable operation.
9 of 983
24 b
3 1
2 8

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Community Services & Facilities: maintenance of landscape sites will enhance the quality of life by providing aesthetically pleasing city owned facilities and medians.

Sustainability: the use of battery operated equipment will enhance our sustainable operations, reduce carbon emissions, and improve public health.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve a resolution adopting Specification No. 3909 for contracting the landscape maintenance of general government facilities, and authorizing the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

BACKGROUND
The City has a contract with Parkwood Landscape Maintenance Inc. (Parkwood) to maintain general government contract facilities including libraries, fire stations, Glendale Water and Power facilities, the City Hall campus, City Parking Lots, the Transportation Center, medians, as well as other City owned landscaped areas – a list of which is attached as Exhibit 1. The current contract with Parkwood will end on June 30, 2022.

Staff has prepared bidding, performance, and technical requirements in a new document, Specification No. 3909, for the landscape maintenance work of general government contract facilities. The Specification includes 138 sites as part of this bidding process. The Specification further allows the City to adjust / modify the number of facilities as well as change maintenance frequencies.

The City will be contracting out the work to a company for five years: a three-year initial term, with the City’s having an option to renew for two additional one-year terms.

Contracting with a private company is the most economical and efficient way to perform the City’s landscape maintenance for all of the listed facilities.

The Specification requires the successful bidder to use battery operated landscape equipment to maintain these sites, excluding heavy equipment and ride on mowers until feasible options are available in the industry. The Specification further allows the City to adjust / modify the number of facilities as well as change maintenance frequencies.

At this time, staff is requesting Council approval of the Specification and authorization for the City Clerk to advertise for bids for a landscape maintenance contract. Staff will return to Council to award a new contract to commence on July 1, 2022.

ANALYSIS
Given the general cost increases experienced in the industry related to materials and labor, staff anticipates the new bids received to reflect an increase in the monthly maintenance rates per facility. In addition, the requirement to use battery operated equipment may impact the cost of this contract as battery operated equipment have a higher initial cost of purchase.
10 of 983
34 b
3 1
2 8

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
There was no outreach conducted for this report.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report. Staff will request funding for this contract through the upcoming Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget process.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Because no possibility exists that the activity in question (seeking bids and advertising for them) may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA review under the common sense exemption set forth in 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15061(b)(3).

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Approve Specification No. 3909 for a landscape maintenance contract and authorize the City Clerk to advertise for bids.

Alternative 2: Consider further extending the current contract with Parkwood Landscape Maintenance, Inc. at current rates.

Alternative 3: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Koko Panossian, Deputy Director of Community Services & Parks Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: List of Facilities
11 of 983
C:\inetpub\wwwroot\Glendale\temp\CC_02152022_Resolution_4b1.pdf RESOLUTION NO.

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

ADOPTING COMMUNITY SERVICES AND PARKS DEPARTMENT
SPECIFICATION NO. 3909

FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE OF

GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES,

AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE FOR BIDS
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

1. The plans, specifications, and contract documents― on file in the City Clerk’s Office― for Landscape Maintenance of General Government Facilities, are hereby approved, adopted, and designated, and will be known as Specification No. 3909. The Director of Community Services and Parks is authorized to include non-substantive amendments to the Specification’s technical sections.

2. The City Clerk is hereby directed to advertise for bids for the work, equipment, and materials described in Specification No. 3909, adopted by this Resolution.

Adopted this ________ day of __________________________, 2022 ________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:

City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Aram Adjemian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2022, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

City Clerk
12 of 983
List of Facilities
Exhibit 1
Monthly Cost
Unit Price Frequency
Slope
Natural
Area
Auto
Irrigation
System
Manual
Irriation
System
Turf Ground
Cover
Annual
Planting
Shrub
Vine &
Tree
General
Grounds
Hardscape
Comments
PARKS FACILITIES:
1 Adams Square:

Tyler St. to Palmer Avenue
Weekly X X X X X
2 Beaudry Blvd. Medians:
1300-1400 Beaudry Blvd.

Weekly X X X X X
3 Brand Blvd. Island:

B/T Kenneth & Mountain
Weekly X X X X
4 N. Brand Blvd. Medians:
200 S. - 800 N. Brand Blvd.

Weekly X X X X X
5 S. Brand Blvd. Medians:
300 S. - 1700 S. Brand Blvd.

Weekly X X X X X
6 Broadway and Wilson Intersection
E. Broadway / E. Wilson / Harvey Dr
Weekly X X X X
7 Camino San Rafael:
2100 Camino San Rafael
Twice a month X X X X
8 Central Ave Median
Colorado St. to Americana Way
Twice a month X X X X
9 Central Park Paseo
Between Parking Lot 10 and Brand Blvd.

Twice a month X X X X
10 Columbus Circle:

Columbus & Riverdale
Weekly X X X X
11 Daily Circle:
1399-1325 Daily Circle
Twice a month X X X X
12 Fairmont Ave Park and Ride
San Fernando & Fairmont intersection
Monthly X X X X
13 Foothill Blvd median:

East of Lowell and West of Pennsylvania
Twice a Month X X X X Parkway & plants inside
property
14 Glendale Ave. Long Island:
1000 Block Glendale Ave.

Weekly X X X X
15 Glendale Ave. Median:

Monterey Road to E. Glenoaks Blvd.

Weekly X X X X X
16 Glendale Armory:
2200 E. Colorado St.

Weekly X X X X X

Page 1 of 9 ends

13 of 983
List of Facilities
17 Glenoaks Blvd. Flood Channel:

Central Avenue to Pacific Avenue
Twice a month X X
18 Glenoaks Blvd. Greenway:

Glenoaks & Brand Blvd.

Weekly X X X X X X
19 Glenoaks Blvd. Medians:

Brand Blvd. To Alameda Ave.

Weekly X X X X X
20 Haverkamp Circle Median:
642 Haverkamp Circle
Twice a month X X X X
21 Henderson Canyon:

End-Whiting Woods Rd.

Twice a month X X X
22 Green Streets Demonstration Project:

Harvard (Brand to Glendale) and Louise
(Wilson to Colorado)
Weekly X X X
23 Maple Street Island Beds
E. Maple st. int-sec Wing / Porter/ Fisher
Weekly X X X
24 Markridge Rd. Parkway:

New York to Lauderdale
Twice a month X X X
25 Maryland Ave. Medians:
100-200 N. Maryland Ave.

Weekly X X X
26 Maryland Avenue Marketplace:

Broadway to Harvard St.

Weekly X X
27 Moncado Dr. Median:
1200 Moncado Drive
Twice a month X X X X X
28 Montecito Park:
2978 Verdugo Rd.

Weekly X X X X
29 Monterey Road Median:
1200 Monterey Road
Weekly X X X
30 Monterey BioSwale:

Monterey Rd. and Coronado
Twice a month X X X X
31 Monterey Road :

Between Geneva and Louise
Monthly X X
32 Montrose Mall:
2200 - 2500 Honolulu Avenue
Daily X X X X X X
33 Mountain and Royal Intersection
E. Mountain / Royal Blvd / Del Monte Dr
Weekly
34 Northfork Median:
2900 Cañada Blvd. At Verdugo Rd.

Weekly X X X X

Page 2 of 9 ends

14 of 983
List of Facilities
35 Orangedale Avenue Median:

Orangedale Avenue & Honolulu Avenue
Weekly X X X
36 Pacific Ave. Greenway:

Glenoaks Blvd. & Pacific
Weekly X X X X X X
37 Pacific/Burchett Medians:
700 N. Pacific Ave.

Weekly X X X X
38 Palm Drive
(N. Pacific Ave. to N. Columbus Ave.)
Weekly X X
39 Parque Vaquero
N. Verdugo Rd. / E. Mountain St.

Weekly X X X X
40 Perkins Circle Median:
2600 Perkins Circle
Twice a month X X X X
41 PW Corporation Yard:
541 W. Chevy Chase
Twice a month X X X X
42 Riverside Dr. / Chavez:

Bioswale
Twice a month X X X
43 Roads End Median:
300 Block Roads End
Twice a month X X X
44 San Fernando Rd:

S. by FWY to Goodwin Ave.

Twice a month X X X
45 San Fernando Rd and Los Angeles St.

San Fernando Rd and Los Angeles St.

Twice a month X X X
46 Southfork Median:
1500 Cañada Blvd. At Verdugo Rd.

Weekly X X X X
47 Valihi Median:
3600 Block Valihi Way
Twice a month X X X X
48 Verdugo/Glendale Ave.:
900 E. Verdugo Rd.

Twice a month X X
49 Verdugo Road Medians:
3200-3500 N. Verdugo Rd. (triangles)
Weekly X X X
50 Verdugo Medians/Civic Aud.:
1401 N. Verdugo Rd.

Twice a month X X X X
FIRE FACILITIES:
51 Environmental Mgt. Ctr.:
780 Flower Street
Twice a month X X X X X
52 Fire Station #21:
420 Oak St.

Twice a month X X X X X

Page 3 of 9 ends

15 of 983
List of Facilities
53 Fire Station #22:
1201 S. Glendale Ave.

Twice a month X X X X X
54 Fire Station #23:
3301 E. Chevy Chase Dr.

Twice a month X X X X X X
55 Fire Station #24:
1734 Cañada Blvd.

Twice a month X X X X X
56 Fire Station #25:
353 N. Chevy Chase Dr.

Twice a month X X X X X
57 Fire Station #27:
1121 Western Avenue
Twice a month X X X X X
58 Fire Station #28:
4410 New York Ave.

Twice a month X X X X X
59 Fire Station #29:
2465 Honolulu Avenue
Twice a month X X X X X
GWP FACILITIES:
notes:

Trimming of all Oleander and other bushes and small trees up to 15 feet tall. Sprinkler repair and testing. Timer programming and testing. All sites shall be done on a bi-weekly basis or every other week. Contractor shall provide it’s own (High Security Approved by GWP) padlock for each site that requires a gate to be opened. Contractor to provide a schedule for maintenance of GWP sites. 60 Acacia Substation:
419 W. Chevy Chase Dr.

Twice a Month X X X X
61 Airway Parkway:
700 Flower Street
Twice a Month X X X X
62 Bel Air Substation including City Property
next door
1500 Raymond Ave.

Twice a Month X X X X X
Parkway grass & Planter area
also in front of Boy Scout house
south of Substation.
63 Chevy Chase 968 Pump Station &
Reservoir:
3150 Chevy Chase Drive
Twice a Month X X X X Planters and reservoir slope on
south end
64 Chevy Chase PH & Road:

Sheridan to Camino
Monthly X X X X Clean Swell on both sides of the
road
65 Chevy Chase 1290 P.H.:
1783 Golf Club Drive
Monthly X X X X
66 Chevy Chase 1290 Reservoir:
1575 Sheridan Rd.

Monthly X X X
67 Chevy Chase 1666 P.H.:
4019 Karen Lynn Dr.

Monthly X X X
68 Chevy Chase 1666 Tank:
4019 Karen Lynn Dr.

Monthly X X X Clean Pine Needles of off Roof
of Station

Page 4 of 9 ends

16 of 983
List of Facilities
69 Chevy Chase 1810 Tank:
3958 San Augustine Dr.

Monthly X X X
70 Cooks Canyon P.H.:
5136 Sky Ridge Dr.

Monthly X X X
71 Cooks Canyon 2484 Tank:

Terminus of Sky Ridge Dr.

Monthly X X X X
72 Diederich Reservoir & Pump Station:
1430 Campbell St.

Twice a Month X X X X X Planters on parkway side of
fence south & west side of
Reservoir.

See TS 2.2 for turf maintenance
73 Doran Street Storage Area:

Doran & San Fernando Road
Twice a Month X X X
74 Dunsmore Tank:

Deukmejian Park–Ranger HQ
Monthly X X X Include clearance of road
leading to tanks
75 Emerald Isle 1290 P.H.:
1822 Golf Club Dr.

Monthly X X X
76 Emerald Isle 1666 Tank:
2057 Dublin Dr.

Monthly X X Include clearance of road
leading to tanks
77 Emerald Isle 1666 P.H.:
3105 Emerald Isle Drive
Monthly X X X X
78 Foothill Well:
3720 Foothill Blvd.

Twice a Month X X X X Parkway & plants inside
property
79 Fremont Substation:
601 Hahn Avenue
Twice a Month X X X X
80 Fern Lane Recycle Water Tank & P.H.:
1926 Fern Lane
Twice a Month X X X X
81 Glendale Heights Pump House:
1422 Dartmouth Dr.

Twice a Month X X X
82 Glendale High Pump Plant:

G.H.S. At Verdugo Rd.

Twice a Month X X Clean inside surge tanks and add
mulch in front of pump station
83 Glenoaks 968 Pump House:
2507 Gardner Place
Twice a Month X X X X
See TS 2.2 for turf maintenance
84 Glenoaks 1290 P. H.:
3151 E. Glenoaks Blvd.

Twice a Month X X X X
85 Glorietta Pumphouse:
2722 Rustic Lane
Monthly X X X add mulch or rocks in front of
station

Page 5 of 9 ends

17 of 983
List of Facilities
86 Glorietta Substation & Glorietta Park
Pump Station:
1771 Glorietta Avenue
Twice a Month X X X X X charged to electric / in turn
fremont is charged to water -
same cost
87 Glorietta Wells #3 & #4:
2843 Cañada Blvd.

Twice a Month X X X
88 Grandview Pump Station:
6136 San Fernando Rd.

Twice a Month X X X X X Include planter inside gate next to building;
See TS 2.2 for turf maintenance
89 Grandview Substation:
6151 San Fernando Rd.

Twice a Month X X X X
90 GWP Utillity Operation Center:
800 Airway
Twice a Month X X X X X
Employee & Visitor Parking,
Entrance and perimeter planters
at three corners. Old Air Way
Service Road to rolling gate near
Training Center
91 Jim Rez/Metro Pump House:
1111 E. Glenoaks Blvd.

Twice a Month X X X X X
92 Linda Vista Pump Station:
3510 Linda Vista Road
Monthly X X X
93 Lower Scholl Canyon Recycled Water
Pump Station:
2849 Glenoaks Canyon Road
Monthly X X X X
94 Markridge Reservoir:
5000 Block of New York Avenue
Monthly X X X
95 Melwood P.H. & Reservoir:
1655 Ridgeview Dr.

Twice a Month X X X X Include Parkway area around
Reservoir;
See TS 2.2 for turf maintenance
96 Montrose Substation:
2121 Broadview Drive
Twice a Month X X X X Planter on Park Place side &
parkway on Clifton Place
97 New York Substation:
3445 Altura Avenue
Twice a Month X X X X

MARKED FOR DELETION
98 Glorietta Chemical Injection Station:
1731 Glorietta Ave.

Monthly X X X
99 Rossmoyne Pump House:
132 Cannon Wood Dr.

Twice a Month X X X X
100 Rossmoyne Substation:
500 E. Glenoaks Blvd.

Twice a Month X X X X

Page 6 of 9 ends

18 of 983
List of Facilities
101 San Luis Rey Pump Station:
1114 San Luis Rey Drive
Monthly X X X
102 Shirley Jean Parkway:
3600 La Crescenta Ave.

Monthly X X X X
103 Tropico Substation:
1012 S. Glendale Ave.

Twice a Month X X X
104 Verdugo Park Water Treatment Plant:
1470 Del Monte Dr.

Twice a Month X X X Inside gate area up to Pump
House as well as Parkway
105 Western Substation:
1716 Flower Street
Twice a Month X X X X From Freeway on-ramp to Gate
on Cosmic Way
106 Western Reservoir & Pump Station:
1701 Bel Air Dr.

Twice a Month X X X X X Planters and parkway; mulch on
the entire Reservoir perimeter
107
City Hall:
613 E. Broadway
5 Days per week x X x x X x X X
City Hall:
613 E. Broadway
5 Days per week x X x x X x X X
PUBLIC WORKS:
108 Colorado Blvd. Medians:
600-1500 E. Colorado Blvd.

Weekly X X X
109 Fairmont Ave:

E. Side of overpass
Monthly X X
110 Flower St.:

From Flower st. to Bridge Overpass
Monthly X X
111 Flower St.:

W. of Justin to Western Ave.

Monthly X X
112 San Fernando Rd: N. of 134 FWY to Grandview Ave.

Monthly X X X
113 I.W.M. Bldg. Grounds:
548 W. Chevy Chase Dr.

Weekly X X X X
114 Fern Lane Planters:
1800-2000 Fern Lane
Weekly X X X X
115 Marketplace Parking Structure:
120 S. Maryland Ave.

Weekly X X X X
116 Exchange Parking Structure:
115 N. Maryland Ave.

Weekly X X X X
117 Montrose Parking Lot #1:

Verdugo Rd. South of Honolulu Ave.

Twice a Month X X X

Page 7 of 9 ends

19 of 983
List of Facilities
118 Montrose Parking Lot #2:

Honolulu Ave. & Wickham Way
Twice a Month X X X X
119 Montrose Parking Lot #3:
2250 Florencita Dr.

Twice a Month X X X X
120 Montrose Parking Lot #4:
2326 Florencita Dr.

Twice a Month X X X X
121 Montrose Parking Lot #5:
2366 Florencita Dr.

Twice a Month X X X X
122 Montrose Parking Lot #6:
2250 Florencita Dr.

Twice a Month X X X X
123 Orange Street Pkg. Structure:

Orange Street & California
Weekly X X X X
124 Parking Lot #2:
303 N. Maryland Ave.

Twice a Month X X X X
125 Parking Lot #3:
233 N. Maryland Ave.

Twice a Month X X X X
126 Parking Lot #4:
210 N. Maryland Ave.

Twice a Month X X X
127 Parking Lot #6:
310 N. Orange St.

Twice a Month X X X X
128 Parking Lot #7:
300 E. Broadway.

Twice a Month X X X
129 Parking Lot #10:
101 E. Harvard St.

Twice a Month X X X X
130 Parking Lot #11:
122 E. Colorado St.

Twice a Month X X X Only the small area area on
Colorado until the entrance gate
131 Parking Lot #30:

Off Verdugo Road south of Mountain Ave
Twice a Year X X X
Planter area between Verdugo
and the parking lot shall be done
twice a year. Once during GCC
summer break and once during
GCC winter break.
132 Parking Lot #32:
1401 Verdugo Road
Twice a Year X X X X
Planter area between parking
lot and Verdugo Wash shall be
cleared twice a year. Once
during GCC summer break and
once during GCC winter break.

Page 8 of 9 ends

20 of 983
List of Facilities
133
Parking Lot #34:
1726 Cañada Boulevard (facing Verd.

Park)
Twice a Year X X X X
Planter area between parking
lot and Verdugo Wash shall be
cleared twice a year. Once
during GCC summer break and
once during GCC winter break.

LIBRARY:
134 Grandview Library:
1525 Fifth Street
Weekly X X X X X
135 Casa Verdugo Library:
1151 Brand Blvd.

Weekly X X X X X
136 Chevy Chase Library & Aux. P-Lot:
3301 E. Chevy Chase Dr.

Weekly X X X X X
137 Montrose Library:
2465 Honolulu Avenue
Weekly X X X X X
COMMUNITY DEVEL. AND HOUSING:
138 Glendale Transportation Center:
400 W. Cerritos Avenue
Weekly X X X X X
Do Not Trim Iris into Hedge

Page 9 of 9 ends

21 of 983
4c

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Proposed Recreational Trails Program Grant Application for Three New Trails at Brand Park.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Consent Calendar
Approved for February 15, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Staff is seeking Council’s approval to submit a Recreational Trails Program Grant application to the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation for the Brand Trail System Expansion Project to build three new trails at Brand Park. The first trail will increase an existing 2000 linear feet (LF) trail by an additional 1,275 LF and enhance and restore the existing trail. The second trail is designed to be about 940 LF and provide a loop through the area. The third trail proposed is the largest of the three and will add approximately 13,800 LF to the City’s trail inventory. It will connect Brand Motorway to Skyline Motorway, as well as provide a much needed loop from Brand Park.

The estimated project cost is $500,000. The grant request is for $440,000 and City's match requirement is 12% ($60,000). Staff will explore other funding sources, such as Measure A or other grant opportunities for the match requirement if the City is awarded the grant funds. Once the grant funds have been secured, staff will return to Council to request appropriation of grant award and the additional funds for the match requirement. 22 of 983
24 c
3 1
3 3

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Community Services & Facilities: This proposed trails project is consistent with the City Council’s priority for Community Services & Facilities, which is ensure access to well-maintained parks and community facilities tailored to the City’s diverse needs.

Developing new trails will enhance the quality of life for the residents of Glendale by offering new amenities and outdoor recreation opportunities to stay healthy and fit.

RECOMMENDATION
That City Council approve a Resolution authorizing staff to submit a Recreational Trails Program Grant application to the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation to build three new trails at Brand Park, and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to conduct all negotiations, and to execute and submit all necessary documents.

BACKGROUND
The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST-ACT) provides funds to the State of California for Grants to federal, state, local and non-profit organizations to acquire, develop and/or maintain motorized and non-motorized trail projects. The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) provides funds annually for recreational trails and trails-related projects. The RTP is administered at the federal level by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). It is administered at the state level by the California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Active Transportation Program (ATP). Non-motorized DPR projects are administered by the Office of Grants and Local Services and motorized projects are administered by DPR's Off-Highway Motor Vehicle Recreation Division. The next grant application deadline is March 1, 2022.

The Community Services & Parks Department (CSP) is responsible for the planning, development, and operation of the City’s Trail System. Existing recreational trails have been established in the Verdugo Mountains, the San Rafael Hills, and the San Gabriel Mountains (Deukmejian Wilderness Park). Trails are often used as transportation routes and by walkers and bikers for health and fitness. They provide an opportunity for environmental education, and they allow urban residents to “get away” from the hectic pace of life and enjoy the peace and solitude of nature. They also add to an area’s quality of life and increase property values when properly constructed and maintained.

Safety, sustainability and accessibility, are the primary concerns in development and restoration of any recreational facility. CSP has identified the three potential new trails to build at Brand Park. The location of the trail is the Historic Brand Park, a 33-acre park located near the western boundary of the City of Glendale, two miles north of the intersection of the Golden State (I-5) and the Ventura Freeway (I-34). The majority of the park is located in, and surrounded by rugged ridges and canyons of the Verdugo Mountains. Brand Park, which is a major cultural and recreational facility, is home to the following facilities: Brand Studios, Brand Library, Whispering Pine Tea House & Friendship Garden and the Doctors House Museum and Gazebo. The park offers hiking and biking trails, softball fields, picnic areas, children’s playground, and seasonal children’s wading pool. The park also serves as a natural wilderness preserve. In addition, 23 of 983
34 c
3 1
3 3
the Miss American Green Cross Statue at the trail head stands as a monument to the environmental movement.

Hiking is a popular activity within the park as evidenced by the numerous trails and the number of hikers who daily hike the park’s upper areas. The proposed three trails will add to the existing 3 trails in the park. The completion of the project will allow residents to enjoy the trail which serves as corridor to the wilderness areas of the Verdugo Mountains.

ANALYSIS
The proposed project consists of constructing three new hiking trails throughout Brand Park, which will enhance and preserve the natural habitat of the mountainside, as well as encourage the community to participate in outdoor activities. The purpose of this project is to provide better access to all those with no hiking experience and moderate fitness abilities, including those with disabilities. The project is geared to create better trail access not only for hikers but also families, children, seniors, trail runners, mountain bikers, bird watchers, dog-walkers, photographers and all outdoor enthusiasts. Exercise is essential for health benefits for all ages, especially when our youth are becoming more lethargic and overweight, and adults are suffering from diabetes and other health issues due to lack of physical activity. Outdoor activities have shown to be an essential part for our community. The residents living in the City of Glendale, as well as other nearby communities, will be able to safely participate in outdoor physical fitness, which is vital to the mind, body and soul of their well-being.

The first trail will continue on an existing trail that runs up the canyon past the Brand Cemetery. It is currently 2,000 LF and in need of significant restoration. The proposal will increase the trail length by an additional 1,275 LF, enhance and restore the existing trail, conduct brush clearance along the corridor, treading, address drainage issues, construct retaining walls as necessary, and install 30 LF of lodge pole fencing along the dam wall.

The second trail is designed to be about 940 LF and provide a loop through the area. The last trail proposed is the largest of the three and will add approximately 13,800 LF to the City’s trail inventory. It will connect Brand Motorway to Skyline Motorway, as well as provide a much needed loop from Brand Park.

The estimated total project cost is $500,000. The grant request is for $440,000 and City's match requirement is $60,000. Staff will explore other funding sources, such as Measure A or other grant opportunities for the match requirement. Once the grant funds have been awarded, staff will return to Council to request appropriation of grant funds and the additional funds for the match requirement.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The community overall, both residents and visitors, would benefit from new trails in the City. Staff will outreach to the public to notify them of the upcoming project, either through direct community meetings or notification to the public regarding the project being presented at Commission and Council meetings.
24 of 983
44 c
3 1
3 3

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
Under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15304, the Proposed Brand Trail System Expansion Project to construct three new hiking trails at Brand Park is categorically exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review as a Class 4 Existing Facilities project (Minor Alternations to Land) that entails minor public or private alterations in the condition of land, water, and/or vegetation which do not involve the removal of healthy, mature, or scenic trees. Constructing the trails would not involve the removal of any trees, and would not involve anything other than minor alterations to existing landscapes or hardscaped areas on existing public property.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Approve a Resolution authorizing staff to submit a Recreational Trails Program Grant application to the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation to build three new trails at Brand Park, and authorizing the City Manager or a designee to conduct all negotiations, and to execute and submit all necessary documents. This would allow the City to offer more outdoor recreational opportunities to our residents and visitors.

Alternative 2: Choose not to approve submission of the Recreational Trails Program Grant application to build three new trails at Brand Park. This would keep the existing outdoor recreational opportunities the same.

Alternative 3: Consider any other alternative not proposed by staff.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Tereza Aleksanian, Deputy Director of Community Services & Parks Koko Panossian, Deputy Director of Community Services & Parks Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: Map of Proposed Three New Trails
25 of 983
1 C:\INETPUB\WWWROOT\GLENDALE\TEMP\CC_02152022_RESOLUTION_4C1.PDF RESOLUTION NO. ___________

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

APPROVING THE SUBMISSION OF A RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM GRANT

APPLICATION TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND

RECREATION FOR THE BRAND TRAIL SYSTEM EXPANSION PROJECT, AND

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR A DESIGNEE TO CONDUCT NEGOTIATIONS,

AND EXECUTE AND SUBMIT DOCUMENTS
WHEREAS, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (FAST-ACT) provides funds to the State of California for Grants to federal, state, local and non-profit organizations to acquire, develop and/or maintain motorized and non-motorized trail Projects; and WHEREAS, the State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the State, setting up necessary procedures governing Project Application under the program; and WHEREAS, said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the Applicant, the City of Glendale, to certify by resolution the approval of Application(s) before submission of said Application(s) to the State; and WHEREAS, the Applicant will enter into a Contract with the State of California to complete the Project(s).

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

1. Approves the filing of an Application for the Recreational Trails Program; and

2. Certifies that the Project is consistent with the Applicant’s general plan or the equivalent planning document; and

3. Certifies that said Applicant has or will have available prior to commencement of any work on the Project(s) included in this Application, sufficient funds to operate and maintain the Project(s); and

4. Certifies that the Applicant has reviewed, understands, and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the Contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and

5. Appoints the City Manager or a designee as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents, including, but not limited to, Applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the Project; and

6. Agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and guidelines.

26 of 983
2 C:\INETPUB\WWWROOT\GLENDALE\TEMP\CC_02152022_RESOLUTION_4C1.PDF Adopted this _____________ day of __________________________, 2022 ___________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Aram Adjemian, the City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2022, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________
City Clerk
27 of 983
Exhibit 1
28 of 983
8a

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: California Department of Resources, Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) Notification of Intent to Comply (NOIC) with SB 1383 Regulations

1. Resolution authorizing submission of a Notification of Intent to Comply with organic waste reduction requirements of SB 1383, in accordance with SB 619.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for February 15, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In September 2021, California Governor Newsom signed SB 619 which authorizes local jurisdictions facing continuous violations of the regulations adopted pursuant to SB 1383 (Lara, Chapter 395, Statutes of 2016) to submit an NOIC to CalRecycle (Exhibit A). If approved by CalRecycle, the jurisdiction is eligible for administrative civil penalty relief for the 2022 calendar year and it provides for a corrective action plan for future years.

Elements of SB 1383 are required to be in place by January 2022, and the notice informs CalRecycle of the City’s intention to comply with implementation requirements on a committed timeline for completion. The NOIC must be filed by the City no later than March 1, 2022.
29 of 983
28 a
3 1
2 9

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Sustainability: The recommended resolution establishes a compliance schedule for the City to achieve diversion and sustainability goals and objectives along with meeting CalRecycle regulatory compliance.

RECOMMENDATION
That the Council, by resolution, adopts the Notification of Intent to Comply with SB 1383 Regulations, and authorizes its submission to CalRecycle for approval, in accordance with SB 619.

BACKGROUND
California’s efforts to reduce super pollutants builds on the state’s shared commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, improve human health, and create clean jobs that support resilient local economies. Implementing a state-wide plan to reduce short-lived climate pollutants and harmful super pollutants with significant warming impacts, is essential to achieving California’s climate goals.

Passed in 2016, SB 1383 required cities to develop programs to divert organic waste materials from landfills. Cities are required to play a more active role to enable residents to recycle food waste in curbside collection bins. Businesses are required to divert organic waste. Commercial waste haulers need to insure that organic waste services are provided and that materials are taken to a facility able to process organic waste. Cities need to meet standards for procuring paper, mulch, and renewable energy.

Adopted in 2020, the implementation of SB 1383 regulations covering organic waste diversion represents a comprehensive overhaul of waste diversion initiatives for California. In short, these regulations require the City to administer oversight of collection programs for residential and commercial organic waste. Awareness of these regulatory considerations played a large part in the City’s recent implementation of a commercial franchise system, which will help increase the City’s ability to meet waste diversion goals.

Additionally, the regulations hold the City accountable for meeting certain procurement standards, which have not yet been implemented by the city. The delay in implementing all the requirements of SB 1383 can largely be attributed to staff’s focus on implementation of the City’s new franchise system, addition of contracted services for edible food recovery program development, as well as waste management operational issues due to the pandemic.

The SB 1383 enforcement structure allows CalRecycle to focus on compliance assistance first and dedicate enforcement efforts to serious offenders later. The regulations allow for flexibility and deadline extensions in some instances when there are extenuating circumstances causing compliance issues, such as the COVID-19 pandemic and natural disasters. Recognizing that most cities in California were facing similar challenges related to the pandemic but still subject to administrative civil penalties, SB 619 was passed in September 2021. Although the City may be subject to penalties for not having all of SB 1383’s programs in effect beginning January 1, 2022, SB 619 creates a mechanism called a Notification of Intent to Comply through which a local jurisdiction may secure 30 of 983
38 a
3 1
2 9
administrative civil penalty relief from any continuing violations for the 2022 calendar year and may be eligible for a broader and longer term regulatory compliance path including the suspension of administrative civil penalties through a compliance plan.

CalRecycle’s process provides for escalation, and the timelines are not triggered until a Notice of Violation is issued. If CalRecycle takes any enforcement action, it considers extenuating circumstances as well as substantial efforts made by a jurisdiction and would place the City on a corrective action plan. In their enforcement efforts, CalRecycle has stated that it will start by focusing on jurisdictions that; 1) have not revised their municipal code to include SB 1383 requirements, and 2) have not identified and submitted to the County its organics capacity requirements for the next 3 years. The City has fulfilled both requirements, placing the City in a lower priority for enforcement action at this time.

CalRecycle has enforcement discretion to allow for a longer timeframe for compliance.

SB 619 authorizes a municipality facing the potential of state enforcement actions that commence during the 2022 calendar year to submit the NOIC, including governing body authorization no later than March 1, 2022.

ANALYSIS
The full scope of provisions for SB 1383 go into effect in phases, with the first phase of requirements commencing effective January 1, 2022. A number of these provisions have already been put into place by the City, such as comprehensive revisions to the Glendale Municipal Code to reflect SB 1383 regulations. Adherence to other requirements of the State law are still being developed by Public Works staff, and will be implemented in early 2022. These include:

1. Residential organics collection services to include food waste; while the green waste collection services are in place, City staff has identified facilities within a reasonable distance that are able to process combined streams of green and food waste, consistent with the provisions of SB 1383. However, regional facilities require that food waste be bagged, necessitating extensive public outreach before this service is commenced.

2. Commercial recycling collection services to include food waste; since services are provided by the City’s four franchised haulers, all businesses in the City need to be provided organics collection services or have an approved exemption from the City. Food waste generated at businesses are normally placed in bags, which provides consistency in outreach.

3. An edible food recovery program, including identification of covered generators, as well as services and organizations. The City has contracted with ReCreate Collaborative LLC for program development and support in this area. Commercial edible food waste generators are currently being identified, and the County is currently estimating the capacity of existing services and organizations capable of managing edible food waste.

4. Standardized color and labeling for residential and commercial bins.

5. Annual education and outreach for residential and commercial customers. 31 of 983
48 a
3 1
2 9
Elements of SB 1383 for which the NOIC applies and which requires additional planning time include:

1. A program and system for evaluating and monitoring the amount of contamination that residents and businesses place in their collection bins (Sections 18984.5, 18984.5). A scope of work is presently under development for contracted services.

2. CalGreen building codes compliance; requiring the City’s building codes contain the provisions of SB 1383 and has procedures in place to verify compliance (Section 18989.1)

4. Commitment by the City to procure and track organic waste products including office paper, renewable energy, compost and mulch (Sections 18993.1, 18993.2, 18993.3).

The NOIC would allow the city to separate those elements which require more time to implement, with a proposed schedule for their completion. More importantly, it indicates to CalRecycle the City of Glendale’s commitment to Zero Waste goals and maximizing the diversion of materials from landfills. CalRecycle will not approve an NOIC unless it is submitted with written evidence that the NOIC has been duly adopted by the governing body of the local jurisdiction, and must include the following information to be eligible for approval by CalRecycle:
(a) A description, with specificity, of the continuing statutory and/or regulatory violations.
(b) A detailed explanation of the reasons for noncompliance, supported by documentary evidence.
(c) A description, if any, of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on compliance. (d) A description of proposed actions to remedy the violations within the timelines established in Title14 California Code of Regulations Section 18996.2, and a proposed compliance schedule.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with this report.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is exempt from CEQA/NEPA.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Approve a resolution authorizing adoption and submission of an NOIC with organic waste reduction requirements of SB 1383, in accordance with SB 619. Filing of this NOIC may minimize compliance orders/civil penalties from CalRecycle. 32 of 983
58 a
3 1
2 9

2. Not approve the recommended resolution. This may increase the City’s exposure to administrative civil penalties from CalRecycle.

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

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Etienne Ozorak, Integrated Waste Superintendent
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A – Draft NOIC
33 of 983

Page 1 of 2 ends

5 1
4 8
RESOLUTION NO. __________

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

ADOPTING AND AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A NOTIFICATION OF INTENT TO COMPLY WITH ORGANIC WASTE REDUCTION REQUIREMENTS OF SB 1383, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SENATE BILL 619
WHEREAS, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), in consultation with the California Air Resources Board, has adopted regulatory requirements (Regulations), consistent with the mandate of Senate Bill 1383 (Lara, 2016), that are designed to achieve the organic waste reduction goals established in Section 39730.6 of the Health and Safety Code through a 50 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2020 and a 75 percent reduction in the level of the statewide disposal of organic waste from the 2014 level by 2025; and
WHEREAS, the City of Glendale is a local jurisdiction required to comply with the Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Glendale is or expects to be facing continuing violations of the Regulations commencing during the 2022 calendar year; and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 619 (Laird, 2021), through amendments to Section 42652.5 of the Public Resources Code (Statute), created a mechanism called a Notification of Intent to Comply through which a local jurisdiction may secure administrative civil penalty relief from any continuing violations of the Regulations for the 2022 calendar year and may be eligible for a broader and longer-term regulatory compliance path, including suspended administrative civil penalties, through a corrective action plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Glendale is a local jurisdiction authorized by the Statute to submit a Notification of Intent to Comply for CalRecycle approval; and WHEREAS, CalRecycle shall approve a Notification of Intent to Comply that is duly adopted by the jurisdiction by formal written resolution and meets the requirements of the Statute.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Glendale, California as follows:

1. That the Notification of Intent to Comply from the City of Glendale to CalRecycle is hereby adopted.

2. That the City Manager, or designee is authorized to submit the Notification of Intent to Comply to CalRecycle for approval pursuant to the Statute. 34 of 983

Page 2 of 2 ends

5 1
4 8

3. By submitting the Notification of Intent to Comply pursuant to and subject to the above referenced requirements, the City of Glendale represents and certifies that it will implement the proposed actions to remedy the violations according to the proposed schedule as approved by CalRecycle and in accordance with the Statute and Regulations.

4. Acknowledges and agrees to comply with any maximum compliance deadline in any corrective action plan that CalRecycle, in its sole discretion, determines to be necessary and appropriate under the circumstances for the correction of any violation(s) of the Statute and Regulations identified in its Notification of Intent to Comply.

Adopted this ___________ day of ____________, 2022.
_______________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
City Clerk

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Aram Adjemian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ___________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _____day of __________, 2022, by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
______________________________
City Clerk
35 of 983
Jurisdiction Name: City of Glendale County:Los Angeles
Person Completing the Form:

First Name: Roubik Last Name: Golanian
Title: City Manager
Mailing Address: 633 E. Broadway, Suite 200
City: Glendale Zip Code: 91206
Email Address: [email protected]
Phone Number: 818-548-4844

1. Select using the check boxes below or write in the continuing violations for each applicable regulatory section. For each selection, please describe the specific violations related to the regulatory section.

Examp
le:
☒ (B) 14 CCR section 18984.1 Three-Container Organic Waste Collection Services i. Not implementing mandatory residential foodwaste collection for all residents. Note:

City already provides mandatory greenwaste collection to all residents ii. Not implementing mandatory commercial organics collection for all businesses under 2 cubic yards. Note: City already provides mandatory commercial organics collection to all businesses 2 cubic yard or more.

Dis
claimer: The list of possible continuing violations below is not inclusive of all potential violations of the regulations.
(A) 14 CCR section 18984 Combined Organic Waste Collection Services. This requirement is not included since the requirements are further specified in sections 18984.1-18984.11. (B) 14 CCR section 1898 4.1 Three-Container Organic Waste Collection Services (C) 14 CCR section 1898 4.2 Two-Container Organic Waste Collection Services (D) 14 CCR section 1898 4.3 Unsegregated Single Container Collection Services (E) 14 CCR section 1898 4.4 Recordkeeping Requirements for Compliance with Organic Waste Collection Services
(F) 14 CCR section 18984.5 C ontainer Contamination Minimization (G) 14 CCR section 1898 4.6 Recordkeeping Requirements for Container Contamination Minimization
(H) 14 CCR section 1898 4.7 Container Color Requirements (I) 14 CCR section 18 984.8 Container Labeling Requirements (J) 14 CCR section 18984. 11 Waivers Granted by a Jurisdiction (K) 14 CCR section 18985.1. Organic Waste Recovery Education and Outreach. (L) 14 CCR section 18985.2. Edible Food Recovery Educati on and Outreach (M) 14 CCR section 18985.3. Recordkeeping Requirements for a Jurisdiction’s Compliance with E
ducation and Outreach Requirements
(N) 14 CCR section 18988.1. Jurisdiction Approval of Haulers and Self-Haul ers (O) 14 CCR section 18988.3. Self-haul ers of Organic Waste (P) 14 CCR section 18988.4. Recordkeeping Requirements for Compliance with Jurisdiction Haul
er Program
(Q) 14 CCR section 18989.1. CALGreen Building Codes
Exhibit A: Draft Notification of Intent to Comply
36 of 983
(R) 14 CCR section 18989.2 Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (S) 14 CCR section 18991.1. Jurisdiction Edible Food Recovery Program (T) 14 CCR section 18991.2. Recordkeeping Requirements for Jurisdiction Edible Food R
ecovery Program
(U) 14 CCR section 18992.1. Organic Waste Recycling Capacity Planning (V) 14 CCR section 18992.2. Edible Food Recovery Capacity (W) 14 CCR s ection 18993.1. Recovered Organic Waste Product Procurement Target (X) 14 CCR section 18993.2. Recordkeeping Requirements for Recovered Organic Waste P
rocurement Target
(Y) 14 CCR section 18993.3. R ecycled Content Paper Procurement Requirements (Z) 14 CCR section 18993.4. Recordkeeping Requirements for Recycled Content Paper P
rocurement
(AA) 14 CCR section 18994.2. Jurisdiction Annual Reporting Note: This requirement is not included since jurisdictions are still expected to report to CalRecycle.
(BB) 14 CCR section 18995.1. Jurisdiction Inspection Requirements Note: Section 18995.1(a)(1) should not be included because a jurisdiction should already be completing this action due to the requirements of PRC Chapter 12.9 (commencing with Section 42649.8)
(CC) 14 CCR section 18995.2. Implementation Record and Recordkeeping Requirements (DD) 14 CCR section 18995.3. Jurisdiction Investigation of Complaints of Alleged Violations Note: This requirement is not included since jurisdictions are still expected to investigate complaints.
(EE) 14 CCR section 18995.4. Enforcement by a Jurisdiction Us
e the check box(es) below to write in the continuing violations for any regulatory section(s) not reflected above and describe the specific violations related to the regulatory section.

Exam
ple:
☒ (1) (Type regulatory section number) (Type regulatory section title) i. Describe the specific violations related to the regulatory section (1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)

2. A detailed explanation of the reasons why the jurisdiction is unable to comply, supported by documentation, if applicable.

Since 2013, the City has been working to create a new waste management paradigm that shifts from an open permit hauler system to an exclusive franchise system to meet State regulatory requirements. Critical planning took effect in 2019, shortly before the pandemic. Under this new system, all covered commercial generators are serviced by one of four haulers franchised by the City which are required to provide a three bin collection system. Activity on this shift has been more pronounced in spite of the pandemic, with the transition taking effect on December 1, 2022. Ordinances supporting the transition were passed in 2021, which included SB 1383 compliance for organic waste commercial collection services to be in place by February 2022.

While the City anticipates that the organics collection and outreach elements will be in place by early 2022, the City is anticipating not meeting the additional SB 1383 requirements that cover bin monitoring and waste evaluations to identify container contamination, identification and 37 of 983
verification of self-haulers, identification of edible food recovery capacity needs, and City procurement requirements.

3. A description of the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on compliance.

The City has planned a transition to a franchise system since 2013 to meet the increased regulatory requirements (AB 341, AB 1826 and SB 1383). Due to the ongoing pandemic, operations and administration necessarily shifted their focus from program implementation to insuring that essential services were provided, necessitating emergency contracts with outside vendors to insure regular services could be maintained. Additionally, the transition to the 4-Zone commercial franchise system needed to occur without any increase in administrative staff due to the City's hiring freeze policy. Staffing shortages for essential services continue to be experienced.

4. Provide a description of the proposed actions the jurisdiction will take to remedy the violations with a proposed schedule for completing each action. The proposed actions shall be tailored to remedy the violations in a timely manner. See optional format below.

The City anticipates that the elements identified under this request will be fully implemented by June 2025, as outlined in the attachement included under this request. 38 of 983
Regulatory Requirement and Description
(F) 14 CCR section 18984.5 Container Contamination Minimization Not implementing a waste load and route evaluation system Action Proposed Schedule
TASK 1: Residential: Pursuing contracted services for conducting waste load and route evaluations.

July 2022
TASK 2: Commercial: Require waste load and route evaluation plan from franchised haulers. Evaluations to be conducted by the City’s contractor.

December 2022
Regulatory Requirement and Description
(G) 14 CCR section 18984.6 Recordkeeping Requirements for Container Contamination Minimization Not implementing a recordkeeping system on route and waste load e valuations, as well as notifications to generators on container contamination.

Action Proposed Schedule
TASK 1: Residential: Systems for determining contamination expected to be in place December 2022 TASK 2: Commercial: Systems for determining contamination expected to be in place December 2022 Regulatory Requirement and Description
(Q) 14 CCR section 18989.1 CALGreen Building Codes
Not implementing a program to insure building code is updated and monitored for compliance Action Proposed Schedule
TASK 1: City to insure buildings codes are in place and projects monitored for compliance
To be determined
Regulatory Requirement and Description
(W) 14 CCR section 18993.1 Recovered Organic Waste Product Procurement Target Not meeting the Organic Waste Product Procurement Target Action Proposed Schedule
TASK 1: Will be addressed in City Environmental Purchasing Policy and implemented June 2022 Regulatory Requirement and Description
(X) 14 CCR section 18993.2 Recordkeeping Requirements for Recovered Organic Waste Procurement Target Not developing a recordkeeping system for tracking procurement of recovered organic waste Action Proposed Schedule
TASK 1: Will be addressed in City Environmental Purchasing Policy and implemented June 2023 Regulatory Requirement and Description
(Y) 14 CCR section 18993.3 Recycled Content Paper Procurement Target Not developing a recordkeeping system for tracking purchases of recycled content paper Action Proposed Schedule
TASK 1: Will be addressed in City Environmental Purchasing Policy and implemented June 2024 I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information provided herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
------------------------------
Signature
Roubik Golanian, P.E.
------------------------------
Printed Name
City Manager
------------------------------
Title
----------------------------
Date
39 of 983
8b

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Financial Status Update - December 31, 2021

1. Motion to note and file the Financial Status Report for the period ending December 31, 2021.

2. Motion accepting $254,000 in California Department of Aging (CDA) American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act funding from the County of Los Angeles Workforce Development, Aging and Community Services (WDACS) for FY 2021-22 additional defined and contract Elderly Nutrition Program (ENP) Congregate Meal and Home-Delivered Meal Services; and authorizing the City Manager or a designee, to execute Amendment Seven to the WDACS Contract for the ENP 202106 Subaward Period July 2020–June 2022 (dated July 1, 2020) to accept and implement the WDACS funding.

3. Resolution of Appropriation.

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Action Item
Approved for February 15, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The FY 2021-22 Financial Status Report is for the final revenues and expenditures received and recorded for the second quarter through December 31, 2021. Revenues received were approximately $101.3 million (not inclusive of Measure S revenues), or

43.1% of the revised revenue budget. Total General Fund expenditures, exclusive of Measure S, are approximately $114.0 million, or 45.7% of the total revised budget. The City’s projected ending unassigned & charter reserve fund balance for FY 2021-22 is $91.3 million, a reserve of 36.9%. The City Council’s current General Fund Reserve policy is a minimum of 25% of the annual adopted operating budget, with a target of 35%.
40 of 983
28 b
3 0
4 8

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Fiscal Responsibility: The General Fund update shows the City’s financial transactions are conducted in a prudent and responsible manner to ensure adequate resources are available to meet current obligations and long-term stability.

RECOMMENDATION
The City Council approve the following:

1. Motion to note and file the Financial Status Report for the period ending December 31, 2021.

2. Motion accepting $254,000 in California Department of Aging (CDA) American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act funding from the County of Los Angeles Workforce Development, Aging and Community Services (WDACS) for FY 2021-22 additional defined and contract Elderly Nutrition Program (ENP) Congregate Meal and Home-Delivered Meal Services; and authorizing the City Manager or a designee, to execute Amendment Seven to the WDACS Contract for the ENP 202106 Subaward Period July 2020 –June 2022 (dated July 1, 2020) to accept and implement the WDACS funding.

3. Resolution of Appropriation.

BACKGROUND
The City’s FY 2021-22 Budget was adopted by City Council on June 8, 2021. The budget is not a static guideline for city spending but rather a dynamic document subject to constant revision and adjustment. Since budget adoption, staff has continued to analyze the revenues and expenditures that have been received and recorded and has revisited the adopted budget for proposed adjustments to the revenues and expenditures. The first quarter financial update was presented to City Council on December 7, 2021 with final revenues and expenditures received and recorded through September 30, 2021.

The second quarter financial update presented in this report includes the final revenues and expenditures received and recorded through December 31, 2021 of FY 2021-22.

The report also includes proposed adjustments to the adopted FY 2021-22 Budget. As specified in the City’s Charter, the budget may be amended by 3/5 vote of the City Council via a Resolution of Appropriation.

ANALYSIS
General Fund Revenues
Revenues received in FY 2021-22 through December 31, 2021 total approximately $101.3 million (not inclusive of Measure S revenues), or 43.1% of the revised revenue budget. Revenue categories were carefully reviewed and actuals were analyzed in order to determine the potential trend for the remainder of the fiscal year.

The Property Taxes category is tracking approximately at 48.3%, which includes the first large installments of the year through December and those recorded in January. 41 of 983
38 b
3 0
4 8
Sales tax payments are received two months in arrears therefore only the sales tax revenues from July through October have been recorded as of December 31, 2021. As the public returned to the apparel sector and electronics, it was largely responsible for the general consumer growth. In addition, strong demand and limited inventory for vehicles caused an elevation in pricing for buyers contributing to a dramatic jump from new auto dealers. As a result of the sales tax category trending higher than expected, along with the revised projection received from the consultant HdL, the sales tax revenue budget has been increased by $4.0 million.

The Occupancy & Other Taxes category includes revenues received for Franchise Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT), Property Transfer Tax, and Scholl Canyon Landfill Host Assessment Fees. Although the Transient Occupancy Tax revenues are tracking as expected, the revenues received in the other Occupancy & Other Taxes subcategories are tracking lower due to the receipt schedule for Franchise Tax payments and the Scholl Canyon Landfill Host Assessment fees. The Landfill Host Assessment fees and Franchise taxes are tracking low at this time as only the first quarter revenues have been recorded. The commercial franchise agreement was implemented on December 1, 2021 and the first payment is expected within the third quarter of this fiscal year.

The transfers category revenue is low at this time, as expected, because the Glendale Water and Power transfer from the Electric Fund is recorded at the end of the fiscal year pending Council approval.

The table below displays General Fund revenues as of December 31, 2021, by major category.

General Fund Revenues
Budget to Actuals, December 31, 2021
(In Thousands)
Category
Adopted
Budget
Revised
Budget
Final Q2
Actuals
%
Received
Property Taxes $ 73,179 $ 73,179 $ 35,309 48.3% Sales Taxes* 44,061 48,061 20,937 43.6%
Utility Users’ Tax 26,020 26,020 11,683 44.9%
Occupancy & Other Taxes 15,608 15,608 5,778 37.0%
Licenses & Permits 9,963 9,963 4,781 48.0%
Rev. from Other Agencies 220 220 24 10.9%
Charges for Services 16,283 16,283 9,919 60.9%
Interfund Revenue 18,967 18,967 9,416 49.6%
Fines & Forfeitures 3,005 3,005 1,464 48.7%
Interest/Use of Money 1,748 1,748 1,231 70.4%
Misc. & Non-Operating 1,265 1,280 213 16.6%
Transfers 20,700 20,700 575 2.8%
Total Revenues $ 231,020 $ 235,035 $ 101,330 43.1% Notes: * Excludes Measure S sales tax revenues
42 of 983
48 b
3 0
4 8
General Fund Expenditures
As of the first six months, expenditures are tracking slightly lower than 50% of the budgeted amount. Total General Fund expenditures as of December 31, 2021, exclusive of Measure S, are approximately $114.0 million, or 45.7% of the total revised budget.

Expenses can fluctuate from the expected 50% mark for a variety of reasons including seasonal spending patterns and procurements that will occur later in the fiscal year.

The revised budget includes budget carryovers from FY 2020-21 in the amount of $491 thousand for goods and services that were not received or completed in the prior fiscal year, as well as approximately $1.8 million in budget adjustments made through December 31, 2021 to the General Fund budget.

Changes to Adopted Budget
(In Thousands)

Adopted
Budget
Budget
Carryovers
Budget
Adjustment
(Q1 & Q2)
Revised
Budget
$247,055 $491 $1,849 $249,395
Additionally, staff has continued to analyze the General Fund budget and is anticipating budget savings in the amount of approximately $4.2 million (1.7% of the revised budget) in the General Fund. This projected savings is a preliminary estimate of how expenditures will continue to track for the remainder of the fiscal year and thus is not proposed to be reduced from the General Fund budget at this time. A breakdown by category of this savings is shown below:

General Fund Projected Year-End Budget Savings
(In Thousands)
Category Amount
Salaries & Benefits $ 1,041
Contractual Services 1,489
Supplies 732
Training 213
Furniture & Equipment 275
Other 412
Total Projected Savings $ 4,163
The table on the next page reflects the General Fund expenditures, excluding Measure S, by major category as of December 31, 2021.
43 of 983
58 b
3 0
4 8
General Fund Expenditures
Budget to Actuals, December 31, 2021*
(In Thousands)
Notes:
* Excludes Measure S expenditures
General Fund
General Fund Summary Update
(In Thousands)
Adopted
FY 2021-22*
Projected
Actuals
FY 2021-22
Total Revenues $ 231,020 $ 235,035
Total Appropriations 247,055 249,395
Net Surplus/(Use of Fund Balance) $ (16,035) $ (14,360) ARPA Funds 14,032 14,032
GSA Loan Repayment 1,467 1,467
Econ Development Assigned Fund Balance 536 536
Projected Year-End Savings - 4,163
Ending Net Surplus/(Use of Fund Balance) $ - $ 5,838 Notes:
* Excludes Measure S revenues and expenditures
Category
Adopted
Budget
Revised
Budget
Final Q2
Actuals
%
Expensed
Salaries & Benefits $ 195,402
197,068
$ 194,723 $ 89,343 45.9%
Maintenance & Operations 49,950 52,459 23,399 44.6% Capital Outlay 118 249 106 42.7%
Transfers Out 1,585 1,963 1,171 59.6%
Grand Total Expenditures $ 247,055
255,384
238,802
$ 249,395
263,127
$ 114,019 45.7%
Projected Year-End Savings - (4,163) - N/A
Projected Total Expenditures $ 247,055
255,384
238,802
$ 245,232
263,127
$ 114,019 46.5%
44 of 983
68 b
3 0
4 8
General Fund Projected Ending Fund Balance, June 30, 2022 The City’s beginning General Fund unassigned & charter reserve fund balance as of July 1, 2021 was $85.9 million, a reserve of 34.8%. Factoring in the budget carryovers into FY 2021-22 in the amount of $491 thousand brings the net adjusted beginning unassigned & charter reserve fund balance for FY 2021-22 to $85.4 million, a reserve of

34.6%. Considering the use of $14.0 million in ARPA Funds in FY 2021-22 and a projected $4.2 million in budget savings for the year, there is a FY 2021-22 projected net surplus of $5.8 million. This brings the total projected ending unassigned & charter reserve fund balance for FY 2021-22 to $91.3 million, a reserve of 36.9%. The City Council’s current General Fund Reserve policy is a minimum of 25% of the annual adopted operating budget, with a target of 35%.

The table below displays the fund balance of the City’s General Fund as of June 30, 2022.

General Fund
Projected Ending Fund Balance, June 30, 2022
(In Thousands)
Unassigned
& Charter
Reserve
% of
Budget*
Beginning Unassigned & Charter Reserve, 7/1/2021 $ 85,935 34.8% FY 2021-22 Budget Carryovers (491)
Beginning Adjusted Unassigned & Chart Reserve 7/1/2021 $ 85,444 34.6% FY 2021-22 Revised Projected Net Surplus/(Use of Fund Balance) 5,838 Projected Ending Unassigned & Charter Reserve, 6/30/2022 $ 91,282 36.9% Notes:
* The reserve calculation is based on FY 2021-22 adopted appropriation of $247.1 million.

Measure S
Sales tax payments are received two months in arrears; therefore, only the sales tax revenues from July through October have been recorded as of December 31, 2021. As a result of the sales tax category trending higher than expected due to high consumer demand across various sectors indicated above and the revised projection received from the consultant HdL, the sales tax revenue budget has been increased by $4.0 million.

The table on the next page shows the Measure S adopted, revised, and actual revenues and appropriations, as of December 31, 2021.
45 of 983
78 b
3 0
4 8
Measure S Revenues and Appropriations
As of December 31, 2021
(In Thousands)
Adopted
FY 2021-22
Carryovers
FY 2020-21
Revised
FY 2021-22*
Actuals
FY 2021-22

Revenues $ 24,781 $ - $ 28,781 $ 12,689

Housing
Affordable Housing Dev. 900 E. Broadway** $ - $ 7,275 $ 5,475 $ 601 Affordable Housing Dev. 920 E. Broadway** 3,000 - 3,000 - New Affordable Housing – Land Acquisition** 6,000 6,000 9,721 - Monthly Housing Rental Subsidy Program 2,000 2,224 4,224 1,872 Rental Rights Program 470 - 470 175 Homeless Services Program - 248 248 43 Low Inc. Student Rental Assist Program - 1,009 1,009 - Low Inc. Family Employ & Rental Assist Prog. - 582 582 124 Tenant & Landlord Services 450 - 450 7 Affordable Housing Dev. Tobinworld** - 488 488 53 Affordable Housing Dev. 515 Pioneer** - - 4,079 - Infrastructure
Bicycle Transportation Plan Update $ 125 $ - $ 125 $ - Pavement Condition Improvement** 4,500 - 4,500 15 Pedest. & Bike Lane Striping & Config. Maint. 50 - 50 - Pedest. & Bike Lane Implementation Plan 1,000 - 1,000 - Cap. Improve. to Mitigate Heat Island Effect** 800 - 800 - Citywide Traffic Study - 500 500 - Verdugo Wash Greenway Feasibility Study - 250 250 - Seismic Upgrades - Fire Stations** - 3,266 3,266 -

Parks & Recreation
Year-Round Aquatics Program $ 636 $ - $ 636 $ 286 Annual Community Events 83 - 83 23 Glorietta Park Concession Building Reno.** 75 - 75 2 Fremont Park** 2,000 - 2,000 - Electric Operated Equipment & Infrastructure** 550 - 550 - Rockhaven Maintenance 25 - 25 4 Park Acquisition** 1,000 1,000 2,000 - City Fireworks - 40 40 19 2021 GUSD Summer Camps - 225 225 97 Stone Barn Nature Center - - 213 - 46 of 983
88 b
3 0
4 8
Adopted
FY 2021-22
Carryovers
FY 2020-21
Revised
FY 2021-22*
Actuals
FY 2021-22
Economic Recovery - Commercial
Small Business Recovery $ - $ 925 $ 925 $ 601 Personal Protective Equipment - 64 64 15 Restaurant Relief/Al Fresco - 227 227 38

Other Quality of Life
Mental Health Resources $ 200 $ - $ 200 $ - Community Engage. & Accountability Vehicle
Replacement
300 - 300 150
Life Safety Fire Fighting Apparatus & Equip. 1,500 - 1,500 750 School Crossing Guard Program 511 - 511 136 Central Library Children’s Room & Teen
Space Renovation**
2,500 - 2,500 -
Street Art Project 400 - 400 - Graffiti Removal & Remediation 60 - 60 - Climate Action Plan 320 - 320 - East/West Historic Survey 200 - 200 -

Total Appropriation $ 28,755 $ 24,324 $ 53,292 $ 5,010 Notes:
* The Revised FY 2021-22 amounts include carryovers from FY 2020-21 and Council approved adjustments. ** Revenue and appropriations for these projects are budgeted under the Measure S Capital Improvement Fund (Fund 4011).

The Measure S beginning balance as of July 1, 2021 was approximately $36.5 million.

Accounting for the revised projected FY 2021-22 revenues and revised appropriation (including carryovers from FY 2020-21), the projected ending balance as of June 30, 2022 is approximately $11.9 million.

The table below shows the status of the fund balance assigned to Measure S.

Measure S
Projected Ending Fund Balance, June 30, 2022
(In Thousands)
Measure S
Balance
Beginning Balance, 7/1/2021 $ 36,451
FY 2021-22 Projected Revised Revenues 28,781
FY 2021-22 Revised Appropriation* (53,292)
Projected Ending Balance, 6/30/2022 $ 11,940
Notes:
* Includes carryovers from FY 2020-21.
47 of 983
98 b
3 0
4 8
Proposed Budget Adjustments
Various budget adjustments are being requested to the FY 2021-22 Budget as follows:

General Fund Budget Adjustments
Community Development
The Community Development Department is requesting the approval of two new positions: Senior Planner and Senior Urban Designer. As a result, the impact to the salaried position head count is two positions. The new Senior Planner would manage, improve, and transition the Permit Service Center’s counter function to better serve the public, integrating new technologies, managing flow, submissions, and turnaround times, and managing the overall in person and electronic experience. The new Senior Urban Designer would focus on long-range planning and urban design activities in response to state level legislation, neighborhood and community plans, General Plan updates, and urban design projects such as design standards, specific plans, zoning code updates, and various study and report requests. In addition to these changes, 2.5 positions have been shifted to the General Fund since adoption. The table below summarizes the salaried FTE count:

Adopted
FY 2021-22
Revised
FY 2021-22
Proposed
FY 2021-22
All Funds 1,584.0 1,584.0 1,586.0
General Fund 907.0 909.5 911.5
Community Services & Parks
The Youth & Family Services Unit within the Community Services & Parks department received a one-time donation of $10,000 from the Glendale Rotary Noon to be used for various youth programs that the unit oversees. The funds were raised by the Rotarians during the Cars for Cops and Kids annual fundraiser, which took place at Verdugo Park in October of 2021. The funding will be used to pay for school supplies, enrichment activities, and educational field trips in an effort to combat social isolation as a result of COVID-19. As well as to provide youth an opportunity to experience new programs and learn about nature and technology through innovative experiences only available to them via group activities, such as an overnight excursion at San Diego’s Wild Animal Park or San Diego Sea World, this coming summer.

Non-General Fund Budget Adjustments
Library, Arts & Culture
The Library, Arts & Culture department received grant funding from the California State Library to establish a program for English as a Second Language speakers. This program will be in addition to the already established literacy program for proficient English speakers.
48 of 983
108 b
3 0
4 8
Community Services & Parks
The Community Services & Parks department has received an award from the Los Angeles County Workforce Development Aging and Community Services (WDACS) in the amount of $254,000 from the California Department of Aging (CDA) American Response Plan (ARP) funds for the Elderly Nutrition Program (ENP) for congregate and home delivered meal services for seniors. CDA ARP funds are to be utilized from July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022 to serve senior meals. The funds will allow the City to serve an additional 56,081 meals to seniors (50,917-congregate and 5,164-home delivered) as demand for ENP meals continues to remain at higher levels due to the pandemic.

Summary
In summary, the total requested adjustments to the City Budget is $296,050, of which, $10,000 in the General Fund is offset by a donation, and $286,050 in the Non-General Fund is from grant revenue. In addition, the proposed salaried positions, would have an impact of two positions, on the citywide salaried headcount.

PERS Section 115 Pension Rate Stabilization Fund Update On July 18, 2017 the City Council approved funding for the PERS Section 115 Rate Stabilization Trust in the amount of $26.5 million. On December 10, 2019, City Council approved an additional deposit in the amount of $5.5 million into the Section 115 Trust.

In June 2021, staff reevaluated the risk of each portfolio and with the authorization of the City’s Plan Administrator, the assets were combined and moved to a “Moderate” portfolio with a target allocation of 5% Cash, 45% Fixed Income and 50% Equity.

Since the establishment of the Section 115 Trust, the City has deposited a total of $32.0 million. As of December 31, 2021, the total balance of the trust is at $40.6 million equating to an average annual return of 6.3% (net of all fees) since inception of the trust.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
Not Applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT
The proposed adjustments to the City budget are $296,050, of which $10,000 is offset by a donation in the general fund and $286,050 is from grant revenue. These requested appropriations were not included as a part of the FY 2021-22 approved budget. The fully loaded annual cost (salaries and benefits) of the Senior Planner and Senior Urban Designer positions in the amount of $340,694, was also not included as a part of the FY 2021-22 adopted budget. However, the Community Development budget can absorb the $85,173 prorated cost for the remainder of the fiscal year. The appropriation requests are outlined on the next page:
49 of 983
118 b
3 0
4 8
Requesting Appropriation
Amount From
(Account String)
To
(Account String)
Funding
Source
$10,000 38500-1010-CSP-3104-P5224 45350-1010-CSP-3104-P5224 General Fund $20,050 32610-2750-LAC-0020-P0000
LAC00788AG
41100-2750-LAC-0020-P0000
LAC00788AG Library Fund
$12,000 32610-2750-LAC-0020-P0000
LAC00788AG
45350-2750-LAC-0020-P0000
LAC00788AG Library Fund
$222,000 31240-2700-CSP-0020-P0000
CSP00789AG
43110-2700-CSP-0020-P0000-
CSP00789AG
Nutritional Meals
Grant Fund
$10,000 31240-2700-CSP-0020-P0000
CSP00789AG
45350-2700-CSP-0020-P0000-
CSP00789AG
Nutritional Meals
Grant Fund
$22,000 31240-2700-CSP-0020-P0000
CSP00790AG
43110-2700-CSP-0020-P0000-
CSP00790AG
Nutritional Meals
Grant Fund

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This item is considered a ministerial activity and therefore, not subject to CEQA review.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
This item is exempt from campaign disclosure requirements.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: The City Council may approve:

1. Motion to note and file the Financial Status Report for the period ending December 31, 2021.

2. Motion accepting $254,000 in California Department of Aging (CDA) American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act funding from the County of Los Angeles Workforce Development, Aging and Community Services (WDACS) for FY 2021-22 additional defined and contract Elderly Nutrition Program (ENP) Congregate Meal and Home-Delivered Meal Services; and authorizing the City Manager or a designee, to execute Amendment Seven to the WDACS Contract for the ENP 202106 Subaward Period July 2020 –June 2022 (dated July 1, 2020) to accept and implement the WDACS funding.

3. Resolution of appropriation.

Alternative 2: The City Council may consider any other alternative not proposed by staff. 50 of 983
128 b
3 0
4 8

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Prepared by:

Enrique Olguin, Budget Analyst
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS / ATTACHMENTS
Not Applicable.
51 of 983
RESOLUTION NO. ___________

RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE

MAKING AN APPROPRIATION
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE:

SECTION 1: That the sum of $296,050 is hereby appropriated and/or transferred from the following accounts to the following accounts:

ACCOUNTS DESCRIPTION FROM TO
38500-1010-CSP-3104-P5224-
T0000-F0000-0000-0000-
45350-1010-CSP-3104-P5224-
T0000-F0000-0000-0000-
32610-2750-LAC-0020-P0000-
T0000-F0000-0000-0000-
LAC00788AG
41100-2750-LAC-0020-P0000-
T0000-F0000-0000-0000-
LAC00788AG
45350-2750-LAC-0020-P0000-
T0000-F0000-0000-0000-
LAC00788AG
31240-2700-CSP-0020-P0000-
T0000-F0000-0000-0000-
CSP00789AG
43110-2700-CSP-0020-P0000-
T0000-F0000-0000-0000-
CSP00789AG
45350-2700-CSP-0020-P0000-
T0000-F0000-0000-0000-
CSP00789AG
31240-2700-CSP-0020-P0000-
T0000-F0000-0000-0000-
CSP00790AG
43110-2700-CSP-0020-P0000-
T0000-F0000-0000-0000-
CSP00790AG
Donations and Contributions, General Fund,
Community Services & Parks Department,
Youth & Family Services, Star Program
General Supplies, General Fund, Community
Services & Parks Department, Youth & Family
Services, Star Program
State Grants, Library Fund, Library, Arts &
Culture Department, Projects,
CLLS ESL 21-22
Salaries, Library Fund, Library, Arts & Culture
Department, Projects,
CLLS ESL 21-22
General Supplies, Library Fund, Library, Arts &
Culture Department, Projects,
CLLS ESL 21-22
Federal Grants, Nutritional Meals Grant Fund,
Community Services & Parks, Project,
NP-CDA ARP Act C1 2021-2022
Contractual Services, Nutritional Meals Grant
Fund, Community Services & Parks, Project,
NP-CDA ARP Act C1 2021-2022
General Supplies, Nutritional Meals Grant
Fund, Community Services & Parks, Project,
NP-CDA ARP Act C1 2021-2022
Federal Grants, Nutritional Meals Grant Fund,
Community Services & Parks, Project,
ENP-CDA ARP Act C2 2021-2022
Contractual Services, Nutritional Meals Grant
Fund, Community Services & Parks, Project,
ENP-CDA ARP Act C2 2021-2022
$10,000
$32,050
$232,000
$22,000
$10,000
$20,050
$12,000
$222,000
$10,000
$22,000
To appropriate funding for the second quarter budget adjustments to the adopted FY 2021-22 Budget. 52 of 983
SECTION 2: The Director of Finance / Information Technology is authorized to make such other revisions, individual appropriation line-items, changes in summaries, fund totals, grand totals, and other portions of the budget document as necessary to reflect and implement the changes specified in this resolution.

SECTION 3: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.

Adopted this________day of _______________, 2022.
_______________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
02/04/2022_________________
____________________________________
City Clerk 296,050

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS

CITY OF GLENDALE )
I, Aram Adjemian, City Clerk of the City of Glendale, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No._________was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the__________ day of _______________, 2022, and that the same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
________________________________
City Clerk
/
Director of Finance / Information Technology
53 of 983
MOTION
Moved by Council Member ________________________________________________, Seconded by Council Member___________________________________________________, that the financial status report for the fiscal year 2021-22 second quarter financial report for the period ended December 31, 2021, and the comments by the Council members considered on February 15, 2022, are hereby deemed noted and filed.

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

MOTION ADOPTED BY THE GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL AT THE
REGULAR MEETING HELD ON ___________________________
54 of 983
C:\INETPUB\WWWROOT\GLENDALE\TEMP\CC_02152022_MOTION_8B2.PDF MOTION
Moved by Council Member , seconded by Council Member , that the Council of the City of Glendale hereby:

1. Accepts an additional $254,000 in California Department of Aging (CDA) American Rescue Plan Act (ARP Act) funding from the County of Los Angeles Workforce Development, Aging and Community Services (WDACS) for FY 2021-2022 additional defined and contract Elderly Nutrition Program (ENP) Congregate Meal and Home- Delivered Meal Services, as more fully outlined in the Director of Community Services and Park’s February 15, 2022 Report to the City Council; and

2. Authorizes the City Manager, or a designee, to execute Amendment Seven to the WDACS Contract (“Elderly Nutrition Program (ENP) Subaward Number ENP202106 Subaward Period July 2020 – June 2022” dated July 1, 2020) to accept and implement the WDACS funding.

Vote as Follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:
55 of 983
8c

CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA

REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM
Report: Environmental Impact Report for Grayson Repowering Project

1.Resolution certifying the 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Grayson Repowering Project and making findings

4. [Optional] Motion providing direction to staff [to be specified by Council].

COUNCIL ACTION
Item Type: Hearing
Approved for February 15, 2022 calendar

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Glendale Water & Power submits the 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report (2022 FEIR) for the Grayson Repowering Project to the City Council for certification. The 2022 FEIR represents the culmination of over six years of thorough analysis, engineering, and development of alternatives to repower the aging Grayson Power Plant facility. The 2022 FEIR describes and evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed Project – a 262 MW natural-gas fired project consisting of two simple-cycle and two combined-cycle natural gas units, that would replace Grayson Units 1 through 8 – along with seven project alternatives, including the most recent Alternatives 7 and 8.

Alternatives 7 and 8 would significantly reduce fossil fuel capacity and fuel usage at the Grayson Power Plant; these Alternatives add large-scale battery energy storage, improve air quality and fuel efficiency compared with existing conditions and the Project, and ensure electric reliability for the City of Glendale. Staff recommends that Council certify the 2022 FEIR, and adopt findings and a statement of overriding considerations in support of Alternative 7.
56 of 983
28 c
3 0
5 7

COUNCIL PRIORITIES
Infrastructure and Mobility: The proposed Grayson Repowering Project would ensure that the City of Glendale has a local, reliable energy generation resource to provide power reserves and help meet the City’s energy needs in the event of a transmission line outage or other contingency.

Sustainability: The proposed Grayson Repowering Project would replace the aging, inefficient units at the Grayson Power Plant with modern, efficient, lower-capacity units that meet current air emissions requirements along with 75 Megawatts (MW) / 300 megawatt-hours (MWh) battery energy storage. The proposed Grayson Repowering Project would eliminate the use of potable water for energy generation.

Fiscal Responsibility. Repowering the Grayson Power Plant with modern technology will save money spent on highly-specialized and frequently-needed maintenance and repairs to the antiquated Grayson units. The flexible units operate more cleanly and efficiently, thereby reducing operational costs. Based upon a Cost of Service Analysis, if the project is bond-funded, it would not increase electric rates in the City of Glendale.

RECOMMENDATION
Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Grayson Repowering Project and make findings in connection therewith;
Adopt a Resolution approving the selection of Alternative 7, adopting a Statement of Overriding Considerations, making findings in support thereof, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan in connection therewith; and Providing direction to staff to proceed with the financing and development of the selected project Alternative.

BACKGROUND
Glendale Water & Power (GWP) provides water to over 34,000 customers and generates, transmits, and distributes electricity to over 89,500 residential, commercial, and industrial customers in Glendale.

In order to meet the energy needs of the City of Glendale, GWP relies on a combination of local and imported generation resources, coupled with imported spot market energy purchases from a variety of suppliers throughout the Western Electricity Coordination Council (WECC), including the California Independent System Operator (CAISO). GWP uses transmission lines (owned and leased) and generation rights to bring in energy to serve Glendale from remote locations. GWP operates within the Balancing Authority Area (BAA) of the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP).

GWP is faced with the imminent retirement of its only local generation resource, the natural gas-fired Grayson Power Plant (Grayson), located at 800 Air Way. GWP is currently extremely dependent on imported power over constrained electric transmission lines, and must replace the retiring Grayson units with reliable local generation. The retirement of the Grayson Power Plant presents GWP with a unique 57 of 983
38 c
3 0
5 7
opportunity to shift to cleaner, more efficient technology to power the City in the future.

The Repowering Project
GWP is proposing a new, cleaner portfolio to replace the retiring Grayson generation (a “repowering project”). GWP proposes to replace Grayson Units 1,2, 3, 4, 5, 8A and 8BC with new, efficient, and flexible generation to meet multiple objectives, including facilitating compliance with California Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) obligations, reduction of Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emissions consistent with State mandates, and local reliability under a variety of conditions, with minimal impacts on retail rates. Only, the newest Grayson Unit 9, commissioned in 2003, will be retained.

The Project site is located in an existing site in an industrial area of the City just northeast of the Interstate 5 and Highway 134 interchange. The site is bounded to the south by the Verdugo Wash and Highway 134, to the west by the Los Angeles River and Interstate 5, to the north by commercial properties and to the east by commercial and residential properties. The site is currently used as the Grayson Power Plant. The Grayson Repowering Project would be located entirely within the existing operating Power Plant facility footprint.

Why is a Repowering Necessary?
GWP imports 85% of its energy over existing transmission lines to serve its customers. This transmission import capacity is less than what Glendale needs to meet its peak summer need; therefore, GWP needs a local source of power to back up the transmission imports and ensure reliable service.

The Grayson Power Plant was originally commissioned in the 1940s and is well past its useful life. The plant needs to be repowered in order to meet the City’s current and future energy needs. A repowering project would replace the aged, unreliable, inefficient, and high maintenance equipment with new, efficient, faster-starting, and more environmentally-responsible generation technologies. The proposed repowering will achieve the following benefits:
Reliable service – The project would provide energy to customers when imported energy and local renewable energy sources are not enough. Local generation source - A locally-controlled source of generation is important to ensure reliable service when Glendale loses an external energy source, such as when a transmission line goes down due to a contingency event (e.g., wildfire, earthquake, etc.).
Integration of renewable energy – by providing a source of power that helps “fill the gaps” in variable solar and wind power resources. Affordable rates for customers – The project would reduce the high maintenance costs, will reduce extra fuel costs, and reduce emergency spot market power purchases costs that the City incurs now due to breakdowns of the outdated, unreliable, inefficient, and high-maintenance equipment. 58 of 983
48 c
3 0
5 7
Increased energy independence and rate certainty – by reducing Glendale’s need to purchase reserves and energy from the market, where rates vary and may significantly rise over time.
Improved air quality – The new technology will be more efficient, lower air emissions, and will comply with new air quality regulations. Supports water conservation – The project would eliminate the use of potable water for power generation.

South Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Rule 1135, which was amended after the 2018 Final Environmental Impact Report (2018 FEIR) was presented to City Council, give added urgency for repowering Grayson. Rule 1135 requires GWP to commit, by December 31, 2022, to a plan to bring the power plant units into compliance with current day emission limit requirements by a year later -- December 31, 2023 -- or cease their operation. Accordingly, no later than December 31, 2022, the City must inform the SCAQMD whether the City will replace or modify Grayson’s older units to meet the emissions limits, or if the City intends on shutting down the units by that deadline. It should be noted that Grayson Unit 9 emissions control system can be re-tuned to comply with the new requirements. Due to the age and conditions of Units 1-5, GWP cannot economically or feasibly modify Units 1-5 to meet Rule 1135's requirements. While it may be possible to upgrade Units 8A and 8BC emissions controls, no exploratory engineering work has been performed to date to definitively confirm the costs and feasibility.

ANALYSIS
Project Objectives
GWP has proposed a repowering of the Grayson Power Plant to meet the following objectives:

1. Integration of renewable energy; supporting compliance with Renewables Portfolio Standards;

2. Reliable, flexible generation through current technology;

3. Local generation source to meet local Resource Adequacy requirements to provide local reliability and promote grid stability in the Los Angeles Basin;

4. Provide a locally-controlled, reliable generation source;

5. Replace aging, unreliable equipment with more efficient, less environmentally harmful equipment meeting SCAQMD rules;

6. Construct project at existing power generation site to minimize need for infrastructure and property purchase;

7. Minimize customer electric rate impacts through highly efficient generation;

8. Support water conservation efforts (eliminating potable water usage for energy production); and

9. Reduce per MWh creation of emissions and consumption of water.

The 2018 Final Environmental Document
59 of 983
58 c
3 0
5 7
On April 10, 2018, GWP presented a Final Environmental Impact Report for the Grayson Repowering Project (the 2018 FEIR) to the City Council. The 2018 proposed project consists of a 262 MW repowering project that would replace Units 1-8 at the Grayson Power Plant with four new units: two combined cycle units and two simple cycle units (for purposes of consistency with the 2022 FEIR, the 2018 project is referred to herein as the “Project”). The Project was sized to meet all required contingencies (i.e., to account for the loss of GWP’s two largest sources of power), with a 346 MW peak load (346 MW is the maximum or peak demand, or “load,” that GWP has had to service in the past). The Project would have been permitted to run with enough operating hours such that GWP could operate even when separated from all transmission imports – providing up to 262 MW during contingency events that prevent Glendale from importing energy from remote resources.

The 2018 FEIR also evaluated five alternatives to the Project:

Alternative 1: No Project
Alternative 2: Energy Storage Project (replacing Grayson Units 1-8 with Battery Energy Storage)
Alternative 3: Alternative Energy Project (photovoltaic and/or wind power with energy storage and transmission)
Alternative 4: 150 MW Project (reduced-size thermal generation project at Grayson Site with new transmission)
Alternative 5: 200 MW Project (reduced-size thermal energy project at Grayson Site with Battery Energy Storage).

New Project Alternatives and Other Developments
In 2018, the City Council did not take action on the 2018 FEIR, but instead directed GWP to look for greener alternatives. In response, GWP issued a Request for Proposals for Local and Regional Renewable, Low-Carbon, and Zero Carbon Energy and Capacity Resource Options to Serve the City of Glendale (Clean Energy RFP), evaluated and modeled the proposals received through the Clean Energy RFP, and identified a cleaner portfolio to meet the City’s energy needs. That portfolio was presented to the City Council in GWP’s 2019 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) on July 23, 2019. In connection with the Council’s approval of the IRP and various implementing actions related to the proposed IRP portfolio, on July 23, 2019, the City Council also adopted a motion directing GWP to report to the City Council on various matters; a status report on each of those items is included herein below.

Through the Clean Energy RFP and the IRP process, GWP has identified new, local, clean energy resources that can help meet the City’s energy needs, making a smaller- sized repowering project at Grayson feasible. As outlined in the 2019 IRP, GWP plans to implement at least 50 MW of local distributed renewable generation, demand response, and energy efficiency programs, such as:
A Virtual Power Plant, the size of which remains under negotiation between the City and Sunrun;
60 of 983
68 c
3 0
5 7
Up to 10 MW (by year 4) of demand response resources through GWP's Peak Savings Program;
Up to 8.9 MW (35,500MWH) (by year 7) of energy efficiency savings through the GWP Business Energy Upgrade Program; and
Evaluation of City-owned property for development of solar/storage for community solar.

These are a few of the energy efficiency, demand response, and solar energy programs in GWP’s service territory and would be in addition to existing solar and other clean and renewable resources which together support GWP’s sustainability goals. The 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report assumes 50 MW of local distributed energy resources and new energy efficiency as part of GWP’s resource plan.

2021 Partially-Recirculated Environmental Impact Report and New Grayson Repowering Project Alternatives
From the Clean Energy RFP, GWP developed two new, reduced-size, green Project alternatives. These two Alternatives are identified in the 2021 Partially-Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (2021 PR-DEIR) and 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report as “Alternative 7” and “Alternative 8.” Each of these alternatives include about 95 MW of thermal generation and 75 MW/300 MWH of battery energy storage.

Both comply with SCAQMD emissions limits, with 60% less energy generation capacity and 90% less fossil fuel usage than the Project.

Alternative 7 – Tesla/Wartsila Repowering
Adds 75 MW/300 MWH of battery energy storage
Removes all existing units except Unit 9 (the newest unit, built in 2003) Adds five Wartsila 18.6 MW internal combustion engine generators – about 93 MWs total
Adds a new Switching Station to add resiliency to the GWP system Alternative 8 – Tesla/Unit 8A/ 8BC Refurbishment
Adds 75 MW/300 MWH of battery energy storage
Removes steam boilers, steam turbines, and all associated balance of plant equipment, and retains only Units 8A, 8BC gas turbines (built in the 1970s), and Unit 9
Refurbishes Units 8A and 8BC gas turbine generators with a new steam plant for 8BC - about 100 MWs total
Unit 8A will be converted to a simple cycle unit similar to Unit 9 Unit 8BC remains a combined cycle unit, but could now start up much more quickly and operate at full power within 10 minutes while the steam plant starts up
All other old and obsolete equipment would be replaced improving reliability, reducing emissions, and allowing the units to startup within 10 minutes (as compared to hours in the past)
Adds a new Switching Station to add resiliency to the GWP system 61 of 983
78 c
3 0
5 7
The 2021 PR-DEIR studied new Alternatives 7 and 8 to the Project and included required updates to certain impact categories. The 2021 PR-DEIR was circulated for public comment for an extended 92-day public review period from August 9, 2021 to November 15, 2021. The City received a total of 36 individual written comments during the PR-DEIR public comment period. In addition, GWP recorded 96 verbal comments recorded at the September 9, 2021 Joint Meeting of the GWP Commission and Sustainability Commission (Joint Meeting). The 2022 Final EIR includes responses to each individual comment submitted during the PR-DEIR public comment period, including those presented at the Joint Meeting. In addition, the 2022 Final EIR included eight separate Topical Responses to address common questions raised about the PR- DEIR, as well as responses to other individual comments. The City responded to comments in the 2018 FEIR, including 16 separate Topical Responses. 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report
On January 20, 2022, the City published the 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report (2022 FEIR). The 2022 FEIR consists of the 2018 Final EIR; the PR-DEIR; comments and responses to comments, and includes all appendices and exhibits; and errata and revisions to the PR-DEIR.

The 2022 FEIR evaluated the environmental impact of the Project and all project alternatives. The 2022 FEIR found that the proposed Project would have less than significant impacts, with no mitigation required, in the following eight categories:
Air Quality
Geology and Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hydrology and Water Quality
Tribal and Cultural Resources
Energy
Wildlife
Cumulative Impacts
The 2022 FEIR concluded that the proposed Project will have less than significant impact, with mitigation, in the following four categories:
Aesthetics
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Noise
Transportation and Traffic
The 2022 FEIR concluded that there is one significant and unavoidable impact, to Cultural and Paleontological Resources stemming from the demolition of the boiler building. Even after mitigation, there will remain a significant and unavoidable impact to a historic resource, requiring a statement of overriding considerations, as discussed below.
62 of 983
88 c
3 0
5 7
The 2022 FEIR also evaluated the Project and each of the project Alternatives to determine whether and to what extent each would achieve the Project objectives, and to identify the environmentally-superior alternative. The proposed Project, and Alternatives 5, 7 and 8 each meet 100% of the project objectives. Alternative 7 is identified as the environmentally-superior alternative:

Historic Resources; Statement of Overriding Considerations The 2018 FEIR concluded there were no historical resources on the site meeting National, State, or Local Criteria.

On December 15, 2020, GWP provided the City Council with an update regarding the historical resource evaluation of the Grayson Boiler Building. As was presented to the City Council on December 15, 2020, in July of 2020, GWP learned that the California High Speed Rail Authority (HSRA) had concluded in a Historic Architectural Survey Report for the EIR associated with the California High Speed Rail (Burbank to Los Angeles Project Segment), that the L.W. Grayson Steam-Electric Generating Station (i.e. the Boiler Building at the Grayson Power Plant) was potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The HSRA’s conclusions differed from the more extensive 2016 Architectural Resource Evaluation prepared for the 2018 FEIR.

Discussions with the HSRA’s consulting firm confirmed that the HSRA’s findings were based on a much more limited review and no access to the site or the Boiler Building itself, let alone consultation with the City as the building owner and operator.

On November 4, 2020, the HSRA notified the City of Glendale and the State Historic Preservation Officer that it now considers the L.W. Grayson Steam-Electric Generating Station to be ineligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places consistent with what the 2016 Architectural Resource Evaluation prepared for the Grayson Repowering Project EIR. The State Historic Preservation Officer has concurred with this determination.

On December 15, 2020, the City Council elected not to analyze a new alternative that would retain the boiler building, but directed staff to meet with The Glendale Historical Society to discuss the historic nature of the boiler building and what could be done to 63 of 983
98 c
3 0
5 7
mitigate the impact of demolition, short of retaining the boiler building. Per the Council’s direction, GWP staff and the City’s historical experts met with representatives of The Glendale Historical Society (TGHS) over a six-month period. Based on this outreach, the City elected to treat the boiler building as a discretionary historic resource in the 2022 FEIR and has incorporated mitigation measures based on TGHS’s input.

The Boiler Building’s removal is a Significant and Unavoidable Impact because it must be demolished for the proposed Project and most Alternatives, including Alternatives 7 and 8. Specifically, and as set forth in the PR-DEIR Topical Response No. 3, the Boiler Building houses the boilers for Units 1-5 as well as the steam turbines on a deck on the east side that will be demolished for the proposed Project and all alternatives other than No Project and Alternative 3 (Alternative Energy Project). The Boiler Building occupies about 1.2 acres (20% of the approximately six acres of the Grayson Power Plant site that will be affected by the repowering. As such, the Boiler Building represents a sizable portion of the available space for the repower. The Boiler Building footprint is shown in gray on the General Arrangements for the proposed Project, Alternative 7, and Alternative 8 (attached to PR-DEIR Topical Response No. 3 as Exhibits A, B and C). As demonstrated by the General Arrangements, and due to technical infeasibility, the Wartsila engines could not be installed over the old Boiler Building foundation.

The Boiler Building foundation and the underlying piles were built to old codes and standards that have long been superseded for health and safety purposes. The new Wartsila engine foundation design is based on an underlying foundation built to current standards; these engines cannot be located within the Boiler Building footprint and must be located where new foundation piles can be driven into the native soils. Alternative 8 is similarly constrained because it involves re-using the existing Units 8A and 8BC gas turbine foundations, as a consequence all other components of this Alternative must be configured to fit and integrate within the remaining physical space. Similar to the Wartsila engines, the new heavy rotating equipment foundations (steam turbine) for Alternative 8 cannot be installed on the Boiler Building foundation, which will be removed to a few feet below grade and backfilled.

Because neither the Alternative 7 Wartsila engines nor the Alternative 8 steam turbine can be located on the Boiler Building site, that location must be used to accommodate the remaining project components. Specifically, the proposed Project and both Alternatives 7 and 8 include a 75 MW/300 MWH Battery Energy Storage System (BESS), a new Glendale Switching Station, new control room and workshop/warehouse/office space. As illustrated in the General Arrangement, the required components of the proposed Project and the Alternatives have a large site footprint which leaves no space to accommodate retention of or reuse of the Boiler Building. In addition, during Project construction, on-site laydown space is required.

In post-construction, GWP will need additional remaining spaces to support routine operation and maintenance.

To be clear, and for avoidance of any doubt, as part of the City’s development and evaluation of the proposed Project and Project Alternatives, the Boiler Building was 64 of 983
108 c
3 0
5 7
studied to understand its potential for re-use. Specifically, the City had its Owner’s Engineer, Black & Veatch, perform a structural review of the Boiler Building. As previously indicated, the Boiler Building was designed to older codes that do not meet current building and safety standards for seismic safety. For example, the Boiler Building structural design uses steel connection design elements that are no longer allowed. Building and safety codes are frequently updated based on observations of how buildings fare under seismic and other stresses. The Boiler Building is an old building that exhibits such stress such as larger-than-hairline cracks in the foundation as well as outdated structural design elements.

Similarly, the City’s environmental consultant studied the Boiler Building to determine whether it contains hazardous materials. Stantec’s engineers determined that building uses “Transite” siding, which contains asbestos. In addition, there are significant quantities of asbestos within the building itself in the form of thermal insulation on the piping and boilers as well as insulation on electrical cabling. Lead-based paints are also prevalent within the building as well as heavy metal contaminants in the fire brick.

Equipment that contains PCBs has also been identified in the building. All of these hazardous materials will need to be (and can be) safely mitigated and remediated pursuant to proper hazardous materials remediation protocols. This abatement work would be necessary whether the Boiler Building is retained or demolished. However, hazardous material removal and remediation is a more complex task in an intact building. If the Boiler Building were to be reused as opposed to demolished, that would require additional logistics and engineering to effectuate remediation, and remediated materials would need to be removed in smaller pieces through existing doorways. Whereas, demolition of the building would allow a more efficient process using cranes to reach in through open sides and top of the Boiler Building to remove equipment. Thus retaining the Boiler Building would lead to a more extensive, time consuming and expensive process hazardous materials remediation process.

The City leases space under Highway 134 to store GWP materials. That lease expires in 2024, and is not expected to be renewed because Metro has planned a Doran Street Grade Separation improvements project. Accordingly, GWP must move the materials onto the Grayson site. The need for storage is another space demand on the Grayson Power Plant site that must be considered in the General Arrangement for the Project and Alternatives.

Further space allocation and site layout considerations that require demolition of the Boiler Building are:

1. The new Glendale Switching Station must be located where the existing Glendale Rack is located because (a) its open air design requires more space needed for that facility, and (b) because it operates quietly this location helps minimize noise from other project components.

2. The Battery Energy Storage System, and the building elements of the proposed Project and Alternatives 7 and 8 are all static elements that do not require piles and thus could be located over the backfilled Boiler Building, however, there is 65 of 983
118 c
3 0
5 7
insufficient space for all of these elements and to also retain the Boiler Building. See the General Arrangements located as Exhibits A, B, and C to Topical Response No. 3 to the PR-DEIR.

3. The site layout locates greater noise sources near the center of the site in order to help mitigate noise impacts to a less than significant level.

4. Exhaust stacks are also located near the center of the site as part of the air quality impact modeling.

Taken together, the Boiler Building’s lack of structural integrity, hazardous materials, and the physical constraints on locating the elements of the repowered facility, all render re-use of the Boiler Building for a modern energy facility technically infeasible. For these reasons, the proposed Project and Alternatives 7 and 8 all require the Boiler Building demolition to provide sufficient space for the new facilities, storage requirements, to retain Unit 9, and to retain other essential facilities at the Utility Operations Center (UOC).

Need for Certification of the EIR and a Project Decision The City has a December 31, 2022 regulatory deadline to notify the SCAQMD of its plans for how to bring the Grayson Units into compliance with new air emissions requirements. Under SCAQMD rules, the Grayson Units must be brought into compliance or cease operation by December 31, 2023. A decision on the proposed Grayson Repowering is a critical path action needed to allow GWP to move forward with contract bid processes, final engineering work, separation of Unit 9, long-lead item procurement, and development of the newly repowered Grayson. The SCAQMD will not issue a permit for the Project or Project Alternative until the EIR is certified.

If the City Council elects not to approve the Grayson Repowering Project, at the end of 2023, Grayson Unit 9 will be the only remaining unit, and GWP will lose 219 MW of local generation. Units 1-5 boiler units (totaling 102 MW) would retire by December 31, 2022, and Units 8A and 8BC (117 MW) would cease operating, unless they could be upgraded. Without a certified environmental impact report, the City could not proceed with development of a Battery Energy Storage System at Grayson. Even with the 72 MW of added transmission becoming available in 2027, reliability will be impacted, and the City would not be able to meet its reserve requirements. Failure to repower the Grayson Power Plant will also subject GWP to market price uncertainty, the risk of blackouts due to transmission outages or other contingencies, and legal risks associated with noncompliance with reserve requirements. A decision on the Grayson Repowering Project is therefore essential so that the utility has sufficient lead time necessary for project implementation necessary to continue its history of supplying reliable and sustainable power to Glendale residents and businesses.

July 23, 2019 Motion
On July 23, 2019, the City Council conditioned its approval of the 2019 IRP and related actions on various conditions, discussed below.
66 of 983
128 c
3 0
5 7
Item 1: “GWP must request City Council authorization prior to purchase and installation of natural gas (Gas) units at the Grayson Power Plant and must present to City Council any new or improved technologies that develop from now until such time that may further reduce the need for Gas generation.” City Council authorization to purchase and install new natural gas units would occur at a future City Council meeting, following certification of the 2022 FEIR and Council’s selection of a project alternative. The 2022 FEIR (as well as the 100% Clean by 2030 Study, discussed below) discusses the development of hydrogen technology and the potential for the use of green hydrogen at Grayson Power Plant. The Project and Alternatives 7 and 8 each have a path to convert to hydrogen generation when it becomes commercially available at Grayson. This technology is continuing to develop.

It is important to note that the LA100 Study relies on hydrogen technology; and the Intermountain Power Project will be converted to an increasing mix of hydrogen fuel, with 30% hydrogen by volume by 2025, and 100% hydrogen fuel planned by no later than 2045. GWP will continue to track technology developments and keep the City Council apprised of the same.

Item 2: “If Gas engines are installed at the Grayson Power Plant, the use of such Gas engines shall occur during situations such as peak weather or adverse system conditions.”
As discussed in the 2022 FEIR, the proposed new units would provide reserves and backup power for the City when needed. The City’s SCAQMD permit applications for Alternatives 7 and Alternative 8 would provide for very limited operation of the Grayson Units (operation only at a 14% capacity factor).

Item 3: “If Gas engines are installed at the Grayson Power Plant, GWP shall report on Gas usage at the repowered Grayson Power Plant and make such reports available to the public on a regular basis.”
Consistent with this requirement, GWP will provide public reporting on gas usage at the repowered Grayson Power Plant.

Item 4: “As part of the annual Power Content Label reporting process, GWP shall report back to the City Council regarding the Integrated Resource Plan, which will include any and all developments in distributed energy resources, renewable energy, clean energy and transmission, to identify the City’s progress in meeting its SB 100 goals.”
GWP has provided the City Council with regular reporting regarding its development of distributed energy resources, including the Franklin Energy Demand Response Program, the Lime Energy Commercial Energy Efficiency Program, the proposed Virtual Power Plant, the negotiation of renewable energy contracts, and other clean energy initiatives, such as the evaluation of City-owned property for solar and storage development, and transmission developments. As shown in GWP’s most recent Power 67 of 983
138 c
3 0
5 7
Content Label, GWP is an environmental leader, providing 64% clean energy (40% meeting renewable portfolio standard requirements) in 2020:

Item 5: “GWP shall update City Council on addressing Glendale’s transmission and reliability challenges in order to achieve the goals of SB 100.” GWP continues to face significant transmission and reliability challenges. As discussed in the 2022 FEIR, GWP is heavily dependent upon its limited transmission capacity to meet the City’s power needs. This limited transmission capacity restricts the amount of renewable energy that GWP can import to serve the City’s needs.

Item 6: “At least 60 days prior to the City Council’s consideration of the purchase of the ICE Units, GWP will report to the City Council regarding the following issues: (i) Additional Distributed Energy Resources; (ii) Any opportunities for the City to get additional transmission capacity to serve the City’s needs in helping the City reach its renewable goals as soon as feasible; (iii) Options to renegotiate agreements with the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power regarding reserve requirements; (iv) Options to potentially reduce or eliminate the need for the 5 units with new or improved technology prior to the Council taking action on the Ice units; and (v) the development of a plan for goals or methods to achieve 100% clean energy by 2030.”
If the City Council identifies Alternative 7 as the preferred option, the Wartsila contract for the internal combustion engine (ICE) units will be presented to the City Council for its consideration at a future Council meeting. Pending that decision, the following is a brief update on each of the matters identified in Item 6(i) through (v) of the Council Motion:
(i)Additional Distributed Energy Resources: GWP offers a broad range of energy efficiency, demand response, solar, and educational programs for its 68 of 983
148 c
3 0
5 7
residential and commercial customers. (See October 7, 2021 presentation to the Sustainability Commission, Agenda Item 5(b), available at https://glendaleca.primegov.com/Portal/Meeting?compiledMeetingDocumentF ileId=45535). In addition to these many existing offerings, GWP is working on the successful deployment of the Franklin Energy Demand Response Program, the Lime Energy Commercial Energy Efficiency Program, and the proposed residential virtual power plant program. To date, customer enrollment for the Franklin Energy Demand Response program is providing

1.3 MW of the 10 MW of capacity (40% of the 2021 goal of 3.1MW). During two demand response events in 2021, the delivery rate was 71% and 77%, respectively. For the Lime Energy Commercial Energy Efficiency Program, to date, 63 proposals have been presented, 13 proposal accepted, 8 projects are in construction, and 5 projects are completed and providing the City with power savings of 0.003 MW and energy savings of 7.6 MWh. In addition to working to implement these programs, GWP is working with an owner’s engineering firm (Black & Veatch) to plan for the development of solar and storage on City property. GWP is also working with a consultant (Shpigler Consulting) to develop additional distributed energy resource programs within Glendale.
(ii)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 69 of 983
158 c
3 0
5 7
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.
(iii)Options to renegotiate agreements with the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power regarding reserve requirements: In 2018, GWP sent a letter to LADWP asking that LADWP confirm GWP’s understanding of its reserve obligations within the LADWP Balancing Authority, including under the Balancing Authority Area Services Agreement (“BAASA”). In 2018, LADWP confirmed that GWP’s understanding of its obligations was correct.

In November of 2021, GWP asked LADWP to re-confirm whether GWP is correctly interpreting its reserve obligations, and also whether LADWP would allow GWP to purchase additional reserves. In January 2022, LADWP confirmed that LADWP’s position remains the same as was stated in LADWP’s 2018 letter. GWP has submitted follow up correspondence to LADWP to further clarify LADWP’ position regarding GWP’s reserve obligations. Regarding GWP’s request to purchase additional reserves, LADWP’s Assistant General Manager suggested that GWP reach out to the LADWP Wholesale Energy Marketing Group (WERM) to make a request.

GWP submitted a request to the WERM group for the purchase of reserves and WERM responded that it does not do transactions longer than 18 months and is not allowed to make any term sales. WERM referred GWP to LADWP’s Resource Management group. To date, GWP has not received a response. (iv)Options to potentially reduce or eliminate the need for the 5 units with new or improved technology: The Wartsila engines proposed as part of Alternative 7 are small in size (18 MW each), fuel-efficient, state of the art units that can be started within 10 minutes. Because they are smaller in size, GWP would have the flexibility to use less power in the event that a local resource is needed. Additionally, because the Wartsila units are quick start units, the City will no longer utilize energy to spend hours (days) heating boilers to run larger units just in case the energy is needed. With regard to new or improved technology, as discussed in the 2022 FEIR, the units 70 of 983
168 c
3 0
5 7
proposed for the Project and for Alternatives 7 and 8 will be capable of transitioning to green hydrogen in the future, ultimately allowing for their continued use in a 100% clean energy portfolio.
(v)Plan for goals or methods to achieve 100% clean energy 2030: On March 21, 2021, GWP presented the results of a 100% Clean by 2030 study to the City Council. Based upon the assumptions of that study, the study found that 89% clean energy by 2030, around the clock, is achievable with an estimated rate increase of 25% to 31%. Achieving 100% clean energy requires new transmission, if it becomes available, long-duration storage that would shift energy seasonally, not just over a matter of hours, and renewable natural gas or hydrogen at the Grayson Power Plant, Intermountain Power Plant, and Magnolia Power Plant in Burbank.

STAKEHOLDERS/OUTREACH
The City issued a Notice of Preparation for the Grayson Repowering Project Environmental Impact Report from December 15, 2016 to January 20, 2017. The 2017 Draft EIR was circulated for at 62-day public comment period from September 18, 2017 to November 20, 2017. The 2018 Final EIR was presented to the City Council on April 10, 2018. At the April 2018 hearing, the City Council did not take action on the EIR but requested that GWP explore cleaner alternatives. During the 2019 Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) process, GWP reached out to the community and stakeholders for input on community preferences for GWP’s power supply planning and that input informed the 2019 IRP and Alternative 7, evaluated in the 2022 FEIR. On December 15, 2020, an update on the Grayson Repowering Project alternatives was presented to the City Council. The 2021 PR-DEIR was circulated for public comment for a 92-day public review period from August 9, 2021 to November 15, 2021. On September 9, 2021, during the public comment period for the PR-DEIR, staff presented the PR-DEIR to the Sustainability Commission and the GWP Commission in a joint meeting. Public and commission comments from that meeting were recorded and included in the 2022 FEIR.

The 2022 FEIR was released on January 20, 2022.

Staff presented an informational item regarding the 2022 FEIR to the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) on January 20, 2022. In accordance with Section

2.76.100(D) of the Glendale Municipal Code, if the EIR is certified, a demolition permit will be brought back to the HPC for a determination whether to grant or deny the permit.

The 2022 FEIR was presented to the GWP Commission on January 31, 2022 and to the Sustainability Commission on February 3, 2022. The GWP Commission unanimously adopted a motion recommending that the City Council certify the 2022 FEIR and selection of Alternative 7. The Sustainability Commission had a tie vote on whether to make a recommendation to the City Council.

FISCAL IMPACT
The estimated current cost of the original Project is $514 million. The estimated cost of Alternative 7 is $389 million. The estimated cost of Alternative 8 is $330 million. The cost of Alternatives 7 and 8 excludes the cost of the new Glendale Switching Station, which would be added at the end of the project development due to space needs during 71 of 983
178 c
3 0
5 7
construction of the Grayson Repowering Project. The new Switching Station would be included as part of both Alternatives 7 and 8 for EIR purposes and built after the repowering is complete1.

The City recently conducted an updated Electrical Cost of Service Analysis (COSA) which was presented to the City Council on February 8, 2022. The COSA evaluated the rate impact of Alternative 7 and found that implementation of Alternative 7 does not result in an impact on rates, assuming the project is funded through bonds. As Alternative 8 costs less than Alternative 7, it too would not impact rates if bond-funded.

The City Council has adopted reimbursement resolutions that will allow the City to collect previously-incurred development costs for the Grayson Repowering Project out of the bond proceeds, if bonds are issued.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA/NEPA)
This report presents the 2022 FEIR for the proposed Grayson Repowering Project.

Certification of the 2022 FEIR certifies that an environmental study compliant with the Public Resources Code and State CEQA Guidelines was completed, reviewed, and considered by the City Council, as the decision-making body for the City as the lead agency for the Project. Based on the City Council’s selection of the Project or a Project Alternative, staff will, at a future meeting, present future actions for Council consideration, including a bond ordinance, final contracts for award, approval of procurement processes to implement the selected project alternative.

CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE
Not applicable.

ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1: Adopt a Resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report and making findings in support thereof; Adopt a Resolution approving the section of a project Alternative and adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations and making findings in support thereof, and adopting a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and Adopt Motions providing direction to staff to proceed with development of the selected project Alternative.

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

It is important to note that Certification of the 2022 FEIR is not approval of the project.

Staff recommends that the City Council certify the 2022 FEIR. The City Council has the option of adopting either a resolution approving Alternative 7 or a resolution approving Alternative 8. Both of those resolutions also authorize Staff to take next steps to implement the chosen Alternative so that development can proceed in time to meet SCAQMD deadlines. If so directed by Council, and based on Council’s selection of a preferred alternative, staff will present a bond ordinance and contracts for award at a 1 The space the switching station would occupy is needed for construction laydown. 72 of 983
188 c
3 0
5 7
subsequent City Council meeting.

ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION
Submitted by:

Mark Young, General Manager – Glendale Water and Power
Prepared by:

Christine Godinez, Principal Assistant City Attorney
Reviewed by:

Jason Bradford, Director of Finance and Information Technology Department Michael J. Garcia, City Attorney
Approved by:

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

EXHIBITS/ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit 1: 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report, available at: Grayson Repowering Project | Proposed Grayson Repowering Project Exhibit 2: Comment letters on 2022 FEIR received by the City of Glendale following the close of the 2022 FEIR public comment period.
73 of 983
1 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf RESOLUTION NO. ______

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

CERTIFYING A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE GRAYSON

REPOWERING PROJECT, AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND

DETERMINATIONS
WHEREAS, the City of Glendale Department of Water and Power proposes to repower the existing Grayson Power Plant by replacing 235 MW (gross) of the existing capacity from the boiler units (Units 3, 4, 5) and combined-cycle units (Units 1, 2, 8A and 8BC) with more efficient generation; the Proposed Project would comprise two 71 MW (net) combined-cycle units and two 60 MW (net) simple-cycle units; and WHEREAS, in 2018 the Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse No. 2016121048), for the Grayson Repowering Project (the “2018 Final EIR”) was prepared and consists of: (a) the Draft Environmental Impact Report (“Draft EIR”), inclusive of all appendices and exhibits, dated September 15, 2017; (b) a list of persons, organizations, and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR; (c) the Comments to the Draft EIR; (d) the Responses to Comments to the Draft ER; and (e) revisions to the Draft EIR (collectively compiled into a consolidated Final EIR, dated March 1, 2018); and WHEREAS, the 2018 Final EIR was presented to the City Council (the “Lead Agency”) on April 10, 2018, but the City Council did not take action to certify the 2018 Final EIR or approve the Proposed Project and instead directed staff to explore additional green alternatives to the Proposed Project; and
WHEREAS, a Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (“PR- DEIR”) that studied additional green and renewable alternatives to the Proposed Project and which included required updates to certain impact categories, was prepared and circulated on August 9, 2021 for a 60-day public review period pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq. (“State CEQA Guidelines”), and the Guidelines of the City of Glendale for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (“City CEQA Guidelines”), which public review was subsequently extended for an additional 41 days, for a total public review period of 101 days; and
WHEREAS, notice was duly provided to the public, government agencies, and all other interested parties that they may submit written comments on the PR-DEIR to the City on or before November 15, 2022; and
WHEREAS, the 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Project, State Clearinghouse No. 2016121048 (“2022 Final EIR”) was prepared and consists of: (a) the 2018 Final EIR; (b) the PR-DEIR inclusive of all appendices and exhibits, dated August 74 of 983
2 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf 9, 2021; (c) the Comments to the PR-DEIR; (d) the Responses to Comments to the PR- DEIR; and (e) revision to the PR-DEIR (collectively compiled into a consolidated Final EIR, dated January 20, 2022. The 2022 Final EIR was prepared in conformance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City CEQA Guidelines and was released on January 20, 2022; and
WHEREAS, after due notice, on February 15, 2022, the City Council conducted a public hearing to review and consider the 2022 Final EIR, the comments and responses to comments on the PR-DEIR, as well as supplemental responses and information, and at the public hearing the City Council considered Glendale Water and Power Commission and Sustainability Commission recommendations on the 2022 Final EIR, considered the proposed Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program, the public testimony received at the public hearing on the 2022 Final EIR, and the Proposed Project and Project Alternatives; and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, the City Council certified that (i) the 2022 Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines, (ii) the 2022 Final EIR has been presented to the City Council at a duly-noticed public hearing and the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the 2022 Final EIR, and (iii) the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of Glendale as the Lead Agency.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Glendale, California that:

1. The 2022 Final EIR (State Clearing House No. 2016121048), for the Grayson Repowering Project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines.

2. The 2022 Final EIR has been presented to the City Council at a duly-noticed public hearing and the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the 2022 Final EIR.

3. The City Council confirms that each and all the Findings and Determinations contained in this document are based upon competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the Project and the 2022 Final EIR, and that the Findings and Determinations constitute the independent Findings and Determinations of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence. All the language included in this Resolution constitute findings by the City Council, whether or not any particular sentence or clause includes a statement to that effect.

4. All summaries of information and the Findings contained herein are based on the 2022 Final EIR and/or other evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. The summaries of information below are only summaries. Cross-references to 75 of 983
3 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf the 2022 Final EIR and other evidence in the record have been made where helpful, and reference should be made directly to the 2022 Final EIR and other evidence in the record for more precise information regarding the facts on which any summary is based. In addition, unless noted or stated otherwise, the rationale for the Findings is that set forth in the 2022 Final EIR (including the responses to comments) or elsewhere in the administrative record.

5. The Proposed Project
The City of Glendale Department of Water and Power (“GWP”) proposes to repower the existing Grayson Power Plant by replacing 235 MW (gross) of the existing capacity from the boiler units (Units 3, 4, 5) and combined-cycle units (Units 1, 2, 8A and 8BC) with more efficient generation. The proposed Project would comprise two 71 MW (net) combined-cycle units and two 60 MW (net) simple-cycle units

6. Environmental Review Process and Contents of the 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report
Absence of Significant New Information
CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5 requires a lead agency to recirculate an EIR for further review and comment when significant new information is added to the EIR after public notice is given of the availability of the PR-DEIR, but before certification of the 2022 Final EIR. New information added to an EIR is not “significant” unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of a meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect that the project proponent declines to implement.

The City recognizes that the 2022 Final EIR incorporates information obtained by the City since the PR-DEIR was completed, and contains additions, clarifications, modifications, and other minor changes. The City approves incorporation of each of the refinements into the Project and finds that the refinements do not cause the Project to result in new or substantially more severe adverse environmental effects, or otherwise require recirculation of the EIR.

Various minor changes and edits have been made to the text and tables of the PR- DEIR, as set forth in the 2022 Final EIR. These changes are generally of an administrative nature such as correcting typographical errors, making minor adjustments to the data, removing regulatory references not applicable to the Project, and adding or changing certain phrases to improve readability.

The City finds this additional information does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation, but rather that the additional information merely clarifies or amplifies or makes insignificant modifications in an adequate EIR. 76 of 983
4 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf In addition to the changes and corrections described above, the 2022 Final EIR provides additional information in response to comments and questions from agencies and the public.

The City finds that information added in the 2022 Final EIR does not constitute significant new information requiring recirculation, but rather that the additional information clarifies or amplifies an adequate EIR. Specifically, the City finds that the additional information, including the changes described above, does not show that:
(1) A new significant environmental impact would result from the Project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented.
(2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of insignificance.
(3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the project, but the project’s proponents decline to adopt it.
(4) The Draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded.

Based on the foregoing and having reviewed the information contained in the 2022 Final EIR and in the record of City’s proceedings, including the comments on the PR-DEIR and the responses thereto, and the above-described information, the City finds that no significant new information has been added to the 2022 Final EIR since public notice was given of the availability of the PR-DEIR that would require recirculation of the 2022 Final EIR.

7. Differences of Opinion Regarding the Impacts of the Project In making its determination to certify the 2022 Final EIR and to approve the Project or a Project Alternative, the City recognizes that there is a range of public opinion related to the Project need and environmental issues, and that the Project and Project Alternatives involve several controversial environmental issues. Through the preparation of the 2022 Final EIR the City understands the range of technical and scientific opinion concerning the Proposed Project and Project Alternatives, the comments received on the PR-DEIR and the responses to those comments in the 2022 Final EIR, as well as testimony, letters, and reports regarding the 2022 Final EIR and its own experience and expertise in assessing those issues. The City has reviewed and considered, as a whole, the evidence and analysis presented in the PR-DEIR, the evidence and analysis presented in the comments on the PR-DEIR, the evidence and analysis presented in the 2022 Final EIR, the information submitted on the 2022 Final EIR, and the reports prepared by the experts who prepared the 2022 Final EIR, the City’s consultants, and by staff, addressing those comments. The City has a comprehensive and well-rounded understanding of the 77 of 983
5 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf environmental issues presented by the Project and Project Alternatives. In turn, this understanding has enabled the City to make its decisions after weighing and considering the various viewpoints on these important issues.

Accordingly, the City certifies that its findings are based on full appraisal of all of the evidence contained in the 2022 Final EIR, as well as the evidence and other information in the record addressing the 2022 Final EIR.

8. Impacts and Mitigation Measures
These Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City regarding the environmental impacts of the Project, Project Alternatives, and the mitigation measures identified in the 2022 Final EIR to be adopted by the City as conditions of approval for the Project or a Project Alternative. In making these findings, the City has considered the opinions of other agencies and members of the public, including opinions that disagree with some of the analysis used in the 2022 Final EIR.

The City finds that the determination of significance thresholds is a judgment within the discretion of the City; the significance thresholds used in the 2022 Final EIR are supported by substantial evidence in the record, including the expert opinion of the 2022 Final EIR preparers and City consultants and staff; and the significance thresholds used in the 2022 Final EIR provide reasonable and appropriate means of assessing the significance of the adverse environmental effects of the Project and of the Project Alternatives.

Exhibit A, attached to these findings and incorporated herein by reference, summarizes the environmental determinations of the 2022 Final EIR about the Project’s and Project Alternatives’ environmental impacts before and after mitigation. Exhibit A does not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the 2022 Final EIR. Instead, Exhibit A provides a summary description of each environmental impact, identifies the applicable mitigation measures described in the Final EIR, and states the City’s findings on the significance of each environmental impact after imposition of the applicable mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the 2022 Final EIR and these Findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the 2022 Final EIR supporting the 2022 Final EIR’s determinations regarding the Project’s and the Project Alternatives’ environmental impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts.

The City approves the Findings set forth in Exhibit A as its findings regarding the Project’s and Project Alternatives’ environmental impacts before and after mitigation. In making these Findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the 2022 Final EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these Findings the determinations and conclusions of the 2022 Final EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these Findings. 78 of 983
6 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf

9. Basis for the City’s Decision to Approve the Proposed Project and Reject the Other Alternatives

10. The City Findings Relating to Alternatives
In making these findings, the City certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the 2022 Final EIR, including the information provided in comments on the PR-DEIR and the responses to those comments in the 2022 Final EIR. The 2022 Final EIR’s discussion and analysis of these alternatives is not repeated in total in these findings, but the discussion and analysis of the alternatives in the 2022 Final EIR are incorporated in these Findings by reference to supplement the analysis here. The City also certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered all other information in the administrative record.

The City finds that the range of alternatives studied in the 2022 Final EIR reflects a reasonable attempt to identify and evaluate various types of alternatives that would potentially be capable of reducing the Project’s environmental effects, while accomplishing most of the Project Objectives. The City finds that the alternatives analysis and additional information provided in the response to comments in the 2022 Final EIR is sufficient to inform the City, agencies, and the public regarding the trade-offs between the degree to which alternatives to the Project could reduce environmental impacts and the corresponding degree to which the alternatives would hinder the achievement of the Project Objectives and other economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal considerations.

As set forth in Part 2 above, the City has adopted mitigation measures that avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project to a less-than- significant level. Any remaining significant Cultural Resources effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations above. Accordingly, the City has determined that should it approve the Proposed Project instead of approving one of the Project Alternatives, these findings contain the substantial evidence basis for doing so and are set forth below and in the 2022 Final EIR.

11. Environmentally Superior Alternative:

CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the “environmentally superior alternative”.

Based on the alternative analysis, Alternative 7 would be the environmental superior alternative.
a. Proposed Project
The Proposed Project is a 262 MW repowering of the Grayson Power Plant. The Proposed Project removes 238 MW gross (219 MW net) of existing generation equipment that is past the end of its useful life and replaces it with approximately 270 MW gross (262 MW net) efficient equipment. The current total generating capacity at the Grayson Power Plant is 286 MW gross (267 MW net). The Project would result in a Grayson Power Plant net generation capacity of 310 MW.
79 of 983
7 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf The proposed Project would consist of two independently operating simple-cycle natural-gas–fired combustion turbine power blocks, and two independently operating, one- on-one, combined-cycle natural-gas fired power blocks. Other equipment and facilities to be constructed and shared by the four power blocks include six natural gas compressors, a gas pressure control and metering station, two cooling towers, water treatment facilities, fire protection and emergency services, generator step-up transformers, other electrical switchgear and axillary transformers, a steam turbine generator building, and an operations and maintenance building. The Project would be constructed on approximately ten acres entirely within the footprint of the existing Grayson Power Plant and located within the City of Glendale’s Utility Operations Center.

The Proposed Project is fully described in the 2018 Final EIR Section 3.0, Project Description.

The Project will achieve the following benefits:
• Maintain reliable service.
• Keep rates affordable to Glendale customers.
• Facilitate compliance with state regulations regarding renewable energy supplies mandated through the Renewable Portfolio Standards and greenhouse gas emissions without the need for new transmission lines.
• Allow the City to meet its existing and future electrical demands even if Glendale is separated from existing interconnections with the electric grid. • Replace the aged, unreliable, less efficient, high maintenance steam boilers with new efficient and cleaner electricity generation technologies. • Provide a locally controlled source of generation to minimize the City’s reliance on importing power from remote generation locations. • Support water conservation efforts by eliminating the use of potable water for generation purposes.

The City hereby accepts the Proposed Project as feasible and indicates that it is environmentally preferable.
b. No Project Alternative – Alternative 1
Under CEQA, a “No Project Alternative” compares the impacts of proceeding with a proposed Project with the impacts of not proceeding with the proposed Project. A No Project Alternative describes the environmental conditions in existence at the time the Notice of Preparation was published or some other supportable time period, along with a discussion of what would be reasonably expected to occur at the site in the foreseeable future, based on current plans and consistent with available infrastructure and community services.
80 of 983
8 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf Under the No Project Alternative, the proposed repowering would not occur, and the project site would remain in its existing condition.

The City hereby rejects the No Project Alternative as infeasible. The City could no longer meet its obligations as a load serving entity for its residents and customers, placing them at significant risk for decreased electrical system reliability and availability. Moreover, the No Project Alternative would not satisfactorily meet the Project objectives and would fail to comply with Federal and State reliability standards. While this alternative would avoid the Project’s potentially significant and significant unavoidable impacts and have less impact on all environmental topical areas, this alternative would only meet 1 of 9 Project objectives.
c. Energy Storage Project Alternative – Alternative 2
The Energy Storage Project Alternative involves an energy storage system that would be charged during times of the day when there is available transmission capacity not needed to serve the City’s load. The available energy would be stored and “time shifted” to be used during high load periods when the available transmission capacity is inadequate to serve the City’s load.

In this Alternative, which presumes all Units, but Unit 9 will ultimately be shut down, the City would use the available 48 MW (net) from Unit 9, 39 MW from the Magnolia Power Plant, and 200 MW imported over transmission lines from outside of the City. This would provide the City a total supply of 287 MW, which is less than the City’s peak loads.

With the NERC required planning assumption that the single largest source of power will unexpectedly cease to be available (an event known in the power industry as “the loss of the single largest contingency”) which would be losing the 100 MW delivered to Glendale over the Pacific DC Intertie transmission line), available capacity would fall to 187 MW increasing the shortfall in capacity.

The Energy Storage Project Alternative was described as reducing certain localized impacts as discussed in Section 5.2.2.1 of the Final EIR, it is not possible to import enough electricity during the summer season to charge the batteries to serve the daytime load. Lastly, this Alternative only meets 5 of 9 Project objectives. d. Alternative Energy Project Alternative – Alternative 3 The Alternative Energy Project Alternative evaluates the feasibility of both photovoltaic (PV) solar and wind powered production alternative energy options.

PV power production requires approximately 4 – 6 acres per MW of electricity depending on the specific PV technology used (e.g., crystalline vs. thin film) and configuration of the solar array tracker system (single or dual axis). The Project site is approximately 10 acres in size and would support PV power production up to 2.5 MW. In order to generate power equivalent to the Project, the Alternative Energy Project Alternative would need to acquire an approximately 1,310-acre site that is capable of development as a utility-scale PV solar project.
81 of 983
9 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf The City does not own or control 1,310 acres that are developable as a PV solar project. Glendale is predominantly urbanized with open space reserved within its existing parks and mountainous areas, much of which is preserved open space, designated as significant ecological areas, in a high fire danger area, or too steep for any form of development. Therefore, development of a utility-scale PV solar project to provide an equivalent power source as the Project within the City of Glendale is not feasible.

Therefore, the only path to using an alternative energy in place of the Project is to construct a new transmission line to access solar, wind, and geothermal resources outside the Los Angeles basin. However, building such a transmission system is in its own right a significant undertaking that brings about its own potential environmental impacts stemming from such large-scale development.

The Alternative Energy Project Alternative was described as reducing certain localized impacts, but also increasing certain off-site impacts due to the need for increased transmission and the large area needed for a wind farm or solar field. Because of the very limited ability to site solar or wind resources within the City and due to the limited transmission capacity coming into Glendale, additional transmission would be needed to implement this Alternative. Because solar and wind resource opportunities within Glendale are limited, combined with energy storage considerations, as well as the complications associated with building a new transmission line to import alternative energy, the Alternative Energy Project Alternative was described as not being an adequate replacement for the power that would be generated by the Project. Additionally, the Alternative Energy Project Alternative only meets 4 of 9 Project objectives. e. 150 MW Project Alternative – Alternative 4
This Alternative would consist of three simple cycle combustion turbines at the Grayson Power Plant and a new transmission line to import additional electricity into the City. However, due to the reduction in generating capacity, this Alternative consequently also requires additional transmission and energy imports into Glendale to provide sufficient capacity. An additional consideration is that being simple cycle units, the available operating hours would be much less than what is available from the combined cycle units that are a part of the Project.

Although feasible to develop, the 150 MW Project Alternative would not provide sufficient capacity or generate sufficient energy under all required planning scenarios necessary to meet load demands and reliability requirements. In addition, this Alternative would not be able to meet the reserve requirements set forth by NERC/WECC. Thus, the 150 MW Project Alternative would require additional import capacity (transmission capacity) for the City to meet load and reliability criteria.

The 150 MW Project Alternative was described as having incrementally less, but similar, impacts as the Project. However, the 150 MW Project Alternative would also require construction of a new transmission line because additional capacity would be needed to meet peak load and reserve requirements. Construction of a new transmission line has the potential to result in increased impacts where the line would be constructed. In 82 of 983
10 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf addition to the potential environmental impacts, the 150 MW Project Alternative only meets 6 of 9 Project objectives.
f. 200 MW Project Alternative – Alternative 5
A 200 MW Project Alternative would consist of two simple cycle units and one combined cycle unit. The 200 MW Alternative was described as having reduced air and greenhouse gas emissions and noise from one less generation unit compared to the Project. The 200 MW Alternative would meet all the Project objectives. g. Tesla/Wartsila Repowering Project Alternative – Alternative 7 The Tesla/Wartsila Repowering Project Alternative, identified in the PR-DEIR as “Alternative 7,” replaces the existing units with exception of Unit 9 with the following: Five Wartsila 18V50SG reciprocating internal combustion engine units producing approximately 93 MW net at average annual site conditions, and a BESS providing 75 MW/300 MWH of power and energy. This alternative, like the Project, also necessitates removal of the Boiler Building to provide sufficient space for the new facilities. Alternative 7 also adds a switching station to the site in place of the existing Glendale Rack to improve system reliability. The Tesla/Wartsila Alternative will meet all the Project objectives. h. Tesla/Unit 8 Refurbishment Project Alternative - Alternative 8 The Tesla/Unit 8 Refurbishment Project Alternative, identified in the PR-DEIR as “Alternative 8,” would replace the existing units with the exception of Unit 9 and Units 8A and 8BC. The Units 8A and 8BC gas turbine-generators would be retained, refurbished, and the units reconfigured into one simple cycle unit (8A) and one fast-start combined cycle unit (8BC) with new balance-of-plant equipment for both units. As with Alternative 7, Alternative 8 would add a 75 MW/300 MWH BESS. This alternative, like the Project, also necessitates removal of the Boiler Building to provide sufficient space for the new facilities.

As with Alternative 7, a switching station would be added to the site in place of the existing Glendale Rack to improve reliability. The Tesla/Wartsila Alternative will meet all the Project objectives.

12. Alternatives Rejected from Further Consideration
A number of alternatives were considered but eliminated from further consideration in the EIR. The alternatives that were not evaluated further include alternative sites, and a variety of alternative technologies (generation technology, fuel technology, and alternative power plant cooling). The alternatives that were rejected from further consideration are described below.
a. Power Plant Site Alternatives
A review of industrial zones with the lowest concentration of building was conducted and identified two alternative power plant site locations. Both site locations would require acquisition of new land and the construction of new transmission lines as well as the extension of the recycled water line, high pressure gas line, and waste line. Locating the 83 of 983
11 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf Project at a different site would also result in the loss of SCAQMD ‘offset exemption for replacement in kind’ per SCAQMD Rule 1304(a)(2) that is applicable as long as the Project is located at the current site. For these reasons as well as the reasons set forth in the 2022 Final EIR, neither alternative site presents an environmentally superior alternative to the existing site. Furthermore, the Project has a strong relationship to the existing industrial site. As a result, no alternate sites are analyzed as feasible alternatives in the 2022 Final EIR.
b. Project Technology Alternatives
Combustion generation technology alternatives considered in the 2022 Final EIR include conventional boiler and steam turbine, large gas simple cycle combustion turbine, large combined cycle combustion turbine generator, and reciprocating engine generators.

The conventional boiler and steam turbine alternative is less efficient than the Project and would not meet the California’s SB 1368 Emission Performance Standard of less than 1,100 lbs of CO2/MWh for new non-peaking generation. For these reasons, the conventional boiler and steam turbine generator technology was eliminated from consideration.

The large simple cycle combustion turbine alternative is described as an efficient alternative, however, the size of such a unit is as big as the City’s existing single largest contingency and the power generated would exceed that is which required by the City. As such, this turbine is too large to provide the required need for flexibility of operation that allows for integration of the startup and shut down of the unit, load following, or the efficient integration of renewable resources into the City’s electric grid. Furthermore, large turbines do not meet the Western Electricity Coordinating Council requirement that the City provide its own economic spinning and non-spinning reserve included in the Project objectives. Lastly, simple cycle turbines are restricted in their operating hours by the air permitting process. Therefore, with only large simple cycle turbines, the capacity would be available however the total energy may not. For these reasons, the large simple cycle combustion turbine alternative was eliminated from consideration.

The large combined cycle combustion turbine generator alternative is described as an efficient source of generation, however, the size of such a unit is too large considering the City’s existing single largest contingency. As such, this technology does not provide the required need for flexibility of operation nor allows for the efficient integration of renewable resources into the City’s electric grid. Furthermore, large turbines do not meet the Western Electricity Coordinating Council requirement that the City provide its own economic spinning and non-spinning reserve included in the Project objectives. For these reasons, the large combined cycle combustion turbine generator alternative was eliminated from consideration.

The reciprocating engine generators (REGs) alternative was considered to supply part of the simple cycle generation because of the flexibility and good efficiency over the load range that multiple REGs offer. However, the REGs were eliminated from 84 of 983
12 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf consideration due to the higher expected total project cost, increased maintenance, and air permitting concerns.
c. Alternative Fuel Technologies
Technologies based on fuels other than natural gas do not meet the Project objectives. Additional factors rendering alternative fuel technologies unsuitable for the Project are as follows:
• No geothermal or hydroelectric resources are available within Glendale. • Biomass fuels such as wood waste, digester or landfill gas are not locally available in sufficient quantities to make them practical as alternative fuels. • Coal, nuclear, and oil technologies would not meet the environmental stewardship objective of the Project.
• Utility scale alternative fuel technologies such as hydrogen are likely to become available in the future and feasible for use in the engines proposed for the Project, but such technology has not developed to the point where it can now be used as a feasible alternative to the current Project.

Furthermore, distributed energy resources or microgrids are not practical because the City cannot mandate its customers to self-supply and the City would still need to provide a reliable source of standby power to its customers. For these reasons, the alternative fuel technologies alternative was eliminated from consideration. d. Power Plant Cooling Alternatives
Both wet and dry cooling alternatives were considered as a form of heat rejection for the Project. Wet cooling using recycled water is acceptable under state policy and is available at the Project site in sufficient quantity required by the Project and is therefore included for use in the Project. Wet cooling using fresh or potable water uses an essential resource that has a much higher beneficial use other than use for power plant cooling and was therefore eliminated from consideration.

Dry cooling using an air-cooled steam condenser (ACSC) was considered as an alternative to the use of wet cooling. Air-cooled condensers require more space on a site, consume more electricity, have a higher capital cost, and cannot produce as low a condensing pressure in hot weather as wet-cooled condensers. For these reasons, and since recycled water is available, dry cooling was not selected.

The two commercially available methods of using hybrid cooling, the plume abatement cooling tower and the use of an ACSC and cooling tower in parallel service, were considered as alternatives to the use of solely wet or dry cooling. Both of these alternative methods result in a higher capital cost than wet cooling. For this reason, as well as limited commercial experience with these hybrid systems, these alternatives were not selected over wet cooling using recycled water.
85 of 983
13 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf e. Distributed Solar PV Deployed on Glendale Residential and Commercial Rooftops
The adoption and implementation of solar PV projects, including for example, the proposed Sunrun Virtual Power Plant on privately owned property is voluntary and would not ensure a reliable power supply commensurate with the amount of power needed and with the reliability associated with utility-scale projects. Distributed solar PV deployed on residential and commercial rooftops will help to contribute to the power grid, but because of its voluntary nature, the scale and reliability, it was therefore not considered a feasible alternative to the Project and was eliminated from consideration.

With respect to alternatives rejected from further consideration, the City hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the reasons set forth in the 2022 Final EIR as its grounds for finding infeasible rejecting those alternatives. f. Reconfigured Tesla/Wartsila Repowering Project - Alternative 6 This alternative is identical to Alternative 7, described immediately below, but with a different physical arrangement that would have replaced the existing units, with the exception of Unit 9, with the same equipment proposed in Alternative 7. However, during the engineering phase required for the development of this Alternative, it was determined to be technically infeasible because the design requirements for Wartsila’s structures necessitate all existing on-site piles (including the piles underlying the Boiler Building) be removed and these piles could not be backfilled with anything that would impede the ability to drive new piles. Given that it was not possible to adjust the locations of the Wartsila foundations within the available space to avoid overlap and the close proximity of existing and new piles involved with this Alternative, further analysis was terminated. Rather than re-number the Alternatives that were retained for further study and consideration, Alternative 6 is mentioned in this list in order to provide information and to avoid confusion in the number of the remaining alternatives that were considered in more detail in the 2022 Final EIR.

13. Findings Regarding Adequacy of Range of Alternatives The City finds that the range of alternatives evaluated in the 2022 Final EIR and the additional background provided in the Response to Comments in the 2022 Final EIR reflects a reasonable attempt to identify and evaluate various types of alternatives that would potentially be capable of reducing the Project’s environmental effects, while accomplishing most but not all of the Project Objectives. The City finds that the alternatives analysis is sufficient to inform the City and the public regarding the tradeoffs between the degree to which alternatives to the Project could reduce environmental impacts and the corresponding degree to which the alternatives would hinder the City’s ability to achieve most or all of its Project Objectives.

14. Growth-Inducing Impacts
Section 15126.2(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR “discuss the ways in which the Project could foster economic or population growth, or the construction 86 of 983
14 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment.” Please refer to Final EIR Section 6.1 for an analysis of the potential growth-inducing impacts of the Project and Project Alternatives.

In general terms, a project may induce spatial, economic or population growth in a geographic area if it meets any one of the four criteria: (1) removal of an impediment to growth (e.g., establishment of an essential public service or the provisions of new access to an area); (2) economic expansion or growth (e.g., changes in revenue base, employment expansion, etc.); (3) establishment of a precedent-setting action (e.g., an innovation, a change in zoning or general plan amendment approval); or (4) development or encroachment in an isolated area or one adjacent to open space (being different from an “infill” type of project).

The Project and Project Alternatives would not introduce features such as other public infrastructure that draw other developments into an area. The Project and Project Alternatives would not encourage additional growth in the area; growth would occur consistent with the City of Glendale General Plan. Additionally, no significant infrastructure that could serve other development would be developed as part of the Project or Project Alternatives.

The Project and Project Alternatives would provide for ongoing energy needs of the residents and businesses within Glendale and would not significantly increase local employment or create other effects that could indirectly encourage growth.

Based upon these considerations, the proposed Project and Project Alternatives will not result in significant growth-inducing impacts.

15. Location of Custodian of Documents
Section 21081.6(a)(2) of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guideline Section 15091(e) require that the public agency shall specific the location of the custodian of the documents or other materials that constitute the record upon which its decision is based.

Accordingly, the record and custodian of documents is the Glendale Planning Department, 633 East Broadway, Room 103, Glendale, California, 91206-4386.

APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of ________________, 2022. _________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
87 of 983
15 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
I, Aram Adjemian, Clerk of the City of Glendale, certify that the foregoing Resolution No. ________________ was adopted by the Council of the City of Glendale, California, at a regular meeting held on the _______ day of ____________________, 2022, and that same was adopted by the following vote:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

________________________________
City Clerk
88 of 983
16 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf Exhibit A - Impact Analysis

1.0 Environmental Effects Which Were Analyzed in the Initial Study (IS) and Determined to have No Impact or a Less than Significant Impact As a result of the Initial Study, in connection with preparation of the Notice of Preparation for the EIR, the City determined, based upon the threshold criteria for significance, that the Grayson Repowering Project, now referred to as the Project, would have “no impact” or a “less than significant impact” on the following environmental factors, and therefore, determined these potential environmental effects would not be carried forward and addressed further in the 2018 Draft EIR.

Based upon the environmental analysis presented in the EIR, and the comments received on the 2018 Final EIR and PR-DEIR, no substantial evidence was submitted to or identified by the City which indicated that the Project would have an impact on the following environmental areas:

1.1 Aesthetics
a) Scenic Vista: The Project site is in the City of Glendale at 800 Air Way, Glendale, CA 91201, just northeast of the Interstate 5 and Highway 134 interchange. The site has a flat topography and is bounded to the south by the Verdugo Wash and Highway 134, to the west by the Los Angeles River and Interstate 5, to the north by commercial property and to the east by commercial property and then residential property. No scenic vistas, as identified in the City’s Open Space and Conservation Element (January 1993), exist within or in proximity to the Project site. Therefore, there would be no impact on a scenic vista.

This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15063 (c)(3).
b) State Scenic Highway: The Project site is currently developed as the Grayson Power Plant and there are no unique geological features on the Project site. In addition, according to the City of Glendale General Plan established by Caltrans “California Scenic Highway Mapping System,” there are no state scenic highways located adjacent to, or within view of, the Project site. Therefore, no impacts to scenic resources within a state scenic highway would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.

1.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
a) Prime Farmland to Non-Farmland: The California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping, and Monitoring Program (FMMP), compiles Important Farmland maps pursuant to the provisions of Section 65570 of the California Government Code. Based on this resource, there is no existing prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance within or adjacent to the Project site and no agricultural activities take place on the Project site. No agricultural use zone currently exists within the City of Glendale, nor are any agricultural zones proposed. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
89 of 983
17 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf b) Williamson Act: Williamson Act contracts restrict land development of contract lands. The contracts typically limit land use in contract lands to agriculture, recreation, and open space, unless otherwise stated in the contract. The proposed property is not in the Williamson Act Conservation Contract database. Because the Project site is not part of a Williamson Act contract, no impacts associated with this issue would occur with development of the Project. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. c) Conflict with Forest Land: There is no existing zoning of forest land or timberland in the City of Glendale. Therefore, no impacts to these resources are expected to occur as a result of this Project. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. d) Loss of Forest Land: There is no forestland within the City of Glendale. No forestland would be converted to non-forest use under the Project. Therefore, no impacts are expected to occur as a result of this Project. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
e) Conversion of Farmland or Forest land: There is no farmland in the vicinity of or on the Project site. The Project would not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. No impacts are expected to occur as a result of this Project. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.

1.3 Biological Resources
a) Effect Species Policies or Regulations: The Project site is located in an urban area on developed land for the existing Grayson Power Plant and does not contain vegetation.

A California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) review identified several occurrence records of sensitive plant and wildlife species within ten miles of the Project. However, no sensitive plant or wildlife species were observed, nor was suitable habitat located during an October 23, 2015 field survey of the site and a 300-foot surrounding buffer area. The Project would therefore have no direct impact to sensitive plant and wildlife species.

Coyote brush scrub (Baccharis pilularis Shrubland Alliance) and willow thickets (Salix sp.

Shrubland Alliance) vegetation communities were identified in the buffer area but would not be directly impacted by Project implementation. Therefore, no impacts to sensitive habitats or species would occur from project implementation. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
b) Effect on Sensitive Habitat: The Project site does not contain any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Project proposes to use recycled water from the Los Angeles- Glendale Water Reclamation Plant (LAGWRP) rather than potable water for generation system cooling. There is riparian habitat downstream of the LAGWRP that could be affected if there was a substantial diversion of effluent supporting this habitat as a result of the Project. The Cities of Los Angeles and Glendale jointly own the LAGWRP, for which the City of Glendale is a 50% owner of the facility. The wastewater treatment plant is rated for 20 million gallons per day (mgd) or 20,000 acre-feet per year. The plant produces between 16 and 18 mgd, which equates to an approximate volume of 16,000 to 18,000 90 of 983
18 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf acre-feet of recycled water per year. The City of Glendale’s allocation is between 8,000 and 9,000 acre-feet per year. Over the last three years, the City of Glendale has been using between 1,500 and 2,000 acre-feet per year of its allocation. The treated water not reused is discharged to the Los Angeles River. As a result, the Project’s use of recycled water is not anticipated to result in a substantial change in the volume of discharges to the Los Angeles River, particularly when considering that the LAGWRP is one of many water discharge sources to the Los Angeles River. Therefore, the Project would not impact a riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
c) Effect on Protected Wetlands: The Project Site does not contain wetlands and would not have impacts related to federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Project is adjacent to the Los Angeles River and would have no substantial change to hydrological conditions to receiving waters. Therefore, the Project would have no impact on wetlands. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. d) Interfere with Migratory Species: The Project site does not contain rivers, creeks, or waterways. The Project is located entirely within the existing Grayson Power Plant Site and surrounded by urban uses and wildlife species are unlikely to use the Project site as a migratory corridor due to the urban and industrial nature of the surrounding areas. The Los Angeles River and Verdugo Wash located adjacent to the Project site provide potential habitat for fish and wildlife as well as a movement corridor. However, as noted in the Reader’s Guide for the Los Angeles River Ecosystem Restoration Project, the development that occurs along the waterways and concrete channelization that lines on portions of the Los Angeles River limit the habitat quality and connectivity service of the system (City of Los Angeles, 2016). The Project would not involve any work activities in the Los Angeles River or Verdugo Wash nor would the Project’s use of recycled water result in a substantial reduction in the volume of discharges to the Los Angeles River. As a result, the Project would have no impact on the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors.

Therefore, this issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. e) Conflict with Protected Biological Resources: The Project would occur on developed land with poor quality habitat to support biological resources. The Project would not result in removal of vegetation or trees nor would it involve an activity that has the potential to substantially reduce the volume of discharges to the Los Angeles River from the LAGWRP that could adversely affect biological resources in the Los Angeles River.

The Project would have no impact. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. f) Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan: According to the Glendale General Plan, there is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan in the City of Glendale. There is a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) within the Verdugo Mountains, which is implemented with the intention to preserve designated sensitive areas. However, the Project is not located within the SEA. As such, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the SEA program or other habitat conservation plans. No impact would occur.

This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
91 of 983
19 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf

1.4 Geology and Soils
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Alquist-Priolo Fault: The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act (Act) mitigates fault rupture hazards by prohibiting the location of structures for human occupancy across the trace of an active fault. The Act requires the State Geologist to delineate "Earthquake Fault Zones" along faults that are "sufficiently active" and "well defined." The boundary of an "Earthquake Fault Zone" is generally 500 feet from major active faults and from 200 to 300 feet from well-defined minor faults. These maps are distributed to all affected cities, counties, and State agencies for their use in developing planning policies and controlling renovation or new construction. Based on a review of the Map of the State of California Special Studies Zones (Burbank Quadrangle), effective January 1, 1979), the Project site is not identified as being within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. As such, no fault rupture impact would result from the implementation of this Project. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
ii. Seismic Ground Shaking: Like all of Southern California, the Project site has and would continue to be subject to ground shaking generated from activity on local and regional-faults. As identified above, the Project site is not within an earthquake fault zone. The Project site has the potential to be subject to seismic ground shaking and failure during a major earthquake along the San Andreas Fault. The intensity of the ground shaking would depend on the distance to the epicenter and the geology of the areas between the epicenter and the Project area. In accordance with the California Building Code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24), seismic structure design requirements would be based on the Seismic Design Category (SDC) for the proposed structures, which is based on the Occupancy Category for the structure and on the level of expected soil modified seismic ground motion.

Compliance with the seismic design requirements specified by the California Building Code would reduce the potential impacts from seismic ground shaking and ground failure on building occupants and structures to a less than significant level. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. iii. Landslides: According to the United States Geological Survey Map, the area contains no major landforms, is relatively flat, and contains no potential for landslides. Additionally, a review of the State of California Seismic Hazards Zones – Burbank Quadrangle Map (released March 25, 1999) indicates that the Project area is not located within an “Earthquake-Induced Landslides” zone, which is defined as an area where previous occurrence of landslide movement or local topographic, geological, geotechnical, and subsurface water conditions indicate a potential for permanent ground displacement such that mitigation as defined in Public Resources Code Section 2693(c) 92 of 983
20 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf would be required. Impacts associated with landslides are anticipated to be less than significant. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. d) Located on Expansive Soil: Expansive soils generally have a significant amount of clay particles which can give up water (shrink) or take on water (swell). The change in volume exerts stress on buildings and other loads placed on these soils. The extent of shrink/swell is influenced by the amount and kind of clay in the soil. The occurrence of these soils is often associated with geologic units having marginal stability. The distribution of expansive soils can be widely dispersed, and they can occur in hillside areas as well as low-lying alluvial basins. A Geotechnical Study was conducted at the site in September 2015. This investigation found that the near-surface soils encountered in the proposed construction area are predominantly sand with variable amounts of silt. Based on experience with these types of soils, the Plasticity index (PI) is expected to be less than 15 PI, determined in accordance with American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) D4318.

In addition, based on the portion of the soils passing a No. 200 sieve (75 micrometers [μm], it is expected to consist of silt particles greater than 5 micrometers (μm) in size. The Geotechnical Study concluded that the soils are not expansive, as identified in the Uniform Building Code (2016), and do not create substantial risks to life or property. Therefore, development of the Project would have a less than significant impact from shrink/swell potential, subsidence or differential settlement and substantial risks to life or property are not anticipated. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. e) Soil Incapable of Supporting Septic Tanks or Wastewater: The Project does not include any new construction of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal system.

Therefore, there would be no impact. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.

1.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
c) Emit Hazardous Emissions: The Project site is not located within a quarter mile of an existing school and therefore, does not have the potential to expose students to hazardous emissions such as diesel emissions during construction. Therefore, there would be no impact associated with this issue. This was not further analyzed in the EIR. d) Located on a Hazardous Materials Site: The Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials site identified by Government Code Section 65962.5. The Project site is within the boundary of the initial investigations for the San Fernando Valley Superfund Sites, which is an area of contaminated groundwater covering approximately 7 square miles beneath the North Hollywood neighborhood of the City of Los Angeles and the City of Burbank. The use of an alternate water supply and the operation of the groundwater treatment system in the North Hollywood and Burbank areas have reduced the potential of exposure to contaminated drinking water at the San Fernando Valley site and will continue to protect residents near this site while additional cleanup activities are planned and implemented. Regardless, the Project is not expected to result in encountering potentially impacted groundwater. Therefore, there would be no impact associated with this issue.

This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
93 of 983
21 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf e) Located Near Airport: There is no public airport or public use airports within the vicinity of the Project site. The Project site is not located within the Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ). Therefore, the Project would not result in a safety hazard for people utilizing or working within the Project area. No impact would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
f) Located Near Private Airstrip: The Project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or heliport. Consequently, no impacts associated with this issue would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
g) Interfere with Emergency Response Plan: The Project would be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with applicable standards associated with vehicular access, resulting in the provision of adequate vehicular access that would provide for adequate emergency access and evacuation. Construction activities that may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic would be required to implement adequate and appropriate standards to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures. Adherence to these standards would reduce potential impacts related to this issue to a less than significant level. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
h) Wildfire Hazard Zone: The Project site is not located within the wildfire hazard zone as specified by the City of Glendale General Plan. Areas surrounding the Project site consist of urban development with minimal ground cover or vegetation. Because of lack of abundant vegetation and the amount of industrial development within the vicinity of the Project site, on-site and adjacent areas do not have the capability to support a wildfire.

Therefore, the Project does not have the potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires. No impact would occur, and this issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.

1.6 Hydrology and Water Quality
b) Deplete Groundwater Resources: There are currently two water wells on the Project site and the Grayson Power Plant uses approximately 20-acre feet of well water per year.

The Project would entirely utilize recycled water for generation process cooling thereby limiting groundwater use to domestic consumption by the plant staff and for emergency generation process cooling in the event service of recycled water from the Los Angeles- Glendale Water Reclamation Plant was interrupted. As a result, operation of the Project would utilize less groundwater and contribute more to groundwater recharge compared to existing Grayson Power Plant operation. Operation of the Project would therefore have a beneficial impact to groundwater resources. Construction of the Project does not include any component with the potential to deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge and would therefore have no impact. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
d) Alter Existing Drainage Pattern: The Project site is located on developed lands with impervious services. Stormwater flows via surface sheet flow to existing localized gutters, catch basins, storm drain piping and outfalls to Verdugo Wash and Los Angeles River. The 94 of 983
22 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf Project would include redevelopment of an existing site land use and equivalent amount of impervious surface subject to sheet flow. The Project also includes a stormwater infiltration component to improve site drainage and groundwater recharge potential compared to existing Grayson Power Plant operation. Operation of the Project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site. Project construction does not include a component with the potential to increase surface runoff in a manner that would result in on- or off-site flooding. No impact related to this issue is anticipated to occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. f) Degrade Water Quality: The Project does not include a component with the potential to otherwise substantially degrade water quality. No impact would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
g) Within a 100-Year Flood Hazard Area: The Project is not within a 100-year flood hazard area as identified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM; Panel 06037C1345F, effective 9/26/2008) generated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

The Project is also not within a 100-year Los Angeles River overtopping flood hazard area identified by the US Army Corps of Engineers Hydraulics and Floodplain Analysis of the Los Angeles River (US Army Corps of Engineers, 2016). The 2016 US Army Corps analysis indicates that overbank flow during a 100-year and 500-year storm event would impact Ferraro Fields on the southwest side of the Los Angeles River would not flood the Project site located on the opposite (northeast) side of the river. In addition, the Project does not involve the construction of housing. Therefore, the Project would not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area. No impact related to this issue is anticipated to occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. h) Redirect Flow Flows Because of 100-Year Flood Hazard Area: See above response. No impacts would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. i) Failure of Levee or Dam: There are no levees or dams within the vicinity of the Project site according to the City of Glendale General Plan and the Project site is not located within an inundation area or within the 100-year Los Angeles River overtopping area identified by the US Army Corps of Engineers. Therefore, the Project would have no impact related to the exposure of people or structures to flooding risks, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. j) Inundation by Seiche, Tsunami, or Mudflow: A tsunami is a series of waves generated in a body of water by a pulsating or abrupt disturbance that vertically displaces water. Inundation of the Project site by a tsunami is highly unlikely as the Project site is more than 15 miles from the Pacific Ocean. Seiches are oscillations in enclosed bodies of water that are caused by a number of factors, most often wind or seismic activity. There are no enclosed bodies of water within the vicinity of the Project. Because the Project site is not located adjacent to any enclosed bodies of water, no seiche-related flooding is anticipated to occur on-site. Due to the relatively flat topography in the vicinity of the Project site, it is unlikely that a mudflow would impact the site. There would be no impact 95 of 983
23 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf from inundation, seiche, tsunami, or mud flow. These issues were not further analyzed in the EIR.

1.7 Land Use and Planning
a) Divide Established Community: The Project would be replacing existing generating units and ancillary facilities and would not physically divide an established community. The existing power plant is in an industrial area of the City and there are no existing residential uses located on the property. The Project would not entail the displacement of any residential uses or the use of any land designated for residential uses. Therefore, the Project would have no impact and would not disrupt or physically divide an established community. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. b) Conflict with Land Use Plan: The Projects is consistent with surrounding development and does not conflict with the adopted plans for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The Project is a permitted use in the Industrial zone and is not anticipated to conflict with any applicable land use plan. Therefore, the Project would have no impact related to this issue. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. c) Conflict with Habitat Conservation Plan: According to the Glendale General Plan, there is no habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan in the City of Glendale. There is, however, a Sensitive Ecological Area (SEA) program in the City of Glendale, which is implemented with the intention to preserve these designated sensitive areas. According to the Glendale General Plan, the Grayson Repowering Project site is not located within the established SEA. As such, implementation of the Project would not conflict with the SEA program or other habitat conservation plans. Therefore, the Project would have no impact to local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.

1.8 Mineral Resources
a) Result in Loss of Mineral Resource: The Project site is located in an MRZ-2 for sand, gravel, and Portland cement concrete (PCC) aggregate. However, the Project site is located within a substantially industrial area surrounded by existing industrial uses, limiting its potential for mineral resource conservation or extraction. No mineral resource extraction, recovery, or processing activities underway on or adjacent to the Project site.

The site is not designated in the City's General Plan or Zoning Code for any extractive use. Implementation of the Project would therefore have no impact on the availability of known mineral resources in the Project vicinity currently available for extraction. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
b) Loss of Availability of Locally Important Mineral Resource: The Project site is located within a substantially industrial area surrounded by existing industrial uses, limiting its potential for mineral resource conservation or extraction. The Project site is not classified as an area of locally important mineral resource recovery. As such, no impact related to this issue would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. 96 of 983
24 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf

1.9 Noise
e) Excessive Noise Within Airport Land Use Plan: The Project is not within an airport land use plan. Therefore, no impacts to excessive noise levels as a result of airports in the vicinity of the Project site would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. f) Excessive Noise Near Private Airstrip: The Project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impacts to excessive noise levels as a result of private airstrips in the vicinity of the Project site would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.

1.10 Population and Housing
a) Induce Substantially Population Growth: The Project does not include new residents or extend any major infrastructure that could support additional development.

The incremental increase in power would serve existing demand, meet reliability requirements, and allow for increased integration of renewable energy sources into GWP’s portfolio to meet RPS requirements. The Project does not include new homes or businesses. No new substantial employment would be generated by the Project that could potentially contribute to additional demand for housing or services in the surrounding area.

In addition, the regional area has the required workforce that would commute daily to the Project site and would not require new housing infrastructure. The workforce required to operate the Project would be similar to that required to operate the existing power plant.

Therefore, the Project would not have impacts related to population growth. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
b) Displace Existing Housing: The Project would not result in the removal or demolition of any residential units because there are no existing residential units on the property. The Project would not entail the displacement of any residential uses or the use of any land designated for residential uses. No impacts would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
c) Displace Substantial Amount of People: The Project would not result in the removal or demolition of any existing residential units because there are no existing residential uses on the property. The Project would not entail the displacement of any residential uses or the uses of any land designated for residential use. Therefore, the Project would not have impacts related to the displacement of people. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.

1.11 Public Services
a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impact, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios for any of the public services:
i. Need for New or Altered Fire Protection: The City of Glendale Fire Department (GFD) provides fire and paramedic services to the Project site. The nearest fire station is 97 of 983
25 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf Station 25 located at 353 N. Chevy Chase Drive, approximately two miles from the Project site. The Project would not cause an incremental increase in the need for fire service due to the Project’s replacing of existing generating units and ancillary facilities. The Project is required to comply with all Fire Department standards and policies, including installation of public and private fire hydrants as specified by the Glendale Fire Department. The Project would comply with the City’s latest standards and will therefore, improve the site’s existing conditions. For these reasons, the Project would have no impact. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
ii. Need for New or Altered Police Protection: Existing law enforcement service in the area would adequately meet the demand for police protection services under the Project because repowering of the Grayson Power Plant would not require additional services beyond those currently provided. Therefore, the Project would have no impact. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
iii. Need for New or Altered Schools: The Project would not adversely impact schools because no population increase or shifts in population would occur as a result of the Project. The Project would not include any residential population or increase the number of employees at the facilities. Therefore, the Project would have no impact. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
iv. Need for New or Altered Parks: The Project would not entail the construction of residential or commercial uses that would result in an increase in park usage. The Project is not anticipated to contribute substantially to meet the need for additional parks.

Therefore, the Project would have no impact. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
v. Need for Other New or Altered Public Facilities: The Project is not anticipated to adversely affect the City’s overall ability to provide services Citywide including school and library services. The Project would not create any significant increase in demand for library services. Therefore, the Project would have no impact. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.

1.12 Recreation
a) Increase Need in Parks or Recreational Facilities: The Project would not entail the construction of residential or commercial uses that would result in an increased use of area parks or recreation facilities. There are no increases to the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreation facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. Therefore, no impacts related to the physical deterioration of a park associated with the Project would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
b) Include Recreational Facilities: The Project does not include the construction of recreational facilities either on or off the Project property. Therefore, the Project would have no impacts. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. 98 of 983
26 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf

1.13 Transportation
c) Change in Air Traffic Patterns: There are no private airstrips within the vicinity of the Project site. Therefore, the Project would not cause any change in the air traffic patterns during construction or operation. No impact would occur, and this issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
d) Increase Hazards due to Design: The Project would be constructed in the existing boundaries of the Grayson Power Plant in which deliveries of large equipment do not require modifications or changes to existing City streets or state highways. Roadway improvements in and around the Project site have not changed and would continue to satisfy all City requirements for street widths, corner radii, intersection control, and design standards tailored specifically to site access requirements. A less than significant impact would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. e) Inadequate Emergency Access: The Project’s emergency access would not change in design from the existing and approved Grayson Power Plant. The Project would be required to be designed, constructed, and maintained to provide for adequate emergency access and evacuation. Construction activities, which may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic, would be required to implement adequate and appropriate measures to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures. The Project design would be submitted to and approved by the City's Fire and Police Departments prior the issuance of construction permits. A less than significant impact related to this issue would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. f) Conflict with Public Transit Policies: The Project site is located in an industrial area that contains an extensive network of sidewalks, bike plans, and public transit system. The Project as designed would not conflict with adopted transportation policies as indicated in the City General Plan. No impact associated with this issue would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.

1.14 Tribal Cultural Resources
a) Listed in California Register of Historical Resources: Based on previous studies and the 2016 Resource Study, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change to the significance of historical resources as defined in Section 15064.5, nor would the Project have impacts on significant local resources as defined in Chapter 15.20 of the City of Glendale Municipal Code. However, there is always a possibility that buried historic, cultural, or paleontological deposits could be found during construction and earth disturbing activities. In the event, buried historic, cultural, or paleontological deposits are discovered, regulatory compliance of State Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Code Resources Code Section 5097.98 would be implemented. There would be no impact to historical resources. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.

1.15 Utilities and Service Systems
a) Exceed Wastewater Treatment Requirements: Wastewater discharge from operation of the Project would be regulated by an Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit, 99 of 983
27 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf which establishes pretreatment standards for wastewater effluent prior to discharge into the City of Glendale sewer system. The Grayson Power Plant currently operates under an existing Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit. The existing Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit would be modified to address the new process of wastewater generation and treatment from the Project. Compliance with the Industrial Wastewater Discharge Permit requirements would ensure that the Project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the City of Glendale or RWQCB. Therefore, the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB. No impact associated with this issue would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. b) Require New Wastewater Treatment Facilities: The Project will rely on recycled water for generation process cooling and will result in a reduction of groundwater use compared to existing power plant operation. The volume of recycled water necessary for the Project’s wet cooling system is within the City’s allocation from the Los Angeles- Glendale Water Reclamation Plant that maintains a connection infrastructure with the Grayson Power Plant. The Project may also incorporate on-site water treatment in support of cooling tower operation. The project would not require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities. No impact associated with this issue would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. c) Require New Stormwater Drains: The Project site is located on developed lands with impervious services. Stormwater flows via surface sheet flow to existing localized gutters, catch basins, storm drain piping and outfalls to Verdugo Wash and Los Angeles River. The Project would include redevelopment of an existing site land use and equivalent amount of impervious surface subject to sheet flow. The Project also includes a stormwater infiltration component to improve site drainage and groundwater recharge potential compared to existing Grayson Power Plant operation. The Project would not require or result in the construction of new off-site storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities. No impact associated with this issue would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
d) Have Sufficient Water Supplies: Grayson has had 600 acre-feet per year allocation of recycled water since 1978. Recycled water use at Grayson in 2015, was approximately 370 acre-feet per year. The Project would eliminate the use of potable water in the generation process by increasing use of recycled water. The potential increase of 230 acre-feet per year of recycled water from the Project is within Grayson’s allocation. In addition, the volume of recycled water being used by the City has declined in recent years as golf courses and other large water users have reduced their demand for water. There are sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements. A less than significant impact associated with this issue would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
e) Wastewater Treatment Provider Determining Capacity of Facility: The Project will rely on recycled water from the Los Angeles-Glendale Water Reclamation Plant for generation process cooling. The volume of recycled water necessary for the Project’s wet cooling system is within the City’s allocation from and treatment capacity of the Los Angeles-Glendale Water Reclamation Plant that maintains a connection infrastructure with 100 of 983
28 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf the Grayson Power Plant. No impact associated with this issue would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.
f) Landfill Capacity: Similar to existing conditions on the project site, waste generated by operation of existing power generating units and associated facilities would be properly managed and/or disposed of in compliance with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid and hazardous waste management. Because the Project involves the replacement of the existing generation units and would not increase the number of employees on site, the Project would not result in increased waste disposal over existing conditions. The minimal hazardous waste that would be generated during project construction would be transported to a Class 1 landfill in California. The amount of waste disposed would remain similar to existing conditions and additional capacity would not be required. Therefore, operational impacts of the Project would be less than significant. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. g) Abide by All Solid Waste Regulations: In response to State-mandated waste reduction goals, and as a part of the City of Glendale’s ongoing efforts to reduce the landfill disposal of waste, the City adopted Ordinance No. 5478 in 2005 (Chapter 8.58 of the Glendale Municipal Code). The ordinance as amended by Ordinance No. 5627 in 2008, requires that the waste from certain construction and/or demolition projects be either taken to a certified mixed debris recycling facility or to a recycler that will divert all the accepted waste, such as concrete, metal, etc. from the landfill. The Project would be required to comply with applicable solid waste ordinances, and thus, would meet Glendale’s and California’s solid waste diversion regulations. In addition, the Project would comply with Chapter 8.58 of the Glendale Municipal Code and design requirements for refuse storage areas. Therefore, the Project would follow applicable federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste and impacts would be less than significant. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.

1.16 Environmental Justice
a) Increase Air Emissions Impacting Low-Income Communities: Glendale is not considered an environmental justice community and the Project would therefore not substantially increase project air emissions that disproportionately impact low-income or minority communities in proximity to the project site. No impact associated with this issue would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the Draft EIR. In response to comments received on the Draft EIR, clarifying information with respect to the potential for environmental justice impacts was discussed in Topical Response No. 12 of the Final EIR. b) Degrade Health and Safety of Low-Income Communities: Glendale is not considered an environmental justice community and the Project would therefore not degrade the health and safety of low-income or minority communities disproportionately.

No impact associated with this issue would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. In response to comments received on the Draft EIR, clarifying information with respect to the potential for environmental justice impacts was discussed in Topical Response No. 12 of the Final EIR.
101 of 983
29 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf c) Fail to Provide Participation of Low-Income Communities: Glendale is not considered an environmental justice community. No impact associated with this issue would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. In response to comments received on the Draft EIR, clarifying information with respect to the potential for environmental justice impacts was discussed in Topical Response No. 12 of the Final EIR. d) Cause Higher Impact on Low-Income Communities: Glendale is not considered an environmental justice community. No impact associated with this issue would occur. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. In response to comments received on the Draft EIR, clarifying information with respect to the potential for environmental justice impacts was discussed in Topical Response No. 12 of the Final EIR.

1.17 Socioeconomics
a) Alter Existing Economic Characteristics: The Project involves repowering an existing power plant which would not change the economic characteristics in the vicinity or the region. The local and regional economy would support the construction and operation of the Project. The Project would require a maximum workforce of approximately 250 workers, which would cause no adverse impact on the socioeconomic character of the City of Glendale. The local economics of the City of Glendale would potentially improve with the purchase of local resources and employment of a local workforce. Therefore, the Project would not alter the economic base, fiscal resources, and economic characteristics of the vicinity and region affected by the construction and operation of the Project. There would be no impact. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. b) Increase Expenditures for Materials: The Project would not substantially decrease the expenditures for locally purchased materials for the construction phase of the Project.

In fact, the local economics of the City of Glendale would potentially improve with the purchase of local resources and employment of a local workforce. There would be no impact. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR. c) Result in Increase of Population and Housing: The Project would not increase the population and housing of the surrounding Project area by producing more electricity for developing housing Projects within the City of Glendale. The Project would not be producing more electricity. In fact, the Project is repowering the existing Grayson Power Plant. In addition, a potential increase in the number of workers to be employed each month by craft during construction and for operations would not increase the population and housing of the surrounding community. There would be no impact. This issue was not further analyzed in the EIR.

2.0 Environmental Effects Which Were Determined to be Potentially Significant by the Initial Study and Further Analyzed in the 2018 Environmental Impact Report
These environmental factors listed below were identified during the Initial Study to potentially be affected by the Project, and therefore were carried forward for analysis in the 2018 Draft EIR. The findings of the potential impacts were determined in the 2018 Draft 102 of 983
30 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf EIR to be either less than significant or potentially significant requiring mitigation to become less than significant with mitigation incorporated.

2.1 Aesthetics
(1) Potential Impact: Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.

Finding: The demolition and operation of the Project would have a less than significant impact on the existing visual quality and character of the Project site. The temporary impact of Project construction, however, would be a potentially significant impact. After the implementation of project design features, standard conditions of approval, and mitigation measures, the Project will have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Facts in Support of Finding: The existing Utility Operations Center Project site is bounded by a masonry wall to the east, west, and north. Therefore, construction activities, staging areas, and construction vehicles within the existing Utility Operations Center boundaries would be primarily screened and generally not visible to sensitive viewer groups. However, temporary construction activities occurring near the south side of the Project site, as well as temporary construction equipment (e.g., cranes) that exceed the height of the 12-foot masonry walls would be temporarily visible to sensitive viewer groups. In addition, the construction materials stored at the offsite construction laydown area would be visible to sensitive viewer groups within the area (e.g., Griffith Manor Park). However, the increased presence of construction activities, and storage of construction materials would temporarily contrast with the existing visual character and quality of views throughout the Project area during the 27-month construction period. In order to minimize short-term construction impacts, implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) AES-1 would require the Applicant to visually screen construction activities and laydown areas and limit views of materials, equipment, vehicles, and other items used during construction from sensitive viewer groups. Once construction activities are complete, all evidence of the laydown areas and linear facility construction activities would be restored to the original condition or better condition. Therefore, with implementation of MM (Mitigation Measure) AES-1 impacts on visual resources would be less than significant.

AES-1: Screen Laydown Areas. Staging and laydown areas within view of residences, motorists, and recreational facilities shall be located away from public views or effectively screened using opaque fencing to limit views of materials, equipment, vehicles, and other items used during construction. All laydown areas shall be effectively reclaimed immediately following completion of their use. (2) Potential Impact: Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.

Finding: The potential for Project construction and operation to create a new source of light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area would be less than significant.
103 of 983
31 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf Facts in Support of Finding: There would be times during the construction/commissioning period when localized areas of the Project site would experience both increases and decreases in light levels depending on which phase/area of the Project is under construction. The sensitive receptors with elevated views occur at distances in which these changes would blend with existing industrial and urbanized nighttime lighting conditions. Lighting would be designed and installed to illuminate the Project site, and minimize spillover illumination into the Project’s immediate vicinity. Furthermore, lighting installed for the Project would comply with local policies and ordinances outlined in the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, the potential for the Project operation to create a new source of light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area would be less than significant.

2.2 Air Quality
(1) Potential Impact: Conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan.

Finding: The Project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of the applicable air quality plan because the significance levels of the Project from construction and operation activities are determined to be below the significance thresholds. The Project will use Best Available Control Technology to control the Project’s emissions.

Additionally, the facility will offset the required emissions in accordance to SCAQMD Rule 1303. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding: The maximum daily emission caused by construction activities were calculated to be below the significance mass daily threshold for all criteria pollutants as summarized in Tables 4-12 and 4-13 of the Final EIR.

The net increase of CO, PM10, PM2.5, and SOX emissions from Project operations are estimated to be below the significance daily mass emission thresholds as reflected in Table 4-26 of the Final EIR. Additionally, the ambient air quality impact analysis, as shown in Table 4-29 of the Final EIR, demonstrates that the Project will not be expected to cause or significantly add to a violation of national and California ambient air quality standards.

Furthermore, the net emission increase of PM10 and SOX will be offset using emission reductions from SCAQMD internal account to account for Rule 1304(a)(1) offset exemptions for replacement of functionally identical equipment.

The net increase of NOX emissions from Project operations are estimated to exceed SCAQMD’s daily mass emission significance threshold. However, the ambient air quality impact analysis shows the NO2 emissions from this Project will not exceed the national and California ambient air quality standards as reflected in Table 4-29 of the Final EIR.

Additionally, the increase in NOX emissions from the Project will be offset through the purchase of Emissions Reduction Credits in the open market and allocations from SCAQMD internal accounts.

The net increase of VOC emissions from Project operations are estimated to exceed the daily mass emission significance threshold. The increase in VOC emissions attributed to 104 of 983
32 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf the Project will be fully offset using emission reductions from SCAQMD internal account to account for Rule 1304(a)(1) offset exemptions for replacement of functionally identical equipment.
(2) Potential Impact: Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors).

Finding: Potential impacts relating to a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard are determined to be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding: The criteria pollutant emissions caused by the construction and operation of the Project are determined to be less than significant by complying with South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) rules and regulations.

Additionally, as shown in Table 4-29 of the Final EIR, the Project would not result in significant changes to existing air quality for which the region will be nonattainment under federal or state ambient air quality standards. Therefore, the impacts would be less than significant.
(3) Potential Impact: Potentially violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation.

Finding: As shown in Table 4-29 of the Final EIR, the Project is not expected to violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding: The air quality impact during the construction phase does not exceed the mass daily significance thresholds; and the air quality impact in operating the facility will be below the ambient air quality standards based on the air dispersion modeling conducted.
(4) Potential Impact: Potentially expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.

Finding: Potential impacts related to the exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations would be less than significant. The toxic air contaminants emission impacts from the earth moving activity would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is located in an industrial area of the City of Glendale at 800 Air Way Glendale, California 91201, northeast of the Interstate 5 and Highway 134 interchange. There is no K-12 school within 1,000 feet; the closes K-12 school will be Mark Keppel Elementary school, which is located more than 0.6 miles northeast from the emission sources. The nearest residential receptor is located approximately 694 feet (211 meters) from the emission sources and the nearest worker/commercial receptor is located approximately 572 feet (174 meters) from the emission sources. Both receptors are located in the northeast direction of the emission 105 of 983
33 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf sources. Based on the result of ambient air quality analysis shown in Table 4-29 of the Final EIR, criteria pollutant concentrations from the Project are expected to disperse substantially before reaching any sensitive receptors. The Project will neither cause, nor substantially add to an existing violation of state or federal ambient air quality standards.

Additionally, impacts from construction activities are expected to be below daily significance thresholds as well as localized significance levels as reflected in Tables 4-12 and 4-13 and analyzed in Section 4.3.4 of the Final EIR.

Toxic air contaminants emissions associated with the earth moving activity will consist primarily of combustion byproducts from off-road equipment and vehicles trips. The construction of the facility is anticipated to take place over a period of 27 months.

Therefore, toxic air contaminants emissions from construction activity are not expected to have significant health impacts on cancer and non-cancer chronic risks because these risks are typically assessed for continuous exposure for 30 years. Additionally, the heaviest impacts of earth moving activity can be expected to occur within the fence line of the power plant.

A health risk assessment was conducted following both OEHHA and SCAQMD guidelines.

Based upon SCAQMD Rule 1401 and the SCAQMD CEQA significance thresholds, a cumulative maximum individual cancer risk (MICR) increase less than 10 in a million is considered to be less than significant when Best Available Control Technology for Toxics is used. Additionally, in accordance with SCAQMD guidelines, a cancer-burden greater than 0.5 excess cancer cases in areas with an incremental increase greater than one in one million individuals is considered to be significant.

To assess acute and chronic non-cancer exposures, annual and 1-hour Toxic Air Contaminants ground-level concentrations are compared with the reference (safe) exposure levels (REL), which is developed by OEHHA. A hazard index (HI) is the ratio of Toxic Air Contaminants exposure of one hour for acute and long-term level for chronic from the facility to the REL. The total HI is calculated separately for acute and chronic effects. A total hazard index of less than one is considered to be below significance.

The MICR values for residential receptors are 0.91E-06, and for worker receptors are

0.06E-06, which are below the significance threshold of 10.00E-06. The acute HI values for residential receptors are 0.0073, and for worker receptors are 0.0065, which are below the significance threshold of 1.00. The chronic HI values for residential receptors are

0.0024, and for worker receptors are 0.0026, which are below the significance threshold of

1.00. This information is summarized in Table 4-32 of the Final EIR and shows that the health risks that the Project poses to nearby residential and worker receptors are expected to be below the significance thresholds.

2.3 Geology and Soils
(1) Potential Impact: Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction.
106 of 983
34 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf Finding: Potential impacts related to the exposure of people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding: The Project site is not located within a mapped Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Fault Zone (CDMG, 2002). The nearest fault is the Verdugo fault, located approximately 1.7 miles northeast of the Site. Based on available geologic data, there is low to moderate potential for surface rupture from the Verdugo fault and other nearby active faults during the design life of the proposed development. Because the site is located within a currently, mapped California Liquefaction Hazard Zone, a liquefaction evaluation for the site was completed. Results of this evaluation (encompassing the upper 40 feet of soils of the Project area) indicated that site conditions may be susceptible to seismically induced liquefaction in the event of a major earthquake (Stantec, 2015).

To date, based on results provided in Stantec’s Geotechnical Study, dated December 10, 2015, the implementation of applicable building codes and recommendations provided in the aforementioned report, geological impacts are expected to be less than significant. (2) Potential Impact: Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil.

Finding: With the implementation of required plans and procedures, impacts from soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding: An erosion control plan, which is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, would be required prior to any demolition- and construction- related activities. Such plans must include procedures and equipment necessary to contain onsite soils and minimize potential for contaminated runoff from the Project site. In addition to the erosion control plan, preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program (SWPPP), Dust Control Plan and Best Management Practices (BMPs) would also minimize erosion.
(3) Potential Impact: Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction of collapse.

Finding: Impacts related to on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction of collapse would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding: Due to minimal slopes at the Project Site, landslides are not considered a potential hazard. Impacts would be less than significant. Near surface soils in the unsaturated zone consist of loose to very dense silty sands and stiff to very stiff silt.

Loose, silty sands may be prone to volumetric strain resulting from cyclic loading of seismic activity. Surface settlements in the unsaturated zone were estimated to be approximately 11 inches, with differential settlements in the order of five to six inches.

Impacts would be less than significant. Lateral spreading typically occurs as a form of horizontal displacement of relatively flat-lying alluvial material toward an open or “free” face such as an open body of water, channel, or excavation. This movement is generally due to failure along a weak plane, and may often be associated with liquefaction. As 107 of 983
35 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf cracks develop within the weakened material, blocks of soil displace laterally toward the open face. Due to the depth of groundwater, the potential for lateral spreading is considered minimal. Impacts would be less than significant. The near-surface soils encountered in the proposed construction area consist predominantly of sands with varying amounts of silt. These soil types are not considered expansive, as identified in the Uniform Building Code (1994), and do not create substantial risks to life or property. It is not anticipated that soil will be imported for the Project. If imported soils are used for earthwork at the site, they should be tested for expansion potential prior to import. Impacts would be less than significant.

2.4 Greenhouse Gases
(1) Potential Impact: Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment.

Finding: Potential impacts related to the generation of greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: As shown in Table 4-37 of the Final EIR the net increase of Greenhouse Gases (GHG) emissions from the operation of the Project exceeds the significance threshold of 10,000 metric tons per year. The GHG emissions exceedance is solely contributed from operating the proposed combustion turbines and transformers.

However, the Project is required to comply with the State cap and trade program by reporting CO2e emissions from the Grayson Power Plant and acquiring allowances and offset credits to mitigate 100 percent of GHG emissions from the combustion equipment and transformers. Net emissions after mitigation will include only emissions related to facility occupants and will be well below the 10,000-metric ton significance threshold.

Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
(2) Potential Impact: Potentially conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Finding: Potential impacts related to a conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding: Even though the Project will generate GHG emissions exceeding the CO2e significance threshold of 10,000 metric tons per year, the Project will be required to comply with the State cap and trade program, which was established to support the State’s goals to reduce GHG emission to 40 percent below 1990 by 2030 and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Emissions from the Project will be fully offset through the retirement of GHG allowances held by Glendale Water and Power (GWP), and additional credits to be purchased by GWP. The Project includes installing and operating newer equipment that generates less GHG emissions on a pound per megawatt-hour basis than the existing equipment at Grayson Power Plant. In addition, the Project will allow the City to maximize the import of renewable energy sources through the limited 108 of 983
36 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf existing transmission capacity into the City which will further assist the City in meeting the Renewable Portfolio Standards and GHG reductions specified in the Greener Glendale Plan. The Project is therefore consistent with the Greener Glendale Plan. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

2.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
(1) Potential Impact: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.

Finding: The level of significance before mitigation would be a potentially significant impact. After the implementation of mitigation measures, the Project will have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Facts in Support of Finding: Soil contaminated with petroleum hydrocarbons may be encountered during subsurface demolition activities based on soil sampling surveys and analysis. Although it is unlikely to encounter groundwater during demolition activities, volatile organic compounds found in groundwater samples indicates that soil may be contaminated with volatile organics and could be encountered during subsurface demolition activities. Excavation, handling, and transport of contaminated soil and ground water has the potential to impact workers and the public if not handled and contained properly. The quantities of hazardous materials that will be used onsite during construction will be limited to the quantities required to complete construction of the Project. The potential exists for fuels, oil, and grease to drip from construction equipment. The volume of incidental drips of petroleum products is not anticipated to require clean up or disposal of hazardous materials. Spills of fuel may occur during onsite refueling operations if refueling operations are not conducted properly. It is not anticipated that spills related to refueling operations would be large and would be limited to the immediate area and cleaned up at the time of the spill using spill kits stationed on the fuel truck. It is unlikely that the volume of refueling spills will travel beyond the immediate area of the spill and impact offsite receptors. Therefore, with the implementation of MMs HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HAZ- 3, HAZ-4, and HAZ-5, the impacts to the public or environment through routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials would be less than significant.

HAZ-1: Prior to demolition of facilities associated with the Grayson Repowering Project, hazardous materials stored onsite and not required for continued operation of the facility shall be inventoried, packaged, removed, and disposed in accordance with a Hazardous Materials Management Plan prepared by the demolition contractor and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to initiating demolition activities.

HAZ-2: Buildings or equipment to be demolished containing lead based paint or asbestos shall be either decontaminated or encapsulated prior to removal from the Project site and disposed in accordance with an Asbestos and Lead Paint Management Plan prepared by the demolition contractor and submitted to the City for review and approval prior to initiating demolition activities. 109 of 983
37 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf HAZ-3: Contaminated soil encountered during demolition activities shall be handled, removed, and disposed in accordance with regulatory requirements and the Project’s Soil Management Plan.

HAZ-4: Hazardous materials used during construction shall be limited to the quantities required for construction and shall be stored and handled in accordance with regulatory requirements.

HAZ-5: Utility trucks and refueling trucks operating onsite shall have a spill kit onboard at all times. Small spills of petroleum products or other hazardous materials during construction operations shall be reported to the Construction Supervisor and a Spill Response form completed with a description of the type and quantity of the spill accompanied by photographs and a description of the disposition of the spill material. Hazardous spill material shall be disposed according to regulatory requirements. In the event of a large spill of hazardous materials equal to or above reportable quantities federal, state, and local reporting requirements shall be followed.
(2) Potential Impact: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.

Finding: The level of significance before mitigation would be a potentially significant impact. After the implementation of mitigation measures, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

Facts in Support of Finding: An off-site consequence analysis was performed for the accidental release of aqueous ammonia using the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency approved SLAB dispersion model. The analysis assumed the complete failure of the storage tank, the immediate release of the contents of the tank and the formation of an evaporating pool of aqueous ammonia within the secondary containment structure. Under this scenario, evaporative emissions of ammonia would be subsequently released into the atmosphere. The dispersion and transport of these emissions into the atmosphere would be subject to meteorological conditions at the time of the release. To further provide a conservative analysis of potential offsite consequences of an ammonia release, a concentration of 75 parts per million ammonia has been adopted as the applicable significance threshold. The 75 parts per million threshold is considered by the California Energy Commission to be the concentration the public could be exposed to during a one- time event without experiencing serious adverse effects. As it relates to the Project, a concentration of ammonia exceeding 75 parts per million beyond the property boundary of the power plant would be considered a potentially significant impact. The nearest property boundary is approximately 70 feet from the nearest ammonia tank. The results of the offsite consequence analysis for the worst-case release of ammonia indicate that the 75 parts per million concentration would extend 528 feet from the ammonia tank/release. This distance would extend beyond the Grayson Power Plant eastern property boundary and is considered a potentially significant impact. Therefore, with the implementation of MM HAZ- 6, the impacts to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and 110 of 983
38 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment would be less than significant.

HAZ-6: The surface area of the proposed and existing ammonia tank containment systems shall be effectively reduced by 90 percent or greater through the installation and maintenance of three-inch diameter high density polyethylene balls or similar method.

2.6 Hydrology and Water Quality
(1) Potential Impact: Violate water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.

Finding: During demolition and construction, impacts to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements would be less than significant. Based on the improvements to the facility’s stormwater management systems proposed as part of the Project, impacts related to water quality and stormwater discharge would be less than significant and would result in a beneficial impact.

Facts in Support of Finding: Soil temporarily exposed during excavation and grading activities associated with construction of the Project may be subject to sheet erosion during rain events thereby increasing the level of suspended solids in flows emanating from the site. In addition, the demolition of the existing facility may result in the exposure and/or disruption of contaminated soils, which may impact surface water quality during storm flows. To comply with applicable requirements of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program and, Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Control and Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan (SUSMP) of the Glendale Municipal Code, the applicant is required to prepare a SWPPP containing structural treatment and source control measures appropriate for the Project, which would be incorporated as a condition of approval. The SWPPP will incorporate BMPs that control pollutant discharges through the use of best available technology economically achievable (BAT) and best conventional pollutant control technology (BCT). Examples of BAT/BCT include straw wattles and/or hay bales, straw bale inlet filters, filter barriers, and silt fences. Implementation of the measures included in the SWPPP as well as those included in the Project’s Soil Management Plan would ensure that Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) water quality standards are met during demolition and construction activities associated with the Project. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant during demolition or construction. The proposed stormwater capture, treatment and infiltration system would result in improved drainage conditions and stormwater runoff quality compared to the existing system. Based on the improvements to the facility’s stormwater management systems proposed as part of the Project, impacts related to water quality and stormwater discharge would be less than significant and would result in a beneficial impact.
(2) Potential Impact: Potential to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. 111 of 983
39 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf Finding: Potential impacts related to the alteration of the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding: Construction activity associated with the Project may result in wind- and water-driven erosion of soils due to minor grading activities if soil is stockpiled or exposed during construction. However, this impact is considered short term in nature because the site would expose a relatively small amount of soil during construction activities and would then be covered with building and pavement upon completion of the Project. Soils disturbed during demolition and/or construction would be handled in accordance with the Project’s Soil Management Plan. Furthermore, as part of the Project, the applicant would be required to adhere to conditions under the NPDES Permit set forth by the RWQCB, and to prepare and submit a SWPPP to be administered throughout Project construction. The SWPPP would incorporate BMPs to ensure that potential water quality impacts from water-driven erosion during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. Furthermore, the SWPPP would incorporate BMPs by requiring controls of pollutant discharges that utilize BAT and BCT to reduce pollutants. In addition, Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Control and Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan of the Glendale Municipal Code, a SUSMP containing design features and BMPs to reduce post-construction pollutants in stormwater discharges would be required as part of the Project. Consequently, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
(3) Potential Impact: Potentially create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff.

Finding: Potential impacts related to the creation or contribution of runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding: As part of the Project, the applicant would be required to adhere to conditions under the NPDES Permit set forth by the RWQCB, and to prepare and submit a SWPPP to be administered throughout Project construction. The SWPPP would incorporate BMPs to ensure that potential water quality impacts from water-driven erosion during construction would be reduced to a less than significant level. As discussed above, the SWPPP would incorporate BMPs by requiring controls of pollutant discharges that utilize BAT and BCT to reduce pollutants. In addition, Stormwater and Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Control and Standard Urban Stormwater Mitigation Plan of the Glendale Municipal Code, a SUSMP containing design features and BMPs to reduce post- construction pollutants in stormwater discharges would be required as part of the Project.

Consequently, impacts are considered to be less than significant.

2.7 Noise
112 of 983
40 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf (1) Potential Impact: Potential to expose persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.

Finding: The level of significance before mitigation would be a potentially significant impact. After the implementation of mitigation measures, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

Facts in Support of Finding: The finding classification was potentially significant because, with the exception of the power equipment supplied by Siemens, the final selection for the remaining equipment is not yet known. It is entirely possible that without the noise limits advised in Table 4.53, found in the EIR, the final equipment selected for the project could result in the Project exceeding the noise design targets and effecting significant noise impacts. The noise mitigation measures described below represent limits on noise emissions from equipment and Project components that are not part of Siemens supply.

These limits are reasonable and can be practically accommodated. Therefore, with the implementation of MMs NOI-1 through NOI-10, the impact of potential exposure to persons or the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies would be less than significant.

NOI-1: Noise Source and Required Noise Control Measures: Cooling Towers – The noise emissions from each cooling tower shall be limited to 57 dBA at 400 feet (107 dBA sound power level). Mats may be required to limit the water splash noise.

NOI-2: Noise Source and Required Noise Control Measures: Cooling Tower Fan Motors and Gearboxes - The sound power levels for cooling tower motors shall be limited to 98 dBA (85 dBA at 3’) the motors shall be placed on the west side of the towers.

NOI-3: Noise Source and Required Noise Control Measures: Fuel Gas Compressors - The noise emissions from each of the two fuel gas compressor areas shall be limited to 44 dBA at 400 feet. Compressor enclosures or properly designed noise barriers can be utilized. Under the current assessment scenario open air compressor equipment packages with total sound power level of 108 dBA were treated with 21-foot sound barrier to yield appropriate results.

NOI-4: Noise Source and Required Noise Control Measures: Water Treatment Area - The noise emissions from the water treatment area shall be limited to 48 dBA at 400 feet. It is expected that this level can be achieved through a combination of equipment selection, small enclosures and barriers.

NOI-5: Noise Source and Required Noise Control Measures: Boiler Feed Water Pumps for Combined Cycle Units - The sound power levels for boiler feed water pumps shall be limited to 105 dBA when placed outside near the respective HRSGs.
113 of 983
41 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf NOI-6: Noise Source and Required Noise Control Measures: Circulating Water Pumps for Cooling Towers - The sound power levels for circulating water pumps shall be limited to 101 dBA when placed outside near the respective cooling towers.

NOI-7: Noise Source and Required Noise Control Measures: Generator Step-up Transformers - Standard NEMA 95 MVA rated transformers or lower shall be utilized.

NOI-8: Noise Source and Required Noise Control Measures: Steam Turbine Building - The sound power level of the noise breaking out from the steam turbine building shall be limited to 95 dBA and 115 dBC (45 dBA and 65 dBC at 400 feet).

Specialized enclosures for the gearboxes shall be required and steam turbine building walls and roofs shall have an STC 40 composite transmission loss rating.

NOI-9: Noise Source and Required Noise Control Measures: Steam Pipe Rack - The sound power level for the steam pipe rack shall be limited to 82 dBA per meter of piping.

NOI-10: Noise Source and Required Noise Control Measures: Steam Sky vents and safety valves - Steam sky and safety valves shall be equipped with silencers to limit their noise emissions to 115 dBA sound power (approximately, 90 dBA at 5’). (2) Potential Impact: Potential to expose persons to or generate excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels.

Finding: Potential impacts related to the exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding: No significant vibration or ground-borne noise effects are expected during the construction or operation of the Project. Project vibration levels beyond the Project site boundary during operations are expected to be negligible. The operational vibration levels are expected to be well below the City of Glendale presumed perception limit of 0.01 in/s anywhere outside of the Project site boundary and as such, are not expected to be detectable. Predicted maximum demolition and construction vibration levels are below the preferred vibration thresholds. The Project would therefore not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels nor would damage to the nearby structures would be expected.

Potential impacts are less than significant.
(3) Potential Impact: Potential to create a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.

Finding: Potential impacts related to a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding: Overall, the Project noise results in a permanent increase in area ambient sound levels of less than 2.5 dB during nighttime hours and less than 1 dB 114 of 983
42 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf during the daytime hours. The change in the ambient sound level should be barely perceptible. Table 4-62, found in the EIR, shows the summary of predicted increases in ambient sound levels. During the ambient sound survey, the existing Grayson facility was substantially nonoperational with only a minimal amount of pieces of equipment running.

Correspondingly, the current ambient sound levels do not reflect the full operation of the facility and are thus understated. It is therefore expected that the actual change in the area ambient sound levels will be lower than that predicted. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.
(4) Potential Impact: Potential to create a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project.

Finding: Potential impacts related to a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Findings: A substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels may result from the demolition and construction activities associated with the project. Such increases will fluctuate with changing activities and to a certain extent be intermittent.

Some of the noisiest activities, such as pile driving will be relatively short term. Most of the noise sources associated with the existing operation will be removed. This should provide a considerable off-set for the construction and demolition noise effects at the nearby residential receptors. It should be pointed out that the current construction schedule calls for construction work to be done during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.

Correspondingly, construction and demolition noise is will comply with the City of Glendale Noise Ordinance. However, to the extent that is feasible and practical, the contractor will limit the noise effects from construction and demolition activities to between 65 and 70 dBA Leq during the daytime hours. Some activities may intermittently be above the 65 and 70dBA Leq levels. Overall, the temporary increase in ambient noise levels from demolition and construction actives will have a less than significant impact because thresholds for Project construction and operation will not be exceeded. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant.

2.8 Transportation
(1) Potential Impact: Potential to conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.

Finding: The level of significance before mitigation would be potentially significant impact.

After the implementation of mitigation measures, the Project will have a less than significant impact.
115 of 983
43 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf Facts in Support of Finding: Roadway segments in the local transportation network could potentially be damaged by truck traffic. There is also the potential for tracking dust, soils, and other materials from the construction sites onto public and private roads. Although relatively large volumes of loaded trucks have the potential to chronically damage roadways, truck trips associated with the project construction would be legally loaded. Any extra-legal loads needed for specialized deliveries, would be subject to a permit process involving fees and special requirements. The potential for damage to public and private roadways from construction traffic is considered significant. Caltrans District 7 has established LOS F0 as the minimum acceptable level of service on the freeway system (Caltrans, 1996). If an existing freeway system is operating at less than the acceptable LOS, the existing Measure of Effectiveness should be maintained. Segment 7 along I-5 has an existing LOS below the minimum acceptable level. The AADT for segment 7 is 294,000 vehicles. The Project would add an ADT average of 513 vehicles during the peak period (construction, January 2020). The construction trip distribution calculates that 65% of the 513 vehicles will utilize I-5. Therefore, approximately 334 vehicles may travel along segment 7 of I-5 consisting of 0.11% of the AADT along this freeway. The Project contribution of 0.11% is not expected to degrade the existing measure of effectiveness (MOE) along segment 7. The Project would generate a short-term impact at the San Fernando Road/Doran Street intersection by adding V/C 0.05 during the p.m. peak hour, which would exceed the City of Glendale’s threshold of V/C 0.02 for signalized intersections operating at LOS D, E, or F. As per the direction by the City, the Project personnel trip generation estimates assume that 25 percent of construction personnel arrive during the a.m. peak hour and 50 percent of construction personnel depart during the p.m. peak hour to provide for a conservative analysis. The threshold is exceeded when the total number of project personnel exceed 95 persons. As per Table 4-68, project personnel expected during the construction phase is 180 persons. Project personnel trips during the demolition and commissioning phases are not expected to exceed 60 and 35 persons; respectively. The intersection can accommodate 24 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hours before the threshold is exceeded. The additional traffic during the construction phase is directly related to construction worker parking on the temporary lot on Doran Street. This short-term significant impact is expected to be for a maximum 21-month time period (construction duration). Although actual construction personnel shifts may typically begin and end outside of peak traffic times, the potential temporary construction impact to the San Fernando Road/Doran Street intersection has been conservatively assumed to be a potentially significant impact. Therefore, with the implementation of MMs TRA-1 through TRA-8, the impact to conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit would be less than significant.

TRA-1: To accommodate turning movements by large trucks (CA-Legal 65 feet) and public safety on Fairmont Avenue, the demolition and construction contractor shall be required to prepare a traffic control plan for City review and approval prior to initiating demolition and construction activities that includes the use of large trucks entering and departing the Grayson Power Plant from Fairmont Avenue. 116 of 983
44 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf TRA-2: To reduce construction traffic at the San Fernando Road and Doran Street intersection during the p.m. peak hours, a construction traffic control plan shall be developed by the contractor, reviewed and approved by the City, and implemented for the duration of the construction phase. The plan shall include measures to limit vehicle trips to a total of 24 trips or less during the hours of 4 to 6 p.m. for the San Fernando Road and Doran Street intersection. Measures may include scheduling of construction activities or trip routing to minimized travel during peak p.m. traffic times, ride sharing, closing the parking lot, and/or other effective and verifiable measure.

TRA-3: The applicant shall ensure that traffic control is implemented for the duration of demolition and construction phases. Traffic control shall include construction warning signs on Fairmont Avenue (Trucks Entering Exiting), and monitoring (flag person) on public roadways as needed during large transports.

TRA-4: A construction traffic control plan shall include provisions for days when high truck traffic is generated (soil delivery days, peak concrete delivery days). The plan will include considerations for truck staging to ensure that truck parking/staging can be accommodated off the City streets.

TRA-5: Traffic control monitors shall direct traffic whenever heavy construction equipment is entering and exiting the plant as warranted to ensure public safety.

The traffic monitor shall be posted throughout the demolition and construction periods, as necessary. The applicant shall coordinate with the Glendale Fire Department in order to ensure that traffic control routes and procedures would allow for adequate emergency access.

TRA-6: All construction-related vehicles, equipment staging and storage areas shall be located in approved pre-determined areas that are outside of adjacent road right of ways. The applicant shall provide all construction personnel with a written notice of this requirement and a description of approved parking, staging and storage areas. The notice shall also include the name and phone number of the applicant’s designee responsible for enforcement of this restriction.

TRA-7: Construction traffic shall comply with the California Vehicle Code sections related to vehicle weight and width. Any extra-legal loads needed for specialized deliveries shall be subject to special permit requirements from the City of Glendale.

Should roadway damage occur along the haul route that is directly attributable to the demolition and construction of the Project, repairs will be assessed by the City and completed accordingly.

TRA-8: Fugitive dust control shall be implemented according to SCAQMD Rule 402, 403 and 1186, and California Vehicle Code Section 23114, and Building & Safety requirements. Dust control mitigation measures include:
• Soil stabilizers and dust suppressants to control fugitive dust levels from exposed soils.
117 of 983
45 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf • On-site water trucks to provide control of fugitive dust while soil is moved or disturbed.
• Off-site vacuum and broom sweepers to remove any fugitive materials from the public roadways.
• Track-out control to prevent dirt and mud from being spread to public roadways:
o Sweeping or spray cleaning trucks prior to leaving project site. o Adequate truck load covering.
o Limit on-site vehicle speeds to 15 mph.
(2) Potential Impact: Potential to conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit.

Finding: Impacts related to a conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit would be less than significant.

Facts in Support of Finding: Caltrans District 7 has established Level of Service (LOS) F0 as the minimum acceptable level of service on the freeway system (Caltrans, 1996). If an existing freeway system is operating at less than the acceptable LOS, the Measure of Effectiveness (MOE) should be maintained. Segment 7 along I-5 has an existing LOS below the minimum acceptable level. The Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for segment 7 is 294,000 vehicles. The Project would add an ADT average of 513 vehicles during the peak period (construction, January 2020). The construction trip distribution calculates that 65% of the 513 vehicles will utilize I-5. Therefore, approximately 334 vehicles may travel along segment 7 of I-5 consisting of 0.11% of the AADT along this freeway. The Project contribution of 0.11% is not expected to degrade the existing MOE along segment 7. Based on the foregoing analysis, the Project will not conflict with the Congestion Management Plan LOS. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.

2.9 Tribal Cultural Resources
(1) Potential Impact: Potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size 118 of 983
46 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.

Finding: There would be no impact to the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

Facts in Support of Finding: The City has notified California Native American tribes who have formally requested notification on CEQA projects under Assembly Bill 52 that the City proposes to undertake the Project. This notification affords California Native American tribes the opportunity for consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1.

The Fernandeno Tataviam Band of Mission Indians and Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians were notified by the City of Glendale and did not seek further consultation. On this basis, and also on the basis of the previous cultural resource survey which did not identify any cultural resources on the project site, the Project would have no significant impact to the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

3.0Environmental Effects Which Were Analyzed in the 2021 Partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report
Determined to be Potentially Significant

3.1Cultural Resources
Potential Impact: Potentially cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to § 15064.5. The Boiler Building is a discretionary historical resource and is located on the Project site. It would be demolished as part of the Project.

The Project would therefore have a direct impact on the Boiler Building and would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 14 CCR Section 15064.5. Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 would be implemented to reduce this potentially significant impact but would not reduce this impact to less than significance.

Finding: The level of significance before mitigation would be potentially significant impact.

After the implementation of mitigation measures, the Project would be implemented to reduce this potentially significant impact but would not reduce this impact to less than significance.

Facts in Support of Finding: The lead agency has elected to consider the Boiler Building a discretionary historical resource pursuant to CEQA and thus potential direct and indirect Project impacts were analyzed based on this determination.

Mitigation Measure(s):
119 of 983
47 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf CR-1: Prior to demolition of the Boiler Building, the City shall prepare Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) documentation for the Boiler Building. That documentation shall include preparation of a written narrative, photography, and drawings that meet the latest requirements in HAER History, Photography, and Drawing Guidelines.

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 City shall maintain the HAER documentation at the Glendale Central Public Library and information about accessing that information shall be available on the City’s website. HAER documentation, as described, shall be complete and accepted by the HAER program before any demolition or dismantling of the Boiler Building. The City shall also display up to four (4) archival quality photographs of the historic Boiler Building in a publicly accessible location within the City’s Perkins Building,
CR-2: City shall provide permanent plaque to be located at the Flower Street entrance to the Grayson Power Plant that identifies the location of the former historic Boiler Building and provides a narrative statement about the Boiler Building that provides historic context
CR-3: City shall salvage and preserve a piece of equipment from the Boiler Building and display the piece of equipment along with an historic context statement in a publicly accessible location in the City.

Determined to have No Impact or a Less than Significant Impact

3.2 Paleontological Resources
Potential Impact: Potentially directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature. Demolition to implement the proposed Project may involve ground disturbance into previously undisturbed sediments in order to remove existing piles or soils that may have been contaminated. Therefore, demolition associated with this Project may have either direct or indirect impacts on paleontological resources.

Construction plans include excavations across the Project area, including areas with up to 20 feet beyond current depths of development, placing the total depths of excavation into high potential sediments that are expected to begin at around 10 feet bgs. Where ground disturbance extends beyond 10 feet bgs into previously undisturbed sediments, either in entirely undisturbed areas or beneath the depth of previous disturbance, sediments with high paleontological potential will be encountered. Operation plans do not involve ground disturbance into previously undisturbed sediments. Therefore, the Project would have no potential to directly or indirectly impact paleontological resources from operation.

Finding: The level of significance before mitigation would be potentially significant impact.

After the implementation of mitigation measures, the Project will have a less than significant impact.

Facts in Support of Finding:
120 of 983
48 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf Mitigation Measures:

PAL-1: Worker training. A paleontologist who meets professional paleontological standards as defined by Murphey et al. (2019) shall design a Worker’s Environmental Awareness Program reviewed and approved by a qualified consultant retained by the City that will provide training that communicates requirements and procedures for the inadvertent discovery of paleontological resources during construction, to be delivered by the paleontologist or their designee to the construction crew prior to the onset of ground disturbance. The training will be provided by a qualified paleontologist.

PAL-2: Paleontological Monitoring. A paleontologist meeting professional standards as defined by Murphey et al. (2019) shall be retained to oversee all aspects of paleontological mitigation, including the development and implementation of a Paleontological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan (PMMP) tailored to the Project that provides for paleontological monitoring of earthwork and ground disturbing activities into undisturbed geologic units with high paleontological potential (undisturbed sediments over 10 feet in depth), to be conducted by a paleontological monitor meeting professional standards (Murphey et al. 2019).

PAL-3: Inadvertent Discoveries. In the event that paleontological resources are encountered during construction activities, all work must stop in the immediate vicinity of the finds while the paleontological monitor documents the find and the designated project paleontologist assesses the find. Should the qualified paleontologist assess the find as significant, it should be collected and curated in an accredited repository along with all necessary associated data.

3.3 Energy
Potential Impact: Potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation.

The Project would have less than significant impact on Demolition, Construction, and Operations for, Electricity, Natural Gas. Transportation Fuel, Solid Waste.

3.4 Wildfire
Potential Impact: Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed Project is not listed within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone; however, the land located to the southwest across the Los Angeles River is so classified. The Project site is already developed, and the Project will not block or hinder existing vehicular or pedestrian access along public roads. The Project would be designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with applicable standards associated with vehicular access. By complying with applicable standards, the proposed Project would provide adequate vehicular access that would ensure adequate emergency access and evacuation as described in the City of Glendale Emergency Plan (Glendale 2008). In the event of a wildfire, traffic control points would be established that would ensure people will be safely evacuated from the Project area. Demolition and construction activities may temporarily restrict vehicular traffic on Fairmont Avenue and San Fernando 121 of 983
49 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf Road; however, in the event of an emergency during construction, the Project would be required to facilitate the passage of persons and vehicles through/around any required road closures. Adherence to these standards would reduce potential impacts related to this issue to a less than significant level.

Potential Impact: Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. The proposed Project is not located within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The nearest Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone is located approximately 0.10 miles from the Project across the concrete-lined channel of the Los Angeles River. The Project site is flat, and urban, and winds are generally not strong, with the strongest winds blowing south to southwest towards the land classified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. The probability of a wildfire to spread from the Project site to the Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone as a result of Project demolition and construction would be low due to the divide created by the concrete-lined channel of the Los Angeles River. Moreover, the existing Grayson Power Plant is completely paved and flat, within an urban environment, and no vegetative fuel is present onsite.

Operational impacts associated with exacerbated wildfire risks and increased potential exposures to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or an uncontrolled spread of wildfire could occur if operation of the proposed Project would result in an increased baseline wildfire risk or generate increased sources of ignition.

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

The existing site is predominantly paved (concrete and asphalt) with no vegetation. Fuel breaks would not be required. The proposed Project is an electrical generation facility located at and within the exiting Utility Operations Center. All electrical connections would be within the Utility Operations Center and no new external connections are required.

Operation of the proposed Project would be limited to activities related to energy generation within the enclosed Project site footprint. During operation of the proposed Project, the City’s existing 8- and 12-inch potable water distribution system that is currently providing fire protection for the existing Grayson Power Plant would provide access to water for fire protection at all times.

Potential Impact Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Demolition activities would result in temporary exposure of on-site soils. an erosion control plan, which is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer, would be required prior to any demolition- and construction-related activities.

Such plans must include procedures and equipment necessary to contain on-site soils and minimize potential for contaminated runoff from the Project site. In addition to the erosion control plan, preparation, and implementation of a Stormwater Prevention Plan, Dust Control Plan and (BMPs would also minimize erosion. The proposed Project topography is relatively flat resulting in low risk for landslides. The proposed Project would not increase 122 of 983
50 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c1.pdf the risk of flooding or landslides after a wildfire compared to existing conditions. As a result, Project-related impacts from demolition would be less than significant. 123 of 983
1 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c2.pdf RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING GRAYSON REPOWERING PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 7 (TESLA/WARTSILA PROJECT ALTERNATIVE), ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF

OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT

THEREOF, ADOPTING A MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO TAKE ACTIONS IN FURTHERANCE

THEREOF
WHEREAS, the City's aging Grayson Power Plant is experiencing an increasing frequency in unplanned and forced outages, which threaten local reliability; and WHEREAS, a majority of the existing generation units at the Grayson Power Plant would no longer be allowed to continue operating beyond 2023 without major air quality retrofits to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District emissions limits; and
WHEREAS, without the Grayson Power Plant, the City will not have sufficient sources of power to meet energy demand within the City while maintaining sufficient power reserves; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Department of Water and Power studied Alternative 7, the Tesla/Wartsila Project Alternative, as one of the Project Alternatives in the 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2016121048 (“2022 Final EIR”), as an option to repower the existing Grayson Power Plant and determined the Tesla/Wartsila Project Alternative would meet the proposed Project objectives and would result in the fewest potential environmental impacts when compared to the proposed Project and other alternatives evaluated; and
WHEREAS, the 2022 Final EIR was prepared for the proposed Project in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq. (“State CEQA Guidelines”), and the Guidelines of the City of Glendale for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (“City CEQA Guidelines”) and released the 2022 Final EIR on January 20, 2022; and WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, at a duly-noticed public meeting, the City Council certified that (i) the 2022 Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines, (ii) the 2022 Final EIR has been presented to the City Council at a duly-noticed public meeting and the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the 2022 Final EIR, and (iii) the 2022 Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of Glendale as the Lead Agency; and
124 of 983
2 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c2.pdf WHEREAS, by adopting this resolution City has selected Alternative 7 for the repowering of the Grayson Power Plant, and as required by the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and 15093 is hereby adopting written findings for each of the significant impacts of Alternative 7 accompanied by a brief explanation for the rationale for each finding; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines section 15091(d) requires that when the agency makes findings pursuant to section 15091(a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to this Resolution the City is adopting the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) attached to the 2022 Final EIR, which MMRP shall be made fully enforceable through any permit conditions, agreements or other measures associated with the approval and implementation of Alternative 7.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Glendale, California that:

SECTION 1. The recitals herein above are incorporated herein by this reference and made a part of the findings in support of this resolution.

SECTION 2. Alternative 7 of Grayson Repowering Project, the Tesla/Wartsila Project Alternative, defined herein as:
A 75 MW/300 MWH energy storage system;
Five Wartsila reciprocating internal combustion engine units producing approximately 93 MW net at average annual site conditions;
A new switching station; and
Related facilities,
is hereby approved, adopted, and shall hereafter be known as the Tesla/Wartsila Project Alternative, and may referred herein as Alternative 7.

SECTION 3. The following Findings and Determinations are hereby adopted by the City Council as required by Public Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 in conjunction with the approval of Alternative 7.

Statement of Overriding Considerations:
125 of 983
3 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c2.pdf Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(b) and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of Alternative 7, the Tesla/Wartsila Project Alternative, against the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the demolition of the Boiler Building associated with implementation of Alternative 7, and has adopted all feasible and reasonable mitigation measures. The City also examined alternatives to the proposed Project in the 2022 Final EIR, and has determined that adoption and implementation of Alternative 7 is a feasible, and appropriate action, and hereby rejects the Project and all other Alternatives.

Significant Unavoidable Impacts:

The proposed Project and Project Alternatives, including Alternative 7 (except for the No Project Alternative and Alternative No. 3 Alternative Energy Project), would result in the following unavoidable significant adverse impact after mitigation:

Demolition of the Boiler Building:

The cultural resource research and analysis conducted as part of the 2018 Final EIR concluded that there are no historic or cultural resources on the Project site, including the Boiler Building, and that the Boiler Building does not meet federal, state, or local historical resource eligibility criteria. However, subsequent to that determination, and after consultations with the Glendale Historical Society concerning the demolition of the Boiler Building for the proposed Project and Project Alternatives, including Alternative 7, the City elected to use its discretion to treat the Boiler Building as an historic resource and agreed to include feasible mitigation measures connected with demolition of the Boiler Building as part of the 2022 Final EIR. Nonetheless, even with mitigation, the 2022 Final EIR concluded that demolition of the Boiler Building for the Proposed Project and Project Alternatives, including Alternative 7 (other than the No Project Alternative and Alternative 3) will result in a significant and unavoidable impact on an historic resource because there are no proposed Project or Project Alternative components configurations that allow for either complete or even partial retention of the Boiler Building Alternative 7 would therefore have a direct impact on the Boiler Building and would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 14 CCR Section 15064.5. Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 would be implemented to reduce this potentially significant impact but would not reduce this impact to less than significance.

Benefits of Alternative 7:

The City has balanced the proposed Alternative 7’s benefits against its significant and unavoidable impacts. The City finds that the Alternatives 7’s benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts, and therefore those impacts are acceptable in light of the benefits of the Alternative 7. The City finds that each of the following benefits are an overriding consideration, independent of the other benefits, that warrant approval of the Alternative 7, notwithstanding the significant and unavoidable impact on cultural resources. Alternative 7 would provide several benefits as described below:
126 of 983
4 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c2.pdf

1. Replace the existing aging, inefficient Grayson Power Plant with a newer, more efficient, reliable and operationally flexible facility that will meet Glendale’s on-going and growing need for electricity.

2. Maintain reliable service.

3. Keep rates affordable to Glendale customers.

4. Facilitate compliance with state regulations regarding renewable energy supplies mandated through the Renewable Portfolio Standards and greenhouse gas emissions without the need for new transmission lines.

5. Allow the City to meet its existing and future electrical demands even if Glendale is separated from existing interconnections with the electric grid.

6. Replace the aged, unreliable, less efficient, high maintenance steam boilers with new efficient and cleaner electricity generation technologies.

7. Provide a locally controlled source of generation to minimize the City’s reliance on importing power from remote generation locations.

8. Support water conservation efforts by eliminating the use of potable water for generation purposes.

9. Allow the City to implement feasible battery storage as part of the City’s clean energy advancements.

Findings:

After balancing the benefits of Alternative 7, the City has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impact identified may be considered acceptable due to the specific considerations and constraints listed above and in the record, which offset the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts that will be caused by implementation of Alternative 7.

Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record it is hereby determined that:

1. All significant Aesthetics, Cultural and Paleontological Resources, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Transportation effects on the environment due to approval of Alternative 7 have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible; and

2. Any remaining significant Cultural Resources effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations above.
127 of 983
5 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c2.pdf

These Findings accomplish the following: (a) they address the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 2022 Final EIR for Alternative 7; (b) they incorporate all feasible mitigation measures associated with the potentially significant impacts identified in the 2022 Final EIR; (c) they indicate whether the potentially significant impact is less-than-significant or whether the potential significant impact is avoided or reduced by the adopted mitigation measures; and (d) they address the feasibility of all Project Alternatives and mitigation measures identified in the 2022 Final EIR.

The City Council hereby adopts and incorporates, as conditions of approval to any Resolution the City adopts approving Alternative 7, the mitigation measures set forth in the Findings below to reduce or avoid the potentially significant impacts of Alternative 7, as well as certain less-than-significant impacts. In adopting these mitigation measures, the City Council intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures recommended in the 2022 Final EIR, except to the extent such mitigation measures are specifically rejected or modified by these Findings. In comments on the PR-DEIR, a number of measures or project alternatives were suggested by various commenters as proposed additional mitigation measures or project alternatives. With respect to the measures or alternatives that were proposed in the comments, and not adopted by the 2022 Final EIR, the responses to comments in the 2022 Final EIR explained why the proposed mitigation measures are not recommended by the 2022 Final EIR for adoption. The City Council hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the reasons stated in the responses to comments contained in the 2022 Final EIR as its grounds for rejecting adoption of these proposed mitigation measures.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures
These Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City regarding the environmental impacts of Alternative 7, and the mitigation measures identified in the 2022 Final EIR and adopted by the City as conditions of approval for the Project or a Project Alternative. In making these findings, the City has considered the opinions of other agencies and members of the public, including opinions that disagree with some of the analysis used in the 2022 Final EIR.

Exhibit A, attached to the Resolution Certifying the 2022 FEIR and incorporated herein by this reference, summarizes the environmental determinations of the 2022 Final EIR about the Project’s environmental impacts before and after mitigation. Exhibit A does not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the 128 of 983
6 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c2.pdf 2022 Final EIR. Instead, Exhibit A provides a summary description of each environmental impact, identifies the applicable mitigation measures described in the Final EIR, and states the City’s findings on the significance of each environmental impact after imposition of the applicable mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the 2022 Final EIR and these Findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the 2022 Final EIR supporting the 2022 Final EIR’s determinations regarding the Project’s environmental impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts.

The City approved the Findings set forth in Exhibit A attached to the Resolution Certifying the EIR, as its findings regarding the environmental impacts of the Project and Project Alternatives, including Alternative 7, before and after mitigation. In making these Findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the 2022 Final EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these Findings the determinations and conclusions of the 2022 Final EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these Findings.

Basis for the City’s Decision to Approve Alternative 7 and Reject the Other Alternatives The City Findings Relating to Alternatives
In making these findings, the City certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the 2022 Final EIR, including the information provided in comments on the PR-DEIR and the responses to those comments in the 2022 Final EIR. The 2022 Final EIR’s discussion and analysis of these alternatives is not repeated in total in these findings, but the discussion and analysis of the alternatives in the 2022 Final EIR are incorporated in these Findings by reference to supplement the analysis here. The City also certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered all other information in the administrative record.

The City finds that the range of alternatives studied in the 2022 Final EIR reflects a reasonable attempt to identify and evaluate various types of alternatives that would potentially be capable of reducing the Project’s environmental effects, while accomplishing most of the Project Objectives. The City finds that the alternatives analysis and additional information provided in the response to comments in the 2022 Final EIR is sufficient to inform the City, agencies, and the public regarding the trade- offs between the degree to which alternatives to the Project could reduce environmental impacts and the corresponding degree to which the alternatives would hinder the achievement of the Project Objectives and other economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal considerations.

As set forth in Part 2 above, the City has adopted mitigation measures that avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project and Project Alternatives, including Alternative 7 to a less-than-significant level. Any remaining significant Cultural Resources effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations 129 of 983
7 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c2.pdf above. Accordingly, the City has determined that should it approve the Alternative 7, instead of approving the Project or one of the other Project Alternatives, these findings contain the substantial evidence basis for doing so and are set forth below and in the 2022 Final EIR.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the “environmentally superior alternative”.

Based on the alternative analysis, Alternative 7 would be the environmental superior alternative. The Tesla/Wartsila Repowering Project Alternative, Alternative 7, replaces the existing units with exception of Unit 9 with the following: Five Wartsila 18V50SG reciprocating internal combustion engine units producing approximately 93 MW net at average annual site conditions, and a BESS providing 75 MW/300 MWH of power and energy. This alternative, like the Project, also necessitates removal of the Boiler Building to provide sufficient space for the new facilities. Alternative 7 also adds a switching station to the site in place of the existing Glendale Rack to improve system reliability. The Tesla/Wartsila Alternative will meet all the Project objectives.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The City adopts, and incorporates as conditions of approval of Alternative 7, the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Chapter 7.0 of the 2022 Final EIR and incorporated herein by this reference in support of this Resolution.

The City Council hereby finds that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program meets the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.

Custodian of Records
Section 21081.6(a)(2) of the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guideline Section 15091(e) require that the public agency shall specific the location of the custodian of the documents or other materials that constitute the record upon which its decision is based. Accordingly, the record and custodian of documents is the Glendale Planning Department, 633 East Broadway, Room 103, Glendale, California, 91206-4386.

SECTION 4. Based on substantial evidence contained in the record and in this resolution, specific economic, legal, social, technological, and other considerations make infeasible mitigation measures or other project alternatives that would avoid or lessen the significant and unavoidable impact on historic resources identified in the 2022 Final EIR with respect to the implementation of Alternative 7.

SECTION 5. In furtherance of the Council’s selection of the Alternative 7 Tesla/Wartsila Project Alternative to repower the Grayson Power Plant, Staff is hereby directed to:
130 of 983
8 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c2.pdf a. Issue bids for electric revenue bonds for the Tesla/Wartsila Project Alternative, prepare bond documentation, and seek City Council adoption of a bond ordinance;
b. Complete negotiations for Final Notice to Proceed contracts with Tesla and Wartsila, and Issue a Final Notice to Proceed to Tesla and Wartsila to proceed with engineering and procurement for the Tesla and Wartsila power islands, and to proceed with construction once demolition work is completed;
c. Complete bidding process for Separation of Unit 9 from the Grayson Power Plant and enter into a contract for the same;
d. Complete bidding process for the demolition of the Grayson Power Plant and following award, enter into a contract for the demolition contract; e. Prepare and release a Request for Proposal for the Balance of Site Engineering, Procurement, and Construction contract for the work and costs to integrate the Tesla and Wartsila power islands into the Grayson power plant site; f. Finalize the negotiation of contracts for the purchase of emissions reduction credits for the Tesla/Wartsila Project Alternative and present the same to the City Council for approval; and
g. Release a Request for Proposal for the demolition/construction phase Owner’s Engineer.

Adopted this __________ day of ______________________, 2022. _________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
131 of 983
9 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c2.pdf

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

________________________________
City Clerk
132 of 983
1 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c3.pdf RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE, CALIFORNIA APPROVING GRAYSON REPOWERING PROJECT ALTERNATIVE 8 (TESLA/UNIT 8 REFURBISHMENT PROJECT ALTERNATIVE), ADOPTING A

STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND MAKING FINDINGS IN

SUPPORT THEREOF, ADOPTING A MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING

PROGRAM, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO TAKE ACTIONS IN FURTHERANCE

THEREOF
WHEREAS, the City's aging Grayson Power Plant is experiencing an increasing frequency in unplanned and forced outages, which threaten local reliability; and WHEREAS, a majority of the existing generation units at the Grayson Power Plant would no longer be allowed to continue operating beyond 2023 without major air quality retrofits to meet South Coast Air Quality Management District emissions limits; and
WHEREAS, without the Grayson Power Plant, the City will not have sufficient sources of power to meet energy demand within the City while maintaining sufficient power reserves; and
WHEREAS, the City’s Department of Water and Power studied the Tesla/Unit 8 Refurbishment Project Alternative as one of the Project Alternatives in the 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report, State Clearinghouse No. 2016121048 (“2022 Final EIR”), as an option to repower the existing Grayson Power Plant and determined the Tesla/Unit 8 Refurbishment Project Alternative would meet the proposed Project objectives and would result in the fewest potential environmental impacts when compared to the proposed Project and other alternatives evaluated with the exception of Alternative 7; and
WHEREAS, the 2022 Final EIR was prepared for the proposed Project and Project Alternatives in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. (“CEQA”), Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq. (“State CEQA Guidelines”), and the Guidelines of the City of Glendale for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (“City CEQA Guidelines”) and released the 2022 Final EIR on January 20, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, at a duly-noticed public meeting, the City Council certified that (i) the 2022 Final EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State and City CEQA Guidelines, (ii) the 2022 Final EIR has been presented to the City Council at a duly-noticed public meeting and the City Council has independently reviewed and considered the information contained in the 2022 Final 133 of 983
2 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c3.pdf EIR, and (iii) the 2022 Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City of Glendale as the Lead Agency; and
WHEREAS, by adopting this resolution City has selected Alternative 8 for the repowering of the Grayson Power Plant, and as required by the Public Resources Code and CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and 15093 is hereby adopting written findings for each of the significant impacts of Alternative 8 accompanied by a brief explanation for the rationale for each finding; and
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines section 15091(d) requires that when the agency makes findings pursuant to section 15091(a)(1), the agency shall also adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the project or made a condition of approval to avoid or substantially lessen significant environmental effects; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to this Resolution the City is adopting the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (“MMRP”) attached to the 2022 Final EIR, which MMRP shall be made fully enforceable through any permit conditions, agreements or other measures associated with the approval and implementation of Alternative 8.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Glendale, California that:

SECTION 1. The recitals herein above are incorporated herein by this reference and made a part of the findings in support of this resolution.

SECTION 2. Alternative 8 of Grayson Repowering Project, defined herein as:
A 75 MW/300 MWH energy storage system,
Refurbishing existing Units 8A and 8BC producing approximately 101 MW net at average annual site conditions,
A new switching station, and
Related facilities,
is hereby approved, adopted, and shall hereafter be known as the Tesla/Unit 8 Refurbishment Project Alternative, and may be referred to herein as Alternative 8; and SECTION 3. The following Findings and Determinations are hereby adopted by the City Council as required by Public Resources Code Sections 21081, 21081.5, and 21081.6, and CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091, 15092, and 15093 in conjunction with the approval of Alternative 8.
134 of 983
3 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c3.pdf Statement of Overriding Considerations:

Pursuant to CEQA Section 21081(b) and the CEQA Guidelines Section 15093, the City has balanced the benefits of Alternative 8, the Tesla/Wartsila Project Alternative, against the unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the demolition of the Boiler Building associated with implementation of Alternative 8, and has adopted all feasible and reasonable mitigation measures. The City also examined alternatives to the proposed Project in the 2022 Final EIR, and has determined that adoption and implementation of Alternative 8 is a feasible, and appropriate action, and hereby rejects the Project and all other Alternatives.

Significant Unavoidable Impacts:

The proposed Project and Project Alternatives, including Alternative 8 (except for the No Project Alternative and Alternative No. 3 Alternative Energy Project), would result in the following unavoidable significant adverse impact after mitigation:

Demolition of the Boiler Building:

The cultural resource research and analysis conducted as part of the 2018 Final EIR concluded that there are no historic or cultural resources on the Project site, including the Boiler Building, and that the Boiler Building does not meet federal, state, or local historical resource eligibility criteria. However, subsequent to that determination, and after consultations with the Glendale Historical Society concerning the demolition of the Boiler Building for the proposed Project and Project Alternatives, including Alternative 8, the City elected to use its discretion to treat the Boiler Building as an historic resource and agreed to include feasible mitigation measures connected with demolition of the Boiler Building as part of the 2022 Final EIR. Nonetheless, even with mitigation, the 2022 Final EIR concluded that demolition of the Boiler Building for the Proposed Project and Project Alternatives, including Alternative 8 (other than the No Project Alternative and Alternative 3) will result in a significant and unavoidable impact on an historic resource because there are no proposed Project or Project Alternative components configurations that allow for either complete or even partial retention of the Boiler Building Alternative 8 would therefore have a direct impact on the Boiler Building and would cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 14 CCR Section 15064.5. Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and CR-3 would be implemented to reduce this potentially significant impact but would not reduce this impact to less than significance.

Benefits of Alternative 8:

The City has balanced the proposed Alternative 8’s benefits against its significant and unavoidable impacts. The City finds that the Alternatives 8’s benefits outweigh the significant and unavoidable impacts, and therefore those impacts are acceptable in light of the benefits of the Alternative 8. The City finds that each of the following benefits are an overriding consideration, independent of the other benefits, that warrant approval of 135 of 983
4 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c3.pdf the Alternative 8, notwithstanding the significant and unavoidable impact on cultural resources. Alternative 8 would provide several benefits as described below:

2. Maintain reliable service.

3. Keep rates affordable to Glendale customers.

5. Allow the City to meet its existing and future electrical demands even if Glendale is separated from existing interconnections with the electric grid.

6. Replace the aged, unreliable, less efficient, high maintenance steam boilers with new efficient and cleaner electricity generation technologies.

7. Provide a locally controlled source of generation to minimize the City’s reliance on importing power from remote generation locations.

8. Support water conservation efforts by eliminating the use of potable water for generation purposes.

9. Allow the City to implement feasible battery storage as part of the City’s clean energy advancements.

Findings:

After balancing the benefits of Alternative 8, the City has determined that the unavoidable adverse environmental impact identified may be considered acceptable due to the specific considerations and constraints listed above and in the record, which offset the unavoidable, adverse environmental impacts that will be caused by implementation of Alternative 8.

Based on the foregoing findings and the information contained in the record it is hereby determined that:

1. All significant Aesthetics, Cultural and Paleontological Resources, Hazards & Hazardous Materials, Noise, and Transportation effects on the environment due to approval of Alternative 8 have been eliminated or substantially lessened where feasible; and
136 of 983
5 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c3.pdf

2. Any remaining significant Cultural Resources effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations above.

These Findings accomplish the following: (a) they address the potentially significant environmental effects identified in the 2022 Final EIR for Alternative 8; (b) they incorporate all feasible mitigation measures associated with the potentially significant impacts identified in the 2022 Final EIR; (c) they indicate whether the potentially significant impact is less-than-significant or whether the potential significant impact is avoided or reduced by the adopted mitigation measures; and (d) they address the feasibility of all Project Alternatives and mitigation measures identified in the 2022 Final EIR.

The City Council hereby adopts and incorporates, as conditions of approval to any Resolution the City adopts approving Alternative 8, the mitigation measures set forth in the Findings below to reduce or avoid the potentially significant impacts of Alternative 8, as well as certain less-than-significant impacts. In adopting these mitigation measures, the City Council intends to adopt each of the mitigation measures recommended in the 2022 Final EIR, except to the extent such mitigation measures are specifically rejected or modified by these Findings. In comments on the PR-DEIR, a number of measures or project alternatives were suggested by various commenters as proposed additional mitigation measures or project alternatives. With respect to the measures or alternatives that were proposed in the comments, and not adopted by the 2022 Final EIR, the responses to comments in the 2022 Final EIR explained why the proposed mitigation measures are not recommended by the 2022 Final EIR for adoption. The City Council hereby adopts and incorporates by reference the reasons stated in the responses to comments contained in the 2022 Final EIR as its grounds for rejecting adoption of these proposed mitigation measures.

Impacts and Mitigation Measures
These Findings provide the written analysis and conclusions of the City regarding the environmental impacts of Alternative 8, and the mitigation measures identified in the 2022 Final EIR and adopted by the City as conditions of approval for the Project or a Project Alternative. In making these findings, the City has considered the opinions of other agencies and members of the public, including opinions that disagree with some of the analysis used in the 2022 Final EIR.

Exhibit A, attached to the Resolution Certifying the 2022 FEIR and incorporated herein by this reference, summarizes the environmental determinations of the 2022 Final EIR 137 of 983
6 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c3.pdf about the Project’s environmental impacts before and after mitigation. Exhibit A does not attempt to describe the full analysis of each environmental impact contained in the 2022 Final EIR. Instead, Exhibit A provides a summary description of each environmental impact, identifies the applicable mitigation measures described in the Final EIR, and states the City’s findings on the significance of each environmental impact after imposition of the applicable mitigation measures. A full explanation of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in the 2022 Final EIR and these Findings hereby incorporate by reference the discussion and analysis in the 2022 Final EIR supporting the 2022 Final EIR’s determinations regarding the Project’s environmental impacts and mitigation measures designed to address those impacts.

The City approved the Findings set forth in Exhibit A attached to the Resolution Certifying the EIR, as its findings regarding the environmental impacts of the Project and Project Alternatives, including Alternative 8, before and after mitigation. In making these Findings, the City ratifies, adopts, and incorporates the analysis and explanation in the 2022 Final EIR, and ratifies, adopts, and incorporates in these Findings the determinations and conclusions of the 2022 Final EIR relating to environmental impacts and mitigation measures, except to the extent any such determinations and conclusions are specifically and expressly modified by these Findings.

Basis for the City’s Decision to Approve Alternative 8 and Reject the Other Alternatives The City Findings Relating to Alternatives
In making these findings, the City certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered the information on alternatives provided in the 2022 Final EIR, including the information provided in comments on the PR-DEIR and the responses to those comments in the 2022 Final EIR. The 2022 Final EIR’s discussion and analysis of these alternatives is not repeated in total in these findings, but the discussion and analysis of the alternatives in the 2022 Final EIR are incorporated in these Findings by reference to supplement the analysis here. The City also certifies that it has independently reviewed and considered all other information in the administrative record.

The City finds that the range of alternatives studied in the 2022 Final EIR reflects a reasonable attempt to identify and evaluate various types of alternatives that would potentially be capable of reducing the Project’s environmental effects, while accomplishing most of the Project Objectives. The City finds that the alternatives analysis and additional information provided in the response to comments in the 2022 Final EIR is sufficient to inform the City, agencies, and the public regarding the trade- offs between the degree to which alternatives to the Project could reduce environmental impacts and the corresponding degree to which the alternatives would hinder the achievement of the Project Objectives and other economic, environmental, social, technological, and legal considerations.

As set forth in Part 2 above, the City has adopted mitigation measures that avoid or reduce the potentially significant environmental effects of the Project and Project Alternatives, including Alternative 8 to a less-than-significant level. Any remaining 138 of 983
7 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c3.pdf significant Cultural Resources effects on the environment found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to the factors described in the Statement of Overriding Considerations above. Accordingly, the City has determined that should it approve the Alternative 8, instead of approving the Project or one of the other Project Alternatives, these findings contain the substantial evidence basis for doing so and are set forth below and in the 2022 Final EIR.

Environmentally Superior Alternative
CEQA requires a lead agency to identify the “environmentally superior alternative”.

Based on the alternative analysis, Alternative 7 would be the environmental superior alternative. The Tesla/Wartsila Repowering Project Alternative, Alternative 7, replaces the existing units with exception of Unit 9 with the following: Five Wartsila 18V50SG reciprocating internal combustion engine units producing approximately 93 MW net at average annual site conditions, and a BESS providing 75 MW/300 MWH of power and energy. This alternative, like the Project, also necessitates removal of the Boiler Building to provide sufficient space for the new facilities. Alternative 7 also adds a switching station to the site in place of the existing Glendale Rack to improve system reliability. Alternative 7 and Alternative 8 will meet all the Project objectives.

Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The City adopts, and incorporates as conditions of approval of Alternative 8, the mitigation measures set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program set forth in Chapter 7.0 of the 2022 Final EIR and incorporated herein by this reference in support of this Resolution.

The City Council hereby finds that the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program meets the requirements of Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code.

SECTION 5. In furtherance of the Council’s selection of the Tesla/Unit 8 Refurbishment Project Alternative to repower the Grayson Power Plant, Staff is hereby directed to:
139 of 983
8 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c3.pdf a. Issue bids for electric revenue bonds for the Tesla/Unit 8 Refurbishment Project Alternative, prepare bond documentation, and seek City Council adoption of a bond ordinance;
b. Complete negotiations for a Final Notice to Proceed contract with Tesla and Issue a Final Notice to Proceed to Tesla to proceed with engineering and procurement for the Tesla power island, and construction once demolition work is completed;
c. Complete the bidding process for Separation of Unit 9 from the Grayson Power Plant and enter into a contract for the same;
d. Complete the bidding process for the demolition of the Grayson Power Plant and following award, enter into a contract for the demolition contract; e. Prepare and release a Request for Proposal for the Balance of Site Engineering, Procurement, and Construction contract for the work and costs to integrate the Tesla power island into the Grayson power plant site and refurbish Units 8A and 8BC;
f. Finalize the negotiation of contracts for the purchase of emissions reduction credits for the Tesla/Unit 8 Refurbishment Project Alternative and present the same to the City Council for approval; and
g. Release a Request for Proposal for the demolition/construction phase Owner’s Engineer.

Adopted this __________ day of ______________________, 2022. _________________________________
Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
City Clerk
140 of 983
9 c:\inetpub\wwwroot\glendale\temp\cc_02152022_resolution_8c3.pdf

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) SS

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain:

________________________________
City Clerk
141 of 983

M O T I O N
Moved by Council Member ____________________________, seconded by Council Member ___________________________, that, in connection with the 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Grayson Repowering Project, the City Council provides the following direction:

Vote as follows:

Ayes:

Noes:

Absent:

Abstain
142 of 983
Exhibit 1
2022 Final Environmental Impact Report for the
Grayson Repowering Project, available at
Grayson Repowering Project | Proposed Grayson
Repowering Project
143 of 983
144 of 983
145 of 983
146 of 983
147 of 983
148 of 983
149 of 983
150 of 983
151 of 983
152 of 983
153 of 983
154 of 983
155 of 983
156 of 983
157 of 983
158 of 983
159 of 983
160 of 983
161 of 983
162 of 983
163 of 983
164 of 983
165 of 983
166 of 983
167 of 983
168 of 983
169 of 983
170 of 983
171 of 983
172 of 983
173 of 983
174 of 983
175 of 983
176 of 983
177 of 983
178 of 983
179 of 983
180 of 983
181 of 983
182 of 983
183 of 983
184 of 983
185 of 983
186 of 983
187 of 983
188 of 983
189 of 983
190 of 983
191 of 983
192 of 983
193 of 983
194 of 983
195 of 983
196 of 983
197 of 983
198 of 983
199 of 983
200 of 983
201 of 983
202 of 983
203 of 983
204 of 983
205 of 983
206 of 983
207 of 983
208 of 983
209 of 983
210 of 983
211 of 983
212 of 983
213 of 983
214 of 983
215 of 983
216 of 983
217 of 983
218 of 983
219 of 983
220 of 983
221 of 983
222 of 983
223 of 983
224 of 983
225 of 983
226 of 983
227 of 983
228 of 983
229 of 983
230 of 983
231 of 983
232 of 983
233 of 983
234 of 983
235 of 983
236 of 983
237 of 983
238 of 983
239 of 983
240 of 983
241 of 983
242 of 983
243 of 983
244 of 983
245 of 983
246 of 983
247 of 983
248 of 983
249 of 983
250 of 983
251 of 983
252 of 983
253 of 983
254 of 983
255 of 983
256 of 983
257 of 983
258 of 983
259 of 983
260 of 983
261 of 983
262 of 983
263 of 983
264 of 983
265 of 983
266 of 983
267 of 983
268 of 983
269 of 983
270 of 983
271 of 983
272 of 983
273 of 983
274 of 983
275 of 983
276 of 983
277 of 983
278 of 983
279 of 983
280 of 983
281 of 983
282 of 983
283 of 983
284 of 983
285 of 983
286 of 983
287 of 983
288 of 983
289 of 983
290 of 983
291 of 983
292 of 983
293 of 983
294 of 983
295 of 983
296 of 983
297 of 983
298 of 983
299 of 983
300 of 983
301 of 983
302 of 983
303 of 983
304 of 983
305 of 983
306 of 983
307 of 983
308 of 983
309 of 983
310 of 983
311 of 983
312 of 983
313 of 983
314 of 983
315 of 983
316 of 983
317 of 983
318 of 983
319 of 983
320 of 983
321 of 983
322 of 983
323 of 983
324 of 983
325 of 983
326 of 983
327 of 983
328 of 983
329 of 983
330 of 983
331 of 983
332 of 983
Clean Energy Alternatives for MeetingGlendale Energy NeedsGlendale Environmental CoalitionJanuary 2022 Glendale’s energy needs could be met with a portfolio composed of combinations of cleanenergy projects such as the following alternatives, which could avoid the need for the Graysonrepowering project as GWP has proposed. An expert, independent clean energy consultantcould advise the city on combining and balancing ideas.

Category 1: Solar and StorageGWP-Owned Solar1. GWP-installed solar on private property—GWP owns the energy produced2. GWP-installed solar at Scholl Canyon Landfill and/or city sites that allow smallutility-scale installations.3. Maximize solar at other city-owned properties and add distributed storageGWP-Owned Storage1. Additional utility-scale storage at Grayson, Scholl, or another site2. Storage installed throughout the distribution gridCustomer-Owned Solar1. Encourage new residential solar with net metering and other incentives2. Allow oversized residential systems and let customers sell energy to GWPCommercial Feed-In Tariff ProgramCustomer-Owned Storage1. Incentivize existing customers with solar to add storage.2. Virtual power plants, distributed energy resources controlled by aggregators3. Electric Vehicles as Grid Resources Category 2: Other Storage Technologies1. Flow Batteries—Vanadium2. Redox Flow Battery3. Iron Flow Batteries4. Zinc-Based Batteries5. Gravity-Based Energy Storage Category 3: Fuel Cells
Category 4: Demand Reduction and Load Management1. Incentives for demand response2. EV Charging Load Shifting Programs3. Automated load flexibility4. Massive outreach to customers re energy efficiency and demand response 1 333 of 983
Category 1: Solar and Storage
GWP-Owned Solar

1. GWP-installed solar on private property—GWP owns the energy produced ● Google’sProject Sunroofestimates the solar installationpotential on Glendale roofs asof November 2018 as 482 MW DC, and 739,000 MWh AC per year, with 79% ofGlendale buildings solar viable. (Source: Project Sunroof data explorer (November2018).)● 100 MW of local solar could be supplied by less than 8% of the total solar-viable roofarea, with energy storage to store the energy for use at peak time.● Glendale’s grid has 105 feeder lines, each of which can handle about 5 MW ofgeneration, for a maximum capacity of 525 MW. Solar can be distributed to generatewhere it is used.● Some of this potential could be fulfilled with GWP-owned systems on private property.Various ownership structures are possible, such as GWP leasing space and owning thesolar system, or a partnership model.● Economies of scale would allow for lower prices than individual private solarinstallations.

2. GWP-installed solar at Scholl Canyon Landfill and/or city sites that allow smallutility-scale installations.

A solar installation at the landfill site would need to have community input and approval, wouldbe instead of (not in addition to) a biogas plant, should preserve land for recreational uses, andcould include storage onsite if the storage technology (such as vanadium flow batteries or zincbatteries) has minimal fire risk acceptable to the surrounding communities. Otherwise therecould be energy storage offsite.

The landfill consists of 535 acres, of which 440 acres are designated for landfill operations.Portions of the landfill site are probably available now; when the landfill closes, more space maybe available. Some articles that discuss solar at landfills:● http://digital.mswmanagement.com/september-october-2021/articles?m=3927&i=719965&view=articleBrowser&article_id=4108843&uri=%2Fseptember-october-2021%2Farticles&ver=html5● https://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/solar-panels-landfills/ Solar Landfill Project Examples:

Amesbury Landfill Solar Plus Storage (Amsbury, MA): 16 Acres, 4.5 MW PV & 3.8 MWhLi battery.Landfill ground mount array. Project onlineDec 2019. Expected to produce 5,600 2 334 of 983
MWh. The City of Amesbury is expected to save around $4 million in municipal spending onenergy over 20 years, panning out at $200,000 or so every year, via a combination of energycredits, lease revenue, and tax generated by the site’s operations.Amesbury Landfill Solar Plus Storage Project | FHWA - Center for Innovative FinanceSupportAmesbury Landfill Solar Plus Storage - CS Energy® Sunnyside Solar Project @ Sunnyside Landfill (Houston, Texas): 240 acres, 50 MWPV, $70 million dollars.Largest project in the nation,will generate enough electricity topower 5,000 homes.https://www.wastetodaymagazine.com/article/solar-panels-landfills/Sunnyside will be home to America's largest urban solar farm at site of longtime city landfill Haverhill Solar Farm @ Haverford Landfill(Haverhill,MA):3.9 MW PV, turning onesection of a long-vacant, 55-acre landfill into a solar farm producing 3,919,000 kilowatt hoursper year, powering about 500 homes. City’s net revenue will be approximately $3 millionover 20 years.Work begins to convert old Haverhill landfill to solar farm, bring money to city Solar Landfill Project(Spanish Fork, Utah):27 acres,4.7 MW PV,will generate enoughclean energy to about 3,000 homes.Utah landfill converted to 4.7-MW solar project with Solar FlexRack's concrete ballastfoundation Other city-owned open space solar installations may be possible, and should be explored. Forexample, look to the Verdugo Wash Project for opportunities to install carport solar shade paths.

3. Maximize solar at other city-owned properties and add distributed storage ● With the consultant Black & Veatch, GWP is currently pursuing solar and storagedevelopment of city-owned properties. Black & Veatch is analyzing Glendale distributiongrid feeders to establish possible PV system sizes that can be added (without systemupgrades) based on location.● This project involves ranking sites for development based on return on investment andcreating a prioritized list for solar on city properties.● The list should be as expansive as possible to maximize local GWP-owned solar, notlimited to only the most financially attractive projects. This will maximize the solar-energycapacity from this project and allow it to serve a larger role in Glendale’s clean energyportfolio. The IRP assumed 10 MW of solar and storage on City sites, but there may besubstantial additional potential for this project.● Additionally, projects should go forward as quickly as possible so building can begin rightaway, rather than being spaced over years.This will help us build local clean energycapacity to serve demand in the shorter term before new transmission is available in2027. 3 335 of 983
GWP-Owned Storage

1. Additional utility-scale storage at Grayson, Scholl, or another site ● Battery storage of 150 MW/600 MWh would be sufficient to ensure GWP can reliablyserve peak loads, according to the 2022 Final EIR (p. xi), which said the constraint is alack of sufficient transmission capacity to charge the batteries.● Glendale’s local solar potential is more than sufficient to charge a 150 MW/600 MWhbattery system (seeGWP-Owned SolarandCustomer-OwnedSolarin this document).This is a potential solution to a lack of transmission available for storage.● Glendale could add 50 to 75 MW of additional storage at one or more centralizedlocations, beyond the currently planned Tesla BESS, to the extent that space allows.● Longer-duration lithium-ion storage technology is coming to market, and new projectprocurements have included 8-hour durations, such as a recent contract for 69 MW/552MWh storage for a community choice aggregator joint powers agency. (Source)● Storage project examples (Source:Assessment of Potential Energy Storage Alternativesfor Project 2015A in Peabody, Massachusetts, StrategenConsulting):○ Oxnard, 195 MW batteries in place of 262 MW gas peaker plant.■ 100 MW/400 MWh battery plus smaller storage units of 10-40 MW■ The 100 MW storage system was less than 1/2 the cost of the gas plant○ Oakland, batteries to incrementally replace 165 MW peaker plant■ As units are retired, storage is installed in the freed-up space■ A virtual power plant provides additional reliability and resiliency○ Proposed MA 60 MW peaker plant, vs stand-alone storage of 60 MW■ Peaker plant would have run 1,250 hours at full load (comparable toGrayson’s new units)■ A cost comparison showed the peaker plant costing $7.3 million per year,versus $5.8 million per year for a 4-hour BESS, after deducting expectedrevenues.● Advantages of storage over gas peaker units (from Strategen report)○ Storage has environmental and public health benefits, including less local airpollution impacts and reduced GHG emissions.○ Storage avoids volatility of fuel prices and better price stability for customers.○ Storage can be installed more quickly than gas peaker units (e.g., Tesla has saidit can install a 250 MW battery in 3 months).○ Gas peaker units have high marginal costs that limit their operation, so they don’tprovide much additional value beyond peak capacity. Storage units have lowmarginal cost so they can be used throughout the year and provide additionalbenefits and services. This lowers their overall net costs even if they have higherupfront costs, sothey are more cost effective overtheir lifetime.○ Storage is available now, unlike the hydrogen conversion that GWP promises asa way to make the gas units useful after they can’t burn gas any longer. 4 336 of 983

2. Storage installed throughout the distribution grid
GWP can install modular energy storage units at locations spread throughout the localdistribution grid, charge them from local solar produced by customer-sited and city-sited PVsystems on the same feeders, and use them to serve load on local feeders. ● Distributed storage can be installed without waiting for the existing Grayson units to bedecommissioned and demolished, and the site prepared for new equipment. Thissolution can quickly help provide energy capacity even before the old Grayson units areretired and before additional transmission is available.● Storage can be installed in modular form as part of the utility grid and would store energyclose to both distributed solar production and customer load. This proposal would workwell with GWP-owned distributed solar or customer-owned solar. Storage can be addedthroughout the distribution system to capture current and future solar production.● Adding storage systems in distributed locations will allow for greater energy resiliency forfeeders, during blackouts. This can help protect medically vulnerable residents andcritical facilities.● Installing storage throughout the distribution grid also helps provide further local storagewithout needing to build additional storage at the Grayson site. This allows storage to beinstalled in Glendale without requiring all space for storage to be available at Grayson.

Customer-Owned Solar

1. Encourage new residential solar with net metering and other incentives ● Solar potential of Glendale residential rooftops according to Google’s Project Sunroof in2019 was 483 MW peak output, and over 800,000 MWh/year. By comparison, GWP’senergy sales in a year were about 1,500,000 MWh, so the total local solar potential ismore than half of the city’s entire energy need.● Incentivizing private customers to install solar systems costs some money, but it meansthat the city doesn’t need to cover the entire cost of the solar arrays.Private investmentleverages public spending, and once paid, solar systemsprovide energy for the longterm with zero to low marginal costs, making solar one of the most cost-effective energyinvestments.● Storage options (customer-owned paired storage or utility-owned storage) to capture andstore customer-generated solar energy increase the value of solar dramatically.

2. Allow oversized residential systems and let customers sell energy to GWP ● Customers could sell excess solar energy to GWP at a rate above the importedwholesale rate (i.e., that values the energy for its local origin) but lower than the retailrate.● This could work like an overlay on the current net metering approach for solar generationand could be settled on an annual or more frequent basis. 5 337 of 983
● Encouraging customers to oversize systems will provide additional local clean energythat can fill GWP batteries.

Commercial Feed-In Tariff Program
GWP has introduced aFeed-In Tariff (FiT) program;however, GWP should look to LADWP’sFiTprogramfor a more robust model. ● A feed-in tariff program allows property owners and developers to install solar (and otherrenewable resources) and export the generated energy to the grid, rather than using it toserve their own electrical load. The utility purchases the energy at set prices, which canvary by time of day and the size of the solar array.● FiT programs are often suitable for properties with space for larger solar systems.● In Ascend Analytics 2021 “Glendale 100% Clean Energy Feasibility Study,” a projectionof 20 MW PV & 10 MW Battery (2 hr) was incorporated into projections. (p 20, table 4).We suggest a goal of at least 25 MW PV.● It’s possible for property owners to participate at no cost.The LADWP FiT programmatches building owners with qualified solar developers that install solar systems. Thebuilding owners receive regular lease payments from the solar developer. (Source).● LADWP’sFiT+ Pilot Programexpands on the existingprogram to further promote theuse of locally generated solar energy and to ensure the deployment ofenergy storageprojects. This pilot focuses on areas of the citywith the need for local energy capacity(with less transmission capacity) and with environmental justice concerns. (Source) GWP should support the Glendale FiT program through greater cost-sharing. ● GWP FiT fees (to participate in the program) include: application, reservations deposit,interconnection study fees, and the ENTIRE cost of interconnection design andconstruction.● LADWP FiT fees include: application, reservations deposit, interconnection study fees;however,the interconnection design and constructioncosts are refunded up to$150,000. (Note: When the German government institutedits highly successful FITprogram, it required utilities there to pay for all interconnection costs. “If grid upgradesare required, they are performed and paid for by the utility.” (Comparing Germany's andCalifornia's Interconnection Processes for PV Systems (White Paper) GWP should increase its project cap size.
● GWP caps the size of projects that participate in the FiT program. Caps are 1.4 MW(AC), with a 4.2 MW cap on the amount of energy that GWP will purchase.● LADWP maximum project size was recently expanded to 10 MW (info) to allow largerprojects. 6 338 of 983
GWP’s rate is too low to allow reasonable economics for an average commercial solar project.GWP should increase its rate. ● GWP prices offered (as of 1/2022): $90.92 per MWh (peak deliveries); $88.09/MWh(off-peak deliveries). This is$.091/kWhfor peakand$.088/kWhfor off peak.● LADWP, In-Basin, Solar PV Projects (pricing Sept, 2019):30 kW – 500 kW =14.5¢ per kWh(11.5¢ per kWh forNon-PV)>500 kW – 3 MW =14.0¢ per kWh11.0¢ per kWh for Non-PV)>3 MW =13.5¢ per kWh(10.5¢ per kWh for Non-PV) GWP should incentivize storage by aligning withSGIPrebate rules, creating a rate for storedenergy, allowing peak shaving, and encouraging this addition. ● GWP’s FiT program is for solar without storage.● LADWP has a pilot FiT+ program to support local solar+ storage projects, leveragingSGIP rebate incentives.● Projects that utilize the peak-shaving operation mode may use their battery to supplyon-site loads while also participating in FiT+. They can value stack by using the batteryfor demand charge reduction while participating in FiT+ Additional Suggestion:Much like LADWP has alignedwith the LA Business Council topromote its program, GWP should partner with a similar organization such as the GlendaleChamber of Commerce.

Customer-Owned Storage

1. Incentivize existing customers with solar to add storage. ● Incentive programs leverage customer investment so that Glendale can add storage toits grid without fully funding the cost of the storage.● Incentives from the California Public Utility Commission’sSelf-Generation IncentiveProgram(SGIP), which provides financial incentivesto customers of large private utilitycustomers, have been stepping down.● Glendale should provide its own incentives to encourage battery installations inconjunction with PV systems in Glendale.● Glendale can use the SGIP structure or design a different incentive structure.

2. Virtual power plants, distributed energy resources controlled by aggregators VPPs work by combining the contributions of hundreds or thousands of individual distributedresources, aggregated to respond as a single resource. They can provide energy to the grid,taking the place of other energy sources like power plants. 7 339 of 983
Glendale has one VPP in the works, with a total capacity goal of 25 MW, using about 3000-4000properties. There are significantly more properties with solar potential. Different VPP modelscan be developed that will appeal to different kinds of customers. Compensation can be inseveral forms, including flat-rate incentives, a reduced price for a solar and storage system, apay-for-performance incentive per kW per event, and more.

A VPP can combine multiple resources to take advantage of their different benefits in a singleaggregation. Most commonly, they use solar-paired storage, EV charging equipment, or demandresponse through smart thermostats and similar equipment. VPPs are a source of clean energythat offer several other grid benefits, including:● reducing energy usage at peak hours to relieve peak demand● absorbing energy from the grid when needed to keep the flow of electricity in balance, orto shift demand from times of high demand to times of low demand and abundant solarenergy● providing energy firming services● providing other services like regulating voltage and frequency, which are crucial to gridhealth Some examples of VPPs:● SCE, with Sunrun● ISO New England, with Sunrun● SCE, with Swell Energy● Eversource and National Grid, with SunPower● East Bay Community Energy, with Sunrun

3. Electric Vehicles as Grid Resources
● As consumers increasingly adopt electric vehicles, more energy storage will be deployedthat can be used for grid-serving purposes.● We usually think of EVs as demand, or load, needing power from the grid, but thebatteries in EVs can in fact provide services comparable to stationary distributedbatteries: smooth energy demand by ramping charging up and down, store excess solarenergy generated during daytime hours, charging other devices to provide an alternativesource of energy and reduce grid demand, and provide energy directly to the gridthrough vehicle-to-grid technology. (Source1,Source2)● EV batteries are substantially larger than typical home batteries, with capacity generallyfrom 20 to 100 kWh, compared with 4.5 to 13.5 kWh for residential stationary batteries.(Source) Category 2: Other Storage Technologies
Several storage technologies are available or in development that have different characteristicsfrom lithium-based batteries, and which may be useful in Glendale. An article on lithium batterycompetitors with a breakdown of different technologies and some of their manufacturers ishere. 8 340 of 983

1. Flow Batteries—Vanadium
The chemistry behindflow batteries has long beenproven in the power industry; most analystsagree they are ideal for long-duration energy output with very low degradation of componentswithin larger, utility-scale deployments and lifespans reaching to 30 years. Attributes of flowbatteries include:● Demonstrated 10,000-plus battery cycles with little or no loss of storage capacity.● Products in the field have completedmore than 30yearsof charging and dischargingcycling.● Cost certainty versus other technologies due to long life span.● Competitive in cost when evaluated over the entire lifecycle, andcosts are dropping forflow battery manufacturing.● Ramp rates ranging from milliseconds to a few seconds.● Recharge rates for flow batteries also are reasonably fast.● Wide temperature ranges for operation and standby modes compared to lithium-ionoptions.● Little or no fire hazard.● Chemistries that pose limited human health risk due to exposures.● Easy scale-up of capacity by adding electrolyte volume.Vendors:Invinity Energy SystemsStore En Vanadium BatteryVFlowTech

2. Redox Flow Battery
These are large battery systems that can store large amounts of electricity from renewablesources and from fossil fuel sources for distribution. There are new estimates that new redoxflow battery designwill cost $25 per kWh or less.

3. Iron Flow Batteries
Made of iron, salt, and water, this is a technology that is less prone to fire and made of cheapermaterials. $300M for 2 gigawatt hours of storage.Iron Battery Breakthrough Could Eat Lithium’sLunch.

4. Zinc-Based Batteries
Suited to long-duration energy storage applications (which the company defines as 3-12 hours)from microgrid to industrial and utility-scale, and technically capable of discharge times up to 10hours with minimal impact on cycle life.Made withabundant materials that do not present thesame supply chain risks as other battery storage technologies. 9 341 of 983
“EnerSmart, a renewable energy company based in San Diego and Boulder, Colorado, hassigned a $20 million order withEos Energyto install10 facilities of 3-megawatts eachthatwill employ zinc battery storage technology. Each of the projects will supply enough energy topower about 2,000 homes. Seven of the 10 storage sites will be located in San Diego Countyand EnerSmart planned to have each one up and running by the end of 2021.” (Source)

5. Gravity-Based Energy Storage
A system in production that lifts heavy weights on a crane using solar power during the day andthen lowers them to generate energy at night. It claims to have an 85% efficiency. Info here:https://www.energyvault.com/. A gravity-based energy storage system delivers the sustainabilityand simplicity of pumped hydro storage with greater flexibility, at a much lower levelized costand a higher round trip efficiency, without the requirement for specific land topography andnegative environmental impacts. Potential energy storage: Up to 500MWh. Advantages:modular, produces zero emissions, fits into Grayson property, long service time, beyond 60years. Vendors:
○ https://heindl-energy.com/○ https://www.energyvault.com/○ https://www.gravitypower.net/ Category 3: Fuel Cells
● Solid oxide fuel cells (SOFC) can run on natural gas, 100% hydrogen, or ablend.(Source)● When there is excess electricity production from solar, the fuel cells can producehydrogen with an in-unit electrolyzer. Then, when electricity is needed, the fuel cell cangenerate electricity by consuming hydrogen and producing water as a byproduct.● This is a cost-effective source of electricity with high energy-efficiency compared tocombustion. It is more efficient than combustion technology, and can handle hydrogenblends with a higher efficiency than via combustion.● SOFCs can be used with biomethane generated at the local wastewater treatment plant.● One major advantage of solid oxide fuel cells is that they havevirtually no criteria airpollutants, unlike combustion units, so they are betterfor local air quality. (Source) Category 4: Demand Reduction and Load Management
The traditional paradigm of an electric utility was to obtain enough energy supply to meetdemand. With changes in technology and perspective, there is increasing attention to thedemand side of the equation. Energy demand can respond to the needs of the grid and adjust tobetter meet supply. These solutions reduce demand so that supply, and costs, don’t need to be 10 342 of 983
increased.This may help avoid large capital investments in power plants and allow forinvestment in smaller scale distributed energy solutions.

1. Incentives for demand response
● Demand response refers to strategies used to reduce energy consumption during timesof high demand. Innovation in this field is occurring constantly.● Traditionally thought of as asking customers to reduce energy use in response torequests during peak events, it can also involve automated demand reduction usingsmart appliances that include smart thermostats, smart plugs, electric water heaters,HVAC heat pumps, adjustable lighting, refrigerators, and other appliances.● The potential for peak demand reduction through demand response is substantial.For example, in August 2020, in response to utility calls following blackouts on previousdays, customers immediately dropped 1 gigawatt (1,000 MW) of demand, and the totalreduction was between 4 and 5 gigawatts. (Source)● Programs can be launched quickly and with less cost than a large capital project, andcan be targeted at reducing Glendale’s peak load.

Examples:● Clean Power AlliancePower Response Program:○ For commercial, industrial, and municipal customers.○ Customers agree to modify equipment usage in response to up to 5 energysavings events per month.○ Demand response through battery storage or EV charging system.○ Enrollment incentives ($250 in bill credits) and participation incentives ($100 perkW of capacity in bill credits, quarterly). ● PG&ESmartRate, traditional demand response:○ For both residential and non-residential customers○ Customers pay a reduced electric rate during summer months in exchange forreducing energy use between 2:00 and 7:00 pm on 9-15 days each year.○ There are many ways customers can reduce energy use: pre-cool their home,avoid using appliances during event hours, set their AC to turn on after 7 pm, andreduce or turn off lighting that isn’t needed, including using motion sensors. ● PG&EAutomated Demand Response:○ For commercial and industrial customers, including higher education.○ Customers receive one-time incentives to install automated demandresponse–enabled controls for energy management systems, HVAC controls,smart thermostats, programmable lighting, and more. 11 343 of 983
● Marin CleanEnergy Peak FLEXmarket(formerly Demand FLEXmarket):○ Customers and aggregators can participate in various ways, including behavioraldemand response; using batteries, EV chargers, or smart thermostats; or anyother method that reduces peak energy use.○ Payment is based on performance, using software to measure energy reductions. ● Holy Cross Energy in Colorado’sPeak Time PaybackProgram:○ Rewards members for reducing electricity usage during blocks of time whendemand is high. The utility pays customers 50 cents to $1 per KWh saved duringthat time.○ This program includes any kind of demand response: people can choose to turndown their programmable thermostat or set their EV charger to charge outsidethe peak window.

2. EV Charging Load Shifting Programs
EV growth is expected to be an increasing contributor to peak load in Glendale by the late2020s, but policies can be set to optimize EV charging patterns and reduce the peak impact.(2019 IRP, p 29). Rewards-based programs are an effective policy approach, and there are afew kinds.

Two programs that don’t require a smart charger, in-car device, or other hardware:
● Geotab Energy’s “SmartCharge Rewards” SmartChargeRewards | Geotab○ A gamification-based program managed through vehicle-side data—and there isno expense of hardware installation.○ Data is gathered from the vehicle itself.○ Enrollment is high, because EV drivers are treated like part of the solution, notpart of the problem. Customers feel like they are getting paid to charge their carsevery night. ● SageWell’s “Bring Your Own Charger®” EV Load Shifting ProgramBring Your Own Charger ® (BYOC) Final Report○ Pays monthly incentives to customers for chargingoff peak.○ Sagewell says the program has a 95% off-peak charging rate.○ Shifts load 365 days per year, not just during peak, which helps maximizebeneficial grid impacts all the time.○ On averageenrolls about 50% of eligible EVs in autility service territory. Peopleenroll on their smartphones.○ No hardware involved. Utilities can be up and running in 30 days.

EV load shifting incentive program that requires hardware:
12 344 of 983
● SmartCharge Program,Consolidated Edison (ConEd)—inpartnership withFleetCarmaand ChargePoint(New York); SmartCharge New York○ Participants receive a FleetCarma C2 deviceandreceive$150 upfrontforinstalling and activating it. The C2 device collects the customer's charging dataand makes it available to the utility and the customer.○ Participants can compare their charging activity with that of other EV driversnearby, which acts as an additional gamified incentive to increase participation.○ Rebatesare awarded to participants when they join,keep the C2 device pluggedin, and refer others to the program.○ Fleet-owning customersare encouraged to participate,and their savings canbe substantial. For example, the NY Department of Citywide AdministrativeServices projected in 2019 that it could potentially “earn up to $150,000 per yearfor charging its EVs overnight by participating in the program."

3. Automated load flexibility
The California Energy Commission (CEC) is leading initiatives inload management.● Load management aims to reshape a utility’s demand shape (e.g., when electricity isused over the course of a day). This goes beyond reducing peak load and alsoencourages energy use when clean energy is plentiful.● Automated load flexibility can reduce or delay the need for new electrical supply capacity(like power plants), reduce fuel consumption and reduce emissions, and lower long-termeconomic costs.● Demand flexibility and load management can be accomplished through automation, withappliances and devices that respond to signals that incentivize smart energy use:○ Customers can shift when they use electric service to take advantage of cleanerand cheaper electricity.○ Buildings and water can be pre-cooled or pre-heated.○ Battery charging can be timed to serve the needs of the grid, including reducingpeak demand.○ Electric vehicles can be charged at times that help the grid, while ensuring thevehicle has enough charge to get owners where they need to go.○ Consumers can set dishwashing, laundry, and many other services to beautomatically scheduled based on the electricity cost or greenhouse gas content.○ Devices can respond to other signals, including peak-demand emergency alerts.● The right incentives can be provided through utility rates that vary with time.Source: CEC Final Staff Report, Analysis of Potential Amendments to the Load ManagementStandards, November 2021.

Glendale could adopt advanced load flexibility through the CEC’sMarket Informed DemandAutomation Server(MIDAS), a statewide system thatcan store and share utility rates,emergency alerts, and greenhouse gas emission signals.● MIDAS is available for use by municipal utilities like GWP. 13 345 of 983
● The CEC provides technical assistance to utilities to use MIDAS.● The CEC envisions MIDAS as a way to communicate with end-users whether they areparticipating in demand response programs, connected to the internet, or reachablethrough broadcast signals.

4. Massive outreach to customers re energy efficiency and demand response Energy efficiency is an effective way to reduce peak demand and the need to procure energysupply to meet demand. A study by Lawrence Berkeley National Lab found that energyefficiency programs are a relatively low-cost way to meet peak demand, compared withother energy resources with capital costs. (Source,p. vi.) Although energy efficiency is notdispatchable like a power plant, its lower cost combined with its environmental benefits (e.g.,zero emissions) make energy efficiency a smart investment for Glendale.

Glendale has achieved significant amounts of energy savings through energy efficiencyprograms, including 1.6 MW of net peak savings in FY 2019. This represents 0.5% of peakdemand. (Source, p A-36.) Despite this historical success,much more potentialexists in Glendale. Current and futureenergy efficiency programs could be expanded through a concerted effort to reach all GWPcustomers, both residential and commercial. Outreach and education, combined with technicalassistance and potentially incentives, offers the promise of dramatically multiplying the 1.6 MWof net peak savings from 2019.

Individual outreach efforts, including a door to door outreach campaign, might yield enoughefficiency savings to reduce peak demand by over 5 MW, or even more. Such a campaignwould be costly compared with past outreach efforts, but likely would be substantially less thanthe cost to build a comparable amount of power plant equipment. 14 346 of 983
February 11, 2022
City of Glendale
613 E. Broadway, Suite 200
Glendale, CA 91206
RE: Long-Term Contract for Natural Gas Power
Dear Mayor Devine and Councilmembers:

As both the author of SB 100 (2018) and the Los Angeles City Councilmembers bordering the City of Glendale we write to urge you and the Glendale City Council to postpone action on proposals to restart Grayson Power Plant and biogas project at Scholl Canyon to give representatives from Glendale Water & Power (GWP) and Los Angeles Department of Power (LADWP) an opportunity to meet and discuss alternatives to those two projects.

We fully appreciate the fundamental duty you have as an elected official to ensure your constituents have access to reliable, cost-effective power. While we are facing significant challenges meeting that fundamental obligation in this era of dangerous climate change, these pressures also offer unique opportunities. The transition to clean energy is certainly daunting, but as the City of Los Angeles’ careful analysis done by the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) proves it can be done faster than mandated by SB 100 and done in a cost-effective manner. This transition to clean energy also presents significant economic opportunities to create good paying jobs in the energy sector.
347 of 983
While LADWP has a large number of significant challenges ahead, we are confident in our ability to transition the City of Los Angeles to 100% clean energy by 2035. Doing so will require enormous undertakings to modernize our transmission lines and shore up in-basin clean energy production to ensure reliability in case of natural disasters.

LADWP is also undergoing a major shift in its primary focus from just powering homes and businesses to powering transportation. Moving from fossil fuels to clean energy in our transportation sector will revolutionize California’s economy and be the single most important clean air endeavor ever undertaken.

We mention these efforts both as a recognition of the difficult challenges ahead, but also as a clear-eyed reflection that we really have no choice but to undertake these challenges. This leads us to Glendale’s ongoing discussion of entering into long-term contracts for gas-powered plants at Grayson and Scholl Canyon. We understand that Glendale is searching for approximately 100 megawatts of energy for the remainder of this decade. We are confident that GWP and LADWP can reach a series of agreements to avoid having to backtrack on our climate goals while offering your constituents reliable cost-effective energy they’re entitled to.

Assuming your Council is willing to delay action on long-term contracts for fossil fuel energy and provide the two municipal utilities the opportunity to engage in a substantive discussion of alternatives to gas-powered energy, we will strongly encourage LADWP to engage in that conversation in a very serious way.

As part of the same Balancing Authority Area (BAA) this decision is in the interest of both cities and their municipal utilities. I believe meeting the obligations of SB 100 and creating our clean energy future will require cooperation of all the parties under that balancing authority. Moreover, transforming our transmission lines to meet our future needs will be strengthened by collaboration between the members of the Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA).

Our cities sit in an extreme non-attainment area for ozone and particulate matter 2.5.

That pollution causes thousands of premature deaths every year and sends hundreds of our constituents to hospitals, many of them children suffering from uncontrolled asthma, during a pandemic that’s been overwhelming our health care system. All the members of SCPPA, including LADWP and GWP, must make investment in clean energy technologies and battery storage a focal point of their energy futures.

While our cities certainly face unique challenges, they’re both committed to a clean energy future. We hope your Council will pause discussion of gas-powered energy to 348 of 983
give our respective utilities the opportunity to engage in good faith discussions on how to meet your energy needs without adversely impacting ratepayers in either city.

Sincerely,
____________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ KEVIN DE LEÓN MITCH O’FARRELL
Councilmember, 14th District Councilmember, 13th District ____________________

NITHYA RAMAN
Councilmember, 4th District
349 of 983

February 11, 2022

Marty Adams, General Manager
Los Angeles Department of Water and Power
111 North Hope Street
Los Angeles, California 90012

RE: Glendale Water and Power Request for Assistance on Clean Energy Acquisition

Dear Mr. Adams:

We greatly appreciate the enormous efforts the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) is making in order to accomplish the City’s clean energy goals. While we appreciate the challenges associated with putting Los Angeles on the path to 100% clean energy by 2035 with the LA100 plan, we are concerned that other utilities within our balancing authority (BA) are not similarly situated and may backtrack on our collective climate goals absent collaboration with LADWP. Specifically, Glendale Water and Power (GWP) recently reached out inquiring whether LADWP could help arrange a series of agreements for it to meet their city’s energy needs. We believe LADWP’s transmission modernization efforts would be strengthened by collaboration with members of Southern California Public Power Authority (SCPPA) and strongly encourage your office to collaborate with GWP on how the two utilities could protect their ratepayers while advancing our clean energy goals.

As you know, our residents are forced to breathe some of the most polluted air in America. Child asthma rates in Los Angeles are unacceptably and dangerously high 350 of 983
and respiratory illnesses such as asthma are the leading cause of absenteeism prior to the pandemic. Los Angeles residents will be impacted by the decisions made by its neighbors such as Glendale. We need to take steps to help ensure our neighbors avoid backtracking on clean air efforts that directly harm our constituents, particularly our youngest residents.

While clean air concerns certainly are motivating us, we also view Glendale’s outreach to LADWP as an opportunity. We will undoubtedly need assistance undertaking the necessary modernization efforts for our transmission lines. LADWP would benefit from having partners in those efforts within SCPPA. Certainly, LADWP should not entertain any sort of agreement that would harm our ratepayers, but given that GWP energy gap is only approximately 100 megawatts, we’re confident you and your team could help Glendale meet that need.

Given the urgency of our climate crisis, and frankly, California state law, entering into long-term contracts for new fossil fuel energy shouldn’t be on the table. Yet, we recognize cities need to ensure their residents have access to reliable power. We hope that just as you’re showing the world’s biggest cities how to transition to clean energy, you and your staff can assist our neighbor meet their clean energy needs.

We have formally asked the City of Glendale to postpone action on contracting for power at Grayson or Scholl Canyon until GWP has had a real opportunity to negotiate with you and your staff on possible solutions. Should they avail themselves of that offer, we strongly urge you and your staff to seriously engage in that effort to help protect our air and climate.

Sincerely,
____________________ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ KEVIN DE LEÓN MITCH O’FARRELL
Councilmember, 14th District Councilmember, 13th District ____________________

NITHYA RAMAN
Councilmember, 4th District
351 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 9:35 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Comment on Grayson repowering
Attachments: Gish Comments on Grayson repower final.docx FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jackie Gish <[email protected]>
Date: February 6, 2022 at 7:38:26 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]> Cc: "Adjemian, Aram" <[email protected]>
Subject: Comment on 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 Devine, City Councilmembers,

Please find enclosed my comments on the Grayson Repowering.

Thank you in advance for reading this.

Jackie
352 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 8:06 PM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Grayson Project
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Rachel Pringle <[email protected]>
Date: February 10, 2022 at 5:37:51 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
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 Devine,

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 globa l 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. Ms. Devine, 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
353 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 9:33 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Blasphemy: Glendale Power Prioritizes Reliability FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Humphreville <[email protected]> Date: February 7, 2022 at 10:43:23 PM PST
To: "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]>, "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>
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
354 of 983
2 LA WATCHDOG - As part of its plan to deliver reliable and affordable energy to the 200,000 residents of Glendale as we ll as to its commercial 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 agi ng and inefficient generation equipment and replacing it with a new gas fired 270-me gawatt facility. The estimated 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 ba ttery system at Grayson Power Plant, which is pretty darn big for a city of 200,000 ………………..

https://citywatchla.com/index.php/la-watchdog/23783-blasphemy-glendale-power- prioritizes-reliability

355 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 9:34 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Grayson Power Plant
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Claire Smigiel <[email protected]>
Date: February 7, 2022 at 7:39:37 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.

Hello,

My name is Claire Smigiel and I live in Silver Lake. I am writing to urge you to move faster to phase out all gas power generation at the Grayson Power plant. It is contributing to polluting our air and making our neighborhood's air quality unsafe for the most vulnerable, our growing children, in addition to all residents.

I urge the council to vote to remove all gas and instead switch to clean, renewable energy.

It is crucial for the future generations.

Thank you for your time in reading this email and considering my request.'

Best regards,
Claire

Claire Smigiel
Silver Lake Resident

356 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 9:28 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Grayson Project
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

Dear Councilmember Devine,

Thank you,
Rachel Pringle
357 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 9:36 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Grayson plant
FYI

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Margaret Mortimore <[email protected]> Date: February 6, 2022 at 12:47:43 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Grayson 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 Ms Devine,
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 stor y 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
358 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 9:30 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: In Support of the Grayson Repowering Project FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Alexander R. Yessayantz" <[email protected]> Date: February 9, 2022 at 10:49:25 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
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 Mayor Devine,

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. 359 of 983
2 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

360 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Thursday, February 10, 2022 8:07 PM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Let the voters vote on Grayson
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Burt Culver <[email protected]>
Date: February 10, 2022 at 5:30:34 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>
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
361 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 9:37 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Re-power Grayson as soon as possible
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Brian <[email protected]>
Date: February 4, 2022 at 4:52:45 PM PST
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

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

362 of 983
2 --
Brian Ellis
[email protected]
818-521-8015 (voicemail or text only)
363 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 9:37 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Please REJECT the Grayson Powerplant Project As-is FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Joy Meserve <[email protected]>
Date: February 5, 2022 at 9:44:15 AM 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 the Grayson Powerplant Project As-is

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 City Council Members of Glendale,

Indivisible Media City Burbank joins the Glendale Environmental Coalition in opposing the Glendale Water and Power (GWP) plan to install 93+ MW of polluting equipment, costing at least $200 million, at the Grayson Power Plant. We believe much more clean energy is possible in Glendale and should be the top priority investment.

In 2018, City Council rejected the original plan for 262 MW of gas-burning after residents and stakeholders spoke against it. In 2019, GWP proposed four clean energy projects along with 93+ MW of gas equipment and a battery installation at Grayson. City Council approved the 2019 plan while asking GWP to continue exploring clean energy alternatives.

But the plan released in 2021, two years later, has little new clean energy, with the Grayson Repowering project still including 93+ MW of gas burning. Glendale should pursue a commercial solar plus battery program, maximize solar on city properties, load management solutions, and new transmission opportunities all before investing in gas-burning equipment.

A large investment in gas-burning equipment commits us to burn fossil fuels for many years to come. California is mandating 100% clean energy by 2045; if that deadline moves up, equipment might have to be decommissioned. GWP speaks of converting the new equipment so that it can burn clean hydrogen. We don’t know how green that technology is, how realistic and how costly adapting the engines would be, how Glendale would produce or transport the hydrogen, and whether it would be a good investment for the amount of energy we get.

The Los Angeles region has among the worst air quality in the country, and residents who live near Grayson are already heavily burdened by freeway air pollution. The Grayson Power Plant produces 364 of 983
2 significant amounts of air pollutants that cause cancer, asthma, heart disease, and dementia, as well as impaired cognitive development in children. We need to make clean air and a healthy environment our top priorities. We need to stop investing in fossil fuels and fossil fuel equipment. We need to urgently plan for a clean energy future.

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

Thank you!

Regards,

Joy Meserve
Co-Founder of Indivisible Media City Burbank
COO, iD Tech
Sister City Resident of 20 years, Burbank
818-988-0968
365 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 9:35 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Grayson Repowering Project
FYI

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Candace Hodder <[email protected]>
Date: February 6, 2022 at 5:28:08 PM PST
To: "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]>, "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]> 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

366 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 9:42 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: No to Grayson
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Bethany Armstrong Johnson <[email protected]> Date: February 3, 2022 at 4:45:12 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]> Subject: No to 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 Glendale City Council Members,

I'm sure this isn't the first message like this you'll receive, and probably won't be the last. But I just wanted to write to tell you that investing in the Grayson power plant instead of clean energy is not what the residents of Glendale want. Why would we want to spend more time and money on a project that furthers the use of harmful technologies, especially when other cleaner technologies are available? Why would we want to continue paying for a useless plant in tax money once the California mandate for clean energy has passed? Why would we want all the environmental and health ramifications of such a plant? We've seen wildfires and floods and all sorts of unpredictable weather hitting our world because we haven't been taking care of it, so why would we want to do anything that furthers the climate disaster instead of bettering it?

Please do not recommend the Grayson Repowering project and continue the work of finding alternative energy sources. Lead California in being a part of the climate crisis solution.

Thank you,

Bethany Johnson, Glendale resident and worker

367 of 983
368 of 983

369 of 983

370 of 983

371 of 983

372 of 983

373 of 983

374 of 983

375 of 983

376 of 983

377 of 983

378 of 983

379 of 983

380 of 983

381 of 983

382 of 983

383 of 983

384 of 983

385 of 983

386 of 983

387 of 983

388 of 983

389 of 983

390 of 983

391 of 983

392 of 983

393 of 983

394 of 983

395 of 983

396 of 983

397 of 983

398 of 983

399 of 983

400 of 983

401 of 983

402 of 983

403 of 983

404 of 983

405 of 983

406 of 983

407 of 983

408 of 983

409 of 983

410 of 983

411 of 983

412 of 983

413 of 983

414 of 983

415 of 983

416 of 983

417 of 983

418 of 983

419 of 983

420 of 983

421 of 983

422 of 983

423 of 983

424 of 983

425 of 983

426 of 983

427 of 983

428 of 983

429 of 983

430 of 983

431 of 983

432 of 983

433 of 983

434 of 983

435 of 983

436 of 983

437 of 983

438 of 983

439 of 983

440 of 983

441 of 983

442 of 983

443 of 983

444 of 983

445 of 983

446 of 983

447 of 983

448 of 983

449 of 983

450 of 983

451 of 983

452 of 983

453 of 983

454 of 983

455 of 983

456 of 983

457 of 983

458 of 983

459 of 983

460 of 983

461 of 983

462 of 983

463 of 983

464 of 983

465 of 983

466 of 983

467 of 983

468 of 983

469 of 983

470 of 983

471 of 983

Comments on Grayson Repowering

My involvement with the Glendale Environmental Coalition (GEC) started in July, 2019 with the rally and then the City Council IRP meeting. I was elated with the results at City Council. Not only was there agreement that no more than 93 MW was needed (rather than 262 MW), but City Council told GWP to work towards reducing that 93 MW number. In particular, the following were some of the conditions that City Council asked GWP to do:
• Glendale Water& Power (GWP) must request City Council authorization prior to purchase and installation of natural gas (Gas) units at the Grayson Power Plant and must present to City Council any new or improved technologies that develop from now until such time that may further reduce the need for Gas generation.
• At least 60 days prior to the Council Council’s consideration of the purchase of the ICE units, GWP will report to the City Council regarding the following issues:
o Options to potentially reduce or eliminate the need for the 5 units with new or improved technology prior to the Council taking action on the ICE units I was naïve to think that GWP would do that.

GWP is great at keeping the lights on, but that is at a cost of our environment and people’s health. GWP knows gas-fired power plants, but does not seem to have the expertise in or drive for new, cleaner sources of power. And, GWP is advised by or collaborates with Stantec, which also seems to have these same biases.

It is fair and advisable to have reserve power. But multiple belts and suspenders are excessive from both a dollar cost as well as a cost to the environment and our health.

The two gas-fired alternatives (7 and 8), which Stantec/GWP is recommending, cost more than $300 M; of this over $200 M is for the gas-fired units (the rest is a battery). Even if these alternatives only run at 14% duty cycle, they emit more of many of the criteria pollutants than the BACT-adjusted Grayson power plant emitted during the baseline period of 2019/2020. For NOx and VOC (volatile organics) the increases exceed the AQMD significance level. GWP/Stantec claim offsets to reduce these levels, but offsets do not eliminate the pollution we all breathe. It just means that some other company or entity has reduced their pollution so Glendale can pollute more. (Note this is the same issue as the biogas plant at Scholl has.) The charts below show the air pollution numbers and were copied from the presentation made by GWP/Stantec to the GWP commission (January 31, 2022), so rounding errors are the same as what was presented, shading is mine, and I did not include offsets:

Alt 7 NOx (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) VOX (lbs/day) PM 10 (lbs/day) SOx (lbs/day) Daily emissions 101 176 108 65 6
2019/2020
baseline
29 358 25 35 3
Net increase 72 -182 83 30 3
Significance
Threshold
55 550 55 150 150
Exceed Threshold Y N Y N N

472 of 983
Alt 8 NOx (lbs/day) CO (lbs/day) VOX (lbs/day) PM 10 (lbs/day) SOx (lbs/day) Daily emissions 167 836 105 27 6
2019/2020
baseline
29 358 25 35 3
Net increase 137 478 80 -7 4
Significance
Threshold
55 550 55 150 150
Exceed Threshold Y N Y N N

The question should be what is the best solution for Glendale’s peak power needs that is also cost- effective and sound from both health and environmental perspectives. In the not-too-distant future, all power plants in California will not be able to run on oil and gas. Does Glendale want to invest this much money is an obsolete technology? Or can Glendale aggressively pursue solar and batteries, technologies which will not be obsolete, and reduce its natural gas plants to the bare minimum? The money not spent on gas-fired power plants could be used for more of these clean technologies.

Please vote against both alternative 7 and alternative 8 and for either a much-reduced gas-fired solution or no new gas-fired equipment at all. And, if you vote for any new gas-fired equipment, it has to be used according to the IRP conditions for peak weather and adverse system conditions. Contrary to the FEIR, it should not be used for economic reasons. The young people of Glendale and the world would thank you for this. And I would too.

473 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Adjemian, Aram
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 9:24 AM
To: Ghazarian, Renia
Subject: FW: In support of Grayson 2022 FEIR
This is it.

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: Kurt Sawitskas <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 7:28 PM
To: Devine, Paula <[email protected]>; Najarian, Ara <[email protected]>; Agajanian, Vrej <[email protected]>; Brotman, Daniel <[email protected]>; Kassakhian, Ardashes <[email protected]>
Cc: Young, Mark <[email protected]>; Golanian, Roubik <[email protected]>; Adjemian, Aram <[email protected]>; Emrani, Yazdan <[email protected]> Subject: In support of Grayson 2022 FEIR

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 am writing in support of the Grayson Repowering Project proposed by GWP, and in support of the project’s 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR).

Over the last few years, there have been numerous presentations and discussions about the necessity and importance of the Grayson Repowering Project and how it will benefit Glendale residents and businesses.

Glendale is a thriving city with a population of 200,000, shopping districts, small and large businesses and three major hospitals. A critical part of the City’s responsibility is to ensure reliable electric service to Glendale residents and businesses at all times. Glendale imports 85% of our electric energy, which allows GWP to access a diverse mixture of clean resources which are in short supply within our borders. As we look forward at efforts to reduce carbon emissions from all sources, adequate and available electricity will be critical to transitioning transportation and building energy demands away from fossil fuels.

Repowering Grayson is an essential step in GWP’s efforts to ensure a reliable and resilient electricity supply for Glendale. Even with ambitious energy efficiency programs in place, energy demand is 474 of 983
2 likely to grow with additional electrification of vehicles and buildings. Repowering Grayson is in the best interests of Glendale and its citizens.

Various project configurations have been studied for years. The project was sent back to the drawing board by community objections with new alternatives bearing the fruit of that effort. My favorite configuration is 2022 Alternative 7, although Alternative 8 is acceptable.

The Action Item on your agenda is the certification of the 2022 FEIR. This document presents a thorough review of the City’s needs and project configurations to meet those needs, including analysis of a huge array of environmental impacts. All of the project configurations were shown to comply with permits and regulations. And even though the proposed projects use gas turbines, they have no significant environmental impacts.

Many objectors are still not satisfied. While not trying to be dismissive, I think they represent a small minority of Glendale’s population. Most people are probably unaware of the project, or how important it is. Supporters like me demand that the project be started so that we will have reliable power service in the near future.

I recognize that Glendale is committed to transitioning to a low-carbon future through reliable, affordable, and sustainable clean energy. GWP's Power Content for the most recent year includes 64% clean energy (40% renewable energy and 24% zero carbon energy). Yes, that’s right:
64% CLEAN ENERGY invested and supplied to Glendale. None of our neighboring cities are this clean. In 2020, GWP built upon the work performed for the 2019 IRP to assess the feasibility of developing a power supply portfolio that can reliably serve 100% of GWP’s retail load with clean energy by 2030. Based upon the assumptions made in the report, the 100% Clean Energy Study found that it is feasible for GWP to achieve 89% clean energy around-the-clock by 2030.

The Grayson Repowering project will serve as a critical bridge to a 100% clean energy portfolio. With a repowered Grayson Power Plant, we will soon have a reliable, local source of electric energy, that can quickly respond to demand loads. And Grayson will be available to meet our needs in case we lose an external resource, such as a transmission line failure (e.g. fire or earthquake). With the repowered Grayson plant, we will be able to use our transmission lines to import more renewable energy.

You must lead against noisy objections and certify the 2022 FEIR. The FEIR is a valid and valuable document. I urge you to approve the Resolution 8.C.1 to certify the 2022 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Grayson Repowering Project. Then, give GWP direction on the project configuration and approve 8.C.2, 2022 Alternative 7, along with a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan.

Plan for the future and provide reliable and resilient power for the residents and businesses of Glendale.

Sincerely,
Kurt Sawitskas

475 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 10:11 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Maybe you don't know?
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Randy Wise <[email protected]>
Date: February 12, 2022 at 8:28:09 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]> Subject: Maybe you don't know?

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 Members,

Maybe you don't know that there is a pipeline from the Scholl Dump to the Grayson Power Plant. If you want to burn off the methane from the Dump putting a biogas generator at Grayson is the answer. NOT building a polluting hazardous device in an unstable area that affects neighborhoods for miles around.

Please investigate the possibility,

Randall & Nancy Wise
2105 Hollister Ter
Glendale, CA 91206
476 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 8:51 PM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: More Clean Energy in the Grayson Repowering Plan FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Michael Yank <[email protected]>
Date: February 12, 2022 at 4:44:44 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
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 Mayor Devine,

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
477 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Friday, February 11, 2022 9:55 PM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: More Clean Energy Now
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Maggie Freed <[email protected]>
Date: February 11, 2022 at 9:10:16 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.

As a member of Temple Sinaii of Glendale, which has installed solar photovoltaic panels on our roof, I urge you to do your part by investing in clean energy. There are many viable alternatives to increasing gas power when California is moving toward 100% clean energy.

Thank you for considering alternatives.

Maggie Freed
323.527.7989 (mobile)
478 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 3:41 PM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: NO MORE DIRTY ENERGY!!
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jessica Craven <[email protected]>
Date: February 12, 2022 at 2:05:07 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]> Subject: NO MORE DIRTY ENERGY!!
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 Council Members,

I live in Mt. Washington, right outside of the Glendale border, and have a child who spends all of their days breathing the same air you do. I go to Glendale all the time, and have for the last ten years. I consider myself a stakeholder, if not a resident.

I am deeply distressed to have to write to you once again to ask you to for God’s sake not dirty our already filthy air more with an unwise and dangerous gas-powered plant.

Environmental concerns aside— although these alone are obviously ample justification for shutting this project down--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.

Furthermore, the Grayson project will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. The main rationale for adding this energy capacity is to meet “reserve” requirements—in essenc e, 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, and it will help in the short term until new transmission comes online. This is incredibly expensive insurance, and a lot of money to spend for equipment that will sit idle most of the time. 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.

Glendale ratepayers will foot the bill and may end up paying twice. Instead, we could invest in technology that can last for the long term.

Please, please, don’t disregard the many, many reasons this project would be disastrous. I’d hate 479 of 983
2 to stop bringing my business to Glendale, but should you proceed I may feel inclined to travel elsewhere for my daily needs.

Thanks,

Jessica Craven
Los Angeles, 90065
480 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 3:41 PM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: no more farty gas, please.

FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: grey james <[email protected]>
Date: February 12, 2022 at 2:59:22 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]> Subject: no more farty 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.
(re: Grayson)

Dear Mayor Devine and Glendale City Council,

Onward and upward, the future is calling. Let's greet it, please.

Better stated by current city council candidate Elen Asatryan (on her IG page, to see the entire post) "We have an opportunity here to chart a new path for our city. To be a model city which invests in green energy, and which plans ahead of the 2045 deadline."

Best, Grey James.

481 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 8:52 PM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd:

FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Debra Baird <[email protected]>
Date: February 12, 2022 at 7:59:33 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[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.

Investments for clean energy will help Glendale's future. We cannot continue with the way things are now! Help create Glendale's new green future along with California. 482 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 3:42 PM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Against the Grayson gas repowering
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Rebecca Henretta <[email protected]>
Date: February 12, 2022 at 3:16:28 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Against the Grayson gas 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,

I am asking you to reject GWP’s proposal for repowering the Grayson plant until it relies on clean energy instead of gas. As a parent of a young toddler, and the caregiver of my elderly father, I’m horrified that we’ve ended up here again after the 2018 community outcry.

Jeopardizing the health of Glendale families with air pollution is absolutely unacceptable.

Accelerating climate change by depending on fossil fuels jeopardizes my son’s future. It is fiscally and morally irresponsible. It shows a lack of vision and leadership that our city should have. It is at odds with the state’s 2045 renewable energy mandate. Simply put, Glendale citizens stand to lose from this retrograde proposal. Please send it back to the drawing board.

Kind regards,
Rebecca Henretta
3424 Las Palmas Ave
Glendale, CA 91208

Sent from my iPhone
483 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 3:40 PM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Clean Energy
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Tamara Prior <[email protected]>
Date: February 12, 2022 at 1:42:18 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Clean Energy
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 Ms Devine.

We live in the El Miradero area. Our daughter attends school near Grayson and I work at a middle school closed to Grayson. We are aware of the vote to rebuild Grayson on Tuesday and kindly request you do not approve the current plan as it does not include a plan which addresses a greater need for clean energy as we move towards 2045.

Kindly
The Johnsons

Sent from my iPhone
484 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 8:53 PM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Clean Energy Now
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jamie Gambell <[email protected]>
Date: February 12, 2022 at 5:45:00 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]> 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,

485 of 983
2 --
Jamie Gambell, CAS
Production Sound Mixer, IATSE Local 695
213-703-3579
http://www.jamiegambellsound.com

486 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 7:49 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Constitutent Comment: Grayson Repowering Project FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Mark Abajian <[email protected]>
Date: February 13, 2022 at 10:26:09 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Cc: Mark Abajian <[email protected]>
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 Mayor Devine,

My name is Mark Abajian and my wife and I have been Glendale homeowners since 1995.

Regarding the Grayson Repowering Project… from wh at 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

487 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 8:52 PM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Feb15, 2022: Council Meeting: Agenda Item 8A and 8C; GWP/Grayson Power Plant
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: [email protected]
Date: February 12, 2022 at 7:59:05 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Feb15, 2022: Council Meeting: Agenda Item 8A and 8C; GWP/Grayson Power Plant
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 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

488 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 7:50 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Grayson
FYI

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Ben Shiffrin <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 6:35:07 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[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.

Hello There Glendale Elected Officials,

I just moved into Glendale a few months ago out of Los Angeles. I came here out of Los Angeles because - ironically - Keppel seems to have a better Korean bilingual program than the various schools in K-Town. I don't fully understand the local politics here yet, but because I'm here for the schools, I'm gonna be here for a while, and so I'm taking an early interest in how you all are running the City.

You can probably guess why I'm writing - because there's a fossil fuel power plant a hop, skip, and a jump away from the elementary school which drew me into the community. In the year 2022, I don't trust a review process which arrives at a conclusion that the *only* solution involves burning fossil fuels right next to a residential neighborhood and very close to several elementary schools. The idea that Grayson will be burning fossil fuels more cleanly, or efficiently is cold comfort. And the communications I've gotten from Glendale Water and Power supporting this plan seem reactionary.

Please demand that Glendale Water and Power do better. My understanding is that the town has already grabbed their pitchforks to stop a prior proposal. This really shouldn't require any further local activism.

But thank you for your service, and oversight, and - I hope - thank you in advance for listening to your constituents.

- Ben Shiffrin

489 of 983
2 490 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 3:39 PM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Grayson Repowering Proposal
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Robert Haw <[email protected]>
Date: February 12, 2022 at 12:24:20 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
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.

Dear Mayor Devine:

As a father of two adult boys and now a grandfather since October, and as well someone who understands the science of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, I’m really concerned (maybe I should say terrified?) about the dearth of significant greenhouse gas abatement actions in the USA. In spite of the UN Secretary General declaring Code Red last Fall regarding climate action. And although 70% of Americans are worried about climate change, not nearly so many are concerned at the personal level (https://climatecommunication.yale.edu/). But in your position you can make a difference. Every action matters, every bit of warming matters, every year matters, and every choice matters. That’s why Glendale’s choice regarding Grayson’s re-powering matters.

Judgement has to be exercised. It’s needed when deciding whether to follow the letter of state law (and wait until 2045 to go 100% clean) or to beat that deadline and thereby avoid unnecessary sunk costs. There are many benefits to 100% clean energy and I’m sure you’ve heard all about them in other correspondences and testimonials. The drawback to 100% clean energy is that it violates a kind of ‘business-as-usual’ policy. But that’s the sort of thinking that got us into this problem in the first place.

I try to follow the Golden Rule in decision-making. Yeah, it’s hard to monetize that — it’s where judgement has to be exercised so that we all do our small part in preserving a livable world for our offspring.
491 of 983
2 Mayor, please reject the 93 megawatts of gas in the Alternative 7 proposal.

Best regards,
Robert Haw

P.S. I’m not a Glendale resident (I live in Altadena) but GHGs know no bounds and on a round planet there’s no where to run.
492 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 8:50 PM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Gwp gas plan
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jaime Zinger <[email protected]>
Date: February 12, 2022 at 4:40:53 PM PST
To: Jaime Zinger <[email protected]>
Subject: Gwp gas plan
Reply-To: Jaime Zinger <[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.

Vote No no no

NO NEW GAS, MORE CLEAN ENERGY

Do the right thing

Jaime
Resident of Glendale 91206
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
493 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 7:49 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: STOP GAS AT GRAYSON AGAIN-Please Reject the 93MW of gas in the Alternative 7 proposal
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: CATE ADAMS <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 5:41:10 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
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]
494 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 3:41 PM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Stop new Gas at Grayson
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Charise Smith <[email protected]>
Date: February 12, 2022 at 3:33:05 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Stop 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.

Dear Mayor Devine,

As a citizen of Glendale, I am deeply concerned about the current Grayson Repowering Proposal. It is financially and environmentally irresponsible. The window to take action on climate change is closing very quickly, and we should be investing in renewable energy, not spending more money on pollutants.The LA basin already has terrible air quality, and this would only make things worse.

Please act in the best interest of your fellow citizens and the children of Glendale and say NO to GWP.

Many thanks,

Charise Smith

495 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 10:11 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: NO NEW GAS, MORE CLEAN ENERGY
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Lisa Zlotnick <[email protected]>
Date: February 12, 2022 at 7:05:09 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: NO NEW GAS, MORE CLEAN ENERGY
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,
As a resident of Glendale, I feel very strongly the city council should reject GWP’s gas plan.

Thanks for listening to us!

~Lisa

Lisa Zlotnick
646-526-7124
496 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 8:32 AM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Please vote NO on gas power plant expansion FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: CB Ferrari <[email protected]>
Date: February 14, 2022 at 8:03:24 AM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>, "Agajanian, Vrej" <[email protected]>, "Brotman, Daniel" <[email protected]>, "Kassakhian, Ardashes" <[email protected]>, "Najarian, Ara" <[email protected]> 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

497 of 983
2 498 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Devine, Paula
Sent: Saturday, February 12, 2022 3:40 PM
To: Garcia, Michael
Subject: Fwd: Scholl Canyon Landfill
FYI
Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: renee holt <[email protected]>
Date: February 12, 2022 at 1:18:54 PM PST
To: "Devine, Paula" <[email protected]>
Subject: Scholl Canyon Landfill

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 the crow flies, I live 1.1 miles from Scholl Landfill. I've watched the landfill grow above the Mountain Ridgeline that separates GlenOaks Canyon from the landfill. The landfill was built on old fractured rock without a liner, so this neighborhood has already had to worry about what's seaping into the ground, over the decades. Now GWP wants to build a Bio- Gas Power plant on this land, within a mile of an active Earthquake fault,in an extremely high fire risk area, surrounded by residential neighborhoods. This power plant includes a 2/3 mile long, above ground gas pipe line, & numerous toxic chemicals unhealthy to humans.It will pollute the air even more, along with other potentially catastrophic scenarios, if an Earthquake or fire should happen. I implore the Glendale City Council to seriously consider the Health and safety of its people, above all else.
regards, Renee Holt 2526 Hollister terrace, Glendale
499 of 983
500 of 983
501 of 983
502 of 983
503 of 983
504 of 983
505 of 983
506 of 983
1 Ghazarian, Renia
From: Godinez, Christine
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 5:00 PM
To: Devine, Paula; Agajanian, Vrej; Najarian, Ara; Kassakhian, Ardashes; Brotman, Daniel Cc: Golanian, Roubik; Garcia, Michael; van Muyden, Gillian; Young, Mark; Adjemian, Aram; Ghazarian, Renia
Subject:

January 14, 2022 Correspondence from LADWP Re Reserve Obligations Attachments: LADWP Reserves and Transmission - Response to Letter dated 1.25.2022.pdf Good Afternoon Mayor Devine and Members of the City Council,

Attached please find correspondence received by the City of Glendale from LADWP today regarding Glendale's reserve obligations.

The City Attorney's Office is preparing a summary and packet of correspondence between Glendale and LADWP with respect to this issue; in the
meantime, the latest letter from LADWP is attached for your review and information.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Christine A. Godinez, Principal Assistant City Attorney ● City of Glendale ● Office of the City Attorney 613 East Broadway, Room 220 ● Glendale, CA 91206 ● (818) 548-2080 ● Fax (818) 547-3402 ● [email protected]

CONFIDENTIAL

THIS E-MAIL, ITS CONTENTS, AND ANY ATTACHMENT(S) ARE CONFIDENTIAL, ATTORNEY-CLIENT AND

ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT PRIVILEGED, AND ARE INTENDED ONLY FOR THE PERSON, ENTITY, OR ADDRESSEE NAMED ABOVE. UNAUTHORIZED USE, DISCLOSURE, DISSEMINATION, FORWARDING,

DISTRIBUTION, OR COPYING OF THIS E-MAIL, OR THE ATTACHMENT(S), OR BOTH, IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AND MAY BE UNLAWFUL.

IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR, PLEASE NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY BY RETURN E-MAIL, AND DELETE THE MESSAGE AND ATTACHMENT(S) FROM YOUR SYSTEM.

DO NOT FILE WITH PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE RECORDS.

From: Polson, Elma D. <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2022 10:06:35 AM
To: Lee, Catalina <[email protected]>
Cc: Young, Mark <[email protected]>; Godinez, Christine <[email protected]>; Kerr, Reiko <[email protected]>; Zewdu, Simon <[email protected]>; Driscoll, Syndi <[email protected]>; Chua, Pjoy <[email protected]>; Sigala, Patricia <[email protected]> 507 of 983
2 Subject: DWP's Response Letter to Glendale's Reserve Obligations, Transmission Facilities, Generation Projects Letter of January 31, 2022

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 Ms. Lee,

Please find LADWP’s response, by Ms. Reiko Kerr, to your letter dated January 31, 2022 regarding “Questions regarding your January 25, 2022 letter addressing “Reserve Obligations, Transmission Facilities, and Generation Projects".

I will mail you the original of this letter dated February 14, 2022 via US Mail. If you have any questions, please contact me at (213) 367‐0387, or Mr. Simon Zewdu, Director of Power Transmission Planning, Regulatory, and Innovation Division at (213) 367‐2525 .

Thank you for your time.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Elma Polson,
Exec. Asst. , DWP Power Exec.

Phone: (213) 367‐4945

-------------------------Confidentiality Notice-------------------------- This electronic message transmission contains information from the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, which may be confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the content of this information is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message and any attachment without reading or saving in any manner.

508 of 983

770 L Street, Suite 620, Sacramento, CA 95814 • T: (916) 324 -1541 • F: (916) 322- 0827 • www.hsr .ca.gov

November 3, 2020

Julianne Polanco
State Historic Preservation Officer
Attention: Tristan Tozer
Office of Historic Preservation
1725 23rd Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95816

OHP Project #FRA_2017_0516_001

Subject: High-Speed Rail Program, Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section – additional information and request for review and concurrence on revised determination of National Register of Historic Places eligibility for Grayson Steam-Electric Generating Station (Grayson Power Plant)

Dear Ms. Polanco:

The California High- Speed Rail Authority (Authority) is continuing consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and other consulting parties regarding the Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section of the California High- Speed Rail (HSR) Program. This consultation is undertaken in accordance with the 2011 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). In support of this consultation, the Authority is providing the enclosed 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

On December 12, 2016, the Authority provided your office and consulting parties the Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section Historic Architectural Survey Report, which evaluated the eligibility of properties for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). In a letter dated May 2, 2019, you concurred with the Authority’s findings, including the Authority’s determination that the Grayson Steam-Electric Generating Station (Grayson Power Plant) in Glendale was eligible for listing in the NRHP.

On August 31, 2020, in response to the circulation of the Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section Public Draft EIR/EIS, the Glendale Community Development Department provided the Authority additional information on the Grayson Power Plant. 509 of 983
Julianne Polanco, November 3, 2020, Page 2

The information provided included an updated DPR form for the Grayson Power Plant recommending the power plant ineligible for listing in the NRHP. The DPR form provided information previously unknown to the Authority including documentation of substantial physical alterations to the power plant that have diminished its integrity and ability to convey its historical significance. The Authority has reviewed the additional information, has reevaluated its previous NRHP eligibility determination, and now considers Grayson Power Plant ineligible for listing in the NRHP.

REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE

The Authority is requesting SHPO concurrence with the determination that Grayson Power Plant is ineligible for listing in the NRHP. While the PA does not specify review duration for NRHP reevaluations, we respectfully request your response within 30 days of receipt of this submittal.

By copy of this letter, this report is also being transmitted to the Burbank to Los Angeles Consulting Parties for review and comment. If you require any additional information, please contact Jeff Carr by phone at (213) 443-7458 or by email at [email protected]. Thank you very much for your ongoing assistance with this undertaking.

Sincerely,

Brett Rushing
Cultural Resources Program Manager
California High-Speed Rail Authority
(916) 403-0061
[email protected]

Encl: Updated California Department of Parks and Recreation Site Record Form (DPR 523) for Grayson Power Plant, 2015 (revised 2017)

cc: Stephanie Perez, Federal Railroad Administration
Sarah Stokely, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation David Navecky, Surface Transportation Board
Danielle Storey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District Claudia Harbert, Caltrans District 7
Ken Bernstein, Office of Historic Resources, Los Angeles Department of City Planning Steve Fox, Southern California Association of Governments Adrian Scott Fine, Los Angeles Conservancy
Erik Krause, City of Glendale Community Development Department

510 of 983

August 31, 2020

Mr. Mark McLoughlin
California High-Speed Rail Authority
770 L Street, Suite 620 MS-1
Sacramento, CA 95814
[email protected]
On behalf of the City of Glendale (City), we are providing comments on the California High Speed Rail (HSR) Authority’s “California High-Speed Rail Project, Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section Draft EIR.” (Project).
1 We understand, GPA Consulting prepared a Historic Architectural Survey Report (Report) for the Project which was completed in March 2019. Using the HSR Section 106 Programmatic Agreement in the Cultural Resources Technical Memorandum #1, GPA defined the Project Area of Potential Effect (APE) based on the November 2018 footprint. Through delineation of the APE, the City of Glendale’s Grayson Power Plant (Power Plant) was included within the defined APE.

We recognize the Power Plant had no listings for previous studies and no historical determination under any criteria for either the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Therefore, the Power Plant was surveyed and recorded by GPA on a DPR-523 Series Form in which they identified the boiler building as being constructed in 1941. GPA recommended
“…the main building located at 901 Fairmont Avenue2 meets the criteria for listing in the [NRHP] and the [CRHR] as a locally significant example of a property associated with developmental history of power generation in Glendale under NRHP Criterion A and CRHR Criterion 1, with a period of significance of 1941-1955 (its years of operation prior to the redevelopment of the Grand Central Air Terminal to the Grand Central Industrial Center).” We understand that, based on this recommendation, the EIR considers the Power Plant to be an historical resource for the purposes of CEQA. GPA’s prepared DPR-523 Form included a detailed physical description of the Power Plant, as well as, a short historic context, brief property history, historical photographs, and aerials, limited contemporary photographs from the public right-of-way, and full evaluation per the NRHP and CRHR criteria. Based on their data, GPA considered the Power Plant a California Historical Resource Status Code of 2S2, which represents “Individual property determined eligible for [NRHP] by a consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the [CRHR].” On October 9, 2018, the “California High-Speed Rail Authority, Burbank to Los Angeles Project Station Historic Architectural Survey Report” was submitted to the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) for review. The report was reviewed and revised multiple times, in October 2018, March 2019,

1 California High-Speed Rail Project, Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section, State Clearing House 2014071073, https://ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/2014071073/2 (accessed 8/29/2020). 2 The correct address is 800 Air Way.
511 of 983
California High Speed Rail Authority
Burbank to Los Angeles Project Section Draft EIR
August 31, 2020

Page 2 of 5 ends

Glendale City CouncilFebruary 15, 2022

Glendale City Council
February 15, 2022